Banning tobacco around Europe

[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 ...

[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.p.../article/6066/
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../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 this

I'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 environment

If 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.