Still unnecessary

The Bermuda Musical and Dramatic Society is to ban smoking in its bar from the beginning of next year.

Why? Because that’s what the majority of its members voted for, and the club was having trouble getting volunteer bartenders.

It demonstrates that Bermuda’s bars are capable of responding to market forces without the need for Government intervention. While the customers of public bars may not have any voting rights, they still have the ability to let those bar owners know how they feel. If they find a particular bar too smoky, they can still withdraw their business.

So why is Health Minister Patrice Minors still talking about passing legislation to ban smoking in all enclosed public places by the end of the year?

Comments

[Somers on 21.11.05 at 08:07]

because it is good for the environment & health care system? :)

[TJL on 21.11.05 at 08:19]

So using a similar analogy, because MP's were able to vote themselves higher salaries we no longer need minimum wage legislation?

I know, I know, you don't believe in worker protection laws, forget I said anything.

[wklc on 21.11.05 at 08:34]

Because second hand smoke is worse on an individual than first hand smoke. So if smoking is banned in public places then at least innocent adults and children are not put as risk. The smokers can smoke at their homes.
It seems kinda simple to me...

[undertaker on 21.11.05 at 09:20]

Ok, so this isn't commenting directly on the topic, but I cannot help but express my surprise that Daylesford plans to ban smoking. There was a time when the regulars, a great number of whom were smokers themselves, wanted to attract new membership. Well, they got their new blood, a younger generation of more health-conscious individuals who are willing to drink themselves silly but bay like wolves at the smell of cigarette smoke. I am an ex-smoker myself and a great believer in kicking the habit, but even I still appreciated the Daylesford as a bastion of personal choice. My how times change. I am not saying that the ban is a bad thing but it just goes to show that tradition is never sacred, given a great enough number of people 'filled with a passionate intensity.'

[Chris Broadhurst on 21.11.05 at 09:52]

Experience elsewhere tells us that leaving it up to the bar owners will not result in smoking being banned anytime soon.

The only way to achieve it IMHO is thru legislation.

Funny tho, I would think that private clubs would go the other way and maintain smoking after the laws are passed.

I bet OCC does!

[jake on 21.11.05 at 10:14]

I think the answer is revealed in the very story you report.

The drive to ban smoking came from the workers, not the customers. These workers are volunteers, and so they are obviously not relying on this job for their living.

This is distinctly different from the workers in the public bar who need the work to make a living. We create a safer work environment for them, and at the same time create a healthier environment for the patrons.

Works for me.

[H Reardon on 21.11.05 at 10:17]

Well put Limey--let's let bar owners use their property how they see fit, not government.

If the ban leads to a loss of members and income, they should be able to change back as well.

[Chris Broadhurst on 21.11.05 at 10:21]

BMDS doesnt pay its bartenders - most clubs do. Therein lies the difference I believe.

[H Reardon on 21.11.05 at 10:22]

Interesting Jake, please explain how bartenders that get paid cannot create this safer work environment, but volunteer bartenders can.

Wouldn't you expect the market to develop two rates of pay for a bartender--one for a bar where smoking is allowed and one for a bar where smoking is not? Then the bartender can make his own choice rather than you and the government making it for him.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 21.11.05 at 10:39]

No Smoking...what a beautiful movement.Healthy living finally hits the night life crowd...oh the humanity of it! The Day that the lighters went out in Bermuda....I kinda feel like we are not smoking all over the world!

[jake on 21.11.05 at 10:56]

I would be happy to do that Reardon.

It is called a BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement).

For the unpaid volunteer, their BATNA to a smoky bar is another role which has no impact on their standard of living.

For the paid bartender the BATNA is another industry or job, which may have a significant effect on job satisfaction and pay.

Obviously on a standard of living basis, the higher impact is on the person doing this as a job.

I don't know that I would expect the market to create a two tiered pay system for this. Bar owners have a greater supply of bartenders, than bartenders have jobs. There is a huge disparity in the negotiating power. Phil discloses that for the volunteers this is not the case (they have more opportunities to volunteer, than BMDS has bar tenders), hence their greater barginning power.

[Longtime Lurker on 21.11.05 at 11:39]

Clearly, this one example of market forces working for a bar that has the unusual condition of a volunteer workforce shows that they will work in all cases. In addition, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no need for minimum wages, safety standards, or anti-discrimination legislation.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 11:59]

"Because second hand smoke is worse on an individual than first hand smoke."

Wait... WHAT?

Can we see some proof of this? As far as I know, that's BULLSHIT!

We've been over this. www.Cato.org and all that.

An island-wide smoking ban is bullshit, too.
It's a private establishment. As long as they're not breaking any currently existing laws, leave 'em alone. They're having a hard enough time as it is.

Leave it up to the owners. It's only fair.

[undertaker on 21.11.05 at 12:18]

Uncle Elvis, I noticed that comment about second hand smoke and thought it erroneous also. As I said, I am all for quitting butts but the misinformation out there about the effect of second smoke is clearly intended to rouse the non-smoking public up against what is regarded (with good intentions, perhaps) as a health threat to those who choose to smoke. They wish to take away the old stand-by argument for smokers that they are only hurting themselves by claiming it's hurting others also. Sure, we all hear anecdotal tales of innocent non-smokers who get lung cancer, but any doctor will admit that does not prove in itself that exposure to second hand smoke caused the cancer. However, non-smokers will always choose to believe a position that justifies their argument even if that argument is grounded in falsity so I guess we will have to live with that, but hey, that doesn't change the fact it is a blatant example of the ends self-righteously claiming to justify the means.

[Chris Broadhurst on 21.11.05 at 12:22]

Yeah, I think thats BS that 2nd hand smoke is even more dangerous than 1st hand. Wishfull thinking perhaps. Now I do want it banned, but resorting to misinformation doesn't help anyone.

[Bill Cook on 21.11.05 at 12:23]

What about a liquid nicotine or tablets that could take care of the addicts craving and dependency yet not affect the other customers ?

I mean if they can make cookies with weed why not ?

It seems like a fair compromise and you would not see thse addicts standing out in the cold and rain feeding their habit.

It would work too with drivers smoking while driving and flinging butts still lit out of the window into the path of cycle riders etc.

After all take the nicotine out of cigarettes and no one would smoke them so its the nicotine not the smoke they crave no ?

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 12:27]

I think it's a bit of everything, Mr. Cook.

Yes, the nicotine is a large factor, but there's also the physical urge to lift a cigarette to your lips and inhale that sweet... sweet... ohhhhgoodness... I need a smoke.

Sorry.. all kidding aside, yes, nicotine gum and patches help, but there are other factors to the addiction. If they have ciggies with no nicotine, point me at them! A combination of those and patches would probably get me off smoking.

[drew on 21.11.05 at 12:46]

First of all second hand smoke is not dangerous, there are no cases of anyone getting sick or dieing from second hand smoke. Secondly the owners of the establishment should be allowed to decide whether they have smoking or not. I don't smoke, but I think it should be allowed. It's a bar for god's sake, it should be smokey, it lends to the atmsophere. If you can't take it then a bar or pub is not the place for you, go on down to the juice bar and have a smoothie.

[Monsignor Treeb Lopez on 21.11.05 at 12:55]

and we'll have more from the PR department of RJR after the news...

[Bill Cook on 21.11.05 at 13:06]

Uncle,

In the old days there was a cigarette promoted to cure asthma, as a youth I worked in a warehouse that supplied chemist shops so I swiped a pack and tried one.
It tasted pretty awful and terrible smell too.

If you smoke but hate the harm yet are hooked as you smoke because you have to but if you like smoking but fear the harm its tougher to stop as you really like smoking.

You have to convince yourself that its not good and you want to stop first.

Its doubly hard if you drink and smoke as the two go together like peas 'n rice so when you quit smoking the struggle starts when you have that first drink and dont light up.

There was also a social aspect to it when I was young and foolish, but I was not a heavy smoker even so it took 3 goes before I stopped.

I ate a lot of peanuts to compensate, it helps when you drink to fill the void.

[wklc on 21.11.05 at 13:34]

Ok...i stand corrected on the fact that 2nd hand smoke is worse than first hand...but i will say that if smokers want to jeopardize their own lives, knowing the potential repercussions of smoking, that is fine, but to force it on other citizens is arrogant and unethical in my opinion.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 13:37]

This is what we're saying, WKLC... it's NOT forcing it on them. Non-smokers have a choice.
Just as with BMDS, so do the owners.

And the health hazards of second-hand smoke are REALLY inconclusive, so it's still (pardon the pun) up in the air whether anyone is forcing a health hazard on them.

[jake on 21.11.05 at 13:52]

I am not familiar with the debate on whether second hand is worse than regular smoking, but there is evidence that it is harmful. I do not think they fall into the category of really inconclusive. Non-smoking spouses of smokers for example.

[JJ on 21.11.05 at 13:52]

Bill wrote:
"If you smoke but hate the harm yet are hooked as you smoke because you have to but if you like smoking but fear the harm its tougher to stop as you really like smoking".

Not sure I get this Bill

[Phil on 21.11.05 at 13:56]

Somers

I'm not sure that banning smoking in public places would have any positive impact on either the environment or the health care system. But if it would, wouldn't that suggest we should just be banning smoking, period?

TJL

Bermuda does not have minimum wage legislation. So far I've not heard anything to suggest we need it either.

Longtime Lurker

Safety standards protect me against dangers that I might not be able to see (for example, if the fire alarm is not operational, I am unlikely to be aware of that until a fire actually breaks out). Similarly, anti-discrimination legislation is necessary because I may be unaware that I am being discriminated against; even if I suspect it, it can be difficult to prove.

Cigarette smoke, however, is there in plain view.

In June this year I pledged that every time I was bothered by second-hand smoke in a restaurant I would register my dislike with the manager or owner. Yet despite eating out on a regular basis, I have had no cause to do this on any occasion since then. To me, that does not suggest that second hand smoke is a significant risk factor for me (or for most other customers). Hence I don't see it as a problem that merits Government intervention. I think the bar workers (some of whom will be smokers, don't forget) are more than capable of looking out for their own interests.

[Bill Cook on 21.11.05 at 14:14]

JJ,

Yes its a bit confusing.

Some people hate the fact that they smoke but are addicted so want to stop but cannot.

There are others who really like the habit and only want to stop because its harmful not because they dont like smoking.

Once saw a man who had had a trachotomy lost his vocal chords to cancer by smoking yet had a small hole in his neck that he somehow could smoke with so I would hate to figure which category he fitted into.

The point is you have to REALLY want to stop or you wont and no one can stop for you and I dont trust all the gimmecks.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 14:17]

Actually...

You may want to read
"Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths."

And in the interest of fairness, I'll post "the American Council on Science and Health's assessment of it...

but wait... there's more!

Let's not forget the rebuttal to this, "Anti-tobacco means never having to say
weak associations are sorry".

Just want to show all sides of it.

There IS no proven correlation. It IS inconclusive.

We all know smoking is bad. If people feel that strongly about it, they should ban smoking altogether, not force private citizens into bans that they don't want. If the bar owners want no smoking, they are more than in their rights to do so.

[TJL on 21.11.05 at 14:44]

Limey,

Anti-discrimination legislation is not necessary just because said discrimination may be subtle or difficult to prove - it is necessary because as a society we deem it unacceptable to choose your employees based on non-merit criteria such as race or reglion (and hopefully soon, sexual orientation). By your reasoning if an employer were open about their prejudices, they would be in the right to deny opportunities to whomever they wished.

I'm sure this is not what you had intended to convey, but it does neatly illustrate the view held by myself and others on this thread that we should also not allow employers to discriminate against employees who do not wish to breathe second hand smoke. You (and others) are of the opinion that second-hand smoke is one of the "dangers of the job" for bartenders, much like a plane crash is a danger to pilots, and if you don't wish to assume these dangers you should find employment elsewhere. You may even wish to argue that allowing patrons to smoke inside is a critical element of the service some bar owners choose to provide, and we are unfairly denying them a source of livlihood. But in doing so you also take on the consequences that in the model you would create, it will be legal to effectively force someone to breathe cigarette smoke simply because the only jobs they might be qualified to perform require it.

I'm not well versed in the laws of Bermuda, but if we currently have no legislation providing for a minimum wage that both surprises and depresses me. I suppose it is testament to our good fortune that we do not have a substantial impoverished class which would necessitate such a law, but it worries me that somewhere on our fair island some workers are potentially being exploited.

[Chris Broadhurst on 21.11.05 at 14:45]

I actually quit a bar job because of the smoke. I worked Fridays banging out good ole R&R at Showbizz on Reid Street in 93. By the end of the night I'd have chest pains. I only worked there one night a week for 3 hours - but took in a great deal of air via singing.

To think there is no health risk is stupid.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 15:01]

I don't think it.
What I'm saying is that people should have a choice, based on fact. There is no proven long-term health risk, such as cancer, from second-hand smoke, as far as I have seen. (I add that last bit because I could be wrong, but I've seen no proof of it.)
We've all heard the anecdotal evidence and the lies provided by the anti-tobacco lobby, but facts are facts.
Mr. Broadhurt, you had chest pains from the smoke, I understand that and think you made the right decision to stop playing there.

Look, I'm not arguing that smoking isn't bad.
No-one is. All I'm saying is that if there IS going to be a ban, it should be based on the truth and not misinformation.

[Full Fullish on 21.11.05 at 15:41]

Uncle Elvis -
Come on you going to take that risk and use "Ignorance" as your excuse?

You sound exactly how my parents did "It wasn't proven that cigarette smoking was bad for you".

Personally I've never brought into that, just follow your body....if you smoke for the fist time, you choke, it's your body's natuaral reaction to something that shouldn't be there. That's all the evidence I need for me personally.

For those needing more, why would second hand smoke, both unfiltered (burning off the cigarette) and filtered (exhailed from the lungs, now mixed with higher concentrations of CO2) be any less toxic than filtered smoke, which has been proven to cause cancer. It's simple logic.

I agree in most cases, people should have a choice, however only if their choice doesn't harm or cause discomfort to anyone else there.

Getting back to the original topic here, I think it's great that the bar is doing this. I would like most public places to do this. Smoke pervades and stayes in most substances in the form or residue or tar for years and years. Case in point, one of the tennants of the condo I purchased were smokers, while the room didn't smell like smoke, one night my A/C leaked onto the carpet, I had a shirt down on the floor, when I picked it up it had dried and I could smell nothing but smoke all in it. Same thing with Spanish Point Boat Club, before it went non smoking in the lounge, every month the bartender would wipe down the big screen TV, the white cloth would turn brown yellow with the tar on the screen. This is constantly in the atmosphere of an enclosed room, and over time will most likely affect the health of the people in there.

Why should our health be affected and have no choice in the matter?

[jake on 21.11.05 at 15:45]

Only in Bermuda do we seriously debate this issue on the merits of health.

In Boston and New York you cannot smoke in public places, and yet (amazingly) the rights of the smoker are not so damaged that they cannot feed their addiction.

People are actually happy that they do not smell of smoke when they get home, simply because they want a few rounds of the local favorite.

Still supporting the ban!

[Andrew on 21.11.05 at 15:46]

Let's clear up a little misconception here...

WKLC wrote: "Because second hand smoke is worse on an individual than first hand smoke."

I've heard this mentioned over and over. "Smokers have their smoke filtered - it is safer! It is the second hand smoke that is dangerous." What crap. Anyone who can draw such a conclusion must be incapable of reasoned thought.

When there is second hand smoke, everyone breathes it, including the smoker. The smoker gets a double dose, because he's also hauling directly on the cancer stick, and that little filter does very little.

Smoking kills and is a disgusting habit. Those that smoke in public are incredibly inconsiderate. I occassionally pass gas, but I wouldn't do it in a crowded restaurant. For some reason, smokers feel a God-given right to piss me off by smoking around me.

Lord knows I try to avoid it, but public smoking is so pervasive in Bermuda that you can't get away from it unless you want to stay at home. Often, when I'm imnvited out, I decline and stay at home because I know the smoke will be unbearable.

Market forces will not eliminate smoking. If I arranged dinner for six people at a non-smoking venue, I guarantee one of six would complain. Then they would go outside, smoke, and come back in reeking. I would prefer that they stay and pass gas...

[Andrew on 21.11.05 at 15:48]

...and as soon as I clicked "post" my coworker returned to his desk beside me, reeking of smoke. I just can't get away from it.

[SmokingGun on 21.11.05 at 15:52]

"When there is second hand smoke, everyone breathes it, including the smoker. The smoker gets a double dose, because he's also hauling directly on the cancer stick, and that little filter does very little."

Andrew - you are too damn logical - other than the passing gas thing....

Actually it's the third hand smoke that really bothers me. My next door neighbor smokes so much that when she decides to "air" out her house it literally can stink up the neighborhood. It's awful.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 15:54]

"Come on you going to take that risk and use "Ignorance" as your excuse?"

I'm not making excuses, I'm saying that, if it can be proved that I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. But as it stands now, there is no proof.

If the ban was about "Smoking stinks and makes my time in a bar or restaurant less enjoyable", then hey, I got yer back.
It's the lies and misinformation that they use to back up the ban that I have a problem with.

"Smoking kills and is a disgusting habit."

I agree.

But I think it should be up to the bar owner to make the call.

[Bill Cook on 21.11.05 at 15:56]

One of the strangest, possibly funny, depending on ones sense of humour, was the sight of all those fat cat Tobacca Tzars giving evidence in court, or on the senate floor saying, or rather swearing that to the best of their knowledge they did not think tobacca was harmful.

The human body requires water, air and food to sustain it so which category does smoke fulfill ?

One would have to have their head so far up their own asshole, they could smoke through their own navel to beleive that smoke, any smoke is not good for ones lungs.

Personally I feel those who put up arguments that say otherwise, are playing attention getting games and should be punished by being ignored, but hey thats just my take on it.

[Longtime Lurker on 21.11.05 at 15:58]

Limey,

I don't think that anti-discrimination legislation exists "because I may be unaware that I am being discriminated against"; I think that it exists because we as a society have deemed such discrimination unacceptable. While I'm not exactly sure how the HRC process works, surely one has to be aware that they are a victim of discrimination before they can lodge a complaint. Certainly, if we were to take this as far back as segregation or look at particularly obvious acts of discrimination, the victims knew damn well that they were being discriminated against!

Rather than being a legislative fix to information asymmetry, anti-discrimination legislation arose out of a power or influence asymmetry: sometimes private businesses have the ability to victimize members of the public, and market forces don't always solve this. As a society we decided to intervene to protect our citizens. That's at the heart of the smoking ban debate: should we intervene to protect non-smoking customers and employees at bars?

I'm not trying to equate a smoking ban with preventing discrimination; the smoking ban is far, far less important to me. I just don't think that you're being completely honest when you say that you think government should only intervene in private business to protect people against what they don't know.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 16:04]

"The human body requires water, air and food to sustain it so which category does smoke fulfill ?"

Or alcohol. Or chocolate. Or refined sugar. Or or or.

BTW, I've never said that smoking wasn't bad for the smoker.
I've just pointed people in the direction of FACTS. Haven't seen anything that disproves them yet.

[Bill Cook on 21.11.05 at 16:14]

In Germany beer is considered food ie liquid bread.

Chocolate is sustaining and dark chocolate is good for your heart of course.

Sugar refined or otherways is a simple carb and provides energy.

Smoke on the other hand ??????

Sorry about the double post late correction.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 16:16]

Beer is food because of other ingredients besides alcohol.

This is getting us nowhere.
You're not going to read the facts and I'm not going to change my mind.

Agree to disagree, Mr. Cook?

[silencedogood on 21.11.05 at 16:33]

Andrew,

Are there any studies on the effects of second hand gas? Thanks for the chuckle, just don't sit next to me in the little theatre.

All,

It should be in the authority of the government to ban smoking inside buildings because they regulate a hell of a lot of other things bar owners do (alcohol to minors, cleanliness standards, etc.) Plus it doesn't impact smokers that much--it could be allowed on balconies, they can go outside. Non-smokers can't take their burger out every 10 minutes to eat. There should be exceptions though.

This isn't a health priority as far as I'm concerned--I'm far more worried about getting to work and having to wipe the black soot off my face (literally) because every a--hole driving a van on this island is belching out diesel fumes and unless I drive like a maniac (also hazardous to my health) I can't pass them. This is much more of a health issue than a guy smoking next to me at the bar. Fix the priorities first.

[Bill Cook on 21.11.05 at 16:34]

OK

Just hope you are not going to find yourself lost in the Alps and refuse that St Bernard dogs little Barrel of brandy to warm your freezing ass on the icy slopes !! Ha ! Ha !

Ill take a case of beer and you take a case of Marlboro over the mountains and see who survives best.

thats it from me.

[Uncle Elvis on 21.11.05 at 16:45]

Heh... prolly true.

I don't drink, though, so you're welcome to my share of the beer! *grin*

[Andrew on 21.11.05 at 16:57]

Drew said: "First of all second hand smoke is not dangerous, there are no cases of anyone getting sick or dieing from second hand smoke."

I beg to differ. I used to work behind a bar and later ownned a bar and restaurant. One of them had extremely low ceilings and poor ventilation. I developed respiratory problems that hopitalised me on two occassions. Under the advice of my doctor, I made a career change, got out of that business and resolved the problem. Ever since then, I still have a sensitivity to second hand smoke and an "irritable airway". For example, if I get a cold with cough, the cough will stay for 6 months and not go away without steroid intervention.

Don't tell me that second hand smoke doesn't hurt anyone...

[Wickering Banker :-) ----: on 21.11.05 at 17:02]

Smoking in bars is a pain. Whenever I return to work after a sneak drink, I'm always at risk of my boss finding out and firing me.

If they'd just ban smoking - he'd never know cos I wouldn't stink of someone else's exhaled breath.

[ace on 21.11.05 at 17:06]

"I occassionally pass gas, but I wouldn't do it in a crowded restaurant."

?

What do you do, get up and go to the bathroom? To fart?

I thought only chicks did that.

Be a man for heaven's sake. Let 'er rip. As a friend of mine's father used to say, "If it ain't paying rent it's got to GET OUT."

[Andrew on 21.11.05 at 17:10]

This is topical and good for a laugh:

http://www.maritimegirl.com/portals/0/NonSmokerRevenge.mpeg

[SmokingGun on 21.11.05 at 17:11]

Funny how the first question that comes from anyone's mouth when hearing someone has lung cancer is "Did he or she smoke"?

You are going to have a hard time convincing me that second hand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer or other very serious respiratory ailments.

Excuse me, I think I've just picked up a commuter cough from a pink bus....

[Andrew on 21.11.05 at 17:12]

Ace says: "What do you do, get up and go to the bathroom? To fart? I thought only chicks did that."

You're married, right?