Smoking Ban in Public Houses

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
i don't consider it the same principle, if people can't control the level of alchoal that they consume then there should be guidelines stating and enforced that stops them drinking to much in public.

Of course it is. Alcohol is detrimental to one’s health, addictive and leads to numerous social ills when abused.

with regards to you stating that we all have some vice that will cost the health service money i then offered a solution when the only person who needs treatment is the person who smokes and not those who have to endure passive smoking.

Well, you’ve obviously never paid tax then...

AFAIK smokers are addicted to nicotine and not cig's so how is offering them nicotine not a choice but "the same thing dressed up differently"

Not as simple as that. Gum, patches, etc. are all inferior substitutes, and realistically are only of use as assistance if one decides to quit. I’d assume you’ve never been a smoker then?

rubadub

Originally posted by bonkey
Then it is only reasonable to assume that being with his smoking mates is more important to the non-smoker than his concerns about his health.

yes, he probably does value his leisure time more than the detrimental effect his socialising has on health. he is in the pub drinking poison for enjoyment causing damage to his health. he probably would like not having smoke further harming him though, just not as much as being with friends though.

Originally posted by bonkey
And yet it is these second-string health reasons that are the reasons for a blanket ban?

it is a ban on smoking in the workplace and i think they fear if they let some workplaces be "smoking" then youll get the likes of say an insurance firm asking why they cant have smoking in their workplace.

Originally posted by bonkey
Given a choice - every day of the week - he non-smokers choose to sit in the smoky environments - placing health concerns secondary to being with their mates. Then, when something like this comes up...its their mates fault and they support the law to give them the clean air they have already chosen to not have.

what is their mates fault? that the law is being passed? in that survey the majority have supported the law "to give them the clean air they have already chosen to not have", if the majority's logic confuses you its not my problem or theirs. i have tried to explain the logic, it makes perfect sense to me. it seems you are putting the nonsmokers on trial and trying to catch them out on their apparently contradictory actions, problem is they arent on trial and any flaws you point out wont change the laws or their minds. they arent politicians who have to try and come up with decent answer, they'll say "you are right, so what"

Originally posted by bonkey
Of course non-smokers see it as a win-win.......becase smoker's don't deserve any better. Filthy habit.

as opposed to lose-lose? do you think smokers think nonsmokers "dont derserve any better", or is it just nonsmokers who are inconsiderate of others?

Originally posted by bonkey
there is still no explanation of why - instead of a blanket ban - an air-level quality control couldnt be brought in.

the practical air filtration technology is simply not out there yet. it removes smoke particles but not toxic gases. if a pub installed a system which met the requirements it would be like a gale force wind in the pub.

Originally posted by bonkey

And if your mates can't handle or fully enjoy a night out without smoking, and decide to stay at home more often and have a few beers and smokes there....will you continue to sit in their smoky atmosphere at home or will you make use of your new clean smokeless pubs???

yes i will stay in at home with my mates who smoke if thats what everybodys up to. i often go to clubs and pubs i dont particularly like, just comprimising really. at the moment if my mates can't handle or fully enjoy a night out WITH smoking, and decide to stay at home more often and have a few beers with NO smoke there....i would sit in with them too.

the pubs that are going to win BIG TIME are those with beer gardens, id say those publicans cant wait.

many nonsmokers and smokers will also enjoy additinoal 10minute breaks during the working day too which many companies are going to give

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Of course it is. Alcohol is detrimental to one’s health, addictive and leads to numerous social ills when abused.

yes but most of those effects are on the idividual and not on those sitting beside them.

Well, you’ve obviously never paid tax then...

hmm i believe i have and i would prefere to only have to pay for one person to be treated for smoking releated illness than a roomfull

hell i would be willing to pay more income tax if they banned smoking!

Not as simple as that. Gum, patches, etc. are all inferior substitutes, and realistically are only of use as assistance if one decides to quit. I’d assume you’ve never been a smoker then?

well then now would be the perfect opportunity for a stronger variation to be sold as it just the smoke we want gone.
would you be willing to use them in pubs? those nicotine pipes that you can get but with the same level of nicotine in them as that's in cig's?
and yes i was a smoker but only for a year and i was only a teenager so it was easy for me to quit.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by rubadub
he is in the pub drinking poison for enjoyment causing damage to his health. he probably would like not having smoke further harming him though, just not as much as being with friends though.

Christ, you’re a real barrel of laughs...

as opposed to lose-lose? do you think smokers think nonsmokers "dont derserve any better", or is it just nonsmokers who are inconsiderate of others?

This, and what bonkey highlighted, seems to epitomize your opinion, that there is a winner and a loser in all of this. Your motivation remains one of confrontation; of punishment or revenge, so no one should be surprised of your conviction, but neither should anyone bother to legitimise your prejudice by arguing to deaf ears.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
yes but most of those effects are on the idividual and not on those sitting beside them.

What do you call the effects on others that alcoholism produces in families, at work, etc?

hmm i believe i have and i would prefere to only have to pay for one person to be treated for smoking releated illness than a roomfull

What about a room full of people with STD’s, or teenage mothers, or a ward of people with cirrhosis of the liver? Should we not stamp out the causes for these by the same logic?

hell i would be willing to pay more income tax if they banned smoking!

Ironically, with the loss of revenue from the tax on tobacco products, you probably would.

would you be willing to use them in pubs? those nicotine pipes that you can get but with the same level of nicotine in them as that's in cig's?
and yes i was a smoker but only for a year and i was only a teenager so it was easy for me to quit.

They don’t work quite like that. As an ex-smoker (of considerably more than one year and as an adult) I can inform you of that.

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What do you call the effects on others that alcoholism produces in families, at work, etc?

well then surly if the effects are violent the family will turn that person over to the police or some form of rehab, having come from a family which had an alcohoalic for a father i just distanced myself from him and led my life the way i wanted without him in it.(he was not abusive so what he did to himself was his choice)

What about a room full of people with STD’s, or teenage mothers, or a ward of people with cirrhosis of the liver? Should we not stamp out the causes for these by the same logic?

well seeing as the people with STD's would be taxpayers at some stage of their lives then they would have paid for it by paying tax, teenage mothers will have to pay tax when they work as will the child so then yes the are entitled to treatment and support.

but with smoke, people smoking in a pub could have serious effects on those who work there which means that for every one smoker their would need to be treatment for 2-3 others aswell. each one of your examples is a solidary problem caused by a choice and not by being in the same room

Ironically, with the loss of revenue from the tax on tobacco products, you probably would.

They don’t work quite like that. As an ex-smoker (of considerably more than one year and as an adult) I can inform you of that.

then i will gladly pay it.

what way do they work then? they give a dose of nicotine and give you somthing to have in your hand all that is needed is to increase the dossage per capsule that you put in them

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
well then surly if the effects are violent the family will turn that person over to the police or some form of rehab, having come from a family which had an alcohoalic for a father i just distanced myself from him and led my life the way i wanted without him in it.(he was not abusive so what he did to himself was his choice)

You legally cannot in most cases put someone in rehab. Nonetheless, this still does not explain the inconsistency in your argument.

well seeing as the people with STD's would be taxpayers at some stage of their lives then they would have paid for it by paying tax, teenage mothers will have to pay tax when they work as will the child so then yes the are entitled to treatment and support.

And smokers don’t pay tax?

but with smoke, people smoking in a pub could have serious effects on those who work there which means that for every one smoker their would need to be treatment for 2-3 others aswell. each one of your examples is a solidary problem caused by a choice and not by being in the same room

You’re introducing a new argument (pub workers’ health) now. And again, none of my examples is a self-contained problem, and I’ve already given examples as to why not.

then i will gladly pay it.

Good for you. Will you pay my share of the increase too?

growler

posted by corinthian

What do you call the effects on others that alcoholism produces in families, at work, etc

that is really stretching it , the fumes from a pint in no way compares to the proven damage inhaling second hand smoke does. Alcohol causes all kinds of social and personal problems , but sitting in the pub or in the presence of booze does not directly induce liver damge or any other direct health risk to a third party , smoke does.

The loss in tax revenue will eventually be negated by the reduced costs of health care for dying ex-smoker cancer victims.

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Christ, you’re a real barrel of laughs...

i think it was maybe you or someone else who was saying something similar a while back, along the lines of they are harming themselves with drink so why complain about smoking too. im simply saying maybe they dont care too much about their health but dont want totally unneccesary health risks which give them no enjoyment at all.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
This, and what bonkey highlighted, seems to epitomize your opinion, that there is a winner and a loser in all of this. Your motivation remains one of confrontation; of punishment or revenge, so no one should be surprised of your conviction, but neither should anyone bother to legitimise your prejudice by arguing to deaf ears.

many of the pro smokers here seem to think nonsmokers have no consideration for others while thinking smokers should have every right to smoke where they want. that it is in fact wrong for a nonsmoker to be in a win-win situation but it is fine for a smoker to be in a win-win situation. ive answered your persistant "revenge and punishment" theory previously, are you sure its just tobacco youre smoking? you seem very paranoid

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You legally cannot in most cases put someone in rehab. Nonetheless, this still does not explain the inconsistency in your argument.

And smokers don’t pay tax?

You’re introducing a new argument (pub workers’ health) now. And again, none of my examples is a self-contained problem, and I’ve already given examples as to why not.

Good for you. Will you pay my share of the increase too?

what inconsistency would that be?
i have said that smoking has a direct health risk to those around it.
the other examples that you gave where all illnesses or issues that are caused by one person making a choice that will only effect them.
with regards to secondary effects caused by drinking, the likes of abusive families, drink driving and unsoical behavior, all of this is dealt with by the police and/or social services so there is already policies in place for them but none for smoke.

smokers do pay tax which is why i said that only one person, i.e. themsleves, will need treatment and not the other people around them.

emm this entire artical is about pub workers health and it is what i have been aiming most of my arguments at as they are the ones who are in the smoke envoirnment for 20-30 years causing them to develope smoking releated illnesses even if they do not smoke.

Samara

I am a non-smoker and a drinker. It makes my blood boil to hear people coming out with comments akin to if they don't like the smoke they shouldn't come into the pubs. I won't have anybody dictate my movements!! If I want to go and hear a band in a pub I'm going to go and that's that! As for preaching the evils of drink...please!! Somebody going out once or twice a week for a few drinks is not in any immediate danger, alcohol in moderation is not life threatening and in copious amounts only directly affects the health of the drinker. The whole drinking issue is an entirely different matters and these continued references serve only to cloud the real issue. Also not everybody who goes to pubs are drinkers so what about them! I know many people who will happily drink minerals all night enjoying the entertainment and company.

The facts are that passive smoking does cause deaths or at very least increase the probability of death via heart disease and lung cancer!! Or does anybody have evidence to the contrary?

Yet non-smokers still go to pubs - why?? To socialise and unwind, to hear good bands, to be with their friends regardless of whether they may or may not smoke. I have been in many pubs where I have ended up with my eyes stinging and throat burning due to excessive smoke. The discomfort is appalling and in these cases, yes I do leave the pubs but the point is I shouldn't have to! I don't choose to smoke for health reasons as well as an intense dislike for the smell of my clothes and hair after being in a smokey room, yet these are unavoidable unless I lock myself in my room as some people would seem to suggest I do in order to avoid health risks!!

The only other feasible option to a ban is health and safety in conjunction with the government coming up with some way to improve and enforce an adequate extraction systems in the pubs which I'm sure wouldn't make our friendly publicans happy either as that would also cost them a lot of money!!!

Imposter

Corinthian,

Do you agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace? If not would you have a problem with someone constantly smoking beside you?

Personally I feel that barstaff know that they will be in a smoky environment and as such I don't really understand their concerns. They can always get a different job.

But if pubs are given a special exemption to the smoking in the workplace rule then who do non-smokers petition for a smoke free place where they can go if they wish? As someone else mentioned earlier going to the government is the only real option.

Are publicans going to ensure a certain air quality without being forced into it? No they're not.

Are you trying to say everything is fine at the moment or what do you think can/should be done?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by growler
that is really stretching it , the fumes from a pint in no way compares to the proven damage inhaling second hand smoke does.

Huh... That’s taking me a bit too literally...

The loss in tax revenue will eventually be negated by the reduced costs of health care for dying ex-smoker cancer victims.

What about their cost in state pensions, old age, etc if this excess population didn’t die (and conveniently just before they stop being productive)? OK, let’s not go there... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by rubadub
many of the pro smokers here seem to think nonsmokers have no consideration for others while thinking smokers should have every right to smoke where they want.

I’m neither pro or anti smokers. My point that the issue should not be viewed as one of being either pro or anti smokers, and to this end I’ve played Devils Advocate.

You’re the one who’s concerned with such labels.

Originally posted by Trebor
with regards to secondary effects caused by drinking, the likes of abusive families, drink driving and unsoical behavior, all of this is dealt with by the police and/or social services so there is already policies in place for them but none for smoke.

Then why are you treating the secondary effects of smoking in a manner inconsistent with the above?

smokers do pay tax which is why i said that only one person, i.e. themsleves, will need treatment and not the other people around them.

What about the cost of the police and/or social services to deal with secondary effects of those other issues?

Either you treat similar problems in a similar manner, otherwise you have to ask why you wish to treat some problems one way and others in an inconsistent fashion. To explain this point any more clearly now, would require finger puppets.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
Do you agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace? If not would you have a problem with someone constantly smoking beside you?

I wouldn't like someone constantly smoking beside me, but as I said in a previous post that does not preclude the facilitation of a smoking room, where applicable.

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian

I’m neither pro or anti smokers. My point that the issue should not be viewed as one of being either pro or anti smokers, and to this end I’ve played Devils Advocate.

and i agree with you on this stance, i may be anti-smkoing but i see that the needs of the smoker need to be taken into aswell which is why i offered that alternatives could be found for them to get nicotine without smoke.

Then why are you treating the secondary effects of smoking in a manner inconsistent with the above?

but i am asking that they be dealt with in the same way, if someone smokes in a public place they should be fined and/or arressted just as a person who is drunk and attacks someone or causes some unsoical behavior type crime that they get arressted.
how is that inconsistent? i am saying that if people want to put nicotine in their bodies then let them do so but do it in a way that does not effect me or the staff.

What about the cost of the police and/or social services to deal with secondary effects of those other issues?

they are already paid for by the large tax that is placed on drink

Either you treat similar problems in a similar manner, otherwise you have to ask why you wish to treat some problems one way and others in an inconsistent fashion. To explain this point any more clearly now, would require finger puppets.

then bring on the finger puppets as i believe that we are treating it inconsistently at the moment and this new law will help see it being dealt with like drink

Imposter

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I wouldn't like someone constantly smoking beside me, but as I said in a previous post that does not preclude the facilitation of a smoking room, where applicable.

And that is not applicable to pubs for a number of reasons. As can been seen from the discussion here there doesn't seem to be any obvious solution to the problem in the case of pubs. Other workplaces, fine , a smoking room would be a solution. But in a pub the problem lies with the customers wanting to smoke there.

Add that to the reasons why a smoky pub is good for a publican and nothing will be done about it unless the publican is forced into it. I do think though that this law should be coming in because of the customer and not for the reasons of the staff's health as I've eluded to before.

rubadub

if people drinking alcohol in the same room as others caused nondrinkers physical harm then i would also think drinking should be either banned from resturaunts, or they should have totally separate drinking rooms, adequately separated so that no physical harm could be caused to non-drinkers. i would think alcohol should still be served in pubs since it is their primary function and people entering will know the risk they face. similar with cigarettes, i would have no problem if public smoking houses were opened.

i think people should have the right to physically harm themselves but this right should never supersede the right of others not to have physical harm inflicted on them, would anybody disagree with that?

i always thought it strange that people are allowed use drugs in the workplace in the first place, if i claim to be an alcoholic and need just 1 or 2 pints during the day, not enough to affect my work, i dont think my boss would be impressed, yet he allows other drug addicts use drugs, a lot of paid time is used up by employees to take drugs. it will be interesting to see if many companies will give drug taking breaks to employees and how long/frequent, and if these breaks will be given to all employees or just drug users.

Trebor

Originally posted by Imposter
I do think though that this law should be coming in because of the customer and not for the reasons of the staff's health as I've eluded to before.

they would not be able to get it passed if it was based on focing customers to not smoke in pubs as the smoker's lobbying the government would just say that it is the choice of the people to go into a pub so they choose to be in a smoky envoirnment.

but seeing as the no smoking in the work place has already gone through then all they had to do was push that it is in the best interest of the staff like every other company they forced to abide by it.

Executive Steve

fianna fail care about our health soooo much they want to make our lives misery... c u n t s.

Imposter

Originally posted by Trebor
they would not be able to get it passed if it was based on focing customers to not smoke in pubs as the smoker's lobbying the government would just say that it is the choice of the people to go into a pub so they choose to be in a smoky envoirnment.

but seeing as the no smoking in the work place has already gone through then all they had to do was push that it is in the best interest of the staff like every other company they forced to abide by it.

Exactly. The biggest lobby group would be the publicans though and not the smokers! But at least the government is trying to address the issue even if not exactly doing so for the right reasons.

As for rubadub's comment on no drinking in restaurants, 2 things:
1. Should drinking water be banned too?
2. How does someone drinking in a restaurant (provided they're not drunk and abusive) harm anyone else?

rubadub

Originally posted by Imposter
As for rubadub's comment on no drinking in restaurants, 2 things:
1. Should drinking water be banned too?
2. How does someone drinking in a restaurant (provided they're not drunk and abusive) harm anyone else?

my original post was "if people drinking alcohol in the same room as others caused nondrinkers physical harm then i would also think drinking should be either banned from resturaunts, or they should have totally separate drinking rooms, adequately separated so that no physical harm could be caused to non-drinkers. i would think alcohol should still be served in pubs since it is their primary function and people entering will know the risk they face. similar with cigarettes, i would have no problem if public smoking houses were opened. "

maybe i should have put a big IF at the start. so drinking water wouldnt cause people harm so it would be fine.

Imposter

Sorry, took what you said up wrong!

Lemming

Originally posted by Imposter

Personally I feel that barstaff know that they will be in a smoky environment and as such I don't really understand their concerns. They can always get a different job.

Just a line of thought here on the "who gives a sh*t about bar-staff" theme ....

What would you say to soldiers being packed off to war and not given any protective equipment like helmets, flak jackets, etc ??

How about workers on a high-rise building site not being equiped with saftey harnesses or hard-hats? Saftey nets, etc, etc.

How about making motorcycle gardai drive around without helmets or padded leathers?

By the same token, bar staff are being asked to do just this. They've to work in an environment without adequate protection for their health well-being

Imposter

Originally posted by Lemming
Just a line of thought here on the "who gives a sh*t about bar-staff" theme ....

What would you say to soldiers being packed off to war and not given any protective equipment like helmets, flak jackets, etc ??

How about workers on a high-rise building site not being equiped with saftey harnesses or hard-hats? Saftey nets, etc, etc.

How about making motorcycle gardai drive around without helmets or padded leathers?

By the same token, bar staff are being asked to do just this. They've to work in an environment without adequate protection for their health well-being

But why have Mandate only recently decided to complain about this? I'm under the impression this law exists (at least for offices and the like) for a while now. Also any barstaff I've spoke to, have no problems with smoking in the pubs. So where are all the barstaff that are pushing the union on the issue?

Lemming

Originally posted by Imposter
But why have Mandate only recently decided to complain about this?

AFAIK, the likes of the building trade only had mandatory saftery rules brought in in recent times. So the "why's it only being brought in now" arguement is more apathetic than anything else. The simple answer would be "It should never have been allowed get to this state in the first place"

I'm under the impression this law exists (at least for offices and the like) for a while now.

I will admit to not being 100% in what I'm about to write here, but here goes. No-smoking was brought in in state-owned buildings (civil service, libraries, 3rd level, etc) a couple of years back. This did NOT cover the private sector. Feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect on this. As I've said I'm not 100% on this. The government-owned/funded stuff I'm pretty sure about though

Also any barstaff I've spoke to, have no problems with smoking in the pubs. So where are all the barstaff that are pushing the union on the issue?

How long have those bar staff been working as bar staff? The opinion of some 16 year old working in a bar for 3 months is going to be WILDLY different to the guy who's been working in a bar for 10 years.

But at the end of the day, the point still stands that the staff are not having their health & well-being protected like an employer would in almost any other line of work

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
So the "why's it only being brought in now" arguement is more apathetic than anything else.

I would say that the "why now" line of questioning is a very valid one. It provides insight into what ulterior motives may be being served by the passage of this law - generally a good thing.

Those motives and reasons may be perfectly valid. Asking "why now" is not necessarily a dismissive argument, nor even one which is designed to weaken the case of the proposed change.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by Lemming
As I've said I'm not 100% on this. The government-owned/funded stuff I'm pretty sure about though

I'm not 100% on it either but I did think that private sector was covered. Maybe someone in the know could clear this up!

How long have those bar staff been working as bar staff? The opinion of some 16 year old working in a bar for 3 months is going to be WILDLY different to the guy who's been working in a bar for 10 years.

One guy about 6 years (he's a smoker), another about 10 years (also a smoker) and another about 5 years (a non-smoker).

But at the end of the day, the point still stands that the staff are not having their health & well-being protected like an employer would in almost any other line of work

I'm not dissagreeing with this at all.

I'd just like to know why it is that Mandate have suddenly taken such an interest that has led the government to do something which is going to prove a little unpopular.

Searched around Mandates website but nothing really there except this (from news October 2002):
"His comments came as a new survey revealed that 63 percent of the Irish public would support a doubling of cigarette prices."

Which would suggest to me that 63% of Irish people don't smoke or don't want to smoke (if they do now). And seeing as these people didn't say "I don't care" in this survey I think it can be assumed that most would prefer a non-smoking environment in pubs etc!

Trebor

Originally posted by Imposter

I'd just like to know why it is that Mandate have suddenly taken such an interest that has led the government to do something which is going to prove a little unpopular.

i thought it was the government forcing this through, Mandate are just agreeing that it would be good, and that the reason was the cost of providing health care to smoking releated illness was becoming too much?