Smoking

[kenneal - lagger]

I am really pleased that there is a smoking ban as I know that I can go almost anywhere i want and not come home stinking of fag smoke and waking up in the morning with a bedroom stinking of the fag smoke that is stuck to my clothes. Most unpleasant!

I don't see why anyone should have the right to submit me, and the majority of people who don't smoke, to such unpleasantness.

[woodburner]

+1

[Little John]

I am really pleased that there is a smoking ban as I know that I can go almost anywhere i want and not come home stinking of fag smoke and waking up in the morning with a bedroom stinking of the fag smoke that is stuck to my clothes. Most unpleasant!

I don't see why anyone should have the right to submit me, and the majority of people who don't smoke, to such unpleasantness.

Which is why I said the smoking ban should be lifted in public commercial establishments insofar as those establishments wish to make provision for smokers and also insofar as such provision must be designed in such a way as to protect non smoker from second hand smoke.

I also said that the state should be compelled to provide the above because the cost of such provision is already entirely covered by smoking taxes alone on top of the cost of smokers health care bills being covered by those taxes as well. Even after all of that, there would still be significant surplus in the revenue from smoking taxes, so grotesquely large are their coerced tax contributions.

There is no morally consistent argument that can be made for limiting smokers' liberties; not least by limiting their health care provision compared to the rest of the population, whilst at the same time forcing them to pay taxes that cover for all costs of their smoking by a number of factors.

Why not just be honest and just come straight out with the dirty truth? Smokers are a captive taxable sub-group within the population due to the addictive nature of nicotine. Consequently, they are coerced into paying a significant percentage of tax revenue to this country that, if it was not contributed by smokers, would mean your tax bill would rise. On top of all of that, you don't care if they are inconvenienced or have their liberties removed since it doesn't affect you. But, having those liberties reinstated and paid for (entirely out of smoking taxes) would mean your taxes would have to rise.

So F--k em...eh?

[AndySir]

There is no morally consistent argument that can be made for limiting smokers' liberties...

Apart from the rights of the employees of such establishments to a safe working environment - which I believe was the centrepiece of the legal arguments in favour of the smoking ban. Forcing employees to 'choose' between their jobs and a safe working environment to protect smoker's liberty to kill themselves and take half a dozen other people with them is the moral inconsistency.

Also an ex-smoker... for about an hour after every cigarette.

[Little John]

There is no morally consistent argument that can be made for limiting smokers' liberties...

Apart from the rights of the employees of such establishments to a safe working environment - which I believe was the centrepiece of the legal arguments in favour of the smoking ban. Forcing employees to 'choose' between their jobs and a safe working environment to protect smoker's liberty to kill themselves and take half a dozen other people with them is the moral inconsistency.

Also an ex-smoker... for about an hour after every cigarette.

I have already stated several times the nature of a lifted ban that addresses all of the point you raise. The fact that you raise them despite this tells me either you do not read posts to which you are replying, or that you employ the strategy of making a false accusation in the hope that it will stick.

To repeat, yet again:

The smoking ban should be lifted insofar as the smoking facilities comply with design regulations protecting no smokers form second hand smoke. also, commercial operators could make their own choice as to whether or not they made such provision available based on commercial considerations. The state, however, should be compelled to make such provision since it has already been paid for by smokers taxes. If non smokers choose to enter facilities explicitly provided (and paid for by smokers' taxes) for the use of smokers, then that is their choice.

[AndySir]

There is no morally consistent argument that can be made for limiting smokers' liberties...

Apart from the rights of the employees of such establishments to a safe working environment - which I believe was the centrepiece of the legal arguments in favour of the smoking ban. Forcing employees to 'choose' between their jobs and a safe working environment to protect smoker's liberty to kill themselves and take half a dozen other people with them is the moral inconsistency.

Also an ex-smoker... for about an hour after every cigarette.

I have already stated several times the nature of a lifted ban that addresses all of the point you raise. The fact that you raise them despite this tells me either you do not read posts to which you are replying, or that you employ the strategy of repeating a false accusation enough times in the hope that it will stick.

To repeat, yet again:

The smoking ban should be lifted insofar as the smoking facilities comply with design regulations protecting no smokers form second hand smoke. also, commercial operators could make their own choice as to whether or not they made such provision available based on commercial considerations. The state, however, should be compelled to make such provision since it has already been paid for by smokers taxes. If non smokers choose to enter facilities explicitly provided (and paid for by smokers' taxes) for the use of smokers, then that is their choice.

Given that being in the same room as a smoker is accepted as being harmful one wonders what provisions you think are possible to prevent employees from being exposed to the smoke? Serving drinks by remote control?

You failed to notice that it was the rights of the employees, not the 'commercial operators' and not the customers, that were being ignored. They have no choice but to enter their place of work.

Try again.

[Little John]

Apart from the rights of the employees of such establishments to a safe working environment - which I believe was the centrepiece of the legal arguments in favour of the smoking ban. Forcing employees to 'choose' between their jobs and a safe working environment to protect smoker's liberty to kill themselves and take half a dozen other people with them is the moral inconsistency.

Also an ex-smoker... for about an hour after every cigarette.

I have already stated several times the nature of a lifted ban that addresses all of the point you raise. The fact that you raise them despite this tells me either you do not read posts to which you are replying, or that you employ the strategy of repeating a false accusation enough times in the hope that it will stick.

To repeat, yet again:

The smoking ban should be lifted insofar as the smoking facilities comply with design regulations protecting no smokers form second hand smoke. also, commercial operators could make their own choice as to whether or not they made such provision available based on commercial considerations. The state, however, should be compelled to make such provision since it has already been paid for by smokers taxes. If non smokers choose to enter facilities explicitly provided (and paid for by smokers' taxes) for the use of smokers, then that is their choice.

Given that being in the same room as a smoker is accepted as being harmful one wonders what provisions you think are possible to prevent employees from being exposed to the smoke? Serving drinks by remote control?

You failed to notice that it was the rights of the employees, not the 'commercial operators' and not the customers, that were being ignored. They have no choice but to enter their place of work.

Try again.

Smokers can smoke in separate rooms specifically designated for the purpose. You are doing it again, and I now have no doubt it is deliberate, making a false accusation about an argument that was not made. I have specifically repeated now, in several occasions, that such provision would have to comply with regulations that ensured second hand smoke was not ingested by non smokers unless they made the specific choice to expose themselves to it. Insofar as exposure to second hand smoke to employees who served drinks etc in such smoking designated areas, they would have the choice not to work in them, in exactly the same way workers have the choice not to work in any number of other hazardous environments.

[AndySir]

Honestly Steve, try to listen to what I'm saying before accusing me of deception. Smoking customers can smoke in separate rooms but staff have to work in the smoking room and they have a right not to. Given the pressures that can be put on employees by employers, especially in a market like this, an opt-out system would be pretty much unenforceable. Hence a blanket ban is necessary to protect the employees.

[Little John]

Honestly Steve, try to listen to what I'm saying before accusing me of deception. Smoking customers can smoke in separate rooms but staff have to work in the smoking room and they have a right not to. Given the pressures that can be put on employees by employers, especially in a market like this, an opt-out system would be pretty much unenforceable. Hence a blanket ban is necessary to protect the employees.

see above post (relevant section quoted below):

Insofar as exposure to second hand smoke to employees who served drinks etc in such smoking designated areas, they would have the choice not to work in them, in exactly the same way workers have the choice not to work in any number of other hazardous environments.

In any event, it is not beyond the wit of commercial operators to make provision based on self service or, even based on nothing more than providing a separate room for smokers with no other provision in that room. These are all merely practical consideration that would all have practical solutions. all of which, commercial operators would have the choice to provide or not according to their own commercial considerations.

[AndySir]

Workers have the right to choose to work in hazardous environments, and there are strict regulations for minimising the risk of injury. They do not have the right to work in a dangerous environment, where damage is certain.

[AndySir]

Honestly Steve, try to listen to what I'm saying before accusing me of deception. Smoking customers can smoke in separate rooms but staff have to work in the smoking room and they have a right not to. Given the pressures that can be put on employees by employers, especially in a market like this, an opt-out system would be pretty much unenforceable. Hence a blanket ban is necessary to protect the employees.

see above post (relevant section quoted below):

Insofar as exposure to second hand smoke to employees who served drinks etc in such smoking designated areas, they would have the choice not to work in them, in exactly the same way workers have the choice not to work in any number of other hazardous environments.

In any event, it is not beyond the wit of commercial operators to make provision based on self service or, even based on nothing more than providing a separate room for smokers with no other provision in that room. These are all merely practical consideration that would all have practical solutions. all of which, commercial operators would have the choice to provide or not according to their own commercial considerations.

Plus 'commercial considerations' already frequently provide for beer gardens and pagodas, which are not restricted.

[Little John]

Workers have the right to choose to work in hazardous environments, and there are strict regulations for minimising the risk of injury. They do not have the right to work in a dangerous environment, where damage is certain.

Damage from passive smoking is not certain and you can provide no evidence whatsoever to support the contention. Passive smoking has a statistical risk attached to it, one that is far smaller than the hysterics would have us all believe. A statistical risk that can equally be applied to any number of other activities that people can freely choose to expose themselves to or not. Consider, for example, that one of the often cited consequences of passive smoking is respiratory illnesses in children exposed in such a way. Also, then, consider that fact that, 40 years ago, the proportion of children exposed to passive smoking was far higher than it is now due to a greater number of adults smoking in the home, and yet the incidence of respiratory illness in children, per head of population, is now far higher than it was forty years ago. Perhaps it might have something to do with the far higher incidence of car ownership? Perhaps we should ban cars ownership?

Try again.

[Little John]

Honestly Steve, try to listen to what I'm saying before accusing me of deception. Smoking customers can smoke in separate rooms but staff have to work in the smoking room and they have a right not to. Given the pressures that can be put on employees by employers, especially in a market like this, an opt-out system would be pretty much unenforceable. Hence a blanket ban is necessary to protect the employees.

see above post (relevant section quoted below):

Insofar as exposure to second hand smoke to employees who served drinks etc in such smoking designated areas, they would have the choice not to work in them, in exactly the same way workers have the choice not to work in any number of other hazardous environments.

In any event, it is not beyond the wit of commercial operators to make provision based on self service or, even based on nothing more than providing a separate room for smokers with no other provision in that room. These are all merely practical consideration that would all have practical solutions. all of which, commercial operators would have the choice to provide or not according to their own commercial considerations.

Plus 'commercial considerations' already frequently provide for beer gardens and pagodas, which are not restricted.

They do not provide shelter. However, what they do provide, is evidence that such commercial operators are quite prepared to make such provision if the law permits. Many, in fact, are sailing close to the regulatory wind with their current provision, so motivated are they to make such provision available due to the self evident demand.

[AndySir]

They do not provide shelter.

Look up the word 'pagoda' in a dictionary. Heat lamps and windbreaks are also fairly common. Also the damage is certain, you're probably thinking of the long term risks like cancer and heart disease where the increase in risk is caused by the damage that has already been done.

[Little John]

They do not provide shelter.

Look up the word 'pagoda' in a dictionary. Heat lamps and windbreaks are also fairly common. Also the damage is certain, you're probably thinking of the long term risks like cancer and heart disease where the increase in risk is caused by the damage that has already been done.

Show a single piece of research that shows a hundred percent direct causal link from passive smoking to any pathology.

I'll tell you now you can't. You will no doubt find a number of studies that show increased risk, but that is not the same thing.You can repeat the lie that such damage is certain as many times as you wish, it still won't make it true.