The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Pub smoking in Australia: The pubs fight back - all foam, no beer Part 2 > Comments

Pub smoking in Australia: The pubs fight back - all foam, no beer Part 2 : Comments

By Simon Chapman, published 22/2/2005

Simon Chapman traces the history of club and pub smoking bans in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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?
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 25 February 2005 2:19:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by jaxxen, Saturday, 26 February 2005 11:58:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Franco, Sunday, 27 February 2005 10:29:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by bozzie, Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:41:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by jaxxen, Sunday, 27 February 2005 4:03:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by DavidJS, Monday, 28 February 2005 8:05:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy