View Single Post
Old 02-11-2005, 16:29   #900
Paddy1
cf.addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 350
Paddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond reputePaddy1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: smoking and the pub

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Again, you are contrasting the entirety of the problem with air pollution (not all of which is from vehicles) with a specific aspect of the problem with smoking, thereby distorting the ratio of the apparent scale and complexity of the two problems.
But this legislation is designed to protect staff in places of work and as the only place of work where smoking is still permitted (that I can think of) is pubs. So it really only protects bar staff which is a fair point. How often is the general non-smoker in a pub, a few nights a week on average? Their exposure to tobacco smoke is minimal compared to the toxins and nasty stuff that we are all breathing 24/7. General polution is a much bigger problem and affects many more people than this legislation is designed to protect.

Quote:
Even so, maybe vehicle emissions should be a higher priority, but as vehicle emissions are a direct result of economic activity (so you can't simply ban, or even heavily restrict, vehicles), and are a social necessity for vast numbers of people, the issue is more complex and requires bigger, strategic solutions. Many such solutions are already in place - catalytic converters, low-sulphur fuel, lead-free fuel, emissions testing in the MOT, and so on - and many are in development or are encouraged by the Government through tax, such as LPG, fuel cell and similar technology.

This smoking ban, on the other hand, has been identified as a very straightforward way of tackling a serious, but identifiable and containable problem.

And as I have said countless times now, the existence of other problems does not in any way mean we should do nothing about smoking - especially if smoking is easier to target.
I agree that it is much more difficult to target econimic activity for various reasons. But to legislate for the protection of an area of employment which kills 54? bar staff a year seems to be a case of misplaced priorities.

Ok, smoking is easy to target and I'm all for segregated smoking areas with adequate ventillation to address the concerns of bar staff but I get the feeling that the hype over the smoking ban in pubs is more to do with the fact that non-smokers just don't like it. How much would it really affect non-smokers if there were separate smoking areas in pubs, unless you're there more than you really should be.
Paddy1 is offline   Reply With Quote