Smoking ban in pubs

casper-

Originally posted by Dustaz
I keep on hearing in pubs (well, outside them) about all the places where the ban has been implemented and failed. Quebec, some parts of france and the excemptions in nyc have been bandied about but i have no idea whether they are based in fact or just Fat-Bloke-Down-The-Pub stories.


Anyone know?

I'm not sure about Quebec .. I try to pay as little attention that province as possible In Ottawa, though, the ban has been upheld quite well for some time now; yes, granted, there is still the occasional small pub (and I've been to one), where you can go in at 11am and smoke because it's just the regulars and a barman, but that's about it. I suspect no matter what city/country implements a smoking ban, you will still find small places that will allow long-time customers to break the rules. Over time, though, even those places will eventually have to give in completely I suspect.

That's not really much different to the lock-ins I've heard about here during Good Friday is it?

I'm also curious about what you mentioned with France; does anyone have any evidence to back that up? I didn't even know France had a smoking ban -- is it the whole country or just certain cities?

casper-

Not sure if this is the right thread for this; just finished reading irish1's post most recent post "The Waiver"

Ireland was not the first country to introduce a ban on smoking in the work place, the US also implemented a ban in 2003.

Uhm -- what is he talking about? I presumed the debate had to be based on facts (and proof backing those facts up). First of all, it's only a _few_ states that passed smoking bans; having lived in Florida in September/October 2003 I can guarantee that was not the case. Ireland is to the best of my knowledge, the first country in the world to institute a smoking ban.

The real facts are - five states (New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and California) had completely banned smoking in the workplace as of the start of July 2003, and Florida followed suit a short week later, but only in places where food sales comprised greater than 10% of sales. Read: the majority of bars (and some pubs) are still smoke-filled.

As I posted elsewhere; I dislike stats, and I dislike even more people making broad generalisations and using them as basis for arguments without having sufficient proof to back them up.

<disclaimer> I'm not sure what other states may have joined in since then -- I suspect the list will probably grow</disclaimer>

casper-

Originally posted by AngelofFire
In practise banning it wont really work.If it were to be banned it would lead to an increase in gangland activity as this would be a perfect opportunity for them to make money out of selling illegal tobacco. it will also put tobacco into association with heroin and coccaine as it would be sold by dealers. this would cause tobacco to lead to harder drugs

Well .. I'd have to disagree with this partially. Yes, the result of Prohibition in the States proved that if the government tries to take a legal "drug" away from the people in the recent past, then the general populate will go elsewhere to find it. I honestly think the same thing would happen in Ireland if in the near future the government decided that you couldn't buy cigarettes legally. Smoking is, I believe, far too entrenched (as alcohol was) to ban it outright.

At the same time, I find it mind-boggling to even suggest that making tobacco an illegal purchase would then lead to people buying harder drugs instead. Although, funnily enough, that sounds suspiciously like anti-marijuana arguments I've heard .... it's like suggesting that anyone that smokes pot is also a heroin/cocaine addict.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by Dustaz
Ugh, entirely off topic but that has to be the lamest gateway argument ive ever seen. I cant see my mother suddenly deciding to try a bit of crack along with her 40 silk cut purple somehow.

Since I'm off topic now, i may as well stay there. I cannot understand how the government can still justify selling tobacco in non-specialist shops. This is a substance that is proven to be harmful, has no obvious benefits and is still available in any shop. The fact it makes small fortune for the exchequer is beside the point of course. The fact that massive tax hikes on it are 'in the public healths interest' is hypocrisy on a massive scale.

The sale of alcohol is massively controlled yet consumption laws are lax. With smoking it is the opposite.

Ive said on these boards before that i think the perfect 2 phase plan would be to:
2. issue free 'smoker' cards which enable only registered smokers to legally obtain cigarrettes from a licensed dealer. A five year 'no questions' policy on issuing these cards would probably suffice. Smokers can still smoke but as time passes less and less people smoke as there are less and less smokers.

Within a generation or two, we would have a far greater chance of having a no smoking nation than the current method.


Anyway, all this is very off topic, split it off if it offends.

Just because you dont fully understand the content of my previous post doesnt mean you have to come up with some patronising response.

as for your two phase plan thats the worst idea ive ever heard, tightening up on availability of tobacco products is just giving drug dealers an opportunity to supply to tobacco to young people who wouldnt be able to avail of it because of the 2 phase plan.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by casper-


At the same time, I find it mind-boggling to even suggest that making tobacco an illegal purchase would then lead to people buying harder drugs instead. Although, funnily enough, that sounds suspiciously like anti-marijuana arguments I've heard .... it's like suggesting that anyone that smokes pot is also a heroin/cocaine addict.

i see where your coming from. i didnt say that anyone who smokes would go on to taking heroin if the only place where tobacco was available was the black market i meant that if it were to made illegal it would increase the likelihood of it leading to harder drugs. let me make an analogy. since they legalised cannabis in the netherlands use of heroin and coccaine has decreased sharply it took some time but its decrease was related to the legalisation of cannabis. because cannabis was being sold legally its association with coccaine and heroine was removed.

im not saying it will happen instantly. but if tobbacco were to be made illegal it would over time be in alignment with illegal drugs such as heroin. this will increase the likelihood of people who smoke tobacco of going on to harder drugs.

gaelic cowboy

I don't give a toss what smokers think i do not want them back in pubs outside with ye all. Smokers have the right to smoke but not the right to pollute the air I breathe tough. And no I dont have to accomadate smokers in pubs as they are now breaking the law and I not.

Gleanndún

i would like 2 say in regards 2 the ban failing, that i live in california and it has worked beautifully. i do concede, that many businesses, excepts bars, had already banned smoking on their premises, but on the whole, bars complied rather well, and so did the smokers. u barely even c smokers newhere now, the only place i find them is on the street, or in a park. u wouldnt even kno that there were smokers were it not for the stats and anti-smoking commercials, which by the way, we have very high taxes on sale of tobacco products, and it is written into the law that the funds go toward education against smoking, such as commercials, anti-tobacco organizations, guest speakers in classrooms, &c. and also some of it goes to health care. i just wanted to say this in response to people saying that it will fail miserably. I have a friend from Russia, who recently went back there, and he said that you dont really appreciate the smoking laws until u go outside california---he said that he almost couldnt wait 2 get back. so thats just my little bit of info. slan go foill,

gleanndun