England about to become 'Smoke Free'

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
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.

I wasn't proposing a vote. I don't go to places I don't like. That's the way businesses succeed or fail; customers come, or not.

No I said this is just from my experience.

OK. Just so we're clear.

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

In a free choice, neither but that's not really my point, which was that in many cases choice isn't an option.

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

Why is that?

Because too many people are selfish. They believe that their personal rights override those of others, or the majority. They don't.

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

In theory. In reality, see above.

Problems posting as quote only.....!
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
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 they work as a waiter/waitress, too bad for them?
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
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:

DING DING DING! And we have a winner....

Liability, I suspect, rather than popular sentiment, is the real reason for the recent upsurge in legislation about smoking.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
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.

Even nice things? Or, at it would probably turn out especially nice things....:smile:
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
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 smoke is tangible enough. The ethereal part is where does your right to clean air end and a smoker's right to dirty air begin, and that's no more than a matter of definition.
Yes there are (in theory at least), in the form of financial penalties for transgressors, and businesses which don't enforce the law:
That's my point. Penalties which are never enforced are inconsequential - they might just as well not exist at all. They don't even "send a message" in any useful sense. The only message they send is that the law is a paper tiger.

The mania for passing more and more laws, under the bizarre notion that that's all that's necessary to remake society, cannot by itself achieve results.
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.
Probably true. The point is that true or not, that's not how the establishments with which I have experience operate. Assuming that any nanny-state law will do what it's supposed to do relies on certain assumptions, such as one that both people and business entities are rational actors. Generally, they are not. This is one reason why most laws enforce only the principle of unintended consequences.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I think that's the key issue from the business perspective. Not necessarily from the perspective of joe public.

Joe Public is too busy watching reality TV and scarfing Cheetos to get involved in policy questions over health issues. Forgive me, but I think you are underestimating who really drives legislation in the US. :smile:
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
19
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Problems posting as quote only.....!

If non-smokers don't want smokers to have a place where they can drink and smoke in there as they relax then that is just selfish. If they were able to have their own places and smokers could have their own and they still complained that would be ridiculous.

 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
The smoke is tangible enough. The ethereal part is where does your right to clean air end and a smoker's right to dirty air begin, and that's no more than a matter of definition.

Yes. That line is possibly a little easier to define within the confines of say a small cafe if certain baselines are drawn such as no smoking.

That's my point. Penalties which are never enforced are inconsequential - they might just as well not exist at all. They don't even "send a message" in any useful sense. The only message they send is that the law is a paper tiger.

Well, the legislation hasn't kicked in yet.

I agree with the sentiment but we're an increasingly litigious society so perhaps some prosecutions will be forced purely based on the chance of some compensation. It would be cheaper for businesses to enforce a ban than pay out fines and, possible damages claims.

The mania for passing more and more laws, under the bizarre notion that that's all that's necessary to remake society, cannot by itself achieve results.

I know, there should be a law against it.:rolleyes:

Probably true. The point is that true or not, that's not how the establishments with which I have experience operate. Assuming that any nanny-state law will do what it's supposed to do relies on certain assumptions, such as one that both people and business entities are rational actors. Generally, they are not. This is one reason why most laws enforce only the principle of unintended consequences.

Well that's certainly true, if a business is sensible and has a regular clientele it will probably form an appropriate strategy to minimise risk and liability. If it's passing trade business I suspect a far more casual approach will prevail on the assumption that there's another punter just around the corner.

In London with so much tourist trade I suspect the latter may dominate, at least at first.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
19
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If they work as a waiter/waitress, too bad for them?

Basically, yes. Like I said before the smoke is not going to effect your health that quickly and in the mean time you could be looking for a new or even better job if it bothers you that much. It's not like they would be fired it would be their own choice of whether to stay or quit. In my life I have only met one person who was bothered enough by smoke that he would walk out of the room if someone was smoking. Also, if the place is properly ventilated it wouldn't get very smoky in there at all. You might be able to smell it but if you can't deal with a smell you don't enjoy then I guess the job isn't for you.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
If non-smokers don't want smokers to have a place where they can drink and smoke in there as they relax then that is just selfish. If they were able to have their own places and smokers could have their own and they still complained that would be ridiculous.

You're missing the point. :rolleyes:

Non smokers (on the whole) don't give a tinkers cuss whether or where smokers smoke. They just don't want them to smoke in their faces or immediate surroundings.

If you think not wanting one's health put at risk, to be able to taste one's dinner and not smell like an old ashtray at the end of an evening out is more selfish or even equally selfish an attitude as that of those who by insisting on their 'right' to smoke could cause precisely those effects - you have a misguided sense of value, a poor understanding of the meaning of selfish, or both.

Just my opinion.
 

B_HappyHammer1977

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Posts
785
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Kent, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Basically, yes. Like I said before the smoke is not going to effect your health that quickly and in the mean time you could be looking for a new or even better job if it bothers you that much. It's not like they would be fired it would be their own choice of whether to stay or quit. In my life I have only met one person who was bothered enough by smoke that he would walk out of the room if someone was smoking. Also, if the place is properly ventilated it wouldn't get very smoky in there at all. You might be able to smell it but if you can't deal with a smell you don't enjoy then I guess the job isn't for you.​


So that company can just employ some mug who doesn't mind killing himself?
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
19
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You're missing the point. :rolleyes:

Non smokers (on the whole) don't give a tinkers cuss whether or where smokers smoke. They just don't want them to smoke in their faces or immediate surroundings.

If you think not wanting one's health put at risk, to be able to taste one's dinner and not smell like an old ashtray at the end of an evening out is more selfish or even equally selfish an attitude as that of those who by insisting on their 'right' to smoke could cause precisely those effects - you have a misguided sense of value, a poor understanding of the meaning of selfish, or both.

Just my opinion.

Well again that wouldn't be the case if they were at a non-smoking place. I was saying people shouldn't go into a place that is smoke friendly and complain about it. They know what they are walking into and they should be going to a non-smoke place if it bothers them.

 

B_HappyHammer1977

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Posts
785
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Kent, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Here's the crux of the situation folks; Governments know they can't just ban smoking outright everywhere full-stop, because the wimps who smoke just can't give up that easy. Plus the governments need the money from tax. So for both instances they are weening smokers and themselves off the nicotine and tax. Give it a few more years and smoking will be banned in more places, be too expensive to buy, the age limit will increase...a few more years down the line it'll be outlawed full-stop.

But don't worry if you're currently a smoker; you'll be dead by the time that law comes into effect.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
19
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So that company can just employ some mug who doesn't mind killing himself?

How is he killing himself? Most people who work in a bar or restaurant don't stay there for a very long time and it would take a lot of exposure to smoke in order for anything to happen. If you mean smoke doesn't bother the person then yes the company can hire them.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
19
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Here's the crux of the situation folks; Governments know they can't just ban smoking outright everywhere full-stop, because the wimps who smoke just can't give up that easy. Plus the governments need the money from tax. So for both instances they are weening smokers and themselves off the nicotine and tax. Give it a few more years and smoking will be banned in more places, be too expensive to buy, the age limit will increase...a few more years down the line it'll be outlawed full-stop.

But don't worry if you're currently a smoker; you'll be dead by the time that law comes into effect.

That was a pretty rude thing to say. There are people who have smoked from the time they were early teens and live to be in their 80's+. Saying a current smoker is going to die in a few years is a very naive statement. Also what makes a person who smokes a wimp?

 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Well again that wouldn't be the case if they were at a non-smoking place. I was saying people shouldn't go into a place that is smoke friendly and complain about it. They know what they are walking into and they should be going to a non-smoke place if it bothers them.​

That's what this law is about, ensuring a public smoke free place is just that, smoke free. What part of that don't you understand?

If people want to smoke in private clubs and such like that's fine - enter at own risk. But in public places, cinemas, resturants, shops etc I think people have the right to expect not to have to inhale another person's toxic waste. What part of that don't you understand?
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
19
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So then you were misleading me when you said they did have sperate places before and it didn't work out? I was only saying that people should be allowed to smoke in a smoke friendly place. What part of that don't you understand?