Hello All

Missing in Professor Chapman’s statistic-laden polemic in favour of a smoking ban in pubs was any concept of individual freedom and personal responsibility. He moves from the obvious (smoking is bad for one’s health) to the conclusion that this ban is good public policy. What of private property rights and free choice? They don’t exists in Professor Chapman’s universe!
Rather than a freedom destroying ban, why doesn’t the government …. Do nothing!
The pub owners can work out what they wish to do themselves, and it will all sort it self out. Those patrons who don’t like smoke filled pubs will go elsewhere, perhaps some pubs will close, or become smoke free. Others may retain smoking, staffed by people who are willing to accept the risk of working in such an environment (perhaps they will be smokers themselves). In time the situation will reflect community preferences, there may be a few “smoke-easies” where patrons can enjoy a cigarette, whilst others will be smoke free, or may be segregated.
Those who go to smokey pubs do so in the full knowledge of the risks, everyone benefits, peoples’ freedom is preserved, as are the rights of the pub owners. Professor Chapman’s freedom destroying procrustean prescription is bad medicine!

With Kind Regards
Geoffrey

Back to the future in Geoffrey's brave new world of total market freedom. Bar staff can accept the risks & the state can back off as long as people's precious "freedom" to selfishly harm others continues unabated. Right then! The reduction ad absurdum is let's do away with all occupational health law. Let's send children down the mines again - they're so nimble & can fit in those small spaces! Get some study tours of Pakistani child labour in carpetweaving happening, man! Toss out all these Nanny State safety standards and just tell workers to be more careful at the end of a 12 hour shift. And stop worrying about asbestos. Bands playing at 120 decibels might send you deaf? No worries.. just put a warning sign up and let it rip! Worried about drink drivers' "freedom to drive"? Hey, just stay off the roads .. it's a jungle out there.

Pub staff are typically low paid, non-unionised and often back packers who can be easily exploited. Don't like my menial wages and conditions? Well, buzz off .. I can always find someone more desperate who'll do the job. Why should we worry about someone dumb enough to work in a bar and their health? Geoffrey & his neo-Darwininan ilk probably think these people have it coming to them anyway.

Franco the bar worker

Hello all

No one likes to see sharp business practices or unsafe working conditions, but how should they be dealt with? The best way and the way most consistent with individual freedom is by individuals or groups applying pressure within the framework of a free society. The ways of applying public pressure are many; shaming, protests, economic boycotts and any other forms of voluntary protests could be used. Take one of the examples Franco uses, the case of asbestos mining. Given what is now known about it, is very unlikely anyone could be found to work in such a mine, and if they did there a would need to be very high levels of personal protection such as pressurised suits and the like. If any workers could be found no doubt they would need to pay very high wages. If the owners knew asbestos was dangerous and withheld information from their workforce, any who got sick would have strong grounds to sue for a misrepresentation that induced them to sign a contract of employment. The situation would sort itself out one way or the other without the need for state intervention.
As to the pubs ban, it is universally known that its second-hand cigarette smoke is dangerous, anyone therefore accepts the job in such environment accepts the risk. With freedom comes responsibility , if people wish to live in a free society they must accept the consequences of their own actions. The nanny state that would protect us from ourselves would also take away our freedom, such a price is always too high.
So to Franco’s charge that I am a “Neo-Darwinist”; if expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions and accept the consequence of their choices is Neo Darwinism then I’m guilty as charged.

With Kind Regards
Geoffrey

Good on ya' Geoffrey! Your comments are exactly right. Market forces and social pressure are a much more free way of change than having "Big Brother" do it for us. Fast cars, 4 wheel drives, fast foot, alcohol, cameras on the beach, they're all on the hit list. It's almost impossible these days to live a day of your life and not break some petty little rule or regulation. We need protection from pollies and their monstrous bureaucracy alot more than from anything else.

It's a simple matter of equity. Bar workers don't have the right to a smoke-free environment which other workers take for granted. In other words, bar workers' personal freedoms (not to inhale smoke, not to be at risk of carcinogenic substances) are being ignored by the likes of the AHA.

Those who feel their personal freedoms are under attack are being somewhat selective when they assert their "right" to smoke in bars. Where are the arguments for the right to smoke in libraries, in banks or at service stations?

As for arguments about "Big Brother" and too much government regulation, well, there are long accepted restrictions on alcohol consumption in terms of drink driving, under age drinking, drinking outside hotels etc. Are those rules an indication of creeping communism?

I can't for the life of me find any worthwhile argument to counter the reasonable proposal that hospitality workers should have a smoke free work environment like other people.

Geoffrey and bozzie, I agree with your sentiments 100%. Great initial post by Geoffrey. Simon Chapman is a first class scumbag, who clearly has no regard for the rights and liberties of individuals, and seeks to ENFORCE his own brand of puritanism on everyone in the community. The true markings of a tyrant.

However, I for one dispute that the so-called dangers of passive smoking are conclusive. Some studies have certainly not shown passive smoking to be dangerous to health, but surprise, surprise those studies are not widely publicised.

As for the bar workers, it's simple. A great many occupations carry some risk to health. If you don't like it, get a job elsewhere.

Actually it's smokers who tend not to respect the rights of others and force their smoke onto other people who don't want it. Jaxxen is ignorant about who's civil liberties are actually being breached here. As for "get a job elsewhere" - why the hell should bar workers have to go elsewhere? Why can't smoking customers go elsewhere? Nobody forces them to smoke. And, in their own homes, nobody forces them NOT to smoke.

And let's get this issue in perspective - the majority of the general public and hospitality workers are non-smokers. And they'll be the ones who will patronise pubs more often once the ban is in place. That is, a ban on smoking where other people have to breath it - NOT smoking per se. Got it?

Come on, DavidJS. Surely you understand that if present trends continue as is, it will be only a matter of time before smoking IS banned in private homes. It will all be under the guise of "we must protect the innocent". Banning smoking in PRIVATELY owned businesses is the first step down that very slippery slope.

And no, I am not confused about whose liberty is being violated. Having a job is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE. Bar workers are employed because they serve the purposes of the proprieters who employ them. Proprieters own pubs and restaurants because they can make money off consumers. In other words these jobs exist to serve the purposes of the consumer. The consumer and private business operators are having their rights violated.

As for your arguments about it being better for business to ban smoking, all I'm saying is let proprieters make that decision for themselves. Many restaurants have already banned smoking. We simply don't need arbitrary laws banning smoking in ALL pubs and restaurants.

Jaxxen, see if I can put it this way. Brothel owners can be prosecuted for requiring that their staff do not use condoms. Your precious free market customer-is-always-right views would presumably think this is all Nanny state stuff, right? You'd argue that if a customer wants to take the risk of sex without a condom and is prepared to pay, then no one else should have any say in this .. risking endangering the health of sex workers should be just part of the commodity price, right? The state should stand back and let the epidemic rip, correct?

I'd just love to see where you are coming from on this...

Ever heard of the term "personal responsibility"? These days it seems that you're not responsible for your own actions and we need millions of rules and regulations in order to be kept safe from ourselves.

Unfortunately you can't legislate against stupidity. Franco, if you're suggesting that prostitutes only use condoms because the state has decreed so, you're fooling yourself. Prostitutes use condoms because they don't want to catch disease. Being a prostitute doesn't necessarily equate with being an idiot. But what does is someone terrified of passive smoking who voluntarily goes and works in a smokey pub.

Actually Franco, I don't believe prostitution should be legal at all. I think it's rather ridiculous to treat prostitution like it's some kind of legitimate indistry, complete with trade unions representing so-called "workers" and governments profiting from it through taxation. What will be next? Work experience for teens?

I was in California in 2000, 2 years after the ban in restaurants, bars and similar venues had been in place. The bars in San Francisco, Santa Monica and even little Santa Barbara were pretty packed. Non-smoking policies looked good for business to me - at least they didn't seem to make a difference to business. And as the majority of consumers are non-smokers it stands to reason.

Why is it we accept non-smoking policies in schools, government departments, houses of parliament, many private businesses and not hotels? Again it goes back to equity. Bar workers have to put up with UNNECESSARY risks (capitalisation for emphasis - not shouting) that, for example, teachers don't have to.

Teachers actually used to be able to smoke on the premises 25 years ago. Funny how nobody is standing up for their right to smoke at work. Double standards perhaps?

DavidJS, your merely anecdotal evidence about California is not a very relevant point. I've seen hard statistics from the USA showing that bans on smoking in pubs has harmed business for proprieters. I think that's one reason why the AHA is opposed to bans here.

I agree with the bans in the relevant PUBLIC utilities and places that you have listed. But surely you can see that the situation with pubs is a little different. Children are FORCED to attend school - they have no choice in the matter. It would be wrong to subject them to the teachers smoking in class. Pubs on the other hand are PRIVATELY owned. The issue here is property rights. No one is FORCED to go into a pub. You go there by your own free will.

We seem to have accepted smoking bans in restaurants and they were forced to have smoke-free settings (inside the premises) by government legislation. They didn't decide to one day ban smoking. And other private businesses accept a whole host of government restrictions relating to occupational health and safety. It doesn't stop them raking in a profit. I don't see how the issue of private ownership makes a significant difference. Both private schools and public schools have to operate within health and safety guidelines - the restriction on smoking just being one.

At my school teachers weren't allowed to smoke in the classroom. However, they could and did smoke in the childfree staffroom.

DavidJS, my point about children being FORCED to attend school still stands. It's true that private businesses must accept health and safety regulations, but with smoking it's a little different. Proprieters are specifically wanting to provide customers with an environment where they can smoke if they so choose and many hotel patrons expect to be able to smoke in that environment. All I'm saying is that if that's what customers and proprieters want, well then let them.

Furthermore, I am disputing that the so-called dangers of passive smoking are conclusive anyway.

And all I'm saying is that the rights of workers who have to serve beer, clean up ashtrays, mop up vomit and take orders for food are paramount in my list of concerns. Without them, the hotel doesn't run. The customers could help themselves but I don't think management would like that.

I deal with clients in my line of work (I work for an NGO - how does that factor in regarding this public/private dichotomy you are posing?). None of them are allowed to smoke in my office or anywhere in the building. I fail to see why hotel workers cannot have the same rights.

If you work for a hotel there are a reasonable set of requirements you must adhere to. Turn up on time, serve the customers, do your job properly, don't leave early, make sure you conform to RSA regulations. Having smoke blown over you is unreasonable given the (smoke free) conditions in other areas of the hospitality industry - such as restaurants or airline bookings.

DavidJS, your argument doesn't wash. People aren't FORCED to work in hotels. They do it by choice. If they don't like it - get a job elsewhere. The hotels wouldn't close - they'd simply employ people who don't mind cigarette smoke. I disagree strongly with mandatory bans in restaurants also. Some patrons like to have a smoke with a meal - if proprieters want to provide for this - let them. Freedom of choice is generally a very good thing for human beings, David. Just leave things up to market forces - that way property rights are respected and all different types of customers will be catered for.

Hi im an 18 year old female, just happened to come across this forum, while searching the risks of passive smoking while working in a pub/bar.I am currently working in a pub which has a bar (smoking) and a restaraunt/bar (non-smoking). I have confronted my managers about working only in the non smoking section as i am very concerned about my health. i find it harder to breathe, my eyes water, and my throat becomes very sore.

But they have told me i have no choice. No we are not forced to work in this environment but i live in a small town and this is just about the only other job, (apart from my full time receptionist job) i can take on that provides me with enough income to live off. I am living on my own. I am also currently playing state league netball which is very demanding on my body and my budget having to travel three times a week from as little as half an hour to 3 hours.

So i really have no choice when it comes to this matter as i cannot afford to lose this job, but i am putting my health and sporting career at risk. Just for those who dont or have never worked in a pub, my shifts sometimes start from 5pm and dont finish until 3am, thats 10 hours of secondhand smoke without a break, as i dont have time for a break, all this after finishing my full time day job. My pub job is only part time but i feel it is very exhausting working sometimes 4 shifts a week, just so i can put some milk in my fridge, pay my rediculously high rent, bills, put fuel in my car and manage to save around $10 a week. So please have some consideration for us bar workers because sometimes wen dont have a choice, as to how we earn our living. thankyou

CURENT LAW NOT SMOCKING IN THE PUBS, NEXT LAW NO DRINKING IN THE PUBS.
IN MY OPINION AUSTRALIA IS BECAMING A COMUNIST COUNTRY.THIS IS NOT A JOKE, I USED TO LIVE IN A COMUNIST CONTRY. THE DIFRENCE BETHWIN OTHER COMUNIST COUNTRYES AND AUSTRALIA IS THAT AUSTRALIALIAN GOVERMENT ARE THAKING OUR RIGHTS A WAY SLOWLY AND THE OTHER COMUNIST CONTRIES TOOK EVERY RIGHT ALL AT ONCE. SO YOU NOT ALLOWED TO SMOCKE IN PUBS, SOON IN CARS, THEY TOOK AWAY THE GUNS. WHERE IS THE DEMOCRATIC AUSTRALIA THAT ONCE WAS? WHAT MADE ME MAD IS THE DISCATION ABOUT BANNING SMOCKING IN THE CARS, IT MY F#@#$ CAR, I WORK HARD TO PAY IT OFF. I PAYED LIKE AROND $5000 TAX FOR IT. IT'S DESCOUSTING THE WAY OUR FREEDOM IS GETING SMALER. THAT,S WHAY I AM MOVING TO EUROPE. FEW MONTHS AGO THEY SUPENDED MY LICENCE FOR NOT VOTING. WHAT THE HELL VOTING HAS ENYTHING TO DO WITH A DRIVING LICENCE. A GOT THE FINE FOR NOT VOTING , DID NOT PAY THE FINE AND THEY CANCELD MY LICENCE AND REGISTRATION. HOW NICE. THE LAW APPLIES ONLY FOR US SUCKERS, NOT FOR THEM.THAY ARE SO CALLED WORRIED ABOUT US, OUR HEALTH THEY SPEND MILIONS IN ADVERTIZING CAMPAIN, INSTADE MAKING THE QUITING PRODUCTS GOVERMENT DEDACTION. SO YOU CAN GET THOSE QUITING PRODUCTS ON MADICARE.AND ONE THING WE ADUPT, THAT,S RIGHT WE HAVE BEEN ADAPTING TO ENYTHING FOR MILIONS OF YEARS WE NOT GOING TO STOP NOW ARE WE?? NO A DONT THING SO. IF YOU WOULD BRING SOMEONE FROM 1000 YEARS AGO , THEY WONT LIVE LONG. LOGIC IS THE POWER AND KNOWLAGE IS JUST USEFULL.

PS: MY SPELL CHECK DOES NOT WORK ON THIS SITE. I AM SORRY IF I COUSED ANY INCONVINIENTS. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM MAMBELING ABOUT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.