Jump to content

Smoking ban


Recommended Posts

No, but being in some kind of boat is (I assume), and all boats are inherently dangerous.

I'm not sure it's so clear cut. If the government can pass regulations that make employees safer -- whether it's insisting on minimum boat size for fishing or banning smoking in bars -- when are they justified in doing so?

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

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't say it's absolutely clear-cut, but there is some fairly clear law at least. In the U.K. Unfortunately, I haven't looked at it for ten years.

 

Reasonable safety is what we're talking about, but the law is much more specific. Maybe I can google it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"All workers have a right to work in places where risks to their health and safety are properly controlled. The primary responsibility for this is down to the employer." Properly controlled, note - not absent.

 

"Your employer has a duty under the law to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, your health, safety and welfare at work." Emphasis added.

 

"What does 'reasonably practicable' mean?

 

This means that you have to take action to control the health and safety risks in your workplace except where the cost (in terms of time and effort as well as money) of doing so is 'grossly disproportionate' to the reduction in the risk. You can work this out for yourself, or you can simply apply accepted good practice." There you go.

 

All this from The Health and Safety Executive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

 

(FWIW I understand your point, but non-smokers cannot choose to opt out of breathing.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

 

(FWIW I understand your point, but non-smokers cannot choose to opt out of breathing.)

 

 

Right thats why I find it crazy that the option is for smokers to stand out on the street and blow smoke at unwilling people walking bye.. When they can go into a isolated room filled with other people who have made the decision to be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That may be annoying, but I am confident that there is zero evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke outdoors poses any health risk whatsoever.

 

Even to everyone thats "allergic" I have heard more people claim this allergy thing.. Granted its gross and an irritant and some people are allergic.. But just because you dont like something doesnt mean you are allergic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont you find it annoying when you walk by a bar and have a cloud of smoke hit you in the face.. Would you be happier if they were inside away from the general public?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking outside annoys me, as does use of cellphones, and the way almost everyone walks, stands and behaves. There you go. Hazardous only to my blood pressure.

 

Nobody has ever been able to demonstrate an allergic reaction to tobacco smoke - in the strict medical sense (you know, histamines and stuff. Professor?).

 

Edit: The unimpeachable Wiki says

 

Historically, all forms of hypersensitivity were classified as allergies, and all thought to be caused by an improper activation of the antibody class called Immunoglobulin E - Teruka and Kimishige Ishizaka were among the first to isolate and describe IgE in the 1960s.

 

Later, it became clear that several different disease mechanisms were implicated, with the common link between these varying hypersensitivities being a disordered activation of the immune system in one way or another. A new classification scheme was designed by P. Gell and R. Coombs[5] to reflect what were then rebaptized hypersensitivity reactions. The word "allergy" was then restricted to type I hypersensitivities, which are caused by the classical IgE mechanism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This cannot compare with the nightmare of being inside with smokers.

How many times did you voluntarily subject yourself to this "nightmare" before the ban went into effect? I'm guessing it was more than once.

I'm no fan of smokers, but really, I've never seen anyone fall into anaphylactic shock, even in the smokiest bars. (Although I've been known to leave bars when the smoke (noise, perfume, music, lack of drunk women) becomes unbearable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness - it was a big problem for me. I often left bars and/or restaurants because of the smoke. In Zurich, where smoking is permitted, this happens to me a lot. We walk in and we have to walk out because I can't tolerate the cigarette 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...