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

Paddy20

sceptre,

Apologies, and thanks for the link, but it has been a bit of a hectic day to say the least!. I am afraid I had too put the ECHR back as I have to carry out some very detailed research as you will I hope understand.

Must rush now, but I will be back?..

P.

Lukin Black

Originally posted by Paddy20
Can I respecfully suggest that you re-read Mr Brownes statements, including:-

1, Derogation?..

2, What happened in Finland?..

4, In other Jurisdictions, there is "Derogation" for small businesses with five [5] or less employees?..

5, In other Jurisdictions, there is derogration for family only run establishments?..

etc,etc,

Has anything changed in it since the last time?

So we won't discriminate against workers in small bars. That's good. Way to go Ireland.

Originally posted by Paddy20

3, We ARE the only country in Europe introducing such a ban?..

And that means what? We have to follow the crowd?

Originally posted by Paddy20
Finally. Until you and sovtek* stop posting your biased ill -informed unsubstantiated allegations and assumptions!.

This is my last response to anything either of you post on this thread.

*Sigh*. Please do point out an unsubstantiated allegation and/or assumption that I posted. Please, do.

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
If anyone can refute anything he stated as imaginary propagandist lies. Then let them produce their evidence, instead of stooping so low.

Well, I think the figure of jobs lost was already adressed in this topic earlier (by Victor, if memory serves). He may not have provided linkage, but then again, he usually can on request, so I wouldn't knock his point on those grounds.

I have also questioned the summation that you quoted - that the new law was unenforceable and unworkable. Effectively I see that as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If publicans in general refuse to enforce the law, then the law will be unenforceable. I see no reason offered as to why the law is unworkable or unenforceable, other than the fact that the publicans are opposed to it.

Indeed, taking the link you so graciously provided, I see a story about the Vintners Association being delighted that the Courts overturned a judgement of victimisation and harrassment against members of the travelling community. Their statement goes on to read : "Over the past two years the VFI has highlighted the need for new legislation to support the publican's right to maintain an orderly house."

So...a law is good when it tells the publican that they can do what it takes to keep their house in order - up to and including kicking people out. But, when the law tells them to prevent people from doing things (i.e. the law asks them to keep a new type of orderly house), that law is unenforceable and unworkable.

If this was a law which offered to clearly increase profit, then you would, in all likelihood, find the Vintners Association, and publicans in general queueing up behind it as a great initiative, and their only complaint would be if other laws got in their way of enforcing it the way they wanted to.

(That, incidentally, is a prediction and not a statement of fact. )

Also, the notion of the smoking ban affecting New York is far from established fact. The only people apparently alleging that are - surprise surprise - the New York equivalent of the Vintner's Association. I have still seen nothing that clearly links the two. The US - and New York in particular - have gone through some massively turbulent times recently, and the US economy has gone down the toilet in general, but no-one seems to address the impact these facts may have had on business...no...its clearly the ban which is to blame.

One of the great mathematical truths about trend analysis is that coincidence does not imply causality. Just because two things happened in the same timeframe does not automatically mean one is responsible for the other.

As for the Californian notion of small businesses (5 or less) being exempt....its an interesting idea. It still makes the basic assumption that some employees do not merit the so-called rights that are supposed to be extended to all employees in the nation, though - an assumption that I am still strongly opposed to.

I am fully aware that his position leaves him open too petty nonsensical attack.

That it does. It also leaves him open to rational, balanced attack, as well sas every other form of attack.

I would just like to see some evidence from his critics, disproving any of his very interesting and as far as I am aware truthful facts?..

Why? what ccinclusive evidence has he provided? All I see is something which says "no-one else in Europe has this, so its obviously wrong" and something else which says "well, the New Yorkers said it screwed them, so its obviously going to screw us"....and several people have already questioned the value of that second piece of "evidence".

Look at it a different way. If this were not a legal issue, but rather a purely business one, the opinion of this man would be immediately null and void on the grounds of him having a vested interest.

From that persepective, I would say that the onus is on him (and by extension you, for supporting his stance) to prove the veracity of his claims, rather than handing them out, saying that you believe them and that therefore the onus of proof is on anyone who wishes to claim otherwise.

jc

Meadows

"smoking = bad,
nonsmoking = good"

please keep reading that until you get the picture,


reasons:

* smoking = kills you, smells bad, makes your voice go weird, once you pop you can't stop, gives you a temporary good feeling that soon makes people need a fag just to feel normal.

* nonsmoking = problem free


does anybody have anything pro cigarette to add
all ye seam to be going is talking how your freedom is being taken away (besides the fact smokers consistently take nonsmokers freedom away).
Myself? I cant wait for fags to be a thing of the past and for my friends to be happy without having to have a suicide stick sticking out of their mouth.

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
Apologies, and thanks for the link, but it has been a bit of a hectic day to say the least!. I am afraid I had too put the ECHR back as I have to carry out some very detailed research as you will I hope understand.

Ah, my apologies. I assumed from your earlier post that you were familiar with the guidelines for admissibility of cases to the court under the convention. Take your research time (but please focus on articles 5 and 14)

Paddy20

Right, I have to disappear off once again for a few days. Which at this juncture is probably no bad thing for this thread.

I now leave this thread and poll in the very capable hands of the Moderators. Those who wish to utilise their right to vote on the poll, and the posting option to those who like posting no matter what their views.

In fairness too all!. As merely the thread starter I am not running a personal crusade, or cause!.

So, keep the kettle boiling, and hopefully when I get back. I will be able too resist this compulsion to post on my own thread?.. as I do not believe as I have stated before. For the thread starter to become too personally involved.

Be good now.

P.

smiles

I'm totally for the smoking ban.

Points to fight:
People won't go to pubs - mass unemployment / shutdowns.
Right - firstly if people wont go to pubs then this isn't necessarily a bad thing, we are one of the few countries in the world with an entirely pub-culture base.

Mass unemployment? ROFL. Ok, so people might lose jobs in the pubs, fair enough, but the people who had the money to spend in the pubs will start spending it somewhere else, hence generating new business and employment in other areas.

Shutdowns? Perhaps this will happen, in some areas, but I don't think so, who here knows a poor publican ? Plus, in the majority of cases alcohal and cigarette consumption is bad for you, which is better -- a better health service because of less people with liver disease / heart disease / lung problems - or less people with jobs for a while? I prefer a healthier country.

There'll be less money in the economy cause of the lack of tax revenue
Yes there will, _but_ there are several reasons for the placement of taxes on an item, and in the case of cigarettes and alcohal it is majorily for health reasons, it is better that we are a healthier nation than we are a richer one with a diseased population.

"But... but... but... I LIEK FAGS!!!!"
Tough ****, grow up.
It'll encourage people to quit, which is only a good thing.

Why not just ban smoking full stop
You try it. This is a gradual process, it doesn't remove the democratic right to smoke. Smoking related diseases are a tax on stupid people who smoke, and they shouldn't be forced on people who don't want to smoke.

I look forward to it.

<< Fio >>

DapperGent

Originally posted by bonkey
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.

Are you sure? When you are at home drinking a couple of glasses of wine, do you not find yourself wanting to smoke more and then finding the urge increasing the less sober you get?

For myself and for every smoker and casual smoker I know alcohol consumption is and has always been the key factor in an increased desire to smoke. If I'm at home drinking alone (doesn't happen too often okay!) I find I have the same urge to smoke as I do in a pub surrounded by other smokers.

My smoking friends experience the same thing, my father who hasn't smoked in 15 years still gets a heightened desire to smoke when he drinks irrespective of venue. People smoke a ridiculous amount of cigarettes when they drink, it can't all be environment.

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

1) Do nothing. Screw the employee’s 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.

Personally for me a variation on option 2 is the most workable and the fairest to all. That there is an urgent need for non-smoking pubs is absolutely true I just to don't see why their creation should lead to elimination of all smoking pubs. The way I see it while working in a smoke filled environment is detrimental to your health so are a great many other occupations.

I, for example, do shift work - I don't have to. I could work in a 9-5 part of my organisation if I wished. However I choose to do shift work as it grants me a large amount more flexibility, free time and of course cold hard cash. I know all about the long-term health risks associated with shift work including an increased risk of cancer. Deep-sea fishing off Alaska is dangerous too, it isn't banned but the people who are crazy enough to do it get paid an awful lot of money and accept the relatively large increase in their risk of mortality.

What I would like to see is an extra tariff on drink prices in pubs that choose to remain smoking, a percentage of this would go to the health services - it shouldn't be too hard to calculate the actual baseline costs due solely to environmental tobacco smoke in pubs. The rest should go as a form of danger pay to employees, they would sign a waiver accepting the payment as compensation for the health risks associated with their employment. The rest of the money raised would go back to the pubs as grants to pay for acceptable standards of ventilation. Anything left over to the exchequer.

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

That's silly of course it wouldn't - unless smokers were allowed to smoke in all pubs which would be and is disastrous.

If my smoking in a pub damages employee’s health - fine make me pay to compensate them.
If my smoking in a pub has negative societal consequences (vis. increased burden on health services), fine make me pay for it.

People are free to smoke. Pubs should be free to facilitate this should they choose to and people should be free to work (for a good bit more cash) in those pubs if they want.

It's all about the freedom baby.

This is why I don't post to politics that much, it's hard work!

/me goes for a smoke.

rubadub

It is still perfectly legal to buy cigarettes from sweety shops. Provided you are deemed to me an adult aged 18 or over!.

Yet, it is gradually becoming more and more difficult and illegal for you to be allowed the enjoyment of smoking your ludicrously overpriced/taxed! packet of ciggys?.. That you have just legally purchased.

-yes, why cant you buy alcohol in the "sweety shop"? i think it is bizarre how complacent people are about cigarettes. i think it is the fact that most people do not get very high from smoking them. stronger psychoactive tobacco as used by south american shamans is available in dublin and i am surprised more dont use it, if it was used extensively peoples opinions may change. seems it is acceptable to be addicted to a drug as long as you dont enjoy it. they give heroin addicts methadone as treatment, just as addictive and harmful but no real enjoyment, id rather stick to heroin if i was an addict. 30 years ago you could smoke in many places but you could only legally drink alcohol in pubs and restaraunts and your home. are the smokers who also drink not upset that you cant drink in mcdonalds like you can in many parts of europe, you arent allowed drink on the street but you can smoke.

There is also serious and deserved concern over the threat of violence to families and staff who will have to enforce the ban.

-i have seen many fights in pubs about not being served last orders or refusing to serve drunk people. if i was a barman i would rather have to tell somebody to put out a smoke than i wasnt serving them since they were drunk. are the vitners complaining about the new laws about serving drunks claiming they are unenforceable too? nobody is going to beat you up for asking them nicely to put a smoke out. first they will tell you to f-off, if that happens call the gardai, dont ask an angry guy twice, THAT will cause the fight. is the ban on smoking cannabis unenforceable in pubs?

We are the only country in Europe introducing such a ban, even Finland had derogation for pubs, and in most jurisdictions including California.

-AFAIK holland are banning smoking in the workplace too. including cannabis coffeeshops!

Next they'll be telling us it would be "unworkable and unenforceable" to prevent punters from bringing in drink from outside the pub and drinking it on their premises. Oh - no - that one is enforceable, because enforcing it keeps profit up.

-NICE ONE!!

have the smokers ever been having a night in in a friends house who did want you smoking in their house? i remember i would only smoke about 4 in a night since i had to go outside whereas in a pub i would smoke 20 in a night no problem. didnt bother me at all having to go outside, bit of fresh air. you dont get as much of an urge to smoke as there is nobody doing it around you and it is not in the air

a final question to the smokers who do not agree with the ban. if heroin (which is less addictive than nicotine) was relegalised do you think it should be allowed to be smoked in pubs too?

Lukin Black

Originally posted by DapperGent
If my smoking in a pub damages employee’s health - fine make me pay to compensate them.

I don't think any amount of compensation that you, or indeed anyone can offer, would make up for, oh say, loosing a lung due to cancer, or loosing a friend/relative to cancer.

Imposter

These gems are taken from publicans comment on the matter from the Westmeath Examiner. First comment is from a publican in Mullingar (urban) and second from the owner of a rural pub just outside mullingar.

Full article here: http://www.unison.ie/westmeath_examiner/stories.php3?ca=38&si=1036634&issue_id=9712

“There will be all sorts of jobs lost. It will change our whole country. It will change the way we do business. It will change the way we socialise. People will be smoking and drinking in their front rooms at home where there are no restrictions at all. That is the wrong message for children. There will be huge repercussions. For example, domestic violence will rise”, contended Mr. Mangan.

Aren't publicans an intelligent lot, of course it'S going to change the way you do business and the country. But I don't see that as a bad thing. As for the comment on repercussions(sp?) for children that is awful waffle. Having someone come in drunk from a pub is obviously a better message for children.

A number of Westmeath VFI affiliated publicans have said they will not be enforcing any smoking ban from New Year’s Day. However, under the new law, publicans can be jailed for up to three months and fined €1,900 for failing to enforce the ban.

Publicans are adamant, however, that it is not their job to enforce the law. “It would be a gross injustice if a licensee were to be prosecuted for an offence committed by a customer. Publicans are not, and should not, be enforcers of the law. What are they to do if a customer refuses to put out a cigarette? This proposed blanket ban is completely unworkable and certainly unenforceable and furthermore, it is based on inconclusive evidence,” commented a defiant Mr. Moriarty to the Examiner in recent weeks.

“Publicans have worked hard to build up their businesses. I have worked hard to build up my business, a country pub, and I am not going to throw it all away because Minister Martin says so,” added Mr. Moriarty.

Looks like he's saying that it's ok for him to break the law provided it's in the interest of his business!

Under the new anti-smoking law, the occupier, manager and anyone else in charge of the workplace where smoking occurs, will be guilty of an offence. However, those being prosecuted may plead that they made reasonable efforts to prevent smoking.

Here I see a problem with the legislation. Assuming this is true surely this bit gives the publicans their by now customary, get-out of jail free clause! If reasonable efforts means they must call the Guards then it's ok, otherwise it's a get-out clause.

The IHIA stepped up its campaign last week when it launched a report claiming that the proposed smoking ban could result in the loss of up to 64,000 jobs and almost €1 billion to the Government exchequer, as a result of decreasing alcohol sales.

Doesn't mention savings in the health dept for some reason!

The report, carried out by A&L Goodbody Consultants on behalf of the Alliance, refuted research quoted by the Government that the smoking ban in New York had actually boosted employment and profits in the hospitality industry there.

In the report, consultant Peter Brennan, forecast a 5-30% drop in alcohol sales in pubs as a direct result of the smoking ban. This would amount to lost Government revenue of between €157 million and €944 million. Mr. Brennan also estimated that between 10,700 and 64,000 people would be left redundant as a result of the ban.

These reports seem really scientific what with all this forcasting and estimating and refuting something that suggests something you don't like!

The Minister has refused to accept the report citing the success of the California and New York bans. Based on figures which show that 70% of Irish consumers are non-smokers, Minister Martin argued that smoke-free measures would attract more customers to bars. The Government’s chief medical officer has also dismissed the report saying that the Minister can’t compromise on the health and safety of workers in the hospitality industry.

Again not exactly scientific but the 'figures' for the numbers of non-smokers at least have some basis in reality, i'd presume.

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by rubadub
stronger psychoactive tobacco as used by south american shamans is available in dublin and i am surprised more dont use it,

Hmmmm.... where would I get this "tobacco"?

Paddy20

So, even though this IS the only country to have introduced this daconian ill thought out disrespectful law. Can people still not see that more moderate alternatives are needed.

Why is it that in other countries where similar legislation has been introduced. Allowances exempting small family run establishments and those with less than five [5] employees are exempt?..

Are the citizens of Ireland who are very used too being downtrodden and exploited. Still, so scared of authority that they are prepared to sit back without protesting for a fairer deal for those who earn their living in licensed premise that are the most important social venues for smokers, drinkers and non

Paddy20

So, even though this IS the only country to have introduced this daconian ill thought out disrespectful law. Can people still not see that more moderate alternatives are needed.

Why is it that in other countries where similar legislation has been introduced. Allowances exempting small family run establishments and those with less than five [5] employees are exempt?..

Are the citizens of Ireland who are very used too being downtrodden and exploited. Still, so scared of authority that they are prepared to sit back without protesting for a fairer deal for those who earn their living in licensed premise that are the most important social venues for smokers, drinkers and non-smokers.

Would a smoking and/or non-smoking option or compromise not be more democratic in 2004?..

P.

Lukin Black

This is All-or-None legislation. What would differentiate between the employees of a non-smoking bar and a smoking one? Why would the four employees of a small bar have to put up with a smoky environment, while their counterparts next door in a bar with one more employee has clean air?

The citizens of Ireland have putten up with too much for too long, and the real exploitation, Paddy20, is the "Put up with it or get the f. out" attitude that hangs over many employees, along with the militant "f. off, I can do what I want" attitude that accompanies many smokers.

As for non-smokers, well I've heard that about a third of the Irish population are smokers, well the majority of us have spent too long sitting in clouds of smoke for fear of bothering someone by asking them to put it out.

This law is respectful to the employees of licensed establishments, is far from draconian, and the only complaints with it that I have is that it didn't come sooner, and although it deals with employee health, it only deals with general public health as a natural progression rather than a purposeful aim.

Cork

Originally posted by 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.

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.

Roll on January

I agree 100% with this. I hate going into smokey bars. Breathing in fag smoke is bad healthwise. Even your clothes smell the next morning. Now, certain people work in pubs breath in this smoke night after night.

Is this fair?

They may not have the luxery of finding other jobs so easily.

Why should bar workers and the general public's health be damaged by fag smoke?

Third_Echelon

it should definitely be banned...

as Cork just said, i am sick to death of coming home after a night out and my clothes smell like a bloody ash-tray...

its a disgusting habit and smokers should be made to go out of their way not to smoke in public places such as bars, which this debate is about....

i was in New York for a few months in 2001 and i NEVER came home from a night out smelling like an ashtray as all bars had proper and adequate air extraction systems...

irish pub owners will never put out the money on these systems.. they should be made to do it...

the options should be:

a) if you have the proper air extraction systems, smoking is permitted in the bar

b) no extraction system, no smoking, full stop...

the government (possibly with the help of the tobacco industry) should make a step to provide some sort of funding for this.... with the total ban they are taking the cheap option in my opinion...

Stonemason

they wont like this

I glimmer of sense amongst the PC madness.


If you dont drink dont smoke and dont have sex you dont live longer it just feels like.

Watch out fattys they are after you next.

Imposter

Paddy,

You seem to be repeating the same questions again and again. Are you waiting until someone answers with what you perceive to be the right answer or what?

You have stated you don't want to comment on things but it's obvious to your leaning on this matter by the way you phrase your questions. Now below is something you stated earlier and questions i have as a result of it. I would like you to give me your opinion on it.

Originally posted by 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.

...
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

Imposter,

Re:- Your question.

No. I am NOT saying that any work environment that can be classed as social should be exempt from this law. Is that clear?.. In this case I am referring to licensed social environments voluntarily frequented by adults over the age of eighteen. Where adults consume alcohol and currently can choose whether or not to smoke.

Quote you:, " Now below is something you stated earlier and "Questions" I have as a result of it" e.q.

I can only see one question in your post?.. which I hope I have addressed.

P.

Meh

Originally posted by Paddy20
In this case I am referring to licensed social environments voluntarily frequented by adults over the age of eighteen. Where adults consume alcohol and currently can choose whether or not to smoke.

Incorrect. If I go into a pub today, I have to breathe in smoke whether I choose to or not.

Paddy20

Meh,

That is why in another post I called very clearly for compromise i.e. New licensed Smoking and Non - Smoking establishments.

So that adults can retain the right to choose.

P.

blorg

But the staff in the smoking establishments don't have that choice, and that is the stated point of the legislation.

Note: 'they can always find another job' is not an acceptable response - just think if this was applied generally!

Paddy20

blorg,

Would the staff not have the "right to choose" to work only in the Non-Smoking establishments. Surely if that happened then the demise of Smoking establishments would have begun naturally as a direct result of market forces and public preferance in a democratically acceptable manner ?..

P.

Imposter

Originally posted by Paddy20
Imposter,

Re:- Your question.

No. I am NOT saying that any work environment that can be classed as social should be exempt from this law. Is that clear?.. In this case I am referring to licensed social environments voluntarily frequented by adults over the age of eighteen. Where adults consume alcohol and currently can choose whether or not to smoke.

Quote you:, " Now below is something you stated earlier and "Questions" I have as a result of it" e.q.

I can only see one question in your post?.. which I hope I have addressed.

P.

Firstly the use of '?' denotes a question. I see two in that post.

So now what you are saying is that pubs and maybe restaurants are "the very social fabric of our society". Would it be a bad thing for this to change/develop? Surely things should evolve into what the majority of the population (in a democracy at least) want. That would indicate the need for no smoking in the wrokplace and no smoking pubs!

blorg

Originally posted by Paddy20
Would the staff not have the "right to choose" to work only in the Non-Smoking establishments.

Paddy, that response is 'they can always get another job'. So why do we have laws about sexual harassment? Surely it is 'traditional' in certain workplaces? After all, the person being sexually harassed can choose to work only in non-sexually harassing workplaces? It's their free choice!

Paddy20

Imposter,

Have you read my last post/reply too blorg*?..

Reading the last paragraph of your post it now appears that we are not that far apart in our thinking, after all, are we?..

P.

Imposter

Originally posted by Paddy20
Imposter,

Have you read my last post/reply too blorg*?..

Reading the last paragraph of your post it now appears that we are not that far apart in our thinking, after all, are we?..

P.

Your democracy seems to work on a per pub/publican basis where as mine works on a per country basis.

Paddy20

Imposter,

No. My suggestion is based on a licensed "Smoking" and a licensed "Non -Smoking establishment" basis, no matter where in the country they are located.

P.

blorg

Paddy,

How does exactly does this plan address the rights of the employees in the smoking premises to a safe working environment?