Smoking ban.

[Gringo]

Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

Hopefully in the future, we'll have cleaner energy sources than coal, so in a way the bit in bold is true. Anyway, you can't compare coal mining to working in public places such as pubs and restaurants.

Coal mining has been an industial necessity for centuries. How smoking indoors is a necessity, I sure can't see.

It's an analogy of the risk-compensation culture we live/work in. A similar argument is people who work in nuclear plants get compensated at a higher wage than similar jobs where such a risk is not so obvious.

[Risso]

Have your canteens. Now can we have our pubs and restaurants back where we can enjoy what we want,

Well, all due respect, but their not your pubs and restaurants, their public places.

Nope - they are private establishments.

50% of regular pub goers smoke. You have yours, we'll have ours and we'd all be happy.

Works in Spain doesn't it? Er, no, apparently, it's a farce......

Spanish smokers are still puffing away furiously in the nation's bars and restaurants despite a law designed to create smoke-free spaces, a study showed on Tuesday.

A minimal 10 percent of small bars and 15 percent of small restaurants opted to ban smokers from their premises under the law that came into effect last year, according to the study by Spain's Consumers' Organisation.

In larger premises, which are obliged to limit smokers to 30 percent of available space, the rule is being flouted in 85 percent of cases, the study showed, pointing out that smoking is even permitted in hospital cafeterias

[Risso]

If there were non-smoking AND smoking pubs (which are workable, it works in Spain) which I have been advocating for the last 20 pages (but people seem to be ignoring because they don't have a credible argument against democratic choice), then people would have the choice to work in either environment, smoking or non-smoking.

.

How do you know it works in Spain? Because Gringo said so? Pathetic.

You might have been advoctaing your hopeless ideas for 20 pages, but you haven't said once how this choice would work.

[Gringo]

Nope - they are private establishments.

Your talking about private clubs, right?

50% of regular pub goers smoke. You have yours, we'll have ours and we'd all be happy.

50%, right. I'm sure you'll find a source for that but I still wont believe it.

No a "public house" is in fact a private establishment and bicks will be able to back me up that you have the right to refuse entry without giving a reason. Same with restaurants, and with private clubs, snooker clubs, british legions, working mens clubs. They are not public places. The law was not instigated on the basis of access to these places for the public but on the spurious premise of the risk incurred by the people "forced" to work there.

The 50% figure was commonly quoted at the time of the legislation and I doubt it has varied much since, but as you can't be bothered to consider the evidence, I can't be arsed to find it.

[El Zen]

There are plenty of solutions to segregating smoking and non-smoking outlets, but whilst you've got a big stick you seem to dismiss them and prefer the bish-bosh approach.

Please, go ahead and name them. I don't know what this big stick you refer to all the time is, by the way. All I've said so far is that smoking is bad for you and people around you, and you shouldn't be allowed to puff smoke in a strangers face if said strangers doesn't want to.

I think the example of the spanish legislation has been mentioned a fair number of times already. A fair equible solution liked by non-smokers.

The big stick is the authoritarian state dictating what happens on private premises.

Maybe, after a few years of seeing how the smoking ban works, a Spanish model could be tried in selected establishments. I'm not going to rule that out, if it does work like you say it does.

Pubs, bars and restaurants are public places that should be accessible to all. Allow smokers to exercise their bad habit in these places, and these smokers will keep some people out of these public rooms. So maybe we can turn things around and say that the cigarette is in fact a big stick dictating where some people should have access to.

[djdabush]

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

Compensated in what way exactly?

In a market with smoking and non-smoking establishments there will be a number of jobs in each environment. It is likely that a lof of the lemon fresh crowd will opt out of working in the smoking environments, thus causing workers to be a more scarce resource, thus pushing up the price of the labour and thus compensating the workers for suffering the increased risk.

If you look at the value of coal miners wages in comparison with similar industries you will find that the those wages have decreased (in relative terms) as the number of casualties in the coal mining industry has fallen. Lower risk, lower compensation.

Gringo the market economist! Strange that most undesirable jobs are still poorly paid. Manual labour, working for McDonalds or for the Walmart empire is hardly going to make you rich and nor would working in a smoky pub. Yet again it will be the worst off that will be worst affected.

[Gringo]

If there were non-smoking AND smoking pubs (which are workable, it works in Spain) which I have been advocating for the last 20 pages (but people seem to be ignoring because they don't have a credible argument against democratic choice), then people would have the choice to work in either environment, smoking or non-smoking.

.

How do you know it works in Spain? Because Gringo said so? Pathetic.

You might have been advoctaing your hopeless ideas for 20 pages, but you haven't said once how this choice would work.

How much time you spent in spain since the ban? I've been there at least once a fortnight. Just come back from two weeks.

And you quote random wibble without referring your source - pathetic.

[Gringo]

Gringo the market economist! Strange that most undesirable jobs are still poorly paid. Manual labour, working for McDonalds or for the Walmart empire is hardly going to make you rich and nor would working in a smoky pub. Yet again it will be the worst off that will be worst affected.

Excellent rebuttal - which makes my point - the most dangerous jobs were the highest paid - oil rigs, nuclear plants, coal mines. Danger from working in macdonalds - low, danger from working in a smoking pub - low, but fractionally higher than a non-smoking pub (you might get burnt by a nub end) and the comepnsation would be higher because of the market forces.

[Bazdavies79]

No a "public house" is in fact a private establishment and bicks will be able to back me up that you have the right to refuse entry without giving a reason.

Ok, but they are places people spend time. The law is correct that these places should be smoke free.

The 50% figure was commonly quoted at the time of the legislation and I doubt it has varied much since, but as you can't be bothered to consider the evidence, I can't be arsed to find it.

And are 100% of that 50% against a ban then?

[dundeevilla]

How do you know it works in Spain? Because Gringo said so? Pathetic.

You might have been advoctaing your hopeless ideas for 20 pages, but you haven't said once how this choice would work.

I have been there many times and seen it in action. The parts of Spain I have been in seemed to have a fairly even balance between smoking and non-smoking bars.

How do you know it doesn't work? Because you came up with a story on the internet. Excuse me if I remain unconvinced.

Please explain to me why having a choice in a democratic society is 'hopeless'. I believe that failing to have the imagination to be able to come up with a compromise is hopeless. That compromise may need tweaking to make it workable after it is put into action, but at least we would be trying instead of blithely accepting blanket bans.

[Gringo]

No a "public house" is in fact a private establishment and bicks will be able to back me up that you have the right to refuse entry without giving a reason.

Ok, but they are places people spend time. The law is correct that these places should be smoke free.

The 50% figure was commonly quoted at the time of the legislation and I doubt it has varied much since, but as you can't be bothered to consider the evidence, I can't be arsed to find it.

And are 100% of that 50% against a ban then?

There are even some non-smokers who oppose the ban.

I called the private establishments, adn established the basis for the argument in the terms of which the legislation was drafted, publicised, consulted upon and then twisted.

[Risso]

And you quote random wibble without referring your source - pathetic.

Sorry, it was the Spanish Consumers' Association. And I'm sure as a smoker in Spain, you're going to present us with a completely unbiassed view.

There isn't a single one of your arguments that stacks up.

Smokers inflict their filthy habit on non smokers. Not smoking doesn't hurt you, therefore you're rightly losing your "choice" to hurt others.

Passive smoking increases the risk of cancer. it's a fact, stop reading reports funded by the tobacco industry.

You say the smoking ban works in Spain. Firstly, it isn't a ban. Secondly, the total ban works perfectly in Ireland and other places.

[Risso]

I have been there many times and seen it in action. The parts of Spain I have been in seemed to have a fairly even balance between smoking and non-smoking bars.

.

Bullshit! The ban only came in in 2006, how many times could you possibly have been to Spain in that time?

[Gringo]

There are plenty of solutions to segregating smoking and non-smoking outlets, but whilst you've got a big stick you seem to dismiss them and prefer the bish-bosh approach.

Please, go ahead and name them. I don't know what this big stick you refer to all the time is, by the way. All I've said so far is that smoking is bad for you and people around you, and you shouldn't be allowed to puff smoke in a strangers face if said strangers doesn't want to.

I think the example of the spanish legislation has been mentioned a fair number of times already. A fair equible solution liked by non-smokers.

The big stick is the authoritarian state dictating what happens on private premises.

Maybe, after a few years of seeing how the smoking ban works, a Spanish model could be tried in selected establishments. I'm not going to rule that out, if it does work like you say it does.

Pubs, bars and restaurants are public places that should be accessible to all. Allow smokers to exercise their bad habit in these places, and these smokers will keep some people out of these public rooms. So maybe we can turn things around and say that the cigarette is in fact a big stick dictating where some people should have access to.

I half buy this argument and said at the time that the emphasis needed changing. It should not be the case that you presume you can smoke unless there's a sign saying you can't - the presumption should be placed upon the smoker to determine whether an establishment accepts smoking before lighting up. This is easily done - you work along, you see a restaurant - no one smoking, no ashtrays on tables, you carry on walking till you find one. It works.

[Bazdavies79]

There are even some non-smokers who oppose the ban.

Oh, how many? Is yours is the majority viewpoint?

[Gringo]

And you quote random wibble without referring your source - pathetic.

Sorry, it was the Spanish Consumers' Association. And I'm sure as a smoker in Spain, you're going to present us with a completely unbiassed view.

There isn't a single one of your arguments that stacks up.

Smokers inflict their filthy habit on non smokers. Not smoking doesn't hurt you, therefore you're rightly losing your "choice" to hurt others.

Passive smoking increases the risk of cancer. it's a fact, stop reading reports funded by the tobacco industry.

You say the smoking ban works in Spain. Firstly, it isn't a ban. Secondly, the total ban works perfectly in Ireland and other places.

And as part of the antitobaccofascist wing your view is completely balanced.

You hurt me by restricting mine and others movements.

Passive smoking has never been showing in a reliable study with strong statistical support to show a causal link with lung cancer - never mind saying it's a fact. If the evidence was so good you'd be linking the studies.

The ban works in spain, people are happy they have a choice, and businesses are booming both smoking and non-smoking.

The ban works in ireland and pubs are closing.

[dundeevilla]

Bullshit! The ban only came in in 2006, how many times could you possibly have been to Spain in that time?

Risso if you don't believe me that's up to you. But if it helps convince you any, 'I swear on my life that I have seen it in action on more than one occasion in the last 12 months and it seemed to work fine.'

[djdabush]

Excellent rebuttal - which makes my point - the most dangerous jobs were the highest paid - oil rigs, nuclear plants, coal mines. Danger from working in macdonalds - low, danger from working in a smoking pub - low, but fractionally higher than a non-smoking pub (you might get burnt by a nub end) and the comepnsation would be higher because of the market forces.

Hang on, will they be paid more or not? If they will then why, if there's no actual real risk of working in a smoking pub.

Are coal-miners really paid that much nowadays? If they are then fair enough. As for nuclear plant-workers, I suspect many of them are actually very well educated which may influence how much they get paid. If you're looking for dangerous jobs, I'd say being in the army heads the list, but they are hardly paid a fantastic amount either.

[Gringo]

There are even some non-smokers who oppose the ban.

Oh, how many? Is yours is the majority viewpoint?

If I found some stats you wouldn't believe them anyway

It's not about majority views - it's about not attacking minorities for no good reason.

There are sensible ways to regulate the leisure industries and their smoking, and this isn't one of them, this is simply the tyranny of the majority.

[Risso]

The ban works in ireland and pubs are closing.

More lies.

The Irish Central Statistics Office revealed that in November 2004 (seven months after the ban was introduced) bar sales were down just 2.8 per cent compared with the previous year