Wales stubs out smoking in public places

[j2k4]

Jeez man. A public enclosed place shouldn't be a free for all where the owner makes up rules willy nilly.

Is it your contention that the owner be excluded from the "free-for-all"?

A free-for-all in a public enclosed place generally leads to jail-time for someone, and as such is something to be avoided by sane persons.

In any case, would you propose applicable rules be formulated under exclusively government auspices, absent input from the owner of the establishment in question?

Surely you would not leave the rules to the whims of the patrons?

What would be an example of a venue beset by "willy nilly" rules?

I have never been to such a place...

The government's job is to protect the public.

Find that in the Constitution for me, please?

[JPaul]

To a large extent the Government, or other agencies do determine what an owner of such a place must do.

In the UK we have Health and Safety laws, which must be complied with. The Fire Department can make rules with regard to safety. Environmental Health can inspect premises, for example to ensure they are hygienic enough for food preparation. If an owner fails to comply with these then they may be closed.

I don't know how it goes in the US, however in the UK an owner of premises open to the public has surprisingly little control over their own premises.

[lynx]

A public house has a room for people playing pool. It is so small that there's hardly room for the players. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those playing are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

A public house has a room for people smoking. It is so smoky that there's hardly enough air for the smokers. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those smoking are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

Now, those of you who say they are allowed in any public part of a privately owned business show me the difference between those statements. Just highlighting the different words makes you a jackass.

[j2k4]

To a large extent the Government, or other agencies do determine what an owner of such a place must do.

In the UK we have Health and Safety laws, which must be complied with. The Fire Department can make rules with regard to safety. Environmental Health can inspect premises, for example to ensure they are hygienic enough for food preparation. If an owner fails to comply with these then they may be closed.

I don't know how it goes in the US, however in the UK an owner of premises open to the public has surprisingly little control over their own premises.

It is largely the same here.

I was addressing the "free-for-all" and "willy-nilly" aspects of his post.

I would say it is perfectly normal for the owner of an establishment to have "house rules" having to do with comportment or dress, etc., but, as many aborted attempts at public house/bar/pub/restaurant/cafe operation have revealed, "free-for-all" and "willy-nilly" are two precepts with little or no practical use.

As to the issue of smoking, I am an ex and reformed smoker who nonetheless feels that telling smokers that they may not under any circumstances use tobacco anyplace other than (or even in) the confines of their homes is an overstep...that said, however, an establishment which chooses to allow smoking should provide facilities which keep communal air from being befouled.

If the owner of an establishment chooses to cater to all (and thus reap the resultant financial benefit), he obligates himself thus.

Relative to the government, it is plain that smoking will be passe in a generation or so anyway, and certain things must be given time to occur without coercive government action.

My opinion.

[JPaul]

A public house has a room for people playing pool. It is so small that there's hardly room for the players. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those playing are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

A public house has a room for people smoking. It is so smoky that there's hardly enough air for the smokers. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those smoking are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

Now, those of you who say they are allowed in any public part of a privately owned business show me the difference between those statements. Just highlighting the different words makes you a jackass.

I'm assuming you're doing that as satire.

Self-parody ftw.

[lynx]

A public house has a room for people playing pool. It is so small that there's hardly room for the players. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those playing are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

A public house has a room for people smoking. It is so smoky that there's hardly enough air for the smokers. Consequently the manager has a rule that only those smoking are allowed in that room. Anyone breaking that rule is ejected.

Now, those of you who say they are allowed in any public part of a privately owned business show me the difference between those statements. Just highlighting the different words makes you a jackass.

I'm assuming you're doing that as satire.

Self-parody ftw.

Typical.

Give you one which destroys your argument and you try to make a joke out of it.

Answer the question.

[Chip Monk]

Oh, you were serious.

You're absolutely right about both. The manager can throw someone out for breach of either rule. Whether it is being in the pool room not playing pool, or being in the smoking room not smoking. He can also however throw people out for wearing yellow socks, being in possession of an offensive wife, or pretty much anything he wants.

Your "point" therefore is neither here nor there. It certainly adds nothing to this discussion. I had assumed you were joking, you obviously weren't. I should have realised that was a bit unlikely. You taking yourself in anything other than a totally serious way.

Give you one which destroys your argument and you try to make a joke out of it.

It's you who made the joke, at your own expense.

[lynx]

Oh, you were serious.

You're absolutely right about both. The manager can throw someone out for breach of either rule. Whether it is being in the pool room not playing pool, or being in the smoking room not smoking. He can also however throw people out for wearing yellow socks, being in possession of an offensive wife, or pretty much anything he wants.

Your "point" therefore is neither here nor there. It certainly adds nothing to this discussion.

So, you finally admit that you don't have the absolute right to use any section of a public bar for any purpose other than that which the owner/manager sees fit? That's the whole crux of the issue. It makes no difference what that activity happens to be, the simple fact is that you don't make the rules.

You want smoking to be stopped simply because you don't like smoking, but as long as it doesn't affect you in other parts of the building it should be none of your concern, and neither should it be a government's concern.

I had assumed you were joking, you obviously weren't. I should have realised that was a bit unlikely. You taking yourself in anything other than a totally serious way.

Give you one which destroys your argument and you try to make a joke out of it.

It's you who made the joke, at your own expense.

Falling to your usual "haven't got a real argument so let's get personal" level again? Why am I not surprised.

[Chip Monk]

Your "point" was entirely irrelevant to the issue. It still is. The fact that a pub can have a function suite where it allows private parties for the evening and other people aren't allowed in changes absolutely nothing about the issue in hand. The fact that a landlord can stop people getting in is irrelevant.

I therefore thought it was a joke and replied as such.

You thought and still think that you made a good point. You really didn't.

Oh and it's good to know that you never get personal. You're above that like.

[lynx]

Neither involves private functions, that would certainly be irrelevant and isn't anything approaching what I was saying so don't try to twist my point into something else. One rule involves smoking which you say isn't allowed.

The challenge to you is to say why you think that rule isn't allowed but the other is, when neither rule affects you if you don't want to take part in the activity.

One method of resolving disagreement is to look at the extreme situation, no matter how absurd you may think it is. If you have no answer for the extreme situation then you certainly have no answer for the commonplace. Don't repeat that it isn't relevant, that's like saying "na na na, I'm not listening".

One other point you might want to consider, since in general we are simply talking about a room, no different from any other room, except that people are allowed to smoke in that room. Please indicate why you have such a fascination with that room that you demand right of entry and therefore demand that no smoke is allowed.