Smoking ban

[lnr]

Lots of people are talking about the UK plan to totally ban smoking in enclosed public places which was voted through yesterday evening. Most of my friends list who have commented seem keen, though some have reservations. I'm curious as to what those who've not said anything yet feel. Do propogate this as widely as you like. Personally I think it's a good move, though I would have been as happy with the amendment which allowed smoking in private clubs. I do think a total ban in pubs is an excellent step. And no, I don't smoke, though I have in the past been in the "Well... a bit " category. - oh yeah and just to add I am still occasionally tempted if I'm out with one of the few friends who smoke. [Poll #673518]

Comments

Re: Other:

[ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com]

What you said, really. If it wasn't Nanny Blair banning it I'd be a lot happier.

[pir.livejournal.com]

For anyone who thinks that a smoking ban will affect trade in pubs or reduce the number of people going out, the Irish smoking ban has found that these fears there were entirely unfounded there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3763471.stm

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Maybe. I still think in the case of non-smokers they can go into a segregated premise by taking the risk of coming to harm as a result, therefore...

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

You might have a point on racism, I need to think about it more when I haven't been on a late train and the rush hour underground and am not VERY HUNGRY. I stand by my violence analogy however, that's precisely what smoking at someone is - it's directly causing them harm - in effect, it is attacking them with a weapon. Not a very good one in the short term, I'll grant you, but that's not the point.

Re: Other:

[ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com]

Forget for a moment that foxhunting is "ripping poor innocent fluffy animals to pieces" and think about whether you agree with the fact that this is a law that was passed not for pragmatic but for political reasons. It was passed in spite of the fact that it makes no significant positive change to the everyday life of the vast majority of its country's people; in fact it has a negative impact on some small rural communities; it's enormously unpopular with a very respectable sector of the public; in short, its major benefit is essentially to make the Labour party look morally better than its opponents.

To me that's not lawmaking for sane reasons, that's politics gone mad. This government has an extremely disturbing nanny-state attitude in any case: it seems to believe that governments are unbiased and entirely fair-minded institutions which should (can!) be blindly trusted with telling the public the difference between naughty and nice, and the hunting ban is a case in point. I disagree with the hunting ban because I think it's a vile little piece of covert class warfare, disguised as morality by manipulative rhetoric; and it disturbs me, frankly, that our country is currently in a state where that kind of thing gets precedence over genuinely important stuff like sorting out the appalling state our education system and health services are in.

[artela.livejournal.com]

Yup. We already have some employers discriminating against employing people who smoke (North Wales Police for example), so I see no problem with discrimination in the other direction.

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

I commented on this (http://infinitarian.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_infinitarian_archive.html#112411638328079812) last year on my blog. I think it's intrusive, patronising and unnecessary, and (while for the sake of honesty I clicked "Well... a bit"), I really don't think of myself as a smoker.

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

Should add that, thanks to my miserliness in not paying HaloScan for permanent archiving of my comments, the rather lively argument which ensued has now been dissipated on the cyber-winds. The point about bar staff having to work in smoky environments was made, though, and my response was that working in a pub isn't actually compulsory, and that people enter such work aware of the conditions it requires.

Further discussion turned up the contention that some economically disadvantaged people are unable to find alternative work, and I suggested that an adequate governmental response to that would treat the cause (lack of employment opportunities) rather than the very indirect symptom (the presence of smoke in certain workplaces).

[arnhem.livejournal.com]

I'd give it 10-15 years before tobacco is a class C drug.

That would at least move in the direction of greater consistency.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

What's the current law regarding single sex private clubs? Whilst racism may be viewed as wrong, surely there are plenty of cases where discrimination is legal, and isn't necessarily viewed as wrong - people may have reasons for only being with members of the same sex, and we wouldn't consider them sexist.

I'd say that wanting to have a place to be with other smokers for the purpose of smoking is more comparable to this, than racism, since there are clear rational reasons for this (as long as we accept it's not unreasonable to want to smoke), where as race segregation was based on prejudice.

There're plenty of examples where either private clubs or even places open to the public have rules about who is and isn't allowed in, from Scouts disallowing atheists, to shopping centres banning people with hoodies, and people often defend this with the argument "it's private, they can do what they like".

So the question of whether this should also apply to someone setting up a "smoking club" especially for the purpose of smoking is very reasonable I think - racial segregation may be a thing of the past, but there are plenty of more relevant comparisons which are still legal and considered acceptable.

Now, the argument for banning smoking everywhere is to do with the rights of the employees, which isn't a factor in running no-hoodie-shopping centres or single sex clubs. Or white-people-only clubs, come to that.

Re: Other:

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know. That's why I said, in the comment to which you replied but don't seem to have read, "Sure, some people work there, but the smoke should be accepted as one of the job's problems, like heat in a foundry".

Re: Other:

[lnr]

I think the point is that heat in a foundry is something which can't be changed, whereas smoke in a pub is something which can be changed. So that's why they're changing it.

I have to admit that when I did bar work for one summer as a student I didn't really think much about the smokiness. But then I'd never encountered a non-smoking pub back then, so I doubt it occurred to me it could be different.

[mtbc100.livejournal.com]

I should add that I think that the ban goes a little too far, but only a little.

[scat0324.livejournal.com]

Like many other things in life, I believe that people should have a choice.

Sadly there seems to be no way to provide that choice.

I frequent the local JD Wetherspoons, a purpose-built pub building constructed for the company when it had a ventilated zones policy (it now has a non-smoking policy on all new pubs). I assume therefore that the non-smoking ventilated area was designated from the earliest stages and is as good or better than anything that can be retrofitted. There is an entrance straight into this area and the toliets are non-smoking (and accessed through the non-smoking area). Generally speaking only one of us will go to the bar to order during any visit. Despite all this, and the fact our visits are generally for breakfast at about 10 on a Saturday, rather than a really smokey time later, we still end up smelling of smoke for the rest of the day.

Unless you've got any brighter ideas, choice is simply not a possibility and I, as someone who doesn't like smalling of smoke, therefore comes down on the side of a total ban.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

I really do appreciate your point. Personally, I know that non-smoking areas don't work. I just think that some pubs could be non-smoking and other could allow smoking. I appreciate the logistical problems in this, but I'm really trying to find some kind of compromise.
I really do appreciate your point about non-smoking areas being pointless, however :)

Re: Other:

[burkesworks.livejournal.com]

*applause*