Jump to content

Smoking ban


Recommended Posts

I am against smoking bans.. I see the right for people to have a smoke free environment, I wish people would see other peoples rights to have a smokey environment.. People vote with their pocket books in a free society...

 

would you apply that same rationale to other laws and regulations that target public health, like food safety? Why do we need to have a law that requires that food be refrigerated to a certain temperature or stored a certain way. If a restaurant didn't follow the rules and made people sick, people would stop going there, no? They would vote with their pocket books in a free society.

 

 

If the customer is made aware of their practices before eating, then why not.. If they are upfront and say we are serving you spoiled meat and an adult chooses to eat it.. G-d bless them..

 

what if they weren't upfront about it?

 

Daniel has a fair point -- to make an example that we are more likely to agree with, what about cheeses made from unpasteurised milk? Or unpasteurised milk itself. In London I can buy raw milk, and cheese made from raw milk, and wild game and so on, and some of these things clearly have health hazards, and may be banned in parts of America (have I got that right?). My view is you should provide the information and let people decide.

 

(I realize this argument can lead to ridiculous consequences, but as a starting point it seem quite reasonable).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've got no idea whether 2nd hand smoke presents a health hazard and I really don't care. I don't want it around because it smells bad.

 

There is evidence that it poses an almost undetectably small increase in risk of disease in adult non-smokers who live with smokers for thirty years or more.

 

The only bar staff who even have the possibility of seeing a health benefit are non-smoking bar staff (I suppose there are some), who also avoid smoke outside the workplace. And that benefit will be undetectably tiny.

 

This is why it's a quality of life issue.

 

The reason no-smoking as an option for bars was a failure is that in the population of people who are seriously intent on drinking, smokers and non-smokers who don't much care are much more heavily represented than in the population at large. Or someone come up with a better answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel has a fair point -- to make an example that we are more likely to agree with, what about cheeses made from unpasteurised milk? Or unpasteurised milk itself. In London I can buy raw milk, and cheese made from raw milk, and wild game and so on, and some of these things clearly have health hazards, and may be banned in parts of America (have I got that right?). My view is you should provide the information and let people decide.

 

(I realize this argument can lead to ridiculous consequences, but as a starting point it seem quite reasonable).

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but this discussion seems to assume that the ban is intended to have health benefits for patrons. Unless it's quite different from the States, it's intended to protect the health of workers. So, the analogy you're looking for is that it would be okay to provide an unsafe workplace so long as you tell prospective employees that it's unsafe.

 

That doesn't have much legs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, the analogy you're looking for is that it would be okay to provide an unsafe workplace so long as you tell prospective employees that it's unsafe.

 

That doesn't have much legs.

Couldn't it be classified as a hazard of the job. Deep sea fishing in small boats is unsafe. Would it be reasonable to ban it given there are safer alternatives?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel has a fair point -- to make an example that we are more likely to agree with, what about cheeses made from unpasteurised milk? Or unpasteurised milk itself. In London I can buy raw milk, and cheese made from raw milk, and wild game and so on, and some of these things clearly have health hazards, and may be banned in parts of America (have I got that right?). My view is you should provide the information and let people decide.

 

(I realize this argument can lead to ridiculous consequences, but as a starting point it seem quite reasonable).

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but this discussion seems to assume that the ban is intended to have health benefits for patrons. Unless it's quite different from the States, it's intended to protect the health of workers. So, the analogy you're looking for is that it would be okay to provide an unsafe workplace so long as you tell prospective employees that it's unsafe.

 

That doesn't have much legs.

 

But here you are appealing to a further principle -- namely that the asymmetric power relationship between master and servant (to use the English legal term) requires some oversight to make sure that the servant doesn't get royally screwed (to use a non technical term) -- which I would agree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, the analogy you're looking for is that it would be okay to provide an unsafe workplace so long as you tell prospective employees that it's unsafe.

 

That doesn't have much legs.

Couldn't it be classified as a hazard of the job. Deep sea fishing in small boats is unsafe. Would it be reasonable to ban it given there are safer alternatives?

 

only if they are smoking on the boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But remember, Waitressing is the number one

occupation for female non-college

graduates in this country. It's

the one jab basically any woman

can get, and make a living on.

 

 

"You hear this, its the worlds smallet violin playing just for the waitresses" mr pink

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, the analogy you're looking for is that it would be okay to provide an unsafe workplace so long as you tell prospective employees that it's unsafe.

 

That doesn't have much legs.

Couldn't it be classified as a hazard of the job. Deep sea fishing in small boats is unsafe. Would it be reasonable to ban it given there are safer alternatives?

 

only if they are smoking on the boat.

The herring is a luck fish

From all disease inured.

For if he's ill when caught at sea

Immediately, he's cured.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you answered it; being exposed to tobacco smoke is not a necessary part of serving drinks.

Being on a small boat is not a necessary part of catching fish.

 

Though I feel there is some difference between the two I can't identify what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, every work environment is "unsafe" in the strictest sense of the term. That's not the legal test. What is the legal test? Damned if I can remember. But yes, I think your instinct is right. Deep sea fishing involves boats and hooks and lines and all kinds of iffy stuff, which is why fishermen are all missing fingers and eyes. Serving drinks does not involve inhaling someone else's smoke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...