« A little more of the Extreme | Main | ... »

March 29, 2007

To Smoke or Not to Smoke

280320071364.jpg

Britain soon follows Canada, Ireland, and an increasing number of American cities, with a ban on smoking in the workplace and in restaurants/bars.

An interesting article in the Guardian UK discusses the pros and cons of the ban from a global perspective and highlights a few bloggers that feel they are being oppressed.

images-1.jpg

Yes it’s a personal choice, but if it impacts on another’s breathing space and has the potential to cause illness due to secondary inhalation, there has to be a debate.

Posted by Cath at March 29, 2007 5:29 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.stormhoek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/366

Comments

after the initial furore here more than a year ago, things have settled back down. Business is unchanged and anecdotally increased since the ban of smoking in bars and restaurants. The only downside is architectural: bars and restaurants have built ugly outdoor areas for smokers to congregate under cover.
The upside has been good though, smoky smelling rooms, and clothes has stopped, and the bar staff are mostly happy to not be going home coughing and smelling even though they didn't smoke. It's not an affront to civil liberties, not after a year and the outcry has died down.

Posted by: adrian at March 29, 2007 8:36 PM

Bloggers always feel they're being oppressed! And they also feel it's their right to impose their opinions on the blogosphere. We can choose to ignore their words easily enough, but it's not so easy to avoid their smoke.

Posted by: John Dodds at March 30, 2007 8:44 PM

Yet another blogger who missed my point, I see. My problem with the smoking ban is that it has gone too far when businesses can not only ban smoking in or around their facility, but also ban smoking in the privacy of your own personal vehicle (which you bought and pay taxes for) when on their propery. And now, hospitals are threatening to deny the same insurance coverage to their smoking employees that is offered to their non-smoking employees. I, myself, had a hematologist deny any further treatment for an unrelated health issue until I stopped smoking! Today, it is the smokers... but who will it be tomorrow? I'm growing tired of paying high insurance premiums to help subsidize health care expenses for all the people who choose to clog their arteries with fast food, rot their livers with alcohol, and contract AIDS through unprotected sex. Should business start denying coverage for the overweight, the beer drinkers, and the single or gay folks who are at greater risk of having unprotected sex? I happen to think allowing this to happen would certainly open the door.


Posted by: Fibrodenial at April 1, 2007 8:18 PM

Fibrodenial - I get your point... i guess the PR on smoking causing death is prob a lot higher than on alcohol abuse (soon catching up), fast foods etc. causing death/illness. The thing is, unprotected sex, eating bad food and drinking is all a personal decision that doesn't really impact directly on strangers around you like smoking does...

Posted by: Cath at April 1, 2007 8:18 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)