smoking and the pub - Page 35

31-10-2005, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

A large part of health and safety regulation is also concerned with the worker taking responsibilty for themselves. Why can't a bar worker make an informed decision over whether or not to work in a smokier environment. If not, work in a bar/restaurant where smoking is not allowed. It seems quite straightforward to me. There are risks attached to many jobs but we can't allow a situation to develop where nobody will do anything without a risk assessment or for the fear of being sued.
As David Hockney said, "we have become so scared of dying that we have forgotten how to live." Wise words indeed.

But people may take a job out of necessity; that element of choice doesn't exist.

SlackDad · 31-10-2005, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

But people may take a job out of necessity; that element of choice doesn't exist.

I'm not so sure that given a fair amount of smoking and smoke free pubs in any one area this should present a problem.

clarie · 31-10-2005, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I'm not so sure that given a fair amount of smoking and smoke free pubs in any one area this should present a problem.

I don't think that's going to be the case though. Didn't they say that poorer areas will be at a disadvantage because there are less food-serving pubs in those areas?

ian@huth · 31-10-2005, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

But people may take a job out of necessity; that element of choice doesn't exist.

So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.

If over 20% of the population are smokers then it is several million people who are being denied a choice if a smoking ban was to be imposed in all enclosed public spaces. Smokers aren't saying that they should be allowed to smoke everywhere they want to. Smokers are quite happy to have a situation where they are allowed to smoke only in establishments where the owner decides that he wants to allow smoking on his premises. Non-smokers aren't being forced to enter those premises and the people who do choose to enter do so of their own free will. What harm is being done to non-smokers by giving smokers the choice of having enclosed places where they can smoke? More harm could possible occur if there is a complete ban as many smokers will find alternative places where they can legally smoke which might have non-smokers, particularly children, present in them.

basa · 31-10-2005, 10:48

Just to add my 2p, and as a SMOKER .... I think smoking should be banned in ALL public indoor places. If I want to smoke I go outside.

All companies should provide a place for smokers to smoke, be it a special ventilated room or outside.

I would also make it illegal to smoke anywhere indoors (including private dwellings) where children under 16 years are present. Again if you want to smoke, go outside, I do.

To hell with smokers choice ! If you choose (chose) to smoke then accept the limitations.

31-10-2005, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.

Yes, for obvious and oft pointed out reasons.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

I don't think that's going to be the case though. Didn't they say that poorer areas will be at a disadvantage because there are less food-serving pubs in those areas?

Yes. And more pubs will stop serving food because of this useless compromise.

**Chris** · 31-10-2005, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.

Got it in one. Do we have to keep going over the reasons why this is fair and reasonable?

31-10-2005, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Got it in one. Do we have to keep going over the reasons why this is fair and reasonable?

Apparently so

clarie · 31-10-2005, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

So non-smokers should be able to choose whereas smokers are denied the option of choosing.

Excellently put!!

As Basa said, he who chooses to smoke should accept the limitations put upon him as a result of that choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

More harm could possible occur if there is a complete ban as many smokers will find alternative places where they can legally smoke which might have non-smokers, particularly children, present in them.

People will always smoke in front of children, it's a sad fact but true.

Russ · 31-10-2005, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I'm not so sure that given a fair amount of smoking and smoke free pubs in any one area this should present a problem.

You show me ONE non-smoking pub in Port Talbot/Swansea and I'll agree with you.

SMHarman · 31-10-2005, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

Yes. And more pubs will stop serving food because of this useless compromise.

John whatsisname of the BBC was interviewing the member of the cabinet promoting this.
"Is a Sandwich food?"
No
"How about a bag of Crisps, peanuts, pork scratchings?"
No

This one will run and run.

ian@huth · 31-10-2005, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Got it in one. Do we have to keep going over the reasons why this is fair and reasonable?

It is only fair and reasonable in some peoples eyes. Just because you find it fair and reasonable doesn't mean that it is. Many people will find it very unfair and unreasonable. Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.

clarie · 31-10-2005, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

It is only fair and reasonable in some peoples eyes. Just because you find it fair and reasonable doesn't mean that it is. Many people will find it very unfair and unreasonable. Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.

I am not sure getting back into this bit is a good way to proceed but we can if you like...

You're right, smokers aren't asking any non-smokers to be in a smoky environment. They are however, saying if you don't like it, go elsewhere. You're also not taking into account people who are not as educated as others in the dangers of smoking, or the poorer people living in areas where there are very few, if any, non-smoking pubs.

It is a dangerous habit. If you want to indulge in it, that's fine. But millions of people choose to renounce it or to avoid it because of its danger. If smokers can't or don't, that's their problem, and it's not ok to inflict it upon me.

basa · 31-10-2005, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.

Get real .... light up in ANY enclosed environment, aircraft, train, restaraunt, pub, and everyone there gets a bit !!

**Chris** · 31-10-2005, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

It is only fair and reasonable in some peoples eyes. Just because you find it fair and reasonable doesn't mean that it is. Many people will find it very unfair and unreasonable. Smokers are not asking any non-smoker to be in a smoky environment.

But it's only a smoky environment because the smoker makes it one. Your argument is circular.