Everywhere in the world they’re banning cigarette smoking in pubs and restaurants. Everywhere? Well, anywhere that counts…
And for good reasons too. Why should employees be condemned to breathe in the fetid excaust fumes of those nicontine addicted mingers?
And that’s where the whole anti-smoking lobby seems to lose the plot and veer of the cliff of rationality, much like the executive who decided to finance “Father of the bride part II”.
Let’s sum it all up:
It’s alright to drive (which kills equal amounts of people), it’s alright to work in major cities (where particulates are just as cancerous as second-hand smoke) and it’s alright to bomb third world nations with depleted uranium. It’s just not alright to work in a bar where people smoke.
Now, I can understand England the US coming up with anti-smoking laws. Hell, those countries are as reactionary as the reasons they use for going to war, but the Netherlands?
Holland (well… that’s one of the provincies, but it sounds so much better than the proper title) introducing anti-smoking laws? What’s that all about then?
The land where abortions and euthenasia are on the menu, the country where prostitutes are unionized, the country where the very dynamics of politics is referred to as the polder model. And if we quickly side-glance at Wikipedia, this is quite a good description:
“The polder model is a term with uncertain origin that was first used to describe the internationally acclaimed Dutch version of consensus policy in economics, specifically in the 1980s and 1990s.[citation needed] However, the term was quickly adopted for a much wider meaning, for similar cases of consensus decision-making, which are supposedly typically Dutch. It is described with phrases like 'a pragmatic recognition of pluriformity' and 'cooperation despite differences'.”
“Uncertain origin” probably means it was thought up by a cross-party council in 1872 and took 100 years to get through the plough-fields of bureaucracy.
The introduction of the tobacco law started with a typically Dutch situation.
Coffee shops in Holland sell marijuana (which is illegal to produce, tolerated to distribute, but legal to buy) and many people smoke in these said coffee shops.
However, the tobacco law illegalises smoking in public areas. So, you can’t smoke tobacco in coffee shops in anymore. You can, however, smoke marijuana (which can’t be added to the tobacco law, because it’s an illegal substance and you can’t ban something which is already illegal). Pure marijuana. So, within days, English lads over for stag party do’s, where rolling around on the streets giggling about Jimi Hendrix and wondering why their mouths were so dry.
The Dutch parliament is a hoot at the best of times. Anyone following the debate on “the illegalization of bestiality” is sure to agree.
“What?” I hear you squeal in delight, until you realise that you probably don’t want to draw attention to you squealing in delight at the thought, “It’s legal to have sex with animals in the Netherlands?”
Well. Yes. It still is. The mere fact that people want to illegalise it probably says more about them than about anybody else, to be quite frank. Or Bob. Or William… or whoever’s out there shagging donkeys for the team.
But one of the debates went like this:
“It’s a disgrace to God to have sex with animals.”
“How do you know animals actually mind?”
“How do you know they don’t?”
“People stick whole arms up cows’ arses… I don’t think a penis is going to make that much of an impact.”
I kid you not.
Anyways, back to the tobacco law.
A normal Dutch solution to employees suffering in second-hand smoke would be to create a system in which these employees could express their concerns about working in said conditions, so that they could be resettled in another location. And leaving smoking/non-smoking up to the individual bar owners.
Common sense, good for everyone, pro-choice (even if you don’t like the word); Dutch.
Hell, in the European Union… if you don’t like one country’s laws… go to another country. It ain’t that hard.
But no. For some reason the finger wagging, moralistic anti-smoking lobby has its hooks in governmental rationality. I don’t know what’s going on there. But banned smoking was.
Do you know what Karl Marx once said about the Dutch? “There will be revolutions, but they won’t be in Holland.” (that’s paraphrased by the way, due to sheer lack of motivation).
But the Dutch don’t like being treated like children. And this is particularly amusing. We’ve got right-wingers like Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk running rampant (very anti-immigration, anti-moslim, anti-refugee… anti anything which isn’t particularly Dutch), but touching personal liberties? It’s not done!
So, lots of bars here decided: “Screw it. You wanna smoke, you can smoke.”
And the Dutch set out giving them fines, and the locals put cash in pots and paid for the fines and everyone was fine and dandy… another great law melted into the rational of the polder model.
But no! For some reason the finger wagging, moralistic anti-smok… you’ve heard this sentence before, by the way…
The Dutch minister in charge of… of… well something, I presume, has said they’re going to clamp down on tolerated smoking and increase the fines!
And yesterday I heard two interviews. One was with a barkeeper who was saying: “With the increase in fines, there’s just no way we can afford to keep going. I’m afraid that the government’s won this one.”
And the other was with the minister who was saying: “It’s good to hear people coming to their senses.”
And I just thought to myself: Yes. If you want to be a country that counts, you have to do as the rest does. It is good that the government scares people into obedience. Even here in Holland.
A tax is a fine for doing good.
A fine is a tax for doing bad.
No one is condemned to work in a smoky bar, they choose to.
The public are invited into the bar/cafe but that does not make it a public place. The anti smoking laws are the biggest private property grab made by guvamints in recent years.
Wajoma, pro-freedom non-smoker
Thanks, Shavi, for an interesting article.
And another one bites the dust.....
I wonder what would happen if all the laws were repealed where the government removes your individual responsibility to look after yourself.
Firstly, about 90% of all laws would disappear, and secondly, people would start acting responsibly again, with no one to blame but themselves....
As a former smoker, I embrace the ban on places where it represents a threat to human health. It is quite like the government making sure that the products you buy at the supermarket go through certain tests in order to make sure they won't kill you.
People are free to smoke ALL they want, but away from those places where other people don't want to get killed by the smoke.
On a second note, and this is more polemic, I also don't see with bad eyes that the fight against smoking advances. For a simple reason: I have suffered tremendously to quit smoking, but I endured because I want a good quality of life and I don't want to die a horrible breathless death condemnded to an oxygen tank, but also because I don't want my kids to pay for my stupidity.
I pay almost 2k every month to the tax office, plus pension insurance and unemployment insurance and the like. I want my money to go to the hands of the retired workers, because when I'm retired the young ones will work for my pension and medical service to be paid. I vehemently HATE to think that MY hard earned money goes to pay the medical bill of a stupid twerp who voluntarily put himself in a bad shape.
Real freedom is for him to booze and smoke his way to death, but to go an suffer and die in the forest, not costing me a single penny.
Originally posted by FMFI fail to see how that makes me a pro-smoker, because I can assure you I'm not.
That makes you a pro-smoker. Don't claim to be pro-freedom, then. And your non-smoker thing makes no difference.
Pro-freedom because whether the bar/cafe is smoking or non-smoking is condition the owner should be free to set, then customers and employees are free to enter that particular bar, or not.
Non smoker because that reinforces my position as pro freedom rather than just wanting to have a fag in the pub.
Originally posted by SeitseAre you concerned at all that the government can and would ban a legal activity in a private establishment? In the U.S., I don't see it as a 'smokers rights' issue. Rather, why should the government be allowed to tell an owner of a private establishment what legal activities can and cannot occur in their place of business?
As a former smoker, I embrace the ban on places where it represents a threat to human health. It is quite like the government making sure that the products you buy at the supermarket go through certain tests in order to make sure they won't kill you.
People are free to smoke ALL they want, but away from those places where other people don't want to get kil ...[text shortened]... is way to death, but to go an suffer and die in the forest, not costing me a single penny.
People are free to smoke ALL they want, but away from those places where other people don't want to get killed by the smoke.
And people are free to choose where they dine and work. I think the market is very responsive to demands without the need for government intervention. The proliferation of fully non-smoking restaurants prior to bans in the U.S. would bear this out. Until smoking is outlawed, it should be the establishment owner's choice as to whether or not they allow smoking in their facility.
Is this ban saving lives?
Appaently it is!
"Experts think that more than 400,000 people have quit smoking because of the ban. And that could save 40,000 lives over the next ten years"
http://www.childrenfirst.nhs.uk/kids/news/news/2008/smoking-ban-will-save-lives.html
"Nearly 600 fewer Massachusetts residents have died from heart attacks each year since legislators banned smoking in virtually all restaurants, bars, and other workplaces four years ago"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/12/smoking_ban_tied_to_a_gain_in_lives/
"Survey carried out by the BLF of more than 1000 people with lung conditions, shows that more than half 56% say they have had fewer attacks of breathlessness from passive smoking in pubs and restaurants since the Smoking Ban was introduced, and nearly two fifths 39% say the Ban has helped keep them out of hospital."
http://www.lunguk.org/media-and-campaigning/media-centre/archive-press-releases-and-statements/june08/
Besides if it were in some establishments and not others then employees wouldn't be being treated equally, which we can't have now can we.
Originally posted by yo its meIf it means 80 000 less people die by running 5 kms a day you would be an advocate for fining those that don't run 5 k's a day?
Is this ban saving lives?
Appaently it is!
"Experts think that more than 400,000 people have quit smoking because of the ban. And that could save 40,000 lives over the next ten years"
http://www.childrenfirst.nhs.uk/kids/news/news/2008/smoking-ban-will-save-lives.html
"Nearly 600 fewer Massachusetts residents have died from heart attacks each ...[text shortened]... others then employees wouldn't be being treated equally, which we can't have now can we.
Originally posted by WajomaNot everyone is capable of running 5k a day.
If it means 80 000 less people die by running 5 kms a day you would be an advocate for fining those that don't run 5 k's a day?
I do agree that it can't be relaxing for a smoker to leave the restraunt mid meal to get their fix, but all them same they are able to do it and it's in te interests of their company as well as the staff. So they should, in my opnion.
Originally posted by yo its meAlright we'll play with it some more. If it means 80 000 less people die if everyone (except for that tiny percentage that have a note from their mom or doctor) runs 5 ks a day then you'd be an advocate for fining those that don't run 5 ks a day.
Not everyone is capable of running 5k a day.
I do agree that it can't be relaxing for a smoker to leave the restraunt mid meal to get their fix, but all them same they are able to do it and it's in te interests of their company as well as the staff. So they should, in my opnion.
And if it's not in the interests of their company and staff? Say their company and staff are smokers too, is that any of your business? Why do you want to poke your nose in to other peoples business?
If that is your opinion show some gumption and start your own bar and set your own terms and conditions.
Originally posted by WajomaIsn't it great that there are laws about our air; polution has to be at it's lowest possiable amount and smoking is not allowed in public places. People are sticking their nose in your life and perswading you to not give yourself cancer. All sorts of laws about guns and knives, what you can and can't do to your fellow human being.
Alright we'll play with it some more. If it means 80 000 less people die if everyone (except for that tiny percentage that have a note from their mom or doctor) runs 5 ks a day then you'd be an advocate for fining those that don't run 5 ks a day.
And if it's not in the interests of their company and staff? Say their company and staff are smokers too, is that any of your business? Why do you want to poke your nose in to other peoples business?
Perhaps it's all becasue we'd all likie to fix the worlds proberlms where childern are sold into slavery and tribes masicure eachother. But we can't change all that so hey, we'll have a good try at stopping you kill yourself and give the staff lung desease, why not. It might take our minds off things.
Originally posted by WajomaI have never understood the moralistic side to this smoking debate. What possible argument can there be for refusing to allow a bar or restaurant to choose. A big sign saying "Oi, there be smoke in here" would be sufficient warning in my view.
I fail to see how that makes me a pro-smoker, because I can assure you I'm not.
Pro-freedom because whether the bar/cafe is smoking or non-smoking is condition the owner should be free to set, then customers and employees are free to enter that particular bar, or not.
Non smoker because that reinforces my position as pro freedom rather than just wanting to have a fag in the pub.
I can understand banning smoking on public transport or even out on the street (walking behind someone smoking is not too much fun) or anywhere where people have no choices but to say you can not have a bar with all the doors closed and staffed by smokers seems like religious dogma to me.