Netherlands overturns draconian smoking ban

[alexxxxx]

In terms of smoke, what do you class as harm? there is next to no harm, and if you are in a pub you are being harmed anyway by consuming alcohol. The pollen example, everybody who is allergic to pollen is affected by it.

It is fair to assume that there is an elevated risk of certain diseases associated with smoking if exposed to them for an extended period of time. That's the same with anything that affects you. 'Anyone who gets hit by a car is affected by being hit by cars.'

There is a gap judging from all of your horrified reactions to the proposal that people should be allowed to light up in a pub, again as I stated before - in this thread i've had a manner of pathetic excuses for banning it thrown at me and still nobody can explain the point of freedom of choice that i'm making. It seems people are infected with this belief that they have a right to trample over the freedom of others - not just with this issue but with many others. Are we now all so dull and stupid that we are incapable of making our own decisions?

No, quite the opposite, I understand your point of view - it doesn't mean i agree that it is right. Most of your views would be entirely justified if there is enough competition in the world - but there simply isn't. Take this example, a small village might only be able to keep one pub open, where is the smoke-free alternative provided for the market in that area? The market cannot possibly sustain two pubs. Banning smoking inside is unlikely to close that pub due to it being the only one around. Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, take a city like manchester or london, very large, a lot of competition - arguably too many bars for the population, already heavily slashing prices to attract. If landlords were given the choice whether to allow smoking or not, almost all would allow smoking - or lose business. The closeness of the product/service of a pub/bar with smoke and a pub/bar without smoke makes it inviable for both to exist in highly concentrated and loosely concentrated markets. Medium concentrated markets where there are only a few pubs/bars may be able to sustain smoking/non-smoking due to the lack of competition in prices, yet more choice than a monopoly.

What the netherlands' law does is distinctly differentiate the two products/services in order to give choice to consumers.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is fair to assume that there is an elevated risk of certain diseases associated with smoking if exposed to them for an extended period of time. That's the same with anything that affects you. 'Anyone who gets hit by a car is affected by being hit by cars.'

So why the overstated risk concerning passive smoking? the threat is very minimal, it barely exists. Yet if you read through this thread, they'd have you believe that smoking is the most dangerous habit around - all while they consume their GM foods, chemicals, food dyes, salts, hydronated fats and alcohol. The health argument simply does not stand up, anyone that concerned about health wouldn't be drinking in the first place.

No, quite the opposite, I understand your point of view - it doesn't mean i agree that it is right. Most of your views would be entirely justified if there is enough competition in the world - but there simply isn't. Take this example, a small village might only be able to keep one pub open, where is the smoke-free alternative provided for the market in that area? The market cannot possibly sustain two pubs. Banning smoking inside is unlikely to close that pub due to it being the only one around.

Then you have no choice. That is the market at work like it or not. I could very well fancy a ASDA right next door for my convienence, it doesn't mean it will happen or it should happen.

Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, take a city like manchester or london, very large, a lot of competition - arguably too many bars for the population, already heavily slashing prices to attract. If landlords were given the choice whether to allow smoking or not, almost all would allow smoking - or lose business. The closeness of the product/service of a pub/bar with smoke and a pub/bar without smoke makes it inviable for both to exist in highly concentrated and loosely concentrated markets. Medium concentrated markets where there are only a few pubs/bars may be able to sustain smoking/non-smoking due to the lack of competition in prices, yet more choice than a monopoly.

So again, if the demand is there and people want to smoke in bars, pubs and clubs then let the market work itself out without government interference and without the constant scaremongering from busybodies who, while fretting over passive smoking - are out on the town getting completely smashed out of their silly little heads (along with the lot in this thread who consume salts, fats, dyes and chemicals but continue to worry about their health rights, its simply ludicrous).

What the netherlands' law does is distinctly differentiate the two products/services in order to give choice to consumers.

I would argue that the law in the Netherlands doesn't go far enough, government doesn't have a place in this trivial issue.

[alexxxxx]

So why the overstated risk concerning passive smoking? the threat is very minimal, it barely exists. Yet if you read through this thread, they'd have you believe that smoking is the most dangerous habit around - all while they consume their GM foods, chemicals, food dyes, salts, hydronated fats and alcohol. The health argument simply does not stand up, anyone that concerned about health wouldn't be drinking in the first place.

It does exist though. And again, you choose to eat those foods (which are labelled GM, hydrogenated and alcohol - it is clear to the consumer so they can make an informed choice, or shall we leave it to the market to make goods which may or may not show what is in them too?). Who is to say that someone in a pub is drinking alcohol too? That is a choice too. People may choose to simply drink bottled water, or fruit juice, or a soft drink - choices they make!

Then you have no choice. That is the market at work like it or not. I could very well fancy a ASDA right next door for my convienence, it doesn't mean it will happen or it should happen.

Yes that is true, but what we are doing here is attempting to 'correct' a market. The market system is good but it is not perfect. Neither is 'correcting' it, but it does go someway to helping consumers. The market already tries to correct your ASDA issue by having small, corner shops selling popular products at slightly inflated prices which effectively pays for the convenience. The supermarkets are in fact serve another market entirely.

So again, if the demand is there and people want to smoke in bars, pubs and clubs then let the market work itself out without government interference and without the constant scaremongering from busybodies who, while fretting over passive smoking - are out on the town getting completely smashed out of their silly little heads (along with the lot in this thread who consume salts, fats, dyes and chemicals but continue to worry about their health rights, its simply ludicrous).

And this is relevant how?

I would argue that the law in the Netherlands doesn't go far enough, government doesn't have a place in this trivial issue.

I would barely call this law trivial.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It does exist though. And again, you choose to eat those foods (which are labelled GM, hydrogenated and alcohol - it is clear to the consumer so they can make an informed choice, or shall we leave it to the market to make goods which may or may not show what is in them too?). Who is to say that someone in a pub is drinking alcohol too? That is a choice too. People may choose to simply drink bottled water, or fruit juice, or a soft drink - choices they make!

So as i've been saying throughout, the consumer can make an informed choice as to whether or not they go into a pub which allows smoking as opposed to a non-smoking pub.

Yes that is true, but what we are doing here is attempting to 'correct' a market. The market system is good but it is not perfect. Neither is 'correcting' it, but it does go someway to helping consumers. The market already tries to correct your ASDA issue by having small, corner shops selling popular products at slightly inflated prices which effectively pays for the convenience. The supermarkets are in fact serve another market entirely.

I this said earlier, the market would correct itself with non-smoking pubs because you'd have the likes of the above going into a non-smoking pub seeing as they detest that 'disgusting' habit so much.

And this is relevant how?

Relevant because it dispells the silly issue of health that keeps being brought up.

I would barely call this law trivial.

It is very trivial, pubs got on very well before New Labour (including the Tories and the 'Liberal' 'Democrats') and the health and safety mob started meddling in the industry. It seems to me that nowadays people (and government) just can't resist meddling in every tiny little issue.

The government has far more important things to be policing.

[alexxxxx]

So as i've been saying throughout, the consumer can make an informed choice as to whether or not they go into a pub which allows smoking as opposed to a non-smoking pub.

No, this is where you are wrong. They can be informed - but it is unlikely they would have a choice.

I this said earlier, the market would correct itself with non-smoking pubs because you'd have the likes of the above going into a non-smoking pub seeing as they detest that 'disgusting' habit so much.

In many places there will not be a choice.

Relevant because it dispells the silly issue of health that keeps being brought up.

just the silly issue of health

It is very trivial, pubs got on very well before New Labour (including the Tories and the 'Liberal' 'Democrats') and the health and safety mob started meddling in the industry. It seems to me that nowadays people (and government) just can't resist meddling in every tiny little issue.

The government has far more important things to be policing.

Hahahahaha lovely, stereotypical rant.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, this is where you are wrong. They can be informed - but it is unlikely they would have a choice.

The choice would be around, and if the choice is not around then boo-hoo.

My grandad may want a brand of old crisps brought out again, it doesn't mean he can have it.

In many places there will not be a choice.

Indeed, and thats the free market.

just the silly issue of health

It is because this lot who are fawning over health are the ones who drink, consume GM foods, consume fats, consume salts and so forth - yet seem to have some major problem with passive smoking which is far less a risk than the likes of GM foods, chemicals and fatty foods.

Hahahahaha lovely, stereotypical rant.

What? you think the government has a right to meddle in something which has worked pretty well before government came along? to borrow a phrase, they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

[alexxxxx]

The choice would be around, and if the choice is not around then boo-hoo.

My grandad may want a brand of old crisps brought out again, it doesn't mean he can have it.

True, however I'd argue that the market for crisps World/Europe/UK-wide is much more competitive than the market for pubs/bars.

Indeed, and thats the free market.

Which evidently isn't the answer to everything. This is a fundamental difference in thinking - mine is, intervene to make things better, yours is 'theoretically everything should work itself out.'

It is because this lot who are fawning over health are the ones who drink, consume GM foods, consume fats, consume salts and so forth - yet seem to have some major problem with passive smoking which is far less a risk than the likes of GM foods, chemicals and fatty foods.

This isn't really an argument against banning smoking in pubs is it? Like I said, people have a choice and are informed (because of the law) and then can make their own decision.

What? you think the government has a right to meddle in something which has worked pretty well before government came along? to borrow a phrase, they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

That's subjective - I argue that it wasn't working well before the government came along and intervened in this issue. For example, when I was younger, (14/15/16) I went to an under 18s club night, afaik - the only one. This was before the smoking ban and when you could smoke at 16. I came out smelling of smoke, I hated smelling of smoke, I hated it when people smoked near me. However, I had no CHOICE - if I wanted to go I had to endure the smoke, the smoke did not make the place an unbearable place, yet i coughed and it was disgusting - if there was a non-smoking version I would have preferred to have gone there. When the law changed so that you could no longer smoke inside and you could no longer buy cigarattes at 16 - it was a much more pleasant experience and it was still as busy as it normally was.

[Jordy]

Just to her interject something here, pub decline has been ongoing since the Victorian era and is affected enormously by cheaper alcohol being available at off-licenses and Supermarkets just as much, if not more than by the smoking ban.