Responsibility

[The Bellman]

Recently, here in Australia, our two largest states (population-wise), NSW and Vic, announced that from 1996, smoking (cigarette) will be completely banned in ALL bars, hotels, pubs, and restaurants. Now, to this, you may well say "Fair enough, too." But the reason it was banned was not for the sake of public health; it was to prevent lawsuits from bartenders who subsequently got lung cancer (or some other ailment exacerbated by cigarette smoke) and sued their employer for failing to provide a safe working environment.

What I'd like to discuss is how valid this is. In my opinion, some workplaces have hazards. Miners are at risk from cave-ins; people who drive for a living are at risk from car crashes; bartenders are at risk from smoking. If you don't like those risks, don't take the job. But don't take the job and then later, sue the boss for you getting injured.

What are people's thoughts?

 

[Shane Roach]

I have for some time now been of the opinion that if second hand smoke is such a problem, they could just increase the requirements for air circulation or something. Or, bars could simply cater to one or the other clientelle.

I hate to see lawsuits like that, but then too, if the person wins, who knows why they won? I mean, maybe there were extenuating circumstances, I dunno...

So, like... Apparently I have no strong opinion here at this point! LOL

 

[bliz]

I can to some degree see both sides of the issue. But the fundamental difference is that second hand smoke is not an inherent risk that goes along with the food service industry. One can prepare food, serve it, serve beverages of all sorts and partake in all of the above, but smoking is not required for any step in the process. If one is a fisherman, one must go where the fish are and fish, it seems, must stay in water. One could drown on such a job. If you don't care for water, best to seek employment elsewhere. But smoking and eating & drinking are not integral parts of each other.

 

[standingontherock]

While I am no fan of smoking, I feel that such establishments should be allowed to cater to smokers if they wish, and the government should not have the right to ban such behaviour. While lawsuits are a problem, it should be up to the operators of such establishments to determine their own rules on smoking.

I must also agree, however, that second-hand smoke is not similar to the kind of hazards found in other work areas. However, like those other hazards they are known to an individual before they accept employment, and the risks entailed. I cannot agree that they have the right to sue when they were aware of the smoky environment prior to being employed. And increasing circulation or creating separate smokers' areas seems a much more reasonable solution than simply banning smoking in all such establishments.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Brace yourswelf, Bellman; I am in agreement with you on this issue.

I think it's fair to say restaurants/bars should be either smoking or non-smoking, no half-and-half.

I think it's also fair to say that if you don't want splinters, don't be a lumberjack.

 

[The Bellman]

Brace yourswelf, Bellman; I am in agreement with you on this issue.

I have just exploded.

I think it's fair to say restaurants/bars should be either smoking or non-smoking, no half-and-half.

I think it's also fair to say that if you don't want splinters, don't be a lumberjack.

Seriously, Buzz, I think this is the first thing in here we've ever agreed on. Nevertheless, I really enjoy your input. Often when I read your posts I (figuratively) smack myself on the forehead and say "What on earth is this guy thinking of?" - as you no doubt do with some of my posts. But I always find you open, honest, respectful of (my) completely differing opinions, and someone who attempts - where possible - to back up his statements. That sort of behaviour I can only respect.

 

[crashedman]

Recently, here in Australia, our two largest states (population-wise), NSW and Vic, announced that from 1996, smoking (cigarette) will be completely banned in ALL bars, hotels, pubs, and restaurants. Now, to this, you may well say "Fair enough, too." But the reason it was banned was not for the sake of public health; it was to prevent lawsuits from bartenders who subsequently got lung cancer (or some other ailment exacerbated by cigarette smoke) and sued their employer for failing to provide a safe working environment.

This has happened in Queensland as well.

What I'd like to discuss is how valid this is. In my opinion, some workplaces have hazards. Miners are at risk from cave-ins; people who drive for a living are at risk from car crashes; bartenders are at risk from smoking. If you don't like those risks, don't take the job. But don't take the job and then later, sue the boss for you getting injured.

There was an advert in Zit magazine that said "You could get hit by a bus tomorrow - go on, have a ***!!"

Smoking isn't healthy, that I can agree on. However, it is a hazardous activity if for instance you are involved in working in the mines or you are smoking in the car and you drop it on your trousers and have a car crash.

What are people's thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Hi,

I tend to stay away from most entertainment venues, and for the sake of the health of our populace I'd ideally like to see the legal age of smoking raised to 60 and parents who smoke in front of children arrested and jailed for 30 days, even the mothers.

I'm just worried that with the smokers being forbidden to smoke on patrolled beaches they are going to head up to nude beaches (generally unpatrolled) to enjoy their habits, they are going to herad to the nude beaches and start upsetting the non-smokers there.


Crashedman