Smoking Ban in Public Houses

The Corinthian

To be honest, the only reason I would consider this ban a good thing is that it may force a decrease in the level of drinking in Ireland, and subsequently in both the price of a pint and late night violence.

Beyond that I think it an idiotic idea.

I’m an ex-smoker, and unlike many of my ilk (or people who have never smoked in their lives and as a result don’t have a breeze on the subject of nicotine addiction) I am not rabidly anti-smoking. I have found that going to a pub with friends and having no problem with their smoking has actually encouraged two of them to quit in the last year - notice the use of encouraged and not forced.

The manner in which some Muppets will demand that their health is at risk and then proceed to drink twelve pints followed by a kebab of dubious origins is breathtaking. When I was a smoker, I used to feel resentment towards these people in that they were not just content to deny me smoking in the same room as them (fair enough), but even the same building.

Now, as a non-smoker, I still think they’re clueless tossers - with those who were ex-smokers just overcompensating for their fear that they could get hooked again without a ban and those who never smoked in their lives just being tossers.

Introducing smoking and non-smoking pubs, where beer prices differ (an extra tax for the smoking pubs, and a cap on the non-smoking pubs) may be an option to explore, as may smoking and non-smoking areas within pubs. Blanket banning, on the other hand, appears to be another knee-jerk reaction to the issue.

Typedef

Originally posted by LizardKing
One of the main contributing factors I've found is that when I try to quit smoking , I am fine at home / work however once I set foot in a smoky pub and get some drink into me , I lose it and start craving and end up giving in as I get more drunk.

This is a very salient point I think.

Having quit smoking in 1998 after four years, I no longer feel even slightly tempted to smoke, except when I have a few beers on me, in which case I sometimes (rather worringly) find myself looking at my friends at random moments and watching them enjoy their cigarettes... and then I get tempted to have 'just one'.

I seem to remember that's how I started to begin with.

trickster

lemming what i am saying is you dont have to come along for the "ride" if you dont want to. i dont smoke but dont have a problem with people around me smoking.
more ppl in pubs are smokes than non smokers.

this is speaking from experience as I work in a pub and nightclub

the pubs will suffer a serious loss of profits, the goverment will loose out on taxes from alcahol

yea the publican will take a hit so will all the ppl who work in pubs

….as for hygiene in slaughter houses maybe you should read a book called “no logo” cant remember who by…some Canadian woman

i dont think well sort this out today...do you?

comet

The Vintners Association make me sick ......... they have made it perfectly clear that their profits are far more important than peoples health but we've known that for a long time haven't we ........ "fumble in a greasy till"

Typedef

the pubs will suffer a serious loss of profits

Boo bleeding hoo.
So what, an industry predicated on exploiting Ireland's drink problem is going to get less money, the problem being what, then exactly?

Less alocholics, less drunken voilence, less smokers to begin with, less repeat smokers, and everybody in the land of Nod having more money spend on books etc. What could be bad about that?

the goverment will loose out on taxes from alcahol

Ya, and the rest of us ™, won't have to (a) fork out to treat as much smoking related illness (b) put up with as many people being inebriated and aggressive on the street (if one accepts smoking and alochol consumption and linked) and so on.

I'm thinking one reason you would rather not see smoking banned from 'places of business' aka pubs, is that it means less revenue for you and yours, but, perhaps that's just unrestrained cynicsm.

yea the publican will take a hit so will all the ppl who work in pubs

Case and point, the nation's health supercedes your desire to get paid, sorry.

Imposter

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Re: This is going to offend loads of people...

Perceptive aren't we!

To be honest, the only reason I would consider this ban a good thing is that it may force a decrease in the level of drinking in Ireland, and subsequently in both the price of a pint and late night violence.

Another great reason for doing it.

Now, as a non-smoker, I still think they’re clueless tossers - with those who were ex-smokers just overcompensating for their fear that they could get hooked again without a ban and those who never smoked in their lives just being tossers.

I'm an ex-smoker and what you say depends on whether or not this 'ex-smoker' is really an ex-smoker or just on a break. People who just quit last week will be like you say, but those who've quit successfully (longer than a few months say) will not have the fear you speak of.

Introducing smoking and non-smoking pubs, where beer prices differ (an extra tax for the smoking pubs, and a cap on the non-smoking pubs) may be an option to explore, as may smoking and non-smoking areas within pubs. Blanket banning, on the other hand, appears to be another knee-jerk reaction to the issue.

Now at last something that makes some sense . Although I don't see the non-smoking areas as a solution, for reasons mentioned earlier.

The current system gives people who don't want a smoky environment no choice. That is the biggest problem imo.

rubadub

Originally posted by trickster
i suppose the health one is a good piont but i think ppl should be allowed to smoke if they want tooand if they know the risks of smoking.

do you think people should be allowed NOT to passively smoke in places they work too? or should the smokers have the all the rights.

welding businesses would save a fortune by not installing fume hoods and could argue that the welders should expect to work in an environment with toxic gases like you suggest barmen should if working in pubs.

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian

The manner in which some Muppets will demand that their health is at risk and then proceed to drink twelve pints followed by a kebab of dubious origins is breathtaking.

i dont give a damn if some muppet at the table beside me is drinking meths from woodies as it doesnt damage my liver only his. if it did damage my liver too albeit to a lesser degree i would complain. same goes with smoking

Trebor

I agree with the ban on smoking.

As a non-smoker who works in pubs i do not like people coming up to me ordering a drink and blowing smoke in my face.

the majority of people are non-smoking i believe, but they do not all go to pubs because they do not like the smoky atmosphere. Why should the non smoker have to sufer to enjoy a drink or chat in a pub? should it not be the people causing the problem be the ones to suffer? and in this day and age with all the proof of how bad smoking damages you why do people not want to give up?

i know people say they can't give up but they really just don't want to because the belive that the cigerette is giving them comfort or releaving stress, but it only releaves teh stress cause by smoking. trust me smokers are a lot more stressed than non smokers.

btw as a non-drinker aswell, smoke is one of the main reason for me not going to pubs, that and feeling like a sardian(sp?) in a can.

trickster

lizardking why do you go back to a pub if you know your going to start smoking again? would it not be more sensible to keep away from pubs altogether?

LizardKing

Originally posted by trickster
lizardking why do you go back to a pub if you know your going to start smoking again? would it not be more sensible to keep away from pubs altogether?

yeah and end up becoming a hermit with no mates / social life... :rolleyes:

It would be more sensible to say no when the craving starts or to leave the pub and get fresh air or something but when you've a few gargles on ya , sensibility goes out the window.

I would not let a smoky pub affect my social life however I do feel that a smoke-free pub may make it easier (for me) to keep off the evil cancerettes and in the long run thats all I want to do

trickster

"yeah and end up becoming a hermit with no mates / social life... "- lizardking

maybe the lack of other social activities is the reason people against smoking feel so strongly about this? is the pub the only real place to socialise in this country?

Imposter

This from the breaking news section of the indo.

Restaurateurs have called on the Government to make sure that proprietors will not be required to implement the proposed ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. The Restaurants Association of Ireland said the onus of responsibility should be on the individual, rather than the owner of the premises. The Government's proposed ban on smoking in all workplaces is due to come into effect on January 1st.

I can see their point up to a point but if this is listened too surely it will be abused as an excuse, when people are found smoking on the premises!

Lemming

The Restaurants Association of Ireland said the onus of responsibility should be on the individual, rather than the owner of the premises.

We already have this scenario. Let me explain.

Location: A public bus
Participants: Smoker, non-smoker.

Smoker lights up cigarette.

Non-Smoker: "Excuse me. Would you midn putting that out?"
Smoker: "F*CK OFF BEFORE I BREAK YOUR BLEEDIN' NOSE YE F*CKING B*LLOX"

Umm .. yeah ... that one'll work :rolleyes:

growler

naomi klein
and
sardine


I foresee a resurgence in the use of snuff and chewing tobacco by the crazed nicotine heads and the marketing people at Nicorette must be moist with excitement at the thought of the sales they can generate from january. Does anyone have a nicotine based drink yet, you know 2 majors blended with vodka and cranberry juice drunk through a seive !

Corinthian you obviously don't like rules, not do I as it happens, but this rule is about how a personal habit can directly affect the health of a third party so i believe it's justified.

Hopefully smoking will become such an unpleasant experience that after a few weeks of huddling outside in mid january all but the most addicted / stubborn / stupid will see sense and quit.

The publicans have been milking us for years, they may see a drop in their income in the immediate weeks following the ban but as pointed out much of our social life in ireland begins in the pub and ends in the pub (or kebab shop)

seamus

Originally posted by trickster
lemming what i am saying is you dont have to come along for the "ride" if you dont want to. i dont smoke but dont have a problem with people around me smoking.

I don't have a problem with people around me smoking either, but I think you keep missing the point.
Think about someone playing football. Some guy on the other team gets his enjoyment out of spraying urine all over the other players while he's playing. If the guy has a problem with that, he should go play somewhere else? Em..no...the guy ruining other people's enjoyment to satisfy his own is the one who has to fck off. Get the point? Smokers can still have their smoke when drinking - go outside, etc etc. But now people who don't appreciate smoke don't have to deal with it. Win-win, everyone's enjoying themselves.

But that's not the point. The point is that it's a ban on smoking in the workplace. In 99% of workplaces, where something may be dangerous to the employees health, employers must guarantee the health and safety of their employees, e.g. by supplying safety equipment, proper training, etc etc. However, smoking is dangerous to the health of pub employees, and their employers aren't obliged to do a damn thing about it. That's the reason behind the ban on smoking.

more ppl in pubs are smokes than non smokers.

this is speaking from experience as I work in a pub and nightclub

Well, I've no idea where you work, but it must be damn smokey. From my experience, the divide is 20/80 smokers/non-smokers, but it's tough to judge, since smokers tend to be in groups, so one pub may have more than another. Out of the 15 people I'd usually go out with, 2 smoke. However, I can also think of other groups of people I know where nobody smokes and where everybody smokes.

But from my experience, there are definitely less smokers than non-smokers in all pubs.

trickster

Originally posted by seamus
[Some guy on the other team gets his enjoyment out of spraying urine all over the other players

im sorry if i am missing but if 75% of players are spraying urine everywhere.....? its a kind of majority rules democratic kind of thing which brings us nicely to......



Well, I've no idea where you work, but it must be damn smokey. From my experience, the divide is 20/80 smokers/non-smokers,

But from my experience, there are definitely less smokers than non-smokers in all pubs. [/B]

i honestly find this hard to believe i would say 70-30 smokers- non smokers (at weekends). maybe it just different pubs different experiances.

somebody said earlier an irish independant survay said 70% of people are in favor. but in my opinion the ban wont come through, last less than 6 months or just not be enforced. i cant see a cop fine someone for smoking let alone try and prove it in court (DNA?)

davej

While much of this thread has been about whether or not the ban should be introduced, I think the issue of whether it can be enforced is just as important.

How can you expect a publican to tell old farmer Liam, who's been coming to his pub for the past 40 years for a few pints and a smoke with his drinking buddies to "kindly put that out please ?".
It's against the law to serve someone if they are drunk, do publicans enforce this law?

My prediction is that during the day the ban may be enforced, but once it comes to a friday night it will be a totally different story in many places. I believe an unofficial compromise may arise whereby certain pubs become known for "allowing" smoking. Johnny publican will know a few mates in the health board who will let him know when an inspector is coming and he'll enforce the ban for a day or two until the inspector is gone.

davej

seamus

Originally posted by trickster
im sorry if i am missing but if 75% of players are spraying urine everywhere.....? its a kind of majority rules democratic kind of thing which brings us nicely to......

And the crux of your argument is based on your own observation fo figures? Besides, majority only rules in democratic elections. Democracy is also built on the principle that the minority shouldn't be oppressed or harmed simply because of the wishes of the majority. Hence why this law is perfectly sound, even from your point of view.
If the footballers were spraying acid, is it still ok? People are burning horribly, but hey, if the majority want it, then fine. :rolleyes:

LizardKing

maybe the lack of other social activities is the reason people against smoking feel so strongly about this? is the pub the only real place to socialise in this country?

This thread is about Smoking Ban in Public Houses , isn't it :rolleyes:

I don't think going off topic with the lack of social activities for non-smokers is valid here. Theres plenty to do .. but in this thread talking about those other activities is not relevant.

Personally , I hope they do figure out a way to enforce the law and don't just put up "no smoking signs" etc. I can see a few pubs getting reputations like the Top Floor of the 77 or 77a , where their are plenty of no smoking signs ignored by the cream crackers down the back ... Or take the nitelink for example , people do what they want on that bus coz of drink and I've seen loadsa people locked smoking away.

I think it'll be a massive headache for the minister trying to find a realistic way to enforce this law, but I hope they still do ...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
Perceptive aren't we!

Yes. Yes I am.

I'm an ex-smoker and what you say depends on whether or not this 'ex-smoker' is really an ex-smoker or just on a break. People who just quit last week will be like you say, but those who've quit successfully (longer than a few months say) will not have the fear you speak of.

I disagree. I’ve known people who’ve been off cigarettes for years and fall off the wagon, as it were, after one cigarette. Oddly enough, the more militantly anti-smoking ones.

Although I don't see the non-smoking areas as a solution, for reasons mentioned earlier.

Perhaps not. However, I did say that we should explore such measures - I think too much knee-jerk and not enough exploration has been made with the proposed measures instead.

The current system gives people who don't want a smoky environment no choice. That is the biggest problem imo.

I would agree with you, but reversing this injustice is hardly right either.

Originally posted by rubadub
i dont give a damn if some muppet at the table beside me is drinking meths from woodies as it doesnt damage my liver only his. if it did damage my liver too albeit to a lesser degree i would complain. same goes with smoking

We have a real humanist here, I see :rolleyes:

You’re kind of missing the point I made, which was that many of those blubbering about their health are the Muppets drinking meths from woodies.

Originally posted by growler
Corinthian you obviously don't like rules, not do I as it happens, but this rule is about how a personal habit can directly affect the health of a third party so i believe it's justified.

Of course I like rules. Rules are essential to the peaceful and productive coexistence of a society. It’s what makes civilization possible. However, how we define them is not as clear-cut as you would make out.

I have never said that non-smokers should be forced to sit in smoky pubs, just that smokers should not be forced to stand outside them. A blanket ban is partisan as it is entirely biased to support one part of society while disenfranchising another.

For example, a decreasing number of firms have smoking rooms for the benefit of their employees. Smokers could go off for a cigarette to the room in question, without having to leave the building regardless of the weather, and non-smokers never had to worry about passive smoking. Both groups were catered towards.

As more firms fail to cater to this, we see more and more huddled groups of smokers forced outside, for a quick drag, regardless of the weather. Given there is a perfectly acceptable alternative; this is hardly a just approach is it?

The case for people who work in smoky environments is more complex. However, I should point out that bar staff hardly have the monopoly for working in environments that may be hazardous. So perhaps the problem should be viewed from this perspective.

Ultimately, my principle objection is against born-again non-smokers who seem to have an evangelical hatred of smokers. Their stance is all too often hypocritical and irrational - more interested in punishing smokers than solving the issues that surround smoking and nicotine addiction. Grossly punitive approaches such as blanket bans are symptomatic of this.

As I said, tossers.

rubadub

Originally posted by davej

How can you expect a publican to tell old farmer Liam, who's been coming to his pub for the past 40 years for a few pints and a smoke with his drinking buddies to "kindly put that out please ?"

same way the bus driver told old farmer mick he cant smoke on the bus on his way to town each day

growler

this ban is not a result of the loobying of puritanican born again non smokers , it's a socially progressive law designed to improve the quality of life of the majority of citizens of the country and to make the unhealthy habit of the minority less socially acceptable and more difficult to engage in.

Earlier on you applauded the ban as it might have some other positive social side effects , so you are only questioning the motivation behind it then ?

btw I am an ex-smoker , been off the 18 months, but occasionally have one to remind myself why I stopped.

Thanx 4 The Fish

and More here.

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Originally posted by rubadub
i dont give a damn if some muppet at the table beside me is drinking meths from woodies as it doesnt damage my liver only his. if it did damage my liver too albeit to a lesser degree i would complain. same goes with smoking

---

We have a real humanist here, I see

You’re kind of missing the point I made, which was that many of those blubbering about their health are the Muppets drinking meths from woodies.

i wasnt disagreeing with you. i have seen it too and was amused by it, but in the opposite way. guys in work sucking on cigarretes complaining about fumes from paint. i just think if people want to cause harm to themselves they should be entitled to, but not to others. if i went into a pub and started sucking on a canister of toxic gas to get a buzz im sure i would be thrown out especially if people around me started coughing and it was causing them harm.

if heroin or crack was made legal do you think people would mind people smoking it in pubs, bear in mind that nicotine is MORE addictive than heroin or crack.

think about why it is fundamentally wrong
i am legally allowed to cut my hand and cause myself physical harm
i am NOT legally allowed to cut your hand and cause you physical harm

i am legally allowed to smoke and cause myself physical harm
i am ALSO legally allowed to inflict smoke on you and cause you physical harm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by growler
this ban is not a result of the loobying of puritanican born again non smokers , it's a socially progressive law designed to improve the quality of life of the majority of citizens of the country and to make the unhealthy habit of the minority less socially acceptable and more difficult to engage in.

“Socially progressive laws”?

/me plays a copy of Horst Wessel Lied on mp3 :rolleyes:

Earlier on you applauded the ban as it might have some other positive social side effects , so you are only questioning the motivation behind it then ?

I accepted the irony of some altruistic by-products coming from it. The only motivation that I’m questioning is the humanitarian one.

btw I am an ex-smoker , been off the 18 months, but occasionally have one to remind myself why I stopped.

I was a smoker for 14 years and smoked thirty a day when I quit. I don’t touch cigarettes anymore (I don’t think I could take a drag), but will have the occasional cigar, to remind myself that I still can.

Imposter

Originally posted by growler
this ban is not a result of the loobying of puritanican born again non smokers , it's a socially progressive law designed to improve the quality of life of the majority of citizens of the country and to make the unhealthy habit of the minority less socially acceptable and more difficult to engage in.

I agree. And the next thing to be tackled by the same reasoning is the noise, crime and general nuisance caused by people coming out of these same smoke-free pubs.


Corinthian:

I would agree with you, but reversing this injustice is hardly right either.

It's not really reversing the injustice as the nicotine worshippers can still have their fix outside on the lovely sunny footpaths/carparks. Failing that the wet, soggy, miserable footpaths/carparks.

I understand what your saying about blanket bans not being workable but publicans won't deal with the situation, smoker's won't quit and barstaff seemingly have a big problem with it. As a result the government has to deal with the problem.

And i'm not being a smartärse here but i'll really be glad when cigars are banned. The smell of them really turns my stomach. Cigarettes aren't as bad as they're smell is not so overwhelming.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
It's not really reversing the injustice as the nicotine worshippers can still have their fix outside on the lovely sunny footpaths/carparks. Failing that the wet, soggy, miserable footpaths/carparks.

And with that you just lost any semblance at having the moral high ground.

And i'm not being a smartärse here but i'll really be glad when cigars are banned. The smell of them really turns my stomach. Cigarettes aren't as bad as they're smell is not so overwhelming.

I have the same problem with Gypsies. Can we ban them too?

Imposter

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And with that you just lost any semblance at having the moral high ground.

I have the same problem with Gypsies. Can we ban them too?

Aye, moral high ground and all that!:rolleyes:

What I was hinting at with the first bit was that smokers can have a cig once the new laws are in, albeit outside. Currently the person who wants a smoke free environment to drink, won't find this in a pub. And afaik drinking outside (on the street anyway) is illegal (before someone replies).

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
Aye, moral high ground and all that!:rolleyes:

What I was hinting at with the first bit was that smokers can have a cig once the new laws are in, albeit outside. Currently the person who wants a smoke free environment to drink, won't find this in a pub. And afaik drinking outside (on the street anyway) is illegal (before someone replies).

So you think that regardless of the weather, smokers should be forced to stand outside to smoke?

Remember when I was talking about those people who seemingly have an "evangelical hatred of smokers" and favour "grossly punitive approaches such as blanket bans" earlier?

Well, now we both know who I was talking about, don't we? :rolleyes: