Ban on "Smoking" in licensed premises/Pubs etc, Right or Wrong ??..

therecklessone

Originally posted by The Beer Baron


What planet are you on?
Have you ever actually been in a pub Mr Syzlak?
Christ man! If you don't sweat profusely oozing alcohol from every pore then at the very least those around you are, then you're gonna smell of beer anyways. No matter what- I defy anyone to go to a pub and not come back smelling of beer.
...weirdo

I'll rephrase my original point, for the benefit of yourself shall I?

I will welcome the day when I will wake up and my clothes will not reek of cigarette smoke after a night socialising in a bar. It is a smell I consider to be infinitely more noticeable (and repugnant).

And I am still a non-smoker, who has no problem being in the company of smokers. FFS, I spend most of my breaks in work in the only break room we have where smoking is allowed...

Regardless of what I, or you for that matter, think, the fact is the law will reduce the damage to the health of barworkers who currently have to breath in your cigarette smoke...thats have to , not choose to.

Weirdo X10.

echomadman

Regardless of what I, or you for that matter, think, the fact is the law will reduce the damage to the health of barworkers who currently have to breath in your cigarette smoke...thats have to , not choose to.

Being unemployed as the bar can't pay your wages anymore will get you right out of that pontential health hazard environment anyway.

Any profession has its individual health hazards, people dont go into a job blithely unaware of this.

A few years ago strict regulations were put into place regarding the provision of adequate ventilation in bars and restuarants. (regulations which came at a high cost to business affected by them), this subsequent change of tack by the powers that be renders all that a waste of time and effort.

And who's saying it? Organisations with an obvious bias. You can't believe them, and I know conversly you can't necessarily believe a lot of the other statistics saying that it's better for business. I personally believe there will be minimal effect.

Bars have closed down in New York since the ban was put in place, people who want to smoke and drink at the same time will just drink at home.

Give publicans the choice and let the public vote with their feet.

Lukin Black

Originally posted by echomadman
Being unemployed as the bar can't pay your wages anymore will get you right out of that pontential health hazard environment anyway.

Any profession has its individual health hazards, people dont go into a job blithely unaware of this.

Okay, my little Kylie Shakira is starting school this month and needs new clothes, books etc., but I'm not going to work in the bar because, although I really need the money, it's bad for my health.

Bull, people will put the needs of their families and themselves (food, home/lodgings, clothing, getting through college etc) in front of their health. They shouldn't have to, but many do. They will do it because short term survival looms more on people's minds than long-term consequences.

Originally posted by echomadman
Bars have closed down in New York since the ban was put in place, people who want to smoke and drink at the same time will just drink at home.

Statistics, go on, produce some. And "ooh, the bar owners in New York say so, it MUST be true.." doesn't count. Go on, get them, and then to PROVE your point, pull out corresponding statistics for the previous year to show that there were considerably less or no bar closures.

In reply to the drinking at home, have people who want to eat, and then smoke, stopped going to restaurants? Have smokers stopped frequenting cinemas, going on buses and trains, taking taxis, etc?

therecklessone

Originally posted by echomadman


Any profession has its individual health hazards, people dont go into a job blithely unaware of this.

Just because a health risk exists, doesn't mean it should be seen as part and parcel of the job..."like it or lump it" just won't do I'm afraid.

Imagine the scene tomorrow morning...Mickah and Anto approach the foreman on a the building site..."that scaffolding's not safe"..."sorry lads, every profession has its individual health hazards, you'll just have to be a bit more careful, won't you?"

And the cost to bar owners is nothing compared to the cost of a few thousand compensation claims in the future. How many bars do you think could survive that?

echomadman

Statistics, go on, produce some. And "ooh, the bar owners in New York say so, it MUST be true.." doesn't count. Go on, get them, and then to PROVE your point, pull out corresponding statistics for the previous year to show that there were considerably less or no bar closures.

take it easy,

why dont you try to find some that show that business is largely unaffected by this, instead of refuting the only source available at the moment, that being the owners of establishments affected.

as I already said. I dont smoke, It wont affect me either way, but I think it will have a detrimental effect on the hospitality industry.

You, prove me wrong.

Okay, my little Kylie Shakira is starting school this month and needs new clothes, books etc., but I'm not going to work in the bar because, although I really need the money, it's bad for my health.

Fine by me, There are all manner of jobs that I wouldn't do due to health/personal considerations.
we have a reasonably good social welfare system for people who cant find suitable employment (please nobody start on that topic) ,
It kept me alive for various portions of my life

Perhaps a "hazard" related pay supplement for barworkers would sate your worries over their health.

Imagine the scene tomorrow morning...Mickah and Anto approach the foreman on a the building site..."that scaffolding's not safe"..."sorry lads, every profession has its individual health hazards, you'll just have to be a bit more careful, won't you?"

This is hardly a reasonable analogy, and typical of the extremism that both sides of this arguement will go to to justify their point. That refers to immediate physical danger, builders often have to work in a more injurious environments (dust, heavy lifting etc.) than barstaff without dragging outrageous hypothetical situations into it


As I have said already. Give people (including barstaff) a choice.
If, as you seem to think, non-smoking establishments will be popular, then over time equilibrium will be found.

Smokers will congregrate in their yellow walled hovels, dying a little more each second, while non-smokers will booze in shiny surgically safe utopias right into a cancer-free old age.........

Moriarty

Originally posted by echomadman
take it easy,

why dont you try to find some that show that business is largely unaffected by this, instead of refuting the only source available at the moment, that being the owners of establishments affected.

as I already said. I dont smoke, It wont affect me either way, but I think it will have a detrimental effect on the hospitality industry.

You, prove me wrong.

Originally posted by echomadman
This is hardly a reasonable analogy, and typical of the extremism that both sides of this arguement will go to to justify their point. That refers to immediate physical danger, builders often have to work in a more injurious environments (dust, heavy lifting etc.) than barstaff without dragging outrageous hypothetical situations into it.

Theres nothing outrageously hypothetical about people developing cancer from passive smoking.

Originally posted by echomadman
As I have said already. Give people (including barstaff) a choice.
If, as you seem to think, non-smoking establishments will be popular, then over time equilibrium will be found.

And as you already know, this wont work. No publican is going to designate themselves smoke-free when the pub next door is going to stay smoker-friendly, it would be comerical suicide. Making every pub go smoke-free keeps the playing field level.

Victor

Odd they way they say that 64,000 jobs would go, then produce figures to say only 10,700 would go.

echomadman

Theres nothing outrageously hypothetical about people developing cancer from passive smoking.

I never said there was, the scenario presented by therecklessone is however outrageous and hypothetical

Regarding the card,
Lukin said he wont accept any statistics or reports from the New York hospitality industry, so all the information i can find in a 5 minute google is inadmissable.

And as you already know, this wont work. No publican is going to designate themselves smoke-free when the pub next door is going to stay smoker-friendly, it would be comerical suicide. Making every pub go smoke-free keeps the playing field level.

Whyso, judging by the emphatic YES in the poll above and the rather reactive posts in the thread it would seem that people are clamouring for a non-smoking alternative.

Are you all so weak that you will blithely follow your nicotine addicted cohorts into their smokey dens of pestilence and death?

the "I have to go to smoky pubs because my mates smoke" excuse doesnt wash with me.
Why isnt it "well I smoke but my mates don't so I'll go with them"

to attack the root issue of this bill, theeffects on the health of barstaff, I propose this > perhaps we can replace barstaff with vending machines, God knows the onset of the super-pub has stymied a lot of the personal nature of having a local with staff that know you.

but that will start another long and ultimately futile round of bickering about job security, workers rights etc.

again, all i'm saying is let people decide for themselves.

Moriarty

Originally posted by echomadman
I never said there was, the scenario presented by therecklessone is however outrageous and hypothetical

They were merely emphasising the point.

Originally posted by echomadman
Regarding the card,
Lukin said he wont accept any statistics or reports from the New York hospitality industry, so all the information i can find in a 5 minute google is inadmissable.

Would you accept figures from, oh i dunno.. eircom.. which say that they are running efficiently when all outside indications are to the contrary? I doubt it. Similarly, you cant expect anyone to take such a biased groups report/figures seriously in this debate.

Originally posted by echomadman
Whyso, judging by the emphatic YES in the poll above and the rather reactive posts in the thread it would seem that people are clamouring for a non-smoking alternative.

Are you all so weak that you will blithely follow your nicotine addicted cohorts into their smokey dens of pestilence and death?

the "I have to go to smoky pubs because my mates smoke" excuse doesnt wash with me.
Why isnt it "well I smoke but my mates don't so I'll go with them"

I can only answer for myself (but i would think it would apply to many here) when i say that we would always end up in smoking pubs simply because the majority of my friends smoke. It would be unreasonable to force them all to go to a non-smoking pub.

Originally posted by echomadman
to attack the root issue of this bill, theeffects on the health of barstaff, I propose this > perhaps we can replace barstaff with vending machines, God knows the onset of the super-pub has stymied a lot of the personal nature of having a local with staff that know you.

but that will start another long and ultimately futile round of bickering about job security, workers rights etc.

again, all i'm saying is let people decide for themselves.

Now whos proposing outrageous hypothetical scenarios?

echomadman

Now whos proposing outrageous hypothetical scenarios?

Whats so outrageous about vending machines,
ok in pubs it would be a bit odd i'll admit
Probably a lot smarter than some of the barstaff i've encountered recently.

It would be unreasonable to force them all to go to a non-smoking pub.

Is that not what this law is effectively doing?

echomadman

ok if you dont like vending machines, how about this guy, Just program him with the stock phrases he needs and voila, instant 5th element style bars



/me goes home, sleep deprivation is making replys rather silly

Lukin Black

Originally posted by echomadmanwhy dont you try to find some that show that business is largely unaffected by this, instead of refuting the only source available at the moment, that being the owners of establishments affected.

as I already said. I dont smoke, It wont affect me either way, but I think it will have a detrimental effect on the hospitality industry.

You, prove me wrong.

Em, you made a sweeping statement that bars have closed in NY, but you didn't say how you knew this, apart from quoting obviously biased sources. So if I make a controversial statement it's up to everyone else to prove me wrong? I always thought someone should prove their own arguments, rather than waiting for someone to prove them wrong..

Originally posted by echomadman
Lukin said he wont accept any statistics or reports from the New York hospitality industry, so all the information i can find in a 5 minute google is inadmissable.

Exactly as Moriarity said. They are biased. 78% of statistics are made up to favour the party quoting them*

Originally posted by echomadman
judging by the emphatic YES in the poll above and the rather reactive posts in the thread it would seem that people are clamouring for a non-smoking alternative.

[snip]

again, all i'm saying is let people decide for themselves.

Well that's fine, cause with so many people saying yes, they must be in agreement with Mr. Martin's legislation.

* Yes, that was done on purpose. Point being anybody can make up statistics.

swiss

Personally, I can't wait for this legislation to be enacted. I despise cigarette smoke, quite passionately. In my opinion, it has a repulsive smell, is an irritant to your lungs and eyes (especially for someone like myself who tends to wear contact lenses when going out to a pub) and generally gives you a repulsive bo.

My comfort and enjoyment (or lack thereof in this instance) is not the motivating factor behind this particular bill, which is a point which has been reiterated time and again in this thread. It is my choice to head to a pub, my choice to sit down with smokers and breathe their second hand smoke. Similarly it is their choice to light up with all of the consequences entailed.

However, the bar workers do not have a choice about their work environment. They have to work in a permanently smoke filled environment at present, with all the associated health risks. Curbing smoke in pub will allow them to work in a safer environment. It also has the added bonus of helping to preserve the health of non smokers who socialise in bars. I don't think it's wrong to want to avoid smoke as much as possible, I also think that to have to achieve this goal by curbing your social life (which is what one would have to do at present) is also wrong.

Yes it is inconvenient for smokers to have to go outside a given premises to have a smoke. However, to compare this to prohibition is a ridiculous exaggeration. If a person's "need" to have a smoke is great, it is a short trip outside. If it happens to be raining then they'll have about as much sympathy from me as they had for me when they were blowing smoke around the place inside the pub. I don't mean to be harsh on the smoking population, but I don't think some people realise just how annoying some non smokers find that particular habit.

Roll on January

bloggs

I haven't read all the points, but here is my 2 cent anyway.

YOu can't smoke on Planes, you can't in cinemas, you can't on the bus or the train, you can't in hospitals all for good health/safety reasons. Shouldn't people who work, be protected no matter what job they do. If this ban is defeated, then it would logically allow people to smoke in offices, and the above places, unless the law of the company alone disallowed it.

I can't wait for the ban to come in (stick to you guns Minister). I also hate this scaremongering by the pro-smoking lobby, 64k jobs lost, come on!!!!

bonkey

Originally posted by echomadman
Bars have closed down in New York since the ban was put in place,

And everything else has remained constant, yes?

No downturns in the economy for example, which might lead to people going out less, and spending less when they do?

No increase in costs, cutting margins?

Nothing at all has changed except this ban?????

I find that hard to believe.

Because unless thats the case, then drawing any conclusion about the New York ban without taking any other potentially-significant factors into account is seriously skewed statistically.

jc

hellfire

Well ,

This whole blanket ban on smoking being introduced in January is a mixed bag.

The way it's being implemented is a total joke. There was a minister a while back who opposed the ban and then all of a sudden changed his opinion due to the fact he was a member of a political party.

Also,
There isn't any guidelines on how to deal with individuals who break the ban , how is it going to be enforced. You see a guy lighting a cigarette and call the gardai ?

Can't really see that working.

I personally think it would be better to have well defined smoking/non-smoking areas.

Their going to get around this anyway
E.g. Jurys Doyles Hotel in Cork is going to have a "Tented area" which you can smoke in as it's classified as outside.

I dunno .. I think i'll just continue to be a hermit and smoke by myself and feel oh so dirty

hellfire.

Lukin Black

Originally posted by hellfire
I personally think it would be better to have well defined smoking/non-smoking areas.

1. Anyone who thinks that works is really kidding themselves.

2. Doesn't matter even if it did work, because people would still have to work in the smoking area. And that's what this ban is about.

flyz

It's gonna work, the public will make it work.
I would have no problem in going up to someone in a pub and saying "Excuse me, would you mind putting out that cigarette".

Because I have every right to and they know it.
8 out of 10 people will put out that cigarette because they will feel ashamed for having lit up in the first place. (I'm talking about the average Joe in a bar here).

Most smokers wish they'd never started smoking in the first place. They know it's no longer socially acceptable and the smoking ban in January will make them even more of social outcasts.

The Beer Baron

Righteous indignation huh?
I replied, IE crashed got furious, had a smoke.
perhaps it's for the best that IE crashed after my lengthy reply.
otherwise smoking wouldn't be the only thing banned.

hellfire

If publicans thought it was a good idea they would have implemented the decision to ban smoking in their establishments themselves.

At the end of the day, they are the ones who are affected financially.

Hell while were at it ban alcohol too, Drunken Travellers are a lot more dangerous than passive smoke.

hellfire.

Villain

I think the poll results say all there has to be said on this issue

bloggs

Originally posted by hellfire
If publicans thought it was a good idea they would have implemented the decision to ban smoking in their establishments themselves.

At the end of the day, they are the ones who are affected financially.

Hell while were at it ban alcohol too, Drunken Travellers are a lot more dangerous than passive smoke.

hellfire.

Publicans are afraid of change from outside and will be dragged kicking and screaming. The only thing they like to change is the price of the pint, which they seem to like changing a lot!

flyz

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Righteous indignation huh?
I replied, IE crashed got furious, had a smoke.
perhaps it's for the best that IE crashed after my lengthy reply.
otherwise smoking wouldn't be the only thing banned.

That's a pity, I would have been interested in what you had to say.
I smoked for 7 years I'll have you know. and even If I was still smoking I would be in favour of the smoking ban. The rights of the non-smoker out weighs the rights of the smoker.

All my point was is that come January people will no longer legally have to endure smoky environments and I for one act on it.
Else, true to irish style, you'll have people sitting in the pub glaring at the smokers and complaining amongst themselves and to Gerry Ryan the next morning.
But there's no point in them doing that unless they actually ask the person to stop smoking.

Originally posted by hellfire
If publicans thought it was a good idea they would have implemented the decision to ban smoking in their establishments themselves.

At the end of the day, they are the ones who are affected financially.

Hell while were at it ban alcohol too, Drunken Travellers are a lot more dangerous than passive smoke.

hellfire.

With respect, you have totally missed the point with a post such as that.
I, in common with most people I know am looking foward to the smoking ban in the pubs.

If you are a smoker, well, the majority don't want your smoke, and don't see why, I or other non smokers should have to breath it, in a licensed premises either.
It's a health and safety issue.
Roll on January.

mm

rubadub

Originally posted by
No smoker is going to go to a pub and not smoke, it defeats the whole point of having a confortable drink.

-could say conversely, "no NON-smoker is going to go to a pub and damage their health due to passive smoking, it it defeats the whole point of having a confortable drink." but they DO go to the pub and i think smokers will too.

Originally posted by
5 years from now we will look back, but it will be to laugh at this stupid law and how everyone ignored it.

-50 years from now your grandkids will say "they actually let you legally harm people around you with burning plant smoke in the pubs when you were young? thats unbelievable, what other toxic gases could you legally poison people with?"

Originally posted by
As a non-smoker myself. I respect the right of mature voting citizens too choose if they wish to smoke, in any case how many people are killed by the drug called Alcohol*as served in licensed premises/Pubs!, every year in comparison to the number killed by cigarette smoking?..

-how many are killed due to direct physical harm caused by people drinking beside them?

Originally posted by
Restuarants > fine, people are eating, I for one wouldnt mind seeing totally no smoking restuarants.

But in a pub you're imbibing toxins, damaging your liver, your kidneys, generally poisoning yourself anyway, you dont like smoke, fine fsck off to a non-smoking establishment.

-so if people are eating they shouldnt have to put up with smoking but if they are drinking they do? if drinking alcohol caused similar damage to that you mention, to people around you, i would support a ban on drinking in the workplace too. if somebody is eating unhealthy food in a restaurant should they have to put up with other forms of physical damage? since they obviously dont give a damn about their health...

Originally posted by
I find it obnoxious and annoying listening to english sports prattle at 50decibels. I don't like to listen to whooping jock baboons shouting up at it. I HATE soccer- but I accept it as part and parcel with the pub scene.

Should we ban sport from pubs?
How about music.

-if the music/football was played was at such a level as to cause physical damage to your eardrums then yes, ban it.

Originally posted by
This is hardly a reasonable analogy, and typical of the extremism that both sides of this arguement will go to to justify their point. That refers to immediate physical danger, builders often have to work in a more injurious environments (dust, heavy lifting etc.) than barstaff without dragging outrageous hypothetical situations into it

As I have said already. Give people (including barstaff) a choice.
If, as you seem to think, non-smoking establishments will be popular, then over time equilibrium will be found.

-i think it is a reasonable analogy. welding companies had to get flowhoods in to remove toxic gases from the workplace. i am sure their business suffered from the added cost. do you honestly think the barstaff's choice/opinion will have a real effect on the publicans decision. i think non-smoking establishments will be popular, ONLY if there are no smoking ones, due to reasons already mentioned, simple common sense as to why.

The Beer Baron

A: because I smoke does that give those that don't the right to scold me like a child? This is what I seem to be getting over this. Tut-tut- you smoke carcinogenic tobacco products killing clean-living sorts like us- for shame!

And the poowar widdul barmen barmaids- or since we're such a shiny happy progressive nation shoudl I say barpersons.
I doubt any of you care about them.
You only care about how this law affects yourselves. So you have no problems parroting propaghanda and regurgitating the same points over and over again. But I smoke so I'm the one that should be ashamed of myself.

How many people smoke in this country?
How many don't usually but enjoy a smoke with a pint?
And what's wrong with that?
Are we some secretive order of boogymen conspiring to give you cancer?
No.

Y'know I do a lot of smoking, and a lot of drinking too.
I can't remember seeing any member of a barstaff that didn't smoke. How often do you see a barman leaning wearily at the end of the bar, delighted for the prospect of a two minute lull with which to relax and have a smoke.

Worried about their health.
Shoooore you are.
Loud music, stress, crap wages, no tips, abuse- mental and physical, sexist and/or racist comments- shall I go on?
Personally I don't care about the welfare of barstaff- they're there to get me loaded. That's because I'd rather perch on a barstool drinking and smoking, than standing on a soapbox wagging my finger at those I deem of lesser importance to me based upon their preffered form of relaxation.

After January the bars will be full of drunks told they cannot smoke no more. You think in January weather they're gonna go out? Sure you can be advocates of the nanny state if you want- but I'll say this. If people smoke they need nicotiene to relax.
I drink a lot, too much if truth be told and I'm an angry person. Not being able to smoke will compound it. After January anyone who mentions how great it is will have to have a smoke-free bar will have to contend with me, and people like me- who won't be relaxed.

echomadman

-how many are killed due to direct physical harm caused by people drinking beside them?

Depends on the calibre of the establishment , but then again i'm from limerick, so it depends on other calibres too.

This is an unwinnable arguement. I believe emphatically that this will hurt pubs (and my business).
Smokers will go to bars but most likely wont drink as much, as being drug addicts, they will get progressively more uncomfortable as time passes, nipping out for a smoke every few minutes isn't all that much fun and will tend to disrupt the flow of any conversations that are going on.
My only solace is that i dont think the implematation will be 100% effective, I cant see *anyone* walking up to Scummy McScum in his local tavern and asking him to "please extinguish" his cancer stick.

WTF do all you people want to live so long for if its at the expense of happiness.

Prohibition doesnt work.

This will just make petty criminals of more and more people, further diminishing their respect for any laws.
Refute this all you want, casual erosion of the distinctions between peoples sense right and wrong is taking place.
How many Laws do you break in a day, casually,
"shure it's only a stupid law anyway"

Bleh, I'm wandering now, I wont post on this thread anymore, i'm amazed Godwins law hasn't reared its head yet to be honest.

Moriarty

Originally posted by echomadman
Prohibition doesnt work.

This isnt prohibition.

echomadman

My mistake thebeerbaron has already invoked godwin
Thread closed,
move along people nothing to see here.

Victor

Originally posted by echomadman
My only solace is that i dont think the implematation will be 100% effective, I cant see *anyone* walking up to Scummy McScum in his local tavern and asking him to "please extinguish" his cancer stick.

No, but the sprinkler system could be adjusted ...