Smoking ban to start on March 29

bonkey

Originally posted by Linoge
I wasn't talking about entitlements to opinion btw, just that people like yourself are far less likely to be strongly opinionated on this subject.

Yes, but you didn't say "far less likely". You said :

Surely this means you have no fixed opinion on this subject then.

So either, surely this must mean I also don't have an opinion on the subject - not that I am "less likely to be strongly opinionated".

Regardless, it was your "why are you posting here then" comment which got my goat. Putting it bluntly, it is not your position to question someone's rights or reasons for posting here....and far less your position to suggest that someones opinion is somehow unworthy of this discussion...which is what I took from your statement.

Anyway, back to the point. F*** people who oppose the ban

Thats very civil of you.

Are they not entitled to their opinions as well, now?
Do they not have a right to protest or object?

I hope you never come on to this forum objecting to anything where you are in the minority......because I'm sure having this caring attitude thrown back in your own face will be as acceptable to you as I'm sure those who oppose the ban find your attitude at present.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Linoge
I wasn't talking about entitlements to opinion btw, just that people like yourself are far less likely to be strongly opinionated on this subject.

Yes, but you didn't say "far less likely". You said :

Surely this means you have no fixed opinion on this subject then.

So either, surely this must mean I also don't have a fixed opinion on the subject - not that I am less likely to.

Regardless, it was your "why are you posting here then" comment which got my goat. Putting it bluntly, it is not your position to question someone's rights or reasons for posting here....and far less your position to suggest that someones opinion is somehow unworthy of this discussion...which is what I took from your statement.

Anyway, back to the point. F*** people who oppose the ban

Thats very civil of you.

Are they not entitled to their opinions as well, now?
Do they not have a right to protest or object?

I hope you never come on to this forum objecting to anything where you are in the minority......because I'm sure having this caring attitude thrown back in your own face will be as acceptable to you as I'm sure those who oppose the ban find your attitude at present.

jc

Linoge

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, but you didn't say "far less likely". You said :

So either, surely this must mean I also don't have a fixed opinion on the subject - not that I am less likely to.

jc

Talk about "hogwash and sanctimony"! Incidently that statement about "surely you" was not a rhetorical question, I was actually asking iif they felt strongly on the subject. BTW It wasn't directed at you.

And my last remark was just a joke. You hardly think I spend time typing in this thread when I could just stick something like that as my sig. It was meant to get the actual argument at hand going again. Not this sh!t where we are warring back and forth as to who said what, and what they meant and how they said it etc.

I'm not going to engage in any more bickering with you.

Drexl Spivey

Originally posted by bonkey
Are they not entitled to their opinions as well, now?
Do they not have a right to protest or object?

Smoking kill millions (certainly more than terrorism ! But we won t go there...).



Protesting against the ban is the same as ... protesting against air pollution : it is protesting in favor of something that is dangerous.

==>I don t mind people ptotesting against the ban as long as the ban is enforced !

BuffyBot

Protesting against the ban is the same as ... protesting against air pollution : it is protesting in favor of something that is dangerous.

People still have the right to debate/challenge/discuss/have opinions about it though, which wast he point being made.

bonkey

Originally posted by Linoge
Talk about "hogwash and sanctimony

You should go back and read that post again. Pay attention to the comment about "the bit that got my goat". Its from a a moderator telling you that it is not your place to imply that others are somehow wrong to be posting here, or to question their reasoning for doing so.....not from a regular poster trying to nit-pick.

I'm assuming, of course, that you don't see me doing my job as "hogwash and sanctimony".

Incidently that statement about "surely you" was not a rhetorical question, I was actually asking iif they felt strongly on the subject.

Ah. I see. Completely my fault that I misunderstood you by assuming your grammar was correct and that something phrased as an assumptive sentence was meant as just that.

Thanks for clearing that up.

BTW It wasn't directed at you.

Thats why I pointed out that I'm in the same boat in terms of where I am and how it affects me.

If those criteria call Buffybot's opinion and reason for posting into question, then they do the same to anyone else who fits the same criteria......assuming you apply standards equally.

And my last remark was just a joke.

Nice of you to clarify that. If you had made it obvious at the time, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

It was meant to get the actual argument at hand going again.

What? By insulting anyone who happens to disagree with you? Sorry....by jokingly insulting anyone who happens to disagree with you.

This is where sanctimonious me suggest you refamiliarise yourself with the rules which cover exactly this issue before you make the same mistake again.

Not this sh!t where we are warring back and forth as to who said what, and what they meant and how they said it etc.

Well, now you've clarified that the first statement I took exception to was (obviously) meant as a question, and the second statement was (obviously) meant as a joke, there's no more confusion, so there's no need to "war" back and forth.

jc

Ajnag

Question One,
If the majority support the ban, then why havent smoke free pubs prospered in our free market system?

Question 2,
If smoking is such a big public health issue, and one human exhaling smoke for 4-6 minutes every 1-2 hours is such a big danger and is dangerous enough to incur a blanketban in all public and working areas, then why isnt all mechanical equipment that constantly emits dangerous emmisions also given a blanket ban?, Can we also ban air fresheners, and other pollutants.


Question 3,
To those who state that we should obey the law without question, are you flawless and aware of the full Irish legisleture, cos otherwise you may be in violation.Also If a law was passed that required you to jump of a cliff would you comply like the responsible citizen you currently claim to be?

Question 4
Why do I have to live in an age of cowardly hypocondriacs, who are blatently ungrateful for the extented life span they already enjoy?.Only two things of certainty death and taxs, you might enjoy life more if you dont consentrate only on that which may kill you.

Imposter

Originally posted by Ajnag
Question One

Already discussed here or in other threads on the subject

Question 2

Already discussed here or in other threads on the subject

Question 3

I think already discussed but if you are aware of a law and break it then expect the consequences.

Question 4

:rolleyes:
Do you actually have any opinions on these questions (other than that bit in question 4)?

Drexl Spivey

Originally posted by Ajnag
Question One,
If the majority support the ban, then why havent smoke free pubs prospered in our free market system?

Where were they ??? I heard of them, I am not ready to go to any pub just because it is smoke free.


Question 2,
If smoking is such a big public health issue, and one human exhaling smoke for 4-6 minutes every 1-2 hours is such a big danger and is dangerous enough to incur a blanketban in all public and working areas, then why isnt all mechanical equipment that constantly emits dangerous emmisions also given a blanket ban?, Can we also ban air fresheners, and other pollutants.

Why do you say IF. It IS a big issue.
Some people want to quit smoking and it is not possible because smoke is everywhere. Si even IF passive smoking was not directly dangerous, it keeps people addicted, and in the end they may die from the cigarettes.

Your argument about banning dangerous emmissions is a bit weird : so because dangerous emissions exist, we shouldn;t ban cigarettes although studies show it is the first cause of death in the developped world. It is typical from smokers to come up with this kind of excuses : 'air you breath is dangerous, everything is bad for something, you have to die from something, ...'
Sorry but it is not because air is polluted that I find it OK to breath your smoke. For non-smokers it is an issue but for EX-smokers like me, it is HELL.


Question 3,
To those who state that we should obey the law without question, are you flawless and aware of the full Irish legisleture, cos otherwise you may be in violation.Also If a law was passed that required you to jump of a cliff would you comply like the responsible citizen you currently claim to be?
What ??? A law asking us to jump from a cliff wouldn t pass and moreover it wouldn t be good for your health obviously. In the other hand, banning the filthy smoke may save lives. Law has to be enforced, otherwise it is anarchy.


Question 4
Why do I have to live in an age of cowardly hypocondriacs, who are blatently ungrateful for the extented life span they already enjoy?.Only two things of certainty death and taxs, you might enjoy life more if you dont consentrate only on that which may kill you.

Cowardly ??? Stopping smoking requires courage.

Hypocondriacs are people who invent their own diseases. They don t really exist.
Most of people who want to stop smoking are people who feel that it is bad for them.

You don t believe it ? Then go to a hospital with people dying from cancer.

When you talk about concentrating about what may kill you. I agree, you can t live like this but the problem with cigarewtte smoke is that it is everywhere, all the time !! you can t escape it, ther is no break.


To you all : Have courage, stop smoking

Ajnag

Originally posted by Imposter
Already discussed here or in other threads on the subject

Already discussed here or in other threads on the subject

I think already discussed but if you are aware of a law and break it then expect the consequences.

:rolleyes:
Do you actually have any opinions on these questions (other than that bit in question 4)?

Thanks for a most informative reply, links and all. Id roll the eyes, but ahh im not bothered.

Jeff,
Thanks for replying with civility,
First up on question one, fact is that the only non smoking pub in Ireland An Tobar in galway, had to renege on its policy.My point being that if there is such a demand for non smoking bars then why havent they flourished.Now were faced with a situation where Instead of every ones needs being catered to , smokers now face the stigmatized and uncomfortable position of having to stand out side, and giving the weather in this country, its not gonna improve smokers health one bit.

On the second question, Im not saying for one minute that smoking is safe, I am however stating that it is an easy public health issue to hop on when in fact there are other more plentyful sources of unhealthy air emmisions.I sympathise and respect your position as a ex-smoker, but I dont want you to breath my smoke at all, I dont see why we cant both be catered to, be it in different pubs, or smoking and non smoking sections.

My point on law is that as a free thinking human being I have the abilty to question the logic and purpose of laws instead of following blindly as some have suggested.This is not in specific reference to the smoking laws but to laws in general.A law in the states from the 30s states that women driving should have a person waving a red flag in front of them.The law is still on the books, should this law be followed simply because it is writen as some here have suggusted?

I agree it takes courage to stop smoking, but as yet I dont want to.I still enjoy this unhealthy addiction somewhat, but also realise that at some stage Ill have to quit.But the point is that as a person of free will, I will quit WHEN i WANT TO, NOT WHEN IM TOLD.Im not saying quiting is easy or such, just that I would like the freedom to decide when to quit.

The way I see it is that smoking is an easy subject for opinionated non-smokers to become self rightous about.I know many non-smokers that dont care.It dosnt irritate them, because they dont let it.Also many of those who target and go on about smoking, dont care to anylise their own unhealthy habits, or the impact of these habits on those around them.How many drag friends out drinking, speaking of which......

Hows about a law that bans all users of alcohol from the streets, as Im sick of enduring them, and the associated health risks, violent beatings, drunk drivers, death, vomit stains.Ban alcohol in the work place as it certainly is no safer the smoking.

ixoy

Originally posted by Ajnag
Question One,
If the majority support the ban, then why havent smoke free pubs prospered in our free market system?

Firstly, many people who would prefer non-smoking pubs happen to have friends. Some of these friends would smoke. So although they may prefer not to be around smoke, they'll grudgingly tolerate it to appease their friends. That doesn't mean they don't not want smoke free pubs.
Secondly, the number of smoke free pubs is small. People often like particular venues or locals because it draws a regular crowd. They wish to see these people again in a common meetiing place. So they go to the same pub, even if its not one of the few non-smoking venues.
Now very few publicans were going to risk alienating a small minority of smokers (and then, by extension, their friends) by making their particular pub a smoke free zone. So the only way to do it properly was to make everyone do it at the same time. The best way to do that is through legislation.

Question 2,
If smoking is such a big public health issue, and one human exhaling smoke for 4-6 minutes every 1-2 hours is such a big danger and is dangerous enough to incur a blanketban in all public and working areas, then why isnt all mechanical equipment that constantly emits dangerous emmisions also given a blanket ban?, Can we also ban air fresheners, and other pollutants.

Huh? Look at death by lung cancer - it's one of the greatest killers in the world, particularly of those deaths are readily preventable. Machines that give dangerous emissions are already regulated by law, so that's a point we can disregard immediately.
The problem with smoking is that it's very hard to avoid the carciogenic pollutant.

Question 3,
To those who state that we should obey the law without question, are you flawless and aware of the full Irish legisleture, cos otherwise you may be in violation.Also If a law was passed that required you to jump of a cliff would you comply like the responsible citizen you currently claim to be?

What? What sort of foolish point is that? Firstly, a jump-off-the-cliff law would never get passed, seeing as how it's fundamentally against rights laid out in our constitution and other laws that we adhere to. Secondly, it's blatantly poor arguing to try and compare two vastly different situations. The law is designed to protect our health whereas your hypothetical law is designed to terminally end our health. You're trying to make it as though the new legislation will have an averse affect on our health - idiocy!

Also ignorance of the law is not an excuse to disregard it. And, broadly speaking, most of us know what we can and cannot do.

Question 4
Why do I have to live in an age of cowardly hypocondriacs, who are blatently ungrateful for the extented life span they already enjoy?.Only two things of certainty death and taxs, you might enjoy life more if you dont consentrate only on that which may kill you.

We also might enjoy life more if we weren't choking on the fumes hanging in a hazy cloud around smokers in pubs
Also please expain what you mean by "cowardly hypocondriacs"? Hypochondriacs see themselves with diseases they don't have, whereas nicotine has a proven link to cancer. Are you seriously of the belief that non-smokers should tolerate the occasional bout of lung cancer, or other undeserved and preventable disease, just to satisfy the unnessecary habit of a smoker? There's words for such thinking, but they're not very polite.

Drexl Spivey

Originally posted by Ajnag


Jeff,
Thanks for replying with civility,
First up on question one, fact is that the only non smoking pub in Ireland An Tobar in galway, had to renege on its policy.My point being that if there is such a demand for non smoking bars then why havent they flourished.

I see your point. I think one problem is that non-smokers and smokers are not a seperate team, meaning that non-smokers will refuse to go to a non-smoking pub, so, their non-smoking friends will follow them.


On the second question, Im not saying for one minute that smoking is safe, I am however stating that it is an easy public health issue to hop on when in fact there are other more plentyful sources of unhealthy air emmisions.I sympathise and respect your position as a ex-smoker, but I dont want you to breath my smoke at all, I dont see why we cant both be catered to, be it in different pubs, or smoking and non smoking sections.

That s what I meant earlier in my reply : what you are saying is unfortunately not realistic, this is why the ban doesn t offer any compromise. Indeed I will give you a straight example : my girlfriend is a smoker, I don t smoke. Where are we going to go for a night out ? Same thing for the restaurant. It s not possible to have one half of the table in the non smoking section and vice and versa.

The reason why you think the ban is attacking your freedom is because you don t want to see that some people s freedom have to be diminished : if the ban is not enforced, then non-smokers freedom is diminished.


My point on law is that as a free thinking human being I have the abilty to question the logic and purpose of laws instead of following blindly as some have suggested.
I totally agree on this concept.


I agree it takes courage to stop smoking, but as yet I dont want to.I still enjoy this unhealthy addiction somewhat, but also realise that at some stage Ill have to quit.But the point is that as a person of free will, I will quit WHEN i WANT TO, NOT WHEN IM TOLD.Im not saying quiting is easy or such, just that I would like the freedom to decide when to quit.

exactly. you can still smoke after the ban.
As you say : you will have to stop smoking someday. And believe me, when you want to stop smoking and you are surrounded by smoke, it makes it tough.


The way I see it is that smoking is an easy subject for opinionated non-smokers to become self rightous about.I know many non-smokers that dont care.It doesnt irritate them, because they dont let it. OK for the opinionated people etc ..
I know lots of non-smokers who don t give out as much as I do about smoke. The thing is when you never smoked, it is quite easy to not pay attention . However, when u ve been addicted for 10 years, and you have taken the decision not to breath Nicotin again, it is another story.


Also many of those who target and go on about smoking, dont care to anylise their own unhealthy habits, or the impact of these habits on those around them.How many drag friends out drinking, speaking of which......
Their are many other issues, and indeed some people who complain about the smoke should also consider bad habits like eating chips everyday. But most bad habits don t impact on other people (although parents with poor diet will teach their children those bad habits etc ..). Smoke is the reason number one for dying in the world (death that could be prevented)

Drinking is another big problem in countries such as IRL or UK, I suppose you have to try to address issued one by one.



Hows about a law that bans all users of alcohol from the streets, as Im sick of enduring them, and the associated health risks, violent beatings, drunk drivers, death, vomit stains.Ban alcohol in the work place as it certainly is no safer the smoking.

Anyhow, I really wonder how effective this ban will be. So you might still be smoking freely in 6 months time in your local.

take it easy.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
...if there is such a demand for non smoking bars then why havent they flourished.

This one has been done to death, but in case you haven't got it yet: smokers won't go to non-smoking pubs. A group of mixed smokers and non-smokers will inevitably end up in a smoking pub.

Now were faced with a situation where Instead of every ones needs being catered to , smokers now face the stigmatized and uncomfortable position of having to stand out side, and giving the weather in this country, its not gonna improve smokers health one bit.

They could always just not smoke.

On the second question, Im not saying for one minute that smoking is safe, I am however stating that it is an easy public health issue to hop on when in fact there are other more plentyful sources of unhealthy air emmisions.

How many of them are legal in workplaces?

I sympathise and respect your position as a ex-smoker, but I dont want you to breath my smoke at all, I dont see why we cant both be catered to, be it in different pubs, or smoking and non smoking sections.

Different pubs won't work, as repeatedly explained. Non-smoking sections in pubs have been discussed to death also.

My point on law is that as a free thinking human being I have the abilty to question the logic and purpose of laws instead of following blindly as some have suggested.

Yes, you do. You also have the option of civil disobedience, if you're prepared to accept the penalties.

I agree it takes courage to stop smoking, but as yet I dont want to.I still enjoy this unhealthy addiction somewhat, but also realise that at some stage Ill have to quit.But the point is that as a person of free will, I will quit WHEN i WANT TO, NOT WHEN IM TOLD.Im not saying quiting is easy or such, just that I would like the freedom to decide when to quit.

No-one's saying you have to quit; simply that you can't smoke in someone's workplace.

The way I see it is that smoking is an easy subject for opinionated non-smokers to become self rightous about.

Frankly, your post reads like that of a self-righteous, opinionated smoker - what makes that any better?

sceptre

Originally posted by Ajnag
or smoking and non smoking sections.

This may be of interest. Study results published only last Monday.

Ajnag

Septre, that link fails to clarify if steps were taken to atmosphericly seperate the smoking and non-smoking sections.I dont see why a well ventilated smoking room with doors and a hall couldnt protect the non smoking section?
And with the amount of money Irish vintners make, I dont see technical costs being an issue.

Fact is that both sides of this debate could be accomidated, how ever the middle ground is being ignored.Thanks to this, come the 29th my social life will be curtailed somewhat, Not because smoking is the end all and be all of my enjoyment, but because it is somewhat a significant part of my drinking ritual, some what like being told you can enjoy coffee or choclate but never together.Those who combine the 2 on a regular basis will under stand my logic.This in combination with the costs accociated with going out will be prohibitive, and all for what, Because you do know that the pubs are planning to sell herbal cigerettes.Non smokers will now enjoy the noxous wiff of a new carcinogenic substance, abeit with less of their legally endorsed nicotine addict friends.

Oscarbravo asked how many dangerous substances are legal in the workplace?
Standard cleaning chemicals arnt too good for human health, nether are the various dusts one is exposed to in construction and are many other substances we come in daily contact with.Once again to reiterate that smoking certainly isnt healthy, however it isnt nessisarly the most common pollutant of our air, especially considering how much crap you breath every rush hour.My lungs and chest fare far worse from an hour in rush hour traffic then a nights smoking.

To those of you who say simply dont smoke, I say emphaticly I will, If you quit one habit that gives you enjoyment, be it drinking, junk food eating what ever i.e If your that dismissive of my position, then I extend the same courtesy to you.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
Septre, that link fails to clarify if steps were taken to atmosphericly seperate the smoking and non-smoking sections.I dont see why a well ventilated smoking room with doors and a hall couldnt protect the non smoking section?

I think you're clutching at straws. You're also missing the point that bar staff would have to work in the smoking section. Besides, the link mentions that even separate rooms are not all that effective.

Fact is that both sides of this debate could be accomidated, how ever the middle ground is being ignored.

There really isn't a middle ground in the debate.

Thanks to this, come the 29th my social life will be curtailed somewhat, Not because smoking is the end all and be all of my enjoyment, but because it is somewhat a significant part of my drinking ritual, some what like being told you can enjoy coffee or choclate but never together.Those who combine the 2 on a regular basis will under stand my logic.

Let's stretch that rather silly metaphor somewhat. If you enjoying coffee and chocolate together meant that I'd always end up with chocolate stains on my clothes, then I'd object to it too.

This in combination with the costs accociated with going out will be prohibitive,

I'm not sure where cost comes into it?

and all for what, Because you do know that the pubs are planning to sell herbal cigerettes.Non smokers will now enjoy the noxous wiff of a new carcinogenic substance, abeit with less of their legally endorsed nicotine addict friends.

I have my doubts, but anyway: is there anything in the legislation that specifically mentions nicotine?

That aside, if some fecker lights one of those things beside me, I'm going to shred some beermats and set them alight in his ashtray.

Oscarbravo asked how many dangerous substances are legal in the workplace?
Standard cleaning chemicals arnt too good for human health, nether are the various dusts one is exposed to in construction and are many other substances we come in daily contact with.Once again to reiterate that smoking certainly isnt healthy, however it isnt nessisarly the most common pollutant of our air, especially considering how much crap you breath every rush hour.My lungs and chest fare far worse from an hour in rush hour traffic then a nights smoking.

I seriously doubt that. Back to your cleaning chemicals and dust: is it OK with you if I spray those in your direction while you're drinking?

To those of you who say simply dont smoke, I say emphaticly I will, If you quit one habit that gives you enjoyment, be it drinking, junk food eating what ever i.e If your that dismissive of my position, then I extend the same courtesy to you.

Oh, feel free - you just can't do it in a pub anymore. Simple fact is, smokers are now faced with more or less exactly the choices non-smokers have had for years: either stay in the pub and deal with it, or stay out. The difference is, most smokers will almost certainly get over the fact that they can't smoke in pubs, whereas it's hard for a non-smoker to get over being systematically poisoned by the actions of others.

Ajnag

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I think you're clutching at straws. You're also missing the point that bar staff would have to work in the smoking section. Besides, the link mentions that even separate rooms are not all that effective.

Cant the bar staff remain away while theres smoke present?
Seperate rooms can be very effective provided the engineering is well thought out.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
There really isn't a middle ground in the debate.

Well that certainly is open minded, are you intrested in resolving the problem that exists or simply having your own way?

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Let's stretch that rather silly metaphor somewhat. If you enjoying coffee and chocolate together meant that I'd always end up with chocolate stains on my clothes, then I'd object to it too.

Two things, I dont want to stain your cloths, and the act dosnt nessisary mean it has to be that way either.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm not sure where cost comes into it? I have my doubts, but anyway: is there anything in the legislation that specifically mentions nicotine?

Cost comes into it, in that this ban will be the straw that breaks the camels back.Far as I am aware the ban is on tobbaco, and unless m.martin makes provisions otherwise it will be the case that herbal ciggerettes will be allowed.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That aside, if some fecker lights one of those things beside me, I'm going to shred some beermats and set them alight in his ashtray.

and in doing so you will achieve exactly that which you are so intolerant towards smokers for.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I seriously doubt that. Back to your cleaning chemicals and dust: is it OK with you if I spray those in your direction while you're drinking? Oh, feel free - you just can't do it in a pub anymore. Simple fact is, smokers are now faced with more or less exactly the choices non-smokers have had for years: either stay in the pub and deal with it, or stay out. The difference is, most smokers will almost certainly get over the fact that they can't smoke in pubs, whereas it's hard for a non-smoker to get over being systematically poisoned by the actions of others.

Oh Im imaging the bronchitis I suffer while around traffic. :rolleyes: Well fine, On that level I seriously doubt your misgivings towards smoking are valid.Back to the real world, I dont want you to inhale my smoke, I want both of us to be accomidated, Is that so hard to imagine?.From the sounds of it, your more intent on making smokers suffer for your indignation as opposed to looking out for anyones health or comfort, your own included.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
Cant the bar staff remain away while theres smoke present?
Seperate rooms can be very effective provided the engineering is well thought out.

OK, let's go over it again. If there's a dedicated smoking room in a pub, then either staff have to bring drink in there, or smokers have to enter the non-smoking section to get drink. In either case, you have cross-contamination. What are you suggesting, over-pressured non-smoking rooms with decontamination airlocks?

Well that certainly is open minded, are you intrested in resolving the problem that exists or simply having your own way?

Here's the thing: we're not looking for a middle ground between two equally reasonable perspectives. We're talking about a situation where two groups of people share a public space. One group has a habit that systematically poisons not only themselves, but the other group also. There's very little room for compromise there. In fact, the proposal seems quite reasonable to me: feel free to poison yourself, but don't expect a right to poison me while you're at it.

Two things, I dont want to stain your cloths, and the act dosnt nessisary mean it has to be that way either.

I'm not sure what the second half of that meant. As for the first part: I'm sure you don't want to poison me either, but up until now that's what's been happening, and 'scuse me, but I object to it.

Cost comes into it, in that this ban will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Still seems like a non-sequitur to me.

Far as I am aware the ban is on tobbaco, and unless m.martin makes provisions otherwise it will be the case that herbal ciggerettes will be allowed. ... and in doing so you will achieve exactly that which you are so intolerant towards smokers for.

...Duh...

Oh Im imaging the bronchitis I suffer while around traffic.

If you suffer bronchitis while in traffic, do you seriously think that deeply inhaling concentrated smoke directly into your lungs isn't affecting you more?

:rolleyes: Well fine, On that level I seriously doubt your misgivings towards smoking are valid.Back to the real world, I dont want you to inhale my smoke, I want both of us to be accomidated, Is that so hard to imagine?.From the sounds of it, your more intent on making smokers suffer for your indignation as opposed to looking out for anyones health or comfort, your own included.

I'm genuinely puzzled as to where you get that from. FYI, I make a living helping people to quit smoking. I understand smoking, and smokers, better than you might think. It simply doesn't extend to granting you or anyone else the right to poison me, and hairbrained schemes to artificially separate smokers from non-smokers in workplaces just aren't good enough.

Let me put it another way: feel free to smoke. Feel free to find other creative ways of slowly destroying your health. Just don't expect (a) others to have to share in it, or (b) someone else to come up with expensive and half-assed ways of trying to accomodate you while you do it.

How come nobody demanded separate smoking and non-smoking cinemas?

Imposter

Originally posted by Ajnag
Thanks for a most informative reply, links and all. Id roll the eyes, but ahh im not bothered.

Jeff,
Thanks for replying with civility,

The links for these threads are not exactly hard to find once you know where the search link is!

The reason I answered the way I did is that the issues have already being discussed and your post consisted mostly of questions and had no real opinions (even though it was clear to see where you stood on the issue) which is what is required by the charter on this forum.

Now while I dissagree with your position on the issue at least you have since put forward your views on it.

Now to discuss your argument:
You say above that "with the amount of money Irish vintners make, I dont see technical costs being an issue" in relation to having separate smoking and non-smoking sections. Then in your last post you say "Cost comes into it, in that this ban will be the straw that breaks the camels back". Now assuming this camel is the publican, which is it? Are they making lots of money or are they nearly bankrupt?

Personnally my views are similar to that of Daveirl as the publicans have gone out of their way to oppose this ban giving highly dubious excuses that have no facts to back them up. I think it might affect some publicans but overall it won't have a huge effect on the industry. It will however better the health of staff and as a very big bonus it will also benifit the health of everyone drinking in bars and restauratns after the ban comes into being.

bonkey

Originally posted by Ajnag
Septre, that link fails to clarify if steps were taken to atmosphericly seperate the smoking and non-smoking sections.I dont see why a well ventilated smoking room with doors and a hall couldnt protect the non smoking section?

Because - amongst all of the other reasons offered which you may or may not agree with - allowing such would discriminate against pubs/bars which didn't have a large enough area to be able to offer such an area.

The law as it stands, while imperfect, is designed to affect all publicans equally. Anything else would be even more unfair.

Fact is that both sides of this debate could be accomidated, how ever the middle ground is being ignored.

Now you know how the non-smokers have felt for about the last 20 years. Welcome to the club.

Oscarbravo asked how many dangerous substances are legal in the workplace?

Start with the most dangerous. Does it pose as serious a health-risk as smoking does? If not, then its a lesser priority and can wait till later to be dealt with.

As a comparison, when someone's lying on an operating theater, dying of - say - a gun-shot-wound which is bleeding copiously, you don't worry too much about whether the scratch on his knee may get infected or not.

Deal with the serious problems first.

My lungs and chest fare far worse from an hour in rush hour traffic then a nights smoking.

Yup, and traffic congestion is generally recognised as a major problem.

If you can offer a solution, I'm sure the government will give you the keys to the city, and someone will probably want to make you a billionaire along the way cause you can sell the idea around the world.

To those of you who say simply dont smoke, I say emphaticly I will, If you quit one habit that gives you enjoyment, be it drinking, junk food eating what ever i.e If your that dismissive of my position, then I extend the same courtesy to you.

Fair point.

What about those who say "don't smoke around me or other non-smokers"? I wouldn't dream of suggesting you don't smoke. Hell - I smoke. And when I have dinner guests over to my place who don't smoke, I go outside to have my cigarette after dinner.....and in Switzerland in winter that can involve outdoor temperatiures of -10C or lower. And this is in my own house.

Very few laws are perfect. This new one joins the majority of flawed laws - it could be better. There is room to campaign for changes once you accept the basic premise that something must change from the current situation.

The problem is that alongside your "other room for smokers" argument and some others which were all perfectly reasonable and considerate, there's a slew of ones which read like "but you shouldn't be stopping us at all" which is gonna get you no sympathy.

Accept that the law must change. Accept that smoking will be further restricted. Then argue how that could be done in a manner thats better than the new law. People will listen to that. Tell them they've no right to stop you smoking when and where you want, or that smoking shouldn't be banned because air-fresheeners and cleaning products aren't the best thing to be breating either, and they'll dismiss you.

So seriously...decide what you want. How smokers argue their case from here will be the determining factor (in my opinion) in how they get treated.

jc

Linoge

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Let me put it another way: feel free to smoke. Feel free to find other creative ways of slowly destroying your health. Just don't expect (a) others to have to share in it, or (b) someone else to come up with expensive and half-assed ways of trying to accomodate you while you do it.

How come nobody demanded separate smoking and non-smoking cinemas?

That is exactly the way I feel.

About the whole cinema thing, anti-ban protestors will say its the whole cigarette-beer, coffee-chocolate thing.
I do think it is a great point though.

Originally posted by Bonkey
What about those who say "don't smoke around me or other non-smokers"? I wouldn't dream of suggesting you don't smoke. Hell - I smoke. And when I have dinner guests over to my place who don't smoke, I go outside to have my cigarette after dinner.....and in Switzerland in winter that can involve outdoor temperatiures of -10C or lower. And this is in my own house.

Very few laws are perfect. This new one joins the majority of flawed laws - it could be better. There is room to campaign for changes once you accept the basic premise that something must change from the current situation.

The problem is that alongside your "other room for smokers" argument and some others which were all perfectly reasonable and considerate, there's a slew of ones which read like "but you shouldn't be stopping us at all" which is gonna get you no sympathy.

Accept that the law must change. Accept that smoking will be further restricted. Then argue how that could be done in a manner thats better than the new law. People will listen to that. Tell them they've no right to stop you smoking when and where you want, or that smoking shouldn't be banned because air-fresheeners and cleaning products aren't the best thing to be breating either, and they'll dismiss you.

So seriously...decide what you want. How smokers argue their case from here will be the determining factor (in my opinion) in how they get treated.

I wish that this was the opening argument for this thread. It can open the eyes of all smokers and most importantly its posted by a smoker.
Going outside to have a cigarette in your own house is very polite of you. Not very many smokers would understand the annoyance smoking can cause to non-smokers to do this.

PWEI

I'm all for the ban and can't wait but there's one side of the argument that i haven't heard anywhere,is the chaos it might cause with all the smokers smoking in front of the pub.I was in New York a few months ago and the smokers normally stand outside the front of the pub to get their hit but most of these pubs are small.What about the super pubs that we have in Dublin.For E.G Zanzibar? This bar fits over a thousand people can you imagine a few hundred smokers out the front blocking up the footpath where there's very little room.I can't believe that this hasn't' been discussed especially in light of the tragic bus accident at the weekend.A couple of hundred people smoking outside a pub is going to force people to walk on the road.
Any thoughts?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by PWEI
Any thoughts?

I mentioned that somewhere in this thread too, didn't seem to attract any comment.
I can only imagine what streets like Dame Street or O'Connell street (for example) in Dublin are going to be like when people are fairly well on/drunk in the early hours and are all hanging around outside of the pubs.
Temple Bar should be an interesting spot to, more so than usual.

Villain

Originally posted by PWEI
Any thoughts?

It will cause major problems, resulting in fights and other street crime, people won't trust leaving their drink inside so they will take it outside without them which is illegal.

Theres also the beer garden situation, apparently smoking is not prevented in these areas, I remember seeing an interview with a Dublin publican who had put a canopy over his front beer garden with Gas heaters where smoking would be permitted. I think beer gardens will become a very popular.

Ajnag

Where to start?

For the last time hows about stating I dont want to poision anyone, I simply want the same access to my civil libertys same as non smokers and for both groups to be accomidated.

I have no sympathy for the vintners, they imposed inflation across the nation, based on dublin.they claimed it was to pay incressing staff wages, when in fact only urban staff wages were adjusted.The camel is me imposter, I find it hard to justify socalising on my current wages, and given this new legislation, I cant both pay through the ass and accept a dimished service.

OscarBravo I once again state that with proper design, smoking and non smoking areas can be seperated with design, and also that I dont expect drink to be served in the smoking area, what I seek is basic provision for heating and seating.Bonkey about the equality among publicans, well I dont know, are they not a priviledged class in their own right considering the cartel they hold over publican licences?

No body demanded smoking and non-smoking cinemas, because a cinema is not the most popular point of socalisation within Irish society.

Also It was mentioned how non-smokers have felt for the last 20 years, and once again I raise the point that we live in a free society with a free market system, If non smokers have felt so strongly all this time then why havent non smoking pubs appeared on the market place.Surely there have been non-smoking propriters, surely if the feelings of dissatisfation have been so strong non smokers would have demanded that their smoking friends socalise in a Non smoking atmosphere, Surely An Tobars status of first non-smoking pub in Ireland would have been a sucess.But no, Non smokers didnt feel strongly enough to press their position, and to be honest I find it quite cynical that now this new legislation is comming through, non-smokers only now seem to find their voice, and that voice only seems to taunt now that they are getting their way.

bonkey

Originally posted by Ajnag
Bonkey about the equality among publicans, well I dont know, are they not a priviledged class in their own right considering the cartel they hold over publican licences?

Right...so what you're saying is "surely its ok to be discriminatory" ??? Sorry, no. It isn't. Thats not how the law tries to work.

No body demanded smoking and non-smoking cinemas, because a cinema is not the most popular point of socalisation within Irish society.

No, they didn't. They insisted instead that the concept was unpoliceable and unworkable. Cinema owners said that it was the final straw which would break the camels back and put them all out of business for once and for all.

Look at just how right they were.

Also It was mentioned how non-smokers have felt for the last 20 years, and once again I raise the point that we live in a free society with a free market system, If non smokers have felt so strongly all this time then why havent non smoking pubs appeared on the market place.

For a man who seems to be getting frustrated about how people are constantly ignoring the answers you've already given (hence the "for the last time") allow me to point you at the absolute plethora of points on this thread alone which have already pointed out the social aspect of the problem. Put a non-smoker and a smoker together, and see where htey end up. Your very own "I should be allowed have my smoke, indoors, at my table when I'm out for a drink" attitude should give you a hint.

Furthermore, such a split-system would still be discriminatory in nature, as it would not offer any protection to workers who worked in the smoking pubs. You can play the "voluntary" card all you like, but the simple fact is that anyone who wants to work in a pub has a right to look for a job in one, and has a right to work in a smoke-free atmosphere. For people who want to work in a smoke-free pub, such a rule would be unfairly discriminatory.

Even your "seperate room" theory is all well and good, but what are you gonna do? Sit in the main non-smoking area with your mates, and every so often lurk off to the back room to have a puff indoors? Or will you want your non-smoking mates to come with you into the smoking area so you can spend the evening there?

The former case costs the pubs space, so its not just a simple case of having smoking/non-smoking areas like you argued initially, and the latter case shows that you wouldn't really care if you poisoned someone because they chose - through the want to be sociable - to sit where they'd rather not.

But no, Non smokers didnt feel strongly enough to press their position,

How many of your friends that you have gone out for a drink with at some point support this bill? Are you giving out to all of them for being hypocritical as well, for putting friendship/socialness before their smoke-free wants up to now, but now being delighted that they can have both?

The simple truth is that there has been pressure for a long, long time for laws like this, but it has never been high profile as it has not changed in nature or status.

Not only that, but non-smokers generally seem to be more tolerant than smokers in that the non-smokers shut up and went to the pub and suffered in silence whilst hoping for a change for the better.

Going from what we are hearing, many smokers would seem incapable of doing the same.

and to be honest I find it quite cynical that now this new legislation is comming through, non-smokers only now seem to find their voice, and that voice only seems to taunt now that they are getting their way.

See previous statments about how to argue your position to get a better deal. Telling those on the other side that they are wrong, cynical, hypocritical, or anything else will really help your cause.....not.

Whether or not you are right is a moot point. Insulting the majority will never get you anywhere.

ixoy

Originally posted by bonkey
Not only that, but non-smokers generally seem to be more tolerant than smokers in that the non-smokers shut up and went to the pub and suffered in silence whilst hoping for a change for the better.

Going from what we are hearing, many smokers would seem incapable of doing the same.

You've hit the proverbial nail there bonkey. People often have an attitude of putting and shutting up. We tolerate our smoking friends because they're our friends, not because we enjoy, or are unaffected, by their nicotine addiction. Our smoking friends may have a craving that they're unwilling to let pass and so are unwilling to move elsewhere. Most people would tolerate their friend's habit rather than dumping them on their own as they move to a non-smoking environment. It's only by applying a blanket ban that we can put a halt to people being socially split by such means. However, it seems some smokers on this thread are unable to comprehend the facts that yourself, myself, OscarBravo, and others have continuously reitereated....

bonkey

Originally posted by ixoy
However, it seems some smokers on this thread are unable to comprehend the facts that yourself, myself, OscarBravo, and others have continuously reitereated....

It seems to be more the areas where fact is not the issue where there is disagreement. I'm making assumptions about smokers/non-smokers and how they socially interact. Ajnag is making different assumptions to argue why non-smoking pubs are not successful.

I'm questioning his assumptions...not any facts.

jc

Ajnag

Originally posted by bonkey
Right...so what you're saying is "surely its ok to be discriminatory" ??? Sorry, no. It isn't. Thats not how the law tries to work.

NO! I stated clearly that I dont know! and then refered to the discriminatory position the vinters already hold.Dont tell me what im saying, as Im am not telling you what did or did not say.


N

Originally posted by bonkey
No, they didn't. They insisted instead that the concept was unpoliceable and unworkable. Cinema owners said that it was the final straw which would break the camels back and put them all out of business for once and for all.

Look at just how right they were.

People go to a cinema to shut up and watch a film, not to socalise with their friends and what the vested intrested said at the time is not the issue here.

Originally posted by bonkey
For a man who seems to be getting frustrated about how people are constantly ignoring the answers you've already given (hence the "for the last time") allow me to point you at the absolute plethora of points on this thread alone which have already pointed out the social aspect of the problem. Put a non-smoker and a smoker together, and see where htey end up. Your very own "I should be allowed have my smoke, indoors, at my table when I'm out for a drink" attitude should give you a hint.

and why wont I travel in and out to the section?.Once again all I am asking is that both be accomidated instead of extreme points being occupied at either ends of the section.

Originally posted by bonkey
Furthermore, such a split-system would still be discriminatory in nature, as it would not offer any protection to workers who worked in the smoking pubs. You can play the "voluntary" card all you like, but the simple fact is that anyone who wants to work in a pub has a right to look for a job in one, and has a right to work in a smoke-free atmosphere. For people who want to work in a smoke-free pub, such a rule would be unfairly discriminatory.

Did I say volentary? Simple solution staff remain out of smoking section while smoke is present.all cleaning can be carried out at the end of the night.If the smokers dont respect what they have then the publican can remove the service simple as that.

Originally posted by bonkey
Even your "seperate room" theory is all well and good, but what are you gonna do? Sit in the main non-smoking area with your mates, and every so often lurk off to the back room to have a puff indoors? Or will you want your non-smoking mates to come with you into the smoking area so you can spend the evening there?

Well seeing as Its clear that I dont want to impose my habits on my non smoking friends what do you think?.Of course I will travel as nessisary.jesus is it that much effort to walk these days.

Originally posted by bonkey
The former case costs the pubs space, so its not just a simple case of having smoking/non-smoking areas like you argued initially, and the latter case shows that you wouldn't really care if you poisoned someone because they chose - through the want to be sociable - to sit where they'd rather not.

what? I dont understand this, do they or dont they have the ability to voice their complaints and walk?. Its stated again and again that non-smokers have been FORCED to socalise with smokers.Once again I state it is a free country, Once again I state that I do not want to poison others, once again, I state that both sides can have their cake and eat it.

Originally posted by bonkey
How many of your friends that you have gone out for a drink with at some point support this bill? Are you giving out to all of them for being hypocritical as well, for putting friendship/socialness before their smoke-free wants up to now, but now being delighted that they can have both?

Now they can have both and I can have neither, yup wonderful, instead of addressing both sides needs lets keep it binary so that someones always put out of joint, lets not try find a solution that address's everyones needs.

Originally posted by bonkey
The simple truth is that there has been pressure for a long, long time for laws like this, but it has never been high profile as it has not changed in nature or status.

and for the last time why didnt this pressure show its presence in the physical world through the action of those who felt unhappy.If you want to change something, sitting on your ass aint gonna change it.Its not as if non smoking pubs were illegal up until now.

Originally posted by bonkey
Not only that, but non-smokers generally seem to be more tolerant than smokers in that the non-smokers shut up and went to the pub and suffered in silence whilst hoping for a change for the better.

Yes my point exactly, instead of taking action in a system where they have been free to do so, what have they done? NOTHING!

Originally posted by bonkey
Going from what we are hearing, many smokers would seem incapable of doing the same.

Well generalisations aside, I do not intend to bitch at my non smoking friends for this law, In fact I will be happy that something has finally been done to accomidate them, unfortuantly I will not be there as much to accompany them, especially come winter.

Originally posted by bonkey
See previous statments about how to argue your position to get a better deal. Telling those on the other side that they are wrong, cynical, hypocritical, or anything else will really help your cause.....not.
Whether or not you are right is a moot point. Insulting the majority will never get you anywhere.

Well Im not trying to insult anyone as such, Im just saying how it feels, that instead of a well balenced and considered debate over the years, were now being thrown round 180 degrees without so much as an attempt to take all considerations in to account by the goverment.