This is topic No smoking ban starts 1st July in UK in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005148
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 06-30-2007, 07:32 AM:
As you may be aware the UK goes smoke free as of Sunday 1st July..... a landmark day if ever there was one.
There is a lot of talk of the ban killing pubs and bars.
I know the US has had such controls in place for a long time now. I'm interested to know when it happened and what effect it had over there.
For me personally it's great new's, I've never smoked and don't go out to pubs at all because of the smoke. I also hated smelling like an ash tray in the morning.
When it was banned in cinemas and theatres it was feared it would be the end for them and that clearly was not the case.
Whats the feeling on here?
Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 06-30-2007, 09:07 AM:
Here in Telluride, our town government banned smoking in most indoor commercial spaces, offices, public meeting areas and government buildings in 1988. Bars were excepted at that time but now all indoor public spaces have been smoke free for almost ten years. Now of course, much of the US is smoke free, especially restaurants, and designated smoking areas are harder to find and smaller as the number of smokers dwindle. (Fewer than 22% of the US adult population smokes today and this figure drops each year.)
We're a resort town with a pretty radical population and I have to say (I'm a non-smoker) the only impacts of the law has been positive. There were the same dire predictions of loss of business and fears that other restrictions were close behind, but neither materialized. (Although the town banned open-fire, wood burning fireplaces and stoves around the same time and for some the same health reasons.)
Since the bans this region of about 3500 has seen more than two billion dollars of investment dollars come into the area to start businesses, build hotels and homes, as well as public works like a free Gondola, parks, trails, roads, etc. Our community recently condemned 600+ acres just out of town and paid $50Million for it. Telluride acquires Valley Floor
Smokers? Please just go outside, in your car or in your own home to poison yourself. Let the rest of us enjoy smoke-free air.
"Mind if I smoke?" "No, mind if I fart?" Steve Martin
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 06-30-2007, 10:15 AM:
Scotland has had a no smoking ban for a few years and I've heard very mixed results as to it effect on bussines's
The ban extendes to all enclosed public places and work places. Bussinesses are required to provide what are effectivly wall mounted ash trays outside their premises to prevent the build up of fag ends all over the place.
It's not been suggested that this is 'the thin edge of the wedge' and that more ban's will follow.
It's one of those situations where enforcing my right not to have to suffer the effects of other peopls smoke restricts their right to do so in the first place ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
All in all I think it will be a very positive step but I'm sure there will be many others who will be up in arms.
As for farting in public places that would surely be a potential fire hazard. Somewhat minimised by the ban on smoking and the absence of naked flames ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-30-2007, 10:54 AM:
I would think that it would depend on the type of business as to how a smoking ban would affect it (and in which hours the day).
I think the actual statistics are that restaurants saw an increase after such bans took affect since those not desiring smoking exceeded those that wanted to smoke. That is, more people went to restaurants than used to because they are smoke free in excess of those that stopped going because they couldn't smoke.
I'm not sure that would be the case in bars/pubs and such...particularlly during the evening hours. I would be interesting to here from bar owners that have a large smoking customer base and hear what happened afterwords.
From a cost standpoint...the smoke has to increase the costs of keeping the place clean...planes certainly noted the filter change after smoke-free.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-30-2007, 11:20 AM:
Montana went smoke-free in all public buildings except bars in 2004. The bars will go smoke-free next year.
Of course this has led to groups of smokers standing around outside their workplaces, smoking. So now companies are instituting their own "no smoking within 100 feet of an entrance" or "No smoking anywhere on our property" rules.
I find it amazing that anyone starts smoking nowadays. Never mind the health issues, since all young people are indestructible anyway; but why would you even want such an inconvenient "hobby?"
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-30-2007, 11:30 AM:
quote: Ken McFall
There is a lot of talk of the ban killing pubs and bars.
Well, as in Utaw there may be loopholes in the laws that allow one to join a "club" in which you can smoke. Funny though many of those "club" restaurants here have gone under ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
. Otherwise I'm thankful for the no-smoking laws here in Utaw and when you go to a neighboring state that still allows it you extra thankful you don't have to put up with the stench at home whilst eating out. Oh and it won't affect anyones buisness at all with a nation wide ban except places that sell stuff to smoke. Do you really believe none of those folks won't continue going to the pubs for their pints? You must be joking. Many say if Nevada had similar laws that no one would gamble. I say hogwash...more people would go there than ever before... smokers are after all a minority!
Mark
Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 06-30-2007, 11:44 AM:
Total indoor smoking bans came in earlier this year in Western Australia. In all honesty, when I'm at a nightclub, I tend to notice how much the place smells now. WA is in the middle of big reforms in our liquor/smoking laws. For example, you may now order alcohol without ordering food in restaurants. Time will tell the effects of these. But the no smoking laws haven't emptied the pubs/clubs here.
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 06-30-2007, 11:56 AM:
I tend to agree that after a short period of sulking things will return to normal. The ban is not just a local ban but a national one so smokers have but two options.... stay at home or go out.
Non smokers have always faced that dilema..... but not anymore ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
One cry is going to be the loss of tax revenue if there is a mass quit of smoking. The other side of that is the long term benefit to health and the corresopnding drop in the use of NHS resouces to treat smoking related illness.... and of course death.
Not that the NHS tries to treat death!
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-30-2007, 11:56 AM:
I would rather private businesses be allowed to decide what legal activities they do or do not allow on their premises and the patronage or lack there of by the consumer would help them to make that decision. I swear I remember reading the role of government in a book somewhere once.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-30-2007, 01:28 PM:
Being a non-smoker, I'll grin happily when smoking is finally banned in all commercial businesses including bars. Bring it on!
We have one bar in my town that is non-smoking. Not by its own choice either. It had to go non smoking since its main entrance is within a hotel lobby. But going to a non-smoking environment did not kill its business at all. Some customers left, but others starting visiting because it was smoke free. Lots of people have health conditions like asthma where they have to avoid triggers like cigarette smoke. Many of them still enjoy a beer or mixed drink. They are potential customers.
Smoking has not been seen as being a cool and attractive practice in a long time. It just isn't fashionable anymore.
I'm sure the high and ever rising cost of health care in the United States is another factor driving the negative attitudes against smoking. Here in Oklahoma more than half the smoking population doesn't have health insurance. So when they get lung cancer the hospitals get to eat some of the cost and pass the rest to American tax payers. And then we get higher health care bills.
The food industry had better get ready. They're next. Clogged arteries is an even worse, preventable problem than lung cancer.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I find it amazing that anyone starts smoking nowadays. Never mind the health issues, since all young people are indestructible anyway; but why would you even want such an inconvenient "hobby?"
Lots of teens start smoking because they want to be seen as adults. I don't think so many of them would start smoking in the first place if they knew how many of us adults view teen smokers: idiots.
Several guys at my work place have quit smoking over the last couple of years. Out of 20 employees we have only a mere handful of smokers left. Most have quit not over the health reasons. A smoking habit is just damned expensive! Some of those guys figured out they were spending $100, $200 or even more per month on the habit.
quote: Chad Souder
I would rather private businesses be allowed to decide what legal activities they do or do not allow on their premises and the patronage or lack there of by the consumer would help them to make that decision. I swear I remember reading the role of government in a book somewhere once.
This is one area where I do not agree with allowing the market to police itself. The market has had many decades to do that already and did nothing but allow anyone to smoke as much as he wanted.
One of the driving issues with smoking bans is the health considerations for the employees working in such establishments like restaurants and bars. A non-smoking server working in a restaurant that allows smoking here in Oklahoma was seen to breathe in as much second hand smoke as having a 1-2 pack a day smoking habit.
Here in Oklahoma smoking is banned in all offices, public buildings and governmental buildings. Restaurants can allow smoking only if they have a separate smoking area in the building with a separate ventilation system. That costs a lot. So most restaurants simply banned smoking. Bars can still allow smoking, but I'm pretty sure the state law has a time line to snuff out that practice in another couple of years.
Overall, the number of smokers in my state has been dropping. Whenever I visit a night club in Oklahoma City or Tulsa I'm kind of surprised by how few people are smoking there. I just wish Lawton was as advanced in that trend.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-30-2007, 01:43 PM:
So it's a "no smoking" ban? So I HAVE to smoke?! Damnit.
Here in Washington State smoking is banned within 25 feet of an "open to the public" facility. I love finally being able to go to a bar without having me smell awful when I come home (one of the family members is allergic to smoke).
Though, I actually voted against the ban. I think it's wrong for the government to force a private business to do something like this. Hell, there was one bar in a nearby town that already had no smoking.
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 06-30-2007, 02:24 PM:
Hi Chris,
that is the dilema who's rights do you support. By definition you support everyones rights but that is impractical.
It's a bit like freedom of speach. GREAT principle but in reality you are not allowed to express any thought that might encite a nedative responce.
I'm impressed that you voted against something that you really would have enjoyed and benefted from.
I have to admit to a sneaky wish to go out on Sunday and visit a pub just to enjoy the cringing of smokers.... but I'll resist.
I will add that I had a friend, not a close friend but a friend none the less, he as a drag artist call Dockyard Doris. It conjoures up sooo many images I'm sure. He was a man with a heart of gold called Colin Deverau, he is is missed greatly.
I'd seen him perform his act and then he vanished for a few weeks. I found out he was ill and visited him in hospital, a cancer ward!
To say I was shocked would be an understatement. In such a short space of time he had deteriorated so much and he didn't want visitors to see him in such a state.
For years he had performed in crowded bars placed high up on stage inhaling the smoke, along with the rest of the staff who worked behind the bar. He had no choice but to work in such environments and I'm sure many of the staff faced the same dilema. The need to work to live.
This ban will at least remove that threat and give emplyees the right to work in a clean safe environment.
The biggest problem with smoke related illness is that it takes so long to show up. There is no compensation available in such circumstances.
So I hope smokers out there while feeling marginalised will remember that not everyone has the choice not to visit or work in a place that allowes smoking.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-30-2007, 02:42 PM:
In Montana, restaurants can only allow smoking if they derive at least 40% of their revenue from alcohol sales. If they have a bar in a separate room from the restaurant, smoking is allowed in the bar (until fall 2008, when the bars will go smoke free too). A lot of bars in the larger towns are smoke free already. There are no "smoking rooms" or anything of that sort. If you want to light up, you have to go outside. Lots of fun when it's -20 outside and there's a blizzard!
Posted by Marc Hansen (Member # 705) on 06-30-2007, 04:25 PM:
The only people taking a hit here in Washington are bars that are near tribal casinos/cardrooms. The tribes don't have to observe the ban and most don't.
Marc
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-30-2007, 05:51 PM:
Similar things happened here in Colorado right before the smoking ban was enacted. Smokers were proclaiming the end of the world, etc. But somehow bars still stayed in business. People still need to get their booze on, I guess.
I laugh at smokers. They chose to smoke, and they can take the consequences that go with it, like not being able to smoke wherever they want. Fools. They already feel entitled to special breaks at work to go out and smoke. They can go to hell.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-30-2007, 07:30 PM:
After a referendum vote last year Nevada banned all indoor smoking, including bars and restaurants. The ban doesn't apply to casino gaming areas. But gaming and smoking largely go together, and many "bar & grill" establishments that have gaming but aren't big enough to be classed as casinos have noted a large drop off in business and gaming revenue. These businesses are either shutting down their restaurant operations or installing barriers and air handlers to separate the smoking bar from the non-smoking restaurant areas, in an effort to retain their smoking and gambling (and profit making) clientele.
The large casinos lobbied hard to make sure the smoking ban didn't apply to their gaming areas. Many bars here in 'Vegas have refused to enforce the ban and are working to bring a class-action lawsuit against the state to ease up on the ban or get it overturned. Meanwhile another referendum is in the works to get indoor smoking banned outright anywhere in the state, including the big casinos. The next legislative session (in 2009) should be a fun one to watch.
It's mostly people new to the state that are pushing for this. Long-time Nevadans are quite libertarian (and ornery and contrarian to boot) and don't like the idea of government (or large numbers of newbies) telling them what they can or can't do. The tradition here always was to leave people alone to do what they want and to not get involved in other peoples' affairs. And we had enough space to pretty much allow for that. But thanks to the insane uncontrolled growth we're had here for the last 15 years or so the old-timers and their traditions are way outnumbered now. Nevada (at least in Clark and Washoe counties) ain't the wide open Old West it once was.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-30-2007, 07:51 PM:
quote: Paul Mayer
and many "bar & grill" establishments that have gaming but aren't big enough to be classed as casinos have noted a large drop off in business and gaming revenue.
Of course they are going to loose... as long as thaere is some other place to go smoke. That a good three.... Duh's in a row for the stupid people that let the politicians in office gat away with it!
Mark
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-30-2007, 08:00 PM:
quote: Ken McFall
I'm impressed that you voted against something that you really would have enjoyed and benefted from.
It's the principle. If I want to have a drink I don't HAVE to go to a bar that has smoking. I CHOOSE to go.
Just like I could've gone to a bar that had no smoking but out of convenience I went to a closer one (and made sure my smoke-filled clothes went straight into the washer what with my allergic family member and all).
Granted, now that the issue passed I personally enjoy the situation more but I don't like how it came about.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-30-2007, 08:03 PM:
Eugene banned smoking in most workplaces and restaurants years ago (2000 I think), and in bars more recently. It's also illegal to smoke within 10 feet of an entrance or open windows of any public building. The bars and smokers whined about how they were being discriminated against and they'd go out of business blah blah. Turns out it didn't really hurt any businesses as far as I can tell. Some bars have outdoor areas for smokers, some have no special smoking accommodations, and they all seem to stay in business.
I find that most smokers around here these days are fairly courteous about keeping their smoke to themselves.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-30-2007, 08:25 PM:
quote:
Long-time Nevadans are quite libertarian (and ornery and contrarian to boot) and don't like the idea of government (or large numbers of newbies) telling them what they can or can't do. But thanks to the insane uncontrolled growth we're had here for the last 15 years or so the old-timers are way outnumbered now.
I agree our local and federal governments shouldn't be getting involved in the lives and people and telling them what to do -for the most part.
I feel anyone should be able to do whatever he wants so long as that activity isn't affecting anyone else. The problem is smoking does affect other people directly through 2nd hand smoke and indirectly from all the costs of the long term habit. Businesses are hit with lost productivity. The cost of health care and insurance are hiked. And a greater share of our taxes go to paying for it as well. As I said earlier, more than half the smokers in my state have no health insurance. If/when they get cancer or heart disease directly from that risky activity that cost is passed on to everyone else. And that just isn't very fair.
My own opinion is anyone can choose to smoke if he/she wants to do so -as long as they can foot the whole bill for the health problems that are likely to result from that filthy habit. If that would be smoker can't foot the bill and chooses to smoke anyway, then I'll regard that person as an irresponsible, selfish dick.
That's the flip side of the "liberatian" ideal. Doing whatever you want has to be coupled with being 100% responsible for the consequences of that activity.
Americans don't want to acknowledge that other side of the coin. They want the fun without the cost.
That's why we can't have things like diving boards at swimming pools anymore -not even at a private residence. It raises the cost of home owner's insurance premiums too high. This is all because we can't direct the blame and responsibility at its true culprit. If I smack my head on a diving board, splitting open my skull on the way into the pool, it is all my fault. It isn't the fault of the person who owns the home or the pool. It isn't the fault of the company who made the diving board. But fun-ruining attorneys in search of big paydays everywhere misdirect blame at other parties and wind up getting things like diving boards banned.
I'm also a bit pissed off that I cannot buy bottle rockets in my state anymore. Arkansas is the nearest state where you can buy bottle rockets legally. I have heard that a nationwide ban on bottle rockets will be put into effect in 2008. We can thank the combination of lawyers and accident prone klutzes for all of that. It's never the fault of the idiot who hurt himself. It's always someone else's fault.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 06-30-2007, 09:10 PM:
Pittsburgh and surrounding Allegheny County went smoke free back in May, but a court overturned the decision some thirteen or fourteen hours later. Since I don't go down there too much anymore I'm not quite sure what the status is currently. My State Senator (not Federal) was on local radio last week proposing a law to exempt the casino they want to build on the North Shore near Heinz Field and PNC Park.
These smoking bans would have more meaning to me if I was still hitting the bars, but I fear those days may be gone for a very long time.
Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 06-30-2007, 09:39 PM:
A smoking ban in work and public places such as restaurants and bars have existed in New Zealand for some years. After a few scare complaints about alleged loss of business from bar owners at first, it was accepted and is no longer an issue. Smoking in theatres has never been permitted.
A health warning is required on each packet of cigarettes and tobacco sold here and there has even been a suggestion by a politician that this should be extended to films which show actors smoking. With the high level of product placement in films these days, it is assumed that people should have a right to have these movies identified before sending their kids to see them.
Obviously it wouldn't prevent kids from seeing these films but at least it might prompt timely discussion between parent and child about the dangers of the activities they see on the screen. It may even go some way to countering this concealed form of promotion.
There is already a ban here on cigarette and tobacco advertising in local media.
Given that hundreds of thousands of women were encouraged to smoke by films of the nineteen thirties and forties, perhaps the film industry owes it to its patrons to sacrifice the bucks and do the moral thing, by stopping the nicotine promotions. Oh I forgot, this is the film industry!
Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 06-30-2007, 09:40 PM:
Nevada had a referendum? We never have such luxuries here. The government just rides roughshod over out civil liberties. the are even calling for a ration on how much people drink! Big Brother is alive and well in the UK and ....Yes I am a smoker but the ban in pubs would not really bother me as most of my friends are non-smokers!
Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 06-30-2007, 10:02 PM:
quote: Justin Gorka
The government just rides roughshod over out civil liberties
Unfortunately, Big Brother, including your National Health System has to pick up the tab for activities that result in medical cost blowouts. In short everyone pays.
It really comes down to a conflict between the right of smokers to continue feeding their addiction at any location they wish, against the right of non smokers to breathe air free from the contamination of nicotine. It is the role of Government to balance these rights as they do in restricting alcohol consumption and driving.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-30-2007, 11:59 PM:
Money is the real issue in the end. The folks who feel they need to be able to smoke, drink and eat whatever they want and however as much as they want need to balance that with personal responsibility. If they were held to 100% responsibility to the costs of those actions they damned sure would not be doing it in the first place.
Therefore, I think the folks who yell about smokers rights, rights of eating like a gluttonous, corpulent pig and rights of drinking like Dean Martin are all hypocritical pricks. They're full of shit. If they had to pay all of the cost for their vice-ridden activities they wouldn't be yelling about it in the first place. They want to party and make the government, or big business, or the general public pay for it. They deserve a middle finger in response. We have been having to carry those bastards for too long. It's time we dump them off a cliff.
[ 07-01-2007, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2007, 12:10 AM:
Bobby - ever heard Denis Leary's rant about cigarettes?
"You could put 'em in a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, and name 'em TUMORS, and charge a hundred bucks a pack, and you know what? WE'RE STILL GONNA SMOKE, OKAY?"
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-01-2007, 12:25 AM:
And my response to Dennis Leary is, "smoke like a flaming chimney stack as long as you pay 100% for your own lung cancer and heart attacks and keep that stinking shit away from me."
Smokers-rights types seem to all fall short of that one little requirement. They want to smoke. But they want everyone else to pay for the costs of the consequences. Sorry, but that dog just won't hunt.
Posted by Rick Hunter (Member # 1606) on 07-01-2007, 12:29 AM:
Eating areas and public places have been smoke free for years here, now it is the pubs turn.
I bet the sky does not fall in....
The Melbourne Age
NOSTALGIA, anger and nicotine mixed with the last curls of cigarette smoke as Melburnians begun getting used to smoke-free pubs last night.
At the Labour In Vain in Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, a "Farewell Cigarette Party" was thrown to see off what some described as an old friend.
Music by David Bowie (Ashes to Ashes) and Oasis (Cigarettes and Alcohol) set the tone as people basked in the indoor heat with a smoke and a drink for the last time.
Barman and smoker Luke Stockdale said life in Melbourne's pubs would never be the same.
"It's a celebration of the remaining freedom we have to hang out, drink and smoke at the same time," he said.
"It's like having a mate go overseas; you're happy for him but sad at the same time."
Swede Jonas Bylund said he had cut back from about five packs a week to one since similar laws were introduced in Sweden two years ago.
But he said going out had become a lot more boring and he feared the new ban would make Victoria a duller place.
Simon Scrase said he was not looking forward to smoking in the winter cold.
Down the road at the Rainbow pub, Ali Holloway said the law would make smokers more marginalised. "I don't want to spend the night on the street."
But barmaid Sarah McDonald was more positive.
"We have a band play every Sunday who have had members get cancer. So we have a no-smoking rule every Sunday and it's one of our busiest days."
At the blue-collar Spottiswoode Hotel in Spotswood manager and licensee Themi Babalis reckons he could lose up to 40 per cent of his business because of the ban.
The Cancer Council of Victoria is putting extra counsellors on its Quit Line to cope with an expected jump in demand.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 07-01-2007, 02:33 AM:
Very sad to hear. I cringe at notion of any level of government putting bans in place.
It should be the decision of business owners and their patrons to determine if a place of business should be smoke free. If there is a significant market for smoke free businesses then they will open up or existing owners will make the change, which most have without needing a gun to their heads.
I am not a smoker and I choose where I take my money. Certain restaurants will only serve food for to-go orders from the bar after a certain time. The bar is not smoke free so I don't go to said restaurant after whatever time. The restaurant owner has the right to allow smoking in his or her establishment and I have the right to eat somewhere else, just how it should be.
There are certain risks that you have to accept when you decide on a certain job. To say that a ban is needed to protect the lives of the bartenders and wait staff is utter nonsense. There are countless jobs with higher danger factors than second hand smoke and the people who take these jobs know and accept those risks before hand.
I also agree with Bobby that no one else should be paying for someone else's lifestyle decisions. I should not have to pay for anyone else's healthcare, period. Does not matter if it is self inflicted, natural or accidental. I do some activities that are inherently dangerous and I am the one who will have to bear the cost when my recreational activities end up biting me in the butt.
Bottom line is that governments do not ban one thing and then stop. Any law or ban is simply a means to allow for a bigger ban or law later on. Some call me paranoid, but history has shown that paranoia is always the best approach when dealing with government. I feel sorry for anyone who believes that their government has their best intentions in mind.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2007, 02:47 AM:
What about places like concert venues? I think it would be a lot easier for a smoker to enjoy a concert in a non-smoking facility than it would be for a non-smoker to enjoy it in a smoking facility. Basically if the place allows smoking and you want to see the concert, you're fucked right up the anus without any lube whatsoever. You can't choose to go and see the concert at a different location that doesn't allow smoking. And when you don't show up and spend your money, they have no clue WHY you aren't spending your money there. It's not like you'd show up and say "Hey, I'd pay $40 or more to see this concert tonight, but I won't since you allow smoking". They'd just assume that the musical act isn't as popular as they thought it might be.
I think gambling and smoking are closely related to each other in most people's minds because both are incredibly stupid activities that only retards and spastics participate in. But it is true, if you gamble you most likely smoke. Maybe a brain defect?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-01-2007, 06:47 AM:
quote: Justin Gorka
Nevada had a referendum? We never have such luxuries here. The government just rides roughshod over out civil liberties.
To be fair, the smoking ban was in Labour's manifesto for the 2005 election, so anyone who voted for them knew what they were voting for (or at least, were able to find out what they were voting for). For obvious reasons, that's as far as I'll go with the politics!
quote:
They are even calling for a ration on how much people drink! Big Brother is alive and well in the UK and ....
I agree that this probably goes too far. I certainly wouldn't have banned it in private members' clubs as well, and felt that the law should really have obliged pubs to provide a non-smoking area which is effectively segregated from the smoking area, rather than banned smoking altogether.
quote: Justin Gorka
Yes I am a smoker but the ban in pubs would not really bother me as most of my friends are non-smokers!
I'm in exactly the opposite situation: I don't smoke, but many of my friends and all my close relatives do. That tends to create a problem with pubs for me, because I'm always outvoted if I ask to sit in the no smoking area. Not that this situation used to arise very often, because in most pubs the no smoking area, if it existed at all, was just one corner of a large room, into which smoke wafted from the rest of it. York is full of pubs which had a nice (social) atmosphere and which I really liked, but for the fact that the (chemical) atmosphere in them was like the San Quentin gas chamber. So for me, personally, the smoking ban is good news. But I agree with you completely on the big brother tendencies of our government (interesting to compare it with the one in power when Orwell wrote 1984 in 1948). I, too, am wondering what they'll try to ban next.
Some health campaigners have speculated that the smoking ban might even do more harm than good, because it'll encourage more people to socialise at home, where they're more likely to smoke in the presence of children and will probably drink more.
In any case, I celebrated (me) and commiserated (with a friend) at a pub in Scarborough last night ... and at the end of the evening, the landlord gave my friend the ashtray from our table as a souvenir. After all, he explained, he won't be needing them any more!
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-01-2007, 09:42 AM:
Gov. Schwarzenegger's Smoking Tent Blamed in Flood at CA Capitol [09/22-5]
Excerpts from: Governor's Smoking Tent Blamed in Flood at Capitol
LA Times [09/22/04]
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's smoking tent in his office courtyard at the state Capitol is being blamed in part for the flooding of several rooms in the historic building.
Artificial grass that Schwarzenegger had installed under the tent apparently blocked a drainpipe as a rare summer storm dumped more than 2 inches of rain in less than an hour on the city Sunday. The courtyard flooded, sending water under the doors of nearby offices.
Schwarzenegger, a cigar aficionado, had the custom tent installed in the center of a suite of offices used by him and his staff. He often meets with legislators and advisors in the 11-by-16-foot khaki-colored canvas tent.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-01-2007, 09:47 AM:
No smoke without ... water? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 07-01-2007, 10:41 AM:
The leader of "The New Reformation Dixieland Band" has made it clear that the group will not perform in any place that allows smoking. One club owner assured him that their "smoking area" was very effectively isolated from the rest of the club.
The leader responded, "Having a designated "smoking" area is like having a designated "peeing area" in the swimming pool!"
KEN
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-01-2007, 11:11 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
This is one area where I do not agree with allowing the market to police itself. The market has had many decades to do that already and did nothing but allow anyone to smoke as much as he wanted.
So if the market does not agree with what YOU think is correct, free market doesn't work...but if YOU do agree with the outcome then Freemarket works? Sorry...it is either an acknowledgement that Freemarket is flawed or you position about it is wrong....you can't have it both ways.
In this case, if the businesses have not instituted a smoking ban on their own it is because they feel that on balance, they are more profitable with smoking...it is really that simple. Do I feel that the business are coming to their conclusions out of fear rather than actual practice, sure...I think the Cinema industry is self-destructive too. I think many businesses actually are happy to have the legislations since it takes the heat off of them to have such a non-smoking policy. That said, there is very little constitutional basis for a government entity to take a practice that is legal and regulate it in private industry. In a public facility, that is another matter. A private business should be free to run that business as they see fit so long they are not outside of the law unless said laws are found to be unconstitutional.
quote: Bobby Henderson
One of the driving issues with smoking bans is the health considerations for the employees working in such establishments like restaurants and bars. A non-smoking server working in a restaurant that allows smoking here in Oklahoma was seen to breathe in as much second hand smoke as having a 1-2 pack a day smoking habit.
This arguement doesn't hold water either. The employee should chose to work somewhere else that has a smoking-ban policy. A true "freemarket" person would see this as another factor the business owner would face...lack of employees due to unfavorable smoking policies.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I feel anyone should be able to do whatever he wants so long as that activity isn't affecting anyone else.
Sorry, that just simply can't be done. If you merely stand in one place you are denying someone else the ability to stand there. If you breathe...not only do you take air that someone else could have used but you replace it with CO2 that they can't breathe...to take the arguement to its absurd conclusion.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The problem is smoking does affect other people directly through 2nd hand smoke and indirectly from all the costs of the long term habit.
Same problem there...the actions of one person always affects others...that is the nature of society. That is the flaw in the thinking of most kids...that what they do doesn't have adverse affects on others.
Do you drive any motor vehicle...you actions are hurting others (raising their gas prices, polluting the environment...etc). Do you want legislation that restricts your free movement to go where you want, when you want?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Businesses are hit with lost productivity.
That is not a smoking problem but a business problem. If the business does not want to allow such breaks, that is their choice (or should be)...smoking should not be legislated to allow it either. If the business feels that they are loosing too many "good" people because they don't allow smoke breaks...then they will create the means for smoking...conversely, if smoking takes away from productivity, why cater to it?
quote: Bobby Henderson
The cost of health care and insurance are hiked. And a greater share of our taxes go to paying for it as well.
The costs of health insurance are more closely tied to what the market will bear AND the legal costs of it. If you want to cut the costs of health care, all you need to do is get some serious legislation (Constitutional) that puts limits on what lawyers can collect on medical related lawsuits and even restrict on what can bring on a lawsuit. Remember, these doctors are licensed by the government...if there is a competentcy issue, it should start there...not the court room.
But your argument on increased costs associated with life style can be translated into ALL activities...you will then be giving your neighbor the ability to regulate everything in your life since even typing on this computer can bring on medical issues.
You live in a society...in a society you have tollerence and there are expenses associated with that tollerence. The other way to have society is more of a communistic/socialistic one where you do what you are told and you always work to the common good...it doesn't encourage creativity and advancement in quality of life though.
One thing you also fail to mention or realize is that every one is going to die sometime and regardless of one's lifestyle, it will expensive in the end (medically). Heck every pet that has lived with me became real expensive in the end...people are that much more expensive. Is it much more expensive to treat a lung cancer patient or one that lives into their 90s or 100s and dies from something else but is bed ridden for the last 5-10-years?
I'm not a smoker...in fact I hate it and like the others, enjoy the new legislation but would seriously have a hard time support it being enacted. For I fear that these same well-meaning people will tip-toe into something I like to do in the name of protecting ourselves from ourselves. Personally, I would rather see coffee banned...talk about a productivity loser and an offensive odor.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-01-2007, 11:25 AM:
Do any of youse who get offended when a smoker invades your "space" (oh wait, the smoker was likely there first) get as offended when someone drinks alcohol in front of you?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-01-2007, 11:27 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
talk about a productivity loser and an offensive odor.
Er... ahhh dead wrong there! Its a fact that coffee can actually increase the amount of work employees can do... it can also help keep a person on his toes a little better... caffeine is after all a stimulant. Not being a big coffee drinker I did experience this when I worked at Canon USA. The Japanese workers were big coffee drinkers and we took many coffee breaks during the day... Most tech's work productivity went up and call back level actually decreased. While I can't speak for national info on records of coffee drinkers it worked where I worked and was directly reflected in how much $$ I took home every two weeks . I still drink coffee to this day but only once or twice a week.
I fear the air in Maryland smells alot worse than Coffee smells, especially on a hot-humid day.
Mark
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-01-2007, 12:40 PM:
While the caffine is indeed a stimulant...I doubt you will find that Coffee itself is a productivity booster. Would decafinated coffee also boost productivity?
Like any drug, coffee drinkers suffer from withdrawl and also become dependent on it. Have you ever heard the expression "I can't do a damn thing before I drink my coffee?" There are many drugs to stimulate people...I'm not convinced that they actually improve their work though it may "pick them up." A proper amount of sleep will do the same thing without the drug.
And Maryland (most parts) smells a lot better to me than coffee in any state.
That said, my point was...I don't like coffee...in fact hate it...I shouldn't be able to legislate it away from others based on that dislike.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-01-2007, 01:39 PM:
quote: Chris Hipp
It should be the decision of business owners and their patrons to determine if a place of business should be smoke free. If there is a significant market for smoke free businesses then they will open up or existing owners will make the change, which most have without needing a gun to their heads.
I might be willing to go along with that...so long as said business that wants to allow smoking is made to pay for the lung cancer contracted by his servers. What's fair is fair. Servers in restaurants are working in that environment for shifts that can run anywhere from 5 to 12 hours. If the workplace is smoky they're breathing that smoke the entire time.
There's one restaurant near my workplace that caters to a more "senior" clientèle. When the smoking ban went into place they didn't lose any business. But they did close down for a few days so they could scrub the caked on layers of smoky lung butter off the walls and windows and then repaint the interior.
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
quote: Chris Hipp
There are certain risks that you have to accept when you decide on a certain job.
No one chooses to be a server at a restaurant or even a bar as a career choice.
In my town, there's a lot of single mothers that have that job as their only option to make any kind of decent living. It's either do that for a living or strip at a topless bar in an even more smoky environment if they're good looking enough.
quote: Steve Guttag
So if the market does not agree with what YOU think is correct, free market doesn't work...but if YOU do agree with the outcome then Freemarket works? Sorry...it is either an acknowledgement that Freemarket is flawed or you position about it is wrong....you can't have it both ways.
It is a plain fact that if the market was left up to doing something about the problem then nothing would be done at all about it. I've seen many businesses still do nothing when some selfish asshole lights up in a restaurant despite a smoking ban already in place. Some smokers are polite, but others are not. And management is often afraid of confrontation.
On market behavior, it is a fact the nature of business is to never do anything to change unless other factors force that into practice -such as law. If we simply trusted everything to the market we would still be driving cars without any seat belts or airbags.
Some issues require government intervention, management and law making to uphold public health and safety. Cigarette smoking is a dangerous, filthy, irresponsible activity. Cigarette smoke is hazardous to anyone breathing it.
I wouldn't have such a nasty attitude against cigarette smoking if the people who smoked could keep from exhaling.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Steve Guttag
This arguement doesn't hold water either. The employee should chose to work somewhere else that has a smoking-ban policy.
It is a well established fact that people who have to work in smoky environments have a significantly increased risk of developing lung cancer.
It is also a fact very few people choose to wait tables in a restaurant as a career choice. Not everybody can afford to go to college and choose exactly what they want to do for a living. Many are forced to choose just what's available.
If everyone got to do the job he wanted to do for a living we would also have gum drop sky's and rivers made of soda pop and every little girl would have her own pet unicorn. It's a bullshit utopian idea that doesn't have anything to do with reality.
quote: Steve Guttag
Sorry, that just simply can't be done. If you merely stand in one place you are denying someone else the ability to stand there.
People choose to smoke. It is not an activity that is mandatory for most -like having to drive a motor vehicle back and forth to work. The high taxes on cigarettes are supposed to help offset the costs that smoking causes against our health care system. But the taxes per pack really aren't nearly high enough to really offset those costs. And if you live in a state such as mine that is rife with tribe-owned smoke shops selling cigarettes tax free the problem is just made worse.
quote: Steve Guttag
The costs of health insurance are more closely tied to what the market will bear AND the legal costs of it. If you want to cut the costs of health care, all you need to do is get some serious legislation (Constitutional) that puts limits on what lawyers can collect on medical related lawsuits and even restrict on what can bring on a lawsuit. Remember, these doctors are licensed by the government...if there is a competentcy issue, it should start there...not the court room.
The idea that our high health care costs are only do to with malpractice lawsuits is just crap.
Lawsuits are a factor -but they're just one factor of many. I agree we need some serious tort reform. I live in a state that still has a judicial based system on worker's comp and it is costing businesses in Oklahoma a ton of money.
But the main thing causing our high health care costs is demand for health care. 75% of the patients at Comanche County Memorial Hospital, the biggest hospital in Lawton, are there for conditions they could have prevented. Poor diet, sedentary lifestyle and smoking are the main factors at work. Many of these people have no means to pay for the costs of the health care they are receiving. That bill gets passed on to everyone else through higher health care costs and a greater share of our taxes going to subsidize health care.
The only thing that is going to significantly reduce health care costs is reducing risk and reducing demand. Quitting smoking is definitely a step in the right direction to reduce demand for health care.
quote: Steve Guttag
That is not a smoking problem but a business problem. If the business does not want to allow such breaks, that is their choice (or should be)...smoking should not be legislated to allow it either.
If only it were something as simple as smoke breaks.
It is a fact smokers get sick more often than non-smokers. They miss more work. They contract more health problems. They're not getting work done when they are dealing with the health consequences of a smoking habit.
quote: Steve Guttag
One thing you also fail to mention or realize is that every one is going to die sometime and regardless of one's lifestyle, it will expensive in the end (medically).
It costs a lot less to die of congestive heart failure or a massive stroke when you're 95 years old than it does to slowly die of lung cancer or heart disease.
quote: Steve Guttag
Is it much more expensive to treat a lung cancer patient or one that lives into their 90s or 100s and dies from something else but is bed ridden for the last 5-10-years?
Hospitals aren't going to put a 90 or 100 year old person through chemotherapy treatment. They wouldn't survive the stress of it. They wouldn't crack open the person's rib cage and do quadruple bypass surgery either. That sort of thing is usually reserved for people a couple decades or so younger.
My Great Uncle, George Whitten lived to be 93 years old. A sudden case of stomach cancer cost him his life pretty quickly. The doctors could not do much to treat the cancer because of my Great Uncle's advanced age. They diagnosed the disease and hospice just did their best to make his last days as comfortable as possible. His Mother (and my Great Grandmother) lived to be 101. She died in her sleep in her own bed.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2007, 01:54 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
I think gambling and smoking are closely related to each other in most people's minds because both are incredibly stupid activities that only retards and spastics participate in.
You have to remember that a lot of people started smoking before there was widespread knowledge that it was "bad for you." I have an old Jack Benny radio show on CD which contains Lucky Strike commercials. They tout cigarettes as being "that mild, that light, that naturally soothing flavor. Picks you up when you're low, calms you down when you're tense...puts you on the right level, the Lucky level, where it's fun to be alive! Get a carton of Luckies and get started today!"
What kid wouldn't fall victim to that?
Then, think about how hard it is to quit. Some say it's the hardest addiction of all to break. My mom quit smoking about 25 years ago and she says she STILL craves a cigarette after dinner.
I think the ranks of smokers are pretty heavy with people who wish they weren't smokers. That's why it still amazes me that anyone these days starts smoking. THOSE are the brain-dead ones.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2007, 04:17 PM:
These days, definitely. But remember, over 50% of teenagers these days are incredibly retarded, more so than children. So you can't be too surprised. And then these people grow up and raise their children who may have the same lack of common sense. I don't see an end in sight to smoking, though I hope I'm wrong. Ex-smokers are usually the most adamant non-smokers you can find.
quote: Heenan
Do any of youse who get offended when a smoker invades your "space" (oh wait, the smoker was likely there first) get as offended when someone drinks alcohol in front of you?
I would if alcohol smelled as strongly of "loser", bothered my eyes, stuck to my clothes and hair for days and made it as difficult for me to breathe as the presence of smokers do. My brother-in-law is the only one in my family who smokes. Unfortunately he lives with my sister and my niece. When I get within 7 feet of ANY of them I am completely repulsed by the odor. They think nothing of it. If my sister comes over to use my internet, I can smell my brother-in-law's habit on her and I try not to get too close.
Not sure where you get the idea that the smoker was there first. Sure, sometimes they are and I walk around without any ass-kickage involved. Here in Denver they have painted red 10-foot by 10-foot squares (I think, they may be smaller) on the sidewalks around public buildings and that's the only place smokers are allowed to smoke. Sure, it's belittling for them to be gathered in a tiny box together like monkeys in a zoo, but they're the smokers. They've got to take what comes with the habit, those pussies. I laugh at them, for their predicament is extremely amusing. I'm not even sure they're real human beings.
Though I'd rather talk to and feed a smoker than a homeless person.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-01-2007, 05:47 PM:
quote: Mike Heenan
Do any of youse who get offended when a smoker invades your "space" (oh wait, the smoker was likely there first) get as offended when someone drinks alcohol in front of you?
No; however I probably would do if they swallowed their alcohol and then threw it up down my throat, which seems to be somewhat similar to a smoker blowing their smoke over me, as a woman sitting next to me at the bus stop was doing the other day. She wasn't intending to blow it in my direction, she was just looking in the direction from which the bus would come, and I happened to be in that direction, which also happened to be downwind of her.
In the '60s both of my parents smoked very heavily; well over 100 a day between them. My father died in about 1970, my mother in 1983, both from non-smoking related causes. My father had to give up smoking in his last year for medical reasons, there would have been some problem if he continued while taking one of the drugs he was prescribed for his other medical problems. My mother chose to give up some years later. In those days the house must have been full of smoke, but I never seemed to notice it. I do remember everything being covered with a brown film; light bulbs for example were quite horrible when removed.
For many years I have lived in a smoke-free environment, and now I certainly do notice it if somebody smokes near me in a confined space; I find it quite difficult to breathe. At one time some of our trains had single compartments, with five or six seats on each side, and no way to move to another compartment while the train was moving. I remember several times running to catch a train which was already at the platform when I arrived at the station, and getting into the first compartment without noticing that it was a smoking one. The journey to the next station really was very unpleasant,
When I was about ten my father gave me my first cigarette, I thought it tasted foul, the smoke was obviously much more concentrated than I was used to in the house. A day or two later he offered me another one; I thought it couldn't be as bad the second time, so I tried another one, and it was just as bad. I've never smoked since.
I don't object to other people smoking; I just ask that they do so where I don't have to breathe it.
Most smokers these days tend to be either elderly people who have smoked since before it went out of favour, or teenagers, particularly teenaged girls. Obviously the elderly people are coming towards the end of their lives, so the future of smoking probably depends on whether it continues to remain popular with teenagers; I have a feeling that it may not, but time will tell.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-01-2007, 06:44 PM:
Being a confirmed Pipe smoker I was very upset when Ontario outlawed smoking in pubs
now they outlawed in most patios as well so i don't go out as much
I remember many years ago having a inspector fine me for smoking in the workplace and I just pointed to the 3 smoking carbon arc spotlights beside me and said fine them as well
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-01-2007, 06:51 PM:
Louisville has not allowed smoking in bars for a few years; no, the sky didn't fall. Lexington, Ky is next; dire predictions abound.
Two thoughts: 1. Tobacco COMES FROM Kentucky....and we are banning it in public places. (Thank you rest-of-world for buying and smoking it. We don't!) 2. I had a minor heart attack a fews years ago in Lexington, KY. The cardiac ward had 20 rooms, non smoking and 20 for SMOKERS. HELLO???? I was the only one on the no smoking ward; all the others were FULL! Louis
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-01-2007, 06:56 PM:
Well I guess you guys would be repulsed by people who drink if they killed someone in your family in a car accident; but since alcohol only causes about 1/4th the amount of deaths in the US compared to tobacco, I guess it's ok to throw a few back in the pub every now and then eh?
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 07-01-2007, 06:57 PM:
I smoke, and the ban doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've always been respectful of non smokers when I light up.
I worked and lived in Ireland when the ban there came in a few years ago. It's actually very good. If you went for a drink you actually smoked LESS as you have to go outside to smoke, used to be you would stand at the bar drinking and smoking away.
I found it very social standing outside with other smokers, you tended to get into conversation with people you otherwise wouldn't have been speaking to in the bar
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-01-2007, 06:59 PM:
Of course, projection rooms were one of the first workplaces to have smoking banned by law; about 100 years ago in the case of the UK.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-01-2007, 07:16 PM:
quote: Louis Bornwasser
I had a minor heart attack a fews years ago...
Louis, do you still have a private pilots license? I would have thought your medical history would not allow you to renew your license. ???
I'm a non-smoker and HATE the smell of smoke and the smell of the people that smoke... they STINK!
I'm somewhat on the fence about this particular issue. I HATE it when the religious zealots and goodie-2-shoes and government get into our private lives... They should butt out of our private and biz lives!!!!!
A prime example of assholes in government gone wild is the movement here in Cali to ban incandescent lamps. Go fuck your self!!!!
Also, the "sky is falling" asswipes here in Cali that predicted that biz would fail and fall off cuz of the smoking ban...were WRONG! Most ALL patrons were greatful for the clean air and the bars and other bizs actually had an increase in revenue.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-01-2007, 08:51 PM:
I have an S.I. (special issuance) license. Treadmill testing every 12 mo for the rest of the time I want a license.
I'm with you on the rest of your last post. Louis
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-01-2007, 09:11 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It is a plain fact that if the market was left up to doing something about the problem then nothing would be done at all about it.
The only fact here is that the business feels that they are better off allowing smoking...rightly or wrongly. That is how a freemarket system works...the business tries to maximize profits...if it thinks keeping smoking does that, that is what it will do. Is your arguement that somehow the business thinks it will gain business by banning smoking in the business yet chooses lower profits? That flys against pure freemarket capitalism.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If we simply trusted everything to the market we would still be driving cars without any seat belts or airbags.
That is not true..."safety belts" were available LONG before they were legislated and airbags have their pros and cons. Neither should be legislated, in my opinion...but I'm also of the opinion that driving should be declared a right and not a priviledge. The right status would not bring about anymore reckless driving but it WOULD bring about due-process on the government which would stop all this willy-nilly associating everything with your license to drive.
The problem with seatbelt and other restraints as a legislation is that it invokes "prior-restraint" somthing that has been constitutionally tested and found to be unconstitutional. The safety device only comes into play IF something else horrible happens. It doesn't make the driver or the car safer just by driving down the street. Personally, I think you are stupid for not wearing a safety belt but I have no desire for government to being involved in my car like that.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some issues require government intervention, management and law making to uphold public health and safety. Cigarette smoking is a dangerous, filthy, irresponsible activity. Cigarette smoke is hazardous to anyone breathing it.
I agree...get rid of it constitutionally. It would create a black market like drugs have (and alcohol did during "prohibition"). However, it is a legal substance for adults. I think I will see it effectively legislated out of existence without actually being banned...the final straw will be in all public spaces and in the home (may affect other people in the home, including children).
quote: Bobby Henderson
It is also a fact very few people choose to wait tables in a restaurant as a career choice. Not everybody can afford to go to college and choose exactly what they want to do for a living. Many are forced to choose just what's available.
While a tear jerker for some...it has NO basis in law...you are not entitled to any particular job, regardless of status or need. The business exists to profit its owners in any manner they see fit so long as it falls within constitutional law. The owners can use that business to benefit society or not but they are not under any obligation to ensure that a legal practice is not performed for the benefit of others. If the business wants to having smoking it it...then the employee or perspective employee should seek work somewhere that does not permit things they find offensive or dangerous. The old expression still applies..."if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
quote: Bobby Henderson
People choose to smoke. It is not an activity that is mandatory for most -like having to drive a motor vehicle back and forth to work.
And people choose to drive too...it may surprise you that there people that don't drive...in fact driving is not a right...certainly anything so essential to existance in the US should be a right and afforded protections from government. But taken a step further...does one have to drive their own car? Does that car have to use gas?....and on and on.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The high taxes on cigarettes are supposed to help offset the costs that smoking causes against our health care system.
Here is a realization for you...taxes on cigarettes and gas and just about anything else does not just go to where they are supposed to go...if they did...roads would have plenty of money and cig taxes would more than cover the health associated issues...but that money goes to every program a government can get their hands on. Remember the "BIG TOBACCO" settlement for billions? What percentage of that went to tobacco health related issues? Wasn't it something like 20% or less?
quote: Bobby Henderson
The idea that our high health care costs are only do to with malpractice lawsuits is just crap.
You are very much wrong on that one...legal issues easily double the cost of health care. Every drug that is invented goes through a huge expense to ward off potential lawsuits....even drugs that make it through FDA can later be found to cause problems and it is big time lawsuit. These lawsuits drive up drug costs substantially (more than double). Lawsuits force doctors to perform many more tests to cover their asses which substantially increse health costs just at that phase and each one of those tests and each piece of equipment, drug or other apparatus also had the legal liability. One thing you can do in this country is sue the crap out of anybody for anything...except a DA...they are supposed to be self-policed.
Every one of those settlements/suits cost EVERYONE else from that point on...the price of the drugs and the medical procedures goes up to cover those costs...these business are not going to just roll over and die...they will raise their prices to cover such costs and they ALL get hit with them.
quote: Bobby Henderson
But the main thing causing our high health care costs is demand for health care.
Well that is hard to argue against...the Freemarket with its supply and demand figures that demand will cause price increases.
The problem is health care has ALWAYS had 100% demand...sooner or later (normally just the birthing process itself) people will need a doctor and his/her magic medicine. However, this is the arguement for universal health care coverage like we have for education, police and fire protection because they all fall in the same category. Essentials of life and society.
The whole concept of health "insurance" is flawed. Insurance works by more people putting in than taking out. Like car insurance...hopefully more people are driving than having accidents by a pretty fair margin. It is the only way it works. The same is not the case for health insurance...EVERYONE takes out and most do it every year. Some more than others based on health needs.
Another big factor in the cost of health care is the the whole insurance thing to begin with...HMOs...they make huge amounts of money (why not, they are a for-profit business...they are supposed to)....however for them to make those huge sums of money it means that money that is lining CEO's pockets and other investors is money that is NOT being put into health care...it once again points back to something that more exactly fits a governement provided service than a private industry. The Health insurance industry has no real oversight. How can there be any real oversight when the insurance company gets to decide what is covered and what is not. You need someone that is accountable to those being served, not shareholders doing that oversight. That is why our system of laws has three branches with safeguards to prevent them from getting into bed with one another...the HMOs don't have any of those safeguards and they affect everyone's life.
There are places where I do not believe a freemarket is the best system for this country...health care I'm coming the quick conclusion to is one of them. It for sure needs oversight and regulation far in excess of what it currently has.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-01-2007, 09:59 PM:
As far as smoking in the projection room, once nitrate was gone it looks like they lit up in the booth in this theatre. They all smoked and it is 56 steps up, quite a hike to go down to the lobby, take a smoke and trudge back up, in time to make an every 20 min. or so changeover. I've found several heavy cast iron ashtrays hidden in corners and in the back of a parts cabinet.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2007, 11:28 PM:
When I worked at United Artists Greenwood Plaza 12, one of the projectionists would smoke in the booth. Many of the managers would come and join him right by the booth desk. It was a few days before they turned me loose on my own, so I had to endure it. What could I do about it? Nothing. They were just a bunch of dipshits who all had authority over me. Fortunately his back quickly turned to mush (unrelated reason) and he was only able to work about 1 day a week. And from what I'm told, he's still working there.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-01-2007, 11:49 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
The only fact here is that the business feels that they are better off allowing smoking...rightly or wrongly. That is how a freemarket system works...the business tries to maximize profits...if it thinks keeping smoking does that, that is what it will do.
Very often the interest of maximizing profits goes against the interests of public safety. This is one of those cases.
quote: Steve Guttag
That is not true..."safety belts" were available LONG before they were legislated and airbags have their pros and cons.
Those items were available as an option. They were not included in all vehicles until the laws mandated them to be installed as standard equipment.
quote: Steve Guttag
Personally, I think you are stupid for not wearing a safety belt but I have no desire for government to being involved in my car like that.
The problem is this gets back in part to the high costs of paying for unpaid health care bills.
There is no shortage of retards in my state who deliberately choose to drive without wearing a seatbelt in open defiance of the state law. They crash on a gravel section line road and are ejected from the vehicle. Many are dead at the scene when that happens, but quite a few actually survive with critical injuries...and leave their local hospital and the taxpayers saddled with hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of unpaid medical bills.
quote: Steve Guttag
While a tear jerker for some...it has NO basis in law...you are not entitled to any particular job, regardless of status or need. The business exists to profit its owners in any manner they see fit so long as it falls within constitutional law.
Escalating worker's comp insurance premiums would interfere with a business owner deliberately running as unhealthy a workplace as he wanted. OSHA and EPA do have authority to intercede in certain environments. And there's always the threat of some enterprising law firm jumping into the fray to establish a legal precedent if a specific law like a cigarette ban in restaurants wasn't already established.
Our business pays for its painters to get tested quarterly for harmful levels of certain chemicals that could potentially build up in their blood streams because of their jobs. We would prefer they not develop liver cancer. Sometimes being a moral human being matters a little more than a little extra profit on that balance sheet.
quote: Steve Guttag
Here is a realization for you...taxes on cigarettes and gas and just about anything else does not just go to where they are supposed to go...if they did...roads would have plenty of money and cig taxes would more than cover the health associated issues...but that money goes to every program a government can get their hands on. Remember the "BIG TOBACCO" settlement for billions? What percentage of that went to tobacco health related issues? Wasn't it something like 20% or less?
I thought a bunch of that settlement money was still tied up in endless appeals. I'm sure all the lawyers will be sure to bleed as much of that money away in their legal costs. Surely a great deal of the rest will be misappropriated.
Ultimately, the only good thing I see about cigarette taxes is how they work in a punitive manner on the smokers themselves. It is an increasingly costly incentive for them to quit. That's been the main thing that has caused several of my co-workers to quit smoking.
quote: Steve Guttag
You are very much wrong on that one...legal issues easily double the cost of health care. Every drug that is invented goes through a huge expense to ward off potential lawsuits....even drugs that make it through FDA can later be found to cause problems and it is big time lawsuit.
It's not that simple.
If the drug industry had such money problems, it would not be the #1 ranked source of advertising revenue. The drug industry spends far more money on advertising than any other industry in the world. They even spend a lot more on advertising than they do on research and development.
Overall, I think the malpractice law firms, insurance companies, hospital corporations and drug companies are all in loose collusion with each other. They do their little finger pointing blame game dance over who is causing health care costs to rise and then all give themselves huge pay raises every year. They can do that when they have a giant blank check coming from the American government. I contend we already have a form of government subsidized "socialized medicine." We just have the world's most retarded form of it.
quote: Steve Guttag
The problem is health care has ALWAYS had 100% demand...sooner or later (normally just the birthing process itself) people will need a doctor and his/her magic medicine. However, this is the arguement for universal health care coverage like we have for education, police and fire protection because they all fall in the same category. Essentials of life and society.
This assumes the general public in the United States has always had the same level of health.
While the rate of smoking is on a steady decline we're seeing steady increases in rate of obesity, heart disease and adult onset diabetes. Our population is not nearly as active as it was 20 or 30 years ago. We also have 100 million more people in this country than we did 30 years ago. All of this leads to rapidly increasing demand.
I agree we need some sort of health insurance system that offers at least some basic coverage to all citizens in this country. I think we can have such a system while preserving some of the for-profit oriented systems offering higher quality care. However, for such a system to work I think the system has to heavily stress the importance of preventative health care. We don't have this in America right now.
Our system is currently designed to react to personal health disasters and actually penalize those who want to get preventative check ups. Basically everyone is thrown into the high priced for-profit system whether he can afford it or not. To me it's like the equivalent of the auto industry only selling luxury vehicles that cost $100,000 and higher.
My boss had a stress test recently that involved running on a treadmill and blowing into a tube and having blood work done. The bill for that: $5000 -just for a set of routine, diagnostic tests. Meanwhile a bartender I know just had breast augmentation surgery. Her bill for that: $3000.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-02-2007, 12:04 AM:
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Posted by Rick Hunter (Member # 1606) on 07-02-2007, 04:30 AM:
Phill Hill quote:
I'm a non-smoker .....!
I HATE it when ......!!!!!
... to ban incandescent lamps. !!!!
....Also, the "sky is falling"....
! Most ALL patrons were greatful for the clean air and the bars and other bizs actually had an increase in revenue.
Could not agree more...
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-02-2007, 08:35 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I agree we need some sort of health insurance system that offers at least some basic coverage to all citizens in this country. I think we can have such a system while preserving some of the for-profit oriented systems offering higher quality care. However, for such a system to work I think the system has to heavily stress the importance of preventative health care. We don't have this in America right now.
Similar criticisms have been made of Britain's state-run healthcare system, the National Health Service. My uncle (a retired doctor) argues that it should more accurately be called the National Illness Service, because its emphasis is almost entirely on treating problems as and when people come down with them. Occupational health, disease prevention and pre-emptive screening (apart from breast cancer, for which a full scale screening programme exists) are of a lower priority, if they happen at all.
The last time I saw a doctor (in a professional capacity) was in January 1994. I wonder how many serious problems would be caught before they got serious (and cost the taxpayer a lot of money to fix) if there was a policy of, say, requiring every citizen to have a full medical checkup each year?
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-02-2007, 08:53 AM:
Leo good to hear from you been a while since we worked together at Cambridge.....
I recently saw a film documentary called 'Sicko' which was a real eye opener regarding the state of health care in the US.
It appears that smoking is a real problem for insurance and getting health care according to an earlier post, something that just does not happen in the UK.
I do feel that people should be more accountable for their own health but not to the point of denying health care totally becuase of cost. There are cases where this has happend already here mainly due to the cost of drugs and not the actual care itself.
I have to say I'm certainly better off living in the UK as my own health has been a real concern over the past couplr of years.
A minor heart attack and diabetes and related problems.... I've never smoked so I don't have any of the related problems unless at some point something due to passive smoking.
I am however over weight, obese if you go by the medical definition, and I do drink a few too many G&T's.
But for all of that I get excellent health care with the bottom line that it's down to me at the end of the day.
If I lived in the US I'd possibly be in a real mess as I could not afford the health care I get here.
Has anyone else seen 'Sicko' and is it accurate or, as often happens, taking the worst case senario?
Regards.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-02-2007, 09:12 AM:
quote: Ken McFall
Has anyone else seen 'Sicko' and is it accurate or, as often happens, taking the worst case senario?
I haven't seen it, but I suspect that it is an accurate reflection of the worst-case senario; i.e. it is not just made up, but chooses worst cases to report on.
We often hear of people costing the NHS vast sums by self-inflicted illness, e.g. by smoking. I wonder if this is actually true. If they lived a different lifestyle then the NHS might not have the cost of treating the disease that they have, but on the other hand they would probably live longer, possibly through a long period of old age, with the various chronic illnesses and need for care which that can involve. I really have no idea which would impose the greater cost on the system.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-02-2007, 11:53 AM:
I find that the NHS doesn't have/require regular preventive checkups (based on age and liklihood of potential problems) very strange. The ounce of prevention = a pound of cure is very true. It has to be cheaper to catch something before it spreads then try to deal with it once it spreads. Even in our dreaded HMO type systems, the cost of a check up is rather cheap. The HMO would much rather pay out a small sum for a check up than a HUGE sum for treatment of something that was preventable or severely reduced.
You get your car checked up (at least the oil changed) regularly...why not your body? It is far more complex and able to fail even with proper upkeep!
An adult probably does not need a check up each year though on their body the way they do on say their teeth. Statistics and probability should be able to define a proper interval on checkups that accomplish the most amount of prevtive screening without costing the entire country for excessive "no problems" check ups. I don't think it is practical on a country wide basis to be able to catch everything but it is practical to catch most things in an early stage.
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 07-02-2007, 12:21 PM:
There are some regular but vouluntry check ups done, breast cancer being the best known and possibly most infamous due to screening errors.
Most of the other recomended check ups are voluntry.
However once you're 'on' the system then some things happen automatically.
Annual flu jab's are one thing that springs to mind. Diabetic eye examinations and foot care and a host of other things. But unless you actually make a point of going to your GP or are taken ill these preventative measures don't cut in.
One of the biggest blocks to getting a change in the attitude to health care is the 'I've paid into the NHS all my life so I'm entitled',' Let the state take care of me I'm entitled'
Any change in the system is almost impossible to make as there is indeed a large number of people who have paid into the system all of their lives. We are firmly stuck with the current system and any political party that even thought of making any major changes would be in for a slap down from the electorate.
The day I'm taken ill away from home and I'm asked for my insurance details before any treatment is given will be a very sorry day for the UK.
Regards.
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 07-02-2007, 12:29 PM:
How much money have you (smokers) spend in cigaretts in all this years? What have you obteined from this investment? Are you happy with the results?
I've smoked for almost one year when I was an university student and it was a way to know that I don't like to smoke and I don't like the smoke close to me.
Everyone of us is free to do what we want just if we don't bother anyone else.
Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 07-02-2007, 01:36 PM:
This might be one of the only reasons I like living in the Deep South... the states around here generally despise government intrusion into our lives just about as much as I do.
I hope my state never passes a smoke-free law.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-02-2007, 02:23 PM:
quote: German Marin
Everyone of us is free to do what we want just if we don't bother anyone else.
Well, not really. You can't (in this country, at least) drive 150 miles per hour on the highway. You can't posess dangerous drugs, even if you only plan to use them yourself. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, or move onto a piece of abandoned property and build a house, or mention a bomb when you get on an airplane...the list goes on.
But that's the problem with smokers. Smokers think their smoking doesn't (or shouldn't) bother anyone else. They think "grow up, it's not that bad." While some non smokers take it to the extreme - if they so much as breathe a whiff of smoke coming out of a window they go ballistic.
Common sense should be able to solve this problem, unfortunately there's a short supply of that these days.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-02-2007, 03:13 PM:
Mike you speak truths even though they are in many ways against the purpose and the foundation of the US.
In your state, you used to be able to drive 150MPH on a highway but a few bad apples....The whole highway/driving thing is another subject though I too use it as examples...in the case of speed, it really comes down to the road, the vehicles of the day and what constitutes reckless endangerment as to what one can/can't do and when a law is justified.
The drug issue...the government is just plain wrong...it somehow invented that power on itself....Constitutionally, the government was given deliberately little power in one's home. The number one thing about the bill of rights really boils down to "Privacy" People have been yielding not only their privacy but other people's privacy in the name of most anything far too much.
The "you can't yell 'fire'...." example is one of the most misused examples on the restriction of free speach. It has nothing to do with yelling fire...it has to do with reckless endangerment. That is, if you open a door to a crowded theatre (boy wouldn't we all enjoy to see that constantly!) and yell fire...the ensuing stampeed of people trying to get out would likely injure and/or kill some. It isn't prior restraint as much as an issue of accountability. If there is indeed a fire, one is not prohibted from stating such...it is fact if there is a fire a blazing. In fact, most would find the theatre liable if the fire alarm did NOT go off (the modern electronic form of yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre). However, fire alarms have been designed even more sophisticated to stage exits with the alarms going off based on proximity to the affected room rather than trying to clear an entire building all at once.
But back to the UK health care issue. Can one go for a checkup when one pleases or is there a period of time one must wait between checkups? I mean it isn't unreasonable for people to take some responsibility for going to the doctor.
You mention breast cancer screenings but how about Colonoscopy?...something most men should have by the time they reach 40.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-02-2007, 03:44 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
But back to the UK health care issue. Can one go for a checkup when one pleases or is there a period of time one must wait between checkups? I mean it isn't unreasonable for people to take some responsibility for going to the doctor.
Well I guess I've been a naughty boy, then. I registered with a local general practitioner (community doctor, who is the first person you go to if you have a non-emergency medical problem - based in an office facility in a residential area, not a hospital) when I moved to York in December 1999. This involved filling out a form and giving them my national insurance (social security) number.
I haven't heard a thing from them since. AFAIK I'm not supposed to proactively make appointments for a routine checkup or anything like that. As, thankfully, I haven't been ill enough to feel the need to see a doctor since 1994, I just haven't seen one. If I were to get a letter or an email saying 'It's been X years since your last checkup - please ring up and make an appointment for the next one', I would of course do so. But as far as I know, there's no formal requirement or expectation for me to take the initiative on that score.
Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 07-02-2007, 05:02 PM:
Please pardon my ignorance, but in the case of the NHS in the UK, is this something entirely subsidized by taxes or is it something that is paid into? Also, does it pay in similar fashion to US insurance companies, where there is a co-pay, deductible, and then 60/40 or 70/30 type scheme?
Posted by Ray Faultless (Member # 903) on 07-02-2007, 05:42 PM:
Yes the NHS is funded by taxes. It is one of the better thing of living in this country.No charge for doctors visits or hospital stays.There is charges for dental work and for presciptions unless the person is retired or not working then they are free.This is a big part of the high taxes here.Just look at the cost of gas. When I lived in the states my friend 62 had a heart attack and died two days later. He had no insurance and his family swore he recieved so little medical help at the hospital they just let him die.For people here in hospital not having to worry about getting a bill is a great thing.
Posted by Kara J. McVay (Member # 1285) on 07-02-2007, 06:25 PM:
Ohio went smoke free in Nov. 2006, but had no rules in place to enforse the law, the rules went into play May or June. The only downfall I can see is now the bars on my street their patrons come out every 15-20 min. drunk or not to smoke. On a evening with no wind moving my whole street smells like an ashtray! Not to mention that the drunks just throw their butts on the ground and the next morning the street look like ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
So now we will have to wait for the litter laws to catch up with the bars and make them clean up their patrons' messes or pay.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-02-2007, 06:41 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
In your state, you used to be able to drive 150MPH on a highway
Actually, the rule was "a reasonable and prudent speed." We'd probably still have that in place today if not for the random dickheads who would drive 120 or more, when everyone else was going around 80 or 85.
The annual number of highway deaths in Montana has actually increased every year since they reinstated the speed limit at 75 MPH.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-02-2007, 06:43 PM:
Littering laws would affect smokers more than smoking bans. Name one smoker who doesn't litter. You can't, because they don't exist! The world is their ashtray, and they are free to throw their butts wherever they like. If they were no longer allowed to do so, they'd become confused and might actually short circuit! Well I suppose that assumes that logical circuitry existed in the first place.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-03-2007, 03:24 AM:
I never go near a Doctor if I can possibly avoid it. I don't want to even think about bodies, and things that go on inside them. I have been to a post mortem, so I know what the various bits inside look like, but 'out of sight, out of mind' is the best policy as for as I'm concerned. In my view if whatever I've got is minor it will go away, and if it's serious I'll die, so either way I won't have to worry about it.
Another problem is that people expect Doctors to be miracle-workers, which they can't be. A couple of years ago I was in my hotel room in New Jersey, when I suddenly started getting terrible pains in my side; I've never felt anything like them before. I was due to fly home the following evenging, just over 24 hours later, so I was somewhat worried, and decided that unless it had completely goe away by the folling morning I would have to have it looked at, rather than risk being taken ill in mid-Atlantic.
The next morning it had gone, so I flew home; the following day it came back while on the bus going to work; I got off the bus and got some water to drink, but by the time I arrived it was much worse. Work called a taxi to take to Dortor. He examined me, and asked some questions, but wasn't sure what the cause was. He suggested several possibilities, including kidney stones, and several things with long latin names that I'd never heard of, but couldn't be sure. by that evening whatever it was had gone away, and has never come back, so I never did find out what it was.
The last time I went to a dentist was just before I was 21, almost 30 years ago. I had to have an extraction, and I don't like having needles stuck into be. Rather than the usual local in the gum they gave me a shot in the arm to put me out, and then gas to keep me that way. Several other people had similar treatment that day, and most sat in the waiting room for half an hour or so to recover before going home. When I came round I had never felt so ill in my life; I honestly thought I was going to die. I must have been sitting in the waiting room for something like three hours before I could even try to stand up, and walk home. I obviously had some reaction to whatever they had given me, and I swore that as long as I lived I would never go to a dentist again. I haven't, and I won't.
[ 07-03-2007, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-03-2007, 03:41 AM:
quote: Christopher Meredith
Also, does it pay in similar fashion to US insurance companies, where there is a co-pay, deductible, and then 60/40 or 70/30 type scheme?
No - the NHS has its own workforce (someone once told me that it's the second largest employer, in terms of the most number of people working for a single organisation, in the world - the only bigger one is the Chinese army!), and for major treatment no money changes hands. You see the GP, and if necessary (s)he then refers you to a hospital for more major treatment. Since the 1980s there have been moves to make the various sub-organiszations within the NHS more financially autonomous: so, for example, GPs' surgeries and specialist units manage their own budgets and compete internally with other NHS organisations to carry out routine treatments. But that all goes on behind the scenes, and doesn't really affect what happens to you as a patient. You do pay a flat charge for prescription medicines, which I think is designed so that those who need the cheaper ones subsidise those who need the expensive ones.
The state healthcare system in France is a sort of hybrid of the NHS and the system you describe. I can't remember the exact details, but the gist of what happens is that GPs' surgeries are private businesses, and as long as their charges don't exceed a certain amount (in other words, they have to be approved and certified by the state), you have the right to go to any one you want and the taxpayer picks up the tab. But the larger hospitals which carry out more specialist treatments are directly state-owned.
One of the few things about the European Union that I'll say positive things about is that citizens of all its member states can get a 'European Health Insurance Card'. It's totally free (you mail a form or apply online, and as long as your National Insurance number checks out it arrives in the post a few days later), and entitles you to free use of whatever state healthcare system exists in any other EU member country when you're visiting. When all is done, your government settles the bill with that of your host country.
That having been said, it's still a good idea to have travel insurance when visiting the European mainland, because the EHIC does not cover the cost of repatriating you in the case of a serious problem (e.g. if you break several bones and need to be shipped back in an air ambulance). But it does mean that, while on a holiday or work trip to another European country, if you come down with something nasty (e.g. a viral infection) but not a hospital job, you can just go and see the local doctor without any fuss.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-03-2007, 03:46 AM:
Stephen, it sounds like you had a bad burrito.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-03-2007, 05:57 AM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
No - the NHS has its own workforce
The situation is further complicated by the fact that some Doctors do both NHS and private work.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2