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

Imposter

Originally posted by 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.

That sounds like a compromise that may be an idea if this legislation wasn't about the health of workers. Let's imagine it's a customer driven thing and not a 'worker's health' issue.

If the worker's in smoking pubs were happy to waive their rights to a smoke free environment and cannot sue if they contract any smoking related diseases what happens with ordinary punters? Do they also waive their rights to sue? How is this appearance in a smoking pub proved or disproved?
I really don't think there's a solution that's workable if both smoking and non-smoking pubs exist. Or is there?

Paddy20

News, Lead story on:- www.irishhealth.com

Govt gives mixed messages on "Smoking Ban" ?..
by Fergal Bowers.

" The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern may be manouvering to allow changes to the proposed ban on smoking inthe workplace".

Yesterday, Mr Ahern said " That while he was broadly supportive of the ban, the timing of the ban "Had yet to be decided" in the directive being prepared by Minister, Micheal Martin".

The Taoiseach also said " That the task was to find a directive that was "Fair and balanced"?..

Full stoty on the website. Enjoy!.

P.

bloggs

Ah bloody climb down! I thought this government had some backbone, but it looks like half the FF party will be bought off by publicans.

Paddy20

More News titbits courtesy of:- www.irishhealth.com
with thanks to Fergal Bowers {Editor} of this award winning site which has over 50,000 members.

Govt give mixed signals on "Smoking Ban?"

Last week the Health Minister issued a statement which said that " From January 2004, smoking will be prohibited in ALL places of work", afterweeks oflobbying from the hospitality sector. Mr Martin also rejected suggestions "That the ban should be delayed".

Given his commitment to this, any compromise that may come about - " Would be deeply damaging to the Health Ministers image!".

The issue is likely to be "Discussed" when the Cabinet meets again this Wednesday, after the summer break. End.

Hmmm, what can I say except Wednesday could prove too be a very interesting day!.

Yes/No ??...

P. {This was posted for the benefit of anyone who did not bother clicking on the link to Irishhealths website.}

STaN

Coming to your pub - the smoke police

The inpending legislation outlawing smoking in pubs will be enforced by a team of environmental health inspectors, who will have the pwer to enforce the law.

Answering critics suggestions that the ban would be impossible to enforce, the Health Minister Micheal Martin said the officers from the State-run body would be given powers to enforce the law from January 1.

They would provide backup for the environmental health officers to ensure the hospitality venues and other workplaces, including trains and airpors were kept smoke free.

The minister said he expected the debate on the ban to intensify closer to the January 1st date. "We need an informed debate on this. I'm glad that tobacco is being put to the agenda," he said.

"I understand where the industry is coming from. The trade is worried, but I am amazed at the complacency about this number one killer.

"We know alcohol sales are already down in this country. Before any tobacco ban is in place, the Exchequer figures here show that alcohol sales have dropped in the last year"

"Pubs have dominated the headlines, but people should be reminded this applies to all worplaces including trains and airports."

Meanwhile, the Irish Hospitality Industry Alliance (IHA) has accused supporters of the smoking ban of using misinformation to justify their claims.

It called on the Office of Tobacco Control to withdraw its statement that a studey had shown there would be no negative economic impact from the ban as it was a "gross misrepresentation of the facts."

- from the "City"

Stonemason

To believe that second-hand smoking may not be very harmful has become a thought-crime almost akin to Holocaust denial. Those who dare express doubts must expect gales of hysterical abuse from every point of the PC compass. Their integrity will be questioned, along with the marital status of their parents. The difference, of course, is that while the evidence for the Holocaust as historical fact is overwhelming, by no means has it been proved that inhaling other people's tobacco smoke causes the suffering attributed to it.

The recent release of a massive study showing no risk to nonsmokers from secondhand smoke has brought forth the vitriolic denunciations the anti-tobacco enterprise so dearly loves. The authors are pawns of Big Tobacco. Their methods are invalid. The study is a sinister plot advanced by special interests to undermine the health of the world. Long on invective and short on concrete criticism, the operatives bleat and bray to an increasingly skeptical public.

Tom Utley captures the snarling panic that defines anti-tobacco approach to dissention to its self-proclaimed gospel. He notes that stripped of the adjectives and innuendo the excoriation boils down to, "I won't look at the facts and will, instead, hold my breath and turn blue." Like children, or religious fanatics, anti-tobacco is throwing a temper tantrum. Unlike ill-bred children, however, anti-tobacco can muster up a smear machine that threatens to crush all dissenters.

"Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increase in risk of coronary heart disease," they said. "It seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer."

In the present climate of opinion, that is an extraordinarily brave thing to say. It is particularly courageous of Dr. Enstrom, who works at the school of public health at California University, Los Angeles, which I imagine to be the very Kremlin of political correctness in the world capital of the phenomenon.

Prof. Kabat teaches at the department of preventive medicine in the State University of the relatively civilized New York -- at least, New York was civilized, before the unspeakable Mayor Bloomberg turfed the city's smokers out of its bars and restaurants and on to the streets.

Dr. Enstrom and Prof. Kabat are indeed very brave men. They have pointed out the the emperor has no clothes and the con men growing rich off of spreading secondhand smoke fears are furious and vow destruction. Too bad for anti-tobacco that each have reputations that are unsullied and that what their study reveals is true. The secondhand smoke fraud is reaching the end of the line.

Meh

I couldn't care less whether second-hand smoke causes cancer or not. It smells foul and it irritates my lungs, that's enough for me.

Paddy20

Stonemason,

Re: Your link posted earlier today to the very informative article entitled, ""Passive Smoking: Who cares about the facts?

Would it be possible to somehow post and paste that complete article on to this thread?. I do not know how to do that type of thing, maybe you do?.. as I consider that article is one of immense social importance, and very relevant to this thread!.

For those who would like to click on a link to the full story,here it is: www.theage.com.au

I have posted that as I have a feeling that not many people have bothered reading something which throws new evidence about smoking in general that has certainly proved to be a real statrling eye-opener to me!. I just hope that the above link works o.k.

P.;)

Paddy20

Re: The above link too New Story, *Passive Smoking: Who cares about the facts?

If you are experiencing problems with the above link, here is the - Direct - full web address;

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/21/1053196637934.html

Try clicking on that. Now I am going to have a rest, and a cup of tea.

P.

Lukin Black

Paddy20, the article is just a little under 1000 words - quote what you want from it but I think it's a bit OTT to paste the whole thing here.

Now, the article, firstly and most importantly:

the study had found a 16 per cent increase in cancer "risk" among those married to smokers

Notice 16% - that's 9% less than the 25% that had been previously claimed. Would it make you any happier if you were one of 16% instead of one of 25%?

This study is concerning spouses of smokers. The effect is undoubtedly much more concentrated in a closed environment where there is much more than one person smoking. I fail to see how the study has an effect as regards employees in licensed premises.

Secondly notice how the report was financed by tobacco companies? :rolleyes:

Paddy20

Lukin,

Thanks for your comments. I seem to remember a few posters stating "Roll on January", Now I am replying to them with, Roll on Wednesdays Government Cabinet meeting?..

P.

Stonemason

Meh

I thought the argument was about health hazards not smells, by your argument anyone living in a city should be up in arms about stinking of petrol fumes all the time and DEMAND those cars buses and all the other smelly POLLUTING vehicles should be banned. And why not everyone could ride a bike to work that would help slim down those obese people that may well be next on the government’s hit list.


Lukin Black

As for your remarks


If you read the whole article it pointed out that in science today a 16% is not considered proof .Even if 16% was considered proof by the scientific community it would still be irrelevant as these people don’t live in laboratory conditions god knows 16% of the people looked at could also live next door to a nuclear power station or any number of sources of carcinogens.

You also remarked that spouses of smokers were irrelevant because it wasn’t the same as someone working in a crowded pub I say to this

1 How many hours do bar staff work?

2 How many years do these people keep the jobs?

I don’t know about your but my local is staffed mainly by students that work a few shifts a week frid/sat/sun being to busiest. These same students have been working at the same place for 2 years and are now starting to leave to start their proper careers .All in all I would say they have less exposure to the dreaded secondhand smoke than the affore mentioned spouses who maybe with an evil smoker for many years.

As for your last remark about being funded by a tobaco company you might like to have added that this is the only way to get funding.

This quote may help you understand the situation better.

Researchers who dissent from the party line face character assassination and the termination of grants. Those who report their findings are vilified as lackeys of the tobacco industry, and accused of professional misconduct (in 1998, campaigners tried to have this newspaper censured by the Press Complaints Commission for our reports on passive smoking. They failed.).

The termination of grants is pertinent to the just-released Enstrom/Kabat study that shows secondhand smoke is not hazardous. The four decade study received funding from the American Cancer Society and, during its recent stages, from the Tobacco Control Office of California's Health and Human Services. Both entities, although acknowledged anti-tobacco organizations, claim to be scrupulously fair open to scientific inquiry. As it became clear that Enstrom/Kabat were veering from anti-tobacco orthodoxy, California's Tobacco Control cut funding. It didn't find anything amiss with the methods of the researchers but a conclusion that secondhand smoke is not the deadly toxin anti-tobacco claims it to be would be highly embarrassing to an organization that exists only to eliminate smokers. Such is the value of scientific query to the prohibitionists.:rolleyes:





Paddy

Check out this site I reckon you might like it though I found it a little OTT

http://www.forces.org/index.htm

THAR BE LOONIES ON BOTH SIDES GET A GRIP PEOPLE

bonkey

Originally posted by Stonemason
If you read the whole article it pointed out that in science today a 16% is not considered proof .

Correct. However, given that less than 16% of the population of the world has died from lung cancer, can we therefore conclude that lung cancer hasn't been proven to exist?

Or - if less than 16% of people who have - at one time or another - smoked die from any given disease, can we not argue that it is unproven that smoking causes any illnesses.

This is the standard "lack of proof" argument which the smoking industry has been basing its arguments on for years/decades.

The thing is that 16% is also not small enough to be dismissable as a statistical "blip". It indicates that there are strong indicators that something is happening, but is simply not conclusive enough to say what, exactly.

it would still be irrelevant as these people don’t live in laboratory conditions

god knows 16% of the people looked at could also live next door to a nuclear power station or any number of sources of carcinogens.

I'd suggest that you study up on statistics a bit, and discover how it is already perfectly capable of dealing with such issues if you genuinely believe this.

If the research was flawed based on its sampling technique, it would have been thrown out by both sides almost immediately. Peer review would have utterly destroyed the validity of the findings based on inappropriate or skewed samples.

The fact that its gotten far enough to have someone argue that 16% is not proof shows that they have already failed to show that its findings are just completely invalid in the first place as a result of skewed samples.

Or do you think that those with a professional interest in debunking such a paper are less versed in mathematical rigour than you, and that they have no means of determining whether or not the samples are valid or skewed???

1 How many hours do bar staff work?

I don't know. I would imagine that full-time bar-staff do a minimum of 40 hous a week, based on any full-time bar staff I know. Do you have figures, or was this just an empty question?

2 How many years do these people keep the jobs?

Again, I don't know. Do you have figures, or (again) was this just an empty question?

Besides.....how many years do you need to smoke before you get cancer? How many cigarettes a day?

I know there is no fixed answer to these questions (only probabilities), so it automatically begs the relevance of saying that people only work in the smoke for X amount of time.

If figures like that could be produced, don't you think the tobacco industry would hype to bejaysus the fact that you can smoke X cigs a day with no ill-health, Y with no risk of lung-cancer, etc. etc. etc.

I don’t know about your but my local is staffed mainly by students that work a few shifts a week

And I can point at bars which have had some of the same staff serving in them since 1990. Take The Stables in the University of Limerick for example, or The Beggar's Bush in Dublin.

Without producing figures, any assertion about how long someone serves in a pub is an empty one.

If you want to assert that these people don't need/deserve the same Health and Safety Rights that others do, by virtue of their transient employment nature, then it is your responsibility to show said transient nature, and also that such short timescales are, indeed, harmless.

So...figures? Or are you just offering a theory that they might be safe, and arguing that because you can theorise this then we should consider it as a factor.

As for your last remark about being funded by a tobaco company you might like to have added that this is the only way to get funding.

So the tobacco companies have been funding the anti-smoking lobbies all these years?

Why? Were they making too much money and decided to create some opposition to themselves or something?

Researchers who dissent from the party line face character assassination and the termination of grants. Those who report their findings are vilified as lackeys of the tobacco industry, and accused of professional misconduct (in 1998, campaigners tried to have this newspaper censured by the Press Complaints Commission for our reports on passive smoking. They failed.).

Let me get this straight :

What you are saying is this....

1) The tobacco company provides the funding for the research, and no-one else.
2) The research is performed, and findings concluded.
3) If those conclusions are in favour of the tobacco company, (i.e. against "the party line") the researchers are treated as pariahs, and have their grants cancelled.

So, the anti-smoking lobby is pulling the grants that the tobacco industry has given?????

You're telling me that the anti-smoking lobby is actually funded by the pro-smoking industry, and its the anti-smoking lobby who control the purse-strings, but its the smoking industry's purse.

Sorry - I can't find a shred of comprehensible logic in that.

I mean....you started with this....

As for your last remark about being funded by a tobaco company you might like to have added that this is the only way to get funding.

and then followed it with an "explanatory" quote which said :

The four decade study received funding from the American Cancer Society and, during its recent stages, from the Tobacco Control Office of California's Health and Human Services.

So are you telling us that the ACS and the TCO are tobacco companies? If not, then how can the latter statement possibly be explaining the former???

THAR BE LOONIES ON BOTH SIDES

Now that, I most certainly agree with.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Stonemason
I thought the argument was about health hazards not smells, by your argument anyone living in a city should be up in arms about stinking of petrol fumes all the time and DEMAND those cars buses and all the other smelly POLLUTING vehicles should be banned.

Everyone benefits from cars/buses/trucks, except for people who walk everywhere, grow their own food and make their own clothes. If I were to ban vehicles, I'd have to give all that up. Therefore I am pro-vehicle (because their benefits to me outweigh their disadvantages) and anti-smoking in pubs (because the disadvantages to me outweigh the benefits). In fact, I can't think of a single benefit to me from allowing smoking in pubs.

And why not everyone could ride a bike to work that would help slim down those obese people that may well be next on the government’s hit list.

You being fat doesn't inconvenience or affect me in any way. See the difference?

bloggs

As someone here said (i think), you wouldn't be allowed to inject herione into your arm in the pub or smoke a joint, as you would be kicked out on your ear, so why do people think publicans will have trouble enforcing the law.

rubadub

Originally posted by Stonemason
by no means has it been proved that inhaling other people's tobacco smoke causes the suffering attributed to it.

i dont need a list of statistics telling me that the coughing i experience in a smoky pub and wheezing the next day is a figment of my imagination and is doing me no harm. common sense tells me it is not healthy to wake up wheezing and coughing.

Originally posted by Stonemason
"I won't look at the facts and will, instead, hold my breath and turn blue."

hmmm "the facts", if its written down it must be true! the "fact" is i wake up coughing. common sense tells me that sitting in a room with burning plant material giving off thick smoke is not a good environment for healthy lungs, it sickens me to see small children coughing in smoky pubs. no medical report is going to convince me that sitting in a room without smoke causes me as much harm as a room with smoke. i still dont know why there was a year long delay in implementing the ban, it seems we are expected to hold our breath and turn blue.

did you know it was a scientifically proven "fact" that a bumblebee cannot fly.

Originally posted by Stonemason
The secondhand smoke fraud is reaching the end of the line.

what is with the "secondhand smoke" thing anyway? it is not just smoke people exhale. people are passively inhaling smoke straight from the bruning cigarette tip before it even reaches the filter, i dont like inhaling any smoke but smoke containing the most addictive substance known to man is the last thing i would like to inhale.

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?

Paddy20

Well, I happened to hear our Minister for Health & *Children [His words not mine] interviewed on RTE Radio News at One.

Mr Martin stumbled and bluffed his way through the determined interviewers questioning, he even referred to his ban on smoking as "Prohibition", a term that I was jumped on for using in one of my earlier posts!.

Overall, he sounded like a Minister trying too dig himself out of a hole that is getting bigger by the day, and is likely to swallow him up unless someone is prepared to throw him a lifeline!. Not likely, this is politics after all!.

Tomorrow, we have the first Cabinet meeting since the summer recess, and no doubt Minister Martin will be subjected to some very searching career threatening questions. The reports of any compromise solutions agreed should prove interesting for both pro & anti smoking citizens. Whether Minister Martin will remain in his current position after the meeting is something I will be watching closely, as he did sound nervous during the RTE interview.

I can just picture the dark storm clouds gathering over the Minister of Health & Childrens office as I sit here pondering upon his very real difficulties in relation to his mis-handled smoking ban legislation. A sacrificial lamb or scapegoat may be needed!, I am wondering just who it might be ?..Hmmmm

P.

bloggs

The Pro-Smoking ban people have explained the health benifits of bringing this ban in, i would like to see some benifits for the health of the public and bar staff of keeping pubs smokey, please.

In regard to the Minister, you are suggesting that he will resign or will be pushed (correct me if my asumption is incorrect), but i think that only if he follows through, he will become a strong minister, probably the only person in FF who has any backbone (Bertie has as much as a snake). I have total disgust for the FF party, but i fully support the Minister on this, and he in my opinion is much better a person for standing up and being counted, a truly brave man.

Stay the course Mr Martin, don't let the smelly (self censored) smokers put you off!

ringzer

Just a quick note touching on the broader issue of tobacco companies and how disgusting and unhealthy smoking is. You should check out www.thetruth.com Its an American based site telling how the tobacco companies knowingly sell cigarettes when they know people are dying and getting addicted to it. Have a look around the site and the evidence is quite shocking. I know its re-affirmed my hatred of smoking.

I'm currently in NY/NJ in the USA for the summer. As everyone knows NY banned smoking here recently, which was a great move in my opinion. I was getting the subway home to New Jersey last night, which still allows smoking in pubs, and noticed an ad in the subway trying to get smoking banned. www.njsparetheair.org Its working over here with more and more people wanting to get it expanded to different states. I think that when the Irish ban is seen to be successful, many other EU countries will follow suit. I think the UK are thinking of implementing such a ban too in the future.

Roll on January 1st 2004!

Ciaran

Stonemason

To be honest I wish I hadn’t risen to the bait on this one.

Firstly to let you understand where im coming from on my point of view so as not to be confused with some kind of analy retentive pro smoker. I have smoked from the age of 12 which means ive been smoking 25 years and smoke at most 20 a day im still reasonably fit. Though I fully agree that smoking is a waste of money and unhealthy im addicted. I have no love of tobacco companies but I do not blame them for my own stupidity nor do I blame society as 25 years ago smoking was no big thing. I wish I had never started smoking but wishing is not going to change the last 25 years. On the upside I enjoy nothing more after a hard weeks work than relaxing with a pint or ten and a smoke. Both these little luxuries are rapidly becoming too expensive to be enjoyable. As anyone with an empty wallet on a Saturday morning will probably agree.

My main concern is that PC nut jobs running around the place only spouting one side of the story and people who are gullible enough to take it as gospel. If proof were given I would accept it regardless of which way it went.

Correct. However, given that less than 16% of the population of the world has died from lung cancer, can we therefore conclude that lung cancer hasn't been proven to exist?

Now this is just being pedantic either you are willing to accept the rules of scientific proof or you are not but you cant just choose which statistic you want to believe and ignore ones that don’t fit with your beliefs it makes a mockery of science and common sense. Cancer does exist its tangible what has not be proven here is that passive smoking cause’s cancer. A school of thought exists that cancer is genetic and can be triggered by many things in this world, smoking (firsthand)being one of the most popular culprits but by no means the only one (Asbestos anyone).Therefore I could concluded that no matter how well a study is designed there are certain factors that cannot be predicted regardless of how many formula’s you use ergo 16% maybe higher than is factually true don’t forget until recently it was taken as fact that 25% too 30% risk was the norm.


The two Barstaff questions as you surmised were hollow questions simply put there to question the validity of holding up certain members of society over an other i.e. barstaff and spouses both are subjected to passive smoking but which one spends more time (if time is a factor)in the supposedly cancer inducing environment. In other words a spouse living with a smoker who smokes 100 a day and works from home would be in a worse environment than a barperson that worked 12 hours a week in a quiet bar in the country.

So the tobacco companies have been funding the anti-smoking lobbies all these years?

Why? Were they making too much money and decided to create some opposition to themselves or something?

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you it should have read (As for your last remark about being funded by a tobacco company you might like to have added that this is OFTEN THE ONLY way to get funding.)As the quote below it says Tobacco Control Office of California's Health and Human Services cut funding once it became clear that Enstrom/Kabat study did not look like it giving the answer they expected and wanted. Don’t get me wrong by the same token I dare say the tobacco companies coffers (pardon the pun) suddenly sprang open once they heard they were onto a winner.



Meh

In reply to your rebuttal

Everyone benefits from cars/buses/trucks, except for people who walk everywhere, grow their own food and make their own clothes. If I were to ban vehicles, I'd have to give all that up. Therefore I am pro-vehicle (because their benefits to me outweigh their disadvantages) and anti-smoking in pubs (because the disadvantages to me outweigh the benefits). In fact, I can't think of a single benefit to me from allowing smoking in pubs.

By your reckoning the ozzys deserve to have skin cancer just because you like an easier life. This weeks report on the ozone layer has it at a record high of 11 million square miles but that’s ok they live on the other side of the planet right. Mind you if those pesky icecap’s keep melting you could well be going to work in a boat rather than a cars/buses/trucks now look who’s being pedantic.

Meh

Originally posted by Stonemason
By your reckoning the ozzys deserve to have skin cancer just because you like an easier life. This weeks report on the ozone layer has it at a record high of 11 million square miles but that’s ok they live on the other side of the planet right.

Don't you think it's a bit rich for you to be accusing me of selfishness? I'm not the one wanting to inflict my noxious habits on you...

bonkey

Originally posted by Stonemason
Asbestos anyone

Typically leads to asbestosis, not cancer, doesn't it?

But I take your point...there are other causes.

The only thing for me is that no other significant causes have been found that I am aware of. The thing is that these causes will exist everywhere, so you can obtain a reasonable "background count" if you like which shows you what the average incidence of lung-cancer amongst non-smokers is. You can then compare this against your studies, and while 15% may not be conclusive, it does show that something has skewed the results.

Now this is just being pedantic either you are willing to accept the rules of scientific proof or you are not but you cant just choose which statistic you want to believe and ignore ones that don’t fit with your beliefs it makes a mockery of science and common sense.

Heh, now I'm the one being unclear....my apologies.

I was alluding to the fact that the tobacco industry hid for decades behind a similar stance of "lack of proof". Indeed, if you search the web today, you will still find no end of organisations trying to convince us that tobacco/nicotine is neither harmful nor addictive, and will rely on the exact same "rigours of proof" argument that you presented here about passive smoking.

but you cant just choose which statistic you want to believe and ignore ones that don’t fit with your beliefs it makes a mockery of science and common sense.

And common sense would generally say that a swing of 15% from the average needs a reason, unless it can be shown that there is a standard deviation from the average of a comparable amount.

This is my exactly point. I accept entirely that 15% does not constitute proof, but it does not constitute disproof either. It suggests that something has been at work, and - again, taking your argument of common sense - the most likely culprit would appear to be that second-hand smoking increases the risk of you catching cancer.

Now, given a choice, I would rather see the governments and scientists play on the safe side and take action against the possibility, rather than put the world through an instant-action replay of the original "smoking is harmful" farce, because the alternative is that we do nothing for the next 50-100 years while sufficient statistical data is collected to determine whether or not it is harmful.

The two Barstaff questions as you surmised were hollow questions

Thats exactly what I was illustrating.

When you posed, them originally, you didn't make it clear they were just empty questions - you appeared to be driving that the two questions (when you first posed them) were implying that the barstaff were fine because they spent so little time in the smoky atmosphere.

You're effectively dismissing (and arguing that the rest of should do likewise) the only possibly relevant study, on the grounds that you think its not applicable. I was simply looking for anything to show that this was nothing but pure conjecture on your part, but rather a stance backed by any sort of official figures to show that there is a difference.

While I can only offer a personal opinion, I would generally find that bars are far smokier on average than single-smoker residences. This is why I was looking for figures.

We can agree to disagree, but if you had any statistics to show the validity of your argument, then I'd concede it in a second.

In the absence of such figures, though, I hardly think it would be appropriate for either of us to be insisting that our opinion on how relevant the comparison is has any weight whatsoever....which is what I was trying to show

jc

RainyDay

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?..

Coming late to this thread...

Paddy - You do know that there are already laws in place covering both of maximum noise levels and maximum occupancy levels, don't you?

Paddy20

You know, as an ex-smoker I am very concerned about the inherent rights of smokers which I witness being more and more denied. However, that is my opinion, *something that as yet, I have not been banned from expressing!.

The ban on smoking "In the workplace" legislation has been designed to protect the health of workers. Therefore, in fairness I have reached the conclusion that workers obviously have a right to work in a healthy risk free atmosphere where possible.

I personally stopped smoking of my own free will for the good of my health!, but I have not banned smoking in my company. Nor would I have the audacity too try and ban other continuing smokers from smoking in their "chosen" place of relaxation and
socialising.

Hence my reason for starting this thread. I really do not wish to see any Politician being forced to step down, but I still believe compromise in relation to Minister Martins legislation is needed.

Finally, I believe without a ban!. Smoking has continued to drop through personal choice, and it would continue to decrease over time in the hospitality trade even if this legislation had never been suggested. It is the arrogant "I know whats best and you will do as I say dictatorial attitude that I object too?".. in the main.

Also, many of the posts about this new "LAW" are so damned condemning of smokers that I have at times seriously considered taking up - Smoking again - out of pure frustration.

Even then it appears that I would be banned from smoking in my favourite hideaway. So it seems I would have to start drinking again as well! [frustration again], and start visiting one of the new "Shibeens" that will spring up.

I wonder how many other ex-smokers/drinkers feel the same?...

P.;)

Imposter

/Yawn

Paddy I think you need a journal.
People have heard what you think many times now. The subject has been discussed from all angles. Unless you have a new angle to discuss this from why post the same opinion again and again?You still have not changed your opinion. We know this already.

What exactly do you want to happen by posting your opinion over and over?

bloggs

Originally posted by Paddy20
I personally stopped smoking of my own free will for the good of my health!, but I have not banned smoking in my company. Nor would I have the audacity too try and ban other continuing smokers from smoking in their "chosen" place of relaxation and
socialising.

But Paddy this is where your argument fails. Nobody is asking smokers to quit, they are asking smokers to give consideration to the health of people who don't smoke. I don't, but if i did sniff glue, should i be allowed sniff glue in the pub, even if the smell of the glue is affecting other people?

Also in regard to the Health Minister, why should he resign? Has he done anything wrong?? I don't think so!

RainyDay

Phew - What a thread....

Some general views....

This is primarily a health & safety issue at present, and as such, cannot be left to 'market forces' to dictate (e.g. some smoking pubs, some non-smoking pubs). As others have stated, we would not stand by & permit some non-hard-hat building sites or some non-protective-clothing asbestos removal services. We set a minimum standard which all employers must meet - In this case, it just happens to be fresh air.

Minister Martin has nothing to fear from Bertie's hesitation. Bertie is past his due date. Brennan ignored Bertie's reassurance to the unions and ploughed ahead with splitting up Aer Rianta. Bertie hasn't got the support in cabinet to face down Martin (or anyone, come to that).

Limited non-smoking areas will not work, because smokers have shown that they will not respect them. They will still have their fag in their mouth while passing though the non-smoking area to the loo or the bar. They will always have a good excuse why they just need to have their smoke now. Perhaps if smokers had shown more respect for non-smoking areas in the past, the ban wouldn't under consideration now.

The ban is enforceable, just as current prohibitions on dope-smoking in pubs work almost all of the time. It will also be enforced by public complaints to the Office of Tobacco Control and Environmental Health Officers. These complaints will be considered when the pub's license comes up for renewal in the courts. But most of all, it will be enforced by the 71% of non-smokers who will make it clear to pub management that they cannot stand idly by.

Will this challenge the pub trade? Yes, of course. Will their income drop if they fail to respond? Probably. But many businesses face challenges from regulatory issues today. They can't just sit back on their asses & moan. Perhaps if they started offering food that was a bit nicer than the grey roast beef that has sat under the carvery warming lights for a few hours, then their trade might increase. Perhaps if they got a bit creative about the kind of music & entertainment they offered, their trade might increase.

And of course, the Vitners will need to ensure that the outside of their pubs doesn't turn into one large ashtray, spattered with butts. Or they will end up facing litter fines as well.

I'm actually starting to seriously wonder why the Vitners etc are so vehemently against the ban. Building your business strategy around only 29% (the percentage of the population that smoke) of your possible customers is not very sensible, particularly when that 29% is shrinking (whether through early death or just giving up). Is there something more behind their reluctance to come into the 21st century?

Paddy20

Imposter,

Quote:- " Paddy I think you need a journal " Hmmm?.. never thought of that. I have noticed that many people have their own journals. However, I am not sure exactly what a journal is all about. I have never visited anyones Journal. Must look up what,how etc, and thanks for the suggestion.

Back on topic, in relation to your statement that I continue too post the same opinions again and again. I do not agree with that, and anyway have you ever wondered why advertisements and campaigns are continually repeated on and through the media. Ask someone who knows about how much information humans retain after "only one" exposure to it. You might learn something new.

Bloggs,

I have already suggested that our citizens should if they wish be able too frequent licensed "Smoking establishments"?..

RainyDay,

Great name. Yes, I am more than aware of the existance of the laws relating too noise and overcrowding. However, the simple truth is these laws are a complete failure. Have you ever dealt with Environmental Health officers. They are a damned joke. the laws are not enforced .

P.

bloggs

Originally posted by Paddy20

Bloggs,

I have already suggested that our citizens should if they wish be able too frequent licensed "Smoking establishments"?..

As as the ban would cover the work place, you couldn't have people working in this 'smoking establishment', hmmmm perhaps beer despensing vending machines instead

Imposter

Originally posted by bloggs
As as the ban would cover the work place, you couldn't have people working in this 'smoking establishment', hmmmm perhaps beer despensing vending machines instead

But what if a fight broke out and the guards were called (and they came). Wouldn't they then have to work in a smoky environment? Or do you wait until they all kill each other or whatever and come out before they arrest them?:D