Banning tobacco around Europe

[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 till

A 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 down

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 you can't tolerate the environment of a bar, then you're simply not fit to work in it

Another 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 below

The 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 supported by trade unions. Its also been proven to be beneficial 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

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 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?

[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 injury

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...

It's not an 'anti-worker' attitude to oppose bans on these activities

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?

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?

[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

Because the unions are infallible, and their judgements must never be questioned. 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 take

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.

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 workers

The 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. Snark to you too

Of 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 supported

MANDATE 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 freedom

Well 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