Masquerouge
Deity
Smoking is not a social issue, it's a health issue.
Do you support a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants/cafés etc.?
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
Smoking is not a social issue, it's a health issue.
Rossiya
Fridge Magnet Porn
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 6,981
You said it was because they were two different words, which I took to mean it was meant in the same way as "jealousy" and "envy" are different because they are two different words. If that's not how you meant it, then I misunderstood.
Meh, why do you think there are erasers at the ends of pencils?
nonconformist
Miserable
In that case, we either ban tobacco outright, as a carcinogen, as we have done with asbestos in general, or it is made an issue of it being a risk when you work in certain places, i.e bars in which smoking is allowed.
If the sole reason to ban smoking in bars is to appease those who work in the bar business and don't like smoke, I suggest they either lobby to build a new bar, for an existing bar to voluntarily go no-smoke (and, from what I understand here, there would be no shortage of customers), or to find a new job.
It's an issue of who chooses to smoke, and whether a person is allowed to dictate what consentual activities happen on their personal property.Masquerouge said:
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
The moment business is conducted it is not privacy any more. Regulation business has to meet is different to what you are allowed to do at home. Last time I checked cafés, bars, restaurants are places where business is conducted. It would probably make more sense to install air quality standards for these places as they exist for all other industry where hazardous substances are processed.
nonconformist
Miserable
But still, by using that business, you implicitly accept the conditions of that business. If you don't like them, you are very free to find another business to serve you.
"don't like smoke?" It's more like "don't like cancer."
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Does everyone who smokes get cancer? Do even the majority get cancer?
Answer these questions and you get your rebuttal.
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
Universal safety standards exist for this reason: Business which would implement them on a voluntarily basis has an economic disadvantage leading to a monopoly of business with the lowest, cheapest standard and leaves employees with zero choice to find a safe, clean workplace. We observe a monopoly of restaurants where smoking is allowed - I am sure there are economic reasons for it otherwise it wouldn´t be the case, so the state has to step in to prevent people without choice coming to harm.
There are reasons to believe that smoking/inhaling smoke increases ones chance to get cancer.
Does everyone who crosses a road without looking get run-over by a car? No. Does the majority get run-over? No. Does it increase your chance of getting run-over? Yes!
nonconformist
Miserable
But if the majority of people would rather have bars as non-smoking, then why do we not have non-smoking bars already?
Simple economics dictates that the demand would be more than enough to justify the cost of the place.
And this is really gonna screw over Turkish shisha bars.
Cancer is not the only potential bad consequence of smoking or inhaling cigarette smoke.
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
Imo the most obvious reason is that if people go out they do so in circles and if for instance one out of three is a smoker and would insist to go to a smoker bar the other two would follow out of politeness/ considerateness. The point is that smokers are addicted and it is almost impossible for them to accept compromising the ability to satisfy their addiction (aka "get a fix"). A smoker will automatically drag non-smoking friends with him and argue much more heavily to go to a smoker bar than the other way round. (I had some ugly experiences when I asked relatives to not smoke in my apartment as I can not stand the smell. I did really not expect how vigorously they wanted to change my opinion. Luckily it is accepted by now that I don´t allow it.)
The problem is that smoking is far from the primary purpose of cafes, bars and restaurants - indeed, it's not clear it's a purpose at all - so I don't see you can say people must accept this as part of the job.
Having said that, I don't see why it has to be a case of all or nothing. For example, smoking could be allowed in a limited number of licenced places - that way, people who want to work in bars/etc without smoke can, and those taking a job in one of the "smoking places" are wanting to work in such a place specifically. But under the UK law, it won't even be legal to set up a private members-only club for people to smoke.
One thing I am curious for, since the law is to protect employees - what about any place that doesn't employ people, but is nonetheless still a business (i.e., it's run by the owners)? Surely this should be legal, according to the logic?
No I think "don't like smoke" is fine enough - I can't stand not being able to breathe, and then having myself and my clothes all stunk out because I decided to go out and socialise.
I'm surprised no one replied to this.
No one wants to smell like fish, let's ban rivers and seafood restraunts.
No one wants to smell like sweat, let's ban excersise.
No one wants to smell like Garlic, let's ban Garlic.
I suspect that walking into a pub and soaking someone's clothes in river water or your sweat is _already_ illegal...
(Although having said that, I think it should be allowed for people to open new venues other than pubs where people can partake in throwing river water and sweat over each other, if they so choose...)
(Although having said that, I think it should be allowed for people to open new venues other than pubs where people can partake in throwing river water and sweat over each other, if they so choose...)
So let me guess you binge for days trying to get a couple of breathers by inhaling radioactive tar and sewage waste?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
We should battle this issue like humanity always has done when it faced a difficult situation in which ones health was at stake. We should unleash the mighty power of .... warning signs! Just stick a big fat warning sign outside of the bar and the problem is solved
Public places: yes - supported.
Restaurants / Bars etc: No - not supported.
A very simple bar setup where there is a smoking section and a non-smoking section is a lot wiser and more humane. It gives guests a choice instead of an obligation.
Restaurants / Bars etc: No - not supported.
A very simple bar setup where there is a smoking section and a non-smoking section is a lot wiser and more humane. It gives guests a choice instead of an obligation.
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
AlCosta said:
If the only effect of smoking would be smell you could be right. The positive effects of exercise, garlic fish are also in another league than a fix for an addict.
This was tried in Austria since last year with little success. Many bars/ restaurants are too small to have a second room or do not have the financial means to build one. The result is that a couple of tables have these no smoking signs - usually in shady areas near toilets. And additionally these signs only make tables smoker free, not smoke free.
These signs make as much sense as if you would have no urinating signs in swimming pools.
