smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by orangebird

You assume that every person that wants to work in a bar is as narrow minded and non smoking as some people on here are.

You assume that everybody who works in a bar doesn't mind dying of secondary smoke.

Cracking argument, ob - if you don't want to die of second-hand smoke, you are narrow-minded.

Good point, well made!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Salu

It's a hard balance to get between my rights and your rights, choice and discrimination and nanny state intrusion and law. The more selfsh we are as individuals in society the harder this is. My point is that we need to remember that we are a society and live as if we have neighbours rather than as if we lived in this world alone.

True,

That is never going to be a "choice" though as it excludes the word Public from Pub and makes it a club. Even then that would be bordering on discrimination nowadays wouldn't it?

How is allowing a landlord/lady to choose whether to make his or her pub non-smoking or not any worse than banning smoking from pubs? Either way, one group of people is banned from the pub. At least if the people who actually run the pubs are allowed to chose, both groups of people are allowed to drink in one pub or another.

Remember, if some pubs are smoking, and some non-smoking, those people who do object to people smoking have the freedom to go to a non-smoking pub. Under the government's current plans, NO-ONE has the freedom to chose a smoking pub. Fair? I think not. Antisocial? Yes.

At the end of the day smoking is pretty antisocial isn't it, let alone the health implications? Usually anything that involves emitting a putrid smell in public is regarded as offensive in society.

So we should ban petrol and diesel vehicles then? After all, they both emit pollution which is nasty smelling and possibly dangerous..

[hatedbythemail]

could i ever so tentatively point out that we banned leaded petrol on health grounds

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You assume that everybody who works in a bar doesn't mind dying of secondary smoke.

Cracking argument, ob - if you don't want to die of second-hand smoke, you are narrow-minded.

Good point, well made!

I believe OB was making the point that people who think Smoking should be banned in all public places are narrow minded.

[punky]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You assume that everybody who works in a bar doesn't mind dying of secondary smoke.

Cracking argument, ob - if you don't want to die of second-hand smoke, you are narrow-minded.

Good point, well made!

Based on that argument, you could say that about people working in a bar don't mind being stabbed/killed. Working in a bar and being stabbed/killed, like dying of second hand smoke is a risk inherent in the job. A risk you accept to take on as part of the job, and the ages you recieve. If you don't want to come in contact with second hand smoker, nor do you want to risk facing violence as part of your job, there are other occupations you can do. Anyway, if people are working in bars currently where they come into contact with second-hand smoke, they can hardly be that bothered about it?

And before anyone starts with the usual personal attacks, I am a non-smoker. Always have been, always will be.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

Based on your argument, you could say that about people working in a bar don't mind being stabbed/killed. Working in a bar and being stabbed/killed, like dying of second hand smoke is a risk inherent in the job. A risk you accept to take on as part of the job, and the ages you recieveIf you don't want to come in contact with second hand smoker, nor do you want to risk facing violence as part of your job, there are other occupations you can do. .

not really a comparable risk and certainly one you can mitigate against hence this legislation

And before anyone starts with the usual personal attacks,

I am a non-smoker. Always have been, always will be.

apart from your passive intake?

[punky]

Anyway, isn't it about time for one of these?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

could i ever so tentatively point out that we banned leaded petrol on health grounds

So by that reasoning we could simply ban Gitanes/Gaulloises cigarettes and be done with it?

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

Anyway, isn't it about time for one of these?

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/il...en_lovejoy.jpg

nah, stuff 'em







[not really. infuriates me that so many british hostelries are so hostile to kids. compare that to ireland.....]

---------- Post added at 16:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:01 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

So by that reasoning we could simply ban Gitanes/Gaulloises cigarettes and be done with it?

don't you start

Originally Posted by punky

Anyway, isn't it about time for one of these?

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/il...en_lovejoy.jpg

Nah - they haven't tested cigarettes on babies for years - they switched to beagles (apparently).

---------- Post added at 16:03 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

So by that reasoning we could simply ban Gitanes/Gaulloises cigarettes and be done with it?

Or anything French?

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Nah - they haven't tested cigarettes on babies for years - they switched to beagles (apparently).

ah, do you remember sweet tobacco? yum.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

ah, do you remember sweet tobacco? yum.

Didn't that give passers-by secondary tooth decay?

[punky]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

not really a comparable risk and certainly one you can mitigate against hence this legislation

I would have thought so. If I stabbed you in various places on your body, they will die. There's no risk, as its a certainty. Its quantifiable and provable. If you inhale second hand smoke, then there a chance you'll die, whoever, not wishing to count research into the effects of smoking, but the chances are not quantifable at all, and are quite random. People who smoke 40+ a day have been known to live into their 90s, where as some don't.

apart from your passive intake?

Seriously though, what can I do, invest in a bubble? Ditch every friend who smokes? Bit paranoid. Besides, my parents smoked for years so the damage is well done now.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

I would have thought so. If I stabbed you in various places on your body, they will die. There's no risk, as its a certainty. Its quantifiable and provable. If you inhale second hand smoke, then there a chance you'll die, whoever, not wishing to count research into the effects of smoking, but the chances are not quantifable at all, and are quite random. People who smoke 40+ a day have been known to live into their 90s, where as some don't.

the link betwen passive smoking and lung cancer is well established and if a pub allows smoking then all in it are at risk, but esp[ecially the staff. despite the lurid headlines i would respectfully suggest (and without being able to back the suggestion up ) that the chances of being stabbed are much lower than the health risks presented by blanket exposure of cigarette smoke.

But what can I do, invest in a bubble? Ditch every friend who smokes? Bit paranoid. Besides, my parents smoked for years so the damage is well done now.

well here you do have a genuine choice i guess. staff in smoking pubs certainly don't and those who want to sit with friends who dont smoke in an environment where others do have a limited choice and limited protection. this really is quite simple for me. a pub is a public place. the govt, employers and indeed all of us have a duty to protect the public insofar as we can in places which are open to the public.

[punky]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

the link betwen passive smoking and lung cancer is well established and if a pub allows smoking then all in it are at risk, but esp[ecially the staff. despite the lurid headlines i would respectfully suggest (and without being able to back the suggestion up ) that the chances of being stabbed are much lower than the health risks presented by blanket exposure of cigarette smoke.

Established... but not quantifiable. Unlike being stabbed or shot.

Because of the unquantiable nature of smoking and cancer, the chance of dying via smoking versus dying via stabbing, will never be known.

staff in smoking pubs certainly don't

But they do. Noone is forced to do any job.

and those who want to sit with friends who dont smoke in an environment

You say "want" and then you say they have no choice.

a pub is a public place

Despite the name, it isn't though. They are private places of business and the landlords/ladies/employees/patrons choose to enter/work in.

When you say people have no choice to work in a pub, I think that's pretty insulting to them.