One person’s freedom…
The BBC reports this morning (NZ time) that the UK Cabinet has agreed on the parameters of smoke-free laws for England, and clubs and food-free pubs will be exempt.
Also this morning our time, Reuters reports that a study published in a medical journal has found that any exposure at all to tobacco smoke can have “health consequences”.
One suspects that once the UK plan breaks in the media here, we can expect various folx, Peter Dunhill for one, to crow that they are taking the path NZ should have chosen. The Reuters story is probably unlikely to surface.
The smoke-free stoush is, of course, one of the principle debates around the positioning of the lines of control for reducing the friction between individuals’ zones of personal sovereignty. In other words, when does someone’s right to not have polluted air imposed on them take precedence over someone else’s right to make an informed choice to inhale intoxicating smoke into their body?
The Green Party has strongly supported the total ban on smoking in public enclosed places. However, there is another idea being talked about in pubs, which is not the Green Party position, nor is it covered by the UK or NZ approaches, but is worth discussing on an environmental level:
The smoke-free legislation has released smokers into the environment, in that much more of their foul solid waste, ie their butts and ash, is now being carried by drains out into the sea and rivers.
And thanks to pubs putting heaters outside (usually above the punters’ heads) the smoke-free ban is also leading to a river’s worth of electricity and half a field’s worth of gas being wasted keeping the crowns of drinking smokers’ toasty in midwinter.
And where that isn’t happening, the common ban on drinking on the streets has meant the new regime manifests as a form of drug apartheid, where you can drink and smoke, but not in the same place.
Rather than releasing smokers into the environment, they could have been contained in dedicated facilities - namely ‘Smokers’ Bars’. Such places would have to be clearly identified as SMOKERS’ bars, with health warnings slapped all over them so they can be avoided and maybe even lined with pictures of cancerous lungs and the like.
Staff would be required to wear full oxygen equipment, including smokers so that their choice to inflict harm on themselves in their own time would not be confused with any harm they suffer on the job.
All the resulting toxic waste, airborne and solid, could be properly contained and disposed of in an environmentally friendly fashion.
Such a set-up would totally undercut the rabid opposition to the smoke-free laws and would probably even be embraced as maintaining smokers’ ‘freedom’, though in fact they’d be imprisoned in their bad habit, which over time would make it even more unattractive.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Why not just have a smoking room, which is sealed off and well ventilated, and staff don’t go there except very brief excursions to pick up glasses and wipe tables? Like they have in airports. I’m all for smoker’s freedom, so long as it doesn’t impinge on non-smokers like me.
The butts in streams thing can be solved by more outdoor ashtrays. As for heating bills, get over it. A bit of gas to save innocent lives and health is a small price.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:24 am
sorry frog, it is not clear where that quote comes from. Please attribute it, or people will start to think that the Greens position has changed to support smoking rooms.
October 27th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Two things I remember very well: as a schoolboy in London I had to travel to school on a double decker bus. If one could find a seat on the smoke-free lower deck, it was fine, but if there was none I had to suffer a great deal of pollution. (You couldn’t stand downstairs unless there were no seats free upstairs). Freedom!
I remember even then someone else suggesting a big extractor hood over the smokers, as is fitted over the fryers in takeaways.
As a teacher I had to suffer smoke in the staffroom, too. Eventually the smokers were asked to sit at special tables but that did little to clean the atmosphere. Of course, one could always go without a cup of tea of coffee and volunteer for extra break duty
October 27th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
If the ban against marijuana smoking remains, on health grounds, ban tobacco smoking. Then, both are illegal on the street outside pubs. Fairness is good. Then “smokers” should be treated equally when caught in the act.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
It’s kind of a cute idea, but doesn’t seem that realistic. Staff members wearing oxygen masks?? And Ben - if the reuters thing is true, staff popping into a room to collect glasses will be effected, even if it IS for a short period… and wht if it’s a busy night and they’re in there every five minutes?
But the other thing in this whole smokers’ freedom issue is that they are causing harm to themselves which can not only harm others, but will cost others… Do smokers raging about their violated personal rights plan to personally foot the bill for their lung cancer treatment?
Naturally of course, the same thing could be said about obese people or alcoholics, or completely unfit people… All of the instances where people’s decisions lead to government funded medical care… Hmm, have the Greens ever thought of extending their polluter pays policy to our bodies? T’would be an interesting concept.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Oxygen masks and cigarettes.
Hmm, anyone else reckon the opposition would have a field day the first time some unfortunate staffer exploded in an incandescent fireball?
October 27th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Pip, I don’t think that frog is suggesting that smokers rooms with staff wearing oxygen masks should be the green position, and therefore we shouldn’t have to worry about about the opposition attacking that idea. I think that frog is just attempting to broaden the debate to think about other things when thinking about smoking bans, and frog has done so by quoting something that is being “discussed in pubs”, something that is presumably intended to be humourously provocative.
I wish frog would make clear where the quote is from though, since someone could now write a media-beat-up news story saying “Greens blog says …”
I do like the idea of triple bottom line accounting for our policies though … Are the health benefits of smoking bans so great that they outweigh the negetive environmental effects of butts in the stormwater and gas heaters. I would say that they are, and that the current law should stay, and really I’d like frog to have a paragraph after the quote concluding this too, but also asking for our views.
October 27th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Can’t separate smokers in a separarte room because I don’t want to miss out on the interesting conversation while they smoke. It risks becoming a cool hangout.
I was on a weekend course once where smokers were sent alone to individual private places where they could sort themselves out. This prevented smoking from being a social thing.
So I like that I can go to bars and clubs with friends now (dancing is probably my main form of a dedicated workout) and breathing easy/ not stinking the next day. I consider that a major boost for my personal freedom.
Oh, and AJW:
“Do smokers raging about their violated personal rights plan to personally foot the bill for their lung cancer treatment?”
They pay already, in advance. Seen the tax on smokes? Just right.
October 27th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Why not just let the free market sort it out? if smoke free bars were a great idea people would go to them.
we don’t need to regulate.
honeslty i thought you guys believed in personal freedom, i guess this is the puritan wing of the greens coming out again
contradictory as usual
October 27th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
The “Free Market” exists on page 1 of books of elementary economics and nowhere else.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Chris - In addition to the greengage comment the point to the policy is the health of the workers in the bar… Giving them portable air tanks (not oxygen, not where people smoke) whould allow the policy to be left to the bar, but the practicality of the solution leaves a lot to be desired. respectfully BJ
October 27th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Chris,
The equivalence of status, between tobacco smoking and marijuana smoking, is all I ask. Make them both illegal, or allow smoking of both in private places or designated smoking areas.
It’s the hypocrisy of the Mr Dunne types I cannot stand.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
The greens should propose a referendum to this effect.
The same status for each Y/N.
Then defining that same status.
Both illegal Y/N
Legal (possession and use over 18) and under the same tax regime Y/N
If the later.
Both with sales based on ration cards. Y/N
Both in private places and unconfined areas only Y/N.
Both in separate areas in cafes/bars Y/N
Both in stand-alone premises Y/N.
October 27th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Oh, c’mon!! The smokefree legislation was an active attempt to reducing smoking, not improve air quality. If the issue was air quality ir could’ve been mandated (as I’ve long argued), and pubs which chose to invest in appropriate containment and filtering could’ve been allowed. That’s how we regulate industrial air quality/pollutants.
Chris is absolutely correct, it’s just that the wider agenda was sufficiently unpalatable to the electorate that it was never publicly acknowledged.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
well I don’t give a shite what someone else wants to put in their lungs, but I do give a shite what they put into mine. My support for smoke free pubs is based on it’s impact on me.
Free market? I recall one pub that was brave enough to be smoke free in Dunedin, and it didn’t last. Once out on the town with friends I suggested going there, and the one smoker in the group absolutely veto’d the idea, because he wouldn’t be able to smoke. People don’t like having to make a big deal of it, however much they dislike finding it physically hard to breathe or jumping into bed stinking.
The fact of the matter is that any bar that went smokefree was going to loose a percentage of customers, and not just those who smoke; the bottom line comes down to the lowest common denominator.
I also lost count of those who I stopped seeing out and about socially because they were sick of the smokey environment, and it would often be the deciding factor for me between leaving the house or not. I have found most smokers I know to be stupendously ignorant about the stench and difficulty their habit causes many others, and on the odd occasion I’ve been pissed off enough to mention it I get treated like some killjoy; apparently the thing to do is toughen up and pretend to be able to breathe. Ever seen a smoker in an enclosed room who seems to think that if they breathe out away from you that’s enough. Perhaps because their sense of smell is incapacitated they seem to think that what you can’t see doesn’t hurt you. Quite genuinely.
Wider agenda social engineering politically correct my arse.
Why did we never hear the (moaning above their weight) smoker’s rights lobby talk about smoker’s responsibilities?
Toughen up, a bit of fresh air will do you some good.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
ohmigod how embarrassing
alt.possesive.its.has.no.apostrophe
oh how i wish for an emergency edit function.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Huskynut,
The wider public could have been and could still be asked to place both forms of smoking into the same basket.
Peter Dunne as Associate Minister of health could promote government policy on this.
Really. As someone who voted Green, I would be happy to see him do so.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Huskynut,
The wider public could have been and could still be asked, to place both forms of smoking into the same basket.
Peter Dunne, as Associate Minister of Health, could promote government policy on this.
Really. As someone who voted Green, I would be happy to see him do so.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
We know his opinions on the issue of smoking and pubs & restaurants.
By the way, the united future site is frustratingly hard to read. Who in their right mind uses the miniscule fonts they’ve got on the front page (down the bottom)?
October 28th, 2005 at 12:05 am
CFG
The Minister’s outside cabinet are bound by Cabinet responsibility in the area of their portfolio.
I like the idea of him being left to proceed with an option to offer some future for public gathering to tobacco smokers, IF the equivalent option for others is part of this. Thus those who vote for this smoking right for tobacco smokers, would be voting for it for marijuana smokers. And those who voted against it for marijuana smokers, would be voting against it for tobacco smokers.
I wonder what United Future policy would then be? And how much money it would cost them, if they backtracked on their existing policy.
October 28th, 2005 at 4:57 am
Ah, now I understand the “Ministers outside cabinet” thing.
They’re not allowed to smoke inside.
October 28th, 2005 at 8:04 am
SPC,
What’s the purpose in trying to homogenise the laws on tobacco and marijuana? They’re different products after all.
So should the same laws apply to alcohol and soft drinks because they’re ingested the same way?
Seems an overly simplistic and unhelpful approach to me.
October 28th, 2005 at 8:13 am
Alistair, I though it was a loo joke for sure
respectfully BJ
October 28th, 2005 at 9:21 am
I thought the smoking laws were primarily about staff, who work 8 hour shifts. So, just like builders wear hard hats, and machinists can’t have things lying about all over the place, the government puts in force a piece of “safety in the workplace” legislation that stops work related illness - here, lung cancer. ANd no amount of ventilation is gonna stop hospo staff from inhaling at least some of it… well, I guess you could have extreme suction ventialtion, but that’d take your drink aswell…
Personal freedom here is a wierd argument here. Imagine if they were trying to INTRODUCE a law that said it was okay to smoke in bars - no one would have it! It would be about as easy as getting marijuana legal.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:46 am
re the UFO website fonts, they are only that small in Firefox and the other modern browsers. In antiquated browsers like IE6 the font size is fine.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:26 am
n00bs
October 28th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Equating marijuana and tobacco is clearly not reasonable. Equating the reasons behind their treatment under the law is. If dope is banned because it’s unhealthy, then smokes should be, and many other harmful things. I personally don’t agree with this. Personal health is a personal issue. Sure the taxpayer foots the bill, but everyone gets old and sick and dies sometime, so it’s a shared burden to pay for the treatment.
If dope is banned because it is intoxicating, then similar consideration should be given to booze. I think this has a stronger argument in limited circumstances, just as with booze. Driving stoned or operating any kind of dangerous machinery is riskier than doing it straight. More studies need to be done to ascertain what is an acceptable level of intoxication for these tasks, and the answer could be ‘none’ for many things, like piloting a plane or driving a bus or car. ‘None’ should be clearly defined as below a certain threshold, rather than ‘having no discernable traces at all’ which is too draconian, and is not even applied to alchohol, which is well known to lower performance in many tasks.
The issue of where people can smoke, tobacco or dope or whatever, is obviously more complicated than the issue of whether they should be allowed to smoke at all. I’m a fan of the ban in bars, because I don’t like to inhale it myself, and the poor bar staff are in a much more exposed position than me. I can see any number of problems with my suggestion that smoker’s bars should be allowed, merely put it up as an alternative. Yes the staff will inhale it sometimes. Yes it will encourage larger and larger areas dedicated to smoking. These things could be regulated for - appropriate venting, size proportion restrictions, etc. All ideas.
blacksand makes a good point that smokefree bars died quickly prior to the indoor smoking ban. I think the total ban is a bit much, that it is possible to make indoor smoking areas that are sealed from the rest, and well enough ventilated that short forays in there have neglible health effects. They could become ‘cool’ areas, but that is a matter of personal choice. Being huddled outdoors has a similar critique. During my brief foray as a smoker, this was my main purpose - I went outside to smoke, but really it was just an excuse to get away from my desk and talk gossip off the company premises. It only sucked when it was raining, otherwise it was a great excuse to get out into the sun and watch the passing chicks. So, doing things with an intent to socially engineer can backfire bigtime. I’m not a fan of doing it for those reasons. The health reasons for the innocent are far more compelling.
October 28th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Ben, I agree. Trouble is, much of the debate around smoking is just plain irrational.
In terms of exposure to hazardous fumes in the workplace, we allow painters, spraypainters, petrol station attendants and cabbies on busy roads, amongst many others to inhale significant amounts of toxic products every day.
The idea that a well ventilated bar (and some pubs *were* willing to install these - evidence Bodega in Wellington spent $20k on a system prior to legislation) is significantly more hazardous than a myriad of other occupations I find completely non-rational (admittedly without any evidence to back up my gut reaction).
Blacksand is ranting rather than arguing, but at least is honest enough to say their position is based on the fact they don;t *like* smoking. I wish others would be more honest that their position was simple personal preference and prejudice.
October 28th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Maybe they should allow sealed rooms with extractor fans in them, and alcohol and tobacco vending machines instead of bars, so that the staff wouldn’t have to go in to them. Let the smokers stew in their own filth and just hose the place down at the end of the night.
October 28th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
& carbon filters
October 29th, 2005 at 3:08 am
It’s now UK Labour public health policy to allow smoking in food free bars and private clubs and ban it in other workplaces.
The intent is to move to our arrangement at a later date - yes with the intent to reduce smoking rates.
The arguement against dope is its harm. Yet tobacco smokes are unhealthy for all who use them and in all use levels AND for those in the surrounds (thus the workplace legislation). It is a drug use (nicotine) too.
Dope is harmful to those of a younger age and those with a pre-disposition to some mental health consequences (it like alcohol can be a workplace health and safety problem). Alcohol is quite benign in lower use levels, but can be problematic for those pre-disposed to alcoholism - as with gambling (some become addicts) and eating and over-eating.
Clearly tobacco smoking would be prohibited, if it was a new product. Yet today a similar number of people smoke both - and one is illegal. Yet the one that is legal, is the one of the two which results in huge health costs and death rates.
huskynut,
“What’s the purpose in trying to homogenise the laws on tobacco and marijuana?
Justice in the law, for ALL New Zealanders.
“They’re different products after all.”
The difference does not explain the different treatment. Both are a recreational drug use - with drug addiction issues, the legal one involves greater health cost to society - as it is more addictive, used in greater amounts and is more deadly as a result.
Those who don’t want the two related, support the continued legal use of one and not the other.
I can live with placing the two on the same status. I use neither. My preference (if I was given a choice), would be to ration card use both and tax/regulate. This would mean reducing the consumption of many using tobacco, improving users health and financial circumstance. Also taking control of marijuana supply off criminals - and allowing very low levels of use at younger age levels (18-20’s).
I ideologically prefer choice, but while we regulate speed people travel on roads and have a public taxpayer funded health system, rationing and regulation is social justice.
Whether there should be confined places, the two smoking groups can gather is another matter. The majority don’t smoke and prefer smoke free environments. So it’s become a mainstream vs minority issue. It’s been customary for smokers to be included and for others to put up with it. This has now been reversed.
Possibly they might revisit the tobacco “smoking place” issue when both groups have similar legal status. These not serving anything but the on-site purchased and smoked (smoking workplace - with no non smoker required to staff them), or being charge entry (tickets sold outside the door, staff airing the premises before cleaning up) places for smokers. These nearby cafes, restaruants and bars.
October 29th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
I’m not convinced the only reason dope is prohibited is harm alone, which is why I put up both justifications for thought-food. I think many people morally disapprove of the intoxicating effects of dope, and that this is a big argument against decriminalization. Probably people who have not tried it, or people who have tried it and didn’t like the effect - maybe they spun out too much or got the noids or something. There’s also the obvious effect of dope smoking which is to make people lethargic, and that is considered a bit immoral by many. It’s not the exact same intoxication that you get from alcohol, so treating it a bit differently does make sense to some people.
Not me, for the record. I think it’s an invasion of personal freedom. I think there should be many controls on how substances are used, but within those parameters the individuals should get total choice. The onus should always be on those who seek to restrict freedom to prove greater harm to society by not restricting it.
I also find the arguments about the intoxicant differences contradictory and uninformed, in most cases. For instance, it’s a well known side effect of booze to make people aggressive, which manifests in violence a lot. This clearly harms wider society, but is not considered sufficient reason to ban it. It is merely controlled by making the locations alcohol may be consumed in somewhat restricted, rightly so.
Also it is well known that booze makes you uncoordinated and slows your reactions which leads to the majority of fatal car accidents. This also is not seen as a reason to ban, although it did eventually lead to a crackdown on drunk driving. I would advocate the same thing with any intoxicant. There would need to be studies into what real effects the intoxicants have, and what level of intoxication was too much.
The harm issue is separate, in my mind. I personally don’t subscribe to any view that the government has the right to stop you harming yourself. They don’t with so many things, that it is utterly contradictory for them to pull it as a major argument in the case against drugs. You are completely free to ride a motorbike, which often leads to fatal accidents and severe injuries. You can be a fat lazy pig which puts great strain on your heart. You can sink booze and fags with impunity. You can cross the road, which leads to many fatalities. You can eat turds if you like, it’s not against the law.
The only area where the government has the right to legislate against harm is when it is done to other people. That is the only justification I can see for the smoking ban in bars. It is a good one. You can’t speed in your car for similar reasons - you increase your chance of killing someone else.
What about seat belts and bike helmets, you ask? I respond that failing to wear either one should not be a criminal offence. But wearing them is very sensible, and fining people who don’t can be considered the tax paid for that freedom. I find this especially intrusive in the area of pushbike helmets, which should be completely a matter of personal choice. Children are a different matter, always the exception to any rule.
On most other points I agree with SPC.
October 30th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Actually IMHO it makes perfect sense to legislate against allowing people to harm themselves. In our society at least, we all have to foot the bill for peoples’ irresponsible behaviour, in terms of medical costs or search and rescue costs. Of course we could introduce legislation that anyone suffering self inflicted injury is not eligible to free medical treatment, or that anyone lost in the mountains or bush through their own stupidity should not expect the state to pay for their rescue, but in the end if that actually happens, I don’t think the majority would actually want to just let them die if they can’t afford to pay.
October 30th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
You’re talking about refusing to help people, which is different to stopping them harming themselves. I can’t see how you could feasibly allow people to even own a bike if you thought that you should prevent them from potentially getting themselves lost in the bush. That would be self-harm prevention. Rescuing them is harm prevention, but in this case they are asking for it, unlike the person who smokes yet another fag, or eats another 5 big macs.
I understand your point that people who are foolish will expect help despite bringing trouble on themselve, but that is really another issue from not allowing them to bring trouble in the first place.
Sure, there are fools like that guy that decided to row a boat across to Australia, and then had to call for help when the sea got rough, diverting a commercial boat hundreds of miles and an Orion out to find him. Guys like that should be very severely punished for that kind of foolishness, even though they probably should be rescued. People who get cancer from smoking don’t need punishment - they’re already getting it. It is in itself enough punishment. Our job is to make people aware of the punishment they will receive from their actions, be it natural or under the law.