Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-26-2004, 04:33 PM   #31
Legolas
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: March 31, 2001
Location: The zephyr lands beneath the brine.
Age: 39
Posts: 5,459
The ban on smoking is done neither to accomodate non-smokers nor to pester smokers. Their rights are hardly important in this as both choose to be where they are and do what they do (although the fact of the matter is that smokers do cause inconvenience to others, be it in a pub, at a busstop or anywhere else). Their wishes are not considered as they are not the reason for the regulations. Look to non-smoking signs for that.
The reason for the ban is simply this; employees are currently being forced to work in cigarette smoke. This is affecting their health and in many places the amount of smoke leads to the ADI (acceptable daily intake) being exceeded. Plainly put, they're not good working conditions.

Miners need to wear helmets on the site, construction workers have to have ear protection around heavy machinery, restaurants must have smooth kitchen floors to prevent build-up of bacteria and a rough floor to prevent employees from slipping, in the office you must have the right type of chair and keyboard to prevent back injuries and RSI. These things are not decided by the people in the buisness and extremely commonplace.
The only difference here is that, instead of having the waiters wear oxygen masks, costumers are asked to stop polluting the air. It's a cheaper, more effective solution which even lets you hear what the other guy is saying and makes him look significantly less ridiculous. As an added bonus, the method gets the support of anyone who doesn't enjoy second-hand smoke.
Legolas is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 05:32 PM   #32
uaciaut
Dungeon Master
 

Join Date: April 22, 2004
Location: Romania
Age: 37
Posts: 71
woah smoking outside still affects the enviroment and if you can always go to a non-smoking pub (or the non-smoking section of the pub). it's called freedom of choice.
__________________
&lt;a href=\"http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/\"<br />title=\"Get Thunderbird - Reclaim Your Inbox\"&gt;&lt;img<br />src=\"http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/thunderbird/thunderbird_blog1.png\"<br />width=\"94\" height=\"15\" border=\"0\" alt=\"Get Thunderbird\"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
uaciaut is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 06:08 PM   #33
LennonCook
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: November 10, 2001
Location: Bathurst & Orange, in constant flux
Age: 37
Posts: 5,452
Quote:
Originally posted by Legolas:
The ban on smoking is done neither to accomodate non-smokers nor to pester smokers. Their rights are hardly important in this as both choose to be where they are and do what they do (although the fact of the matter is that smokers do cause inconvenience to others, be it in a pub, at a busstop or anywhere else). Their wishes are not considered as they are not the reason for the regulations. Look to non-smoking signs for that.
Exactly. Governments don't often care about people's rights and wishes, because they often conflict. The smokers have a right to smoke, the non-smokers have a right to be in a smoke-free place. Who's rights supercede the other's? It isn't for anyone to decide.

Quote:
The reason for the ban is simply this; employees are currently being forced to work in cigarette smoke. This is affecting their health and in many places the amount of smoke leads to the ADI (acceptable daily intake) being exceeded. Plainly put, they're not good working conditions.
"Not good"? Wow, that is plain. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'd call it more like "horrible" - especially in pubs, where they have to deal with drunks aswell.

Quote:
Miners need to wear helmets on the site, construction workers have to have ear protection around heavy machinery, restaurants must have smooth kitchen floors to prevent build-up of bacteria and a rough floor to prevent employees from slipping, in the office you must have the right type of chair and keyboard to prevent back injuries and RSI. These things are not decided by the people in the buisness and extremely commonplace.
And again, these things may infringe on some people's rights - but the government doesn't have the right to decide that. Employees may have the right to choose what type of keyboard and chair they use, but the business may have the right to overrule that, and provide workers with generic equipment. The government can't worry about that, or provide it as an argument for their regulations, because people on the other side will complain. So, the government provides protection for the employee's health and working conditions - rights which noone has the right to infringe.

Quote:
The only difference here is that, instead of having the waiters wear oxygen masks, costumers are asked to stop polluting the air. It's a cheaper, more effective solution which even lets you hear what the other guy is saying and makes him look significantly less ridiculous. As an added bonus, the method gets the support of anyone who doesn't enjoy second-hand smoke.
And it can have a good impact on the food [img]smile.gif[/img] .

For those who suggest having a smoking and a non-smoking section in pubs and restaurants, consider the costs involved in implementing that in an established business which doesn't have such a thing. If they only have one major dining area (as many do), or maybe a major and a minor area, where would they put the line to say "No smoking from here on"? The answer is often that the can't, unless they remodel. And what would be the point of it? It wouldn't improve working conditions (as they waiters would still have to go into the smoking section), they wouldn't necesarily get any more custom (people might just reorganise themselves) - pubs moreso than restaurants because alot of people don't like taking their families (with kids) to where people are drinking.
Contrast to simply having a ban on smoking indoors. Ok, they still won't necesarily get better custom. But, working conditions would be improved (which also means potentially more employees), and what did they spend on it? A few dollars putting up signs. Which would the business owner be more likely to implement? I'd say the latter.

[ 11-26-2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: LennonCook ]
LennonCook is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 06:13 PM   #34
LennonCook
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: November 10, 2001
Location: Bathurst & Orange, in constant flux
Age: 37
Posts: 5,452
Quote:
Originally posted by uaciaut:
woah smoking outside still affects the enviroment
But not to the same extent it does inside. Even though there's less smoke inside (less people smoking), outside has alot more fresh air. Think about it this way: if you put empty a litre of sulphuric acid into your bathtub, and then emptied 2,000 litres of it into the pacific ocean , which would have more effect on the state of the water? Assume that your bathtub has the same proportions of marine life as the ocean.
LennonCook is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 06:43 PM   #35
wellard
Dracolisk
 

Join Date: November 1, 2002
Location: Australia ..... G\'day!
Posts: 6,123
Mad

Quote:
Originally posted by Dirty Meg:
The idea that non-smoking pubs will attract more customers is just wishful thinking. A lot of fairly big towns and cities are completely without non-smoking pubs. In those towns, if one pub introduced a no smoking policy it would have a monopoly on the 'smoke-free' market. To say that an all out ban will result in more customers, when even one non-smoking pub is unsustainable is absurd.
Obviuosly you have yet to get your head around the concept of BAN

There will be NO bars or restaurants with smoking allowed, therefore there is NO competition too no smoking bars or restaurants. Its a simple concept ..... SMOKING is to be banned by LAW *no exceptions* which of course makes all of your points irrelevant.

Also one of the many reasons that the law is being brought in here is the workplace safety issue. If I work in a bar or cafe for example and you the owner of the cafe / bar does not enforce the law, then I just sue you and get WORKCOVER to fine / close / send you to jail for allowing unsafe working practices.

Smoking in public is going the way of the Dodo and the mullet hairdo, just get over it [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________


fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years
wellard is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 07:07 PM   #36
wellard
Dracolisk
 

Join Date: November 1, 2002
Location: Australia ..... G\'day!
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally posted by Paladin2000:

Some establishment do have smoking zone. Maybe they shouldn't do that but there are many smokers as non-smokers out there too, any good businessman would try to accomodate for both, even though the solution might not be practical or elegant.
They do not work very well, That is why like in Ireland and in restaurants over here the new law will ban all smoking in pubs / bars

I am a smoker and yet I refrain from smoking in front of my children. When I go to any eating establishment, I always choose the non-smoking section, unless when I am not with my children. Not everyone is as nice as you, and even those that are nice do not realise how far the stench and foul air reaches usually due to the smokers dulled senses.

When I am with my children and family, I would always go for the table which is farest from the smoking section as possible. I tend to avoid restaurant that do not enforce strict smoking control, even the food might have been the "best in town". You can enjoy every restaurant down in Australia then without exception [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

For the issue of bar/pub, sorry... that's too bad. This is the place that people come to relax and enjoy. There are way too many drinkers (that smoke too) to enforce smoking control at all.

To bad for smokers, This is the place that people come to relax and enjoy. There are way too many drinkers (that don’t smoke - majority) to not enforce smoking control. This is why it will be a complete ban

Lastly, people who do not respect others by smoking in public places (for example, mall and etc) are usually the same type of irresponsible people who would break any rules which pose inconvenience to them. If there is a "no drinking zone", you will notice that these are the same people who would break that rule too. As far as I am concerned, as a smoker, I always obey the rules.
You are a rare breed Paladin2000, good on you! If there where more smokers who had manners like you the world would indeed be a better place [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Before we go any further, car costs more pollution and global warming than cigarette smokes. Shouldn't we ban cars instead? How about fart? Shouldn't farting be blamed for "air polution" as well?

The problem with some of these stuff is that:
a. we need it (car).
b. we can't help it (fart).

so, people usually pick on something that they do need or they don't have the habit of doing.

Lastly, I DO agree on smoking control. But please do not mistake smokers as "scum of the earth". Without the countless smoking GIs, most of you would probably be speaking german or japanese.

The "perfect" leader that doesn't not smoke or drink turn out to the Aldolf Hitler. I don't know about you, but I would rather go for a leader that has some "character flaw/weakness" than a seemingly "perfect" person.

All the above is so far off the rails I will let it stand as a typical smokers mindset.
[ 11-26-2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]
__________________


fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years
wellard is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 07:23 PM   #37
LennonCook
Jack Burton
 

Join Date: November 10, 2001
Location: Bathurst & Orange, in constant flux
Age: 37
Posts: 5,452
Quote:
Originally posted by Paladin2000:
The "perfect" leader that doesn't not smoke or drink turn out to the Aldolf Hitler. I don't know about you, but I would rather go for a leader that has some "character flaw/weakness" than a seemingly "perfect" person.
Whether you smoke or not doesn't have any proven effect on your personality. The point of this is not Smokers are evil!!!, but rather Smoking is bad for non-smokers health and working conditions. If those GIs didn't smoke, we would be just as free: the victory came from their fighting, not their smoking.
LennonCook is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 07:26 PM   #38
wellard
Dracolisk
 

Join Date: November 1, 2002
Location: Australia ..... G\'day!
Posts: 6,123
Quote:
Originally posted by burnzey boi:
Smoking can be one of the worst things to do, and most of you know that. i reckon they should ban it where people usualy are, like resteraunts and pubs.
it could help a bit with the global warming and make the air healthier. plus you are more likely to perish smoking than any other way. its like commiting suicide!
I agree, but the good news is that all resteraunts and cafes have had this ban for years at least in NSW burnzey boi. The new law is going to ban it completely in all pubs and clubs so as to get rid of the nonsense smoking area.

Where I work people are, and have been, fined for smoking outside of a designated smoking place. ($100) The bosses at work can be fined and eventually jailed if they do not enforce it! Everyone has a right to a safe workplace.

Also the local councils have banned smoking on some of the most famous beaches in Australia [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] So the majority of us who enjoy the fresh outside air can do so without drug addict / smokers ruining our health.

So for those people who like king Canute are trying to stop the tide of fresh air being returned to buildings you may as well concentrate on trying to defend smoking outside .... that ban is well on its way thanks to a simple democratic equation .... The majority do not smoke [img]tongue.gif[/img]
__________________


fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years
wellard is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 11:20 PM   #39
Blind_Prophet
Symbol of Cyric
 

Join Date: November 10, 2001
Location: Yokosuka Japan
Age: 38
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally posted by LennonCook:
quote:
Originally posted by Azeral:
they are looking at doing it in NSW. but it will ruin all the pubs bussiness.
Why? People don't go to pubs just to smoke, last I checked. The pubs' money comes from alcohol, and that will still flow. And those who want to smoke can still do it outside, in patios and such. Non-smoking laws are a good idea in all enclosed spaces - they protect the communities long-term health, and make our living standards better. I support Bob Car 100% on this, except for the fact that I want it faster than the 7(?)-year plan he's proposing. [/QUOTE]People that drink alot of times smoke and people that smoke that can't smoke and drunk = angry = would rather drink somewhere else
__________________
The height of narcissism
Blind_Prophet is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 11:39 PM   #40
Aerich
Lord Ao
 

Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 2,061
Just got to toss my two cents+ in.

Smoking is banned in restaurants, pubs, and clubs in my city and my province. It works well, because a number of pubs, etc, have added on covered patios or separated off existing ones so that smokers have a place to smoke when they frequent those establishments. It accomplishes three things:
1) Non-smokers (the majority, in my area) are not inconvenienced or exposed to a health risk.
2) It gets the smokers away from just outside the door and gives them a sheltered area to smoke.
3) It satisfies the laws regarding workplace safety.

Everybody can live with the compromise, and it hasn't hurt business any. In fact, the clubs in particular are busier than ever, because people don't have to dance in a haze of stale smoke.

I don't mind people smoking around me when I'm out on the town or talking, or whatever, but speaking as a tolerant non-smoker, it is extremely difficult to enjoy a meal when cig smoke is present. I fully support the smoking ban in pubs, clubs and restaurants for health and other reasons.
__________________
Where there is a great deal of free speech, there is always a certain amount of foolish speech. - Winston S. Churchill
Aerich is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thank You for Smoking Ilander Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics) 0 04-14-2006 05:56 PM
Smoking ban Lanesra General Discussion 130 04-12-2004 05:43 PM
Smoking Ban Timber Loftis General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 213 05-12-2003 03:37 PM
Smoking and under 18 yrs old? uss General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 32 07-07-2002 01:29 PM
smoking bad for you ???? johnny General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 41 06-23-2002 10:06 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved