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

Lukin Black

So, again you're arguing that everything should be dealt with at once? We can't do it one step at a time?

And don't be ridiculous, even in Dublin you wouldn't breath in as much crap in the street as you would in a wee Donegal pub.

And damn you Mordeth, getting there first

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
So, is the Air Safely Breathable in cities, is pollution only a figment of my imagination. When I walk down my main street my right to breathe fresh air is DENIED, Right or Wrong?..

Correct.

BUT (and it's a very big but)

We're taking steps to curb pollution in cities as well. We'd have a congestion charge in Dublin had we a public transport system that people wouldn't laugh at. We've taken steps to outlaw the combustion of smokey fuels. This is no different. Just like the cinemas. "The street" is not a defined workplace. That's the issue, not moaning about the rights of man. Isn't drink the great evil it was earlier in the thread any more then?


Additionally you have so far sompletely ignored the fact that this is a health and safety issue - not a means to curb smoking. You haven't addressed this point once, preferring rather to say things like "drinking is worse" and "there's pollution on the streets as well". Which would be fine and dandy if either of those things were remotely relevant. Health issue in the workplace. Ignore that and everything you say is irrelevent, regardless of how long you spend on perfecting punctuation.

You know if I owned a pub. Come January I would stick a large fluorescent sign up in the front window stating ALL SMOKERS WELCOME?..

Good for you. With the large fines you as the publican would face your pub wouldn't last very long. It's your money, waste it if you feel like it.

Paddy20

sceptre,

Wrong, in a post about 3 back I clearly state that" I am fully aware of the health implications".

As for the so called imaginary LARGE FINES!, well I would simply refuse to pay them on the grounds that not allowing me to serve smoking patrons was depriving me of my right to earn a living.

If I was sent to prison I would then appeal it to the European Court of Human Rights.

P.

Sangre

Seriously, I would love to see you do that.
It would give me a laugh anyway.

Why is it your right to server smokers (smoking in the pub), don't be stupid. Your arguements are illogical and irrelevant.

next you'll be saying its your right to server drunk people.

Lukin Black

Paddy20, since when is smoking a Human Right?

From the UN Charter of Human Rights (linked above)
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment

So the "they can go work elsewhere if they don't like the smoke" IS a violation of rights, whereas smoke-free air would appear to be a right. I can't see "smoky room" and "favourable conditions" being anyway equatable with each other..

Drug dealers, pimps and hitmen have a right to earn a living, but they don't have a right to do it any way they want. If it's illegal, it's illegal, and that's it.

Paddy20

The UN Charter of Human Rights?.. what a pity the world chooses to ignore it.

P.

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
sceptre,

Wrong, in a post about 3 back I clearly state that" I am fully aware of the health implications".

Wrong my shiny metal ass. I never said you weren't aware of the health risks. I said you were completely ignoring the fact that this legislation has been introduced to maintain the welfare and health of workers in the workplace and hence has sweet nothing to do with the right to smoke or lack thereof . If you will insist in referring to what I post at all, try addressing what I've said, not what you'd like me to have said.

The European Court of Human Rights would laugh at you. Of course they'd take about four years to do that, during which time you'd already have served your six months and be faced with larger legal bills. The ECHR isn't a play pen to appeal things you don't personally like. It's a serious court for serious people.

Paddy20

sceptre,

Well, you really have fallen for that oldest trick in the book. You truly believe that, quote:- "this legislation has been introduced to maintain the welfare and health of workers in the workplace and hence has sweet nothing to do with the right to smoke or lack thereof". end quote.

I am in shock, and I will come back to that, after I have had some shuteye!.

Also, Re:- the ECHR, of course you are talking from "personal experience" of how this serious Court for serious people operates?.. I will also address that misguided opinion as well.

Furthermore, can I please have an explanation of your strange remark!:- quote, " regardless of how long you spend on perfecting punctuation." end quote.?.. me no understand!.

P.

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
You truly believe that, quote:- "this legislation has been introduced to maintain the welfare and health of workers in the workplace and hence has sweet nothing to do with the right to smoke or lack thereof". end quote.

Yes I do. Mostly because it has. Did you even read the legislation before questioning that?

Also, Re:- the ECHR, of course you are talking from "personal experience" of how this serious Court for serious people operates?

Actually, yes I am. Not that it should matter but yes, I am.

.. I will also address that misguided opinion as well.

Good. If you've any (even limited) experience of ECHR procedure this will be a lot easier. Very important when you're answering: Don't forget to explain why Article 14 (in particular) of the European Convention on Human Rights (under which and only under which the court operates) applies. I look forward to an informed debate as to how the ECHR has operated since 1999 (when Protocol 11 was completed) and as to why the rapporteur of the Section that is assigned your case should refrain from laughing before advising the Committee to which he refers it (trust me, this one wouldn't be referred to a Chamber) to tell you to naff off. If you meant that a case would be taken only if you were imprisoned, kindly tell us all why Article 5 applies. It's very important that you address these two Articles as your answer will be a useless rant if you don't.

Furthermore, can I please have an explanation of your strange remark!:- quote, " regardless of how long you spend on perfecting punctuation." end quote.?.. me no understand!.

Why? It's only strange if you look at it upside down.

DapperGent

My goodness this thread has become very big and very emotive very quickly.

As a smoker and someone who spends probably far too much time in the pub I'd like to preface my general opinion on the subject with a couple of things:

Personally I'm really not too bothered about the imminent ban. It'll annoy me terribly but it will lead to two things me smoking less on a night out and me staying home a bit more. All good tbh.

Having said that I think it's the greatest steaming heap of crap ever to be called legislation.

I've a couple of reasons for this the first being the oft trotted out: Smokers have rights too you know!!1!!!1 (TM). But it is nonetheless true.

This is not to outweigh anyone else's rights, I think it's a travesty that there are no dedicated non-smoking pubs for people like my bother who is made nauseous by cigarette smoke and my girlfriend who has slight asthma. And all the poor feckers who come home reeking of smoke, I mean I smoke, I have it coming. Nothing but sympathy and empathy for all you poor people.

The bill is based upon health and safety. That smoking cannot be allowed in a pub because it is a workplace and therefore it should be illegal to expose bar staff to carcinogens as they go about their business. This on the face of it appears to make technical sense. I have a huge problem with the logic though.

The fact is that a certain amount of health and safety risk is permitted in every working environment. The risk of falling down the stairs your office building, repetitive strain injury for people who programme (**** ), crashing the delivery truck, getting hurt a hundred million ways on a construction site etc. etc.

Now every effort is made to reduce the dangers in a given line of work but you can't totally eliminate the risk without removing an inherent part of the job. No one's going to mess up their carpals without a keyboard, but they won't get much programming done either.

The central business of a pub is relaxation and entertainment. That’s what they sell by way of the space, the stools and the drug. For a smoker being in a pub without smoking is not relaxing and it's not entertaining. Essentially what the smoking ban is doing is requiring pubs to withdraw inherent services from a fairly large percentage of the population. It's asking DHL to deliver stuff without vehicles because their drivers might crash. It's (to my mind) dumb. Requiring DHL to have their cars in good working order and requiring smoking pubs to have a certain standard of ventilation makes more sense.

Then putting an extra tariff on drinks sold in smoking pubs and splitting the income between the health services and employees. Giving bar workers in smoking pubs "danger pay", leaving their health and safety decisions where they should be, in their own hands. This sounds fair to me and would drive up the viability of non-smoking pubs that bit more. Putting large tariffs on licence renewals of smoking pubs would also help.

The second problem (sorry only halfway through!) I have with the ban is implementation. We're roughly three full months away from D-Day and I still haven't seen any satisfactory answers on the mechanics of it. First of all who's going to stop the assholes that are going to smoke anyway? Is every pub going to have to employ the services of a bouncer during all it's opening hours? Economically impossible, even for a lot of pubs in the city centres.

Where does the smoker go to smoke? Seriously think about it. Anyone ever been to Doyle’s or any of the pubs along Dame St.? You're going to have large numbers of people, drunk and lining already cramped footpaths. Unless you have someone on the door all the time they'll be bringing their pints out with them, standing pissed off in the rain smoking away. What sort of increase in street violence are we likely to see? How many people tripping out on to the road to get milled by the constant traffic?

And this will happen. Believe me. The ignorance of one simple fact astonishes me amongst non-smokers. Drinking makes you want to smoke. A lot. It's almost overpowering at times. I'm not sure of the science behind it but it's not a simple matter of socially smoking a few more. The craving is doubled, trebled, a factor of ten more than when you're sober. It turns me from smoking 10-15 a day to smoking 40-50 in five or six hours. It's real and it's not going any place.

I really want to see non-smoking. But getting them this way just...blows (or exhales). Non-smoking pubs can be legislated into existence - by liberalising the licensing laws (something sorely overdue), by putting huge localised license renewal fees on pubs that don't change over, by granting extended opening hours to non-smoking pubs, by increasing drinks prices in smoking pubs etc. etc.

The smoking ban is what it is. An irresponsibly populist piece of legislation by an unpopular minister in an unpopular government. The delirious joy it has been greeted with by intolerant non-smokers disappoints me hugely.

I shouldn't really be surprised though. If someone proposed that a smoker should receive three lashes on the soles of their feet every time they bought a pack o' daks there'd probably be a huge clamour for that too.

Plus your ass looks big in that moral superiority.

STaN

Its to protect the health of staff. Plain and simple.

Its going to happen. It can't won't be stopped because people like me and millions of others don't want to breath in other peoples.. what can only be described lightly as a filty habit!

No barperson or lounge staff should have to risk their health to server other people.

It has created more jobs in New York, Bars haven't gone out of business... people HAVEN'T changed their drinking habits because they can't smoke in the pub.

Its only the smokers who want to keep their ability to smoke in public buildings. You won't need 2 brain cells to figure out why... can you say... Irish weather..

Imposter

Dappergent,

Some very good points amde there and some of them I have to agree with BUT..

Surely the fact that smokers smoke more in a pub is a result of boredom and/or habit. Why don't you smoke as much while at home for an evening as you do in the pub? I think it's a habit and one that you can get out off. Ok you will still 'need' an odd cigarette while in the pub but I believe the amount you smoke will eventually roughly equate with what you smoke on an evening in.

The central business of a pub is relaxation and entertainment.... For a smoker being in a pub without smoking is not relaxing and it's not entertaining.

Possibly true but again a smoky environment can be not very relaxing for a non-smoker.

I agree completely with your point on how the ban will be implemented. That seems to be completely ignored in discussions i've seen up to this point.

Paddy20

STaN,

Quote:- " Its only the smokers who want to keep their ability to smoke in public buildings" end quote.

WRONG?.. I am a non smoker and non drinker. Yet I will defend the smokers - right to choose - to smoke in {Smoking allowed, licensed to sell and consume nicotine and alcohol entertainment/social centres}?..

Why this logical compromise solution was not included in this "Draconian" legislation is beyond my comprehension.

Publicans, should be allowed to decide, what is good for their own business premises i.e. Smoking or Non- smoking!. Then let Joe Public decide whether or not to frequent their premises.

Believe me, any business not catering for the wishes needs of the Public would soon have to fall in too line, but then at least it would be a clear business decision, and not as a direct result of badly enforced ill thought out jackboot legislation the ramifactions of which may well astound and frighten those egotistical legislators/ Politicians/ and - so called!- public representatives*, who have already signed themselves out of office.

P.

N.B. Quote:- "It has created more jobs in New York"?.. where is your verifiable source of this information, please!.;)

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
Why don't you smoke as much while at home for an evening as you do in the pub?

Partly for the reasons you mention (habit), and partly because it is other smokers, and a smokier atmosphere which eggs people on to smoke more.

Its a bit like the basic principle of advertising....you know where they show someone downing an ice-cold beverage in stifling heat, and you can almost taste it?

Put smokers in a permamently smoky environment, with people smoking left, right and centre, and they will light up more often. This is generally as true of things like all-night-gaming sessions where smoking is allowed as it is of pubs etc.

The only reason pubs get highlighted for this effect is that pubs are the last remaining public bastion of social smoking. OK - some workplaces have a smoking room (and I found in the last company I went to, people tended to go in groups, so everyone had a ciggie as soon as one person wanted one), but other than that, social environments which permit smoking are few and far between, other than pubs n clubs.

jc

blorg

Originally posted by Paddy20
Should I call for the banning of playing music above a certain level as it damages my hearing, or for legislation limitating the number of people who should be allowed in to a local hostelry?

AFAIK, employees exposed to potentially dangerous noise levels must be provided with protective devices by their employer (e.g. ear plugs). This applies to the construction industry, concerts, even the army (remember the hearing impairment claims).

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
Publicans, should be allowed to decide, what is good for their own business premises i.e. Smoking or Non- smoking!. Then let Joe Public decide whether or not to frequent their premises.

Do you believe that this logic should extend to all workplaces as well?

That every employer should have the right to choose whether or not their working environment is smoke-free, and let the employees then decide if they wish to choose to remain there or not based on that decision?

jc

Paddy20

blorg,

When was the last time you saw an employee in an obviously dangerously loud overcrowded licensed premises wearing EAR PLUGS ??..

Cop on, its hearing aids they need. Otherwise, how can they hear the customers order!,for heavens sake?..

P.:(

blorg

In fairness Paddy, I've never been to a pub that has played music at a level that I would think would actually be dangerous to hearing; loud enough to make conversation difficult, but not dangerous to health - other than gigs, where yes, you do see staff wearing ear plugs. Employers are wary of this, as they can be sued by staff if their hearing is damaged due to their failure to take precautions.

Overcrowding is generally dealt with by fire regulations, what's the other health problem caused by overcrowding?

I think the distinction that we have to make here is that 'loud and overcrowded' is merely unpleasant while passive smoking is a health hazard. It's quite a difference.

Paddy20

bonkey,

Come on, the title of this thread is:- " Ban on "Smoking" in licensed premises/Pubs etc, Right or Wrong ??..

I understand why you are posing this very loaded question, which in my opinion belongs in another THREAD?.

Where, if someone cares to start one on "smoking in non-social workplaces"?... I will happily answer your question.

However, I will state that I do agree that smoking should be prohibited in certain working environments. That are not a vitally important part of the very social fabric of our society.

P.

Imposter

Originally posted by Paddy20
However, I will state that I do agree that smoking should be prohibited in certain working environments. That are not a vitally important part of the very social fabric of our society.

Pubs are not vital and in most countries they are generally not an important part of the social fabric of society. While they are often the only obvious social outlet in certain areas this is an Irish thing. To call it culture or vital is to miss the point of the law that is coming in.

So are you saying that any work environment that can be classed as social should be exempt from this law? How exactly would you define social in this case?

Paddy20

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

bonkey,

Additionally, In response to your questions. As an afterthought let me also state that I belive very strongly.

That it is every employee* who should have the right to choose whether or not their working environment is smoke - free?.. in a true democracy do you not agree that most employers should be obliged to give this right too their employees?..

P.

Paddy20

Imposter,

Why have they not even begun too debate even the thought of introducing this "crazy" high handed legislation in another part of Ireland, or in the UK?..

P.;)

Wook

There should be places where people can gather to smoke and drink, and there should be places where you can just drink and not smoke.
If a pub is filled with people trying to get their lungs full of smoke, geezes why not ? With a clearly visible sign outside the door that would warn the non-smokers that they will enter a health-risk area ? why not leave it to us to choose ?
(are smokers-gentlemans- clubs allowed ?)

I can understand the non-smokers for not willing to share our habits !but damn , why can't they do the same ? Why do they have to tell us how to lead our lives ?
Don't give me this crap of being a burden to the society, pollution, fat food, cars, stress and so on should also be attacked with the same vengeance, yet I see nothing or little. (besides, I have private health insurance :P)

STaN

WRONG?.. I am a non smoker and non drinker. Yet I will defend the smokers - right to choose - to smoke in {Smoking allowed, licensed to sell and consume nicotine and alcohol entertainment/social centres}?..

Why this logical compromise solution was not included in this "Draconian" legislation is beyond my comprehension.

Smoking damages health. Do you want kids going into pubs for lunch with their parents and breathing in air that is just as bad as having the butt in their mouth? Same for staff who some don't want to have to inhale other peoples smoke and have the same detrimental effects as if they were smoking themselves. Smoking causes 75% cases of lung cancer, which kills 15,000 people a year!

Publicans, should be allowed to decide, what is good for their own business premises i.e. Smoking or Non- smoking!. Then let Joe Public decide whether or not to frequent their premises.

Thats segregation. If a pub is completely smoking, i.e. all the staff and customers smoked, im sure no1 would report the place for having people smoking. lol... could end up having smoking only clubs

Believe me, any business not catering for the wishes needs of the Public would soon have to fall in too line, but then at least it would be a clear business decision, and not as a direct result of badly enforced ill thought out jackboot legislation the ramifactions of which may well astound and frighten those egotistical legislators/ Politicians/ and - so called!- public representatives*, who have already signed themselves out of office.

Well, they think their going to loose business. I don't think they will. Maybe for a couple of months while the stuburn irish try put up a fight to get it changed. But eventually they will realise that it will be in vain and that if they want to go out to enjoy a pint or to a resturant, they'll have to leave the smokes at home.

N.B. Quote:- "It has created more jobs in New York"?.. where is your verifiable source of this information, please!.;)

I'll try find it... it was a figure that there are 1500 (or similar) extra service (working in bars/resturants) staff in the industry over there, up from a year or 2 ago. I'll have a dig around... to my knowledge it was TV3 that broadcast an interview with a publican, or a representative of one of the unions of the service staff.

Paddy20

I was just wondering if there are any licensed premises, business people out there, or licensed trade associations, who are prepared to declare their stance on this issue??.. on this public forum.

I think we need too hear your views, please.

P.

echomadman

There should be places where people can gather to smoke and drink, and there should be places where you can just drink and not smoke.

This is what I've been saying

(are smokers-gentlemans- clubs allowed ?)

Smoke-easys and backalley clandestine nic-joints where the barstaff are all vending machines or chronic smokers are the way of the future!


seriously though, can anyone tell me under what criteria smoking is permitted, like the "cigar" bars in New York.
can you register as a private "smoking" club and charge a nominal membership fee.

we need loopholes people.

bloggs

Originally posted by echomadman
This is what I've been saying



Smoke-easys and backalley clandestine nic-joints where the barstaff are all vending machines or chronic smokers are the way of the future!


seriously though, can anyone tell me under what criteria smoking is permitted, like the "cigar" bars in New York.
can you register as a private "smoking" club and charge a nominal membership fee.

we need loopholes people.

Somewhere that isn't an employer or a place of business.

I suggest your home, (cheap drink and only people you like can be invited)

DaithiSurfer

Even in a well ventilated building people are exposed to smoke.

If you come home from a pub and you smell of smoke then, obviously you have been exposed to that smoke.


If you are standing in the path from the ciggy to the extraction vent then you are exposed to that smoke that is passing your mouth as you breathe in.

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
Come on, the title of this thread is:- " Ban on "Smoking" in licensed premises/Pubs etc, Right or Wrong ??.

Yes, I know.

I'm asking a very simple question. Do you believe it is wrong to ban smoking in the (unspecified) workplace, and that it should be entirely at the employer's discretion.

If the answer is no - and I see it is from further down in your reply - then I cannot understand why pubs / licensed premises are any different, and it is something which I have not seen clearly explained by anyone on this thread, more than some vague "its a social environment, so smoking should be allowed / is a right / etc. etc. etc." argument.

So what about other social environments? And exactly what is "a social environment", or is it just a euphemism for "a pub". Should it not include other public places where people gather? Museums, for example? Cinemas? Surely these are also social environments...should smoking be allowed there? Restaurants? Pubs which serve food? Combined pub/restaurants which have seperate areas but a common airspace (e.g. Break For the Border in Dublin) ???

I understand why you are posing this very loaded question, which in my opinion belongs in another THREAD?.

There's nothing loaded about it, and it doesn't belong on another thread.

You believe that publicans should have the right to choose, so I am simply asking you whether or not this extends to other workplaces as well, or whether your stance is that pubs are - for whatever reason - a special case on their own which deserve some exemption under the law for some reason.

To be able to understand what it is you are basing your stance on, I need to know what your stance is. How I frame my argument against your stance is entirely dependant on the answer, so I hardly think its the work of a seperate thread, or even off-topic to ask you to clarify your stance.

However, I will state that I do agree that smoking should be prohibited in certain working environments. That are not a vitally important part of the very social fabric of our society.

Thank you. Thats all I was asking.

You therefore clearly believe that certain jobs do not warrant the same basic standards in terms of Health and Safety as others.

For that reason, I would have to say then, that I would consider the ban to be right, and your opposition of it to be wrong. I believe that when you apply rights selectively, they become nothing but priveleges, and I do not believe that Health and Safety should be reduced to the status of a privilege.

You may argue that this is not what you are saying at all, or that this isn't the "real" reason the law is being introduced, but at the end of the day you are still ultimately taking the stance that the wishes of the employer (i.e. to permit smoking) should take precedence over the rights that the employee should legally be entitled to.

That it is every employee* who should have the right to choose whether or not their working environment is smoke - free?.. in a true democracy do you not agree that most employers should be obliged to give this right too their employees?..

In an ideal world, yes - I would agree entirely.

I would agree that if every single employee in a pub said - of their own free will - "I'm fine with this being a smoking pub", then they could allow it to be so....as long as they signed waivers that they would never seek remuneration from the pub or the state for damage to their health which was incurred as a result.

It would not be sufficient, it should be noted, that just a majority of empooyees decide that smoking is allowed. It would have to be unanimous. A right to a certain level of Health and Safety is just that - a right. It is not something that anyone (such as a majority of co-workers) should be allowed take from you, but I do believe that people should be allowed set aside their rights if they choose freely to do so.

However, that would also have to go hand in hand with some manner of ensuring that the employer wasn't "cherry picking" his employees to ensure he could have a smoking environment, as well as preventing any number of other abuses.

Think of issues like gender discrimination and how commonplace they are, and yet how difficult they are to solve. How could you prevent non-smoker discrimination occurring in a similar manner? In short - you can't.

There are three possibilities that I can see. If there are others, please feel free to enlighten me :

1) Do nothing. Screw the employees rights, let them suffer. Its their own "fault" for choosing to work in that industry.

2) Leave it up to the employees, and put some form of formal system in place to try and avoid the worst of the abuse, which would include serious fines for empoyers for refusing to hire anyone who would want the pub to become a non-smoking pub subsequent to their hiring, or for putting pressure on any employee to decide to permit smoking, etc. etc. etc.

3) Implement a ban, and deal with the infringements afterwards.

Of the three, I see item 1 as the least favourable, item 2 as the least practical, and item 3 as what is happening.

jc

rubadub

For the life of me. I really do not understand why our society is becoming so intolerant that our legislators feel free to introduce a blanket ban on smoking in licensed premises. Without at least holding a public referendum on this issue.

-the ban is on smoking in the workplace. i am not sure but i dont think there was a referendum when they put restrictions on asbestos, i am sure many jobs were lost in industry due to this and it would have cost many businesses a fortune to implement.

Nor do I fully comprehend. Why the owners of these licensed premises are not being given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not [they and their staff] wish to allow smoking on their premises!.

-probably for the same reasons that business owners werent allowed choose if they could still use asbestos in their buildings. i am sure if building contractors were allowed choose to have adequate safety measures in place for their staff some wouldnt bother just to save money, you would have builders falling off dodgy scaffolding and people saying "get another job if you dont like it". should companies who produce toxic waste or gases be allowed to get rid of it how they wish?

I really do appreciate the health implications involved, but for me it still remains a "Civil rights issue" and believe me I know what denying someone their civil rights can bring about?..

-should people have the "civil right" not to be exposed to UNNECESSARY toxic gas in their workplace? people are denied the "civil right" to smoke heroin and take many drugs. i think cannabis should be legal but i certainly dont think you should be allowed smoke it in pubs or any workplace which will harm others.

And I have been in a pub in my hometown which has more smokers than any other. However, it has a state of the art "air-conditioning system" that was installed voluntarily! by the owner. Himself a heavy smoker, and the atmosphere is clear and relaxing for everyone.

-with most vent systems the atmosphere is clear but the toxic gases are still there. your clothes wont smell but you still get cancer and die.

Should I call for the banning of playing music above a certain level as it damages my hearing, or for legislation limitating the number of people who should be allowed in to a local hostelry?..

-there is a ban on music over a certain level. there is a limit on the amount of people allowed (there must be a limit for insurance reasons). tell your local garda if you think they are over the limit.

First of all who's going to stop the assholes that are going to smoke anyway? Is every pub going to have to employ the services of a bouncer during all it's opening hours? Economically impossible, even for a lot of pubs in the city centres.

-the same people who stop "assholes" smoking cannabis in pubs. a pub wont need a bouncer, they can call the gardai if people are breaking the law, you are not supposed to take the law into your own hands. if you owned a pub and somebody started smoking heroin on your premises what would you do?

Where does the smoker go to smoke? Seriously think about it. Anyone ever been to Doyle’s or any of the pubs along Dame St.? You're going to have large numbers of people, drunk and lining already cramped footpaths. Unless you have someone on the door all the time they'll be bringing their pints out with them, standing pissed off in the rain smoking away. What sort of increase in street violence are we likely to see? How many people tripping out on to the road to get milled by the constant traffic?

-very simple, people wont go to those pubs in preference for pubs where they can stand outside comfortably. people can be arrested for loitering and drinking on the streets. any pub with a good beer garden is going to make a killing. i am sure many bar owners are delighted with the ban, i saw one guy on TV3 news who owns that pub on pembroke road whose entire carpark is at the front and is a beer garden during the summer. he told of his plans to get huge canopies and outdoor heaters. i wouldnt be surprised if many pubs rip the roof off their premises.

The smoking ban is what it is. An irresponsibly populist piece of legislation by an unpopular minister in an unpopular government. The delirious joy it has been greeted with by intolerant non-smokers disappoints me hugely.

-if smoking had always been banned and was now going to be allowed in pubs, would the "delirious joy" of smokers disappoint you too??