Smoking

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 30, 2006 05:06 am

No? How about an eleven year old? How about a ten year old? How about a four year old???

The capitalist state doesn't have a right to tell any of them anything.

Except where they can and can't smoke, right?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Except where they can and can't smoke, right?

You're as pathetic as you are politically bankrupt. You can't differentiate between reforms made on the basis of workers' struggles, and that benefit workers' (as those banning smoking in workplaces like bars and resturaunts do) and those that seek to prop up the rotten capitalist system and religious moralism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
You can't differentiate between reforms made on the basis of workers' struggles, and that benefit workers' (as those banning smoking in workplaces like bars and resturaunts do)...

What "workers' struggles" are you referring too? The Cuban Governments decision to adopt a similar policy?

It's common knowledge, by the way, that Bar and Restaurant workers are very poorly organised. And that when they do organise, they organise around issues such as better wages, healthcare, higher wages for not-tipped staff, no tax on tips, and so on ... and not for people to stop doing what they do in Bars and Restaurants. Namely smoking.

It doesn't surprise me, by the way, that you wouldn't understanding the primary problems faced by Bar and Restaurant workers. (People smoking, is not one of those problems.) After all, I really doubt you've ever worked a bar or waited tables ... you wouldn't have the personality you do, if you had done either of those.

But, given your lack of understanding, I really do think that you should bite your lip on this one. Because your paternalistic bollocks, really isn't appreciated.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What "workers' struggles" are you referring too? The Cuban Governments decision to adopt a similar policy?

It's common knowledge, by the way, that Bar and Restaurant workers are very poorly organised. And that when they do organise, they organise around issues such as better wages, healthcare, higher wages for not-tipped staff, no tax on tips, and so on ... and not for people to stop doing what they do in Bars and Restaurants. Namely smoking.

It doesn't surprise me, by the way, that you wouldn't understanding the primary problems faced by Bar and Restaurant workers. (People smoking, is not one of those problems.) After all, I really doubt you've ever worked a bar or waited tables ... you wouldn't have the personality you do, if you had done either of those.

But, given your lack of understanding, I really do think that you should bite your lip on this one. Because your paternalistic bollocks, really isn't appreciated.

Again, your crystal ball fails you. I was a bus boy for a year in my youth, and a bar tender at another time. Other members of my family spent alot more time doing the same thing. Guess what? They all complained about cigarette smoke. All the time. It was a major issue to them.

When smoking in bars was banned in New York City a while back, all the folks I know there who work at waiters were extremely happy about it -- even one that smokes.

According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) "New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues." That's bad for people that work there right? :rolleyes: That's not in workers interests, right?

Study Finds That New Jersey Bars and Restaurants Have Nine Times More Air Pollution than Those in Smoke-Free New York (http://www.umdnj.edu/about/news_events/releases/04/r041214_bars.htm) How horrible for New York bar and restaurant workers!

This ban is not a moral or puritanical one, or one that interferes unjustly in workers' lives, one that is aimed at upholding religious bullshit or the bourgeois state, etc. I mean, tobacco corporations are owned by the bourgeosie! [According to this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1509843,00.html), A 1960 document from Phillip Morris Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence', summarized the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry (i.e., smoking industry) volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% to 15% less smoking products than average and quit smoking at a rate that is 84% higher than average."]

The most the bourgeoisie can benefit from this (in countries with universal healthcare, which the U.S. doesn't have) is lower costs for health care..

Surely, even you can see the difference.

Cuba's move to ban smoking in public places was done because it's a workers' state, with workers' interests in mind, and is not the same as the capitalists' states' moves. But yea, bring that up, 'cause it's completely related. :rolleyes:

[Amusing Scrotum]

I see you chose not to answer my question, which is hardly surprising. Instead, we all got to hear a few family anecdotes. How, well, sweet.


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+--> (CompañeroDeLibertad)Guess what? They all complained about cigarette smoke.[/b]

The apple never falls far from the tree...


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+--> (CompañeroDeLibertad)This ban is not a moral or puritanical one...[/b]

You say that; but then in the same paragraph you quote and endorse the following:


Compañ[email protected]
Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% to 15% less smoking products than average and quit smoking at a rate that is 84% higher than average.

Well, isn't that nice. You know what else is nice? When they don't put locks on toilet doors in Clubs so that it is harder to do a line of this or that. Really stops people from taking all those nasty drugs.

As I said, paternalistic bollocks.


CompañeroDeLibertad
That's not in workers interests, right?

It's probably in the interests of those workers who don't smoke and have a particular thing about their health. But, for everyone else? Not so much.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to support ventilation systems. That way, people who have a particular objection to smoking, would be fine; and those that do smoke, would also be fine. It's a very sensible compromise ... and it's certainly far better than infringing upon the rights of large sections of society.

But, alas, the aim of the ban was never to try and make all parties happy. It was simply an attempt to get working class people to stop smoking ... just like the ASBO crap aims to stop working class people from drinking and having fun.

After all, a worker with a hangover just isn't productive enough!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Are you incapable of thinking and understanding? Seriously.


I see you chose not to answer my question, which is hardly surprising. Instead, we all got to hear a few family anecdotes. How, well, sweet.

What??

You: ...I really doubt you've ever worked a bar or waited tables...

Me: I was a bus boy for a year in my youth, and a bar tender at another time. Other members of my family spent alot more time doing the same thing.


The apple never falls far from the tree...

That doesn't apply to one's wife.


You say that; but then in the same paragraph you quote and endorse the following:


Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% to 15% less smoking products than average and quit smoking at a rate that is 84% higher than average.

Well, isn't that nice. You know what else is nice? When they don't put locks on toilet doors in Clubs so that it is harder to do a line of this or that. Really stops people from taking all those nasty drugs.

As I said, paternalistic bollocks.

As I said, are you incapable of understanding??

I wasn't "endorsing" anything. I pointed out that the bourgeoisie has more to lose than to gain by the smoking ban. Tobacco corporations (owned by the bourgeoisie) lose money as a result of smoking bans. So, obviously, it's not in their interest to ban smoking. Do you understand?

Socialist security isn't the interest of the bourgeoisie either, but it got enacted as a result of workers' struggles.


It's probably in the interests of those workers who don't smoke and have a particular thing about their health.

Yeah, like not dying as a result of a less-than-minimum-wage-job. Puritans! :lol:

According to the CDC, 20.9% of adults in the U.S. smoke. That's one in five. For women (who make up a majority of resturaunt and bar workers), it's even less (18%). Sooo, 4 of 5 (or slightly more) don't smoke. It's in their interests not to be exposed to smoke, which causes a number of health problems (just ask former cigarette advocate Red Star!).

I guess you'd have plant workers continue to be exposed to asbestos too. I have family members who have gotten cancer from exposure to that poison at work (and others who have gotten it from exposure to coal dust). I guess now that they (or those who are still alive) have fought to get safety measures enacted they "have a particular thing about their health" and get written off. Get the fuck out of here.


... and it's certainly far better than infringing upon the rights of large sections of society.

What rights? The right to poison people because it gives you pleasure? Come on. What if I get pleasure by sprinkling anthrax powder around town? You won't infringe on my rights will you? :lol:


But, alas, the aim of the ban was never to try and make all parties happy. It was simply an attempt to get working class people to stop smoking ... just like the ASBO crap aims to stop working class people from drinking and having fun.

After all, a worker with a hangover just isn't productive enough!

Right... that's why cigarettes and alcohol have been outlawed... oh wait, no they haven't. And cigarette and alchohol advertisements are everywhere. So much for that....

[Invader Zim]

While it is an unusual; I find my self in agreement with CDL. Having worked as bar staff; I can confirm that smoking is a real pain, especially smoking at the bar - which is why a lot of bars and pubs now no longer allow smoking at the bar. It is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the job, at least in my experience.

Amusing Scrotum; have you ever worked behind the bar?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 15, 2006 01:31 am

Except where they can and can't smoke, right?

You're as pathetic as you are politically bankrupt. You can't differentiate between reforms made on the basis of workers' struggles, and that benefit workers' (as those banning smoking in workplaces like bars and resturaunts do) and those that seek to prop up the rotten capitalist system and religious moralism.
Surely the effect of passive smoking can't be as bad as the health-fascists put across. What they should do to appease both the health-fascists and the smokers is build seperate smoking rooms. It's a natural instinct to light up in a pub if you're a smoker: part of the relaxing that pubs are there for. If a non-smoker likes a pub that lets you smoke, surely he will tolerate it; if he doesn't, he can piss off to a Brewers Fayre of Wetherspoons or other such monotonous, characteristically bankrupt chains, or the least real part of a real pub known as the "Family room", where they don't allow smoking because some inconsiderate bastards bring their kids to pubs.
Now you've made my wrists ache from ranting. Shame on you.

[Noah]

It's probably in the interests of those workers who don't smoke and have a particular thing about their health. But, for everyone else? Not so much.

This makes no sense at all, your point implies that that the majority of the working class smoke, which is totally untrue...Yes, alot of people do smoke! But it is not the majority of the working class that do so!

I think we can also establish that for many smokers it is a bad habit as opposed to something they 'enjoy' therefore why should they inflict the damage on someone else.

Some cigarette smokers are ignoranty little pricks, I went to a restaurant with my grandad and my little sister and someone lit up next to us, it's inconsiderate and selfish and has nothing to do with oppression of the working class...Infact, not smoking is probably more 'revolutionary' than smoking because you're not funding the very people you're trying to overthrow. Oh and this isn't an anecdote, I think you'll find alot of non-smokers have experienced a time when they have been made inconvenience and made to feel uncomfortable and stink because some annoying fool decided to smoke in their face.

And I agree the ASBO has been used to oppress activists and others but if children were jumping on your car bonnett and smashing your windows or attacking your child, I'm sure you would utilize one, however this is a different argument. We can discuss it in another topic. Sure it's not the best solution but if some drunk idiot was trying to attack me, I'd try make sure his arse was ASBOed.

It's like sitting next to someone with a farting proble, why the fuck should I tolerate their bad habits, this isn't about oppression at all, infact if you look at this from a logical point of view (I've established that you are a smoker) the majority of the 'working class' would support a ban on smoking in public places because they do not smoke.

[Vanguard1917]

A pub/bar is a place where you go to have a few drinks, smoke a few cigarettes and relax. As AS pointed out, that's what people do in bars.

The smoking ban is 100% part of a top-down initiative. Bar workers have not exactly been taking to the streets calling for a ban and nor have the public in general. No, this is purely a case of the government - with the support of large sections of the pathetic left - successfully enforcing its puritanical standards onto the rest of us.

This was discussed in this thread a few months back. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46525&hl=smoking)

[Noah]

Bar workers have not exactly been taking to the streets calling for a ban and nor have the public in general.

You must understand, like many other workers, a bar worker is not going to risk their job and their livelihood complaining about smoke nevertheless that doesn't mean they don't dislike it.


puritanical standards

It's not religious or moral in anyway, the point is to protect the worker from harmful substances, why should a non-smoker suffer the effects of someones bad habits?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Noah(pbuh)@December 18, 2006 12:09 pm

Bar workers have not exactly been taking to the streets calling for a ban and nor have the public in general.

You must understand, like many other workers, a bar worker is not going to risk their job and their livelihood complaining about smoke nevertheless that doesn't mean they don't dislike it.


puritanical standards

It's not religious or moral in anyway, the point is to protect the worker from harmful substances, why should a non-smoker suffer the effects of someones bad habits?
Because a person chooses to smoke, just like non-smokers can choose to go into a non-smoking pub; however, I have pointed out before that non-smoking pubs are full of wankers with their families. Just look at Berwers Fayres. To compromise, pubs could create seperate smoking rooms and "family rooms". I'm afraid it is a little on the nanny-state side, because it is part of the relaxation.
And if people do object to it, why do so many non-smokers go to smoky pubs? I've never heard anyone actively support the non-smoking bill in England and Wales.
However, what is really stupid is applying the bill to train stations: a very stressy place. You miss your connexion or your train's running half an hour late when you've been there twenty minutes before you arrive, then you gonna wanna spark up. It's not like everyone on the platform's gonna get lung cancer by you smoking: it's essentially outdoors.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+--> (Invader Zim)Amusing Scrotum; have you ever worked behind the bar?[/b]

Yes. As the saying goes, I are a barman.

And, even if I was particularly bothered about people smoking in drinking establishments, there are numerous other things that need to be addressed. Things that are far more problematic than a few people having a ciggy with their Pint.

Those problems, however, have not been brought up by the various leftists that occupy this planet. No, they've not really said anything about that; they've just enthusiastically supported the States clampdown on personal liberty.


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+--> (CompañeroDeLibertad)What??[/b]

You've still not addressed my very direct question.

You asserted that these were "reforms made on the basis of workers' struggles" and I asked what "workers' struggles" you were referencing. If what you said was correct, then you should have no problem presenting the required evidence to back up your claim.


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
I pointed out that the bourgeoisie has more to lose than to gain by the smoking ban.

Only if you apply a particularly myopic viewpoint to the issue. One which focuses on Tobacco corporations alone ... and not the other sections of the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, as a whole, has a lot to gain out of the ban on smoking ... and the increased policing of human behaviour in general. A worker who neither smokes or drinks, for instance, is a worker who will, generally speaking, miss less days for "health reasons".

And, with the mandatory retirement age set to rise, having an especially "fit" population, becomes particularly beneficial. Indeed, it could be for these kinds of reasons that we are currently seeing so much attention being given to the subject of obesity ... childhood obesity in particular.

Either way, not being "burnt out" at 60, does carry huge benefits for the bourgeoisie. (After all, an extra 10 years of labour from the population, is probably worth more than the turnover of the Tobacco Industry.)

Whether getting people to adopt "better" lifestyles will significantly halt the ageing process, remains disputable. There are other factors, for instance, that cause health problems ... factors that are far more significant with regards people getting ill than whether those people ate 3 pieces of fruit every day.

But, still, the general aim is to encourage "clean living". And, the question for us, is do we wish to support the States attempts to force people to accept certain lifestyles? Or do we oppose such an attack on the personal liberty of societal actors?

(There are other ways the bourgeoisie could benefit, but I've written enough already. And, to be honest, I think the above is the major way they plan to benefit; but that doesn't mean that they will benefit greatly from this. After all, their policy makers aren't known for their collective intelligence...)


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
Yeah, like not dying as a result of a less-than-minimum-wage-job.

Oh please, stop being a donkey.

Generally, when people are said to have died of "passive smoking", this is attributed to "passive smoking". There is no direct link shown ... just a rather ambiguous cause and effect mantra.

(Which is why, for instance, deaths from "passive smoking" are always estimated. Because no fucker can definitively say that "passive smoking" was the direct cause. The smoking gun, as it were.)

And that many Scientists focus on this kind of "lifestylist" approach to health problems, only reflects the biases of the Scientific community. To wit:


Dr. [email protected]
Although smoking and sun exposure are well-recognised risk factors for some conditions, improved understanding of development of the brain and the immune, reproductive, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems leads to the conclusion that other environmental factors play a major role in determining current patterns of disease.

To the limited degree that health care providers address environmental factors at all, most focus nearly all of their attention on personal behaviours, like smoking, substance abuse, or the use of sunscreens. These are more easily addressed by individuals than more complex problems like air and water pollution, hazardous waste sites, agricultural systems that inevitably result in farm worker pesticide exposures, and mercury contamination of dietary fish.

ToxCat: Volume 4, Number 9, May/June 2003.

(You mentioned exposure to Asbestos in your reply, so it's worth noting that ToxCat is produced by the kind of people who campaigned against Asbestos for many years. Indeed, the fella' who publishes ToxCat, was very good friends with one of the leading campaigners from the Scientific field.

In my opinion, it's that kind of grounding which makes what they say carry weight. And that they don't agree with your superfluous individualist stance, says a lot.)


Noah(pbuh)
This makes no sense at all, your point implies that that the majority of the working class smoke, which is totally untrue...

It implies nothing of the sort. What it does imply, is that the majority of people, smokers and non-smokers alike, aren't so petty as to object to someone having a cigarette in front of them.

They are the kind of people who make up the majority of society ... and then people like CDL, who huff and puff about being "poisoned", make up the rest.
_ _ _ _ _

Anyway, that's all I've got to say, because I'm off to the Pub to have a drink and a smoke...

[Vanguard1917]

You must understand, like many other workers, a bar worker is not going to risk their job and their livelihood complaining about smoke nevertheless that doesn't mean they don't dislike it.

If someone can't handle a bit of cigarette smoke, then they shouldn't be working in a bar. It's like a school teacher complaining about naughty kids or a window cleaner complaining about heights.

If you can't handle people smoking, shouting, swearing, flirting and other types of normal drunk behaviour, then you're not fit to work in an establishment that serves people alcohol.

In reality, though, most bar workers are not so annoyed by cigarette smoke that they want it banned. If a few bar workers are taking up the arguments of the government, it's because they have been encouraged to do so by the government.


It's not religious or moral in anyway, the point is to protect the worker from harmful substances, why should a non-smoker suffer the effects of someones bad habits?

Firstly, there's no scientific evidence that passive smoking carries any significant health risks.

Secondly, just because you find someone's 'bad habits' annoying, that doesn't grant you the right to ban them. There are a lot of things that i find annoying. For example, i find smug little non-smokers, who stick their noses up people who choose to smoke, extremely annoying. But that doesn't give me the right to pass a law that makes smoking compulsory for all. I just have to tolerate their annoying little faces and try to get on with my life.

You have to do the same; you have no right to ban something just because it annoys you.

[Nusocialist]

Passive smoking is really a load of bullshit. Most people that die from smoking smoke 20+(usually 30-40+) a day for 20+ years,the idea that passively smoking less than 1 cigarette a day will kill you is a myth.
The thing that the anti-smoking people don't tell you is it's the amount that you smoke that really does the damage.

[monkeydust]

It's really a non-argument. The anti-smoking-in-indoor-public-places crew are so deluded that they often are not even aware that the arguments that advance against "paternalism" or the "nanny state" are really just protestations because they want to be able to smoke wherever they can.

Here's the deal:

1. The vast weight of scientific evidence unquestionably supports the claim that passive smoking can harm health.

2. Bar and restaurant workers have a right not to have their health compromised by others.

3. Therefore, smoking in their workplace should be banned so as to prevent their health being damaged without their consent.

If possible, indoor ventilated areas should be given to smokers in public places to allow them to smoke without non-smokers having the drawbacks. Where not, they should go outside.

And that's literally all it is: having a cigarette outside rather than inside. Get over it.

[Leo]

Now, let's get some facts;

-Cuba is not a worker's state.

-Cuba is not a worker's anything. Workers don't control anything, as in everywhere else, they are wage-slaves.

-Everything you buy in a capitalist system makes a capitalist richer.

-So it doesn't really matter if you go and buy broccoli or cigarettes, you will make a capitalist richer so get over with it.

-It's mostly working class people who smoke cigarettes - this is a fact. Trying to ban smoking is only an expression of the pathetic leftists hatred towards the working class.

-Despite the fact that some people here don't care about this, in some parts of the world, winter is usually pretty cold. Banning smoking indoors would mean forcing all the working class people who are relaxing in a pub to outside to smoke cigarettes where they won't relax and they will freeze.

-It is easier for non-smokers, indoors areas can easily be divided for smoking and non-smoking people.

-Capitalism is shit and we have the right to smoke, now if our dear puritans will excuse me, I'll go have a cigarette.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

-So it doesn't really matter if you go and buy broccoli or cigarettes, you will make a capitalist richer so get over with it.
The anti-smoking argument is based in the scientifically proven fact the smoking harms those around you, not that it makes capitalists richer.



-It's mostly working class people who smoke cigarettes - this is a fact. Trying to ban smoking is only an expression of the pathetic leftists hatred towards the working class.
It also happens to be mostly working class people who live in poverty and are shamelessly exploited by capitalism. Is opposing capitalism therefore "an expression of the pathetic leftists hatred towards the working class"?


-Despite the fact that some people here don't care about this, in some parts of the world, winter is usually pretty cold. Banning smoking indoors would mean forcing all the working class people who are relaxing in a pub to outside to smoke cigarettes where they won't relax and they will freeze.
The logical answer is to quit smoking, or in some cases, not to start. Explain to me how this is illogical.



-Capitalism is shit and we have the right to smoke, now if our dear puritans will excuse me, I'll go have a cigarette.
Ah, the penny drops. You don't support people being allowed to smoke wherever they want at the detriment of those around them because you think it's good for society, because you think it's good for the working class or, really, because you think it's good for anyone anywhere, you support it because it most suits you, because you want a cigarette right now, you don't give a damn about anyone else, and that's all that matters. Figures.

[RevMARKSman]

Here's my little incendiary grenade - Smoke smells awful. Last night when I was eating I was sitting right next to the smoking section (in the non-smoking section) but we could smell everything from the guy right next to us. The whole section system doesn't work.

[Leo]

Here's my little incendiary grenade - Smoke smells awful. Last night when I was eating I was sitting right next to the smoking section (in the non-smoking section) but we could smell everything from the guy right next to us. The whole section system doesn't work.

Actually, when a glass wall with a glass door is used, the section system works very well.


The anti-smoking argument is based in the scientifically proven fact the smoking harms those around you, not that it makes capitalists richer.

Well, as I said, places can have smoking and non-smoking section, divided by glass walls and glass doors. If that doesn't work they can use real walls and real doors and even smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs.


It also happens to be mostly working class people who live in poverty and are shamelessly exploited by capitalism. Is opposing capitalism therefore "an expression of the pathetic leftists hatred towards the working class"?

Haha, is that the best argument you can make? You know that there is no relation at all, yet this is a nice way to dodge the actual question.


The logical answer is to quit smoking, or in some cases, not to start. Explain to me how this is illogical.

Tell that to a proletarian (actually you already did) and see how fast he'll tell you to fuck off for being a patronizing little ****. Who the fuck are you to tell people quit smoking?


You don't support people being allowed to smoke wherever they want at the detriment of those around them because you think it's good for society, because you think it's good for the working class or, really, because you think it's good for anyone anywhere, you support it because it most suits you, because you want a cigarette right now, you don't give a damn about anyone else, and that's all that matters. Figures.

Haha, what a stupid arguement. No mate, I never smoke around non-smokers. That kind-of destroys your arguement, right? Oh, too bad.

[chimx]

restaurants and bars should be run and operated by the restaurant or bar's staff. if they want smoking in their restaurant, that should be their call. if they don't want smoking in their bar, that is also their call.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well, as I said, places can have smoking and non-smoking section, divided by glass walls and glass doors. If that doesn't work they can use real walls and real doors and even smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs.
Well if you want to have ventilated, segregated little corners for smokers in pubs then that's fine. But the separate pubs idea is ridiculous. Why should society spend twice as much on recreational facilities because of your bad habit?



Haha, is that the best argument you can make? You know that there is no relation at all, yet this is a nice way to dodge the actual question.
Well it's just that you seem to be saying that because the proletariat are involved in a certain practice, it is inherently anti-leftist to oppose said practice.



Tell that to a proletarian (actually you already did) and see how fast he'll tell you to fuck off for being a patronizing little ****. Who the fuck are you to tell people quit smoking?
You still haven't explained to me the logic behind your refusal to quit smoking.



Haha, what a stupid arguement. No mate, I never smoke around non-smokers. That kind-of destroys your arguement, right? Oh, too bad.
It wasn't an argument, it was an observation.

[Leo]

Well if you want to have ventilated, segregated little corners for smokers in pubs then that's fine.

Oh, so thou granted us poor proles little corners for smokers in pubs. We thank thee oh great lord ;)


Why should society spend twice as much on recreational facilities because of your bad habit?

It is not just me, it is many other workers. Quite frankly, I don't mind the cold.


Well it's just that you seem to be saying that because the proletariat are involved in a certain practice, it is inherently anti-leftist to oppose said practice.

Ah - so I'll really have to explain what is obvious. Well, here's the thing: most people who smoke cigarettes like it, I wouldn't advise smoking, but I like doing it, so does many others. Yet we don't like being exploited. When you try to campaign to campaign against smoking, will the workers who smoke like it? No...


You still haven't explained to me the logic behind your refusal to quit smoking.

Because I enjoy smoking?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh, so thou granted us poor proles little corners for smokers in pubs. We thank thee oh great lord
Isn't that what you wanted?

Originally posted by You
Well, as I said, places can have smoking and non-smoking section, divided by glass walls and glass doors. If that doesn't work they can use real walls and real doors and even smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs.
There is no reason why that wouldn't work.

Also, you seem to be implying that smoking is somehow strictly a proletarian practice. A blatant lie.


It is not just me, it is many other workers. Quite frankly, I don't mind the cold.
And I already said they can have their corners. So what's the problem?


Ah - so I'll really have to explain what is obvious. Well, here's the thing: most people who smoke cigarettes like it, I wouldn't advise smoking, but I like doing it, so does many others. Yet we don't like being exploited. When you try to campaign to campaign against smoking, will the workers who smoke like it? No...
How is campaigning against smoking "exploiting" smokers? Seriously, that makes no sense. I would advise others against smoking because it harms their health, and if they smoke around others it harms the health of those around them. I would also campaign, just like you, for segregation of smokers in pubs in order to protect the health of those who do not smoke. We seem to be in agreement on this point.


Because I enjoy smoking?
Do you think those who enjoy smoking enjoy it enough to endure the cold outdoors on a winter night?

[RevMARKSman]

Yet we don't like being exploited. When you try to campaign to campaign against smoking, will the workers who smoke like it? No...

I'll use your logic in another way.


Yet we don't like being exploited. When you try to campaign to campaign against homophobia, will the workers who are homophobic like it? No...

Just because workers do something doesn't mean it's somehow "elevated" above criticism or contempt.

[Leo]

Yet we don't like being exploited. When you try to campaign to campaign against homophobia, will the workers who are homophobic like it? No...

I'm sorry, are you comparing homophobia with smoking? Can you just try thinking about your argument? Do you know what you are saying? Do you think lynching a young person just because he is a homosexual is the same thing with just one person who is smoking?


Isn't that what you wanted?

Yes, that's what I want, what I'm criticizing is the way you say it - it's patronizing. No matter what you believe, you are not above smokers, nor are you in any condition to let them have something. Of course your opinion, as everyones, is important, but not more important!


Also, you seem to be implying that smoking is somehow strictly a proletarian practice. A blatant lie.

I'm not saying smoking is strictly proletarian. Smoking cigarettes mostly are as rich folks would prefer cigars but I don't care what smoking capitalists would do - I don't care if they have to froze to death or "poison" other non-smoking capitalists. What I do care about is the condition of the working class, and capitalists will probably be able to have smoking and non-smoking rooms in their houses for their guests.


How is campaigning against smoking "exploiting" smokers?

You misunderstood, I was pointing out the difference between smoking and a worker being exploited by capitalists.


Do you think those who enjoy smoking enjoy it enough to endure the cold outdoors on a winter night?

I've seen many people who do.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm sorry, are you comparing homophobia with smoking? Can you just try thinking about your argument? Do you know what you are saying? Do you think lynching a young person just because he is a homosexual is the same thing with just one person who is smoking?

Aye they're not the same, but her second point is a valid one, i.e. Just because workers do something doesn't mean it's somehow "elevated" above criticism or contempt. This is the point I was trying to make earlier on, but evidently I chose a bad example. Drug abuse would be another example, or religion even.



Yes, that's what I want, what I'm criticizing is the way you say it - it's patronizing. No matter what you believe, you are not above smokers, nor are you in any condition to let them have something. Of course your opinion, as everyones, is important, but not more important!

Ah that was just to wind you up, because you're so bloody adorable when you're wind up ;)


I've seen many people who do.
Then why are you complaining about them having to smoke outdoors?

[Leo]

Aye they're not the same, but her second point is a valid one, i.e. Just because workers do something doesn't mean it's somehow "elevated" above criticism or contempt.

Valid perhaps, but irrelevant in my opinion.


Then why are you complaining about them having to smoke outdoors?

I don't know about you but people can get sick when they spend too much time in the cold.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 01, 2007 12:37 pm

Then why are you complaining about them having to smoke outdoors?

I don't know about you but people can get sick when they spend too much time in the cold.
People also become ill if they smoke too long, not that I advocate these controls on smoking I just don't think "they'll get ill" is a paticularly persuasive argument when discuss people who inhale a variety of poisions voluntarily.

The best way of solving the problem is to have smoking & non-smoking pubs. Although this may seperate some smokers from their beloved local itt's better than herding them off into a corner or shunting them out into uncomfortable positions.

[Vargha Poralli]

Smoking and all its related habits is not in any way beneficial to Smokers or Workers. Not taking the risk of Cancer its usage encourages cultivation of otherwise useless crop(Tobacco) in large quantities which could be supplemented for growing food crops to feed malnourished people in Africa and Asia. I had the habit of smoking along with chewing of Guthka but after analysing the amount of money i spend each month(about 25% of my monthly salary) for them i have discontinued the habit and never took it for about 2 months(dont know how long my resolve lasts :blink: ).

also it is useless to ban the product(Cigarettes,Cigars,Snuff,Gutkhas,Bidis etc) as it will just lead to a black market. But a ban in advertising those products and banning the activity in Public places must be definitely encouraged whether it is done by bourgeoisie states or worker's states or private properties like restaurants etc. People who have those habits must stop that habit and not smoking really saves a lot of money which could be spent on otherwise useful purposes.

[RevMARKSman]

I'm sorry, are you comparing homophobia with smoking? Can you just try thinking about your argument? Do you know what you are saying? Do you think lynching a young person just because he is a homosexual is the same thing with just one person who is smoking?


I KNEW you would say that.

Homophobia harms those around you. Smoking harms those around you (this point can be debated if you'd like). Those are the only relevant attributes here.



Valid perhaps, but irrelevant in my opinion.

In your opinion? Since when do I have to respect a statement just because it's someone's opinion?


Again. I don't advocate government controls on smoking, I'm just saying that yes, it is harmful to those around you, and that should be taken into consideration when organizing an establishment (eg a pub).

[gilhyle]

The passive smoking = health damage claim is far from conclusively proven. Many of the studies are weak. There was, for example, one very large long term study involving 25,000 people done by an entirely independent person which showed no significant passive smoking effect. But even if there is SOME health damage from passive smoking, that wouldnt be enough to ban smoking in work places.

In any case, all that is really irrelevant. The substance of the issue itself is irrelevant. If the smoking ban was the result of of militant action by bar workers I would fully support it. If it was the result of politicians using the power of the state posturing for votes I would oppose it.

The issue itself is not the point, the point is who is using the power of the State.

I am not aware of one militant action by workers anywhere in support of a smoking ban.

I am aware of many other intrusions by the Capitalist State into people's private lives to regulate individual behaviour to facilitate the orderly perpetuation of capitalism and the continued popularity of its hack politiicians.

Nor should we fall for the logic of supporting it because it has good consequences. I have no doubt the smoking ban has significant good consequences....but even the invasion of Iraq has some good consequences, that doesnt justify supporting it.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The passive smoking = health damage claim is far from conclusively proven. Many of the studies are weak. There was, for example, one very large long term study involving 25,000 people done by an entirely independent person which showed no significant passive smoking effect. But even if there is SOME health damage from passive smoking, that wouldnt be enough to ban smoking in work places.
Study (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/315/7114/973?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Law%2C+MR&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=1/1/1997). It's only the abstract, but all the relevant info is there. Also, to say that even if there is some health damage from passive smoking, that wouldn't be enough to ban smoking in work places is absurd. For one, "some" is undefined. Where do we draw the line?


In any case, all that is really irrelevant. The substance of the issue itself is irrelevant. If the smoking ban was the result of of militant action by bar workers I would fully support it. If it was the result of politicians using the power of the state posturing for votes I would oppose it.
It's incredibly juvenile to oppose something on the grounds that it is supported by the state.



I am aware of many other intrusions by the Capitalist State into people's private lives to regulate individual behaviour to facilitate the orderly perpetuation of capitalism and the continued popularity of its hack politiicians.

First of all, I don't see how banning smoking in the work place facilitates the orderly perpetuation of capitalism as an economic ideology. I can see where you're coming from in terms of political popularity, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea.


Nor should we fall for the logic of supporting it because it has good consequences. I have no doubt the smoking ban has significant good consequences....but even the invasion of Iraq has some good consequences, that doesnt justify supporting it.
The negative consequences of the Iraq war far outweighed the positive (which, by the way, are few if existent).

[Janus]

restaurants and bars should be run and operated by the restaurant or bar's staff. if they want smoking in their restaurant, that should be their call. if they don't want smoking in their bar, that is also their call.
The only problem with that is that the workers have no say in it. For reasons of profit, the restaurant/bar owners will most likely always allow smokers in.

Furthermore, I must add that I find it hypocritical of politicians to support anti-smoking measures especially when there are much more dangerous pollutants that could be tackled out there. For example, Hong Kong just banned smoking yet nothing has been done about the constant air pollution problems which require health alerts everyday.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:22 pm
It's incredibly juvenile to oppose something on the grounds that it is supported by the state.


Juvenille it may be, but revolutionary politics is based upon the view that the State is a class State and we view political issues from the perspective of judging their significance for class struggle and not pretending that the State - or we as political agents - can judge what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

Understanding this as a society riven by class struggle is to understand it as a society in which the best interests of society as a whole cannot be conceived apart from an assessment of the implications for class struggle.

Now, in this case, the power of the State is being used to ban smoking from work places (although you will note that no country bans smoking from hotel rooms although cleaners have to work there !!!). The issue is whether the State should be used to force individuals to abandon a behaviour that is only marginally detrimental to others.

I say that the only basis upon which I could concur with that policy is if it reflected mlitant workers' action. As it is, it reflects only an alliance between the puritan lobby and social democracy. I have no loyalty to those people. I have no desire to see them gain political victories or to train society to comply with endless restrictions on individual behaviour.

Wish I was still juvenile - the aspirations of the juvenile are one of our greatest assets.

[Leo]

I KNEW you would say that.

Homophobia harms those around you. Smoking harms those around you (this point can be debated if you'd like). Those are the only relevant attributes here.

Oh, you gotta be joking <_< There are so many things, such as cell phones, cars, coal smoke, all kinds of pollution, wastes etc. that can be harmful to those around you as well as yourself. This is life, it&#39;s not safe, it&#39;s not nice and everyone dies. There is no way you can compare smoking with homophobia, this is a horrible example.

I think the example Janus gave was indeed valid.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2007 08:17 am

I KNEW you would say that.

Homophobia harms those around you. Smoking harms those around you (this point can be debated if you&#39;d like). Those are the only relevant attributes here.

Oh, you gotta be joking <_< There are so many things, such as cell phones, cars, coal smoke, all kinds of pollution, wastes etc. that can be harmful to those around you as well as yourself. This is life, it&#39;s not safe, it&#39;s not nice and everyone dies. There is no way you can compare smoking with homophobia, this is a horrible example.

I think the example Janus gave was indeed valid.
I think you&#39;re right. QED.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Juvenille it may be, but revolutionary politics is based upon the view that the State is a class State and we view political issues from the perspective of judging their significance for class struggle and not pretending that the State - or we as political agents - can judge what is in the best interests of society as a whole.
I agree with your first point about not trusting the bourgeois state to judge what is best for everyone, but saying we can&#39;t even trust ourselves is an odd statement. This is a political website, its purpose is to allow for debate on various issue, and sometimes, the potential good they can do for society. I don&#39;t see a problem with this. We are, for the most part, educated class conscious beings, who fortunately have access to he internet and with it all the facts and information one could ever need for such debates. So I don&#39;t think it&#39;s too pompous of me to say that, even if we may not know instinctively what is best for society as a whole, there is certainly no harm in discussing it. And besides, if we don&#39;t know what&#39;s good for society, and the state don&#39;t know, then who does?



Understanding this as a society riven by class struggle is to understand it as a society in which the best interests of society as a whole cannot be conceived apart from an assessment of the implications for class struggle.
Hmm, I tend to disagree. There are certainly other issues that need dealing with in society other than worker empowerment, and to neglect these issues could have serious ramifications in the future. However, even worse then neglecting these issues would be actively opposing measures brought in by the state to resolve the issues, even when such measures are positive ones.



Now, in this case, the power of the State is being used to ban smoking from work places (although you will note that no country bans smoking from hotel rooms although cleaners have to work there &#33;&#33;&#33;). The issue is whether the State should be used to force individuals to abandon a behaviour that is only marginally detrimental to others.
Well the state is not forcing them to abandon smoking, just in pubs. And yes, I happen to believe that the state has not only the right but the duty to prevent workers in pubs from coming to harm. Have you looked at the study I linked to in an earlier post?



I say that the only basis upon which I could concur with that policy is if it reflected mlitant workers&#39; action. As it is, it reflects only an alliance between the puritan lobby and social democracy. I have no loyalty to those people. I have no desire to see them gain political victories or to train society to comply with endless restrictions on individual behaviour.
I have no such loyalty either, however that does not mean I am going to oppose positive measures brought in by these people.

[gilhyle]

Yea I looked at the study - its a metasurvey of 19 other studies, selected by the author (or others). This kind of study gets published all the time - particularly in areas like this where there is a lot of public interest and easy research money to be got to get paid for reading other people&#39;s studies. But its unassessable, (if there is such a word).

That said, it suggests a 6 percentage higher risk of one medical condition (34% increase). Now its entirely debateable whether that is a sufficient basis for banning something ? For example, if I could show that there is a 6% higher chance of dying from falling in a bath than in a shower (and I bet I could), would you ban baths ?

What worries me about your logic is how it would apply to socialist deputies in a parliament. Elected as a voice of militant struggle, do they vote on issues on their merit or not ? Once you vote for the smoling ban, do you vote monies for the inspectors to regulate it ? And where does it stop....you end up a reformist before the ink is dry on your election posters.

I dont think its always very clear to everyone how radical the Marxist view of capitalist politics is. No rational politics is possible in a class society - that is the Marxist view.

To get dragged into the farce of supposed debate on the merits/demerits of political policies in capitalist society is a trap. In fact all these issues get decided by the State on the basis of class politics and not on the basis of rational assessment of the issues. If you seek what you think is the best outcome, you are forced into alliances with powerful class forces to achieve those results. If you pretend there is a rational debate, you lie about the nature of captialist politics.

Thus the only politics that is possible is the politics of class power. The only basis for a smoking ban being justified is that it promotes or reflects the power of the class who alone are the hope of society.

[Nakrab]

Cigarettes are better if smoked when the butt is wet, the additives condense in the filter and do your throat much more harm.
I advise it&#33;
On that note; who&#39;s a popular communist cigar smoker? Mr.Guevara, and he certianly wasn&#39;t a capitalist.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:36 am
Cigarettes are better if smoked when the butt is wet, the additives condense in the filter and do your throat much more harm.
I advise it&#33;
On that note; who&#39;s a popular communist cigar smoker? Mr.Guevara, and he certianly wasn&#39;t a capitalist.
So the gist of your post is, "Smoke this way&#33; It hurts you more."

Now I see why people smoke, but doing more harm to yourself with no perceptible benefits... isn&#39;t that kind of stupid? :huh:

And what does this have to do with smoking legislation anyway?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think he meant they do your throat less harm...

[Angry Young Man]

-So it doesn&#39;t really matter if you go and buy broccoli or cigarettes, you will make a capitalist richer so get over with it.

The anti-smoking argument is based in the scientifically proven fact the smoking harms those around you, not that it makes capitalists richer.

But you also have a choice to smoke. It is a tad nanny-territory. The "smoking is bad because of health" crew has a similarity with the "it is immoral to have an abortion" crew, as they both cause "harm".



-Despite the fact that some people here don&#39;t care about this, in some parts of the world, winter is usually pretty cold. Banning smoking indoors would mean forcing all the working class people who are relaxing in a pub to outside to smoke cigarettes where they won&#39;t relax and they will freeze.

The logical answer is to quit smoking, or in some cases, not to start. Explain to me how this is illogical.

Because people smoke. And it is hard to give up. And the first tendency of a smoker in a pub is to light up.