Michigan bar owner fighting smoking ban.

[Coito ergo sum]

We even have the military in the UK sueing the government on health and safety grounds for not supply proper equipment in a war zone now

That sounds stupid.

No it isn't. They can sue because the Government has a duty of care to its soldiers. If they aren't providing enough body armour to their troops, they're unnecessarily putting their lives at risk.

Yes, well, what sounds stupid is placing the national defense of a country in the hands of adversarial litigants.

A military has to make cost benefit analyses all the time, and I would definitely not want the design of the latest tank to be up to judge or a jury (all due respect to their military training...). Should the Challenger Tank's body armor be thicker, or should it be faster and have more firepower? Should the cannon be X millimeters or Y millimeters? How many shells should it hold? What's "safe" and what's "enough?"

Should body armor be full-body armor? What judge of a law court is going to decide that?

It's stupid because it is stifling, and it essentially places the national defense in the hands of some infantryman who thinks that he should have had a different gun or a better body armor.

Moreover - this is the latest news I could find on the topic: "British troops serving abroad cannot sue the Government for breaching their human rights, Britain's highest court has ruled." The court accepted the government's argument that "The imposition of some form of legal duty of care would create a major and disproportionate risk that military decision-making would be made more cumbersome and would be skewed in the light of it," said James Eadie QC. That, he argued, could lead to commanders becoming less effective in tactical decision-making and weaken operational effectiveness. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 6415657180

[Coito ergo sum]

Then let them choose. No one is forcing them to work there and they know it's a smoking bar when they apply for the job. Let them wear a respirator if they insist on working there.

The ban on smoking and the points raised here is just a reflection of the tricky situation society is in with smoking and drinking. In any sane society, these things would be banned as they have such negative social effects (drinking - obvious; smoking - second hand smoke, and health care costs if your society has UHC). But as they are well and truly ingrained in our culture, we have to create these rules that, as Coito points out, can tend to be inconsistent. It's just a case of making the best out of a baddish situation.

Wow....

...frankly...I would reverse it. In any insane society, these things would be banned. We have had dry towns in the US where alcohol is banned, and we even had Prohibition in the 1920's. That wasn't "sane" at all.

Again, you're not comparing like with like. Alcohol only directly harms or inconveniences the drinker (though I accept indirect harm that the affected drinker may cause), wheres smoking directly affect those in the vicinity, both from the health issues of passive smoking and from the aesthetic issues.

Yes, but, if the smoking is confined in a bar that allows smoking, then I don't see what the problem is. Nobody needs to go in there.

And, aesthetic issues are purely subjective. I have a lot of aesthetic gripes.

Moreover, I am in favor of pot legalization, and second hand smoke issues are relevant there too, as well as the aesthetic issues. Yet, strangely, most folks that are anti-smoking are pro-pot.

[pErvinalia]

Then let them choose. No one is forcing them to work there and they know it's a smoking bar when they apply for the job. Let them wear a respirator if they insist on working there.

The ban on smoking and the points raised here is just a reflection of the tricky situation society is in with smoking and drinking. In any sane society, these things would be banned as they have such negative social effects (drinking - obvious; smoking - second hand smoke, and health care costs if your society has UHC). But as they are well and truly ingrained in our culture, we have to create these rules that, as Coito points out, can tend to be inconsistent. It's just a case of making the best out of a baddish situation.

Wow....

...frankly...I would reverse it. In any insane society, these things would be banned. We have had dry towns in the US where alcohol is banned, and we even had Prohibition in the 1920's. That wasn't "sane" at all.

Again, you're not comparing like with like. Alcohol only directly harms or inconveniences the drinker (though I accept indirect harm that the affected drinker may cause), wheres smoking directly affect those in the vicinity, both from the health issues of passive smoking and from the aesthetic issues.

Yes, but, if the smoking is confined in a bar that allows smoking, then I don't see what the problem is. Nobody needs to go in there.

Except the people who work there. It's simply a realisation that in an society with unemployment some people are effectively forced to trade their long term safety for short term survival. Like I said, it's an imperfect solution to a problem we are stuck with.

Moreover, I am in favor of pot legalization, and second hand smoke issues are relevant there too, as well as the aesthetic issues. Yet, strangely, most folks that are anti-smoking are pro-pot.

I don't know if pot is as bad as cigarettes, is it? It shouldn't have a lot of the nasty chemicals that premade cigarettes have. It also doesn't have nicotine.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Outdoor smoking should be banned. It's given squirrels cancer.

[MrJonno]

Moreover - this is the latest news I could find on the topic: "British troops serving abroad cannot sue the Government for breaching their human rights, Britain's highest court has ruled." The court accepted the government's argument that "The imposition of some form of legal duty of care would create a major and disproportionate risk that military decision-making would be made more cumbersome and would be skewed in the light of it," said James Eadie QC. That, he argued, could lead to commanders becoming less effective in tactical decision-making and weaken operational effectiveness. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 6415657180

Its being appealed again and it will be interesting to see where it goes, if the government knowingly sends troops into combat with equipment its aware doesnt work I have no problems with them being held accountable. Its not about providing a risk free environment in any job(which is absurd in war) its about taking 'sensible' precautions to reduce them ie ensuring soldiers have guns (even if its not their prefered ones) and that toxins at a bar are as safe as possible (ie no tobacco smoke)

[Pappa]

We even have the military in the UK sueing the government on health and safety grounds for not supply proper equipment in a war zone now

That sounds stupid.

No it isn't. They can sue because the Government has a duty of care to its soldiers. If they aren't providing enough body armour to their troops, they're unnecessarily putting their lives at risk.

Yes, well, what sounds stupid is placing the national defense of a country in the hands of adversarial litigants.

A military has to make cost benefit analyses all the time, and I would definitely not want the design of the latest tank to be up to judge or a jury (all due respect to their military training...). Should the Challenger Tank's body armor be thicker, or should it be faster and have more firepower? Should the cannon be X millimeters or Y millimeters? How many shells should it hold? What's "safe" and what's "enough?"

Should body armor be full-body armor? What judge of a law court is going to decide that?

It's stupid because it is stifling, and it essentially places the national defense in the hands of some infantryman who thinks that he should have had a different gun or a better body armor.

Moreover - this is the latest news I could find on the topic: "British troops serving abroad cannot sue the Government for breaching their human rights, Britain's highest court has ruled." The court accepted the government's argument that "The imposition of some form of legal duty of care would create a major and disproportionate risk that military decision-making would be made more cumbersome and would be skewed in the light of it," said James Eadie QC. That, he argued, could lead to commanders becoming less effective in tactical decision-making and weaken operational effectiveness. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 6415657180

Taken to it's logical conclusion, what you're saying is that when a soldier signs up, they should expect to lose all of their human rights and have no recourse should they be treated in a way or put in a position that unnecessarily endangers their lives.

[PsychoSerenity]

If it weren't for the fact that it forces some people to choose between working in a smoky bar and not working at all, I wouldn't mind it so much - but that would first require quite a shake up of society.

What I would like to see is for it to be illegal to profit from someone's addiction.

[Coito ergo sum]

Except the people who work there. It's simply a realisation that in an society with unemployment some people are effectively forced to trade their long term safety for short term survival. Like I said, it's an imperfect solution to a problem we are stuck with.

No shortage of bars and restaurants to work at in the US, smokeless included...

Moreover, I am in favor of pot legalization, and second hand smoke issues are relevant there too, as well as the aesthetic issues. Yet, strangely, most folks that are anti-smoking are pro-pot.

I don't know if pot is as bad as cigarettes, is it? It shouldn't have a lot of the nasty chemicals that premade cigarettes have. It also doesn't have nicotine.

Yes.

It does have cannabis, and you can get a contact high. Then you can fail a drug test at work because of secondhand pot smoke.

[pErvinalia]

Except the people who work there. It's simply a realisation that in an society with unemployment some people are effectively forced to trade their long term safety for short term survival. Like I said, it's an imperfect solution to a problem we are stuck with.

No shortage of bars and restaurants to work at in the US, smokeless included...

And no shortage of unemployment. My point still stands.

Moreover, I am in favor of pot legalization, and second hand smoke issues are relevant there too, as well as the aesthetic issues. Yet, strangely, most folks that are anti-smoking are pro-pot.

I don't know if pot is as bad as cigarettes, is it? It shouldn't have a lot of the nasty chemicals that premade cigarettes have. It also doesn't have nicotine.

Yes.

It does have cannabis, and you can get a contact high. Then you can fail a drug test at work because of secondhand pot smoke.

yeah, but it's nowhere near as bad for your health as cigarettes are. That's why people are probably anti-smoking but pro-pot (although virtually everyone I knew who smoked pot regularly were also cigarette smokers).

[Coito ergo sum]

If it weren't for the fact that it forces some people to choose between working in a smoky bar and not working at all, I wouldn't mind it so much - but that would first require quite a shake up of society.

What I would like to see is for it to be illegal to profit from someone's addiction.

Everyone makes choices in life. Roofers are forced to choose between working in high places rather than on the ground. Landscapers have to choose between working out in the impossible heat here in Florida or not.

I reject the proposition that the choice is "working in a smoky bar or not working at all." They can work somewhere else.

[Millefleur]

I know there's at least one Moroccan restaurant in town you can get a houka and belly dance after your meal but I think it's for private parties hosted in a seperate room So indoors but seperated from other diners..

[pErvinalia]

If it weren't for the fact that it forces some people to choose between working in a smoky bar and not working at all, I wouldn't mind it so much - but that would first require quite a shake up of society.

What I would like to see is for it to be illegal to profit from someone's addiction.

Everyone makes choices in life. Roofers are forced to choose between working in high places rather than on the ground. Landscapers have to choose between working out in the impossible heat here in Florida or not.

Not a good analogy. Smoke is basically a toxin. There's no safety measures that can be enacted other than wearing a gas mask or having a massive wind machine blowing it out of the joint. Roofers and landscapers aren't exposed to that kind of toxicity in their jobs every working minute of every day.

I reject the proposition that the choice is "working in a smoky bar or not working at all." They can work somewhere else.

Convincing argument.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Won't somebody think of the squirrels!!!!!

[Coito ergo sum]

I reject the proposition that the choice is "working in a smoky bar or not working at all." They can work somewhere else.

Convincing argument.

It wasn't an argument - it was identifying a fallacy in someone's argument - the fallacy of "false dilemma."

[Geoff]

I reject the proposition that the choice is "working in a smoky bar or not working at all." They can work somewhere else.

Convincing argument.

It wasn't an argument - it was identifying a fallacy in someone's argument - the fallacy of "false dilemma."

Not altogether false, over here at least, it's not that easy to get any bar job (unless you're an attractive girl...my son's been looking for ages!)