In 6 days (August 15th) a smoking ban will come into effect in Denmark's bars, pubs, restaurants, etc.
I recall a heated conversation at an airport, while waiting for our luggage, and I still have a hard time comprehending how the opponents of the ban argue for their cause.
Let's take a look at the arguments.
The reason for the ban is that secondhand smoking is harmful, and that incidents of lung cancer are more frequent among the staff of these establishments than in the general population (this also goes for the non-smoking staff). Note that I am assuming that the harmfulness of secondhand smoking is sufficiently proven. Even if it wasn't, there is still reason to err on the side of caution, and regardless, these arguments are not about the truth of this claim.
Now, let's look at the opponents' arguments.
But it's my place! I own the restaurant! I should be able to decide whether or not someone smokes there!
Just because it's your place, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. You can't e.g. kill people, even if she is your wife and it is in your house. In a public restaurant, there are also rules you must follow. You need to follow certain health and hygiene guidelines so you don't poison and kill your guests. You can't discriminate your guests. And... as an employer you are obliged to give your employees a safe workplace; which means that you at least need to fulfill certain regulations regarding the work environment. If it were a building site, your workers would have to wear hard hats. If it were a disco, the music would have to be below a certain volume. If it were a truck, your driver would have to get X hours of sleep and not drive more than Y hours without rest. Of course, restaurant workers shouldn't have to be exposed to something that is harmful and possibly lethal.
But if my staff doesn't want to work in a smoke-filled environment, they can just go work elsewhere
This would be putting the decision to the workers, who might feel pressed to do something harmful to themselves for fear of losing their jobs. I think it is self-evident that workers should expect a modicum of safety in their work environment, and that the safety regulations should not be the decision of the employer (who might value profit over safety) nor the employee (who might value salary over safety).
But if my guests want a non-smoking environment, they can just go elsewhere. Let the consumer decide!
If you have sloppy hygiene in your kitchen, your guests might get sick or even die. Thus, it should be in your own interest to keep good hygiene, yet we repeatedly see that restaurants do not follow basic hygiene common sense. Obviously, the self-regulation of the free-market isn't perfect (it boggles my mind to think that people think that it would, or even should). The consumer should be able to expect food that isn't tainted by restaurant staff feces. However, the point is moo, as this isn't about the guests' safety or well-being, it's about the work environment.
---
Now, I'm a liberal (lower case L, see definition below), and I believe in individual liberty. As a corollary, I believe in regulation over prohibition. I believe that as long as people do no harm unto others, and are sane enough to know what they're doing, the should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves. If they want to smoke, eat unhealthy, do drugs, or kill themselves; that's fine.
I am also a democrat. Democracy is often summarized in a short, but elegant, pronciple: Majority Rule, Minority Rights. We need, nay, we have a duty to protect the less powerful; those who are at the mercy of those in power. This includes employees at the mercy of employers.
I'm a pragmatic too, and I can see that not all behaviors are equally desirable, however harmless they may be to others. This is where regulation enters the picture. I don't believe drugs should be illegal, but their use should be regulated, the users should be protected, and the abusers should be aided. I don't believe unhealthy food should be banned, but the consumer should be protected, informed, and not be encouraged to buy them (by subsidizations, etc.) but rather encouraged to buy healthy food (e.g. by lower VAT). I don't believe suicide should be illegal (indeed, the impossibility of punishing offenders makes such a law strikingly ironic); peoples' lives are theirs to end.
I don't believe smoking should be illegal, but I do believe it should be regulated; by tariffs to encourage people to quit (for the benefit of society and friends and family) and to pay for medical costs, and by banning in certain areas (to protect workers, colleagues, etc.).
For the record, I am perfectly fine with separate smoking lounges (í la Ranger's in Gharb ).
lib·er·al [ líbbərəl, líbbrəl ]
adjective
Definition:
1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
noun (plural lib·er·als)
Definition:
liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or open-mindedness
[14th century. Via French< Latin liberalis< liber "free"]
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
I agree with most everything, even though I think it's a bit unfair to create straw arguments that weak. I'm sure the people who are against smoking being banned could present better arguments than you've offered up; or at the very least present them more convincingly than you have.
I'm also not completely decided on what constitutes "harm to others". Second-hand smoke is harmful? ok...in what quantity is it harmful and harmful compared to what? But this is, as you said, outside the scope of this thread. Carry on with first round.
*rings bell*
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
Those weren't straw man arguments, they were the actual arguments that the said opponents used. They appear to be straw man arguments since they're "pushovers", but I'm sure if they have any superior arguments they will present them here.
Secondhand smoke constitutes "harm to others" in the form of lung cancer and death. This would be considered harmful compared to clean air, which causes neither, but actually is a necessity for life.
But as I (and you) said, this is another case. The discussion here is based on the (most likely true) assertion that secondhand smoke indeed is harmful. The government has decided that the concentration in a regular bar/restaurant is harmful, while smoke concentration in the open air is not. Neither is the concentration in any bar/restaurant less than 40 m2 apparently, even though common sense would indicate otherwise. I don't follow the logic, but hey, the government knows best what's good for us, right?
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
