"Who runs the country? - We do." - Publicans

Imposter

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Being put in that position by whom? Only by themselves. If you want a smoke-free environment, then, stay away from where smokers congregate. No smoker is twisting your arm for you to join them!

And nobody is going to force you into a pub next January. So if you want to smoke and drink at a table you can do so at home. (These views have been done and will go round in circles forever!)

sceptre

...and this thread ends up like all the others.

LFCFan

Lads lads lads! Calm down will ya. All these arguements will be a thing of the past by March. People will have accepted the inevitable and gotten on with their lives. Pubs will be just as packed as they are now and in a year or so we won't even remember having these discussions. When smoking was banned in Cinemas there was uproar, same with Planes. People will always want to vent anger at any decision like this but in the end it'll just happen and that's the end of it. I for one can't wait to go into a pub and not come out stinking of smoke and waking up in the morning feeling like I've smoked 20 fags. If I wanted to smoke I wouldn't have given up.

Memnoch

for the people who don't get it....

having smoking and non-smoking areas is NOT a compromise.. for several reasons.

1) The staff have to work in all parts of the pub, and it is mainly their health that is in question here.

2) Have you ever been in a small resturatant with smoking/non-smoking areas? I have and at the end my clothes still smell of ciggerate smoke and my skin still itches and I absoultely hate it, as do most non-smokers.

Unless the "smoking" area is sealed off and ventilated seperatly this is not somethign that will make a single bit of difference.

If you want to kill yourself, go do it privately somewhere else. Don't blow your poison at others.

Lemming

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Similarly, I avoid trash-metal pub venues because I hate it so when my eardrums bleed.

Well then you're in luck aren't you since there AREN'T any "trash-metal" pub venues (certainly not in Dublin anyway) :rolleyes:

I not trying to be facetious here.

/me points to his above remark

And make no mistake ............ publicans really don't want your custom either >> ask any publican>> the smoker invariably spends quantifiably more in a pub than does the non-smoker.

hmmm. Logically, that makes no sense whatsoever. Smokers have to chose between smoking and drinking. Non-smokers only drink. So who drinks more is somewhat debatable.....

oscarBravo

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
And make no mistake ............ publicans really don't want your custom either >> ask any publican>>

Most of the publicans I've spoken to are in favour of banning smoking in pubs. I don't know (and I'm not silly enough to make an unjustified assumption) whether that's representative of all, or even most, publicans.

the smoker invariably spends quantifiably more in a pub than does the non-smoker.

I've heard that, and I've also heard that the majority of pub patrons are smokers. I've yet to see a reliable source for either figure. My experience (which may or may not be representative of pubs throughout the country) is that the percentage of smokers in pubs is approximately comparable to the percentage of smokers in the population. If it is slightly higher, I would speculate that it is because of those non-smokers who choose not to frequent smokey pubs. I am also personally acquainted with a large number of people who intend to go to the pub more often once they can do so without having to breathe smoke.

Afterthought .............. propsed comporises suggested by the vintners proceeded much further than one-end-smoking pubs.

They also included an exemption for pubs with fewer than five employees. This type of "compromise" shows that they are missing the point of the exercise: to benefit the health of all employees (and patrons), not just those of large pubs.

rubadub

i think the smoking ban should be enforced in prisons. people in prisons and mental institutions are addicted to nicotine so why not give them nicotine not cigarettes (personally i dont think any prisoner should be allowed to use recreational drugs even if addicted to them). nicotine use does not have to harm people around you. if my preferred method of alcohol adminstration was to heat it up in the glass until it boiled and gave off choking alcohol vapours, it would harm those around me who inhaled it against their wishes, just like smoking. i doubt the publican would like me doing it in his pub, but what can he do to me? enforce a ban, i dont think he would be able to judging from their own admittance of incompetence in such matters. should the publicans be trusted not to serve underage drinkers. they are drug dealers just like pharmacists.

as for the plumbers, what about the gardai having to raid peoples homes with smoke in them too. they have chosen not to ban it in dwellings. i am surprised there is not more call for tobacco and alcohol to be made illegal completely like most other recreational drugs.

Also why did they extend the ban date a month, i wonder how many more addicts will die and how many more will be created in that month. why the year wait to begin with?

rubadub

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Being put in that position by whom? Only by themselves. If you want a smoke-free environment, then, stay away from where smokers congregate. No smoker is twisting your arm for you to join them! Similarly, I avoid trash-metal pub venues because I hate it so when my eardrums bleed.

also similarly nobody is forcing people to go out onto the roads with drunk drivers. if you want a drunkdriver-free environment stay at home

Typedef

It's good to see the government publicy taking on this powerful lobby group and doing things to discourage the abusive lifestyle Irish people have when it comes to socialising in the pub.

Sadly, the smoking ban, is the government scoring points after wasting billions on a still inadequate public medical health service.


However, the ends justifies the means.

Cork

The smoking ban is a very worthwhile measure. The Health of bar workers and patrons needs safegaurding from fag smoke.

If publicans withhold tax, vat or fail to enforce the law - they are entitled to due process.

The smoking ban is a pro worker iniatative that is supported by health professionals and others (Mandate etc).

I am personally tired of going to pubs - with smokers blowing their smoke on all and sundry.

This ban has worked in Boston. Life will continue after this ban is implemented.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by rubadub
people in prisons and mental institutions are addicted to nicotine so why not give them nicotine not cigarettes

Because they are addicted to cigarette smoking, not just to nicotine. Nicotine replacement therapies are all but useless unless combined with some form of psychological intervention.

TommyK

I thought what the publicans said was that they would stop paying VAT by direct debit and revert to whatever means where in place prior to that (presumably bi-monthly manual returns).

Is this not the case?

It seems to me that it would make sense because, if the publicans fear of diminished profits comes true, they would want to only pay VAT in proportion to their *actual* takings as opposed to paying a set amount irrespective of their takings.

Whats wrong with that?

Isin't that what most small businesses do anyway?

Or am I missing something?

Tommy.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Tommy Kavanagh
It seems to me that it would make sense because, if the publicans fear of diminished profits comes true, they would want to only pay VAT in proportion to their *actual* takings as opposed to paying a set amount irrespective of their takings.

That's a new one on me - my understanding (as someone who recently had to register for VAT :mad:) is that everyone pays VAT based on actual takings. I've never heard of VAT being paid on any other basis.

Do you have a source for your interpretation?

TommyK

quote:

---

That's a new one on me - my understanding (as someone who recently had to register for VAT ) is that everyone pays VAT based on actual takings. I've never heard of VAT being paid on any other basis.

Do you have a source for your interpretation

---

I'm afraid I don't know any official sources to back me up on this - it *is* just my own personal interpretation.

My understanding is that VAT registered businesses can opt to pay by direct debit in order to save time and hassle every 2 months. I'm sure the agreed upon amount to be debited is taken either from the previous years figures or, if it's a new business, from whatever projections are available for the next year.

Then, at the end of the year, when full returns are made, the amount already paid is tabbed up and, if it's less than is due, you pay the balance or, if its more than is due, Revenue owes you a refund (which is probably offset against future payments).

I admit I might be wrong in my understanding of how this works but, if this *is* the case, and if publicans really *do* suffer lost business, then I think it probably makes sense for them to opt to pay *exactly* what is owed every two months rather than paying on the basis of a revious years higher amounts and then waiting for a future refund/ credit.

Tommy.

LFCFan

Originally posted by Tommy Kavanagh
quote:

---

That's a new one on me - my understanding (as someone who recently had to register for VAT ) is that everyone pays VAT based on actual takings. I've never heard of VAT being paid on any other basis.

Do you have a source for your interpretation

---

I'm afraid I don't know any official sources to back me up on this - it *is* just my own personal interpretation.

My understanding is that VAT registered businesses can opt to pay by direct debit in order to save time and hassle every 2 months. I'm sure the agreed upon amount to be debited is taken either from the previous years figures or, if it's a new business, from whatever projections are available for the next year.

Then, at the end of the year, when full returns are made, the amount already paid is tabbed up and, if it's less than is due, you pay the balance or, if its more than is due, Revenue owes you a refund (which is probably offset against future payments).

I admit I might be wrong in my understanding of how this works but, if this *is* the case, and if publicans really *do* suffer lost business, then I think it probably makes sense for them to opt to pay *exactly* what is owed every two months rather than paying on the basis of a revious years higher amounts and then waiting for a future refund/ credit.

Tommy.

If this is the case though the Publicans would end up just as inconvenienced as the government as they would have the extra hassle of doing VAT returns every month ot whatever.

Cork

"Who runs the country? - We do." - Publicans

They think that they are running the country?

All major political partys and public openion supports this ban.

Yet - If publicans feel that they are running the country - let them think it.

rubadub

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Because they are addicted to cigarette smoking, not just to nicotine. Nicotine replacement therapies are all but useless unless combined with some form of psychological intervention.

then give them psychological help. me heart bleeds for the child rapists in the joy who cant have a smoke. are alcoholic prisoners entitled to a few pints so they wont cause aggro? the last thing i want is more prison officers out sick with passive smoke related illness leaving room for others to do ridiculous overtime at the taxpayers expense.

anybody see agenda on TV3? David McWilliams was suggesting deregulation if they refuse to enforce the ban, i would love it, the vitners guy being interviewed couldnt answer a single question straight, it was comical. some publicans are talking of not paying VAT at all, not just delaying payment, i am sure they will still make the customer pay the vat though and pocket it themselves, criminals.