Smoking: one of "three main fools of the 21st century"

[Kozmos]

While it's crazy I'm actually interested how it would work in a normal nation.

 

[7ronin]

Why bother going to university in NK?

Why not when you could take such interesting courses as these from a typical Freshman Year:
Life of the Great Leader 101
Life of the Dear Leader 101
Juche 101
Philosophy of the Great Leader 101
Philosophy of the Dear Leader 101
History of the Victory War Against the American Imperialists 101
Introduction to Ariang 101: choose Flip Card Pictures or Ribbon Dancing
Summer Internship: Solidarity with the Hydroelectric Workers
elec: Setup and Operation of a Neighborhood Informers Network 120

 

[Veritass]

First we tax the cigarettes.
Then we demonize smoking.
Then we demonize the smokers.
Then we tax the cigarettes some more.
Then we say how we shouldn't have to breathe any smoke, anywhere.
Then we say we shouldn't pay higher health care premiums for these unhealthy people.
Then we tax the cigarettes to pay for more health care.
Then we make it illegal to have cigarettes within 50 feet of the workplace.

It's all starting again with the fast food / fat food. You have been warned. It will play out a little different for lack of second-hand fat, but the lawsuits have already started. "It's not my fault I'm fat, it's Burger King's fault!"

 

[shadow2k]

Yeah, we are. But it doesn't matter, because smoking kills non-smokers. If you wanna smoke, you can do it on your own property. But our smoking ban doesn't come until 2008, dispite all the people trying to push that day up.

What a crock. If smoking gets banned where I live, I'm coming for your precious motorized vehicles.

 

[Esox]

"one of the three main fools of the 21st century"... or any century, for that matter.

I pains me a bit to think that I actually agree with Kim Jong Il on something.

But keeping them out of the university? I mean for a lot of kids, going to college is all about smoking.

 

[Bootstoots]

It's all starting again with the fast food / fat food. You have been warned. It will play out a little different for lack of second-hand fat, but the lawsuits have already started. "It's not my fault I'm fat, it's Burger King's fault!"

Out of curiosity, have any of those lawsuits ever actually resulted in a ruling for the plaintiff? I've heard of a number of suits like that, but they tend to get dismissed (and rightly so).

 

[MobBoss]

State law where I live that you cant smoke in bars and taverns anymore. All such establishments MUST be smoke free.

I am telling you, we are not that far behind enacting such legislation our own selves where smoking is concerned.

 

[Esox]

Then we tax the cigarettes to pay for more health care.

A guy from Cleveland told me that they raised the cigarette tax to help pay for Jacobs Field, then they banned smoking in the stadium once it was built. I don't like cigarettes, but I think that is pretty messed up.

 

[History_Buff]

What a crock. If smoking gets banned where I live, I'm coming for your precious motorized vehicles.

It's just the same thing. If people were hanging out in a car tunnel or something, then it would be. Outside the air pollutants have far more places to go. The average bar air quality is much worse than the air quality of the most heavily used road in my city during rush hour.

That said, I think the next thing we shoud go after cigarettes is big industrial polluters, then motor-vehicles, then fast food.

 

[tomsnowman123]

People should be allowed to smoke when they want to, and it should be allowed to be banned in establishments that don't want it. I did see a very disturbing fact on CNN a couple weeks ago though, 22% of women who smoke will continue to smoke even while pregnant.

Still, I am a pro-choice purist.

 

[Babbler]

Why bother going to university in NK? Might as well kick back, smoke em if you got em, and wait for Godot.

Exactly. Every cigarette takes off some time of your life; so I puff extra hard if I were born in that little piece of hell.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Exactly. Every cigarette takes off some time of your life; so I puff extra hard if I were born in that little piece of hell.

What do they say, every cigarette takes 7 minutes out of your life? I believe that's the number.

 

[History_Buff]

and it should be allowed to be banned in establishments that don't want it.

But no establishment ever will ban it. The fact the none have is but further proof of this. If a bar bans smokers, the smokers will move to a different bar. Since many smokers have non-smoking friends, those non-smokers will likely go with them. End result: the bar looses business.

But if smoking is banned in all bars at once, then the smokers will not move around to smoke, and will likely stay at the same place they always have. More non-smokers will now feel comfortable at a bar, and will go. End Result: bar gains business.

It's a classic free-rider situation. The only way to get anything postive done is to make the positive change universal.

 

[Marshy]

Ummmmm......They have the choice not to work in the bar to begin with. No one is forcing them to work there they can quit and find other employment.

Where would you draw the line though? Should we let construction companies choose to ignore safety regulations once they publicise the fact? Then people could choose whether or not to work there. Perhaps my boss could landmine my office and say "Well if you don't want to work no one is forcing you". People have a right to assume that all reasonable measures have been taken to make their workplace safe. The question is, what is reasonable? No landmines in your office: reasonable. Protecting workers from passive smoking is not so clear cut. The evidence shows that passive smoking causes slight increases in the risks of cancer etc. But nothing like the increase caused by smoking.
I smoke 20+ cigarettes a day and I believe the smoking ban in Ireland was one a great move. I don't mind popping outside the front door of a pub for a cigarette. Aside from the health issue, many Irish bars were intolerably smokey before the smoking ban, which made a quiet pint or ten far less pleasant than it is now.
However I am appalled at the idea of excluding people from educational or employment opportunities because they smoke. I also realise that some people wish to demonise smokers because they have an ideological opposition to smoking. Despite this I believe that it is only fair to take reasonable measures to protect employees from cigarette smoke. Even though I smoke I wouldn't like 50 people chain smoking all day in my office at work. I don't see why things should be any different for an employee of a bar.

 

[IglooDame]

But no establishment ever will ban it. The fact the none have is but further proof of this. If a bar bans smokers, the smokers will move to a different bar. Since many smokers have non-smoking friends, those non-smokers will likely go with them. End result: the bar looses business.

But if smoking is banned in all bars at once, then the smokers will not move around to smoke, and will likely stay at the same place they always have. More non-smokers will now feel comfortable at a bar, and will go. End Result: bar gains business.

It's a classic free-rider situation. The only way to get anything postive done is to make the positive change universal.

How do I put this politely.... "Bullcrap."

New Hampshire, a state that has had restaurant/bar smoking ban bills come up and get defeated this spring and last spring, does have smoke-free bars and restaurants. In some cases it was a result of a few bar owners getting together and deciding to all do it at once, in other cases bar owners simply went smoke-free deciding that it was worth the business difference.

And I don't have any more evidence to support this than you've presented to support your view, but some people don't go to bars because of the smoke. If a bar advertises as smoke-free, it might get those patrons, balancing out any loss of smoker revenue. Further, in my own experience (being married to a smoker and having smoking and non-smoking friends) people are as likely to drag smokers to a smoke-free bar as they are to drag non-smokers to a smoking bar.

 

[Che Guava]

I smoke 20+ cigarettes a day and I believe the smoking ban in Ireland was one a great move. I don't mind popping outside the front door of a pub for a cigarette. Aside from the health issue, many Irish bars were intolerably smokey before the smoking ban, which made a quiet pint or ten far less pleasant than it is now.However I am appalled at the idea of excluding people from educational or employment opportunities because they smoke. I also realise that some people wish to demonise smokers because they have an ideological opposition to smoking. Despite this I believe that it is only fair to take reasonable measures to protect employees from cigarette smoke. Even though I smoke I wouldn't like 50 people chain smoking all day in my office at work. I don't see why things should be any different for an employee of a bar.

Nice post

This is what I've really been trying to figure out: where is the line? As much as I think that smoking is a disgusting habit (even though its reaaally nice..!) and that I'm happpy to see smoking bans in public places, I wonder at just what point people are going to stop. I have already heard of insurance companies refusing people on the basis of thier smoking, and while I can certainly see the logic in thier choice, it does make me a little uneasy.

 

[IglooDame]

Where would you draw the line though? Should we let construction companies choose to ignore safety regulations once they publicise the fact? Then people could choose whether or not to work there. Perhaps my boss could landmine my office and say "Well if you don't want to work no one is forcing you". People have a right to assume that all reasonable measures have been taken to make their workplace safe. The question is, what is reasonable? No landmines in your office: reasonable. Protecting workers from passive smoking is not so clear cut. The evidence shows that passive smoking causes slight increases in the risks of cancer etc. But nothing like the increase caused by smoking.
I smoke 20+ cigarettes a day and I believe the smoking ban in Ireland was one a great move. I don't mind popping outside the front door of a pub for a cigarette. Aside from the health issue, many Irish bars were intolerably smokey before the smoking ban, which made a quiet pint or ten far less pleasant than it is now.
However I am appalled at the idea of excluding people from educational or employment opportunities because they smoke. I also realise that some people wish to demonise smokers because they have an ideological opposition to smoking. Despite this I believe that it is only fair to take reasonable measures to protect employees from cigarette smoke. Even though I smoke I wouldn't like 50 people chain smoking all day in my office at work. I don't see why things should be any different for an employee of a bar.

And really, people that work at concerts shouldn't be subjected to noise levels capable of inducing hearing loss over time. And people that work in the porn industry shouldn't be subjected to imagery that really constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. Also, firemen shouldn't be subjected to fire, which can cause very serious burns or death.

My point, obviously, is that some hazards are accepted as being an inherent aspect of the workplace. In other circumstances, HEPA filtration masks would be appropriate, I fail to see why restaurant workers couldn't wear them.

 

[Che Guava]

And really, people that work at concerts shouldn't be subjected to noise levels capable of inducing hearing loss over time. And people that work in the porn industry shouldn't be subjected to imagery that really constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. Also, firemen shouldn't be subjected to fire, which can cause very serious burns or death.

My point, obviously, is that some hazards are accepted as being an inherent aspect of the workplace. In other circumstances, HEPA filtration masks would be appropriate, I fail to see why restaurant workers couldn't wear them.

Ugh, have you ever had to wear one of those HEPA masks for a good long while?

I can see what you mean here, but I can't say that I agree. For one, people who work at concerts do get protection, and besides, noise is a central part of going to a concert, unlike say, going to a bar to smoke. Ditto for firemen: its in the name, and they get teh best training and equipment to battle that fire, along with a generous health and life insurance plan. Porn....well, I canb't say I know much about that, so I'll just leave that one alone

There's nothing that says a bar or a restaurant has to be a place to smoke, and there are no benefits or compensations from having to work in a smoke-filled environment. Yes, people who work there could wear masks, but what about people who just want to go to the local pub and get a drink without choking on the air around them? If someone already has a potentially dangerous habit like smoking, I don't think we should be encouraging them by changing around our public places to suit thier needs.

 

[Marshy]

My point, obviously, is that some hazards are accepted as being an inherent aspect of the workplace. In other circumstances, HEPA filtration masks would be appropriate, I fail to see why restaurant workers couldn't wear them.

I take your point. However I personally would prefer to smoke outside than be served in a bar by people in filtration masks. It might appear a little freaky But perhaps we would get used to it.

 

[IglooDame]

Ugh, have you ever had to wear one of those HEPA masks for a good long while?

I can see what you mean here, but I can't say that I agree. For one, people who work at concerts do get protection, and besides, noise is a central part of going to a concert, unlike say, going to a bar to smoke. Ditto for firemen: its in the name, and they get teh best training and equipment to battle that fire, along with a generous health and life insurance plan. Porn....well, I canb't say I know much about that, so I'll just leave that one alone

There's nothing that says a bar or a restaurant has to be a place to smoke, and there are no benefits or compensations from having to work in a smoke-filled environment. Yes, people who work there could wear masks, but what about people who just want to go to the local pub and get a drink without choking on the air around them? If someone already has a potentially dangerous habit like smoking, I don't think we should be encouraging them by changing around our public places to suit thier needs.

But they're not "our public places," they're an owner's property. And there readily could be something that says a bar or a restaurant has to be a place to smoke, they could label it a "smoking bar". Come in, and we'll sell you food, booze, and cigarettes, and you can enjoy all three. There's currently no law requiring that bars be smoke-required, and I'd oppose a law like that just as readily as the smoke-free ones. As I've said, New Hampshire does not have a smoke-free law, and indeed borders smoke-free states like Mass and Maine, and yet still has smoke-free restaurants and bars.

And yeah, I have had to wear those sorts of masks for a while. I was a Ship's Safety Officer on one of the ships I was on in the Navy. Unpleasant, but OSHA doesn't care about discomfort unless the discomfort itself is a threat to health. Concert workers wear uncomfortable hearing protection, firemen wear uncomfortable fire-retardant suits, police wear uncomfortable bullet-resistant vests, bartenders can wear uncomfortable filter masks.