Mike O'Sullivan

"[email protected]" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > John Bermont wrote in message
news:...
    > > This law is certainly uncharacteristic of the tolerant Dutch. I can't
    > > imagine going into a cafe for a beer and not seeing a cloud of smoke,
    > > including that from my Dutch cigar.
    > >
    > Yes...
    > Main reason behind it is that every employee in the country has the
    > right to a smoke-free working enviroment.

Well, he has the right to decide for himself, as an adult with free will,
whether to work in a smoking establishment, or to find a non-smoking one.

Go Fig

In article ,
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote:

    > "[email protected]" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > John Bermont wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > > This law is certainly uncharacteristic of the tolerant Dutch. I can't
    > > > imagine going into a cafe for a beer and not seeing a cloud of smoke,
    > > > including that from my Dutch cigar.
    > > >
    > > Yes...
    > >
    > > Main reason behind it is that every employee in the country has the
    > > right to a smoke-free working enviroment.
    >
    > Well, he has the right to decide for himself, as an adult with free will,
    > whether to work in a smoking establishment, or to find a non-smoking one.
    >
    >

You would think... but not so in the U.S. They are victims.

jay
Thu, Jun 5, 2003
mailto:[email protected]

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Sjoerd

"[email protected]" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > John Bermont wrote in message
news:...
    > > This law is certainly uncharacteristic of the tolerant Dutch. I can't
    > > imagine going into a cafe for a beer and not seeing a cloud of smoke,
    > > including that from my Dutch cigar.
    > >
    > Yes...
    > Main reason behind it is that every employee in the country has the
    > right to a smoke-free working enviroment.
    > I dunno about this one. Few possible outcomes.
    > 1. a lot of cafes go out of business.
    > 2. the law doesn't make it
    > 3. it will include a loophole somewhere, perhaps having the staff sign
    > waivers or something.
    > We'll just have to wait and see.

Most likely, common sense will prevail, and option 2 or 3 will materialise.

Sjoerd

Lennart Petersen

"Sjoerd" skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > > Main reason behind it is that every employee in the country has the
    > > right to a smoke-free working enviroment.
    > >
    > > I dunno about this one. Few possible outcomes.
    > > 1. a lot of cafes go out of business.
    > > 2. the law doesn't make it
    > > 3. it will include a loophole somewhere, perhaps having the staff sign
    > > waivers or something.
    > > We'll just have to wait and see.
    > Most likely, common sense will prevail, and option 2 or 3 will
materialise.
    > Sjoerd
Don't think so in the end. We have laws protecting labour from health and
security risks which can't be waived away. Would you suggest a law where
miners are allowed to waive the security rules
when their employer have left them with a such choice or no earning at all ?
Tobacco smoke includes some toxic totally banned elsewhere and an employer
exposing his staff with such things are likely to get hefty fines or jail.
Only restaurants and restaurant staff are excluded but why ?

Devil

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:28:30 +0000, Go Fig wrote:

    > In article ,
    > [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote:
    >
    >> Mxsmanic wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > [email protected] writes:
    >> >
    >> > > They fear that this may lead to a major drop in visitor numbers.
    >> >
    >> > Are drugs that important to tourism?
    >>
    >> I think you may have misread me. I ment a drop in visitors to all
    >> bars, cafes and even restaurants.
    >> Sjoerd has probably seen the discussion in the media as well.
    >>
    >>
    >> Jeroen
    >
    > Just wait a few years when you have an EU federal Gov. telling you what
    > to doÅ


You mean, someone like JW, right?

Devil

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 17:50:54 +0000, Go Fig wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "Mike O'Sullivan" wrote:
    >
    >> "[email protected]" wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > John Bermont wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > > This law is certainly uncharacteristic of the tolerant Dutch. I can't
    >> > > imagine going into a cafe for a beer and not seeing a cloud of smoke,
    >> > > including that from my Dutch cigar.
    >> > >
    >> > Yes...
    >> >
    >> > Main reason behind it is that every employee in the country has the
    >> > right to a smoke-free working enviroment.
    >>
    >> Well, he has the right to decide for himself, as an adult with free will,
    >> whether to work in a smoking establishment, or to find a non-smoking one.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > You would think... but not so in the U.S. They are victims.

Sophistry.

What that really translates into often will be a choice between working in
a smokey environment and not working at all.

(Talk to these guys who worked in asbestos mines etc. Ask them what
their choice was.)

Devil

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:36:36 +0200, Sjoerd wrote:

    >
    > "[email protected]" schreef in bericht
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> John Bermont wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> > This law is certainly uncharacteristic of the tolerant Dutch. I can't
    >> > imagine going into a cafe for a beer and not seeing a cloud of smoke,
    >> > including that from my Dutch cigar.
    >> >
    >> Yes...
    >> Main reason behind it is that every employee in the country has the
    >> right to a smoke-free working enviroment.
    >> I dunno about this one. Few possible outcomes.
    >> 1. a lot of cafes go out of business.
    >> 2. the law doesn't make it
    >> 3. it will include a loophole somewhere, perhaps having the staff sign
    >> waivers or something.
    >> We'll just have to wait and see.
    >
    > Most likely, common sense will prevail, and option 2 or 3 will materialise.

What about option 4? That people recognize that inflicting one's smoke
upon others should not be a right but at best a privilege?

With the law making it and people accepting the idea that smoking in an
enclosed environment is disrepectful of the employees and other customers.

Mxsmanic

Go Fig writes:

    > Just wait a few years when you have an EU federal
    > Gov. telling you what to do¦

Better still, you'll have both an EU government and a local national
government telling you what to do. A new record in history, in terms of
levels of bureaucracy. And every national head of state will be
salivating over the prospect of being appointed head of the European
superstate (since there won't be any direct representation or elections,
of course).


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

Anonymouse writes:

    > they're a HUGE draw.

Remind me never to go to Amsterdam, then. I'm not too keen on spending
my time in the company of dopers.


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

Go Fig writes:

    > You would think... but not so in the U.S.
    > They are victims.

They chose to become addicted.


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Sjoerd

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > Anonymouse writes:
    > > they're a HUGE draw.
    > Remind me never to go to Amsterdam, then. I'm not too keen on spending
    > my time in the company of dopers.

No need to remind you. You already posted many times that you don't travel
anywhere anyway.

Sjoerd

Miguel Cruz

devil wrote:
    > What about option 4? That people recognize that inflicting one's smoke
    > upon others should not be a right but at best a privilege?
    > With the law making it and people accepting the idea that smoking in an
    > enclosed environment is disrepectful of the employees and other customers.

But in this case we're talking about places that only exist so people can
smoke in them - it's a little different from an ordinary bar.

The customers obviously aren't being vicitmized here; they're making their
own decisions.

And the staff will lose their jobs, which is presumably worse than merely
choosing to quit their jobs because they didn't like the smoke.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Maldives, Dubai and Vietnam

Jim Ley

On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 05:57:20 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    >devil wrote:
    >> What about option 4? That people recognize that inflicting one's smoke
    >> upon others should not be a right but at best a privilege?
    >> With the law making it and people accepting the idea that smoking in an
    >> enclosed environment is disrepectful of the employees and other customers.
    >But in this case we're talking about places that only exist so people can
    >smoke in them - it's a little different from an ordinary bar.
    >The customers obviously aren't being vicitmized here; they're making their
    >own decisions.
    >And the staff will lose their jobs, which is presumably worse than merely
    >choosing to quit their jobs because they didn't like the smoke.

Yes, but surely coffee and cake shops, will give all the same benefits
of a coffee shop only without the smoking dependancy?

Jim.

Anonymouse

    >>>>>They fear that this may lead to a major drop in visitor numbers.
    >>>>Are drugs that important to tourism?
    >>>I think you may have misread me. I ment a drop in visitors to all
    >>>bars, cafes and even restaurants.
    >>>Sjoerd has probably seen the discussion in the media as well.

Hi,

heck there was a long piece on the whole smoking issue on Radio
Netherlands saturday night.

but knowing the dutch attitude on things I'm guessing there will finally
be some requirement for "no smoking areas" in bars and coffee shop...
and that will be the table in front of the toilet with the sign saying
"non smoking" right next to the ashtray.

    >>Just wait a few years when you have an EU federal Gov. telling you what
    >>to do?

    > You mean, someone like JW, right?

JW?

I have no idea.

from my perspective the EU is heading down the same road the US did...

under the Constitution the US is supposed to have a weak, limited
central federal government with only those powers specifically granted
to it by the States with ALL other powers being reserved to the States
(see 10th amendment) which worked well until the 1860s... and has been
going downhill fast since the 1930s.

and just to be fair it was the Republicans who ignored the Constitution
in 1861 and the Democrats who ignored it in the 30s.

interesting in that both had issues involving federal controls on
intrastate trade... which the federal government doesn't have
jurisdiction over.



--
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted,
and I won't be layed a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people,
and I require the same from them"
J.B. Books (John Wayne)

Anonymouse

Hi,

well stay out of the american workplace too then.

did you know it is common practice in the US for employers to supply
workers with addictive stimulant drugs? and employers often supply areas
for other drug addicts to "fix" several times a day?

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Anonymouse writes:
    >
    >
    >>they're a HUGE draw.
    >
    >
    > Remind me never to go to Amsterdam, then. I'm not too keen on spending
    > my time in the company of dopers.
    >
    >


--
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted,
and I won't be layed a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people,
and I require the same from them"
J.B. Books (John Wayne)