The anti-smoking crusade continues

Can anyone explain why the Government now wants to ban smoking in company cars?

Next week: legislation to ban expats from smoking in their employer-supplied homes.

Comments

[Tiger Bay on 05.12.05 at 13:58]

To stop Ministers from toking up in the GP fleet?

More likely to disallow smoking in taxis.

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 14:03]

Sorry you're not going to get me on your side on this one, although I’m sure that's wasn't your goal, nevertheless, i can't wait, obviously I’m not 'government' but i suspect the rationale may be that if you're required to be there because of your job, you shouldn't have to deal with someone smoking.

Although to be objectively critical, this might be an unnecessary law, if you're with a coworker you should be able to ask your colleague not to spoke while your both in that enclosed space, if he won't comply or you're afraid to ask, frankly you have bigger problems... but in terms of the law, I’m not sure how the government if going to enforce it exactly.. but this is a minor issue either way..

I hope they continue with the CRUSADE...

[loki on 05.12.05 at 14:07]

"Can anyone explain why the Government now wants to ban smoking in company cars?"

Um, maybe it's all part of Government's ongoing campaign to distract the electorate away from the miserable failure of the last seven and a half years of governance? Go on, give us a clue.....

[Chris Broadhurst on 05.12.05 at 14:23]

As with the seat belt law, they are going to give people a 6 month grace period.

What's the point? Pass the law and be done with it.

[Ex Limey on 05.12.05 at 14:24]

I guess this will add to all the other laws which aren't enforced then.

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 14:28]

Something I’m not clear on, in regards to bars and restaurants... Are the fines levied on the businesses or the individual, i think it would have to be the former for the law to be of any use.

[Nicolette on 05.12.05 at 14:29]

The ONLY (well almost only) reason I am not a complete non smoker, is because I never want to become on of those self-righteous ex-smokers and as long as I don't become an ex-smoker.... that guarantees it.

Got to agree with Loki... this is a smoke screen to disctract from the HUGE issues of the day. And landlords are so privileged here they can demand non smokers, no children and still provide no assessment number for $5,000 per month.....

[Ex Limey on 05.12.05 at 14:33]

'Smoke screen' That's good N.

[Uncle Elvis on 05.12.05 at 14:34]

Nicolette, we HAVE to hang out! *grin*
"Fuckin' non-smokers... I'd quit if I didn't think I'd turn into one of you!"
-Bill Hicks-

[Nicolette on 05.12.05 at 14:50]

Uncle E - spot on... only smoking probably killed him...oops

[Uncle Elvis on 05.12.05 at 15:10]

Actually, it was pancreatic cancer...

[SmokingGun on 05.12.05 at 15:11]

So they convert all the GP vehicles to convertibles because it'll be the law?

[BDA on 05.12.05 at 15:23]

Frankly - I think it is time we put Govt Ministers into their little GP cars and set fire to the lot.

As for the smoke that would cause - who cares.

On a semi serious note - is this the church "demanding" change, or are we trying to get into the C20TH? Before long, they will be banning alcohol (except communion wine), having sex on Sundays (who does these days anyway) and other nicities.

Guess "f.....g" choirboys will be the only thing left to do!

What a sad little island this is becoming.

[Yet Another Limey on 05.12.05 at 15:30]

Next week: legislation to ban expats from smoking in their employer-supplied homes

Why not any rental home (after all renting a place is a form of business) and the landlords house as well, unless they can show that they rent their properties from another office.

[sandgrownan on 05.12.05 at 15:32]

The late, great Bill Hicks... "I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?.......Non-smokers die every day.."

He also said, unrelated I know, but it's funny.. "A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on."

[Nicolette on 05.12.05 at 15:38]

Unlce E - the most likely cause of pancreatic cancer is....! That's why I said probably...

[Ex Limey on 05.12.05 at 15:57]

Interesting that they cant find time to give equal rights to gays - but they can stop smoking in bars.

[Yet Another Limey on 05.12.05 at 16:10]

I've figured out what the government is going to do!

First they ban smoking in public places,
Then they ban cigarettes altogether,
Tobacco then carries the same penalties as canabis,

So when they search the cruise ships they can fine about 70% of the passengers $1000 for importing drugs, not just the odd one or two.

This way cruise ship tourists will provide as much to the ecomomy as tourists arriving by air.

And thus the tourist industry is saved.

Hurrah!

[george washington on 05.12.05 at 16:13]

When they ramble on about subjects like this the govt. is just trying to get people to stop focusing on things like Berkely or the fact that Burch likes to call people who disagree with him niggers.

[Paper Bermudian on 05.12.05 at 16:17]

I think we're all agreed its yet another item to throw us off the fact that this Government has done nothing in 7 years to address our biggest problems.

But I do think it is being done with health in mind.

[hotspur on 05.12.05 at 16:35]

"Can anyone explain why the Government now wants to ban smoking in company cars?"

Yes, they're nincompoops.

[Andrew on 05.12.05 at 16:44]

"Can anyone explain why the Government now wants to ban smoking in company cars?"

Yes. To protect the coral reefs. Over decades of driving and smoking, tar and smoke residue build up in the car's interior. Where do you think all the residual tar and smoke ultimately ends up when the car is disposed of? Dumped in the ocean by the airport, where it leeches into the ocean, causing coral cancer, of course!

[Tony B on 05.12.05 at 16:46]

I am glad that Government is banning smoking in public places.....
Smoking killed my Mother and I would urge everyone to stop for their own benefit.

As fot eh other comments above....Don't try and figure out why this PLP Governments reasoning for anything. But hey....smoking kills and second hand smoke kills...and i am glad that I am not inflicted with it.

Now what about TCD monitoring the black toxic smoke spewed from Gov busses, ferries, taxis, cars etc....They shopuld all be given a smoke test and failed if they do not pass a safe an acceptable emission code.

[Steve Moffat on 05.12.05 at 18:15]

To all you folk worried about second hand smoke....

http://healthandenergy.com/deadly_diesel_fumes.htm

http://www.gasp-pgh.org/hotline/fall02_5.html

So next time you follow that taxi.........

[Tim Taylor on 05.12.05 at 18:43]

Now look you lot, it's perfectly obvious why Gvt want to legislate against smoking in ALL public places. It's because if they aren't told that it's naughty and against the law, how are we ever going to stop all those guys up Westgate smokin' herb and droppin' tabs and having a wonderful time?
Geez, it sounds (todays headline) like it's easier, cheaper and more acceptable to mainline herion in prison than it is for me to hang out on the corner of the street with a smoke.

[Phil on 05.12.05 at 18:51]

I think it's pretty clear that the Government is not suggesting this just to take our minds off Berkeley etc. Come on people, be serious.

TB suggests that the company car restriction may be a result of a desire to ban smoking in taxis. If so, wouldn't it be better for the legislation to do exactly that?

A private car, regardless of who purchased it, is just that: private. Do any of the proponents of a public smoking ban here believe that such a ban really needs to go this far?

[SmokingGun on 05.12.05 at 18:59]

I have no problem with not being allowed to smoke in a Taxi however doesn't that little micro-scopic territory pretty much have it's own bouncer permanently perched behind the wheel? Does the government really have to go so far as to tell a cabbie he or she can't allow a customer who's being taken on a tour of the island to have a cig but has to wait till they pull over?

It's one thing to implement a law banning smoking in public places such as bars and restaurants but to go so far as to the "privately owned" cabs is a little draconian. Way to get evryone's hairs on end, not just the smokers.

ps: for the record no-one smokes in my car even if they ask.

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 19:02]

No i don't limey but as i said above i think it’s meaningless in the sense that it's going to be difficult for the government to enforce, so i would like it scrapped as i think meaningless laws hurt the overall legal system, but in terms of importance, i don't think this is really a central issue of the legislation, as isn’t worth discussion in and of itself.

[Phil on 05.12.05 at 19:33]

Cancundreaming

I think this is worth discussing for 2 reasons:

1. It suggests a willingness to ban smoking in private spaces, not just public ones.

2. I object to the Government wasting time and money implementing unenforceable laws.

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 19:44]

I don't think it does Limey, i think you have to treat the conception of a company car much like you treat a restaurant or a bar. Part of the rationale for a ban is to protect customers, but also to protect employees that have to be in a certain locale as a result of their employment, behind a bar or serving tables, or in a delivery van. I don't think you can use this as an indication that they're planning or willing to go towards private spaces, like your home for instance.

I think everyone is against government waste, and i don't support meaningless laws, or at least laws that are unenforceable, but I’m not sure your objection works as we really have no way of knowing what resources went into writing this specific line, it could simply be one person writing the line which could have took all about 5 minutes....

[Phil on 05.12.05 at 19:53]

I thought you said this wasn't worth discussing? Sounds like you're discussing it to me. ;-)

What about those people who hire butlers to work in their homes (I know one person in Bermuda who does so)? Should they be banned from smoking in their own homes, because it could compromise that employee's health?

I think the Government is starting down a slippery slope.

[Bill Cook on 05.12.05 at 20:01]

As long as they do not place a ban on smoking salmon in Scotland I dont gie a F.. but I love good Scottsh smoked salmon,

Lets raise our voices to ensure there is no ban on smoked salmon.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 05.12.05 at 20:17]

Bill the Salmon is safe and besides it is smoked with wood.The rest of you disarm...NO Cigarettes.....OFF WITH THEIR HEADS Ha Ha Ha ^..^

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 20:19]

Well this is nuance, and nuance is important, and i think one of the things you're highlighting is a distinction between how employees of businesses and individuals are treated under the law. Certainly there are advantages to both classifications, but there are also disadvantages. For instance there are certain things you can agree to as two individuals (employee & employer) that aren’t allowed when you’re dealing with a business. Conversely, there are certain regulatory protections that businesses are afforded that as an individual employer won’t simply get. Now there are certain things that are prohibited universally, but there is a difference.

The law treats them differently and the standards are different, you're right, the rationale for protecting butlers from smoking in their employers' home is the same, but like most issues, it's a matter of balancing and weighing interests, while the rationale is there to protect the butler, it doesn't rise to the level to allow the government to restrict actions in a private home, that standard is extraordinarily high. The standard to regulate a traditional business is lower, thus the rationale in those cases can be applied.

Think of it another way limey; obesity kills almost if not more people then smoking related deaths. If the rationale for restricting smoking is health concerns, why not seek regulation controlling the availability of fatty transfat laced food? Because, while the rationale is similar, the standards are different, it’s one matter to tell people they can’t smoke inside Portifono’s it’s a different matter to tell them they can’t have the very tasty Portrifono Alfredo..Again different standards… nuance…

Yes i lied, i am discussing it :P but I’m the library, studying for exam, at this point, i'm pretty much discuss anything that will allow me not to read about globalization...

[SmokingGun on 05.12.05 at 20:26]

Limey - you raise a very good point. If the laws start to become all about protecting people in places of work then I'm going to have to give some serious thought about keeping my butler. That's if I take up smoking....or hiring butlers.

Cancun - I think the law has to be considered totally meaningless because I cannot imagine a police officer will go out of his way to pull someone over because they are smoking a cigarette. How will they know if the vehicle is a company vehicle or the driver and maybe even the passenger is the company owner? If they wanted to get onto cell phones whilst driving that's more feasible.

Bill Cook - I assume you just had an enjoyable glass of wine or two to wash down that smoked salmon....

[Bill Cook on 05.12.05 at 20:36]

Smoke,

No I had a black velvet as always.

However as long as I am high let me say its ok if you are a Prince because then you can SMOKE THE BUTLER and no one will say BOO !!

[SmokingGun on 05.12.05 at 20:45]

Alas not my thing...not that there's anything wrong with it (seinfeld).... just the Princess was to Di for.

[Bill Cook on 05.12.05 at 20:57]

Me neither, maybe Phil he is a Prince of a guy

but then again he is BROAD minded,

Good night !

[Phil on 05.12.05 at 21:25]

SG - I understand that there probably aren't too many smokers with butlers in Bermuda. I was simply using that as an example of where banning smoking in company cars could take us.

But what about the much larger number of people who hire a cleaner? Or a nanny? Should they be banned from smoking in their home when the cleaner or nanny is there too? Even if they themselves are smokers?

If you argue that we must legislate to protect workers from exploitation by their employers then surely the answer must be yes?

[Cancundreaming on 05.12.05 at 22:15]

Limey,

I would like to hear your response to what i laid down above; i think it addresses your concerns in regards to how far to extend legislation that attempt to protect employees...yes? no?

[Raptor on 05.12.05 at 23:00]

I think the smoking bans in the U.S. have made many people more considerate of others. In private situations, smokers are far more likely to ask if anyone minds their lighting up, rather than just going ahead and doing it.

I have never heard of a public smoking ban leading to a prohibition of smoking in private homes anywhere! Not likely. You can do pretty much anything you want in your home, as long as it’s not illegal. Smoking is not illegal; it’s restricted.

Many companies have no smoking policies for their spaces, including company vehicles.

For someone coming into a private home to work, like a butler, house cleaner, or nanny, it would have to be an individual decision whether to take that job.

The key word here is “public." There are certainly more freedoms in private homes.

[Nicolette on 05.12.05 at 23:16]

Swell.. my butler's going to quit...

[O'Brien on 05.12.05 at 23:58]

...or, more likely the Government is fulfilling its solemn, bounden duty to protect the citizenry from all menaces...including smoking.

Limey (and others),

Your line of reasoning on this particular subject is - as it has always been - flawed. The worst part is, I think, that you know the 'slippery slope' fallacy is just that. Yet you continue to use it to prop up an absurd and frankly alarmist prophecy that a ban on smoking will some how beckon an era of greater government intrusion upon civil liberties. What nonsense! The 'Pandora’s box' argument as applied to a smoking ban is frankly just as ridiculous as it is when used to oppose gay marriage.

Although I would normally agree with you on allowing the free market to take its course - and letting consumers vote with their feet - I think the public health risk attaches an urgency to this particular matter that begs for government intervention.

Contrary also to what has been said, the implementation of a smoking ban would do more good for the local business community than harm. For one, the number of people who would be 'shunned' by this measure (who's to say that smokers would not return to bars even if they were not permitted to smoke) would be far less than those embraced. I am prepared to bet that the number of people who avoid bars because of the smoking environment would be far greater than those who frequent them for the same reason.

My point here is that, while I am by no means a backer or apologist for this government, they are finally invoking a moral prerogative. The bill might be somewhat impracticable, it might be difficult to enforce. However, as a society, we enact laws not just to catch people breaking them and bring them to court. We do it to express our prevailing values, what we hold to be right. I sincerely believe it is a marking of a modern and mature society when we can realize that it is the utmost hypocrisy to denounce pollution when the some of the greatest, and deadliest, pollutants are to be found in our pubs and restaurants.

So don't fear the government for taking a stand on this. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, but we must accept that governments are not always necessary evils. They can, when we make them be agents of...good.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.12.05 at 00:07]

"I am prepared to bet that the number of people who avoid bars because of the smoking environment would be far greater than those who frequent them for the same reason."

I'd be more than willing to take that bet, with the stipulation that we expand it to regular clientele. Regulars. Those who show up week after week, night after night.
Once a year, once a month don't count. Regulars only. The ones that pay people's paychecks.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.12.05 at 00:09]

"I think the public health risk..."

Remember, these are privately owned bars, not public spaces. There is no risk to the public, only to the clientele, who know the risks of entering a private place of business.

[NoVote on 06.12.05 at 00:27]

I'm all for this ban, but even if the law is passed I have no expectations that it will ever be enforced.

The notion of providing a 6 month grace period is ridiculous.

It makes some sense for situations where a large proportion of the public needs to do something or invest in something specific to comply with the law (e.g. seat belts and child seats - which incidentally has never been enforced), but not siutations like smoking in a pulic place.

It takes no special preparation to decide not to smoke in a public place. You either do it or you don't.

More comedy government.

[Phil on 06.12.05 at 08:15]

O'Brien

I'm specifically talking about banning smoking in company cars here (even if others aren't). Can you explain why you think that's a sensible thing to do?

Cancundreaming

I think you're saying that, in principle, butlers, nannies and cleaners should be protected from the second-hand smoke of their employer, but that to do so would involve restricting the rights of someone in their own home, which is too high a price to pay.

I accept that I have fewer rights to do as I please in a public place than in a private place. But to me, a car is a private place. The suggestion that I should not be allowed to smoke when driving in my car (possibly on my own) is no different to the suggestion that I should not be allowed to smoke in my home. Even if such a law is unenforceable in practice, it's wrong in principle too.

Again - remember that I am not a smoker. I am arguing this out of principle, not expediency.

[Cancundreaming on 06.12.05 at 08:41]

Limey,

Yes you would be right if the legislation prohibited smoking in cars of individuals, but from my understanding it doesn't, it simply prohibits smoking in company cars. Again this is a nuanced distinction between an individual and a business. If you as an individual buy a car, i think we all can agree that it is YOUR private space, yet if your business decides to buy a car, a different regulatory standard applies...

Another way to look at it is the distinction between a traditional home and a home with a business in it; i can't open up a business inside my home and expect the same standard to apply to me as it does someone who just has a home. I shouldn’t expect to be able to tell the government that the business is beyond their regulatory control simply because the business is in my private home. You ceded that when you decided to open that up in your home.

Similarly, when a car is a company car, which has certain advantages and disadvantages, the regulatory standard is different then Joe Smith’s Mitsubishi.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.12.05 at 09:53]

"If you as an individual buy a car, i think we all can agree that it is YOUR private space, yet if your business decides to buy a car, a different regulatory standard applies"

So... what if you're self-employed?
You're the owner AND the employee.
If you use your car for company business, you can't smoke in it. Still seem fair?
Well, it will to you, because anything banning smoking is good in your eyes...

[E. Costello on 06.12.05 at 10:29]

Elvis. A bar is a public space but you seem to still be clinging to this private bit. The public is invited in to a bar. Sure access might be restricted by age or dress code, but it is still a public space. A private company perhaps - but a public space too.

Trying to convince anyone otherwise could be compared to going to Vegas, gaining a load of weight, and croaking in the bathroom.