Salsa City Forum » News and Chat » Ban on Smoking in Public Places

A couple of points, Wizzy:

I only "started up again" because someone else did.

You were the one who brought up party politics by accusing those who disagreed with you of being on the "Lefty labour bandwagon" (whatever that is - I'm not a Labour voter). One of the things I like about salsa is that I can have a great time with people without having any idea what their politics are.

I didn't bother responding to your point about aircraft emissions because it was completely irrelevant: you're talking about two different kinds of pollution in two different places.

This is my final post on this thread because the topic looks as if it's in danger of descending into personal abuse - and whatever my disagreements with you on this topic I don't particularly want to fall out with another Cardiff dancer over online comments. (I've already managed to do that once...)

Sue, Tenby is fine!

Awwww come on... You don't know me, I don't know you (I'm trying to work it out though) This is fun ;-)

Sue - Tenby is for old people ;-) and there's no salsa.

Wizzy, I think you make a great point, made with great humour and which is also relevant to the smoking debate and possibly more so. If people are going to use the word pollution and talk about their right to clean air when arguing for a ban on smoking in night clubs, they should think hard about the point you raise.

It's amazing that people are so focussed on their tiny little private spaces and how bad for their health it is to have others 'polluting' the air they breathe. As if it was their property and not a freely available resource that we all need, use and pollute in various ways!

Mother nature anyhow, reabsorbs it, alters it's chemistry and sends it back into the environment, cleaned for the benefit of all. Smokers, if they were to puff away for a billion more years wouldn't impact on that process whatsoever.

People taking flights, driving oversized vehicles SUV's for the school run etc, are however, impacting on the environment and consequently on the health of everyone on the planet, let alone a small room full of people. Imagine the impact for say, someone living in the Maldives which won't exist within a hundred years if sea levels continue to rise or drought affected regions of the world where people may literally lose their lives as a result of this very serious kind of pollution. Do you suppose the anti smoking lobby will now stop using these forms of transport? Will they argue for the sake & health of all, for a complete ban on Western lifestyle and transport pollution? It's exactly the same argument is it not? That a minority of people are ruining the health and lifestyle of the majority! I somehow think they won't.

But here's something they could spend as much energy in arguing for... the creation of non-smoking Salsa venues with clear rules of entry. That would be a democratic and reasonable way of obtaining some extra choice regarding Salsa and their desire to have a smoke free environment. And with a clear rule of entry anyone found ignoring the rule could be removed by the doorstaff.

I have to say that in ten years of promoting Salsa I have never once been approached by anyone with a view to my starting a non-smoking Salsa night. Yet I have read tons of threads on this issue with many people arguing that smokers should be banned from smoking in nightclubs.

Imagine if the anti-smoking lobby of the Salsa scene, which in this country is a small minority of people as part of the overall nightclub scene, managed to get their wish and ban smoking in all nightclubs for all people. It's probably unlikely to happen but I believe it would be profoundly undemocratic.

I believe the only reasonable and fair solution is the creation of two types of Salsa night one for smokers and one for non-smokers. There would then be a clear choice and everyone would presumably be happy.

Like it or not, a universal public-place smoking ban is coming, and it can't come soon enough for me.

Regarding the general-pollution versus cigarette-smoke pollution side-issue: if you have a big problem and a smaller problem, no sensible person says you can't try to solve the smaller problem before you solve the big problem.

The issue of workplace-safety is what will finally drive the nail into the coffin of smoking in bars. Nobody should have "breathing a toxic atmosphere" as a condition of their employment. So it's either ban smoking in bars or provide the barstaff with some protection.

You see TB... It wasn't me this time... I was happy to let it go but Nooooo - god it's like an episode of Jerry Springer without the "White-Trash from the Trailor Park"

God I love this - Go Jerry, go Jerry

And now we've got employment as an issue... This is easy to deal with. If you don't like heights, don't operate a high-rise crane, If you don't like smoke... Don't work in a bar. Simple. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA - voluntary assumption of the risk. It's a Bar, it's dirty, smoky and dark and that's how people want it. Next thing you'll want to do is ban alcohol because drunk people get violent and might hit you damaging you health that way. What a sad old nanny state we live in.

Over to you Hugh / TB sure you'll have an opinion on this one! ;-) lol

One shouldn't have to assume an unnecessary risk. Hardly anyone works in a bar because it's his life's ambition; one shouldn't have to put one's health at risk to make a few badly-needed quid.

Most people in most bars do not want them to be smoky; remember, non-smokers are in the majority.

There's a whole industry devoted to keeping customers and bar-staff safe from drunks (those fat guys dressed in black) we should be safe from cigarette smoke too.

OK Hugh in reply to your thread 3 or 4 places removed...

You may well be correct in assuming that one day a draconian law that restricts the freedom of choice completely for one group of people will be introduced by people who believe in the imposition of their ideas upon another.

The problem with your argument over general-pollution versus cigarette-pollution is that a bar is a closed and sometimes controlled environment and people have a choice whether or not they are subject to the effects upon their health that entering that environment entails. Whereas they have no choice as to the pollution of the global environment except to act responsibly within it themselves. And if you accept as your post implies that they both are forms of pollution and give rise to health problems (although one is not globally dangerous whilst the other is) then the principle is the same and you must therefore accept, and should lobby for, a ban on both.

I wonder what is the capacity of the engine of the car you drive? In the interest of public health and safety, would it not be better to use a pushbike for your transport? It is a fact as I'm sure you are aware, that there is clear evidence that traffic pollution has a marked effect on the health and well being especially of children for example. It is hypocritical to argue for a total ban on smoking in the interest of public health whilst continuing to drive a car or take a flight.

Although I fear the issue of work place safety will, if a ban comes, be the excuse used by the anti smoking lobby; it is also a red herring as no one is forced to accept a job in this country that they don't wish to take. People are well aware that working in a nightclub environment is likely to expose them to differing levels of air pollution. Although in venues that have a non-smoking policy this problem wouldn't arise would it?

Whilst smoking is a legal activity it is once again a question of choice. And I cannot, for the life of me understand what is wrong with allowing people that freedom. No one person could possibly frequent all the bars, clubs & restaurants etc. on the planet. So why on earth is it a necessity to ban smokers from exercising their choice unless you have a grudge against them as a group and want to be vindictive towards them.

Once again I repeat, that most bars and clubs are not public places! They are usually private establishments that you enter, accepting certain rules of entry. I agree whole heartedly that public places, where there is often no choice, are places where a smoking ban is justifiable but that is a completely different argument to banning smoking in clubs.

Wizzy for president.

For what it's worth, I'd happily go outside to induldge my nicotine addiction at a salsa night. If I'm hot and sweaty from dancing the cool night air would probably feel very good anyway!

It's a bit untrue to say that everyone working in a bar can find work elsewhere. There's officially full employment in Cardiff (that means there is a statistically insignificant difference between the number of available jobs and the number of unemployed) but that's not so everywhere, and for some people bar work is the only work they can get, or the only work they can do that fits around their other unbreakable commitments, whether that be family, studying or whatever.

i'm glad there is no smokin in the salsa classes as im not a smoker and i wouldn't like to dance with a smoker as the smell is horrible.

I'm not a smoker either and i'm not too keen on the whole smoke thing... I can tolerate if someone's been smoking and stuff... its just when your right up to it and the air is full of smoke, thats when it gets a bit bad. Plus your doing something energetic so you need all the oxygen ya can get :)

Theres a bar called Dewis (Where the old Springbok cafe was) which is a fully non-smoking bar. It's quite a plesant place, tho I haven't been when its busy.

picture