English smoking ban

Omnutia

As of today (July 1st) anyone caught smoking in a public area in England will receive a £50 fine.
I've long disliked smoking and now I can enjoy being outside in Leeds city centre without having to breath smoke every few meters.
What does everyone think to banning smoking in their area?

Our_Time_Is_Now

I think that it's bullshit because that is a right. While there are some places that it should be banned, public places are not one of them.

Omnutia

Then what rights do the people around you who have to breath the smoke have?

Our_Time_Is_Now

It is just second hand smoke. Are you really so close to smokers on the sidewalk that you're going to die from the smoke you're inhaling? Most water has poisons in it, too. Low amounts, but do you really want to take the risk of drinking it? If you don't want to be with smokers then avoid them when you see them. Because you have a right to. It's simple.

Kiey

I'm not a smoker, but that's pretty ridiculous. Smoking in a well ventilated open environment is apparently not good enough for them.

Rym

I think that it's bullshit because that is a right.If it's a right to smoke, then it's a right to burn other mildly to generally unpleasant substances in public.  You can smoke, and I can stand there burning a sulphur stick.  Everybody wins.
Society, even free society, often bans or limits things that collectively cause discomfort or unrest without tangible benefit.  Loud music in public places, nuisance fires, excessive exhaust fumes, etc...  Why is smoking any different?  The people, say, of New York, clearly and overwhelmingly supported a wide smoking ban.  That's part of the reason I live here.
I've been enjoying the New York smoking ban for a long time now, and I honestly avoid going to Pennsylvania whenever possible as a result.  (New Jersey also has a smoking ban, so our trips there are fine ^_^)

Omnutia

People have the right to smoke but too often people forget that rights come with responsibilities; An all out ban may be a bit extreme but asking people not to smoke where other people object wouldn't work.
Another thing I agree with is the movement to prevent people who smoke adopting children under 5.

Andrew

Society, even free society, often bans or limits things that collectively cause discomfort or unrest without tangible benefit. Loud music in public places, nuisance fires, excessive exhaust fumes, etc... Why is smoking any different? The people, say, of New York, clearly and overwhelmingly supported a wide smoking ban. That's part of the reason I live here.

I am o.k with the ban in public places. It is the ban on private property that I have an issue with. If owners are willing to let people smoke in their stores/restaurants, then they should be allowed to let them. If you don't like it that a bar is smoking, go to a different one.

Cremlian

I've been enjoying the New York smoking ban for a long time now, and I honestly avoid going to Pennsylvania whenever possible as a result. (New Jersey also has a smoking ban, so our trips there are fine ^_^)

Did you forget that Philadelphia has a smoking ban as well.

Apreche

I say we don't need any new laws banning smoking. We can punish smokers with existing laws just fine. It is very simple. People are free to smoke all they want. There should be no laws regulating the sale, distribution or burning of tobacco. However, if you smoke in a place where the secondhand smoke even has a chance of being inhaled by a person who does not want to inhale it, then you should be charged with assault. It's no different than if I walked around town spraying tear, poison, or even nerve gas on everyone in my general vicinity.

If I want to, I can take this argument even further. If you consider spraying tobacco smoke around to be assault, then that means if I beat up a smoker or destroy their smokes, that is self defense.

I can take this logic one step further if necessary. If you are the type of person who believes that people should not be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies, or if you are the type of person who believes suicide should be illegal, then you must also agree that smokers should be charged with attempted suicide and put in psychiatric institutions.

According to my personal non-lawyer interpretation, we already can take care of the smoking problem with existing laws. I see no need for further legislation, just stricter enforcement.

Trekkygeek

The problem with the smoking ban is that it covers all public places including pubs. Britain has an old tradition of going down the pub for a swift few pints. I find it very unfair for the government to stop what has been going on for so long. I agree that smokey filled pubs are disgusting, but why not allow smoking and non-smoking pubs? That way, you are free to make your choice.
As for cafes and restaurants, in my opinion smoking should be banned. It's revolting having to sit next to someone who is smoking while you are tucking into a fry-up.

Starfox

The problem with the smoking ban is that it covers all public places including pubs.

Pubs are private establishments, unless what you are talking about is very different from similar establishments in the U.S.

Britain has an old tradition of going down the pub for a swift few pints. I find it very unfair for the government to stop what has been going on for so long.

By this argument, slavery would still be legal. It had been going on for a long time, so what right does the government have to stop it? That said, tradition can have value, but something's value should be judged independently of how long it has been going on.

While I hate smoking, I'm not sure you can justify banning it in a privately owned location. I vote you let the proprietors of said establishments decide, and then the smokers can all go speed up their death together. Away from me.

ZakoSoldier

To some degree it is easy to justify a ban in restaurants. It was common (in NJ) to have a small smoke-filled restaurant. It is unhealthy to have so much smoke in a small place. It would also fill the "non-smoking section" causing my family and me to avoid such places. It becomes a public health issue in too many places. It would be like having a restaurant with no capacity limit; many places would squeeze as many people as they physically can.

Trekkygeek

By this argument, slavery would still be legal. It had been going on for a long time, so what right does the government have to stop it? That said, tradition can have value, but something's value should be judged independently of how long it has been going on.

I think Starfox is splitting hairs, no offence meant but you know what I'm talking about. There is a huge difference between slavery and smoking in public. Perhaps I should have gone into more depth to cover every argument put forward (just to cover myself) I resent the fact that because of the way I wrote my post, that I would agree with slavery. But you know what I mean.
But I agree with what you said about pubs being private establishments. Which is my point exactly, if a private landlord wants to allow smoking in his place, then it should be allowed. Its up to others if they want to frequent there. Good points though.

Our_Time_Is_Now

Really, there is never going to be a agreement made that will satisfy both sides. There is no point in even arguing about it because no mater how great you prove your point, you're not going to change what others believe.

Omnutia

I'm contemplating going around town with a bag full of dry ice with CO2 streaming after me and going to sit in places. The only problem that in closed spaces CO2 is a poison. Any ideas?

Our_Time_Is_Now

Please do. That is your choice and anyone stupid enough to stay around you should be poisened. That is your right and if you feel like doing that then fine.

Sail

Dry ice is a bad example. CO2 is not poisonous. Remember, we breath it out all the time. In order to kill yourself with it, you would have to keep yourself in a tiny room with no ventilation. And if there is no ventilation, then you'd suffocate with or without the added CO2 sublimating from the dry ice.

Apreche

I personally have no problem if a restaurant has a smoking and a non-smoking section. As long as there is absolutely no smoke that gets into the non-smoking section, and it is clearly labeled, then what is the problem?

There is a problem. The problem is the employees of the restaurant. It is a workplace hazard to have to spend so much time in such a smoke-filled room. Even if I give myself one dose of poison for pleasure each night, being forced to intake another dose of the same poison as part of my job is just plain wrong. It's not in the constitution, but state laws around the US guarantee a safe workplace, and they should. If the circumstances of your employment cause harm to you, then your employer should be, and is, liable. If your employer tells you to do something which can cause you harm without proper safety precautions and such, you don't have to do it. Even people who work dangerous jobs, like construction workers, get workers comp when they almost inevitably get injured on the job.

This is the justification for making all restaurants and pubs completely non-smoking. It's not for the customers sake, it's for the employees.

Andrew

This is the justification for making all restaurants and pubs completely non-smoking. It's not for the customers sake, it's for the employees.

Why don't they go work somewhere else?

Apreche

Why don't they go work somewhere else?

Remember way back, oh the earlier part of last century? Yeah, that whole horrible industrial revolution with the factories that just fucking killed all the employees? Yeah. That's why we have, and should keep, laws that mandate safe workplaces. Whether it's requiring hard-hats for construction workers, protective suits for nuclear power plant employees, or comfortable chairs for programmers, it doesn't matter. People who create a dangerous working environment need to be held liable.

ironzealot

This issue clearly demonstrates that some among us simply have no conception of property rights. Bans in public spaces are fine, but it's the private property bans that get my panties in a bunch. If I own a restaurant, pay the rent, purchase the food, supplies, advertising, etc. What right do you have to tell me what LEGAL activity I can and cannot allow on MY property. I think it's pretty absurd.

As for employee health concerns, it comes with the territory. If they don't want to take such a risk, they can get a different job. Besides, the health risks of second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated by anti-smoking nuts.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: I'm a non-smoker.

Rym

f I own a restaurant, pay the rent, purchase the food, supplies, advertising, etc. What right do you have to tell me what LEGALactivity I can and cannot allow on MY property. I think it's pretty absurd.The thing is, it's illegal to create a hazardous workplace environment.  It has been argued successfully in our government that allowing smoking indoors creates just such an environment.  Thus, it is legal to smoke in your private residence and outdoors, but illegal in a place of employment.
As for employee health concerns, it comes with the territoryThat's the kind of thinking that went out the window decades ago.  You can't have radiation/asbestos/radon/carbon monoxide in the workplace, regardless of employee consent, without full disclosure and proper protective measures.  You could make the argument that smoking in businesses should be allowed if all of the staff were equipped with respirators, but I highly doubt that would happen.
This issue clearly demonstrates that some among us simply have no conception of property rights.Property rights exist only because resources are limited and therefore need to be distributed somehow.  The government already has many good reasons to limit what you do on your private property.  You can't burn trash without a permit and proper safeguards.  You can't build an addition to your house without proving that it will not be a danger to the surrounding properties.  You can't build a factory in your back yard without zoning permission.  You can't blast heavy metal 24/7 in your back yard.  You can't keep camels or lions in your basement.





The majority of New Yorkers believe that the dangers, coupled with the annoyance, of smoking in places of business are not worth the societal benefit of abiding smokers in their habits.  It's no different than a town banning loud music on the street after 9pm or a state mandating that you can't expose employees to radiation without proper precautions.

ironzealot

That's the kind of thinking that went out the window decades ago. You can't have radiation/asbestos/radon/carbon monoxide in the workplace, regardless of employee consent, without full disclosure and proper protective measures. You could make the argument that smoking in businesses should be allowed if all of the staff were equipped with respirators, but I highly doubt that would happen.

I agree that employers have a responsibility to provide safe and comfortable working conditions where possible and within reason. We don't make illegal the practice of hiring lifeguards to work in the sun all day because there is a slight risk of developing melanoma. Honestly, the risk of someone developing lung cancer due to second hand smoke is minimal. When making these kind of determinations one has to weight the cost to the the public good entailed by allowing an activity against the cost to individual liberty entailed by banning said activity.

For example: we don't allow individuals to fire automatic weapons into an apartment complex because the public welfare quite obviously trumps liberty in that case. But when it comes to restaurant owners exposing their consenting employees to second hand smoke while knowing that there is a slim chance that health complications could arise, I think it's only reasonable to conclude that liberty should win out in this case.

Apreche

Honestly, the risk of someone developing lung cancer due to second hand smoke is minimal. When making these kind of determinations one has to weight the cost to the the public good entailed by allowing an activity against the cost to individual liberty entailed by banning said activity.

For example: we don't allow individuals to fire automatic weapons into an apartment complex because the public welfare quite obviously trumps liberty in that case. But when it comes to restaurant owners exposing their consenting employees to second hand smoke while knowing that there is a slim chance that health complications could arise, I think it's only reasonable to conclude that liberty should win out in this case.

First of all, recent studies are showing that the effects of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke are far worse than you seem to think they are. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that second-hand smoke causes no health problems whatsoever. Let us, for the moment, pretend there is no risk of cancer, emphysema, or even the slightest amount of lung damage, as a result of inhaling all the second-hand smoke in the world.

Even without negative health effects, smoke still smells bad. It causes me to cough. It is unpleasant to be around. It is unpleasant to inhale it. It's simply incredibly unpleasant. In quantity, it can accumulate on my clothing, or in a restaurant it can get on my food. In the short term this can ruin my meal, or make my clothes smell bad. In the long-term this can completely ruin some of my clothes and belongings, if I spend a lot of time around such smoke.

Let's say that I had a pet skunk. Now let's say I take that pet skunk and collect its skunk spray into a spray bottle until the bottle is full. Should it be legal for me, a restaurant customer, to spray that skunk spray all over everyone who happens to be sitting near me? Should it be legal for me to spray it all around me as I walk down the street? Should it be legal for me to stand at the only entrance to the building you work in and spray it on everyone who comes in and out?

Unless you say yes to the skunk spray or change your mind on tobacco, your only available option would be to admit hypocrisy. Also, if you decide to say yes to the skunk spray, I'm going to get a box of stink bombs and write your name on it.

Rym

Honestly, the risk of someone developing lung cancer due to second hand smoke is minimal.Lung cancer isn't what they're worried about: it's heart disease.
The consensus was that working more than x hours in a smoking establishment per week contributed significantly to the occurance of heart disease.  Coronary heart disease also happens to be a heavy burden on the New York State healthcare system.  The choice, for the majority of New Yorkers, was clear.
On a more personal tack, I find smoking to be fairly annoying, and I will admit openly that I lose a huge amount of respect for anyone under the age of fifty or so who choses to smoke.  It's a nuisance much like loud music, a nuisance for which the majority of New Yorkers have little tolerance for.  A lot of people here are pushing to ban it from the streets as well, and I can't say that I don't support them.
Democracy is about enlightened self-interest.  Most people here have a clear interest in preventing smokers from bothering them, so they fight within the democratic system to attain that interest.  Smokers can still smoke, just not around other people who don't all 100% consent and not in places of employment.  They retain their minority right to smoke while society retains its right to collectively regulate nuisances.

Our_Time_Is_Now

Honestly, the risk of someone developing lung cancer due to second hand smoke is minimal. When making these kind of determinations one has to weight the cost to the the public good entailed by allowing an activity against the cost to individual liberty entailed by banning said activity. For example: we don't allow individuals to fire automatic weapons into an apartment complex because the public welfare quite obviously trumps liberty in that case. But when it comes to restaurant owners exposing their consenting employees to second hand smoke while knowing that there is a slim chance that health complications could arise, I think it's only reasonable to conclude that liberty should win out in this case.First of all, recent studies are showing that the effects of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke are far worse than you seem to think they are. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that second-hand smoke causes no health problems whatsoever. Let us, for the moment, pretend there is no risk of cancer, emphysema, or even the slightest amount of lung damage, as a result of inhaling all the second-hand smoke in the world. Even without negative health effects, smoke still smells bad. It causes me to cough. It is unpleasant to be around. It is unpleasant to inhale it. It's simply incredibly unpleasant. In quantity, it can accumulate on my clothing, or in a restaurant it can get on my food. In the short term this can ruin my meal, or make my clothes smell bad. In the long-term this can completely ruin some of my clothes and belongings, if I spend a lot of time around such smoke. Let's say that I had a pet skunk. Now let's say I take that pet skunk and collect its skunk spray into a spray bottle until the bottle is full. Should it be legal for me, a restaurant customer, to spray that skunk spray all over everyone who happens to be sitting near me? Should it be legal for me to spray it all around me as I walk down the street? Should it be legal for me to stand at the only entrance to the building you work in and spray it on everyone who comes in and out? Unless you say yes to the skunk spray or change your mind on tobacco, your only available option would be to admit hypocrisy. Also, if you decide to say yes to the skunk spray, I'm going to get a box of stink bombs and write your name on it.
You're being a radical. ...   A stupid radical.  If you're in a restaurant, and the person next you has such a strong smelling perfume that you need to be moved because you can't enjoy your meal, that's allowed. ...   And The fact that in restaurants that there is a specific special section is the reason for all of this.  And With the walking down the street, what if a guy is eating a peanut butter sandwich, and he happens to pass a random girl.  Now, this girl is deathly allergic to peanut butter, and because you stopped to take a look at the necklace she was looking at and she inhales the peanut butter, which closes up her throat, and you've have killed her. ...  But hey, they can't make it illegal to eat a peanut butter sandwich while walking down the street now can they?  See?  Radical situations are stupid, so stop using them. ... 

Andrew

That's the kind of thinking that went out the window decades ago. You can't have radiation/asbestos/radon/carbon monoxide in the workplace, regardless of employee consent, without full disclosure and proper protective measures. You could make the argument that smoking in businesses should be allowed if all of the staff were equipped with respirators, but I highly doubt that would happen.

What if the employer required employee consent? If you can buy cigarettes and smoke them, how is that any different then choosing to work in a smoke filled environment? I would say that consent can be given to work in that environment if you can smoke legally.

Starfox

I think Starfox is splitting hairs, no offence meant but you know what I'm talking about. There is a huge difference between slavery and smoking in public. Perhaps I should have gone into more depth to cover every argument put forward (just to cover myself) I resent the fact that because of the way I wrote my post, that I would agree with slavery. But you know what I mean. But I agree with what you said about pubs being private establishments. Which is my point exactly, if a private landlord wants to allow smoking in his place, then it should be allowed. Its up to others if they want to frequent there. Good points though.

I'm not really sure what hairs you think I'm splitting here. I didn't imply you support slavery, I was using it as an example of why arguing something should/shouldn't be continued solely on the basis of its longevity is fallacious. The example was extreme, it was intended to be.

Our_Time, you completely missed the point of Apreche's post. It was talking about the employees who can't avoid it. Other patrons can. And if you're going to be insulting, fix your grammar. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

Rym

What if the employer required employee consent?
By law, you can't sign away certain rights.  A company cannot provide an unsafe workplace regardless of whether or not you consent.  You can't waive your right to OSHA regulations.

Andrew

By law, you can't sign away certain rights. A company cannot provide an unsafe workplace regardless of whether or not you consent. You can't waive your right to OSHA regulations.

Ok, so you're saying you have the right to smoke, but not work in a smoke-filled environment?