dallas is now another pansy no smoking in bars town

[eebs]

we've had a smoking ban across the whole country for over a year now - it's probably contributed to the increase in pub closures (along with low supermarket alcohol prices, high rates, minimum wages etc) but evidence has shown that although the measures were introduced to comply with European H&S requirements on workplace safety, it has contributed to a reduction in smoking for people who would be classed at customers. (cancer research study

if you don't like the reasoning that "all workplaces should be smoke-free" do you agree with the reasoning that "all workplaces should be safe to work in"?

[katie]

i obviously agree that workplaces should be safe for employees. however, i think that the owners should have the right to decide whether or not they want their establishments to be smoking or non-smoking. i think there are plenty of places that are non-smoking and you as a member of the work force have the choice to work in one of those places. no one is forcing a non-smoker to work in a smoking establishment. at some point, the employee made the decision to work in the smoking environment. so suck it up or leave.

i've worked in plenty of places that were non-smoking and unsafe in other ways. second-hand smoke isn't great for you, but no one is forcing a non-smoker to work in a smoking environment. that's my point. there's a choice to go somewhere else. there is no longer the choice for smokers to smoke indoors or out. i think it's unfair to take the choice away when no one was being forced to work in bad conditions.

[Phyllis]

how is a smoking establishment automatically an "unsafe" place to work? i would say a bar has more dangers than smokers i.e. crazy drunks who get into bar fights and throw glass/other objects.

i don't get this whole SECOND HAND SMOKE IS WORSE THAN ACTUALLY SMOKING thing. second hand smoke is unpleasant, yes, but it's not as "dangerous" as a lot of people say it is.

[katie]

second hand smoke is unpleasant, yes, but it's not as "dangerous" as a lot of people say it is.

i find few things are.

[mere1975]

second hand smoke is unpleasant, yes, but it's not as "dangerous" as a lot of people say it is.

i find few things are.

You, my friend, are a badass.

- Mere "I believe in science and will be silently happy not to stink so much if/when I go out to bars, sorry smokey friends!!" 1975

[zenmomma]

I'm happy with the smoking ban here. Maybe I'm just a bit more sensitive to smoke now (I used to smoke), but going to gigs or to a pub would give me a headache, watery eyes and sore throat. Before the ban it wasn't like I had a choice of going to gigs/pubs that had chosen to be smoke free -- there weren't any. Now its not a problem and much more enjoyable.

I think the first thing people did notice is that the smoke smell did cover up a lot of the other stinks... but a lot of the places here used that as an opportunity for a fresh coat of paint or a bit of remodeling.

[eebs]

i obviously agree that workplaces should be safe for employees. however, i think that the owners should have the right to decide whether or not they want their establishments to be smoking or non-smoking. i think there are plenty of places that are non-smoking and you as a member of the work force have the choice to work in one of those places. no one is forcing a non-smoker to work in a smoking establishment. at some point, the employee made the decision to work in the smoking environment. so suck it up or leave.

i've worked in plenty of places that were non-smoking and unsafe in other ways. second-hand smoke isn't great for you, but no one is forcing a non-smoker to work in a smoking environment. that's my point. there's a choice to go somewhere else. there is no longer the choice for smokers to smoke indoors or out. i think it's unfair to take the choice away when no one was being forced to work in bad conditions.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't think it's always that clear cut - there may not be that alternative job offer from a non-smoking establishment to pay the bills. Am I right in saying that there are two sets of interests you're concerned with - (1) for owners to be able to do what they want with their establishment and (2) for smokers to be able to smoke where they want?

Here, the legislation was mainly driven by health considerations for the population as a whole (hurrah for our modern 'nanny-state' government ) but with an eye on the bottom line - income for health services from tax on tobacco bought here and expenditure / resources to treat smoking related diseases.

You mention that smoking will be banned outside as well as inside, which is more draconian than here - our legislation created a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. I think that's a pragmatic solution which allows people to smoke in a public place without negatively affecting others and allows them do what they like in their own homes.

In terms of the harm from passive smoking, scientific study has shown a link to health problems in non-smokers although there is naturally debate to the extent of that, possibly as some research is sponsored by tobacco companies who have a vested interest in their profit margin. I guess it depends on who you speak to.

[katie]

you are correct. my two issues are with owners of establishments not being allowed to say what goes on in their establishments and smokers being allowed to smoke where they want.

i sort of disagree that it isn't that clear-cut. there are jobs as a waiter or bartender in non-smoking establishments here. you can't smoke in regular restaurants, just bars. the option is there, it just isn't as convenient.

and there's no ban on smoking outside. i was saying that there's no choice anymore for smokers to smoke inside or out. they can only smoke out.

i don't deny that a lot of non-smokers are happy at this, and i realize smokers are a pretty small minority nowadays, but these laws are just the beginning steps towards smoking becoming illegal. boston just banned cigarette sales in drug stores. (http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/ ... stric.html). when does it stop? i don't want to get on a high horse and say my civil liberties are being threatened, but i am starting to feel like they are. if i want to make the decision to puff away on my socially-accepted-suicide sticks, then i should be able to. period.

[zenmomma]

these laws are just the beginning steps towards smoking becoming illegal

I honestly can't see this ever happening.

[katie]

these laws are just the beginning steps towards smoking becoming illegal

I honestly can't see this ever happening.

there is at least one city in california that has banned smoking in apartments and condos. you OWN the inside of a condo. you should be able to do whatever you like inside (ritual human sacrifice aside). first restaurants. then living spaces. what next?

[katie]

it's glendale. here we go:

[quote]In Glendale, California, the City Council enacted an ordinance - effective November 5 of this year - which bans smoking virtually everywhere outdoors in the city. The ordinance bans smoking in all non-enclosed (i.e., outdoors) public places, which are defined as an "area, location, place, site, property, lot, building, structure, facility, or complex— public or private— that is open or accessible to the general public, regardless of any fee or age requirement." Thus, virtually every outdoor area in the city is subject to the non-smoking restriction.[/qutoe]

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/200 ... oking.html

[katie]

it's glendale. here we go:

In Glendale, California, the City Council enacted an ordinance - effective November 5 of this year - which bans smoking virtually everywhere outdoors in the city. The ordinance bans smoking in all non-enclosed (i.e., outdoors) public places, which are defined as an "area, location, place, site, property, lot, building, structure, facility, or complex— public or private— that is open or accessible to the general public, regardless of any fee or age requirement." Thus, virtually every outdoor area in the city is subject to the non-smoking restriction.

[Irock]

There's nothing there that would lead me to believe it bans smoking in residences, though. Am I missing something?

Katie, aren't you the person who said that it was irresponsible and selfish for parents to drive motorcycles? That stance strikes me as sort of conflicting with this one.

[katie]

Last November, the Belmont City Council in California passed a law prohibiting smoking in apartments and condominiums and on their patio and yard areas.

i just didn't find enough backup of my statement at first, i guess. there it is though.

to your second question: that debate was a few years back and i'm not sure i feel the same way about it anymore, honestly. and i don't see how the two issues have any kind of relation, let alone a conflict. can you elaborate?

[monet2u]

oh yeah it's been happening all around CA. I mean you can go rent a place and they can tell you it's a non smoking building. The idea being that you basically share ventilation between apts. And a non smoker could get your 2nd smoke. Also I bet it helps with insurance rates for bldg owners too.

Pretty soon, you won't even be able to smoke walking down the street. You can't at a bus stop or ATM line now.