Smoking ban to start on March 29

swiss

Originally posted by irish1:

But will they still be smoking?, a lot of Rural pubs not too many inspectors means this law will be very widely flaunted, a lot more than the speed limit.

You're probably right. What point does this entail however? That we shouldn't even try to enforce the ban, or that we shouldn't try to bring it in in the first place?

Personally speaking, I don't smoke and furthurmore, detest the habit. However, I'm not the sort of person to walk up to someone and ask them to stop smoking for my sake. However, if it is illegal in a certain location. I might just ask the person responsible for that location (in this case the publican) to get that person to stop. If no effort is made to get that person to stop smoking, I'll probably avoid going to that pub in the future.

Therefore, unless every publican in a particular location decides to flout the smoking ban, a publican that pursues this policy is essentially alienating an important section of their clientéle. If every pub in a location does decide to flout the smoking ban, then no matter how few health and safety officials there are, there is bound to be some intervention from the authorities.

Originally posted by irish1
What I said was:

John is not the publican, John is a guy "who's sitting at the bar".:)

oh thats correct, my bad sorry, you didnt mention the barman at all... in that particular post

But then, if yer man has a few smokes the publican isn't making all reasonable efforts to stop him.
He's guilty of of a breach of the law.
If I was the judge I'd have to ask , (having heard the evidence of the inspector that the place was smokey) why the publican didn't eject the smoker.

one or two visits at the wrong time and this publican is in trouble

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
oh thats correct, my bad sorry, you didnt mention the barman at all... in that particular post

But then, if yer man has a few smokes the publican isn't making all reasonable efforts to stop him.
He's guilty of of a breach of the law.
If I was the judge I'd have to ask , (having heard the evidence of the inspector that the place was smokey) why the publican didn't eject the smoker.

one or two visits at the wrong time and this publican is in trouble

Thats ok at least yo accepted you were wrong, it shouldn't be the job of employee's of a pub to enforce the law.

Originally posted by Earthman You're probably right. What point does this entail however? That we shouldn't even try to enforce the ban, or that we shouldn't try to bring it in in the first place?

No it means it should be enforced strongly using the Garda!, not the health boards, the minister should leave the law enforcing to the Garda and the health boards to sorting out out Health system.

Originally posted by irish1
Thats ok at least yo accepted you were wrong, it shouldn't be the job of employee's of a pub to enforce the law.

Excuse me I did not say anything of the sort, I never withdrew any point and stand by them.
I withdrew the manner in which I made one of my points.

And as regards " it shouldn't be the job of employee's to enforce the law "

The law is the law and an employee must obey the law.
You aren't suggesting that they should serve alcahol knowingly to a minor for instance , or stay open all hours when the boss is on holidays... that would be breaking the law.
Those are laws that the employee must enforce or ultimately the pub he works in could close down.

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
Excuse me I did not say anything of the sort, I never withdrew any point and stand by them.
I withdrew the manner in which I made one of my points.

And as regards " it shouldn't be the job of employee's to enforce the law "

The law is the law and an employee must obey the law.
You aren't suggesting that they should serve alcahol knowingly to a minor for instance , or stay open all hours when the boss is on holidays... that would be breaking the law.
Those are laws that the employee must enforce or ultimately the pub he works in could close down.

Your clucthing straws now, The employees won't be selling the fags nor are they asked to enforce the law they health board has been handed that privilige.

All employees can do is ask them to stop and then ring the number if they don't.

You might not accept your wrong about your second last quote but you were, I never said the Publican would tell mick the inspector was around.

Originally posted by irish1

You might not accept your wrong about your second last quote but you were, I never said the Publican would tell mick the inspector was around.

firstly you didn't merely say that I said I was wrong about john being the publican in your example.
You extended it as a full sentence to say that I accepted, that employee's of the publican did not have to enforce the law in the pub.Here is the sentence:

Thats ok at least yo accepted you were wrong, it shouldn't be the job of employee's of a pub to enforce the law.

Now could you point out to me where I accepted anything of the sort?
Now it's perfectly clear that I did accept my bad on the personalities there but to say what you said there is attributing to me something I most certainly did not accept and thats all obvious on this page.

Your clucthing straws now, The employees won't be selling the fags nor are they asked to enforce the law they health board has been handed that privilige.

Where am I clutching at straws??
Indeed it was yourself who posted and I quote:

Therefore it is clear that employers must put in place detailed policies regarding workplace smoking, which state that breaches of such a policy will result in disciplinary action

Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's.

sceptre

Originally posted by at least two people in this thread
flaunted

The word is "flouted".

Flaunted means pretty much the opposite of what you want to say

I'm not merely being a smart ass - you won't want to get this wrong in your letter to the IT. As Bill Bryson put it in Troublesome Words the confusion between flaunt and flout is so widespread that at least two American dictionaries have granted them legitimacy as synonynms. Nevertheless, "flaunt" means to display ostentatiously or to show off. "Flout" means to treat with contempt

As people may have noticed, I'm not normally so uncouth or rude to correct people's grammar or spelling. This one, however, deserves a shot across the bows before the rot starts. Apologies.

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
firstly you didn't merely say that I said I was wrong about john being the publican in your example.
You extended it as a full sentence to say that I accepted, that employee's of the publican did not have to enforce the law in the pub.Here is the sentence:

Now could you point out to me where I accepted anything of the sort?
Now it's perfectly clear that I did accept my bad on the personalities there but to say what you said there is attributing to me something I most certainly did not accept and thats all obvious on this page.

Well if you read it that way I'm sorry, I thought it was quite clear that they were 2 seperate statements. anyway

Originally posted by Earthman

Where am I clutching at straws??
Indeed it was yourself who posted and I quote:
Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's.

You posted that not me you were referring to quote i had reffered to from another
forum :http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142248&perpage=20&pagenumber=2 source:http://www.hrmaster.com/cgi-bin/cli...g-reg-jan04.htm

Sparks

From breakingnews.ie, and the Jackie-Healy Rae fanclub....

Publicans in Kerry are considering defying the Government’s workplace smoking ban when it comes into force on March 29.

The Kerry branch of the Vintners Federation of Ireland met last night to discuss the matter.

The meeting heard calls for publicans to take a collective decision to defy the smoking ban.

Other VFI branches are expected to hear similar calls at meetings over the coming weeks

*sigh*

There are days that I'm not too impressed with my countymen...

Originally posted by irish1

Well if you read it that way I'm sorry, I thought it was quite clear that they were 2 seperate statements. anyway

Basic English, Irish1. Heres what you said:

Thats ok at least yo accepted you were wrong, it shouldn't be the job of employee's of a pub to enforce the law.

You posted that in one sentence, theres no other way that it could have been read or interpreted, except to say that I was accepting that Barstaff should not enforce the law.As you clearly state from your last answer, I most certainly said nothing of the sort.

You posted that not me you were referring to quote i had reffered to from another

You are referring here to what I quoted you on with regard to disciplinary actions being shown to be taken against employees that did not take reasonable efforts to enforce the law.
It was indeed, you who posted it, how else could I quote you??
You posted it here in this thread in answer to me.
And then you went on to say that it shouldn't be the job of employee's of a pub to enforce the law. That is a silly thing to say
Heres exactly what you posted:

Originally posted by irish1

An employer who can show that they made “all reasonable efforts” to ensure compliance with the regulations may use this as a defence where proceedings are initiated against them. Therefore it is clear that employers must put in place detailed policies regarding workplace smoking, which state that breaches of such a policy will result in disciplinary action

Theres inconsistency there in your argument.
On the one hand you are saying that pub employees's shouldn't have to enforce the law at all which is is silly and on the other you are posting something which clearly indicates in relation to the smoking ban they should.
And thats without even going into the issue, that bar staff enforce the law every night when they call time.

Villain

What you posted first was:

Where am I clutching at straws??
Indeed it was yourself who posted and I quote:
Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's.

Which YOU had said, now youv'e changed it to say

Where am I clutching at straws??
Indeed it was yourself who posted and I quote:
Therefore it is clear that employers must put in place detailed policies regarding workplace smoking, which state that breaches of such a policy will result in disciplinary action

And I stated in my last post that they weren't my words, I was posting the info from another forum
Source:http://www.hrmaster.com/cgi-bin/cli...g-reg-jan04.htm

So if anyones argument is getting inconsistent I thinks its yours.

Originally posted by irish1
What you posted first was:

Where am I clutching at straws??
Indeed it was yourself who posted and I quote:
Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's.

Which YOU had said, now youv'e changed it to say

Where am I clutching at straws??
Indeed it was yourself who posted and I quote:
Therefore it is clear that employers must put in place detailed policies regarding workplace smoking, which state that breaches of such a policy will result in disciplinary action

And I stated in my last post that they weren't my words, I was posting the info from another forum
Source:http://www.hrmaster.com/cgi-bin/cli...g-reg-jan04.htm

So if anyones argument is getting inconsistent I thinks its yours.

I'm sorry to have to tell you but again you are wrong.
I didn't change anything and you haven't shown me to have changed anything.

Indeed you have refused to address the points where I said you were changing your argument to the extent that it is inconsistent.

What you have posted above, is merely me showing in clarification for you , where exactly I quoted you from in this thread.
If you don't want to be putting foward certain propositions in this thread, you shouldn't post them here.
I have shown where you have said one thing in one post and the opposite in another post which by definition is inconsistency.

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
I'm sorry to have to tell you but again you are wrong.
I didn't change anything and you haven't shown me to have changed anything.
[/B]

No I'm not you changed your post, who had misquoted me.

I have no interest in debating this issue any further, you misquoted me and now try and tell me I'm wrong.

To Sum-up.

I am in favour of the ban on smoking, I have worked in a bar for over 8 years and my health suffered, so I fully support a ban.

My problem is with the policing of the ban, the law won't be enforced in the way the policing has been set-up, it will be Flouted.

Now earthman I don't know you personally so I don't know why your so adament it will work, but I do know if you come to a rural pub in my area after the 29th March the 6 auld fellas that go in there every night for a few pints will still be smoking.

Originally posted by irish1
No I'm not you changed your post, who had misquoted me.

where?
Everything I said you posted, is all here in black and white and it shows inconsistency.

I have no interest in debating this issue any further, you misquoted me and now try and tell me I'm wrong.

I was given to thinking that this was a political debating forum and not a soapbox platform.
I have engaged your posts and now you choose to withdraw from the discussion because, I have pointed out flaws in your argument.

Thats fine by me.

My problem is with the policing of the ban, the law won't be enforced in the way the policing has been set-up, it will be Flouted.

You are convinced then that this law will not be inforced and that four or five hundred inspectors will be doing nothing...
They will be sitting down reading the paper instead of finding smokey bars and writing out infringement orders....
Thats your perogative to think that, but lets leave the judgement untill the law is implimented shall we.
The judges enforce every other aspect of the licencing laws and no doubt they will insist on fine payments in this case too.

I don't doubt that your six auld fellahs will be smoking at the bar for a while after march 29th, thats to be expected but not for long, just like they don't in the cinema's.

Linoge

Originally posted by Sparks
From breakingnews.ie, and the Jackie-Healy Rae fanclub....



quote:

---

Publicans in Kerry are considering defying the Government’s workplace smoking ban when it comes into force on March 29.

The Kerry branch of the Vintners Federation of Ireland met last night to discuss the matter.

The meeting heard calls for publicans to take a collective decision to defy the smoking ban.

Other VFI branches are expected to hear similar calls at meetings over the coming weeks

---

*sigh*

There are days that I'm not too impressed with my countymen...

The VFI are just bullys, they think that they can just disregard a law like that just because they dont feel like/couldn't be arsed enforcing it. IMO if the senior members of the VFI openly tell their members to disobey the ban in protest they should be prosecuted. The pubs that openly allow smoking should be closed down by the gardai until they comply.

Just a word to everyone against the ban. How dare you choose your habit over my health? As for the publicans, polls have shown that there will be a net increase in people going to the pub (as non-smokers are the majority after all). And if worst case scenario there is a drop in sales, maybe the pubs will drop their prices to try to bring back the customers they have been losing over the last number of years.

It annoys me when people try to argue against the ban, they have very weak arguments with absolutely no basis.

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
where?
Everything I said you posted, is all here in black and white and it shows inconsistency.

Just to clarify:

You first quoted to of saying "Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's."

You then edited the post to say that I said:"Therefore it is clear that employers must put in place detailed policies regarding workplace smoking, which state that breaches of such a policy will result in disciplinary action"

You misquoted me in the first instance and in teh second instance I was quoting paragraph from a link which I have supplied.

Thats in black and white, so stop talking bull.

Originally posted by Earthman

I was given to thinking that this was a political debating forum and not a soapbox platform.
I have engaged your posts and now you choose to withdraw from the discussion because, I have pointed out flaws in your argument.

Thats fine by me

That is not the reason I am withdrawing, your so caught up in the argument you can't see that my posts were not inconsistent and that I was quoting someone else.

Villain

Originally posted by Linoge
It annoys me when people try to argue against the ban, they have very weak arguments with absolutely no basis.

Well I think their main problem is fear, now it doesn't give them the right to allow peoples health be threatened. (BTW I support the ban)


Consider this do.

Small rural pub only people who work in are the publicans family who all are dependent on the pub for their source of income. Now most week nighhts there might only be 10 - 15 in the bar, majority who DO smoke. Can you blaim the publican for not insisting the ban is implemented if he will lose a large % of his customers. His family run the pub so their is no employees!

I'm not saying the publican above is right I'm just saying I see his right to defend his livelyhood

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1
Now most week nighhts there might only be 10 - 15 in the bar, majority who DO smoke.

Since the talk of the ban started, I've been doing an unscientific study of my local (a busyish rural pub).

With astonishing consistency, the number of smokers is always around the 30% mark - whether there are 10 people there or 100. I actually count heads; I don't just think "looks like about a third." My suspicion is that the regulars will continue to come in. Most only stay for 2-3 drinks, and I'm sure the social aspect of it is more important than the smoking - they can smoke anywhere, after all, but a social drink is a different story.

I'll be waiting to see what happens.

Villain

Yea and the polls would suggest you pub is among the average, but theres always the exception, I mean i know of other pubs where there would be less than 30%

ixoy

Originally posted by Linoge
It annoys me when people try to argue against the ban, they have very weak arguments with absolutely no basis.

Indeed. Be careful pointing out such facts tho' - some of the rabid smokers in here will blow smoke in your face to assert their "right" to smoke.

Speaking of which is a right something that's enshrined in the constitution? And everything else is just what's permissible or not under the current law?

BuffyBot

How dare you choose your habit over my health?

How dare your health impinge on my freedom to do what I like to mine?

If it's a purely self-interest debate here, it becomes stalemate.

If there is external factors, as there are in this debate, fine. Don't bandy your health around as an individual concern, because it has you have no greater right to health than anyone else. Everyone has equal right to heath, and likewise equal right to damage it should they choose to

Speaking of which is a right something that's enshrined in the constitution? And everything else is just what's permissible or not under the current law?

There is no right to smoke. But everyone has a right of self-determination to a certain extent, and no ones "rights" are above anyone elses. Laws may prohibit smoking in certain places, but it can't ban the right to smoke, should one choose to smoke.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Laws may prohibit smoking in certain places, but it can't ban the right to smoke, should one choose to smoke.

s/smoke/shoot up/ and where does that leave you?

BuffyBot

Originally posted by oscarBravo
s/smoke/shoot up/ and where does that leave you?

I'm sure what you mean, but I'll take a stab in the dark. You, should you wish, can choose to smoke/shoot/up/murder people where ever you like. Whether it's permissible is another debate.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is that in this thread there is a lot of "rights" being thrown around by both sides, but no one has more rights than anyone else.

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by BuffyBot
The point I'm trying to make is that there is that in this thread there is a lot of "rights" being thrown around by both sides, but no one has more rights than anyone else.

But people DO have a right not to have their health put at risk by others. So smokers do have a right to damage their own health but when they damage the health of others, that right goes out the window.

Originally posted by irish1
Just to clarify:

You first quoted to of saying "Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's."

You then edited the post to say that I said:"Therefore it is clear that employers must put in place detailed policies regarding workplace smoking, which state that breaches of such a policy will result in disciplinary action"

You misquoted me in the first instance and in teh second instance I was quoting paragraph from a link which I have supplied.

Thats in black and white, so stop talking bull.


That is not the reason I am withdrawing, your so caught up in the argument you can't see that my posts were not inconsistent and that I was quoting someone else.

I never edited any post here
If you are going to say that show me where I edited it.
For your information if a poster edits his post more than sixty seconds after posting it, then there is a message at the bottom of the post saying last edited by and when it was edited.
There is no such message at the end of any post of mine in this thread.
So again you are directly saying I am doing something which I am not.

And indeed I did quote you from your own posts here.
Stuff that you did say here that is in conflict with other stuff you posted in the same thread.

ixoy

Originally posted by BuffyBot
How dare your health impinge on my freedom to do what I like to mine?

If it's a purely self-interest debate here, it becomes stalemate.

Except that it doesn't. You have a right to do whateve the hell you want with your health, as I have the right to do whatever I want with mine. You most certainly do not have the right to do as you please with my health, regardless of what I wish. That's the whole point of the ban!!!

Villain

Show me where I said "Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's"

bonkey

Originally posted by BuffyBot
but no one has more rights than anyone else.

Thats not what anyone is arguing at all. They are saying that certain rights take precedence over others. And they do.....

The current situation says you do have the right to smoke in the places that will shortly face hte smoking ban. That currently puts your right above that of the non-smoker. The ban is seeking to change that and put the rights of the non-smoker first instead. It may not be an ideal implementation, but thats not the point. The point is that currently your rights - as a smoker - are taking precedence over those of the non-smoker.Defending that by saying "all rights are equal" is a bit strange, don't you think????

And before you get on the "talking about banning smoking altogether" buzz you were throwing around a post or two ago, I'd suggest you re-read the post you were replying to, because all that was objected to was anyone insisting they have the right to smoke around non-smokers. That doesn't equate to "the right to smoke".

jc

Villain

This is a little tasteless so I apologise but couldn't resist posting it

http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~tukke...-smokekills.swf

Originally posted by irish1
Show me where I said "Thats enforcement in the case of the smoking ban and who is doing the enforcing, yes the employee's"

Well you see theres the inconsistency.
You posted

An employer who can show that they made “all reasonable efforts” to ensure compliance with the regulations may use this as a defence where proceedings are initiated against them. Therefore it is clear that employers must put in place detailed policies regarding workplace smoking, which state that breaches of such a policy will result in disciplinary action

And I clearly pointed out the meaning of what you posted.
If it's in your post , you are saying it.
the context was where you were telling me that Micks publican would get off the charge of smoking in the pub.
Yet you also said that Mick knowing that the inspector had been, that he could smoke away, no bother.
Now In your own post you have conceded that the publican in order to have a chance of getting off the charge would have to show that he has used all reasonable measures.
Indeed that would include as you stated in your post disiplinery action being take against barstaff.
Clearly that would be in the case where the staff did not take reasonable measures to enforce the ban
That is enforcement.
Now if you go back and read my original post, you will see that, that is what I actually said.

Now care to show me which post I edited?