Smoking Ban - The Isle Of Man

[Lonan3]

Tolerance is always selective. I make no argument by of association be it weak or strong. I purely point out you're inconsistencies. I do not see why the argument you are making in respect of this bit of legislation is any different from similar pices of legislation that has been brought in over the years except that it affects you and affects you know. If you want an argument of association sex between consenting adults or on your own is I believe a legal activity but there are restriction about where I can undertake that. There are similar arguments to relax those laws e.g in terms of the provision of brothels as there are to not tighten the smoking laws. My and everybodies stand on each is based on what each of us will tolerate.

 

I think that's a very poor analogy. A better one, perhaps, would be to look at the way that the former 'men only' clubs were invaded and destroyed by feminists who made use of the sex equality laws to do so. It wasn't that the clubs were actually doing them any great harm, merely that some people were enjoying the pleasure of a restricted company and being wicked enough to enjoy a pleasure from which they were excluded.

At the time, there was no thought of forming similar 'women only' clubs - merely a determination to put an end to the 'men only' ones.

Similarly, when non-smokers are offered the option of non-smoking pubs, restaurants etc., they totally reject the idea (and completely fail to support any establishment that offers them that choice!) and insist that all such places must conform to their ideals.

Strangely, I can't recall howls of outrage from smokers when the Railway in Douglas went 'non-smoking.' They simply took their business elsewhere. And, of course, the non-smokers went with them so that they could continue to complain about the smell/taste/noxious fumes etc.

Okay, you've succeeded. I wish you well of it. And I've no doubt you'll insist that the smoking ban has nothing to do with the closures of many establishments over the next year or two. You'll be delighted that there are no more 'pubs' as such - merely bars as an adjunct of restaurants.

Holidaymakers will, of course, prefer to go to more enlightened places such as Spain and Italy where proper provision is made for tobacco addicts - even those who now come from the UK and Ireland to enjoy the freedom of being able to indulge their habit in a social setting - but I'm sure that you'll be able to explain that away, too.

Unfortunately, it isn't the smoke that is clouding the judgement of the vociferous non-smokers - it is the fog of dogma and, once the spoils of battle come to be distributed - you're likely to find that its an extremely pyrrhic victory.

Am I concerned as a smoker? No, I rarely bother with the plastic venues that masquerade as 'pubs' today. I am concerned because a large part of my living is made from those who frequent such places and from visitors to our island - and I am absolutely certain that far fewer people will be going to 'pubs,' far fewer 'pubs' will be available for them to go to, and socialising in general will undergo a considerable decline over the next few years. (And, yes, I also accept that the breweries overpricing is a large contributory factor to that scenario.)

Naturally, sitting in your air-conditioned/centrally-heated offices, shuffling bits of paper and trying to spend many hours a day convincing yourselves that you're doing something important (Been there! Done that!), you will hardly be aware of the job losses in 'pubs,' restaurants and related industries - but you'll always have the satisfaction of knowing that a 'pleasure' that you couldn't relate to has been removed from your environment.

Congratulations!

[Speckled Frost]

How about having a discussion on the smoking ban without analogies.

 

They don't work.

 

It seems a simple case of the right to smoke anywhere vs the right not to be subjected to that smoke.

 

The other issues are that if you have concessions are you actually weakening the law and providing the opportunity for endless loopholes?

Are the air conditioning systems so effective these days that decent air quality could be sustained?

What will the effects be on businesses, particularly bingo halls and working men clubs?

How well can it be policed?

[Miss Take]

Tolerance is always selective. I make no argument by of association be it weak or strong. I purely point out you're inconsistencies. I do not see why the argument you are making in respect of this bit of legislation is any different from similar pices of legislation that has been brought in over the years except that it affects you and affects you know. If you want an argument of association sex between consenting adults or on your own is I believe a legal activity but there are restriction about where I can undertake that. There are similar arguments to relax those laws e.g in terms of the provision of brothels as there are to not tighten the smoking laws. My and everybodies stand on each is based on what each of us will tolerate.

 

I think that's a very poor analogy. A better one, perhaps, would be to look at the way that the former 'men only' clubs were invaded and destroyed by feminists who made use of the sex equality laws to do so. It wasn't that the clubs were actually doing them any great harm, merely that some people were enjoying the pleasure of a restricted company and being wicked enough to enjoy a pleasure from which they were excluded.

At the time, there was no thought of forming similar 'women only' clubs - merely a determination to put an end to the 'men only' ones.

Similarly, when non-smokers are offered the option of non-smoking pubs, restaurants etc., they totally reject the idea (and completely fail to support any establishment that offers them that choice!) and insist that all such places must conform to their ideals.

Strangely, I can't recall howls of outrage from smokers when the Railway in Douglas went 'non-smoking.' They simply took their business elsewhere. And, of course, the non-smokers went with them so that they could continue to complain about the smell/taste/noxious fumes etc.

Okay, you've succeeded. I wish you well of it. And I've no doubt you'll insist that the smoking ban has nothing to do with the closures of many establishments over the next year or two. You'll be delighted that there are no more 'pubs' as such - merely bars as an adjunct of restaurants.

Holidaymakers will, of course, prefer to go to more enlightened places such as Spain and Italy where proper provision is made for tobacco addicts - even those who now come from the UK and Ireland to enjoy the freedom of being able to indulge their habit in a social setting - but I'm sure that you'll be able to explain that away, too.

Unfortunately, it isn't the smoke that is clouding the judgement of the vociferous non-smokers - it is the fog of dogma and, once the spoils of battle come to be distributed - you're likely to find that its an extremely pyrrhic victory.

Am I concerned as a smoker? No, I rarely bother with the plastic venues that masquerade as 'pubs' today. I am concerned because a large part of my living is made from those who frequent such places and from visitors to our island - and I am absolutely certain that far fewer people will be going to 'pubs,' far fewer 'pubs' will be available for them to go to, and socialising in general will undergo a considerable decline over the next few years. (And, yes, I also accept that the breweries overpricing is a large contributory factor to that scenario.)

Naturally, sitting in your air-conditioned/centrally-heated offices, shuffling bits of paper and trying to spend many hours a day convincing yourselves that you're doing something important (Been there! Done that!), you will hardly be aware of the job losses in 'pubs,' restaurants and related industries - but you'll always have the satisfaction of knowing that a 'pleasure' that you couldn't relate to has been removed from your environment.

Congratulations!

 

So many comments to target - so little time. If I didn't know already that you were of the, ahem, older generation, it has been made more than clear by this post.

[ans]

Strangely, I can't recall howls of outrage from smokers when the Railway in Douglas went 'non-smoking.' They simply took their business elsewhere. And, of course, the non-smokers went with them so that they could continue to complain about the smell/taste/noxious fumes etc.

 

I've seen this offered as an argument before and it's only partly true. What's often missed out is that at the same time the Railway went non-smoking, they redeveloped the place into a shitty pretentious snob bar that would have done poor business regardless of any smoking ban. They've actually turned it round now and it's a great place to drink. A smoking ban now would only have a marginal effect I suspect.

 

Personally, I can't wait for it. I'm a social smoker who only smokes with a drink these days and I'd prefer not to at all. Having to go outside, particularly in the winter, will discourage me from it. Hopefully to the extent where I just quit completely.

[ans]

Incidentally Lonan3, do you or your customers smoke in your taxi? If not, is that a regulatory issue, company policy or personal choice?

[Lonan3]

So many comments to target - so little time. If I didn't know already that you were of the, ahem, older more mature and experienced generation, it has been made more than clear by this post.

 

Edited to eliminate ageist comment!

[Lost Login]

I will accept you think my analagy is poor provided you accept I have similar reservations about yours. Non smokers have not invaded smokers pubs or even vica versa.

 

I have no problem with their being non smoking and smoking pubs in principal or segregated areas. However whether you agree or not the legislation was introduced partly to protect the workers. As that is part of the underlying principal of the legislation it makes it very difficult to come up with a compromise as those compromises tend to relate to those socialising only. The employees can not be segregated as simply and straight forwardly. Or if they can I have not seen an explanation except that workers should be given a choice. Unfortunately employment legislation dies not tend to work on the basis that employees can opt out for fear that they will be forced to by the bosses rather than out of free choice.

 

I note your coments with regard to the Railway although I disagree that the non smokers went with the smokers purely so they can complain. Mainly it was the smokers in a group upand went elsewhere. The choice was then to split the group, stay at home like Billy no mates, or stay with the group you socialise with.

 

I accept that their probably will be job losses and some closures as a result of the changes. I also expect that not every closure will be down to the introduction of the smoking ban. Those who this will effect have my every sympathy but I appreciate sympathy is not much good when you are trying to pay the bills. I also acept that socialising will consequently change but I am not sure if this will be a bad thing in the long term. If if reduces the number of teenagers taking up smoking I am all for it. I am also aware of many people I speak to who presently avoid going to pubs because of the atmosphere. They may be middle aged old codgers like myself but hopefully these people will over time be tempted back. You may disagree but I think that possibly long term over the next 10 years or so those that embrace the changes will come out stronger the other side than if the current status quo remains.

 

Finally I will return to shuffling papers on the desk which I apprecaite in the scheme of things is not greatly important except it pays the mortgage. I do though as you say look forward to the day when "a pleasue I can not relate to is taken away from my enviroment." Actually I a looking forward to the day when an unpleasant and possibly harmful irritant which you appear not to be able to relate to is taken away from my enviroment. I have no interest in removing your pleasur purely in removing something I find unpleasant. Unfortunately they are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

I think that's a very poor analogy. A better one, perhaps, would be to look at the way that the former 'men only' clubs were invaded and destroyed by feminists who made use of the sex equality laws to do so. It wasn't that the clubs were actually doing them any great harm, merely that some people were enjoying the pleasure of a restricted company and being wicked enough to enjoy a pleasure from which they were excluded.

At the time, there was no thought of forming similar 'women only' clubs - merely a determination to put an end to the 'men only' ones.

Similarly, when non-smokers are offered the option of non-smoking pubs, restaurants etc., they totally reject the idea (and completely fail to support any establishment that offers them that choice!) and insist that all such places must conform to their ideals.

Strangely, I can't recall howls of outrage from smokers when the Railway in Douglas went 'non-smoking.' They simply took their business elsewhere. And, of course, the non-smokers went with them so that they could continue to complain about the smell/taste/noxious fumes etc.

Okay, you've succeeded. I wish you well of it. And I've no doubt you'll insist that the smoking ban has nothing to do with the closures of many establishments over the next year or two. You'll be delighted that there are no more 'pubs' as such - merely bars as an adjunct of restaurants.

Holidaymakers will, of course, prefer to go to more enlightened places such as Spain and Italy where proper provision is made for tobacco addicts - even those who now come from the UK and Ireland to enjoy the freedom of being able to indulge their habit in a social setting - but I'm sure that you'll be able to explain that away, too.

Unfortunately, it isn't the smoke that is clouding the judgement of the vociferous non-smokers - it is the fog of dogma and, once the spoils of battle come to be distributed - you're likely to find that its an extremely pyrrhic victory.

Am I concerned as a smoker? No, I rarely bother with the plastic venues that masquerade as 'pubs' today. I am concerned because a large part of my living is made from those who frequent such places and from visitors to our island - and I am absolutely certain that far fewer people will be going to 'pubs,' far fewer 'pubs' will be available for them to go to, and socialising in general will undergo a considerable decline over the next few years. (And, yes, I also accept that the breweries overpricing is a large contributory factor to that scenario.)

Naturally, sitting in your air-conditioned/centrally-heated offices, shuffling bits of paper and trying to spend many hours a day convincing yourselves that you're doing something important (Been there! Done that!), you will hardly be aware of the job losses in 'pubs,' restaurants and related industries - but you'll always have the satisfaction of knowing that a 'pleasure' that you couldn't relate to has been removed from your environment.

Congratulations!

[Chinahand]

As far as I am aware you are still totally allowed to have a single sex private club.

 

Lonan3 is wrong to say that feminists have stopped "people from enjoying the pleasure of a restricted company and being wicked enough to enjoy a pleasure from which they were excluded". If you want to set up an all male or all female club - fine you can do it. AFAIK the social "harm" of that exclusion has not been found to be so serious as to warrant its banning in law (quite right to!). The social harm of smoking is all together different.

 

There are issues of freedom of association in the pro smoking argument, but I think they are VERY weak - smokers are free to associate - there are just restrictions on employing people to work for them while they do it, and on whether they can buy alcholol etc.

 

People have posted that the anti-smokers are over emphasising the plight of bar workers - maybe, but some of the main supporters of a total ban were the trade unions representing such people. To me Lonan3's post has very strong resonances about social conflict which I think misses this fact and puts too much of the blame on another social group.

 

Lonan3's final counter blast clearly shows there is alot of anger in this - but I do think he is not been fair in his attack on "plastic venues" and office workers "convincing" themselves "they are doing something important", while hardly being aware of job losses in pubs etc and "having the satifaction of knowing that a pleasure that they couldn't relate to has been removed from the environment."

 

There is a social conflict element to these remarks that pulled me up and really made me think.

 

The venues young people go through their rights-of-plassages in are nearly universially dire, they always have been they always will be. The local boozer is the local boozer and though it might get Sky and a new layout the reason people go to it is because its the local boozer. These are open social places were you go to muck in and have fun - and people reminisce and have great affection for them - I definitely do for the various locals I have frequented.

 

These places are very different from places that now cater for the fact we cook less and eat out more - and want to do so in an open environment which still allows for privacy for the group of friends or family who are doing it.

 

Lonan3 seems to be angry at this split and I think incorrectly attacks the people who are now using these new and different establishments for a perseived decline the more traditional ones - and adds in a blast that it is these people who are taking away a pleasure from the smokers.

 

As I've mentioned unions representing bar workers have been very much involved in drawing up the total ban legislation and I see very little wrong in our society trying to take measures to improve public health.

 

Casting these efforts in social conflict terms may make the smoker feel better and give him a target to grumble about down the pub, but hitting out at an office worker, or a bloke who goes to the gym and likes a drink in a sports bar, is to me a very misdirected response. A pleasure is being taken away, but don't be envious of other people's pleasures just because they are different from yours.

 

The pleasure of smoking is being restricted because it causes very real harm - to say it is being taken away due to social rivalries makes good pub politics but is far from the realities of emphysema and cancer.

[Millman]

Well after 12 pages of debate we have proved one thing the extremists on both sides can't hold a well reasoned and sensible debate on the issue. I guess this is just one issue where opinions tend to get highly polarised and compromise and understanding are impossible for some people.

 

I will await with interest either the non smoking wonderland where all the pubs smell of roses and we all live until we are 210. Or for the apocalyptic wasteland where no pubs exist, everyone nips to the continent for a fag or face 50 years in the reeducation camps of the fascist totalitarian state.

[Lonan3]

I have not seen an explanation except that workers should be given a choice. Unfortunately employment legislation dies not tend to work on the basis that employees can opt out for fear that they will be forced to by the bosses rather than out of free choice.

 

And yet a similar 'opt out' was considered adequate for staff with religious objections when allowing shops to open on Sundays.

[Theodolite]

My vision of Albert Tatlock Lonan3 being an intelligent, balanced and informed debater has over the past hour or so disappeared

 

in a puff of smoke.

 

It's a smokers' trait.

 

My father for example, is powerfully intelligent and an absolute joy to debate things with and chat to, however, get onto the issue of smoking and he immediately transforms into the debating equivalent of a small child with its hands in its ears whilst wailing, "Laa laaa laaa can't hear you!"

 

Then again, he is a drug addict attempting to rationalise that addiction, which is, essentially, impossible to achieve.

 

If he'd just say, "I'm addicted to nicotine and I don't have the willpower to kick the addiction", I'd let the matter drop.

 

Says it all.

[Lost Login]

I think the two are diametrically opposed. You would not have bosses putting pressure on staff to take the option of the opt out re religeous objections as I am sure they would prefer the staff to work. i.e. this option gave staff additional rights. An opt re working in an enviroment where smoking was allowed would allow the staff to opt out of improved rights and accordingly it might be found theyw ere presurised to do so.

 

Either way ignoring my typos what I stated was "unfortunately employment legislation does not tend to" not that it does not. I am aware that there are such examples hence my wording

 

I have not seen an explanation except that workers should be given a choice. work on the basis that employees can opt out for fear that they will be forced to by the bosses rather than out of free choice.

 

And yet a similar 'opt out' was considered adequate for staff with religious objections when allowing shops to open on Sundays.

[Lonan3]

My vision of Albert Tatlock Lonan3 being an intelligent, balanced and informed debater has over the past hour or so disappeared

 

in a puff of smoke.

 

Wow! I get my name in bold and in size 3! You're obviously not trying hard enough, Mr Tatlock!

[bozz]

If you don't smoke and you go to a pub, you waive your right to whinge about the smoke. You are banned from whinging. You went in there voluntarily, you knew what was coming, so you've only yourself to blame. Shut the <insert rude word here> up. Nope! Don't even..... no, there are no "but"s, you willingly walked into gaseous cyanide and a possibly related painful death, and so you are the only idiot you can blame.

 

If you don't smoke and you get a job working in a pub - see the above.

 

This sentiment also applies to men having to accompany women into clothes shops.

 

And I believe that is the end of the argument. Common sense returns, the planet begins to spin as it should, and I go back to my crystal cave in the North Pole to have a kip (and occasionally talk to my dad, who looks like Marlon Brando in makeup).

[Lost Login]

If you smoke and you go to a pub, you will waive your right to whinge about not being able to smoke. You will be banned from whinging. You will go in there voluntarily, you will know what is coming, so you've only yourself to blame. Shut the <insert rude word here> up. Nope! Don't even..... no, there are no "but"s, you willingly chose to start smoking a gaseous cyanide causing a possibly related painful death, and so you are the only idiot you can blame.

 

If you do smoke and you get a job working in a pub - see the above.

 

This sentiment also applies to men having to accompany women into clothes shops.

 

And I believe that is the end of the argument. Common sense returns, the planet begins to spin as it should, and I go back to my crystal cave in the North Pole to have a kip (and occasionally talk to my dad, who looks like Marlon Brando in makeup).