This discussion is closed.
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#101
Report 14 years ago
#101
(Original post by technik)
im aware not all would support it. you've said yourself it irritated you. as they are ones doing the damage, they should be banned from doing so around others. its perfectly simple and benefits everyone in the long run.
But you know that smoke is in the nature of a bar job. A smoke and a drink pretty much go hand in hand. If you don't like the smoke don't work in a bar. I don't like bees because they might sting me so i wouldn't get a job as a bee keeper.

Why should the entire barstaff (in my case) change their habits for me a non smoker. Why isn't there middle ground. If there was a non smoking section (a proper one not the poor excuses that exist now) I could work there and only be exposed to smoke for a minimal amount of time and the smoking bar staff who like the smoke can smoke and serve there. Everyone is happy.

I don't see the problem with proper compulsary smoking areas but a ban is difficult especially given the number of infringements (e.g. high level of tax) already imposed on smokers.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#102
Report 14 years ago
#102
(Original post by yawn)
Only if their eating habits cause a danger to others in their presence.
That's a wonderful mental picture
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#103
Report 14 years ago
#103
(Original post by technik)
its within the context of everyones right to go to and work in places without the threat of health damage. its that simple really
That doesn't work though. If you work on a building site even with a hard hat there is still a high risk, same as being a miner.
Some jobs have more risk than other. Are there any studies that show that bar people (who are non smokers) die from smoking related illnesses more frequently than normal people. If so where is it can I have a link please. Also if this applies to bar staff it would have to be a total public ban because the same would apply to shop people etc.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#104
Report 14 years ago
#104
(Original post by viviki)
But you know that smoke is in the nature of a bar job. A smoke and a drink pretty much go hand in hand. If you don't like the smoke don't work in a bar. I don't like bees because they might sting me so i wouldn't get a job as a bee keeper.

Why should the entire barstaff (in my case) change their habits for me a non smoker. Why isn't there middle ground. If there was a non smoking section (a proper one not the poor excuses that exist now) I could work there and only be exposed to smoke for a minimal amount of time and the smoking bar staff who like the smoke can smoke and serve there. Everyone is happy.

I don't see the problem with proper compulsary smoking areas but a ban is difficult especially given the number of infringements (e.g. high level of tax) already imposed on smokers.
its that "hand in hand" perception that needs to be broken.

why should they change? because they are ones causing the problem!

with health there isnt a middle ground really. you either have the smoke in your lungs or you dont. i'd prefer, and i think a vast majority would prefer, not to have to breath in that crap. so, ban it.

howard et al can cry foul to the cows come home. fact is it's their dirty habit and it shouldnt be tolerated. they can carry on their tripe about it funding the nations health service if it'll make them sleep better at night. they'll be "sleeping" a lot earlier than me i hope.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#105
Report 14 years ago
#105
(Original post by viviki)
That doesn't work though. If you work on a building site even with a hard hat there is still a high risk, same as being a miner.
Some jobs have more risk than other. Are there any studies that show that bar people (who are non smokers) die from smoking related illnesses more frequently than normal people. If so where is it can I have a link please. Also if this applies to bar staff it would have to be a total public ban because the same would apply to shop people etc.
as i mentioned earlier in some jobs there is just an inherent danger that can not be avoided. this isnt the case of some lazy smokers who cant be arsed to go outside. this is easily avoided. there is the crucial difference

i guess i have this ideal that people shouldnt be allowed to intentionally damage themselves, let alone others.
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#106
Report 14 years ago
#106
(Original post by technik)
as i mentioned earlier in some jobs there is just an inherent danger that can not be avoided. this isnt the case of some lazy smokers who cant be arsed to go outside. this is easily avoided. there is the crucial difference
If banning smoking in pubs will lead to a severe depression in trade then it is a necessary risk.


Why is there no middle ground for you on this?
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#107
Report 14 years ago
#107
(Original post by technik)
its that "hand in hand" perception that needs to be broken.

why should they change? because they are ones causing the problem!

with health there isnt a middle ground really. you either have the smoke in your lungs or you dont. i'd prefer, and i think a vast majority would prefer, not to have to breath in that crap. so, ban it.

howard et al can cry foul to the cows come home. fact is it's their dirty habit and it shouldnt be tolerated. they can carry on their tripe about it funding the nations health service if it'll make them sleep better at night. they'll be "sleeping" a lot earlier than me i hope.

Not if they are happy to serve smokers and smoke themselves.

Why its not affecting you then.

And where is your proof that bar staff are adversely affected by smoking I've never seen any scientific evidence of that.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#108
Report 14 years ago
#108
(Original post by viviki)
If banning smoking in pubs will lead to a severe depression in trade then it is a necessary risk.


Why is there no middle ground for you on this?
i dont do middle ground. its half assed and serves no-one. just a principle.

and as an asthmatic i know the effect it has. why should i, or anyone else, for example feel they can not go into a bar or wherever because a minority of gits want to smoke?
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#109
Report 14 years ago
#109
(Original post by viviki)
adversely affected by smoking I've never seen any scientific evidence of that.
do some reading and then work out the simple maths
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#110
Report 14 years ago
#110
It does serve people. Because we could have bars with decent compulsary smoking areas. There is a bar I go to in Bradford that has a non smoking floor with its own bar and I can go out all night without even a sniff of a cigarette. I'm having a good night out and so are the smokers downstairs who are only damaging their own lungs. If you were barstaff and got to work in the nonsmoking part and the barstaff downstairs were perfectly happy what would be the problem.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#111
Report 14 years ago
#111
(Original post by viviki)
But you know that smoke is in the nature of a bar job. A smoke and a drink pretty much go hand in hand. If you don't like the smoke don't work in a bar. I don't like bees because they might sting me so i wouldn't get a job as a bee keeper.

Why should the entire barstaff (in my case) change their habits for me a non smoker. Why isn't there middle ground. If there was a non smoking section (a proper one not the poor excuses that exist now) I could work there and only be exposed to smoke for a minimal amount of time and the smoking bar staff who like the smoke can smoke and serve there. Everyone is happy.

I don't see the problem with proper compulsary smoking areas but a ban is difficult especially given the number of infringements (e.g. high level of tax) already imposed on smokers.

"..a ban is difficult especially given the number of infringemnets (e.g. high level of tax) already imposed on smokers"

The tax that smokers pay is irrelevant to this particular aspect of the ban. Like Ireland, we need to prepare people for the ban giving them time to adjust to the idea that from a given date, smoking will no longer be allowed in certain places.

Officers have to be appointed and trained to deal with reports of infringements. A report line has to be set up so as people can report those infringing the law. Publicans are the 'front' line' in enforcing the ban on their premises and have to have a support network in place to help them with enforcement. There will also have to be fines for publicans that fail to stop their customers from smoking, as well as the smokers themselves.

It's a bit like enforcing the wearing of seat belts. People soon got used to doing it and now it is a natural procedure when one gets into a car. There were protests galore on the grounds of 'choice' when the law was first introduced. Where are the protesters now?
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#112
Report 14 years ago
#112
(Original post by technik)
do some reading and then work out the simple maths

There have never been any studies so I don't think you can assume it.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#113
Report 14 years ago
#113
(Original post by viviki)
It does serve people. Because we could have bars with decent compulsary smoking areas. There is a bar I go to in Bradford that has a non smoking floor with its own bar and I can go out all night without even a sniff of a cigarette. I'm having a good night out and so are the smokers downstairs who are only damaging their own lungs. If you were barstaff and got to work in the nonsmoking part and the barstaff downstairs were perfectly happy what would be the problem.
there would be no problem i agree.

but are all bars like that in terms of design and structure?
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#114
Report 14 years ago
#114
(Original post by viviki)
There have never been any studies so I don't think you can assume it.
perhaps one of the medical students will appear with some evidence, perhaps as you say there havent been any studies.

i'd be fairly confident in my bet though that its a logical assumption on my part
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#115
Report 14 years ago
#115
(Original post by technik)
there would be no problem i agree.

but are all bars like that in terms of design and structure?
No but i think it would be possible to initiate a system where pubs have a choice they either provide an adequate smoking area (this would have specific regulations) or they become non smoking. THen there are some non smoking pubs and none of the pubowners can say that smoking has cost them revenue because they have the choice to change. If there is only one bar it would be in the non smoking area. Most pubs have more than one room so this could be arranged.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#116
Report 14 years ago
#116
(Original post by yawn)
"..a ban is difficult especially given the number of infringemnets (e.g. high level of tax) already imposed on smokers"

The tax that smokers pay is irrelevant to this particular aspect of the ban. Like Ireland, we need to prepare people for the ban giving them time to adjust to the idea that from a given date, smoking will no longer be allowed in certain places.

Officers have to be appointed and trained to deal with reports of infringements. A report line has to be set up so as people can report those infringing the law. Publicans are the 'front' line' in enforcing the ban on their premises and have to have a support network in place to help them with enforcement. There will also have to be fines for publicans that fail to stop their customers from smoking, as well as the smokers themselves.

It's a bit like enforcing the wearing of seat belts. People soon got used to doing it and now it is a natural procedure when one gets into a car. There were protests galore on the grounds of 'choice' when the law was first introduced. Where are the protesters now?
quite correct.

its all this "choice" and i dont want a "nanny state" type stuff. problem is you'll still have a choice (abide by the law or face the penalty), and sorry, but the state is already your nanny. signs, laws, regulations and safety hats everywhere already out there to keep you as safe as can be
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#117
Report 14 years ago
#117
(Original post by technik)
quite correct.

its all this "choice" and i dont want a "nanny state" type stuff. problem is you'll still have a choice (abide by the law or face the penalty), and sorry, but the state is already your nanny. signs, laws, regulations and safety hats everywhere already out there to keep you as safe as can be
If you ban smoking in public you are encouraging inconsiderate smokers to smoke all over their children in private.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#118
Report 14 years ago
#118
(Original post by viviki)
It does serve people. Because we could have bars with decent compulsary smoking areas. There is a bar I go to in Bradford that has a non smoking floor with its own bar and I can go out all night without even a sniff of a cigarette. I'm having a good night out and so are the smokers downstairs who are only damaging their own lungs. If you were barstaff and got to work in the nonsmoking part and the barstaff downstairs were perfectly happy what would be the problem.
That bar you speak if has a bad design. The smokers should be upstairs as smoke rises. It would also make them aware, as they huff and puff their way upstairs, that their lung function is being affected.

We have already said that it matters not one iota whether the bar staff were 'happy' with the damage being done to their lungs. Employers have a legal responsibility to protect them from that damage. There have been lawsuits filed against employers. resulting in them paying damages to staff who have developed chronic, severe lung damage.

There can be no other solution other than enforcing a total ban in public places. To argue otherwise is naive.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#119
Report 14 years ago
#119
(Original post by viviki)
If you ban smoking in public you are encouraging inconsiderate smokers to smoke all over their children in private.
i consider a full public ban the first step and a moderate one at that. like i said, i dont do half measures.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#120
Report 14 years ago
#120
(Original post by viviki)
If you ban smoking in public you are encouraging inconsiderate smokers to smoke all over their children in private.
Smokers do that regardless. They aren't satiated after smoking in a pub. They don't stop smoking once they set foot outside the door of the pub.

That is a silly thing to say imo!

There is no good defence that I have heard so far that makes me change my opinion.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (128)
18.21%
It's just nice to be back! (193)
27.45%
Not great so far... (251)
35.7%
I want to drop out! (131)
18.63%

Watched Threads

View All