Smoking ban to start on March 29

monument

I’m assuming the lawyers of some pub and hotel owners know the antismoking side are right.

I’m making this assumption because they have advised not to take any legal action against the bill; I’m guessing it’s because if they legally tried to stop the ban they would liable for the health risks for smoking and open to action from staff and customers.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
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.

Seems to me people used to go to a cinema to smoke and watch a film. Not that I see what talking has to do with smoking.

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.

OK, explain this to me: my local pub is a small establishment with one room. How is he going to create smoking and non-smoking sections? Please also explain what physical measures are necessary to guarantee the prevention of smoke entering the non-smoking area.

Now they can have both and I can have neither

Whoah, hangon: I take it you're saying that you can't smoke, and you can't have friendship/socialness? Are you really that dedicated to smoking that if you can't smoke, you won't socialise?

Ajnag

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Seems to me people used to go to a cinema to smoke and watch a film. Not that I see what talking has to do with smoking. OK, explain this to me: my local pub is a small establishment with one room. How is he going to create smoking and non-smoking sections? Please also explain what physical measures are necessary to guarantee the prevention of smoke entering the non-smoking area. Whoah, hangon: I take it you're saying that you can't smoke, and you can't have friendship/socialness? Are you really that dedicated to smoking that if you can't smoke, you won't socialise?

Hold on one minute, you brought this up when you asked why no one demaned smoking and non-smoking cinemas, and I awnser in that the cinema is not major point of socalisation hence no one expected smoking and non smoking cinemas, and now your asking what smoking has to do with talking? excuse me but wtf! not to be off the cuff or insulting, but at least try to maintain some line of argument.

Second of all, I dont know what to do about your local, but wouldnt it be possible for all pubs to be non-smoking with the option of providing smoking facilitys subject to strict standards layed down in law?.Although it could be argued that this is discrimination towards smaller pubs, It really is no different then the free market that exists now, Is it really discriminatory that large pubs can provide more facilitys for their customers then smaller pubs can? because that is the situation as it is now, in the current free market.

Third of all what Im saying is that like the majourity of people in this country the pub is my main area of socalising, Like the majourity I drink when at the pub, and that I find it near impossible to drink without smoking as the two are intertwined for me in habit.It is not that I cant socalise without smoking, it is the case however that my main method of socalising will be off major discomfort after the ban, this is unfair given that both sides of the issues can be accomidated.

As to the physical measures required to stop cross contaimination, Let me state that I am not a qualifed engineer, not am I an air conditioning expert, however its simple that one well ventelated room with at least 2 doors to the nonsmoking section and proper airventilation at the entrance to the non-smoking section could prevent a large degree of the dangerous particuates reaching those occuping the non-smoking section.But If you dont belive me, well then fine, neither of us is qualifyed to say, There is how ever one remaining point;

With the smokers in close proximity to the front door, and with air travelling in to the building, and with people most notablely smokers going in and out with some regularity, a large degree of contamination will occur, this combined with the use of herbal ciggarettes on the inside, will probably mean that the conditions for non-smoker wont improve by much if at all.

oh and drop the patronising attitude, you wont help many quite ciggerettes that way, sorry but thats how I seem to percive it when you dimiss points using words like "duh" etc etc....

monument

Originally posted by Ajnag
Second of all, I dont know what to do about your local, but wouldnt it be possible for all pubs to be non-smoking with the option of providing smoking facilitys subject to strict standards layed down in law?.Although it could be argued that this is discrimination towards smaller pubs, It really is no different then the free market that exists now, Is it really discriminatory that large pubs can provide more facilitys for their customers then smaller pubs can? because that is the situation as it is now, in the current free market.

No it is not a totaly free market, not even the US does not have one.

It's not really discriminatory that large pubs can provide more facilities; however it is discriminatory, and anticompetitive, when laws like his ban differ between large and small pubs.

Ajnag

I agree that its not a totaly free market, but their is a degree of flexabilty allowed.

I dont agree with discimination, however as bonkey pointed out there is no perfection either.One point to bring up is that to smaller business's the indiviual costumer is off much greater value then for larger business's.So in that this ban will discourage individuals from going out, smaller pubs stand to feel the effects much more then larger pubs will, so in essence the position of no comprimise is quite discriminatory in its self.The fact is that their is a lack of flexiblity in this issue, and as such thats not very positive, will the bans discriminatve affect be addressed? I doubt it somehow.At least the provision of options like I suggested might allow some flexibilty, also the vintners and govt could address by helping smaller pubs provide facilitys.

as far as I know the current licence laws only allow the provision of a new licence with the trade in of 2 old licences, this in conjunction with the ban will provide a high level of discrimation in favour of larger urban based pubs over smaller rural pubs, so now rural areas are about to take another kicking as well.Just bear in mind that discrimation can be apply in any direction.

RainyDay

The law will initially be enforced by the 71% of people who don't smoke, many of whom are looking forward to be able to drop into a pub without requiring decontamination afterwards. It could be a simple as a nice, assertive instruction to the smoker and/or the staff, or it could be a camera-phone to snap the evidence and pass it onto the Environment Health Officers for follow-up.

The EHO's already work outside 9-5 on their existing enforcement roles, and while the ban will add a pile to their current workload, I expect the enforcement to be quite effective. Hand out a few swift 3k fines to pub owners and the remainder will sit up and pay attention fairly quickly.

Argueing for the rights of vitners to object to the ban is like arguing for the rights of drug dealers.

And to all those smokers who like to put forward objections about how difficult it will be to have a gang of smokers out on the path, here's a quick newsflash. That's not my problem - that's your problem. You need to find a solution to that yourself, not expect the 71% of us to spoonfeed your addiction. Oh and by the way, don't expect to be dropping your butts outside the pub and turning the pub entrance into a walk-in ashtray, as cranky buggers like me will be out to enforce the litter laws along with the smoking ban.

I don't expect 100% compliance from Day 1, but by the time the summer comes (along with an influx of American and other tourists who are attracted by a smoke-free environment), we'll be wordering what all the fuss was about.

Ajnag

The law will initially be enforced by the 71% of people who don't smoke, many of whom are looking forward to be able to drop into a pub without requiring decontamination afterwards. It could be a simple as a nice, assertive instruction to the smoker and/or the staff, or it could be a camera-phone to snap the evidence and pass it onto the Environment Health Officers for follow-up.

Hmm que a society where everyone spys and snitchs on everyone else, Of course you should remember in your self rightous revery that the same will apply to, only in laws you flout that you are either unaware of or flout knowingly, unless that is you are perfect in every sence and a have a full knowledge of the entire Irish legislature.

Argueing for the rights of vitners to object to the ban is like arguing for the rights of drug dealers.

So comon then, Lets ban Alcohol, Its the most destructive drug in our society, Do we even give a damn about the Rights of non drinkers?Now that smoking is to be banned, alcohol follows as the second largest cause of death on the roads and in the hospitals.Oh but wait we couldnt ban your drug of choice could we?

And to all those smokers who like to put forward objections about how difficult it will be to have a gang of smokers out on the path, here's a quick newsflash. That's not my problem - that's your problem. You need to find a solution to that yourself, not expect the 71% of us to spoonfeed your addiction. Oh and by the way, don't expect to be dropping your butts outside the pub and turning the pub entrance into a walk-in ashtray, as cranky buggers like me will be out to enforce the litter laws along with the smoking ban.

Because alcohol isnt goning to be banned IT will be your problem, Dont think otherwise, and as for your threats, well 1 problems, You can take all the photos you want, but how will the relavent athoritys identify those in the photos.Are they gonna spend hours scanning to satisfy your needs, or are they going to worry about problems that actually impact peoples live such as violent crime, theft etc...

RainyDay

Originally posted by Ajnag
Hmm que a society where everyone spys and snitchs on everyone else, Of course you should remember in your self rightous revery that the same will apply to, only in laws you flout that you are either unaware of or flout knowingly, unless that is you are perfect in every sence and a have a full knowledge of the entire Irish legislature.

Ooohh you got me there with your nightmare scenario. Just imagine, that world where you can go for a Sunday drive without putting your life at risk from the boy-racers, where everyone pays their fair share of taxes and our schools & hospitals are funded, etc etc. Is that really your best arguement - going back to schoolyard taunting of snitching & ratting out? No - I'm not perfect, but I'm willing to pay the price if I break the law & I'll change my behavour to stop it happening again. And I expect the same from other citizens.

Originally posted by Ajnag
So comon then, Lets ban Alcohol, Its the most destructive drug in our society, Do we even give a damn about the Rights of non drinkers?Now that smoking is to be banned, alcohol follows as the second largest cause of death on the roads and in the hospitals.Oh but wait we couldnt ban your drug of choice could we?

You seem to have misunderstood the legislation - smoking is not being banned. Smoking in pubs and other workplaces is being banned. Actually, I personally wouldn't lose a whole lot of sleep if alcohol were banned (except for the possible risk of creating an underground mafia as happened during the Prohibition era in the US), but that just isn't going to happen.

Originally posted by Ajnag
Because alcohol isnt goning to be banned IT will be your problem, Dont think otherwise, and as for your threats, well 1 problems, You can take all the photos you want, but how will the relavent athoritys identify those in the photos.Are they gonna spend hours scanning to satisfy your needs, or are they going to worry about problems that actually impact peoples live such as violent crime, theft etc...

The photos wouldn't really be to target the smokers directly, it would be target the pub owner. It should be fairly easy to confirm the interior of most pubs from a few shots. This evidence may or may not stand up in court, but it should certainly be enough to convince an EHO to put that pub top of their list for a drop-in on the next Saturday night. Once the few well-publicised 3k fines start hitting the publicans, full enforcement will follow quite quickly.

WetDaddy

I just have to say that I think the Vintners insisting that smoking will lose them business it a feeble arguement.

Who are they to make a decision between MY health and THEIR money?

You might say "fair enough, DON'T go to the pub in that case", and you'd have a point. But it's all about choice. Here's where the problem lies, and I believe it's the heart of the entire disagreement:

A smoker and a non-smoker sit down in a pub. The smoker, through smoking, poses as a health hazard to others. The non-smoker, through not smoking, doesn't.

It's as simple as that.

All arguements about alcohol being more dangerous than nicotine, publicans designing "smoking rooms" are, in reality, moot points. A smoker CHOOSES to smoke, and in taking that choice "poisons" those around them. A non-smoker CHOOSES not to smoke...

Who's health does the choice of the latter affect?...

chill

Originally posted by Ajnag
Hmm que a society where everyone spys and snitchs on everyone else,...

Yeah right .... I'll be 'spying' on the guy four feet away puffing on his cancer stick, with my long range binoculars.... maaaad !

Of course you should remember in your self rightous revery that the same will apply to, only in laws you flout that you are either unaware of or flout knowingly, unless that is you are perfect in every sence and a have a full knowledge of the entire Irish legislature.

Wrong - under the law ignorance of the law is not an excuse. And the big sign at the entrance will remind even the dumbest ...

Ajnag

Fine.... not that such attitudes have done the u.s well, with the highest incareration rate on the planet and a prison being built every day.If you wanna go crying about every little infraction of the law, dont complain when it applyed to you and if you wake up in a culture of suspicion and fear.

Shouldnt alcohol in the work place be banned? Or could we give a damn even.

Relapse for a reformed smoker means they start damaging their own health again, Relapse for a drinker means they start damaging those around them.Far worse.

Apply the logic equally please.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
Hold on one minute, you brought this up when you asked why no one demaned smoking and non-smoking cinemas, and I awnser in that the cinema is not major point of socalisation hence no one expected smoking and non smoking cinemas, and now your asking what smoking has to do with talking? excuse me but wtf! not to be off the cuff or insulting, but at least try to maintain some line of argument.

I am. Your argument seems to be that it's OK not to be able to smoke in a cinema because people "shut up," and because it's "not major point of socialisation." First, people smoked in the cinema even while they were shutting up to watch the film (and now they don't), and second, it is a form of socialisation where I come from.

Second of all, I dont know what to do about your local,

...I didn't think you would...

but wouldnt it be possible for all pubs to be non-smoking with the option of providing smoking facilitys subject to strict standards layed down in law?.

This takes us back to the same situation as the non-smoking pub experiment you cited in Galway. For the same reasons, as well as the discrimination argument you mentioned yourself, it wouldn't work.

Although it could be argued that this is discrimination towards smaller pubs, It really is no different then the free market that exists now, Is it really discriminatory that large pubs can provide more facilitys for their customers then smaller pubs can? because that is the situation as it is now, in the current free market.

It's not the same situation, and it's naive to suggest that it is.

Third of all what Im saying is that like the majourity of people in this country the pub is my main area of socalising, Like the majourity I drink when at the pub, and that I find it near impossible to drink without smoking as the two are intertwined for me in habit.It is not that I cant socalise without smoking, it is the case however that my main method of socalising will be off major discomfort after the ban, this is unfair given that both sides of the issues can be accomidated.

None of this is all that different from the arguments that were put forward every time it was proposed to ban smoking somewhere.

You reckon it's near impossible for you to drink without smoking: how do you know? How often have you been put in a situation where you didn't have a choice?

As to the physical measures required to stop cross contaimination, Let me state that I am not a qualifed engineer, not am I an air conditioning expert, however its simple that one well ventelated room with at least 2 doors to the nonsmoking section and proper airventilation at the entrance to the non-smoking section could prevent a large degree of the dangerous particuates reaching those occuping the non-smoking section.But If you dont belive me, well then fine, neither of us is qualifyed to say,

I've worked in a factory with a sterile environment - I'm not an engineer either, but I've seen what's involved in preventing contaminants entering a room. It's not easy or cheap.

There is how ever one remaining point;

With the smokers in close proximity to the front door, and with air travelling in to the building, and with people most notablely smokers going in and out with some regularity, a large degree of contamination will occur, this combined with the use of herbal ciggarettes on the inside, will probably mean that the conditions for non-smoker wont improve by much if at all.

I don't seriously believe that you think there will be any comparison between the current asphyxiating environments, and the occasionaly wisp of smoke drifting in the door from a wide-open ventilated space.

oh and drop the patronising attitude, you wont help many quite ciggerettes that way, sorry but thats how I seem to percive it when you dimiss points using words like "duh" etc etc....

No disrespect, but I haven't been making any effort to help you to quit smoking. As a rule, those who come to me for help tend to be somewhat embarassed about the effect their smoking has on others. Those smokers get my sympathy, my respect, and all the help I can give them.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Ajnag
Relapse for a reformed smoker means they start damaging their own health again, Relapse for a drinker means they start damaging those around them.Far worse.

You can't be serious! Has the whole 'passive smoking' issue gone right over your head? Smokers damage the health of those around them every time they light up. That is the whole reason for the ban. Sheesh......

Ajnag

I am. Your argument seems to be that it's OK not to be able to smoke in a cinema because people "shut up," and because it's "not major point of socialisation." First, people smoked in the cinema even while they were shutting up to watch the film (and now they don't), and second, it is a form of socialisation where I come from.

But It isnt the countrys foremost form of Socialisation, As I have all ready said.Nearly went for the roll eyes smiley there.

...I didn't think you would...

But I did say who might know what to do.

This takes us back to the same situation as the non-smoking pub experiment you cited in Galway. For the same reasons, as well as the discrimination argument you mentioned yourself, it wouldn't work.

And If you were arsed to read the posts since I pointed out how the ban in its self is discriminatory.

It's not the same situation, and it's naive to suggest that it is.

See above, and thanks for then enlightened patronage, Its not needed.

You reckon it's near impossible for you to drink without smoking: how do you know? How often have you been put in a situation where you didn't have a choice? .

Not often, but I do remember It as uncomfortable.I've worked in a factory with a sterile environment - I'm not an engineer either, but I've seen what's involved in preventing contaminants entering a room. It's not easy or cheap.

I have however done a module in enviromental physics, and the clean room you are mentioning is concerned with preventing contamination down to 10 parts per million, the air you are breathing right now is more contaiminated then that from carbon monoxide and other pollutants.Reaching a level to protect non smokers would not require such extreme measures, and would be far cheaper.

I don't seriously believe that you think there will be any comparison between the current asphyxiating environments, and the occasionaly wisp of smoke drifting in the door from a wide-open ventilated space.

But you keep bringing up the contaimination you feel a non-smoking room would make you endure.Just because your sense of percieved danger from the smoke comming in the door dosnt quite measure to your sense of percieved danger from a smoking room, dosnt mean in reality that one will be less dangerous then the other.Also I mention again the plan to use herbal ciggerettes, These also release carcinogens.

Rainy day Alcohol causes far more suffering in this country every year, then ciggerettes do, just ask the beaten spouse's children and familys of alcoholics, not to mention those who are ran down by alcoholics, not to mention the public disorder and beatings that follow.I know that smoking also hurts many by disease, but not on such a malevolent level.By the same logic Ban alcohol in the workplace ffs!.

PHB

I really feel sorry for the people who've smoked for 40 years in a pub, they are probably about 80-90 now, their only joy in life is a cig and a pint in the pub.

Well tough ****, they can do it at home, cause i'd like to live until im 80-90

monument

Originally posted by Ajnag
And If you were arsed to read the posts since I pointed out how the ban in its self is discriminatory.

Yes, it is, discriminatory to people who want to smoke and at the same time pollute others lunges.

Just like there are laws which are discriminatory towards people who want to harm others in any other way.

Ajnag

Yes, it is, discriminatory to people who want to smoke and at the same time pollute others lunges.

WTF!!! and whats this sound bite meant to do for the debate at hand!
If you read I pointed at the bottom of the last page out that this ban is discriminatory against small pubs in that their customers are of far higher value to them then to larger bars and that this in combination with existing laws for the issue of licences means that the new ban will discriminate against smaller rural based pubs as opposed to Larger urban pubs.

ALSO FOR THE LAST TIME! I DONT WANT YOU TO BREATH MY SMOKE!.

I simply feel that both sides could be accomidated with beter legislation as opposed to the introduction of this extremist piece of policy, that has much more to do with M.Martins Piety them the public good I.M.O.

Dont think that by repeating the same over and over again you will achieve anything.

bonkey

Originally posted by Ajnag
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.

No, the fact that the vested interest took the same argument as is being presented here as one of the main arguments is the issue. Back then, it proved to be foundless scaremongering.....and there is nothing to seriously indicate that this time is any different, other than the same group - those with the vested interest - saying "but this is different".

and why wont I travel in and out to the section?.

If you're willing to do that, then whats the big deal about travelling in and out of doors?

Once again all I am asking is that both be accomidated instead of extreme points being occupied at either ends of the section.

And once again, I'm asking for a suggestion that is non-discriminatory and that would not place a large percentage of bars at a distinct disadvantage to others because they don't have the space to allocate a "smoking room" for use.

Well seeing as Its clear that I dont want to impose my habits on my non smoking friends what do you think?.

Is it clear? I haven't seen a single post saying tha tyou don't smoke around your non-smoking mates whilst in the pub at the moment. In fact, your entire argument seems to be that you enjoy a smoke with your pint, and you haven't yet contradicted my assumption that some of the ppl you drink with don't smoke....so what can I assume other than that you are imposing your habits on yoru non-smoking friends at present? Have I misunderstaood you? That, at present, you do not smoke around non-smokers in the pub? That you go somewhere else for your ciggy???

Its stated again and again that non-smokers have been FORCED to socalise with smokers.

No, its been stated again and again that non-smokers choose to socialise with their smoking friends, even though that typically means a smoking-friendly environment.

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.

I'm all for finding a solution that suits everyone......after the current situation has changed with the introduction of the new rules. Or would you think that a better solution is to allow the smokers to continue smoking around the non-smokers while we look for a more balanced solution????? And sure, if we did that, why bother actually looking for one? Why not just complain about every proposed solution forcing the status quo to remain???

and for the last time why didnt this pressure show its presence in the physical world through the action of those who felt unhappy.

Who cares.

Virtually every genocide of the 20th century has been ignored until well after the event. Should we take the apparent silence of those who suffered in those situations to mean that they didn't have a problem either?

Most women were not particularly vociferous about getting the vote. Does that mean they didn't really deserve it, didn't want it, or shouldn't have gotten it?

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,

Right. So you'll bitch at your non-smoking acquaintances for having double standards (saying nothing but then insisting that the problem needed solving), but you will say nothing to your non-smoking friends. Wouldn't that be double-standards? Those here who favour the ban earn your criticism and ire, but if your friends should do the same, they don't get the same treatment?

Could it be that you are more tolerant of what you see as your friends, ummm, failings compared to ppl here having the same failings? Ir if not more tolerant, at least more willing to put up with it without comment???

Could this same logic not explain why they have silently put up with ppl smoking around them for years? You're argument seems to say otherwise, so I'm really curious.....why exactly do you get to apply this double-standard of complaining about the non-smokers here but saying nothing to your non-smoking friends who maintain the same views, while at the same time not accepting that this same behaviour would explain away the perceived silence of non-smokers.

What do you want the non-smokers to do? Say "Its alright Mikey...I don't mind if you smoke, but I wish that fscker on the next table would put his filthy cigarette out and was banned from smoking here" ?????

unfortuantly I will not be there as much to accompany them, especially come winter.

Well, y'know, the ppl that have stayed out of pubs for years because of the smoking that went on in there will be only too happy to take your place.

Well Im not trying to insult anyone as such, Im just saying how it feels,

How it feels to end up being treated like a different minority that - at a guess - you didn't spare a second thought for before this whole affair started up a year or two ago? Or did you always maintain that pubs shouldn't allow you smoke in them and that someone else was suffering because of it?

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.

Well, since the issue raised its head, there has been precious little well-balanced and considered debate anywhere, so I'm not entirely sure what benefit it would have given the process other than to force the non-smokers to sit in smoke for longer while the whole process was dragged on by those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Do you not accept that the introducing the new law gives a better place to start from to find an equitaable solution? Or do you believe that you - who admits to not wanting to poison anyone - should have been allowed to continue to smoke in a pub while this was slowly and carefully debated to decide how best to remove your smoke from said pub???

ALSO FOR THE LAST TIME! I DONT WANT YOU TO BREATH MY SMOKE!.

You keep saying this, but you admit to smoking in pubs. Sorry, but thats like someone who has a habit of drunk driving saying, for the last time, that they don't want to endanger anyone's life. Actions speak louder...and all that.

Whether you want non-smokers to breathe your smoke or not that is what they must accept under the current situation. If you really don't want them to breathe your smoke, then surely banning your smoke from the pub is a better solution that what we have at present?

Not an ideal solution, just a better one.

So lets take that better one and implement it as the first step forward. Then lets look at the next step that could be taken towards an ideal solution.

Whats so wrong with that?????
jc

RainyDay

Hi Ajnag

I'd really love to see your hard numbers to back up your assertion that "their customers (small pubs) are of far higher value to them then to larger bars". A customer is a customer. I've never seen any 'revenue per head' data which indicates higher revenues from customers of rural pubs. Obviously, the smaller the pub, the smaller the overall revenue, but also the smaller the outgoings on staff and other costs.

There is no workable solution with smoking rooms in pubs that still protects staff and other customers. Who is going to collect glasses from a smoking room? Who is going to clean the smoking room? Who is going to keep good order in the smoking room?

I'd also love to see yoru hard numbers to back up your assertion that "causes far more suffering in this country every year, then ciggerettes do". And yes, I understand the serious damage caused by alcohol each year. But there is already legislation in place to address most of this (drink-driving, assault, barring orders etc). The ban on smoking in pubs and workplaces is just 'catching up' to give legal protection from the effects of smoking, just like there is legal protection from the effects of drinking.

monument

Originally posted by Ajnag
ALSO FOR THE LAST TIME! I DONT WANT YOU TO BREATH MY SMOKE!.

Why when you go to pubs do you smoke with some type of sealed-container around your head?

sceptre

Originally posted by monument
Why when you go to pubs do you smoke with some type of sealed-container around your head?

Monument's just found a business application for the Cone of Silence in Get Smart:D

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by RainyDay
And to all those smokers who like to put forward objections about how difficult it will be to have a gang of smokers out on the path, here's a quick newsflash. That's not my problem - that's your problem.

I mentioned the "gang of smokers" thing not as an objection to the ban, but as a "what do you think is going to happen when" type thing.
I still think it's going to cause alot of problems for everyone (especially weekend nights in Dublin) when you have loads of people crowding outside of pub, inevitably trying to bring their pints with them.
I'm not a smoker anymore either btw.

Drexl Spivey

Smokers should be happy, they can still buy cigarettes and pollute people in the streets.

I would personnally be for a full ban as smoking is a drug addiction.
Like Heroine is prohibited yet it kills less people than tobbaco.



This morning a neighbour has thrown a lit fag besite my car, the smoke went into my car because of the air system, it was awful.

When I jog, there is always at least one smoker on the road and I have to breath deeply his smoke when I run by him/her.

When it is windy outside, and a guy is smoking nearby, the wind carry the smoke and it goes deep into my lungs... etc ..


Even with the ban it is still going to be an annoyance. And I don t particularly like the idea of smokers regrouping on the street in front of pubs.

At least it will be an improvment.

Sorry to sound so extreeme. Is there some other people that feel that extreme or am i being too strong about it ? I know smokers won t understand. I am an ex smoker, so it makes it difficult to bare smoke now.

Jeff, i've been following this post for a bit now, and believe me you're nowehere near the extreme element....

Why when you go to pubs do you smoke with some type of sealed-container around your head?

And if you find that so acceptable, then why do you find it so hard to understand the problem alot of smokers have with this ban. They can't see why you don't wear a gassmask. Remember this is how is gone for generations, and now you want to change it. You believe you have the right for smokefree air. They believe they have the right to pollute their lungs. They also believe you have the right not to enter the pub.

Smokers should be happy, they can still buy cigarettes and pollute people in the streets.

This is what gets me. Non-Smokers seem to believe that smokers are out to get them. When i smoke, i'm aware that the smoke thats generated from my cigs are polluting my lungs. We're aware of that. As for passive smoking, we're subconsciously aware of that also, but we don't go walking up to people and blow smoke in their faces.

The majority of smokers i know, will blow smoke away from pedestrians walking by them if they're standing on a street, or cup the cig away from someone approaching them. You see, we pay a fortune, to pollute our lungs, not to intentionally kill off the non-smokers (which there would alot easier ways of doing)

This morning a neighbour has thrown a lit fag besite my car, the smoke went into my car because of the air system, it was awful.

lol.. i'm sorry but thats disgraceful. Imagine that happening. <Shakes head> Its become fashionable to blame smokers for everything. I know. I've done it myself. But i don't see calls for the banning of air pollution from cattle ****e.. (point of comment, refers to smoking is fashionable comment at the moment, and everyone wants to have a bad subject to bring up)

At least it will be an improvment.

Oh i daresay it will be. And if it had gone in when it was originally proposed there wouldn't be as much resistance as there is now. The majority of smokers i know welcome the ban. Not for non-smokers benefits. They've been complaining so long we don't hear them anymore. No. Simply because it gives us a decent avenue to give the things up. So, i'm glad this ban is finally coming in, because i was getting sick and tired of all the crap thats gone with this whole debate (not just boards).

monument

Originally posted by klaz
And if you find that so acceptable, then why do you find it so hard to understand the problem alot of smokers have with this ban. They can't see why you don't wear a gassmask.

Because you should not have the right to harm me with smoke, so you should suffer an inconvenience if you want to harm your self with such smoke.

Originally posted by klaz
Remember this is how is gone for generations, and now you want to change it. You believe you have the right for smokefree air. They believe they have the right to pollute their lungs.

They believe they have the right to pollute OUR lungs?

Originally posted by klaz
They also believe you have the right not to enter the pub.

I believe that I have the right to enter a pub and that I have the right not to be harmed by others in the pub.

sceptre

Originally posted by klaz
This is what gets me. Non-Smokers seem to believe that smokers are out to get them.

I could be wrong but I think it's more a case that non-smokers think that smoke is out to get them. At least that's what most pro-ban people seem to think.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by klaz
And if you find that so acceptable, then why do you find it so hard to understand the problem alot of smokers have with this ban. They can't see why you don't wear a gassmask.

Imagine if chemical plants were allowed to use that argument instead of having to comply with environmental regs: "but why can't everybody just wear gasmasks?"

Remember this is how is gone for generations, and now you want to change it.

I refer you to the comparison made earlier with racial segregation. Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it should continue in the future.

You believe you have the right for smokefree air.

Such a radical belief!

They believe they have the right to pollute their lungs. They also believe you have the right not to enter the pub.

Do you seriously think you're making a rational point by juxaposing those rights?

This is what gets me. Non-Smokers seem to believe that smokers are out to get them.

Nope, but it's hardly surprising if non-smokers get frustrated that smokers make no effort to avoid poisoning others.

lol.. i'm sorry but thats disgraceful. Imagine that happening. <Shakes head>

I'm going to take that as sarcasm - correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, you effectively condoned the dropping of a lit cigarette in a public place. You'll have to forgive me if that doesn't prompt me to have too much sympathy for your perspective.

Its become fashionable to blame smokers for everything. I know. I've done it myself. But i don't see calls for the banning of air pollution from cattle ****e..

I haven't seen too much of that in my local lately.

The majority of smokers i know welcome the ban. Not for non-smokers benefits. They've been complaining so long we don't hear them anymore.

We've noticed.

Ajnag

Originally posted by bonkey
No, the fact that the vested interest took the same argument as is being presented here as one of the main arguments is the issue. Back then, it proved to be foundless scaremongering.....and there is nothing to seriously indicate that this time is any different, other than the same group - those with the vested interest - saying "but this is different".

Fair point, But this is has a larger impact then the cinemas, and it is iminging on the main form of socalisation.If the vinters want to use foundless scaremongering, Its to their own detriment.But I am not representing the vinters.Also Im here to bring up the points and discuss them.I have pointed out potential problems, but as such I like everyone else here, can only speculate as to what may Happen, this applys to both sides of the ban, and there has been no shortage of scaremongering on both sides.

Originally posted by bonkey

If you're willing to do that, then whats the big deal about travelling in and out of doors?

you may endure -10 degrees celcius to accomidate your guests bonkey, However I doubt you have guests every evening.Nor do i go out everynight for that matter, but the big deal is that, if you choose you can smoke in a private part of your house instead of outside, wheras you expect smokers in this debate to constantly endure the irish weather.The big deal is the rain,wind,cold, and the extra danger brought round by the no.s of drunk unpredictable people brought together in these circumstances, not to mention that i probably wont be allowed to bring my drink with me.

Originally posted by bonkey
And once again, I'm asking for a suggestion that is non-discriminatory and that would not place a large percentage of bars at a distinct disadvantage to others because they don't have the space to allocate a "smoking room" for use.

And as Ive suggested the ban is discriminatory in its self.If you want a non discriminatory solution, then why do you feel this ban is a place to start in its self?.My non discriminatory suggestion is that if non-smokers have felt so strongly then having smoking and non-smoking bars makes sense, because non smokers can also demand that their smoking friends attend non-smoking bars.

Originally posted by bonkey
Is it clear? I haven't seen a single post saying tha tyou don't smoke around your non-smoking mates whilst in the pub at the moment. In fact, your entire argument seems to be that you enjoy a smoke with your pint, and you haven't yet contradicted my assumption that some of the ppl you drink with don't smoke....so what can I assume other than that you are imposing your habits on yoru non-smoking friends at present? Have I misunderstaood you? That, at present, you do not smoke around non-smokers in the pub? That you go somewhere else for your ciggy???

But hold on, If non-smoking friends wanted me to attend a non-smoking bar, I would done so and accomidated them, the Difference being that I would have the CHOICE to attend a smoking bar when not in there presence.

Originally posted by bonkey
No, its been stated again and again that non-smokers choose to socialise with their smoking friends, even though that typically means a smoking-friendly environment.

And smokers cant CHOOSE to socalise with their non smoking friends in non smoker friendly pubs? hate to through a point back at you, but choice is what Im arguing for here.

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm all for finding a solution that suits everyone......after the current situation has changed with the introduction of the new rules. Or would you think that a better solution is to allow the smokers to continue smoking around the non-smokers while we look for a more balanced solution????? And sure, if we did that, why bother actually looking for one? Why not just complain about every proposed solution forcing the status quo to remain???

Why not subidise and support non-smoking pubs, why not encourage choice, I do agree a better solution do'se need to be found, but switching to an other extreme isnt exactly a progression towards solution.

Originally posted by bonkey
Who cares.

Virtually every genocide of the 20th century has been ignored until well after the event. Should we take the apparent silence of those who suffered in those situations to mean that they didn't have a problem either?

Most women were not particularly vociferous about getting the vote. Does that mean they didn't really deserve it, didn't want it, or shouldn't have gotten it?

And have non-smokers been oppressed in such a way that their lives were in danger If they chose to start up non-smoking pubs?
Also what of the non-action that allowed these injustices.
Good examples, just not relevent.

Originally posted by bonkey
Right. So you'll bitch at your non-smoking acquaintances for having double standards (saying nothing but then insisting that the problem needed solving), but you will say nothing to your non-smoking friends. Wouldn't that be double-standards? Those here who favour the ban earn your criticism and ire, but if your friends should do the same, they don't get the same treatment.

Could it be that you are more tolerant of what you see as your friends, ummm, failings compared to ppl here having the same failings? Ir if not more tolerant, at least more willing to put up with it without comment???

Wow!, Im kinda stunned on this one.Your calling me a hypocrite for coming to a politics board to critisise and argue a debate, but for not forcing the same issues on my friends? Your a mod ffs! How could you of all people put this forward as an arguement? Im here because this board is here for exactly this reason.If my friends want to discuss this smoking ban, then I will let them know my feelings as such, but politics is my intrest, and that in no way obligates me to push it on my friends, in fact if I did, I mightnt have many friends at all.

Originally posted by bonkey
Could this same logic not explain why they have silently put up with ppl smoking around them for years? You're argument seems to say otherwise, so I'm really curious.....why exactly do you get to apply this double-standard of complaining about the non-smokers here but saying nothing to your non-smoking friends who maintain the same views, while at the same time not accepting that this same behaviour would explain away the perceived silence of non-smokers.

What do you want the non-smokers to do? Say "Its alright Mikey...I don't mind if you smoke, but I wish that fscker on the next table would put his filthy cigarette out and was banned from smoking here" ?????

See above.Also non smokers are free to say and do as they want.Its somewhat infuriating tho, because again I say if non-smokers have felt as strongly as they claim to now that they are having their way, then they would have let their smoking friends know in vociferous terms along time ago, and would also have ensured the provision and sucess of non smoking pubs.

Originally posted by bonkey

Well, y'know, the ppl that have stayed out of pubs for years because of the smoking that went on in there will be only too happy to take your place.

So you talk to me about discrimination and then say that its fine for one form of social exclusion to replace another.Solid logic there....

Originally posted by bonkey
How it feels to end up being treated like a different minority that - at a guess - you didn't spare a second thought for before this whole affair started up a year or two ago? Or did you always maintain that pubs shouldn't allow you smoke in them and that someone else was suffering because of it?

No I didnt spare a thought for this 2 years ago, simply for the fact that non-smokers hadnt emphasied their grievences and Im not psyhic.Am I somehow guilty for this?

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, since the issue raised its head, there has been precious little well-balanced and considered debate anywhere, so I'm not entirely sure what benefit it would have given the process other than to force the non-smokers to sit in smoke for longer while the whole process was dragged on by those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Maybe or maybe a more acceptable solution would have arisen, as such well never know.But now one vested intrest precludes another.wonderful

Originally posted by bonkey
Do you not accept that the introducing the new law gives a better place to start from to find an equitaable solution? Or do you believe that you - who admits to not wanting to poison anyone - should have been allowed to continue to smoke in a pub while this was slowly and carefully debated to decide how best to remove your smoke from said pub???

Place to start ? hmm maybe segregation might have a better starting point for racial integration by that point.non-smokers have been free to start and support non smoking pubs up until now.Smoker will not have the same freedom come this ban.

Originally posted by bonkey
You keep saying this, but you admit to smoking in pubs. Sorry, but thats like someone who has a habit of drunk driving saying, for the last time, that they don't want to endanger anyone's life. Actions speak louder...and all that.

Actions, and what point do I keep on emphasing?

Ajnag

Originally posted by bonkey
Whether you want non-smokers to breathe your smoke or not that is what they must accept under the current situation. If you really don't want them to breathe your smoke, then surely banning your smoke from the pub is a better solution that what we have at present?

Not an ideal solution, just a better one.

So lets take that better one and implement it as the first step forward. Then lets look at the next step that could be taken towards an ideal solution.

Whats so wrong with that?????
jc

Do you honestly think that once this happens their will be a willingness to seek a beter solution, Nope on to the next villification.

Other points of note.
Monument Ill take your solution If you wrap your self in cotton wool.

Rainy day.
But as such alcohol isnt banned in the workplace.Also I dont have numbers, but it is fairly straight forward that the individual costumer is more valuable to the smaller business, the expericance of my family accounts for this.Sorry If I cant get ya the figures, but I spend enough time replying in turn to points raised and aint up for endless researching.But feel free to provide links to disprove me.Also as I already stated staff can remain away from the smoking area, with care and cleaning as the responsibility of the smokers who use the facility.If they dont act responsibly then the publican can with draw the service.


Lol, Now thats a First, "Please shorten your post to 10000 characters"
After all that its down to a cup of tea and a fag.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
But hold on, If non-smoking friends wanted me to attend a non-smoking bar, I would done so and accomidated them, the Difference being that I would have the CHOICE to attend a smoking bar when not in there presence.

I'm seeing an inconsistency here: you're telling us that if there were non-smoking pubs, and your friends wanted to go there, you'd accomodate them by going to a pub, drinking and not smoking. This from the person who told us earlier that "I find it near impossible to drink without smoking as the two are intertwined for me in habit."

So, which is it? Can you drink without smoking, or is it near impossible for you?