smoking ban

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Grab
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 07:59 PM

Where in my post did your fertile imagination see any suggestion that staff be forced to suffer passive smoking harm, Grab?

If a prospective employee wishes to work in such a place, knowing the risks, I see no problem in that. A prospective employee who smokes might well be enrolled as a member, and if he chooses to expose himself, who has the right to forbid it?

The other side of the question is purely hypothetical, as it is highly unlikely that a non smoker would even apply for the job.

I wish my imagination were that fertile - songwriting would be easier! ;-)

I don't know how you're set in the US, but I seem to remember from my employment law course at uni that in Britain a contract saying "I absolve these people from any damage they do to me" isn't binding. This might seem excessive to you. From the point of view of a state-run Health Service that has to pick up the pieces afterwards though, this is not necessarily a bad idea.

The reasoning behind this is the whole point of Health and Safety regs. If you want to be completely libertarian, then by all means let people work on building sites with just the occasional plank between scaffold rails, or let them remove asbestos without protective gear. They know the risks, after all. (And yes, I do consider smoking as hazardous as either of those.) The problem though is that because employers have no incentive to make workers' lives safe, there won't *be* a choice - or rather, the choice will be work somewhere dangerous or don't work at all. There simply ain't a middle ground.

Graham.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 10:14 AM

There is a common misconception about prohibition. The fact is, it did work, and drinking was reduced by 90%.

The point about Prohibition not working - then or now - isn't that it doesn't stop some people indulging, maybe a lot of people. It's that the overall effects of the attempts to ban the use of the substances unvolved are a lot worse than the effects of tolerating their continued use. Crime, corruption, users switching to more dangerous substitutes...

Restricting use in certain settings, as with the smoking ban, is a rather different matter.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:22 PM

Hippies are all ass... and you don't have to look at them to know they're unwashed... they pong from a block away

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:04 PM

Agreed. After a holiday in Barcelona I said I'd never visit Spain again. The evenings became impossible with all bars being smoky hells.
Can't wait to visit ireland though.
And I will leave the bars at closing time evidently!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Mary J
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:44 PM

In Spain they brought in their anti-tobacco laws on 1st Jan 2006. No smoking in work places, like offices etc. That seems to be working fine.

In bars, shops and restaurants the way it works is that each establishment can choose if they want to be smoking or non-smoking. If they choose to allow smoking then no kids under 16 can go in unaccompanied.

What a disaster. Just about every place I know has decided to be " a smoking area". So in theory, kids shouldn't go in. That could create a situation like when I was a kid in the Uk, where you couldn't go into bars, and it created a whole mystery around drinking and smoking dens, and made you dying to go to one when you were old enough. In Spain it has always been much more relaxed for kids to mix with adults, and it's a healthier atmosphere.Amyway, that's not really an issue , cos Spain being Spain, they just put up there signs that say "no kids" and let them in anyway.

So in the end all the bars and restaurants I go to still are smoking areas, and people actually seem less inhibited about smoking becuase there is a sign up that says it is allowed !

For me their anti-tobacco law is a shambles, in true Spanish style. They should have gone for a ban like the UK, or started to educate folk. More Spaniards smoke than BRits, and it still has that " cool " image going on, which to me is like something from my parents' generation.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:28 PM

Now get rid of the parking lots so I won't be poisoned on the way there or have to risk being run down by drunks on the way home. Ach, why done we just ban bloody Pubs...can't offend the sanctimonius now can we.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,From Irealnd with Love!
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:10 PM

As you may know, we have had in the smoking ban here a while now. Here is my opinion on the issue.

When it came in i was oppsed, as a smoker, I later appreciated the change in the pub air quality, and having to go outside, played a part in me now being an ex smoker.

It is good for musicians, but bad for sessions or jams where attendees are smokers. they'll keep leaving every 20 mins.

people who have never gone into pubs, will not miraculously go now there is no smoking, Number's may actually drop, especially on weeknights

With smokers encouraged out to beergardens etc, the smell of canabis will soon become a regular occourence. This I GUARANTEE

Pub's with no Beer Garden or Yard, will aquire a smoking pack around the front door of the premises, which you will have to get through to enter.


Conclusion:
The smoking ban is good, once you get over the initial "novelty" you will eventually accept it as norm, but beware. It will change Pub's radically within 6-8 months, and not all for the better, just more good than bad. Plus any self respecting landlord put's out the ashtrays after closing when the door is locked anyway! Tee hee!!!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: the one
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:03 AM

clinton hammond as been looking at hippies ass and unwashed ones at that,how else would he know.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Cretinous Yahoo
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:57 AM

There is a common misconception about prohibition. The fact is, it did work, and drinking was reduced by 90%. The other 10% is where the well known problems arose, gangsters, smugglers and organized crime.
It was illegal to make or transport booze, but it was not illegal to drink it. Why they left that loop hole is up for speculation. I always figured it was so the lawyers would be able to make money .

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: s6k
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 05:05 AM

its a load of absolute bollocks

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:58 PM

LOL, Cluin

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:11 PM

Yeah, but there are some bad parts to that lifestyle too.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 03:59 PM

And stinking up the place with their unwashed hairy-ass bodies....

Gross....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM

That, plus getting high and avoiding work...

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 03:48 PM

In the immortal words of (a cartoon character meant to be a satire), "Fuck hippies!"

Hell, that's what most of them became hippies for anyway.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 02:31 PM

"what did we hippy smoking pot lot do"

In the immortal words of Eric Cartman, "Fuck hippies!"

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:30 AM

100

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: the one
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:55 AM

ban this ban that, and what did we hippy smoking pot lot do, WE TRIED TO BAN THE BOMB WE FAILED. THS GOV GOES HOME WREEKING OF BLOOD . you wait there is worse to come all hail the gov.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:23 AM

I'm a non-smoker. Smoking (with a bit of help from Medway Murdertime Hospital, where the staff wear badges that say "in case of injury, do not admit to Medway Maritime Hospital") killed my wife.

But this banning of smoking is a betrayal of the good English value of toleration of the minor foibles of others.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:29 PM

Living in Scotland, which has an astronomical tally of smoking-related diseases, many of us are counting the days until 26th March. In the meantime. as others have said above, more and more folk clubs are going smokeless, but you still have to hold your breath as you go in the door, or even to our local hospitals, to get past the ostracised smokers puffing away right outside said buildings.
On the positive side, several smokers I have met in my professional capacity say that the ban will in fact make it easier for them to give up.
My husband's college provided a smoking room for the smokers when the rest of the college went smokeless, but even the smokers found it "too smoky"!
TB

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:56 PM

There's no particular problem in growing tobacco - even in England. In fact at one point back in Charles II's time it was made illegal to grow it here, as a way of helping tobacco growers in America (which would have made it easier to levy a tax when it was imported). And back in the 1940s Emglish tobacco cultivation had a revival, when imported tobacco supplies were short.

Outright prohibition would be an enormous boost to the people who currently supply illegal drugs, as it always is. It would vastly extend the numbers of people buying illegal substances. I don't think there are enough politicians stupid enough to go down that road - though you never can tell. After all, the case for such a ban is a lot stronger than that for keeping cannabis possession illegal.

Freeing us from tobacco smoke and similar in pubs and clubs and so forth seems enough to me. Going any further is self defeating.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 04:43 PM

This is fantastic news - I miight even go back to England on the strength of it!

'Conservative', 'old-fashioned' England has stolen a march on 'young' 'cool' Australia (where I live) and I love it! In Tasmania a ban has come in but other states still allow smoking where food is not served.

Smoker's pleasure = waste = smoke

Drinker's pleasure = waste = piss

Smokers who whine about this should ask themselves how much they would like to be pissed on.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:35 AM

Well, as with all generalisations there's always the exception. Keep up the good work. I'm grateful.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:15 PM

"No doubt the addicts will come on whining about freedom, but we've all got freedom now!"

Dear Mouthy: I haven't smoked in public or in people's houses for years. I have paid attention to smoke only in designated smoking areas or when I am alone or only with other smokers. Shove your generalization. Thank you.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:10 PM

Sorry, that was Ontario that raised the cigarette tax. A lot of cigs were smuggled in from Quebec too.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:05 PM

Canada tried jacking up the "sin" tax on smokes a few years ago to help encourage people to quit or even cut down.

It didn't work. Smuggling of illegal cigarettes across the border increased, especially at border reservations. Lots of illegal street bartering going on.

They ended up dropping the tax back down because the cops couldn't handle the extra pressure.

I repeat, I'm glad public smoking is banned. I just oppose more legislation on principle. Haven't you folks ever heard of paradox?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 10:14 PM

"some" i meant to have typed "smoke" there.. ???

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 10:12 PM

great news.. cant wait to start going out to more pub gigs asap.

BUT.. how will this new some ban apply
to
dense clouds of choking chemical fragranced smoke
pumped out by disco and band stage smoke machines ???

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM

well, Clinton, Heroin & cocaine don't work like tobacco. There is a different type of addiction, and it is hard to directly OD on tobacco.

I repeat re:tobacco...less availibility and legal sale WILL result in less use and thereby lessharm, even if 'some' do acquire it anyway. If inconvenience means a general decline in use & disease, then that is progress.

Can't tell who's right without a test, hmmmm? Like, maybe 50 years?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:26 PM

As a smoker myself I have always respected other peoples views and agree to the ban in public places. Funny how those who smoke marijuana seem to be accepted more in the clubs here. I an totally against the use of all drugs, saw to much of the results over the years, soft drugs do lead to other experiences I found. The ban has been in place for over a year in Ireland and has worked. Smokers who disagree with it show no respect for others.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:59 PM

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Grab - PM
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:15 AM

I have to say, I agree with Greg.

If a private club, run purely by the members with no employees, wants to allow smoking - well, that's entirely their call.

But as soon as they hire *anyone*, that's it. Staff mustn't be forced to suffer exposure to hazardous chemicals. Although, of course, they do have the option of providing staff with gas masks providing a personal supply of clean air, and suitable training for using it. They're perfectly at liberty to do that - although check the price of SCUBA gear and training sometime... :-)



Where in my post did your fertile imagination see any suggestion that staff be forced to suffer passive smoking harm, Grab?

If a prospective employee wishes to work in such a place, knowing the risks, I see no problem in that. A prospective employee who smokes might well be enrolled as a member, and if he chooses to expose himself, who has the right to forbid it?

The other side of the question is purely hypothetical, as it is highly unlikely that a non smoker would even apply for the job.

Don T.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:07 PM

Sure BillD... I'm on yer side... but there isn't ONE single person anywhere in the world that wants a controlled substance, and can't get it...

"FAR fewer deaths and disease"
Really? Tell that to heroin... or cocain... I think those are two examples of exactly the opposite... if there were regulated, controlled commercial sales, they would be a LOT safer...

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:35 PM

I sort of knew that someone would immediately trot out the argument that "it's no use banning stuff, 'cause then you get underground/criminal distribution...etc..."

You note exactly what I said:
"...the day every civilized country officially bans commmercial sales of it can't come too soon for me!"

let me add.." smoking ANYWHERE in public building or on public streets"

If it were made VERY difficult and expensive to obtain, and you couldn't do it openly and legally, and it couldn't be distributed in commercial packs, it would be seriously restrained! Yeah, some might go to any lengths, but you can't easily grow tobacco in closets with grow-lights, and there would be FAR less of it out there and FAR fewer kids discovering it early and FAR fewer deaths and disease. And I'll take that, along with being able to breath at a folk club!

**ANY** reduction in tobacco intake is good...especially cigarettes.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:33 PM

" A lot of the same people who want smoking banned also call for the legalization of marijuana."

Sure... but I wouldn't smoke it in public....

"I hope you haven't got children!"
I recall reading legslation that would propose calling smoking in the car with your kids in the back seat, child abuse... I agree... and I'd vote to support it

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Essex Girl
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:19 AM

We will always indulge in things that are unhealthy/fattening or illegal. Most of us enjoy a drink or two (or three), the occasional burger or takeaway. We do not do these things 24 hours a day, every day. I have been singing in pubs/clubs for over 40 years, but always had to avoid those where the ventilation was inadequate. As for inviting your smoking friends around for that reason I hope you haven't got children!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: number 6
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:11 PM

There was a marijuana cafe in town here Saint John ... it lasted for about little over a year year until the cops busted mainly becuase they where selling to high school kids (large quantities at that) ... anyway, you could go there and smoke hooch, but you where not allowed to smoke cigarettes. You could also go down the street for your choice of a Big Mac, sloppy pizza slice, or a nice healthy Donair.

sIx

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:50 PM

And it goes underground and organized crime makes a pile of money and people get killed and arrested and the governments wage their "War on Tobacco".

Banning substances people want doesn't work. A lot of the same people who want smoking banned also call for the legalization of marijuana.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:37 PM

as long as selling smokable tobacco remains legal, there must be SOME place smokers can do it...but if smoking is **inherently** dangerous and unhealthy, there is a flaw in the logic.

Imagine if tobacco had not been discovered before, and just this year someone came in with this plant they found, and said..."Hey! If you dry this, roll it up in some paper, set fire to it and inhale the smoke, it gives an 'interesting' physical sensation!"

You can imagine what the various health authorities would say after a few years of tests and analysis. "Sorry, folks...this stuff is bad news...'taint good for you!"

Every day they find drugs that do something useful...but also are found to have unfortunate side effects...and those are usually pulled from the market post-haste. (Thalidomide and a couple of pain killers come to mind). So, we have this drug cocktail that has NO benefits except for 'relaxing' folks from the tension that comes from not using it..and it remains on the market in the face of staggering statistics of its dangers? Why?...We know why....too much money and addiction to it (probably among those who make the laws).

It is obvious that they are committed to 'gradual' elimination of the habit....and perhaps there is no other 'practical' way....but as long as it IS legal, kids are going to keep trying it and people are going to continue dying from it, whether at 20 or at 50 or 80.

It is obvious that IF it remains legal, people can get together in a **private** home or club and smoke...and if some of them happen to sing, *shrug*....but the day every civilized country officially bans commercial sales of it can't come too soon for me!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:59 PM

I can't see how waiver of that kind could make any diffeeence to the legality. They might theoretically affect some hypothetical civil claim,but that's nothing to do with the criminal law, which is what the ban is about.

I can't envisage problems for genuinely private sessions, as opposed to a pub or pub room and so forth flying under false colours.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:54 PM

But the self destructive were destroying my freedom too so surely it's fair that something has to give. They can still self destruct but not near me when I'm out of my own home. Surely that's fair to all?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:18 PM

And everybody signed a waiver form to prevent litigation later (or evidence that you were involved in naughty activity).

Too many laws. Too many lawyers.

While I'm not against the smoking ban per se, I still don't like to see freedoms legislated away... even the freedom to be self-destructive.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:28 PM

Actually, given that Ontario recently overturned a law that made "Sex Clubs" illegal, it may come down the pike that a "Smoking Club" would be just as legal... as long as everyone involved was consenting, and there were no employees involved....

I donno....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:28 PM

All you do is have one of you live in the building and invite the rest of you round.   Just one of the social innovations I anticipate that this law will bring.

So called "Private Clubs" aren't the same as a bunch of friends sharing a building for their own use. They are no more more private than other public buildings where you can only get in by paying, like Cinemas and Theatres. They just involve a different way of paying. Having an exemption for anything calling itself a club would have nullified the whole ban, and have probably led to a load of pubs formally turning themselves into "clubs".

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: jeffp
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:24 PM

You can still gather privately in your homes. So it's not a "private smoking club." Big deal. Get over it.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:12 PM

Exactly what I was thinking... (Har! Har!)

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:08 PM

Then there'll be no Mudcat at all!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:04 PM

By God, the next thing, they'll be banning private wanking clubs!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:58 PM

Time to buy shares in the Off Licence trade I think if the Irish experience is anything to go by

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:57 PM

JeffP: no you cant do what I said, I wasn't talking about people's homes. You know perfectly well parliament has banned groups from buying a building for a private smoking club.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:52 PM

What JeffP said....