General Opinions on Smoking: Rights, Risks Etc

Discussion Open Forum
41

This addresses what I think is the most critical part of the entire issue… let the pub owners decide!

In PUBLIC spaces, like in a park… I wouldn’t even consider smoking if there were other people around.

But in PRIVATELY owned places… like MY HOUSE or YOUR CAR or JimBob’s RESTAURANT, etc… well, the owner can make that call. If I am at your house and you don’t allow smoking… cool. You are the king/queen and you make the laws. This is the realm of the pub owner… they can decide the rules of their kingdom… then the market (you and me) will decide whether we wish to visit their establishment (and play by their rules) or not. If you don’t like smoke… don’t go where it is allowed. If you want to smoke, don’t go where it isn’t allowed. Seems easy??

:s

42

I’ve seen several people take those “emotive comments” (read abusive flaming) extremely seriously, and their opinions of the posters have made a 180-degree turn. I’m speaking of folks who have, through PMs or personal conversations in the past week, expressed to me very negative opinions of posters on BOTH sides of the argument who have taken advantage of the supposedly anonymous venue of the forum to spew venom rather than reason.

My point being that there aren’t really any excuses for abusive, unconstructive and irrational posting, regardless of which side you’re on. Let’s please try to keep that in mind in the future, for the sake of the emotional health of this online community. Thanks!

Which completely ignores the whole issue of what is an appropriate forum for the main social event for the Forumosan community. Are you suggesting that just because the Happy Hours have traditionally been held in smoky pubs, that the non-smokers should just be excluded?

43

[quote=“Dragonbones”]

Which completely ignores the whole issue of what is an appropriate forum for the main social event for the Forumosan community. Are you suggesting that just because the Happy Hours have traditionally been held in smoky pubs, that the non-smokers should just be excluded?[/quote]

Actually… I was thinking more of the general topic of “smoking in pubs” when I wrote that. I wasn’t sure what I thought about it in the more specific context of the HH… so was going to think on it more. So yes… I did ignore the issue.

I am unable to attend the HHs for reasons unrelated to smoking… so perhaps my opinion is especially irrelevant in this case. The most appropriate thing in this case seems to me to be to do whatever helps make the greatest number of people feel welcome to show up… and right now it looks like non-smokers are feeling left out. Assuming the smokers care about the feelings of non-smokers, wouldn’t it be appropriate to find a way to welcome them?

As for a specific location to propose as a solution, I am the wrong one to ask… but maybe a group of non-smokers could choose a place for the next HH? A place they would be happy with?

I wish I could attend the HHs and if I ever get that chance, I would love to be able to meet everyone… not just smokers or non-smokers. Personally, I’d like to have the option of lighting up my pipe or a cigar… but the people are more important than smoking…

I do wonder, however… how many non-smokers would really protest the wonderful aroma of “Pipe Dream” (my current favorite)… :smiley:

44

This addresses what I think is the most critical part of the entire issue… let the pub owners decide!

In PUBLIC spaces, like in a park… I wouldn’t even consider smoking if there were other people around.

But in PRIVATELY owned places… like MY HOUSE or YOUR CAR or JimBob’s RESTAURANT, etc… well, the owner can make that call. If I am at your house and you don’t allow smoking… cool. You are the king/queen and you make the laws. This is the realm of the pub owner… they can decide the rules of their kingdom… then the market (you and me) will decide whether we wish to visit their establishment (and play by their rules) or not. If you don’t like smoke… don’t go where it is allowed. If you want to smoke, don’t go where it isn’t allowed. Seems easy??

:s[/quote]
Hey, I am majorly anti-smoking, but I agree with this. Let the pub owner decide what they want and how they want it.

45

I’ve seen several people take those “emotive comments” (read abusive flaming) extremely seriously, and their opinions of the posters have made a 180-degree turn. I’m speaking of folks who have, through PMs or personal conversations in the past week, expressed to me very negative opinions of posters on BOTH sides of the argument who have taken advantage of the supposedly anonymous venue of the forum to spew venom rather than reason.

My point being that there aren’t really any excuses for abusive, unconstructive and irrational posting, regardless of which side you’re on. Let’s please try to keep that in mind in the future, for the sake of the emotional health of this online community. Thanks!

Which completely ignores the whole issue of what is an appropriate forum for the main social event for the Forumosan community. Are you suggesting that just because the Happy Hours have traditionally been held in smoky pubs, that the non-smokers should just be excluded?[/quote]

DB, one thing i will say loud and clear so there is no misunderstanding, a good number of people on this site know who i am, so i am not hiding behind an anonymous handle, plus those that do also know that i would be prepared to say the same to their faces.

In regard to the second quote above, where does it exclude non smokers from attending the happy hours, it simply says that people who dislike smoke should not go where smoking is allowed if it affects them that much. It is your own biasty and wish to rack to discussion up a notch to then bring in that this precludes all non smokers from attending the happy hours.

This is the precise reason why the discussion got so emotive in the first place.

Personally i havent sunk to the level of sending rude PM’s to people unlike at least one of the anti smoking brigade have done.

The smoking debate is almost as devisive as the pro life debate. Neither side is either right or wrong.

46

Neither side is wrong? That’s a laugh. One side is arguing for the right to clean air and the other is arguing for the right to pollute it. Pretty easy to see which side is “wrong”. When smokers admit that they have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO BLOW THEIR SICKNESS IN PEOPLE’S FACES they will have moved back into ethical territory. Until then we are listening to nothing but the rationalizations of a bunch of drug addicts.

47

[quote=“SquiggyJahmal”]

In PUBLIC spaces, like in a park… I wouldn’t even consider smoking if there were other people around.

But in PRIVATELY owned places… like MY HOUSE or YOUR CAR or JimBob’s RESTAURANT, etc… well, the owner can make that call. If I am at your house and you don’t allow smoking… cool. You are the king/queen and you make the laws. This is the realm of the pub owner… they can decide the rules of their kingdom… then the market (you and me) will decide whether we wish to visit their establishment (and play by their rules) or not. If you don’t like smoke… don’t go where it is allowed. If you want to smoke, don’t go where it isn’t allowed. Seems easy??

:s[/quote]

Seems easy? Yes, too easy. This type of argument sounds reasonable but, to put it bluntly, is vacuous.

Every city, town, village, etc, has ordinances and bylaws regulating business. Many of these have to do with issue of worker and customer safety. According to your argument, it would be reasonable for an owner to use substandard materials in the construction of his restaurant, to chose not to have public toilets, or a clean kitchen. It would be okay to have no refridgerator, for the boss to ask workers to work extreme overtime hours, etc. Let the market decide if this kind of place should survive, you say.

Well, the market has never decided these issues and never will.

Allowing smoking in a restaurant is a little like allowing hamburger to be cooked at anything less than well done. Yes, some people may want it, but the risks are too great to permit them to have it.

And again, beyond the matter of what the customer wants there is the issue of worker safety which I noticed neither of you addressed. Look, someone must be there to serve you in a pub which means someone is going to be exposed to the second hand smoke of numerous people over the course of a shift. The issue is simple: do you agree that you have the right to expose workers to these kinds of safety risks? Please don’t answer that workers can choose to work at a pub or not.

48

Why shouldn’t he answer that way? Plenty of employees choose to work in jobs that, statistically, lower their life expectancy.

49

Why shouldn’t he answer that way? Plenty of employees choose to work in jobs that, statistically, lower their life expectancy.[/quote]

Yes, there are jobs that entail great risks. Jobs such as policing. Usually the compensation for such work is high, however, whether in terms of money or personal satisfaction.

Other jobs such as mining, factory, and construction work can entail high risks but in civilized countries we ensure that at least minimum safety standards are enforced. You cannot enter a contruction zone in most countries without a hard hat and safety boots. Yet you can enter a restaurant that is hazardess to your health because of the amount of smoke in it, without being required to take any safety precautions at all.

This is pecualir since there are many standards in place to otherwise protect your health: meat must be frozen, hamburger well done, food handlers must wash their hands after using the bathroom. Etc.

A job such as waitering is not critical to the well being of the country (unlike policing) and those who work in such positions should not have their life expectancy lowered simply because some people would like to smoke.

However, if bars really wants to allow smoking then they should be required to enforce minimum safefy features among workers. I am not talking about smoking and non-smoking areas but rather fully protective masks for their waiters. Seriously. A smoked filled environment is a health hazard. Why should be pub owners be able to subject workers to such a hazard when we would never accept an analogous subjection when the job in question entailled factory or construction work?

As a side note, I am not trying to demonize smokers. I am suggesting a different way to look at the problem. Traditionally it has been seen as a battle between consumers. As such, both sides have a case to make. However, when we bring the worker in the case clearly begins to shift toward the non-smoking position.

That is why I would like Squiggy to answer this way.

50

This is usually more a case of economic necessity than choice. It could be the only job they can get. How many people really ‘choose’ to work in a coal mine?

Brian

51

The most dangerous profession in the world is diving and I think that is pretty much a choice profession. The next most dangerous job is working in a bar which I think is also a choice kind of occupation. The danger comes from suicide not cancer.

I smoke and I don’t mind people asking me to smoke elsewhere, in general, but I draw the line in a bar.

My standard responce to that would be, “Get a life, before I smoke you.”

52

The smoking / non-smoking debate is like arguing about abortion or religion. It’s going to make enemies out of friends usually. Absent government rules and regulations, this issue is about individual (and business) compromises. Most people I think are pretty flexible and accommodating, some are not due to health or principles. I should think there’s room for co-existence (happens every day) if one wants to badly enough.

Smoke Ring Health: NYC Ban on Smoking

Some California Gov’t stats on their non-smoking laws

Full disclosure: I used to work at Philip Morris USA in their market research department. I used to be a resident of NYC and California, places that have banned smoking in public areas etc. And I am a cigar and pipe smoker.

53

I wanted to share the message below.

As some of you noticed, as posted in the smoking related POLL, I am a smoker, working in this industry, but fully aware of the non-smokers RIGHTS.
I am taking no opinion as “individual” in this debate, neither on a “business related” point of view.
We all know the risks (I hope there are no -18 Y readers here). Smoking is not a disease as such. Non-smokers may say what they want, but smokers are not a kind of

54

Indeed, in the upcoming months, Taiwan will try another attempt to become member of the WHO.
Believe me that the Law will change very very soon after…
Smoking ban in public places is all over the world, but it seems to take a bit more time here.

The owner of the pub should be pro-active pleasing both parties.
Installation of a smoke-fre section at least…

55

Sorry ceevee369 but your science doesn’t impress me a bit. Second hand smoke smells disgusting, gives people headaches, burns their eyes, irritates their throat and nasal passages, makes them feel nauseous and irritates their allergies but in the opinion of a vested interest it has not been established that it is a cause of disease?

Is there no end to the nonsense?

56

[quote=“bob”]Sorry ceevee369 but your science doesn’t impress me a bit. Second hand smoke smells disgusting, gives people headaches, burns their eyes, irritates their throat and nasal passages, makes them feel nauseous and irritates their allergies but in the opinion of a vested interest it has not been established that it is a cause of disease?

Is there no end to the nonsense?[/quote]

It is not about science “as such”, but stated and confirmed that the problems mentionned in the article ,and by you, are excisting.

They are not ignored. It is up to GOVERNEMENTS and HORECA owners to find a solution together for the benefit of non-smokers.
In a lot of countries smoking redemption is less than 20%
In Taiwan, it is about 40-50%… So it is difficult to convince owners to set a sign at the intrance “no smokers allowed”.

Yep, it will harm their business, but solutions were found (ireland, france, Italy etc…)

57

[quote=“Fox”]The most dangerous profession in the world is diving and I think that is pretty much a choice profession. The next most dangerous job is working in a bar which I think is also a choice kind of occupation. The danger comes from suicide not cancer.
[/quote]

Great if diving is simply a matter of choice them I’m in. Oh wait, you mean I have to become trained and certified and experienced so that I am not a hazard to those around me (and of course myself). But what if I find a crew willing to take me on with no experience? After I kill everyone and fuck up whatever project we were hired to do, I will simply shrug and say that the free market hired me and I am exempt from all responsibility.

My whole point is that dangerous work is normally regulated for the sake of the employee, his coworkers and the public at large. Why should it be any different with smoking in pubs?

[quote]I smoke and I don’t mind people asking me to smoke elsewhere, in general, but I draw the line in a bar.

My standard responce to that would be, “Get a life, before I smoke you.”[/quote]

Interesting. That’s pretty similar to the attittude of most Taiwanese guys I know when they are asked to stop driving so recklessly. :unamused:

58

LOL. when I read this I immediately thought of how ridiculous it would be for me to quiz my kids on their multiplication tables using your rules here. Okay… 6 x 7… but please don’t answer 42.

Then I thought of that game “TABOO” where you have to get your teammates to say a word on a card, but the card also has about 5 words you aren’t allowed to say while describing the secret word or the other team will BUZZ you.

I guess I’ll just get BUZZED. That is how I play TABOO too. Freakin’ stupid game.

The owner of the establishment makes the rules and chooses to expose his workers to the environment he/she wants in their business. The market certainly will work this out. If a pub owner allows smoking and doesn’t tell people who interview to work there… he/she is a bum. But as long as the employees know what to expect… that is their choice. (BUZZ)

Please do not assume that what I believe others should be allowed to do (open a pub and allow smoking in it and expose their employees to the dangers, etc) is what I personally would choose to do. That is the beauty of the free market. I do what I want… others do what they want… customers decide with their $$.

As for your example about the example about the restaurant…

I have some “public safety” concerns with some of what you write… particularly the parts of the scenario which patrons couldn’t know by observation (construction materials, frig, clean kitchen) but, in large part… Yes. Let the market decide. I sure won’t go there… you won’t. Who will? I don’t know… any takers out there? Doubtful. That business most likely doesn’t make it. And it closed down all without government intervention… just people making a choice. As to whether I think it is “reasonable” or not… please… of course it is unreasonable…

(BUZZ)

59

If it’s the only job they can get, it’s hardly a real choice.

So I guess you’d thinkt he same about people who work in unsafe coal mines? Hey. it’s their choice to work their. No need to improve the safety of the mines. The market will work it out.

Brian

60

We have looked at this thing from every concievable angle and what it comes down to is this: Do smokers, individualy, have enough respect for other people to take their habit somewhere that it doesn’t constitute a major irritation? Or do they want to continue stink up the social venues in a way that is nauseating to non smokers? That’s all there is to it. As a smoker you either get on the right side of this or… well, you can form your own conclusions.

Let it be understood that I comprehend the sentiments of those who think that the pub is the last bastion of whogivesafuckism, and, like loretta to an extent I sympathize. I spent my first night at the Balmoral at sixteen for god’s sake. I practically have a Phd in whogivesafuckism, but these days my whogivesafuckism is running more towards the whogivesafuckismifyouthinkyouhavearighttosmoke school of thought. I may be an English teacher but down deep I’m still a savage.