Near-insane anti-smoking proposals sounded in UK

Since smoking has been banned in New York city bars, everyone has started smoking outside. Which has apparently resulted in a huge increase in the number of complaints from people living next to or above bars - now there are people outside their windows making noise until 4AM, and clouds of smoke are blowing into their apartments.

Plus, now that it's cold and snowing, going outside is considerably less fun than it was in the summer.

But really, smoking laws applied to bars have nothing to do with patrons. In NYC, at least. They are workplace safety laws, in place to protect employees, not patrons. There is no law stating that your freedon to smoke has been taken away. There is a law that says an employee does not have to be endangered by the smoking. I know bartenders who go both ways on this too. One I know thinks it's shit. Another one I know is a singer and thinks it's great not to have to breathe smoke all day.

So a bar owner does have the right to do what they want with their bar, but laws do apply. One bar we go to got around it by not having employees. The owners run the place, bartend, and everything, and allow smoking.

But I agree with Morgan. I smoke, but I really don't care enough about it to care whether I smoke inside or out. And I understand when people don't want to be around it. Whatever. Rights or no rights, I don't smoke in peoples' faces, because I'm not a dick.



[Edited on Dec 07, 2003 by desperatecomfort]

Bah.

The rights of non-smokers to not inhale second hand smoke takes precedence over the rights of smokers to smoke anywhere they like, especially since non-smokers outnumber smokers.

Freedom means "pursuing our own good our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs," by the way.

An owner does not need the law to prevent smoking on their own property.

The existance of smoking in a club is the owner's choice, as it is their private property. Private property means whoever the owner is has THE say in what goes or does not go.

Non smokers and smokers alike have the ability to decide for themselves as individuals whether or not to attend a club in which smoking is tolerated.

If non smoking bars are you preference, then find one you like and become their patron. If you know of a bar that has smoke in it, do not go there if you do not want smoke. It really is THAT simple.

If you cant find a club w/o smoking, then you might be shit outta luck because there is not enough demand for an business to provide what you want, OR maybe there is a business oportunity for you.

as far as people who work in a bar, they are perfecty capable of finding out if smoking is tolerated or not, and then make a decision to work there or not.

I work in a pub. I come home every night with a racking cough stinking of smoke and with watering eyes. I know it is my choice to work in a smoky enviroment but - fuck it. Anything that reduces the amount/opportunity for people to black tar wallpaper my lungs within the UK is supported by me.

Nope. That's it. No justification. Take it.

If a few bars go non-smoking, they'll lose business to the smoking bars. Is that because everyone who goes to bars smokes? No. In my area, smokers are only 25% of the population, but, smokers being a pushy lot, they'll alawys insist on going where they can smoke--apparently, they can't have a good time if they're not inhaling hazardous substances. So, everyone ends up going to the smoking bars because it's easier than putting up with some smoker's temper tantrum. The solution is to have all the bars non-smoking. People may not like it in the beginning, but it's worked quite well here.

Sure, it may infringe on the bar owners' freedom, but we limit freedoms for the sake of the common good all the time. In this case, pubic health is more important than smokers' or bar owners' freedom to smoke anywhere they like.

why this is the most anti freedom post I have read in a long time.

Ah, yes, the "My friends are assholes" theory. I remember that one from Contemporary Economic Systems.

Sorry, time to get a helmet.

This simply is not true. An owner cannot just do whatever they want in their own bar. Laws always apply. If you read my post above about workplace laws. There are also any number of health and safety laws that apply as well, such as fire code, occupancy limits, not allowing underage people to drink, etc.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...


All of the things you allude to are in fact designed to protect you from unseen dangers at the hand of someone else's caprice. They protect you from danger from avenues that you have no means of accepting or making a decision about. Smoking is not invisible. It is not stealthy. It is also not dangerous in the iminant sense required or implied. To liken it to health codes and fire laws is patently absurd. Smoking is not a safety issue and to say that the government has the responsibility to mandate which poison you can subject yourself to in a bar is beyond self serving.

Your complaints are mislaid ( is that what I want to say? ). What I said above was aimed at the notion that a bar owner can do whatever he/she wants in her/her own bar. THAT is what I was saying is not true. And that is what is subjected to all kinds of laws. And the examples I gave are perfectly valid for that point. And if the LAW says that you may not smoke in someone else's place of business, then the bar owner is subject to THAT law. If the law says you must have this many fire extinguishers on hand, the owner cannot just say: It's my place, I can do what I want, and fuck the fire extinguishers!

THAT is the whole point I was making, that a person may not just "do what they want" on their "property". Not which laws are for what.

Besides which, the point I have been making up and down this fucking board, is none of it has anything to do with the poison you subject YOURSELF to. It is the poison you subject someone ELSE to, in the case of a bar, an employee.

AND I SMOKE, and I think this is fine!!!!!!

What is this thread about again?



[Edited on Dec 07, 2003 by desperatecomfort]

I think all smokers should quit for a year so we can listen to everyone bitch when their taxes go up because the government lost the billions of dollars in cigarette tax revenues.

This is a very lively thread indeed. And I do not wish to read all of it. Many good points have been raised and contested and thats great. It seems that this is a very contentious issue these days what with tax issues, health issues, and the regulation of smoking given those topics. In my opinion (in regards to taxes) is that the government that so wantonly taxes and legislates and this and that are a bunch of hippocrites. Its like a heroin dealer who after a couple years of selling you highly addictive junk says "Well sorry mr Junkie but in the interests of your health and the health of others and to placate the modern moralistic sentiments of society im gonna raise the price of my drugs. I know its going to be hard for you to quit, especially after all the years of faithful purchasing but its for the best. And oh yeah, you owe me 50$ for that bag". If the government is so concerned with the wellbeing of its citizens it should outlaw smoking completely, its that simple. They dont because they make soo much money from the sale of cigarettes. This money is HUGE, more than enough to pay for all the healthcare anyone could want. If they used the money we already pay in other taxes as well as the funds received from cigs, we all would have doctors rollin up to houses in Rolls Royces with gold stethoscopes. The real problem seems to be the misplacement of tax dollars and stupid politicians playing dumb when comes to the money. And if you are a waitress or waiter in a bar and you complain about cigarette smoke then you are in the wrong line of work. The essence and nature of places that have drinking and dancing and smoking predate any sentiments of social responsability or ideas of the evils of secondhand smoke. If I were working at a bakery and discovered I was allergic to yeast or flour it would hardly be reasonable to insist they change their entire system of manufacturing. Smoking and drinking go together like fish and water, to me there is no seperating the two. Either ban smoking all together or non smokers can stay home and revel in their moral and physical superiority knowing that they will outlive and outbreath all those heathen smokers and their dens of vice and misery. And no I dont think nonsmokers should never go out, but smokers should be allowed to go to sympathetic places and have a smoke. I dont think these anti smoking establishment edicts should be so all encompassing. Why cant there be both?

[Edited on Dec 07, 2003 by n2ocowboy]

[Edited on Dec 08, 2003 by n2ocowboy]

wow. yet another thread i made the mistake of reading.

in summary, i agree with pretty much everything reprobate and paladyne said. thanks guys!

Now that's the kind of bling gangstas and pimps can only dream of!

Spike