No general ban on smoking in bars and restaurants

That analogy doesn't work unless your argument isn't actually for banning smoking but for offering workers protection when working in smokey environments. As BTC mentions such protection could come in the form of air ventilation systems or if we want to get ridiculous, masks of some sort. The analogy only works if you argue that all construction that could possibly hurt the worker is banned. If that's the case then you should be prepared to shut down a lot of labour based industries completely.

actually, that wasn't the point I was making. Air extraction systems are extremely cost prohibitive so would only be affordable to the very largest chains. They are also extremely bulky and could not be installed in small or historic pubs. By insisting on such extraction systems, 90% of pubs in Scotland would have had to close leaving only large chain gin palaces. Nobody thought that a good outcome at all.

Smoking bans within pubs and restaurants is in every way the simplest and least costly option with a minimum of inconvenience and as Scotland shows, once in place - few people miss the old smokiness of the howffs

they've gone flippin mental in the UK nowadays with their anti-smoking
ok, fair enough, ban it in pubs, whatever... but there isn't even a smoking compartment on trains these days
what's that all about, then?

They reckon Roy Castle died of passive smoking, but the guy was playing trumpet and trombone in working mens clubs 6 nights a week for 20 odd years. There is fook all evidence to back up the passive smoking claims, it is more tossers who don't like to sit next to smokers. Anyway, they can go fuck themselves. When the ban comes in, I am opening a bar in my house, smokers welcome, and prices will be cheaper than anywhere in town

Here's a little summink summink about the effects of the smoking ban in NY:


I bet you that the people that were laid off due to the smoking ban would prefer to be working in a smokey environment than having no job at all? Nah...the anti-smoking nazis are right, it's allllllllllllll good!

Going back to that piece I linked to earlier.

Does anybody actually have any friends/relatives who have died due to being exposed to second hand smoke?

If thousands upon thousands of people die of the effects of other people smoking every year, then surely some of the people here must know someone who has died as a result.

Timmeh know's no one who has died of second hand smoke...infact Timmeh knows no one who has had any sort of ill effect from second hand smoke that has been more serious than stinky hair and clothes.

I'm convinced...

Hazza, the problem is, a death by a non-smoker is very unlikely to be linked to passive smoke inhalation. If you die of uterine cancer and your partner smokes, who is likely to think that's the cause and not some other factor? But who's to say it isn't? Unless they get one of the rare cancers that only smokers get, it's easy to fob it off on other causes.

I fail to see why everyone gets hung up on the cancer link and whether passive smoking kills. I know of plenty of people whose asthma is made substantially worse when in smoky atmospheres. Air quality is also a significant factor in chronic bronchitis, lung diease and heart disease. Persistent exposure to poor air quality is deleterious to health whether it results from external pollution (smog, factory smoke etc) or internal pollution (cigarette smoking in a pub/restaurant). It makes absolute sense that when an employee has no personal control over the air they breathe that the employer should seek to minimise the health risk. Why can't you people grasp this?

It also makes absolute sense that these employees know what their work environment is like prior to working there and still decide to. Why can't you grasp that?

Has anyone suggested the government should give businesses an incentive for being smoke-free?

If a business chooses to allow smoking in its establishment(s), they should have to kick in more money for the health care of their employees.

If statistics are to be believed, non-smoking employees who are exposed to second-hand smoke on the job should get sick more often, and stay sick for longer, than non-smokers who are not exposed to second-hand smoke. So the government would have an excuse to charge some kind of health-care tax for the reason that second-hand-smoke-related illness is also a cost burden on the state, with socialized health care.

Of course, the tax would have to be substantial, since what you want is for businesses to see an advantage in going smoke-free to avoid the tax, instead of just hiking prices and paying the tax.

ASH can only link (not particularly strongly either) lung cancer to passive smoking.

That's my point Timmeh. It's easy to find another reason for getting cancer, even just "bad luck".

OK so then banning cigarettes in restaurants and bars and possibly driving a lot of small businesses to the wall is based on an something that has no basis in fact.

Nobody disputes that second hand smoke can be annoying, but where is the evidence that it is the cause of the "thousands of deaths" per year that we are led to believe?

Does anyone have a link to the results of a study that proves that second hand smoke causes a significant risk - maybe one conducted comparing lung cancers of people who have a smoking spouse to those who don't.

I can't find one with actual statistics - just summaries and conclusions. Where did these conclusions come from and why aren't the statistics that form these readily available?

Oh and I hate eating at a restaurant where people are blowing smoke into my face while I'm trying to eat.

And yes, some people are sensitive to smoke and can have breathing problems increased through 2nd hand smoke.

But where is the hard evidence that it causes thousands of deaths and hence that workers in the service industry are a high risk of dying because of it?

People decide whether they want to work in a pub or not, that is the personal control they have. Don't try and tell me that people HAVE to work in smokey atmospheres. If they need a part time job, then they could always work in a non smoking establishment. if pub owners want a smoke free environment, they can make their pub non smoking.

As to...


Your irritating condescending tone is returning

Looking at the website for Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates:


And from their clients list:

Edit:
Other clients of above firm:


'nuf said?

Yeah, both my grandfathers. My smoking grandmothers, on the other hand, lived much longer than my grandfathers. (of course, it is hard to argue that they died from SHS since neither had lung cancer)

So I'm the head of a building construction company, and to save costs I'm going to neglect all forms of safety precautions on my building site. Hell, its going to save me a shitload. So by your logic, I guess its perfectly fine for me to do this, as long as I let the builders know that I run a dodgy site?

Bollox, not the same at all. There is solid proof that if a builder runs a dodgy site, and someone gets injured, he can sue. There is not enough evidence that proves second hand smoke causes anything more than watery eyes, a cough or smelly clothes.

And even if it were the same, if the builders decide to take the risk of working there, more fool them. Why would they not go to another site where bricks are not likely to fall on their heads?

What the fuck are you on about then?? This is typical pish from non smoking evangelists!!

provide a safe environment within reason Hutcho. We're talking about bars, whilst banning ciggs why don't we ban the pizza oven, that's hot and provides unreasonable risk to staff? Shit, ban the dishwashing liquid, one of the staff might drink it, the freezer is cold too, a staff member may freeze in it, ban it. What about all the sharp knives?
It's called being reasonable and accepting there are certain levels of risk for all professions

Because maybe they need a job cause they have no money and will accept the risk because they need to put food on the table? If we had a society like this, we would have the big guys profiting from the unsafe work sites, and the little guys in hospital paying for those profits with health issues. Doesn't seem fair to me.


Because Pizza ovens and knives are necessary for the worker to do their job - cook and serve food. However, I would expect the the employer would be reasonable like you say and provide gloves for the oven instead of making the workers use their bare hands.

The breathing of smoke is absolutely unnecessary.

But it is necessary, it is part and parcel of working in a bar.

Don't want to breath smoke, don't work in a bar.

Don't want to be shot at, don't join the Army.

So what did they die of then? And I take it that there was some evidence that they died of 2nd hand smoke, or you wouldn't bring this up.

And you're kind of indicating that passive smoking as actually worse for you than active smoking - in that your grandmothers lived longer as smokers than your grandfathers who lived with them.


Do you work in a bar, Hutcho?

By the sounds of it, AIE's Grandfathers should have taken up smoking

Using the logic of the argument in your link, one would then conclude that there are absolutely no starving people in India or Africa since none of us know of any. Clearly that line of logic is nonsense as is the belief portrayed here of some pro-smokers that SHS is not detrimental to your health. Also clearly nonsense. I suppose we should just let industrialists pump shitloads of fumes and gases into the atmosphere too? Where's the evidence that that is harmful to us and the atmosphere?


Difference between an Army and a smoky pub is that you can have smokeless pubs, but you can't have a "shooting"-less army. Of course, governments could ban wars, but they would first have to get past those who demand evidence that they are harmful. More seriously though, it is thanks to government intervention up till now, that we don't ALL have to work in smoky environments i.e. have people smoking in offices, etc. Non-smokers in bars should have the same rights as non-smokers in office environments. And if one wants to work in a bar they shouldn't have to accept any avoidable risks just like in any other line of business. What I find strange is that almost everyone I know who smokes actually goes outside in their own homes when they need a fag. Why is it so hard to do the same in a bar?

Oh really?? I can't find the names of any starving people in Africa and Asia?? A quick 5 minute Google netted me the following results. I bet there are hundreds and thousands of other articles, complete with names of starving Asians and Africans available.

Just to prove it, below is a selection

EDIT: I added their names too.

Abdul Rahim
Munni Devi
Yo Man Chol
Rabilou
Matsapi Nyathi

Now the challenge for you is to find 3 names of people who died of second hand smoke - and with some evidence behind it. Remember, some people get lung cancer even if they don't go to smokey bars or live with smokers.


Because noise restrictions do not allow people to congregate outside a bar after 10pm.

Roy Castle. Very famous British entertainer. Died of Lung cancer attributed to secind hand smoke whilst playing his trumpet in jazz clubs. never smoked a single cigerette in his life. That was off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.


from wikipedia.

Is true that secondhand smoke is more toxic?

Yes, it has been scientifically proven that secondhand smokes are more dangerous to health than firsthand smoke. The smoker, who inhales the (mainstream) smoke “filters� it so some degree before exhaling it, but the non-smoker around him/her inhales the “pure� and more dangerous sidestream smoke. Besides the tar and nicotine in secondhand smoke, there are several cancer-causing substances in secondhand smoke, and in much higher concentration than in mainstream smoke. So, the person who smokes in public, around people, is giving himself/herself a lower dose of poisons, and giving his victims (family members, friends and strangers) around him/her a higher and a more deadly dose of poison.

Does passive smoking cause cancer?

Yes, most definitely. Smokers developing lung and other cancers from smoking tobacco is a scientifically proven fact. In the United States, cancer victims of smoking and family members of smokers who died from cigarette-related illness, have sued cigarette manufacturing companies, and have won millions in awards. While they vehemently denied before, cigarette companies today have admitted in public that tobacco causes cancers and other lung illnesses. The courts have likewise ruled in a similar fashion in favor of victims of passive smoking (as in the airline stewardess’ case). In 1986, the Surgeon General of the United States reported that involuntary (passive) smoking can cause lung cancer in healthy non-smokers. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now classified secondhand smoke as a known carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).

I mentioned him earlier, but he is the only one I can think of, AND he is a bit of a special case, he was in smokey clubs for 30 years of his life playing trumpet. So the lungs would be working overtime in extremely smokey environments.

Didn't Roy Castle work as an entertainer in smokey jazz clubs on 6 nights a week for 30 years?

So what would be the chances of someone who works in a bar to get through uni, or whilst they are travelling for a year or 2, developing lung cancer due to the 2nd hand smoke? Even for heavy smokers, it is usually many years (20-30 at least) after they start for health problems actually appear.

[/size]

QUOTE

[size="+1"]Lung cancer and passive smoking at work: the Carroll case.

Woodward SD, Winstanley MH.

Passive smoking is now an acknowledged risk to health and this has given rise to a public health liability for employers. More and more workplaces are becoming smoke free, but past practices mean that there is an increasing number of individuals seeking compensation for health damage caused by passive exposure to smoke. The case brought by Sean Carroll, a bus driver, against his employer, the Melbourne Transit Authority, was the first suit in Australia seeking compensation for lung cancer caused by passive smoking. Evidence at the hearing of the case indicated that there was at least a 75% probability that Carroll's cancer was attributable to passive smoking at work. Carroll accepted $65,000 in an out-of-court settlement. The case should prompt other victims of passive smoking to seek compensation and move more employers to ban smoking from the workplace.

ok, that was three cases. You want any more?

OK - so the doctor says that people get lung cancer even if they have had little exposure to passive smoking

Don't get me wrong. I agree that non-smokers get annoyed by smokers in bars and there are possibly some people who have got cancer from hanging out with too many smokers, but I simply cannot believe that "thousands of people" die from the effects of 2nd hand smoke "every year". I cannot believe that the risk is more than negligible.

I would also not want to work in an office where smoking was allowed. There is no need to smoke in an office and smokers rooms allow non-smokers to not have the inconvenience of a smoky environment. However, a bar is a different environment to an office. I also much prefer not to get smoke blown at me while I'm eating at a restaurant. But if people are willing to put up with it and the business wants to operate in that way, then if you eat/drink there anyway, you know what you're getting yourself into.

If you think more people want non-smoking restaurants or bars, then open your own. You never know, you may find that you've tapped into something profitable.

Where is this from? Please quote the source

Sueing in the States doesn't mean ticketyboo. It is the land where you can sue for spilling coffee on yourself. The link between second hand smoke and cancer is hard to prove. Even anti-smoking groups struggle to provide evidence that there is a direct link.

My point was that if I can't mention 3 names then that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However, there does seem to be evidence that smoking bans lead to less smoking and smokers. I could then name 3 people who have died from smoking.

As for the noise regulations being violated, the question would be how all the other places have coped. Obviously that is something that would have to be taken into consideration.

Junk Science

Jeez.. you guys are really clinging on to your ciggies. Have you ever wanted to quit smoking? Don't you think that would be the best way to do it?

Really, everyone will be happy.

Yes, but that's not the point. Everyone could name 3 people who have died from smoking. The issue is passive smoking. That's what people here want to do - protect workers. And I agree that smoking bans probably cut the number of overall smokers.


In Germany, it's worse. In most countries, the people making the noise are liable. In Germany it's the business that is responsible for the noise levels of the patrons.

Otherwise I wouldn't care less.

It's not 'clinging to ciggies'.

I employ people who work in a smoking environment and I take exception to the claims that I am putting them in danger. So I feel it is my right to defend myself.

But the only real argument you have is the noise pollution as a result of a non-smoking establishment.. which is a very good argument. I don't really think any other defenses for keeping smoking establishments going are justifiable.

Obviously, if you're running a bar, the employees will know that the bar is going to be smokey (especially in the basement), so they are actually putting themselves in danger. It is understandable to keep the bar as a smoking establishment because it is your competitive advantage to do so. That's why it is the state's duty to ban smoking in all establishments so that people in your position don't feel they are sacrificing their employees' health for a successful business.

So let's throw all the environmental legislation out the window and pump tons of noxious fumes into the atmosphere because there's no direct evidence that living in smog-filled city is harmful to our health. And if you don't like living in Sao Paulo, just move to Munich.

Surely headaches and constant coughing is enough evidence that smoking and second hand smoke is not good for you. Do you need a piece of paper before you believe that fresh mountain air is better for you than a smog-filled city air? Oh, I forgot, if I really don't like it, then I may as well give up my job and go work as a goat herder because I have th choice.

So you think smog is caused by cigarette smoke??

Why don't you make your bar a non-smoking one then? Problem solved and you may just find it to be quite profitable...

No. Factory smoke and car exhaust fumes. You missed my point though. I was referring to your constant need for hard evidence when simple common sense should suffice.