I see a flaw in that thinking though. Banning smoking from some convenience store or office because of second hand smoke for the workers is one thing, but anybody with half a brain can realize that being around smoke could be a part of the job while working in a bar or somewhere similar before they even begin working there. In a way you could argue it's an integral part of what a lot of those places are. That would be like saying the government should from now on ban all stuntman from movie sets because it could be and has been something that's dangerous to them and they might get hurt. You would think by the very choice of profession they are willingly taking on the risk.
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
No smoking, just toking for Dutch
- Thread starter tubuler
- Start date
I see a flaw in that thinking though. Banning smoking from some convenience store or office because of second hand smoke for the workers is one thing, but anybody with half a brain can realize that being around smoke could be a part of the job while working in a bar or somewhere similar before they even begin working there. In a way you could argue it's an integral part of what a lot of those places are. That would be like saying the government should from now on ban all stuntman from movie sets because it could be and has been something that's dangerous to them and they might get hurt. You would think by the very choice of profession they are willingly taking on the risk.
Eric Lindros
#88
Whaaa....
I'll go out with my friends and if we want to smoke, we have to stay outside.
Okay, it's a good thing for not smokers or people with long disease or so, but they did go too far, in my opinion.
With all the studies and evidence they say there is on the affects of second hand smoke and the claimed cost we all bear that is why it will not be allowed even if employers and employess are willing to assume the risk.The analogy of the stuntman is really not very good IMO.1st while there may be some risk it is not the same as second hand smoke and the risk also is only to the stuntman not others.More approriate analogy IMO would be if people were working in area with open asbestos.That would not be allowed eithier by the health authorities,no matter what the employer or employees wanted.Smoking is not an integral neccessary part of a bar or anywhere else.
There are extremes both ways I think,outdoor bans are extreme IMO but on the other end saying that people who work in certain places have to assume unneccesary risks like 2nd hand smoke or find other jobs is also extreme.Lets say you were a worker in a bar and a smoker who took the advice to quit that the govt is constantly spending money on to promote,it would seem a little counter productive to still force the risk of continued 2nd hand smoke on the worker wouldn't it?
Facetious
Moderated
"more likely" In your opinion.
Is it conclusive ? If so where ?
As per your link - Many (or some) of these institutions are politically motivated lobbyists who operate under the shield of non profit status as they masquerade as the most highly esteemed arbiters of our health policy.
Oh it has plenty to do with politics. There a two separate "sets of consensus" here, an us and a them, that said, you bet that it's political. Most all of the bans that I have seen take place seemingly always are initiated by a left leaning politician, in my environment anyway. Besides, this directly involves the regulatory power of government, does it not ?
case in point . Here, an entire city has banned smoking. What next ? To what end do we continue to sacrifice our liberties under the guise of doing good ? A nibble here . . and a nibble therexxxxxx and in a generation (or two) the very ambiance that we enjoy today will become reduced to an autocracy,* In My Opinion.
I'm of the opinion that there a three schools of thought. I take nothing on face value and will continue to question "the authorities".
To each their own ! I just happen look at things from outside the establishment or mainstream, if you will.
Although I may not agree with your persuasion on this issue, I certainly respect your opinion and the exchange of ideas.
Joe Mc - out
actually I agree with you. my point was kind of not so much that they should ban smoking cigarettes, but that they should allow them if they are going to let people smoke pot there, or else otherwise ban all smoking together.
I don't have any problem with designated smoking establishments, everyone there wants to smoke and it's fine.
but I don't necessarily think that bars and clubs are contingent for smoking as part of there atmosphere. people don't go there to smoke, they go there to drink and to hookup with drunk people for one night stands. they just happen to be smoking addicts, so they smoke wherever they go.
They would probably smoke in church if they could. I'm sure a large number of churchgoers are smokers. But that doesn't mean that smoking is part of church or that it should be.
I don't agree with banning smoking in bars. I think that if it's stipulated at the entrance that it's a smoking area, then people shouldn't get their panties in a bunch over someone lighting up because they would have been warned that there would be smoking inside the place.
Also, I don't agree with city-wide smoking bans. A few months ago there was a bit on the news about the city of Belmont passing a law that bans people from smoking inside their homes. That should be a decision that should be made by the home owner, not by the city.
Also, I don't agree with city-wide smoking bans. A few months ago there was a bit on the news about the city of Belmont passing a law that bans people from smoking inside their homes. That should be a decision that should be made by the home owner, not by the city.
I like this story, but it's absolute bullshit. As of july 1st cigarettes are banned from restaurants, bars, etc. This apllies to marihuana and coffeeshops as well. Restaurants, bars and coffeeshops have the right to create a special room where people can smoke. But in this room people will get no service (thus waiters and such are not exposed to tobacco) and this room has to be fully sealed off from the rest of the business. There's been debate about the coffeeshops, because of their strange postion, but the government didn't make an exception.
The big mistake many make, btw is seeing marihuana as legal in The Netherlands, but it's not. It's condoned because the effects of fighting it are much worse than condoning it (no distinction between marihuana and far worse drugs like cocaine, lesser violence and crime, etc.). Fun part is off course that the number of people doing drugs in Netherlands (be it marihuana or cocaine) is the lowest in the EU.
The big mistake many make, btw is seeing marihuana as legal in The Netherlands, but it's not. It's condoned because the effects of fighting it are much worse than condoning it (no distinction between marihuana and far worse drugs like cocaine, lesser violence and crime, etc.). Fun part is off course that the number of people doing drugs in Netherlands (be it marihuana or cocaine) is the lowest in the EU.
Good info.:thumbsup:
As you mentioned the workers not potential customers exclusively have to be considered in exposure to 2nd hand smoke.And I think you country's conclusion about the war on drugs to be worse than the drugs themselves has been bourne out in history in several places,as I have said before prohibition of alcohol didn't work out in the US as well.You guys have made drugs boring by condoning them so folks use less.:1orglaugh
Petra
Cult Mother and Simpering Cunt
As I said...the coffie shops would adapt!
16 July 2008
THE NETHERLANDS – The Dutch are not going to giving up fighting against the recently-enforced smoking ban.
A pub in the southern city of Maastricht forms an association for smoking members.
Cor Busch from the northern town of Alkmaar has taken the idea further by renaming his Café Lindeboom the True Universal Smokers' Church of God in Amsterdam.
Visitors can join the congregation and receive a pass to honour God with smoke, fire and ashes. Dozens of pub owners have joined the Smokers' Church in order to avoid the smoking ban on the grounds of religious freedom.
16 July 2008
THE NETHERLANDS – The Dutch are not going to giving up fighting against the recently-enforced smoking ban.
A pub in the southern city of Maastricht forms an association for smoking members.
Cor Busch from the northern town of Alkmaar has taken the idea further by renaming his Café Lindeboom the True Universal Smokers' Church of God in Amsterdam.
Visitors can join the congregation and receive a pass to honour God with smoke, fire and ashes. Dozens of pub owners have joined the Smokers' Church in order to avoid the smoking ban on the grounds of religious freedom.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
Sounds great to me!
