England about to become 'Smoke Free'

[B_HappyHammer1977]

Who forced Doris to work there?

There are oodles of folk out there who work in these lower paid jobs for many reasons; the need for part time work due to being a single parent / students/ poor people / those without qualifications...I could go on. To just suggest they quit is just a slap in the face. Believe it or not some people find harder than other sto find work and when they have it they don't just want to leave.

Smokers aren't the only people in the world...think of others before yourself for once.

"Others matter more than other matters"

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

Bugger off HH you know I'd die in the cold being the delicate hot house flower I am I want a smoking area with red velvet chaise's, sumptuous draperies of purple and blues, and a cute little man slave to hold my ashtray.

Die in luxury eh?!

 

[Shelby]

There are oodles of folk out there who work in these lower paid jobs for many reasons; the need for part time work due to being a single parent / students/ poor people / those without qualifications...I could go on. To just suggest they quit is just a slap in the face. Believe it or not some people find harder than other sto find work and when they have it they don't just want to leave.

Smokers aren't the only people in the world...think of others before yourself for once.

"Others matter more than other matters"

I am thinking of others. The owners of the businesses to be exact. If I take on the risk of opening a business I damn well expect to be able to run it how I want within legal limits.

I would put a big sign on top of the pub if I wanted that said "This is Shelby's smoking pub. If you don't like smoke don't come in."

 

[DaveyR]

I am thinking of others. The owners of the businesses to be exact. If I take on the risk of opening a business I damn well expect to be able to run it how I want within legal limits.

Unfortunately it would not be within legal limits though as the laws have been changed.

I would put a big sign on top of the pub if I wanted that said "This is Shelby's smoking pub. If you don't like smoke don't come in."

Seems fair enough. It gives people clear choices. Would you just hire smokers to work there too?

 

[B_big dirigible]

I always thought that it would be more fruitful to approach smoking from a fire prevention angle rather than the somewhat more ethereal health or general nuisance angles. In the US smokers routinely pitch their incandescent butts out their car windows. They apparently don't want to use the ashtray and stink up the whole car. I would like to see a blistering fine imposed on anyone distributing firebrands along the public thoroughfares. Fire prevention can't be obfuscated by a smokescreen of claimed civil rights.

The obvious problem with more comprehensive laws, on what/who/when/where can do whatever, is that they're not enforced. Here we've had requirements for decades for restaurants over some extremely minimal size to have "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. The requirements are hardly onerous - they need not be separate rooms, or have separate ventilation systems, or anything expensive like that. Just a general "area" is sufficient. The problem is that when someone parks his ass in the non-smoking section, then "lights up" after eating - thus violating what little sanctity the non-smoking section has - there are no consequences whatever. Restaurants are so terrified of losing customers that they'd rather try to bribe disgusted non-smokers with freebies - desserts and such - than ask the smoker to vacate. It doesn't work. Non-smokers are unlikely to go back. In my case, I couldn't give a hoot; I'm not that sensitive. The kitchen could be on fire and I doubt that I'd notice. But if I'm with someone, she invariably turns out to be a princess who carries on like there's a pea under the mattress. That, I can do without, so next time, we go somewhere else, and the offending restaurant has lost customers. Q.E.D.

 

[Shelby]

Unfortunately it would not be within legal limits though as the laws have been changed.

Suppose you had just invested your lifes savings in a cigar bar before this law was passed. You would be finacially wiped out. Tough shit?

Seems fair enough. It gives people clear choices. Would you just hire smokers to work there too?

Their choice. If a nonsmoker wanted to work there no problem. If they bitched about the smoke though I'd just point to the door.

 

[DaveyR]

Suppose you had just invested your lifes savings in a cigar bar before this law was passed. You would be finacially wiped out. Tough shit?

Not tough shit at all I wasn't disagreeing with you just pointing out the obvious. If I'd just bought a bar I would be pretty pissed off.

Their choice. If a nonsmoker wanted to work there no problem. If they bitched about the smoke though I'd just point to the door.

Part of the problem is that employers are crapping themselves at the possibility of being sued should any employee develop an illness that could be attributed to smoking. Better to get them to sign a disclaimer :wink:

 

[dong20]

Suppose you had just invested your lifes savings in a cigar bar before this law was passed. You would be finacially wiped out. Tough shit?

Possibly not, the law relates to public spaces. Make your bar members only and you may well be within the law. Public nudity is illegal but not within strip joints, I'd say that's a reasonable precedent.

Their choice. If a nonsmoker wanted to work there no problem. If they bitched about the smoke though I'd just point to the door.

Tobocco-ist discrimination in hiring. Hmm, now there's one for the courts.

 

[ganja4me]

It should definately be up to the owners of the restaurant, bar, or club if they want to allow smoking in there. From my experience in a bar or club there aren't many people in there that don't like smoke. There are smokers, non-smokers that are not bothered by the smoke, and there are the few non-smokers that are bothered by it. It seems from my experience that the minority is getting their way and the majority of the people are being punished for it. If there were places that are non-smoking and places that smoking is allowed that should make everyone happy. Everyone was automatically assuming that a barteder who doesn't smoke is put in a bad situation if the bar allows smoking. A lot of people who work in bars are not bothered by smoking and should be more worried about drunk people acting stupid. The second hand smoke would take an extremely long time before it would do any real damage to them. In the mean time they could be looking for a job at a non-smoking place or just a better job in general. People who go to bars may do unhealthy things but they are there to enjoy themselves and making them leave to smoke is just absurd to me.

 

[dong20]

I always thought that it would be more fruitful to approach smoking from a fire prevention angle rather than the somewhat more ethereal health or general nuisance angles. In the US smokers routinely pitch their incandescent butts out their car windows. They apparently don't want to use the ashtray and stink up the whole car. I would like to see a blistering fine imposed on anyone distributing firebrands along the public thoroughfares. Fire prevention can't be obfuscated by a smokescreen of claimed civil rights.

There's nothing ethereal about the smell of smoke in your hair, on you clothes and in your eyes. Smoking is banned on all public transport and many other places for precisely the reason you cite, fire risk.

The obvious problem with more comprehensive laws, on what/who/when/where can do whatever, is that they're not enforced. Here we've had requirements for decades for restaurants over some extremely minimal size to have "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. The requirements are hardly onerous - they need not be separate rooms, or have separate ventilation systems, or anything expensive like that. Just a general "area" is sufficient. The problem is that when someone parks his ass in the non-smoking section, then "lights up" after eating - thus violating what little sanctity the non-smoking section has - there are no consequences whatever.

Yes there are (in theory at least), in the form of financial penalties for transgressors, and businesses which don't enforce the law:

The penalties and fines for the smokefree offences set out in the Health Act 2006 are:

• Smoking in a smokefree premises or vehicle: a fixed penalty notice of £50 (discounted to £30 if paid within 15 days from the issue of a notice) or a fine by a court not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale (up to £200)
• Failure to display no smoking signs in smokefree premises and vehicles as required by the new law: a fixed penalty notice of £200 (discounted to £150 if paid within 15 days from the issue of a notice) or a fine by a court not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (up to £1000)
• Failing to prevent smoking in a smokefree premises or vehicle: a fine by a court not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (up to £2500)

Not bankrupting levels but not pocket change either. I agree it will be patchy at first but it's quite high profile and for sure there will be deliberate breaches.

Restaurants are so terrified of losing customers that they'd rather try to bribe disgusted non-smokers with freebies - desserts and such - than ask the smoker to vacate. It doesn't work. Non-smokers are unlikely to go back. In my case, I couldn't give a hoot; I'm not that sensitive. The kitchen could be on fire and I doubt that I'd notice. But if I'm with someone, she invariably turns out to be a princess who carries on like there's a pea under the mattress. That, I can do without, so next time, we go somewhere else, and the offending restaurant has lost customers. Q.E.D.

Yes they are but I don't think Q.E.D. is quite so easy to conclude and I'm not sure your lost customers scenario is entirely reliable - more people don't smoke than do, logically therefore businesses can afford to lose smokers more readily than they can non-smokers. If a resturant has a policy of rigorous enforcement, non smokers will be more likely to return I'd suspect. I know I would.

To your credit at least you take the princess elsewhere and not just dump here for being so.....prissy.:smile:

 

[dong20]

It should definately be up to the owners of the restaurant, bar, or club if they want to allow smoking in there. From my experience in a bar or club there aren't many people in there that don't like smoke.

If it's a private club, perhaps. If it's not then I think it should be for the customers to decide, after all without them there is no business.

There are smokers, non-smokers that are not bothered by the smoke, and there are the few non-smokers that are bothered by it. It seems from my experience that the minority is getting their way and the majority of the people are being punished for it.

Have you a definitive, replicated and accredited study on the bold?

I think smokers are being asked to accept the consequences of many years of inflicting a potentially injurous habit on others without their consent and often against their expressed wishes. If that's being punished then it's overdue. No one would sensibly try to defend drunk driving and that quite likely poses far less of a health risk to the general population than smoking and it's victims are quite likely to have had those consequences inflicted against their will.

If there were places that are non-smoking and places that smoking is allowed that should make everyone happy.

There are, but clearly it doesn't.

Everyone was automatically assuming that a barteder who doesn't smoke is put in a bad situation if the bar allows smoking. A lot of people who work in bars are not bothered by smoking and should be more worried about drunk people acting stupid. The second hand smoke would take an extremely long time before it would do any real damage to them. In the mean time they could be looking for a job at a non-smoking place or just a better job in general. People who go to bars may do unhealthy things but they are there to enjoy themselves and making them leave to smoke is just absurd to me.

Again, do you have evidence of this timescale?

In the end, hardened, intransigent smokers are seeking to justify partaking of an activity which is known to be harmful or fatal to them. That's fine it's their lungs.

But when said activity occurs in a public arena and it can be injurous to my health, as well as physically unpleasant, I think that gives me every right to say 'take it outside'.

I wouldn't be expected to tolerate someone spitting in my face and food all evening why should I allow them to blow toxic smoke in it.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Well, we could go the next logical step, and take care of public health and political correctness at the same time. We just need a law that says

"Section A: Any other law notwithstanding, it shall henceforth be illegal for any person to engage in any activity that is, or may be, harmful to the health of himself or any other person, or which may anger or insult or embarrass any other person."

"Section B: Any violation, or perceived violation, of Section A above shall constitute a Class 1 Felony."

 

[dong20]

Section A: Any other law notwithstanding, it shall henceforth be illegal for any person to engage in any voluntary activity in a public place or in the workplace that is, or may be, harmful to the health of himself or any another person, against their expressed wishes or which may anger or insult or embarrass any other person.

Better.....:smile:

 

[SpeedoGuy]

31 posts and no one even mentions that just maybe the owner of the business should have the right to decide which (perfectly legal) activities are allowed and which are not.

This from the same group that screams bloody murder about the patriot act.

Hello.

Did you read mine?

 

[ganja4me]

"If it's a private club, perhaps. If it's not then I think it should be for the customers to decide, after all without them there is no business."

If they customers don't get to decide any of their rules I don't see how it should be up to the customers. It's like the no shirt no shoes rule in some stores I have never seen a customer bother by someone without a shirt or shoes but the rules still don't change regardless what the customers think about it.

"Have you a definitive, replicated and accredited study on the bold?"

No I said this is just from my experience.

"No one would sensibly try to defend drunk driving and that quite likely poses far less of a health risk to the general population than smoking and it's victims are quite likely to have had those consequences inflicted against their will."

So would you be more likely to get in a car with a drunk driver or a smoker?

"There are, but clearly it doesn't."

Why is that?


"In the end, hardened, intransigent smokers are seeking to justify partaking of an activity which is known to be harmful or fatal to them. That's fine it's their lungs.

But when said activity occurs in a public arena and it can be injurous to my health, as well as physically unpleasant, I think that gives me every right to say 'take it outside'.

I wouldn't be expected to tolerate someone spitting in my face and food all evening why should I allow them to blow toxic smoke in it."

And there would be no problem such as that if there were seperated places for smoking and non-smoking.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Much the same as I avoid establishments which feature ear-splitting music. Loud music may not cause cancer, but it does irreversible damage to the hearing.

What? I can't hear you! :smile:

I avoid such places too for the same reasons. I enjoy conversation at nightclubs more than feeling the bass driver in my bones.

Do you think the nanny state will ever tell music venues (including dance bars) to keep it under a specified decibel level?They've been working on it, as I'm sure you know.

The City of Portland sure has.

In truth, I see it as a matter of zoning: residential, business and industrial. It wouldn't be right for a busy, loud nightclub to demand to operate in the middle of a residential neighborhood just like it wouldn't be right for a residence to demand tranquility in a noisy industrial zone.

New York has prohibited businesses from selling food containing transfats (unless I dreamed that...) and several lawsuits have been filed against fast food joints for "selling food that made me fat."

I heard the same. It causes me to ask: Are trans-fats documented to be as unhealthy as nicotine? If not, why ban the sale of trans-fats and not cigarettes as well?

I do agree with a ban on smoking in restaurants, but I don't agree with a ban on bars/nightclubs/pubs/taverns. Leave it up to the proprietor. His business decisions will no doubt be guided by supply and demand.

Same here.

 

[SteveHd]

... And there would be no problem such as that if there were seperated places for smoking and non-smoking.

It might be a problem for the employees.

 

[LouisVauban]

Spain got it right!

In Spain, all public establishments must post on the outside whether or not they are a smoke-free or smoke friendly establishment.

As a smoker, I thought this was a perfect solution.

Out with a gaggle of friends, we chose to have drinks at a smoking place and then dinner at a non-smoking place. Everyone was happy.

Having lived in NYC with a full smoking ban, I understand it and have learned to deal with it. But, quite honestly it seems a tab ridiculous when a tavern has all of its clientele on the street clogging the sidewalk so noone can walk by. Check out 8th Avenue on a Friday Night.... Every 50 feet there are 20-30 people on the sidewalk and the bar is empty!

Am sure it's all a good thing. In 50 years, people will be living a healthier lifestyle without smoke. Change hurts. But, I get it.

Until then... I'm off to Spain.

 

[ganja4me]

The employees can always find another job. They wouldn't need to leave right away the health risks are not going to take effect that quickly so they would have plenty of time to move on. If it bothers them that much then they should leave right away I know I would if it bothered me. The owner could damage his business by doing this and if so then that would be his problem or he could be helping his business out.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Better.....:smile:

No, not really, I was quite happy with my original version.:wink: I want the nanny state to ban every single thing that a person might possibly consider doing once that person first pops out of his/her mother's womb.