Banning tobacco around Europe

[punisa]

Pretty sure this falls into politics : )
Well, as I'm a smoker and quite enjoy it, I can't discuss the subject without a certain degree of bias, so join the discussion : )

There is "hip" trend in Europe - banning smoking from all closed areas (bars, clubs, schools, trains, airports).
In many countries here people have an age old tradition (somewhat different from the US) to drink morning coffe in a local hood bar with cigarettes n newspapers.
Majority of people who visit these small bars are smokers (trust me). When the law comes into force, these small owners will be even forced to fire extra bartenders or close the whole place down.

Is this stuff ok? I'm very against restrictions. Personally I believe restaurants n bars should/could have separated spaces - smokers n non-smokers. But no... total ban is happening.

Whats funny is that state is pumping tax payers mones into financing tobacco industry ! Can someone please shed some light here?

Propaganda is strong. I don't follow stats, but I do follow real life. I've seen 90 year old smokers, but these fat folk who eat exclusively fast food drop like flys (even in their 20s)!

[Vendetta]

You can smoke at schools?

lucky

[Socialist Scum]

You can smoke at schools?

lucky

He might mean behind the bike sheds at lunch hour. ;)

[BobKKKindle$]

The ongoing trend of banning smoking in certain environments such as bars and pubs is an unacceptable violation of individual freedom. We have the same system in Hong Kong, but most bars have been able to successfully apply for an exception under the plan put forward by the government, which means they have the legal right to tolerate smoking until the ban comes into full effect with no exceptions whatsoever in a few years time. There is currently a lack of scientific evidence to conclusively show that second-hand smoke poses a real danger, including a higher possibility of lung cancer - and in fact, in Hong Kong, it has consistently been proven that walking down a busy street in the middle of the day poses a greater risk than spending the entire evening in the company of someone who is smoking continuously. In addition, there is also no evidence to show that the ban will allow the government to achieve its stated objective - reducing the prevalence of smoking, especially in younger age groups. The Health Survey for England shows, has seen an increase in cigarette consumption among males aged 18-34, from 23 to 24 percent. The negative effect of the ban with regard to freedom is especially acute for senior citizens due to the strain of having to get up from the bar/table and go outside whenever one wants to have a cigarette and ultimately forces these individuals to remain at home instead of being to enjoy themselves and socialize with others.

[duffers]

So those of us who don't smoke nor want to emulate it by second hand smoke, our opinion on the matter is moot?

[Bilan]

^^ Yes. Fuck off.
:p

But seriously. As the OP said, there should be separate smoking and non-smoking areas, not a total ban.
But if your opinion is that smoking should be banned from everywhere, then yes, you're opinion really is moot.

[RaiseYourVoice]

He might mean behind the bike sheds at lunch hour. ;)
In Germany you were able to smoke on most school yards from the age of 16. Officially that is. In practise it was everyone was alowed to smoke.

While i see the banning of smoking practially everywhere to be an attack on our freedom, i do see some advantages. First an most important working at a bar gets a lot nicer. Second when going to a bar i can actually breeze and can use my clothes next day too since they dont stink like shit. Especially for my girlfriend its really nice, rooms full of smoke keep her from breezing properly so in that case SHE has to go outside all 20-30 minutes. I find the best solution to be a special smokers room, but in my city you are good of if you can afford a 1 room bar, 2 are unaffordable. In the end i dont like moralistic bans (school yard? in train stations (the ones outside, not underground)?) the smoking ban in bars is certainly nice though.

That said, in my state we have the hardest smoking laws in germany... with one exception: Smokers Clubs with a members list. The smoking ban held on for 2 weeks, nowadays i am member of around 10 Smokers Clubs, though being a non-smoker.....

[duffers]

That's not my stance at all, however I don't wish to compromise with areas in places; that just results in a somewhat smoky place, as opposed to a very smoky place. My clothes still stink, I still feel like shit, and I don't see why a simple smoke outside is huge grief, considering it's fucking horrendous to be near someone smoking if you don't do it yourself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm of the opinion that the decision of whether or not to allow smoking should be up to the establishment in question. Even before the smoking ban in the UK, there were plenty of places that prohibited smoking.

The stupid thing is that the smoking ban even prevents establishments setting aside a well-ventilated room purely for smokers if they have the desire and means to do so.

I wonder if French airlines still have smoking bars?

[RedSonRising]

To me the real problem is the aspect of addiction in smoking. Tabacco is hazardous for ones health sure, but banning many of the other ingredients and chemicals in the average company cigarette is much more important. One may choose to smoke and live a certain lifestyle, but the nicotine aspect takes away that so called autonomy of the individual, and im sure much of that tar and other crap is not necessary. To me such a practice in cigarettes represents the most evil of capitalism, kiing costumers for profit. Without the aspect of addiction, I think smoking and non smoking sections are fine.

[Josef Balin]

I don't follow stats, but I do follow real life. I've seen 90 year old smokers, but these fat folk who eat exclusively fast food drop like flys (even in their 20s)!
Then you don't follow anything at all and just typed an extra paragraph to try to insinuate that the bourgeois are using propaganda at their own behest.


Smoking is the direct reason 26% of all people in the developed world die. It is a cancer on humanity that should have as much legislation put against it as possible, except restricting the sale of it, because it's not my right to choose what you can and cannot put in your body.

[Angry Young Man]

I hope I can trust myself to manifest my opinion in a totally unbiased and rational manner. There was completely no point in completely outlawing smoking in enclosed areas. Using the example of pubs, a large contingent of customers smoked, and this was accepted by non-smokers. As for train stations, they're not even enclosed and had specific non-smoking lounges for people who were nazis/asthmatic.
Bastards :glare:

[Angry Young Man]

Everyone join the facebook group 'I bet we can find 1m people who DO want smoking back in pubs'

[lombas]

Smoke is very unpleasant. Smoking (also passively) has a substantial effect on the chances of getting cancer, lung diseases, &c.

It's no game people.

[butterfly]

Maybe they'll realize at some point that the health of the community would be improved to a greater extent were they to ban coal-fired power stations.
Because the shit we breath in that we can't see is not doing us any harm...right?

[Vanguard1917]

I'm of the opinion that the decision of whether or not to allow smoking should be up to the establishment in question.

But that would be giving grown men and women -- people who are regarded by the government as being incapable to make decisions on such trivial matters as whether they want to smoke or go to a place where people smoke -- the freedom to choose for themselves.

Perish the thought.


The ongoing trend of banning smoking in certain environments such as bars and pubs is an unacceptable violation of individual freedom. We have the same system in Hong Kong, but most bars have been able to successfully apply for an exception under the plan put forward by the government, which means they have the legal right to tolerate smoking until the ban comes into full effect with no exceptions whatsoever in a few years time. There is currently a lack of scientific evidence to conclusively show that second-hand smoke poses a real danger, including a higher possibility of lung cancer - and in fact, in Hong Kong, it has consistently been proven that walking down a busy street in the middle of the day poses a greater risk than spending the entire evening in the company of someone who is smoking continuously. In addition, there is also no evidence to show that the ban will allow the government to achieve its stated objective - reducing the prevalence of smoking, especially in younger age groups. The Health Survey for England shows, has seen an increase in cigarette consumption among males aged 18-34, from 23 to 24 percent. The negative effect of the ban with regard to freedom is especially acute for senior citizens due to the strain of having to get up from the bar/table and go outside whenever one wants to have a cigarette and ultimately forces these individuals to remain at home instead of being to enjoy themselves and socialize with others.

Yep. Smoking bans are an affront to liberty and an expression of our rulers' paternalistic desire to control public behaviour. The modern state is interfering in our lives in ways that in previous periods would have been thought unthinkable, even for the most authoritarian of governments. And while the 'science' behind such bans are no doubt frequently flawed, which we should expose, that is still somewhat besides the point, which is one of defending freedoms.

[ComradeOm]

But that would be giving grown men and women -- people who are regarded by the government as being incapable to make decisions on such trivial matters as whether they want to smoke or go to a place where people smoke -- the freedom to choose for themselves.No, that would be be giving employers the freedom to choose for themselves

It never fails to amaze me that every time this topic comes up good and honest Marxists start bleating on about "personal liberties" like some middle class liberal. In most countries, and I can refer first hand to Ireland, bans on smoking in the workplace have been introduced as part of health and safety legislation in order to make working conditions more tolerable. Now I have no doubt that neo-puritans are pleased with the developments but frankly I don't give a damn if it means that bar staff are not spending eight hours in such an unpleasant environment

And it is very unpleasant to do a shift in a small pub where there is a permanent cloud hovering just above your head. I'm only sorry that this legislation wasn't in place during my time behind the bar and the feedback I've had from friends still on the job has been uniformly positive

I mean, come on. Reading some of the reactions in this thread you'd think that health and safety legislation - perhaps property developers should be allowed decide if their workers wear hardhats, or have "hardhat" and "hardhat-free" sites? - was the first step on the road to fascism. Let's look beyond our own habits and at the people that this really affects


Everyone join the facebook group 'I bet we can find 1m people who DO want smoking back in pubs'You won't find them in Ireland. The vast majority of the people (smoker and non-smoker) approve of the ban. In fact the only group that has consistently lobbied against it are the publicans

[punisa]

What about alcohol?
- it makes you live significantly shorter
- kills huge amounts of people (drunk driving)
- destroys families (use your imagination)
Let's ban it then.

What about industrial zones?
- pollutes the air (and land and water)
- cause numerous diseases to workers and people living in the areas
Let's ban it then.

You'd probably find tons of other stuff worth of banning.
Hey, the pc monitor permanently hurts your eyes people - let's ban it !

In this day and age when we are stuffed with chemical substituted manure that some call "food", people are worried about 2.hand smoke.

Economies in African countries, like Ghana, are suffering because EU won't import products such as bananas. Why? Because they're not the same shapes and sizes. :scared:
Who'll ban that? Who'll ban the shit they sell you in the shopping mall which you must eat in order to survive?

Number of sick and dying of cancer is hugely increasing in the couple of past years - something NEEDS to be done. Ok, let's ban the tobacco (and wait to for the numbers).
What about ASPARTAM, a cool chemical substitute for sugar in your Coca Cola "Zero" which is proven to cause dementia?

Hey, we could do a race. I'll smoke a pack a day, and you drink two bottles of Coke. First one who dies loses ! :glare:
Oh.. yeah, I'm addicted and I need my smokes, whille you can live without your favorite beverage (yeah right)

BTW, I'm not propaganda/conspiracist, I'm just laying down my arguments as to why this action is direct attack on one's liberty and freedom.
No backslash and no protests on tobacco ban mean one thing - state(s) have become so powerful and mastered slick manoeuvring that soon (maybe in a few years) they'll continue to practise such fascist methods.

Think about it. If there is 60% of smokers in a country, and not a single person argues when the state changes his/hers lifestyle by force - this is scary part.
Half a century back there was a same thing, virtually no-one argued, but the government was not banning tobacco, it was banning people - jews.

Have a nice day : )

[Vanguard1917]

And it is very unpleasant to do a shift in a small pub where there is a permanent cloud hovering just above your head. I'm only sorry that this legislation wasn't in place during my time behind the bar and the feedback I've had from friends still on the job has been uniformly positive

The primary motivation behind the ban had very little to do with improving workplace conditions. The ban was motivated by the government's desire to attack smoking itself, in line with its other policies of increasing taxation on tobacco, restricting tobacco advertising, putting "health warnings" on tobacco products, pictures of dead and deformed people (see (http://www.phwarnings.com/images/what-you2.jpg)), etc.

If the motivation was indeed to improve working conditions for bar workers, there are various other measures which could have been implemented, such as installing more advanced ventilation systems and prohibiting smoking by the bar till. An outright ban was merely a sign of the government's opposition to the practice of smoking itself.

Also, it should be added that bars aren't meant to be centres of health and safety. A bar is a place where people often go to get drunk, smoke, and wind down. Bars are places where people shout, swear, flirt, and sometimes act like pillocks. Bars are adult environments, and this is generally recognised by the staff who work in them. If you can't tolerate the environment of a bar, then you're simply not fit to work in it.

But the smoking ban came from above, not below. It was a government-led initiative, an expression of government disapproval of public behaviour, and an attempt to dictate it. In that, it was successful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To me the real problem is the aspect of addiction in smoking. Tabacco is hazardous for ones health sure, but banning many of the other ingredients and chemicals in the average company cigarette is much more important. One may choose to smoke and live a certain lifestyle, but the nicotine aspect takes away that so called autonomy of the individual, and im sure much of that tar and other crap is not necessary. To me such a practice in cigarettes represents the most evil of capitalism, kiing costumers for profit. Without the aspect of addiction, I think smoking and non smoking sections are fine.

The same argument could be made for alcohol.


Smoking is the direct reason 26% of all people in the developed world die. It is a cancer on humanity that should have as much legislation put against it as possible, except restricting the sale of it, because it's not my right to choose what you can and cannot put in your body.

What about my right to associate with other smokers?


Smoke is very unpleasant.

That's your opinion. Nobody is forcing you to go to a bar or pub where smoking is allowed.


Smoking (also passively) has a substantial effect on the chances of getting cancer, lung diseases, &c.In the case of someone choosing to smoke, that's entirely their business. In the case of passive smoking, let's just say the evidence for significant harm is somewhat lacking.


I mean, come on. Reading some of the reactions in this thread you'd think that health and safety legislation - perhaps property developers should be allowed decide if their workers wear hardhats, or have "hardhat" and "hardhat-free" sites? - was the first step on the road to fascism. Let's look beyond our own habits and at the people that this really affects

And that somehow justifies a complete and total ban, not even allowing for seperate ventilated rooms which members of staff enter at their own discretion?

Bullshit.

[lombas]

Wow. What an incredible Libertarian logic people use in this thread. It makes me kinda upset.

[ComradeOm]

If the motivation was indeed to improve working conditions for bar workers, there are various other measures which could have been implemented, such as installing more advanced ventilation systems and prohibiting smoking by the bar tillA recipe for nothing but confusion. It would have been a nightmare to enforce and forced unacceptable capital costs on many publicans. I don't particularly give a damn about the latter but it would have provided an obvious cop-out for them. And I am resolutely opposed to the implementation of health and safety regulations being decided on the whims of employers. This was one reason why a total ban was the favoured solution for all relevant unions in Ireland (specifically MANDATE and the ICTU. See below for links)

Frankly that should tell you everything you need to know about the Irish case - it was opposed by the publicans (in the form of the Vintners Federation) and supported by the unions


Also, it should be added that bars aren't meant to be centres of health and safety. A bar is a place where people often go to get drunk, smoke, and wind downThis about sums up the attitude of every supposed socialist that I've discussed the issue with. Its an incredibly selfish view that is solely concerned with their own enjoyment. The crux of this entire issue is that a bar is a place where people work. Now liberals have no issue placing their own wants above the safety of workers but it always distresses me to see socialists do the exact same


If you can't tolerate the environment of a bar, then you're simply not fit to work in itAnother argument that I despise seeing from those who will talk about "wage slavery" at the drop of a hat. Where else would I get €13 an hour as a kid with no qualifications? And who the fuck are you, a supposed comrade, to tell me to where I should and in what conditions?


But the smoking ban came from above, not belowThe same being true of virtually every health and safety initiative in Europe. That's the unfortunate nature of our political system. In this specific case however the Irish ban was enthusiastically (http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=5138) supported (http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=5307) by trade unions. Its also been proven to be beneficial (http://www.imt.ie/clinical/respiratory/smoking-ban-dramatically-reduc.html) to the health of their members


What about my right to associate with other smokers?I care about as much as that as I do the right of capitalists to own property. If you want to smoke with friends then either do so at home or step outside the pub when you do (hardly a herculean chore). If you want to smoke while waited on by paid staff then you are out of luck in Ireland. Here their rights trump yours

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wow. What an incredible Libertarian logic people use in this thread. It makes me kinda upset.

How about you actually address our arguments instead of spouting drivel about "Libertarian logic" as if it means anything.


I care about as much as that as I do the right of capitalists to own property. If you want to smoke with friends then either do so at home or step outside the pub when you do (hardly a herculean chore). If you want to smoke while waited on by paid staff then you are out of luck in Ireland. Here their rights trump yours

Are you blind as well as ignorant? I already addressed that; it's no skin off the nose of the workers if smokers are allowed to smoke in areas where staff have no obligation to enter, such as specially ventilated seperate rooms for smoking customers, which the smoking ban prohibits.

[ComradeOm]

Are you blind as well as ignorant? I already addressed that; it's no skin off the nose of the workers if smokers are allowed to smoke in areas where staff have no obligation to enter, such as specially ventilated seperate rooms for smoking customers, which the smoking ban prohibits.I dismissed that, and other bullshit proposals, under "a recipe for nothing but confusion". I should have added "and exploitation". What exactly do you think his boss is going to say when a barman refuses to enter a smoking room? Or when a fight breaks out inside this room that the staff have "no obligation to enter"? The fundamental reason that proposals like this were rejected by unions, in favour of a total ban, is that they were judged to be unworkable. But of course you know better :rolleyes:

And frankly anyone who can't get off their arse and stand outside, where most pubs now have shelters or covered beer gardens, for five minutes in order to indulge their own habits will get absolutely zero sympathy for me. Its an incredibly selfish position to take

[Vanguard1917]

This about sums up the attitude of every supposed socialist that I've discussed the issue with. Its an incredibly selfish view that is solely concerned with their own enjoyment. The crux of this entire issue is that a bar is a place where people work. Now liberals have no issue placing their own wants above the safety of workers but it always distresses me to see socialists do the exact same


If we can ban smoking from bars because they pose a risk to bar workers, why can't we ban the sale of alcohol in bars as well? Drunk people in bars and clubs always pose a potential risk to staff. They can cause stress to them and possibly physical injury.

Do you support London Mayor Boris Johnson's ban on alcohol consumption on public transport? Why not? Drunk passangers can be a real pain in the arse for public transport staff, especially on friday and saturday nights. Similar arguments can also be made on a whole range of public activities.

It's not an 'anti-worker' attitude to oppose bans on these activities, since such public activities overwhelmingly involve none other than members of the working class, especially its youth. In reality, it is the authoritarian legislation itself which is directed against workers. It is a top-down neo-puritan campaign to control public behaviour, similar to campaigns of the past, such as those opposed by Karl Marx in the 19th century (see here (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5225/) for a discussion).

[Vanguard1917]

And frankly anyone who can't get off their arse and stand outside, where most pubs now have shelters or covered beer gardens, for five minutes in order to indulge their own habits will get absolutely zero sympathy for me. Its an incredibly selfish position to take

LOL.

I don't want your drunk self causing me annoyance in my public space. Why can't you just indulge your drunkard habits in the privacy of your own home?

:rolleyes:

[Sawtooth]

So no one would have a problem if I went and shot up heroin in a bar, right?

Smoking inside is a tricky issue. I think it's viewed by the population in general as a good thing -- just like taxes on cigarettes. After all, we're just making more money on people who are stupid enough to smoke, right? But at the same time, most people who smoke cigarettes are working class. They are hurt disproportionately by these laws. But that's a bit off-topic...

It's a problem. I think people should be able to smoke cigarettes wherever they want. It can be awesome to smoke inside while eating a nice meal or enjoying a beer. At the same time, you have to be respectful of people who don't want to have smoke around (which, honestly, is me since I quit smoking over the summer). Whatever the answer is, it's a tricky solution. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't really work, since cigarettes are so good at stinking up everything. Smoking and non-smoking establishments don't really work, because then all your friends don't want to go the same place. It's hard.

[ComradeOm]

If we can ban smoking from bars because they pose a risk to bar workers, why can't we ban the sale of alcohol in bars as well? Drunk people in bars and clubs always pose a potential risk to staff. They can cause stress to them and possibly physical injuryYou of course have figures to suggest that drunken customers pose as much of a health risk as smoke? In my years behind the bar I saw less than a handful of cases of serious violence. Certainly not directed against the staff - anyone drunk enough to try that could do little but fall down. On the other hand I was spending eight hours a night breathing in fumes...


It's not an 'anti-worker' attitude to oppose bans on these activitiesIt is when these measures are supported by the workers. That's the fact that you keep on dancing around. Reaction to these measures, from both workers that I know and the links I provided in the last post, has been very positive. Whatever the neo-puritan agenda, whatever the government structures, this has benefited those who work behind the bar. That is beyond question and it is the single most important fact in this whole discussion. If you can't make a tiny sacrifice to accommodate this then what does that say?

One anecdote that I do remember from my earliest days posting on this site (a scarily long time ago) was when some young member complained that a strike by French rail workers was going to interrupt his holidays. He was roundly, and correctly, upbraided for his anti-worker attitude that saw him selfishly elevate his own petty concerns above those of the striking workers. Now I don't consider this to be any different to our own discussion - you are rejecting measures designed to enhance the working conditions of bar staff, and approved by these workers, rather than accepting a very minor inconvenience to your own life (and don't pretend its anything but that)

To be honest it is depressing to see and especially so from a poster that I had long considered to be one of the more intelligent Marxists on this board


LOL

I don't want your drunk self causing me annoyance in my public space. Why can't you just indulge your drunkard habits in the privacy of your own home?Weren't you the one who wanted dedicated smoking areas? :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I dismissed that, and other bullshit proposals, under "a recipe for nothing but confusion".

Oh, what crap! What's so damn difficult about devoting a room to smokers if the establishment feels it to be appropriate?


I should have added "and exploitation". What exactly do you think his boss is going to say when a barman refuses to enter a smoking room?There are already rules against bosses forcing workers to operate without safety equipment etc. Making sure those rules are enforced are the job of regulatory agencies and the workers themselves, through worker actions, whether union-approved or otherwise.


Or when a fight breaks out inside this room that the staff have "no obligation to enter"?Obviously that's a special case. Otherwise I wasn't aware that breaking up fights was the responsibility of bar staff. Besides, if staff have to enter a smoking area enough times to break up fights that it endangers their health due to passive smoking, then I think the establishment has bigger problems than smokers.


The fundamental reason that proposals like this were rejected by unions, in favour of a total ban, is that they were judged to be unworkable. But of course you know better :rolleyes:Because the unions are infallible, and their judgements must never be questioned. :rolleyes: Snark to you too.


And frankly anyone who can't get off their arse and stand outside, where most pubs now have shelters or covered beer gardens, for five minutes in order to indulge their own habits will get absolutely zero sympathy for me. Its an incredibly selfish position to takeAnd bar workers never, ever enter such places? Not even to collect glasses? The promotion of outside areas that are well covered over seperate enclosed and ventilated rooms I find amusingly hypocritical.


So no one would have a problem if I went and shot up heroin in a bar, right?

Well, if society is comfortable enough with drug use for that to happen, I hardly think it would be a problem. I've never heard of someone starting a fight while high on heroin. Alcohol, on the other hand...


It's a problem. I think people should be able to smoke cigarettes wherever they want. It can be awesome to smoke inside while eating a nice meal or enjoying a beer. At the same time, you have to be respectful of people who don't want to have smoke around (which, honestly, is me since I quit smoking over the summer). Whatever the answer is, it's a tricky solution. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't really work, since cigarettes are so good at stinking up everything. Smoking and non-smoking establishments don't really work, because then all your friends don't want to go the same place. It's hard.But not impossible. What's needed is an objective assessment of the harm of passive smoking (good luck with that!), and policies concomitant with that.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is when these measures are supported by the workersThe fact that workers may sometimes support proposals intended to diminish liberty by imposing unacceptable constraints on our ability to act freely and enjoy ourselves does not make such proposals legitimate or worthy of political support. This is not even limited to paternalistic policies but can be expanded to include all reactionary political positions - a significant section of the working class in the UK as well as other developed states currently support migration controls, as shown by the fact that various unions including the AFL-CIO have spoken out in favour of stronger barriers to free movement, and may even possess prejudiced attitudes towards immigrants due to the widespread perception that immigrants are responsible for social problems such as crime and high rates of unemployment, but this does not change the need for socialists take a principled stand on the issue and support open borders. The widespread support for paternalism derives from the fact that we inhabit a society which teaches its inhabitants to assume that the government has the right and competence to make decisions which prevent people from making their own choices, despite the fact that we are all, as individuals, the best judges of what will increase our own happiness and allow us to lead fulfilling lives, whereas the state is only capable of making universal judgments which do not account for the varying preferences of individuals. Socialists should explain why paternalism is never acceptable and participate in all campaigns against state attacks on freedom in order to show that paternalism is an inevitable feature of any capitalist society, and so the only way to safeguard freedom is to overthrow the existing order and create a just and liberating society in its place.

******

Discussions like this reveal a lot about how people understand socialism. For me, the primary objective of socialism is to radically expand the ability of each and every individual to exercise their freedom. The economic realities and paternalistic tendencies of capitalism diminish our freedom, and socialists should always be conscious of the importance of freedom as a component of the human condition.

[Vanguard1917]

You of course have figures to suggest that drunken customers pose as much of a health risk as smoke? In my years behind the bar I saw less than a handful of cases of serious violence. Certainly not directed against the staff - anyone drunk enough to try that could do little but fall down. On the other hand I was spending eight hours a night breathing in fumes...

I am not doubting that cigarette smoke is an annoyance to people, especially to people who don't smoke themselves. But can we ban things just because they are annoying to some?

And you did not answer my question. Do you support, say, the Tory ban on drinking on public transport? If we're talking about the narrow supposed interests of staff, surely the ban is a favourable one for public transport workers and should thus have our full backing?


It is when these measures are supported by the workers. That's the fact that you keep on dancing around. Reaction to these measures, from both workers that I know and the links I provided in the last post, has been very positive. Whatever the neo-puritan agenda, whatever the government structures, this has benefited those who work behind the bar. That is beyond question and it is the single most important fact in this whole discussion. If you can't make a tiny sacrifice to accommodate this then what does that say?


I think it would be more accurate to say that the laws have been passively accepted as opposed to actively supported. This has been the case with a range of recent government policies to increase government meddling in people's lives. How much opposition do you see to CCTV cameras spying on every street in urban Britain? Not much. In fact, many support it on the grounds that it lowers crime and makes the streets safer. But that does not mean that such government intrusion is positive and shouldn't be opposed by principled socialists.

There is a general trend in modern Western societies in which governments are increasing their interference in aspects of everyday life in ways which would have been thought both impractical and unthinkable in previous periods. Partly as a result of the decline of leftwing movements promoting liberty and opposing state authoritarianism, governments have been given the go-ahead to regulate even the most trivial aspects of daily life. We need to oppose such trends, not blindly accept arguments in favour of them.



One anecdote that I do remember from my earliest days posting on this site (a scarily long time ago) was when some young member complained that a strike by French rail workers was going to interrupt his holidays. He was roundly, and correctly, upbraided for his anti-worker attitude that saw him selfishly elevate his own petty concerns above those of the striking workers. Now I don't consider this to be any different to our own discussion


Well, you should, because it is not similar at all.

[Dr Mindbender]

The asthmatic in me (which i am ) supports tobacco prohibition, the socialist in me supports countering the social factors that motivate people to smoke in the first place.

Thats all i have to add, really. :(

[PoWR]

Smoking is unique in that to partake in it you must endanger the health of everyone around you. Drinking is not the same, nor is shooting heroin, snorting coke or anything else. Those kinds of analogies don't work.

Having worked in a formerly smoke filled environment for several years, I fully support the banning of smoking in public places. I don't know a single coworker who doesn't.

Claims that workers who don't like it should just "go find another job" echo right-libertarian arguments heard on news radio in the United States.

Saying workers in bars should accept that there will be smoke is no different from saying workers in coal mines should accept that there will be coal dust.

Elevating your want and desire to smoke above the good of people you are around is individualist and selfish and is the kind of attitude and outlook we should be fighting against. If you want to smoke go ahead, but don't make me breathe it because I have to work or I want to have a drink. Take it somewhere private where only you and other people who want to breathe in smokes are.

[Vanguard1917]

Smoking is unique in that to partake in it you must endanger the health of everyone around you. Drinking is not the same, nor is shooting heroin, snorting coke or anything else. Those kinds of analogies don't work.

But drunk people are potentially hazardous to bar staff as well. If bar customers did not get so drunk, bar workers would certainly enjoy easier shifts. Should we therefore support state restrictions on alcohol consumption in bars?

[PoWR]

Potentially and necessarily are not the same. If I drive my car, I might hit someone and kill them. If I smoke, I will expel hazardous smoke into the air. Understand?

[Vanguard1917]

Potentially and necessarily are not the same. If I drive my car, I might hit someone and kill them. If I smoke, I will expel hazardous smoke into the air. Understand?

OK, but if you agree that bar workers would enjoy easier shifts if bar customers' alcohol consumption was lower, you would surely support state restrictions on alcohol consumption... going by your previous line of reasoning.

[PoWR]

You can keep trying to make the comparison as many times as you'd like, but it's never going to work.

The funny thing is that even right-libertarians say "my freedom ends where it begins to infringe on your freedom." Some of our comrades are apparently even more prone to rugged individualism than self-proclaimed individualists.

[PoWR]

By the way, just because the state enforces something doesn't always mean it is a repressive measure aimed at working people. Of course the state serves the interests of the capitalists. That should go without saying. But sometimes events occur that cause the state to enact rules that workers want (like safety requirements in coal mines). Those sorts of things are all temporary and subject to overturn, poorly enforced (if at all) and the like. But the fact remains.

[Vanguard1917]

You can keep trying to make the comparison as many times as you'd like, but it's never going to work.

Why? You haven't explained the difference.

If you're going make attempts to win socialist support for increased bourgeois state regulation of the daily behaviour of workers -- how they spend their time outside of work, no less -- you're going to need far stronger arguments than the one which you have presented.

[ComradeOm]

Because the unions are infallible, and their judgements must never be questioned. :rolleyes: Snark to you tooOf course. You know better than the unions. You know better than the workers. You - who I suspect smokes and has never pulled a pint in his life - you have no agenda. Well you've convinced me...


And bar workers never, ever enter such places? Not even to collect glasses? The promotion of outside areas that are well covered over seperate enclosed and ventilated rooms I find amusingly hypocritical...however I'd be slightly more confident in your judgement if you were able to differentiate between 'inside' and 'outside'


I am not doubting that cigarette smoke is an annoyance to people, especially to people who don't smoke themselves. But can we ban things just because they are annoying to some?Now I know that you'll dispute any official studies and frankly I don't care to waste time slinging statistics. Anyone who has worked behind a bar, smoker or non-smoker, will tell you that spending eight hours in that shit is bad for you

And again, I'd expect everyone here to go out of their way, as far as is possible, to make life easier for a fellow worker. If its something that annoys the staff then why persist with it? Liberals can get away with that in the name of abstract rights but I'd expect socialists to show more consideration


And you did not answer my question. Do you support, say, the Tory ban on drinking on public transport? If we're talking about the narrow supposed interests of staff, surely the ban is a favourable one for public transport workers and should thus have our full backing?That depends entirely on whether it has the support of the workers involved. If so then I'd be more than willing to ignore my God-given-right-to-drink-on-public-transport in order to make their job easier and safer. Even if it does cause Locke to spin in his grave


I think it would be more accurate to say that the laws have been passively accepted as opposed to actively supportedMANDATE was very active in the political and media sphere during the consultations and coverage prior to the implementation of the ban. They, and the ICTU, were active advocates of it


Well, you should, because it is not similar at all. Really? The only difference I see is that that young poster did not have the sense to hide behind some abstract notion of rights. And as far as I'm concerned the right to a safe and healthy workplace is of far more importance than your "right" to smoke where you wish



Discussions like this reveal a lot about how people understand socialism. For me, the primary objective of socialism is to radically expand the ability of each and every individual to exercise their freedomWell fair enough, at least you are honest about it. Personally I think that qualifies you more as a anarcho-capitalist, or some strain of US libertarianism, but your position on smoking is consistent with that logic

Personally the only rights I care about are worker rights and those measures that further benefit the proletariat. What attracted me to socialism, and Marxism in particular, was the realisation that the destruction of capitalism was necessary to see these maximised

[ComRev]

Personally I believe restaurants n bars should/could have separated spaces

When both areas are in the same room, but seperated, passive smoking can occur as smoke doesnt just stop at the non-smoking sign!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course. You know better than the unions.

Strawman. Just because I think the unions are capable of making bad decisions, doesn't mean I think I "know better" than them.


You know better than the workers.Again, you are misrepresenting my position. Genuine progress is won by worker's struggle, not through neo-puritan government legislation that is rubber-stamped by compliant unions.


You - who I suspect smokes and has never pulled a pint in his life - you have no agenda. Well you've convinced me...And for a change of pace, an appeal to motive fallacy, compounded with some special pleading.


...however I'd be slightly more confident in your judgement if you were able to differentiate between 'inside' and 'outside'If tobacco smoke is as harmful as it's claimed to be, then it makes no damn difference, especially since outside areas are often covered over and/or have windbreaks.

[Vanguard1917]

That depends entirely on whether it has the support of the workers involved. If so then I'd be more than willing to ignore my God-given-right-to-drink-on-public-transport in order to make their job easier and safer. Even if it does cause Locke to spin in his grave



This is populist opportunism, not Marxism.

In the hypothetical scenario that transport workers did support greater policing of buses and trains on the grounds that it would make their jobs easiers, Marxists certainly would not tail-end such sentiment, but talk about the need to take a stand against it. We certainly would not support the demands.

The fact that you refer to opposition to increased policing of public life as 'liberalism' reveals the confusion from which you're suffering. Marxists are the most ardent and consistent opponents of calls to increase police presence into working class life.

You, on the other hand, suppport police being given powers to arrest workers in a pub for doing absolutely nothing wrong apart from trying to enjoy a ciggie with a drink. If that's socialism, i'm not a socialist.

[punisa]

You, on the other hand, suppport police being given powers to arrest workers in a pub for doing absolutely nothing wrong apart from trying to enjoy a ciggie with a drink. If that's socialism, i'm not a socialist.

Finally ! Brother, in the statement above you've said it all ! I agree with it 100%, thank you.

[Coggeh]

How about you actually address our arguments instead of spouting drivel about "Libertarian logic" as if it means anything.



Are you blind as well as ignorant? I already addressed that; it's no skin off the nose of the workers if smokers are allowed to smoke in areas where staff have no obligation to enter, such as specially ventilated seperate rooms for smoking customers, which the smoking ban prohibits.
Actually the smoking ban in Ireland lets pubs etc have "smoking rooms" which are so bloody unreal .Their nice and warm and are completely sealed off (which is good) .

But on a surface level I supported the ban completely and still do even though im a smoker . IMO it was a win for better working conditions and if theirs any smoker out their who feels their "individual freedom" is being violated because of this , I mean come on like ...:confused:

[Devrim]

The smoking ban in pubs was applied to Turkey last year, and was consequently ignored by everyone.

It is a bit like other laws that we have that are the same as in Europe like the one that says you are supposed to stop at red lights.

Devrim

[Mecha_Shiva]

Does anyone know like facts or anything about smoking in a closed building. Like how fast does the smoke dissapate? How far away do the sections have to be away from eachother so that the nonsmoking section does not have any smoke in it?
Because yea, there can be different sections in a public place, smoking and nonsmoking, but there still both in the same enclosed area. The smoke can still float around the air and find its way to the other sections. I would just want to know that when there are seperate sections, that the structure of the building would be able to insure that the nonsmoking section would indeed be smoke free. Like ventalation and high ceilings and a mandatory distance. Because if one half of a bar is for smokers, and the other half is for nonsmokers, the whole bar is still prolly gonna be smokey.

[BobKKKindle$]

Mecha_Shiva, both of these articles investigate the science behind this issue, and show that there has never been a scientifically-proven link between being exposed to second-hand smoke, and facing an increased risk of lung cancer, and even if such a risk does exist, this policy would still be terrible, because it encourages smokers who might otherwise spend most of their time in the company of people who also smoke and hence would not care about being in a room full of cigarette fumes to stay at home and smoke around those who are more likely to be harmed as a result, especially young children:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6066/
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3593/

As Devrim points out, it is interesting that there are some countries where hardly anyone seems to be taking any notice of the ban and it is widely seen as a bad idea, including Hong Kong, whereas elsewhere people are taking it very seriously, and accepting the arguments behind it.


who feels their "individual freedom" is being violated because of thisI'm not a smoker, but I still hate the ban, because it promotes the notion that the government has a right to intervene in the private lives of its citizens and prevent them from having a good time even when there is no demonstrable harm to other members of society. I've noticed since I've moved to the UK that people here are willing to accept unacceptable violations of their freedom because the government tells them that its repressive and paternalistic policies are designed to enhance the wellbeing of society as a whole and pose no threat to individual freedom - especially, I find it shocking that the government shoves its agenda down people's throats by forcing them to sort their rubbish into separate recycling containers, and people are happy to do this. Let's accept this ban for what it is - the government evidently doesn't care about the health of non-smokers or anyone else, judging from the ongoing cutbacks in health provision around the word, instead this ban is based on a moralistic dislike of people who smoke, and is intended to make them stop.

[Josef Balin]

What about my right to associate with other smokers?
What about my right to associate with my friends in a clean environment (I don't really care about this as I live in an all smokers home and grew up in one, but if we're listing stochastic rights I figure it fits).



Smoke outside, for fucks sake. The dilemma of the smoker is that they have to go outside for five or so minutes to smoke, the dilemma of the nonsmoker who wants a smoke free environment is that they cannot go to those places. And building extra rooms just so smokers don't have to go outside is a complete wast.

[BobKKKindle$]

What about my right to associate with my friends in a clean environmentIf you don't want to breathe in cigarette smoke you always have the choice to go to another venue which does not contain smokers, in the same way that, if you don't like the way someone looks, or the way they smell, you always have the choice not to be in their company by going elsewhere, and you don't have a right to force them to leave a particular venue just because you don't want to be near them. It is unfair to expect someone to get up and go outside every single time they want to have a smoke especially if that person is incapable of standing for a long period of time, because smoking is primarily a social activity designed to relax the smoker, and people often enjoy smoking and having a nice drink with their friends at the same time.

In addition, we generally think of smoking as involving cigarettes and other objects which can be carried around, but in many countries the ban also applies to hookah pipes, which obviously cannot be lifted up and moved outside every time someone wants to take a drag, and smoking a hookah is a very popular pastime in the Middle East, and also in western and east asian countries as well - including Hong Kong. This ban would prevent people from enjoying a hookah, because the only way they would be able to smoke and still operate within the constraints of the law was if they smoked outside, which is not an option during the winter, and is not as fun as smoking in a bar environment.

[ashaman1324]

as an annoyed TV watcher, i wish i stopped seeing anti-smoking commercials every few minutes.
as a smoker, i wish i could smoke anywhere.
as a realist, i know this probably wont happen.
ill settle in the middle for a smoking section though.