Holy Smoke

[jaunthie]

Okay, sorry for the pun, but I just saw this on the BBC News site:

Date Set for England Smoking Ban

That's right. Ye Olde Land of hazy pubs and smoke-stained walls and deep, long tradition of hanging on to deep, long traditions is banning all smoking in enclosed spaces (other than private homes) on July 1, 2007. Scotland and Ireland already have bans in place, and Wales will start February 2nd.

Wow.

On the one hand, as a non-smoker, I'm totally happy about this. And in a country with nationalized health service, it makes complete sense.

On the other hand, the libertarian in me does think that if a group of people wants to start a private members-only club and have a clubhouse in which they puff away, that should be legal to do, somehow. Although again, the entire tax base has to pay for the consequences, so I can see where that would be a problem.

What do you think, world?

Comments

[monkeybard]

I'm all for exceptions to the rule as long as the rule remains. Private cigar clubs are fine by me and I think there should be standard wording available for a short-term exception contract (or call it what you will) in the case of theatrical productions. That could even be for just herbal cigs, whatever. There are some shows that really need to smoke. Hello? "Agnes of God" anyone? ::looks around:: Not in WA for the time being, I'm afraid.

[jaunthie.livejournal.com]

Yes, the ability to have exemptions for stage shows is important. Probably the same kind of warning/posting that they already have for fog machines, gunshots, and strobe lighting would be sufficient, methinks.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

I like the basic concept, and think you should be able to get a smoking license for your establishment... except that it should have to follow some fairly strict polution standards, and should be generally expensive and a bit laborious to get.

In WA as I understand it the line is drawn at places of employment. Which means that the Eagles have trouble, as they're a private club that employs people, but so far the Merc does not (as they are volunteer staffed). (Though I'm not sure if that will stand up for the long term.)

[jaunthie.livejournal.com]

Which seems somewhat backwards to me, as the Eagles are a private club, and as far as I know you have to be a member to work there. Paying your members to serve other members seems like it should be okay, as long as you're all part of the clog-up-your-lungs club.

But yes, I agree that you should be able to get a smoking license for your private club, and that getting that license should be a) costly and b) require serious filtration to keep said smoke from bothering others.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

The Merc is also a private club. And I'm pretty sure the Eagles hire non members, but perhaps I misunderstand.

I know the Austen TX smoking law requires that smoking sections be completely separate and have their own ventillation system.

[jaunthie.livejournal.com]

Having the completely separate sections with their own ventiliation system is good but hard to enforce - you need what amounts to an airlock on the doors between sections, not to mention the issues with fire codes that this can cause. And if the Eagles hire non-members, then yes, there's a problem. Given the Eagles I've known, however, it's not an insurmountable one; most of the Eagles I know have been educated drinkers enough to be able to work behind a bar (if they weren't already), and smoked like chimneys.