Defense de fumer

[BaalChatzaf]

France, the land of Libertee Fraternitee, Egalitee is now the land of No Smoking in restaurants and cafes. Defense de fumer. No Smoking. Cafe owners will be fined 68 Euros for every ashtray found and smokers will similarly fined. So Frenchmen, put away your Galoises.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Fran]

They banned smoking in public places in the UK on 1st July 2007. A few days later, a friend and I purposefully went to a pub, something I hadn't done in years because I couldn't stand the smoke, just to enjoy being in a smoke-free public place. It seems we weren't the only ones with the same idea, the pub was packed out. We asked one of the bar-tenders if this was normal for a Thursday night, but were told that no it was not, only since the smoking ban had come into force, had their patronage increased. I've heard the same from another pub too, since then. As nearly 3/4 of the UK population don't smoke, this isn't too surprising.

Although I don't have the stats to say whether pub and restaurant owners are gaining financially from the ban, it appears that they may be. What I can't understand is that in a country where almost 3/4 of the population don't smoke, why didn't restaurant owners twig about this beforehand, do some marketing and instigate their own smoking ban?

From a personal point of view, being a non-smoker, I do really love the ban. It's so wonderful being able to eat out anywhere without my meal being spoilt by someone chuffing away on a fag, worrying about the impact it's having on my long-term health and coming home stinking of smoke.

[RTB]

You liking it shouldn't equal them forcing it.

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

I think you're a bit cute though and I'd find you a non smoky place. Hehe. See? Problems solved. :-P

[Kat]

The state of Illinois is now smoke-free also as of January 1, 2008. I quit smoking a few years ago, several months before Chicago went smoke free. Cigarettes have gone up $2 a pack since I quit. It is an expensive and socially unacceptable habit so it is a good time to quit if you are a smoker. Michael helped me quit before I met him. He knows how to beat addiction and it wasn't that hard with his help. After all, he kicked crack. You have to want to quit, find something you value more that is incompatible with smoking and you need to give it about three weeks or so to stop the cravings. Talk to Michael if you are seriously thinking of quitting smoking, drinking or drugs. He understands addictions.

Personally, I think places like bars should have the option whether or not to be smoke free or have designated smoking areas and people should not be fined for it. Smokers are not criminals. Some people don't have someone like Mike helping them quit or they just don't want to quit. These nanny laws are a real buzz kill, even if they are for own good.

Kat

[Brant Gaede]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The owner does.

--Brant

[RTB]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The owner does.

--Brant

Yes, which is exactly the point I just made.....

[Fran]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The owner does.

--Brant

Yes, which is exactly the point I just made.....

I'm not sure where I said: pub/restaurant owners should be forced to have smoke-free premises (all I said was that I love being able to go places without being subjected to other people's killer habit), but I guess my not clearly expressing this implied it. My main point was that if, revenue is up for restaurant/pub owners since the ban, why didn't they make this realization themselves and make their premises smoke-free long ago? I think non-smokers in the UK don't kick up a big enough stink about refusing to be in smoky places. Smoke-free zones are waste of time - the smoke just drifts over.

[tjohnson]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The people who work in the bars should have a right to a smoke-free workplace. People's health should not suffer because of conditions where they earn a living. If you tried to make someone do something dangerous to their health in an industrial setting the safety officers could shut the jobsite down. People who work in bars don't have the same clout as tradespeople.

[BaalChatzaf]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The people who work in the bars should have a right to a smoke-free workplace. People's health should not suffer because of conditions where they earn a living. If you tried to make someone do something dangerous to their health in an industrial setting the safety officers could shut the jobsite down. People who work in bars don't have the same clout as tradespeople.

Knock, knock! Hello???

Nobody forced anyone to work in smoky restaurants or bars. The people who work there, work there voluntarily.

They did not have a -right- to these jobs (the jobs were offered) nor were they ever forced to take these jobs.

The only rights you have are the right to think anything you damned please and the right to defend your life against force or hazard. Anything else is a social arrangement.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The people who work in the bars should have a right to a smoke-free workplace. People's health should not suffer because of conditions where they earn a living. If you tried to make someone do something dangerous to their health in an industrial setting the safety officers could shut the jobsite down. People who work in bars don't have the same clout as tradespeople.

They have a right to seek employment elsewhere. No one has a right to force them to work in an environment they find distasteful or unhealthy. I'm not going to now explicate on "force." That's not even Objectivism 101.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

You people sound like you belong back in the middle ages. There are only so many jobs available, not everyone has a choice to work elsewhere. People are "forced" to work there by their bodies because they need to eat and have shelter. Is Objectivism really this anti-social?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is Objectivism really this anti-social?

GS,

When dealing with property rights of owners, yes. Proudly so.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You people sound like you belong back in the middle ages. There are only so many jobs available, not everyone has a choice to work elsewhere. People are "forced" to work there by their bodies because they need to eat and have shelter. Is Objectivism really this anti-social?

The way you are using "social" means property owners are on a leash--or in Siberia.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You people sound like you belong back in the middle ages. There are only so many jobs available, not everyone has a choice to work elsewhere. People are "forced" to work there by their bodies because they need to eat and have shelter. Is Objectivism really this anti-social?

Yet again, The Zero Sum Fallacy. The number of jobs created goes up and it sometime goes down. But it is NOT a fixed stock.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[RTB]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The owner does.

--Brant

Yes, which is exactly the point I just made.....

I'm not sure where I said: pub/restaurant owners should be forced to have smoke-free premises (all I said was that I love being able to go places without being subjected to other people's killer habit), but I guess my not clearly expressing this implied it. My main point was that if, revenue is up for restaurant/pub owners since the ban, why didn't they make this realization themselves and make their premises smoke-free long ago? I think non-smokers in the UK don't kick up a big enough stink about refusing to be in smoky places. Smoke-free zones are waste of time - the smoke just drifts over.

You'll notice that that is what I'm not stating.

[RTB]

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

The people who work in the bars should have a right to a smoke-free workplace. People's health should not suffer because of conditions where they earn a living. If you tried to make someone do something dangerous to their health in an industrial setting the safety officers could shut the jobsite down. People who work in bars don't have the same clout as tradespeople.

WHY WHY WHY ? Why should they have a right to this or that.....explain it

You can't simultaneaously have a right to a job and this sort of nonsense

[Kat]

I think the issue here is whether the owner of an establishment has the right to run his business and set his own rules. Whether he makes the rules or the rules are imposed upon him via political pressure is what irritates many libertarian and Objectivist types. It is the taking away of liberties. I have no problem with people not wanting to smoke, drink, eat or whatever where others are smoking. They have plenty of options because most places are smoke free anyway. If someone wants to allow smoking in their home or business, it should be their choice. A business owner should not have to police peoples' personal health habits if they don't want to.

As far as employment, people expect a smoky environment in bars. Smoking and drinking are what people do in bars. If you don't like smokers, don't become a bartender in a place that is not smoke-free. It seems like prohibition is inching closer and closer when it comes to cigarettes.

Kat

[tjohnson]

There was a time when the dangers of smoking and 2nd hand smoke were not well established. In those days I would agree that smoking in restaurants, bars, and public places wasn't an issue but these days it definitely is an issue and as an employer you have a responsibility for the welfare of your employees.

[Brant Gaede]

There was a time when the dangers of smoking and 2nd hand smoke were not well established. In those days I would agree that smoking in restaurants, bars, and public places wasn't an issue but these days it definitely is an issue and as an employer you have a responsibility for the welfare of your employees.

Just what is the danger from second-hand smoke aside from an allergy?

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Just what is the danger from second-hand smoke aside from an allergy?

--Brant

What is the danger from fist-hand smoke? Why would you expect it to be any different with 2nd hand smoke?

[Brant Gaede]

Just what is the danger from second-hand smoke aside from an allergy?

--Brant

What is the danger from fist-hand smoke? Why would you expect it to be any different with 2nd hand smoke?

The dose makes the poison.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

People are "forced" to work there by their bodies because they need to eat and have shelter.

"Force" refers to one person using physical violence or threats thereof to override the individual will of another person. Its an inherently interpersonal thing. Therefore you cannot consider being forced by one's body to be morally equivalent of being forced by someone else.

Classical Liberalism = banning force from human affairs (i.e. force between people)

[tjohnson]

People are "forced" to work there by their bodies because they need to eat and have shelter.

"Force" refers to one person using physical violence or threats thereof to override the individual will of another person. Its an inherently interpersonal thing. Therefore you cannot consider being forced by one's body to be morally equivalent of being forced by someone else.

Classical Liberalism = banning force from human affairs (i.e. force between people)

Yes, I realized I was using 'forced' slightly differently which is why I put it in scare quotes. It's fine and dandy to go around saying "nobody forced you to work here" but one can only quit so many jobs before they must relent and accept one no matter how shitty it is.

[studiodekadent]

Yes, I realized I was using 'forced' slightly differently which is why I put it in scare quotes. It's fine and dandy to go around saying "nobody forced you to work here" but one can only quit so many jobs before they must relent and accept one no matter how shitty it is.

Actually the jobs in the avaliable job pool change constantly. New jobs appear, people leave old jobs, people get new jobs, etc. Its very very dynamic (ESPECIALLY if an economy has few or no barriers to market entry or exit). This dynamism means people can find a job that fits them.

[tjohnson]

Actually the jobs in the avaliable job pool change constantly. New jobs appear, people leave old jobs, people get new jobs, etc. Its very very dynamic (ESPECIALLY if an economy has few or no barriers to market entry or exit). This dynamism means people can find a job that fits them.

Very true, but I still say that if there is significant evidence that a work environment is harmful to the health of employees then we should be trying to clean it up. It's no different than cleaning up air pollution in our cities. If, in the course of our existence we make our habitat uninhabitable we are not being very rational are we?