Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

Hi Ringo. I understand the distinction and relevance in law of public and private. But you have not really addressed my argument. Whatever the law may say, I am arguing that using the issue of nonsmoking wait-staff to ban all smoking is a red herring: the policy may be wise, it certainly appears to be Constitutional (on this side of the pond, south of you); I question whether or not it is necessary to remove a smoker's enjoyment of a restaurant or bar where smoking is allowed in order to protect nonsmoking wait-staff health.I say that it is not, and the use of the argument is, indeed, a red herring intended to gain the endorsement of those who would otherwise say 'Why shouldn't smokers be allowed to have places they can go?'The analogy I used was a bar that caters to folks who love their music loud. I suppose you have been in one and that you know that the volume commonly achieved is, in fact, hazardous to your hearing.So if a public establishment wishes to indulge those of us who like to feel their music as well as hear it, should that wish be frustrated because some folks do not want to risk hearing loss?I believe my arguments by analogy are strong ones: the wait-staff who fear loud music, and the vegan wait-staff stressed into poor health by being required to serve meat. How do those differ from the imposition of the health concerns of nonsmoking wait-staff?Your sawdust doesn't sound like a health hazard. I've been in bars full of sawdust, and I've whittled in bars--no one seemed to have any objection. Maybe you are frequenting a higher class of bar?

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

quote:

---

I believe my arguments by analogy are strong ones: the wait-staff who fear loud music,

---

Earplugs are easy to use and do not hinder the staff's ability to work.

quote:

---

and the vegan wait-staff stressed into poor health by being required to serve meat.

---

Uh, I'm sorry Omni, but I have never heard of a major health crisis among vegan waitstaff who have so much anxiety over serving meat that they require medical attention at all, let alone on a par with people who are affected by second hand smoke.

Of course they hinder the staff's ability to hear the customers' orders. Besides, why should the the staff be required to accommodate another's dysfunctional desire? By way of illustration, nonsmoking staff could wear respirators: I don't suppose anyone thinks that is a satsifactory solution, though I recall the National Park gatekeepers had to wear respirators when Bush allowed snowmobiles back into the parks due to the exhaust build-up near the gates. Don't be sorry--just come up with better arguments. So the wait-staff's health interests must rise to a specific level before they have a right to redress? What is that level?Some vegans are so appalled by the sight of cooked meat that they faint, puke, become violent, etc. I'm sure the notion of psychological health, and the damage done to it by stress, is not a new one to you.Why are carnivores allowed to impose their bloody appetites on potentially vegan staff? Are we, then, establishing the principle that any damage to your physical or psychological health caused by conditions in a public accommodating must be life-threatening before you can seek redress?

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Thats the very question I have asked when my work place has clients that smoke, though when asked by those clients to have a cigarette with them I must refuse and go outside. This is the perfect time of year to bring this up as its snowing, blowing and cold outside as I type. I want to agree with you, but regardless of what people may say is unfair the fact remains that smoking is a huge cost to the health care system (Canada) and smoking does in fact kill people. Vegans don't have to eat what they serve, people who fear load music can get earplugs, but waitresses can't wear gas masks while serving your food.I completely understand the absurdities of smoking bans in some situations (such as at my workplace). The government must draw a line somewhere, and I think a general ban on smoking in public buildings is the most logical line in the sand.(My workplace also has a ban on perfumes and colognes by its staff, but not its clients)Edited by Vacate, : My quote got lost in the void

I need to type faster. You ruined my arguments before I even completed my post The point I want to make is that the cost associated with vegans or hearing damaged waitresses is limited compared to the costs that come from smoking. The government cannot make laws that will fix each and every issue people may have, but it does make sense that they would do something about the most costly.One can say that the vegans and the hearing concerned could just find a different job - but a waitress without the money or education to find a better job is very limited on job choices. Vegans could be in the same predicament - but their numbers are much fewer. ( and they likely wont die from fainting, puking, or becoming violent )

I'm not sure what you mean by that.For the record, here in Saskatchewan, smoking is banned in all public places for a couple of years now, so there is no place "where smoking is allowed".We had a case in Canada a while back where a woman who had been a waitress for twenty-odd years got lung cancer even though she had never smoked. Her situation prompted a lot of smoking bans across the country, I think. We do tend to rate health above "a smoker's enjoyment". Go figure. Maybe it's the power tools.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

following your lead: the problem is one of practicallity. In reality, given the choice, no bar owner (in Ireland anyway) would voluntarily make their bar non smoking. thereby loosing trade to the bar next door who allows smoking. thus the current situation of bars' indoor areas being smoke free while thier out door areas being smoking works well.I have many smoking friends and family, and not one... not one.. would go back to the pre smoking ban days.
It has nearly universally been accepted as a good thing

so what about this one?

This is waaay off topic,
someone should open a separate smoking/anti smoking thread.

I'm approaching the issue from a contrarian point of view because I think the issue is closely related to the topic: "Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?"Still, I don't want to throw this thread off-course, either, so I'll just briefly summarize my thoughts here, and leave it at that.I have no interest in a smoking/anti-smoking thread: no one should have the right to market a substance that is a poison at any dose, a poison that cannot possibly be used in any moderate, healthful way.I think smoking tobacco is one of the most noxious addictions foisted on the world's people by corporate greed: it is so clearly a life-threatening, toxic and tragic substance--both to those who indulge, the friends and families of those who die from it, and those who are exposed to it second-hand--that I support its outright ban. It killed my father, and, despite having been an ex-smoker for many years, it may yet kill me.But, at least for now, it is legal to produce and legal to consume. In an attempt to limit the damage, policies and laws such as the one under discussion have been adopted, not because they are the best policies and laws, but because they can be sold and because the consumers, unlike the producers, of tobacco lack sufficient clout to block them.In the narrowly-defined example under discussion (the justification of forbidding any public accommodations where smoking is allowed because of the hazard to wait-staff), I believe precedents hazardous to individual liberty and sound public policy are being established.I understand that loud music and the requirement to serve foods found psychologically and morally offensive differ in degree from exposure to second-hand smoke, but they differ only in degree. More to the point, we quite reasonably expect that a vegan will not seek employment at the Outback Steakhouse, and those with tender ears will not seek employment at the Hard Rock Cafe.Most reasonable people grant that there are different appetites for sound level and menu in public accommodations, and that if a fellow wants to serve hunks of bloody beef (bad for you, by the way) to headbangers (ditto), that's his business. If you don't want to hear it, see it, or smell it, don't work there; and if the sound, sight, and scent are so obnoxious, why, then, the lady down the road will do a great business catering to those who find them so.The question of nonsmoking wait-staff's health can be mooted in a number of ways: nonsmoking wait-staff need not work in smoking establishments; wait-staff can protect themselves (many workers don protective gear in hazardous environments); certainly, if industry can construct hermetically-sealed fabrication rooms, indoor smoking lounges that do not contaminate wait-staff or other customers are possible.Rather than confront the core issues--the political and economic clout of the tobacco industry, and the addictive and destructive power of the substance--with strong, precisely targeted laws and public health initiatives, we instead have imposed laws that skirt those issues and limit the freedom of public accommodation owners and their customers.Perhaps it's a poor example on which to take a stand, since the habit is so noxious, but the scenario in which individuals have their (legal) choices narrowed because the moneyed interests who represent the real problem are too powerful to control concerns me. However horribly they are abused, the liberties of smokers deserve as vigorous a defense as any others, because Liberty's fortunes fall each time a liberty is removed without reasons both clear and good.OK, that's all. Smoke'm if ya got'em.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

to be brief I'm picking one particular paragraph As I alluded to earlier this arguement is academic, If the smoking ban is optional, your average street corner boozer will not enact it. So long as there is a pub close by that allows smoking, the smoking punters will go there and bring their non smoking mates with them.On the same note.. the average street corner boozer will not invest in a hermetically sealed smoking room.the ban of smoking in the workplace deals with the reality that businesses cannot be relied upon to volutarily supply adequate, non smoking, workplaces.
{Abe: There never existed in Ireland a non-smoking bar before the ban. non smokers had no choice but to sit in a smoky room if they wished to go to a bar}the reality is that unless non smoking is enforced in these public places. non smokers will have the choice to either sit in a smoky atmosphere, or simply stay at home. Whose rights are being limited then? Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

Creavolution, I've never been to Ireland. That's my loss, one I hope to correct before I'm too old to enjoy the visit.But in the U.S., some workplaces and public accommodations had adopted technology that, while not hermetic, did insulate nonsmokers from smokers. Some U.S. airports do this now, the simple secret being the maintenance of negative air pressure using ventilation systems. That is why the wait-staff exposure argument has been used to such effect--nonsmoking customers had been protected, but, theoretically, the wait-staff had not.Perhaps the solution you support is best for Ireland. I wish you much joy of it. I hope the precedent does not later deprive you of a freedom you care about.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Wait, wasn't your original position about customers: Why doesn't this argument extend to employees? If they don't want to breathe smoke, they can work somewhere else.Since I don't smoke, but am often around those who do, this issue doesn't concern me terribly. I was just surprised you completely switched around your view on the issue because of one single post.

If you'd care to read a few posts afterward, I admitted to have made a mistake of not considering the employee factor. I switched side after thinking long and hard about the new factor (which I never considered before) cre presented.I'm not one of those that cling onto previously held beliefs that have been shown inadequate just for the sake of saving face. I was wrong to have not considered the employee factor and I admitted it.

I'm not so sure about the smoking comment (there IS an actual public health risk, etc - although I'm a smoker... ). However, I am 100% in agreement with the part of your post I quoted above.