Pub in Galway allowing customers to smoke!!!

Stephen

/invoke godwin's law

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by dudara
Sometimes laws need to be introduced to protect people from themselves.

Spot on. I think someone here used the analogy of the enforcement of wearing seat belts before, people might have hated it at first but after awhile it just makes sense.

BUMP!

Posted by fudger... Ah the stupidity of some views...keeps me going through the day !

Replies like this just annoy people... Whats the stupid part? That it doesn't sit well with your ideas??? If you dont have a proper reply the dont waste peoples time by posting rubbish!!!

And to quantify the argument (just in case you care):
- If I want to kill myself or risk injury, whether it be through sport, driving, walking or smoking then thats my business as long as I'm not causing risk to others.
- If there is a specific room for smokers then they are not causing damage to non-smokers.
- A high percentage of barmen/women smoke so if they are willing to work in a smokey environment then a little 2nd hand smoke wont do too much extra damage so maybe they shouildwork out a deal or something.
- If I needed a job then I'd rather work in a smokey pub than rot on a dole que.

- I dont even smoke - I'm just standing up for the rights of people to enjoy themselves in whatever manner and not be told what to do by busybodies like yourself...

Batbat

look your right in a way, and it boils down to this, we are people not cattle or cats or dogs, and we can make informed decisions, and if I decide i dont want the governments protection then its none or your business or the governments.

If i want to get payed more or whatever to work in a smoke filled environment thats my decision

It is not the governments role to protect me in this way, the idea that they could lock me up, to protect myself and then I can smoke freely in jail seems insane.

Ill say it again smoke freely in jail, so i have more freedom in jail in this case.

Its a slippery slope my friends, you are already seeing the results, now the nazi nanny government are talking about making it illegal to slap your child, not beat mind you (which is obviously wrong) but a slap

po0k

It's a kip.
Shouldn't be closed down, if it is all the knacks and scumbags will spill out into the normal pubs and will make life harder for the rest of us.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by BUMP!
- I dont even smoke - I'm just standing up for the rights of people to enjoy themselves in whatever manner and not be told what to do by busybodies like yourself...

Why don't we just legalise everything then and let people do whatever they want?
Smoking isn't a right, people choose to do it. They've no right inflicting it on other people.
And, realistically, you can't classify pubs as smoking or non-smoking (this arguement came up in the lead up to the ban), it would leave things too open for discrimination accusations etc. etc.

uberwolf

Originally posted by BUMP!

- If I needed a job then I'd rather work in a smokey pub than rot on a dole que.

the ban means you dont have to make that decision now. The job is available as it always was, but now no carcinogens. Someone shouldn't have to die ten years earlier just to be able to eat.

Sherlock

"Ill say it again smoke freely in jail, so i have more freedom in jail in this case. "

Smoking hasn't been banned just that you can't smoke where it affects other people.You can smoke as much as you want in your own home (which a jail cell is for the duration of your sentence).

sliabh

Originally posted by Batbat

If i want to get payed more or whatever to work in a smoke filled environment thats my decision

Actually it isn't.

To change the example bit. Suppose your job was removing asbestos from buildings and you were offered more money to do it without protective equipment. Legally you cannot sign your rights away so even if you agreed to this your employer is still responsible for protecting your health.

A bar worker in a smokey environment could still sue when they develop lung cancer even if they had "agreed" to work in that environment.

BUMP!

Why not class as smoke/non-smoke?

Different classes of licences - one with a tax break on pints to allow it to compete with the smoking one while the smoking one would have to have minimum standards of airconditioning to ensure safety of employees. What is in that that couldn't be enforced?

And the point about the jub uberwolf was that the lad in Galway said that he had to leave go of 30% of his workforce and I have seen a similar decline in the amount of staff on duty in the local pubs at home... Now we have a perfectly safe workplace but no work.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by BUMP!
Why not class as smoke/non-smoke?

As was just said in the last post, the workers would still (probably) be able to sue the employers/government if they developed cancer or any other of the many smoking related illnesses.

Now we have a perfectly safe workplace but no work.

That has nothing to do with the rediculous prices the bars all over the country are charging I take it?

uberwolf

the consensus seems to have been though that the other local pubs aren't effected and that a student bar is going to be quite during the summer holidays and the building work outside is preventing tourists dropping in.

The are a number of factors causing the decline in the use of pubs and TBH I don't thnk the smoking ban is it. Last thursday I went out with 6 others, we each spent around €60 each on drink over the course of the night - not massive money by any strech but significant. I reckon if we'd gone to the off licence my €60 would have provided drinks enough for everyone for the night. A crate and 2 bottles of spirits (approx). That kind of margin can't be maintained indefinitely and the imapct of the smoking ban may have been to provide people the excuse they were laready looking for...

Batbat

Why don't we just legalise everything then and let people do whatever they want?

See now this is the core of the issue and the easy fall back.

And the answer is very simple

1 all societies need laws, therefore we have laws but all laws have exceptions, example, murder, exception self defence or in times of war etc

2. If you agree we need laws, then you have one simple guideline
No person’s freedoms should be curtailed in any way unless their actions harm another person or the greater whole.

So for example you agree smoking is bad for people, you ban smoking in public places, but this is curtailing smokers freedoms so allow public places for smokers to go, eg smoker pubs, but what about the workers there, they chose to be there, non of your business or the governments simple. Case closed

dudara

Case not closed, people change their minds. They might be willing to work in a smoky atmosphere now, but wait until lung/throat cancer or asthma or similar develops, and you'll see a quick change in attitude

uberwolf

I saw it put like this once:- "Your right to swing your fiist ends at your neighbours nose."

You agree that laws are (or should) be enacted for teh greater whole. Smoking bans act on behalf of the greater whole. The workers pay tax and use the medical services - therefore anything to do with them is the governments business.

There are public places for smokers to go. Outside. Where I still have smoke blown in my face as I walk the streets - their rights aren't ending at my nose in that instance!

Batbat

the workers know the risk of cancer if they work there they accept this, they make a choice , this is all very simple.

Stephen

Batbat:

RE*AC*TOR

Originally posted by Batbat
So for example you agree smoking is bad for people, you ban smoking in public places, but this is curtailing smokers freedoms so allow public places for smokers to go, eg smoker pubs, but what about the workers there, they chose to be there, non of your business or the governments simple. Case closed

Case closed my arse - except you overlooked one tiny little detail...... the whole f*cking point!
The law is there to protect the workers, not the customers. Not everybody has a choice of where they work - a lot of people are just happy to have a job.

Batbat

The workers pay tax and use the medical services - therefore anything to do with them is the governments business.

haha why not say everything to do with everything is the governments business, well I wont argue with you, I happen to disagree

fitz

Case closed my arse.

Smoking is not a right, it's a choice.
You have no right to damage someone elses health.

You're still free to smoke.
Your freedom is not being impeached.

Would you walk into a hospital ward and smoke?
No?

So, are you saying that a patient in a hospital ward has more right to consideration regarding their health than a pub worker or non-smoking pub-goer?
Why?
Cause they're not sick yet?

Oh, but they have a choice whether they want to work/go to the pub, of course! I forgot!

So your choice to smoke is obviously more important than my choice not to smoke?
Bullshit.

dudara

the workers know the risk of cancer if they work there they accept this, they make a choice , this is all very simple

You're completely missing the point. People are being protected from themselves.

they might accept the risk of a smoky environment, but wait until the medical bills start rolling in. The government is doing its best to protect them from killing themselves

uberwolf

people should not have to endanger their lives unnessacarily for employment. The asbestos example should allow you view this from another perspective. Argue that case instead for a bit and see if you can persuade yourself...

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Batbat
the workers know the risk of cancer if they work there they accept this, they make a choice , this is all very simple.

What about all those army deafness claims then?
Anyway, why should someone have to risk their own health for a job?
Some people don't have loads of options open to them for employment, the least the government can do is make sure that they aren't killed slowly in their workplace as a result.

Batbat

So your choice to smoke is obviously more important than my choice not to smoke?

Jesus this is not rocket science, smokers are not saying which is more important, there is only choice, you chose not to go to a smokers pub, then you are in no danger to you.

The worker in the pub chooses to work there or work somewhere else or chooses to work in Iraq or whatever.

Dont curtail other peoples freedoms because you cant make a simple choice

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Batbat
Dont curtail other peoples freedoms because you cant make a simple choice

You're trolling, right?

dudara

Dont curtail other peoples freedoms because you cant make a simple choice

Look I'm getting really fustrated here and I'm going to make the simple choice of leaving you to your own ignorance

RE*AC*TOR

Originally posted by Batbat
The worker in the pub chooses to work there or work somewhere else or chooses to work in Iraq or whatever.

:rolleyes: hmm, a little slow on the uptake.....
let me spell it out for you...

n o t
a l w a y s
a
c h o i c e !

Fudger

Replies like this just annoy people... Whats the stupid part? That it doesn't sit well with your ideas??? If you dont have a proper reply the dont waste peoples time by posting rubbish!!!

My ideas ? you idiot you have no idea with these stupid comments.

Why? If you dont like it dont go there.

Almost sounds like you are telling people what to do and sound like a

righteous little a$$holes who like nothing better than to tell everyone else exactly how to live their lives.

It continues...........

If I want to kill myself or risk injury, whether it be through sport, driving, walking or smoking then thats my business as long as I'm not causing risk to others.

Another classic........'passive smoking' It someones choice to smoke but nobody chooses to passive smoke thats forced on you.

Contradiction that’s the stupid part !!!!!!!!!!!

sliabh

Originally posted by Batbat


Dont curtail other peoples freedoms because you cant make a simple choice

But that is the whole point. A worker should be free to do their job without being compelled to work in a dangerous environment. (and they will be compelled if given the "option" of working in a smoking pub).

We don't ask some builders to choose not to wear hi-vis vests any more. So pub workers don't get the choice to work in an environment where there are carcinogens

seamus

Originally posted by Batbat
Dont curtail other peoples freedoms because you cant make a simple choice

Same can be applied to smokers. People have the choice to smoke or not to smoke. Don't curtail other people's rights because you can't make a simple choice.

The key here is that health, and a safe work environment are a right. Smoking is a choice. One can choose to waiver their rights, but one cannot force their choice on others.

By default, one assumes that a work environment is safe. That is your right. Nobody chooses a work environment that is safe, nobody should have to choose a work environment that is safe. The only choice one can make in this regard is to choose a work environment that's not safe and waive their rights.

I'm sure a pub can make a work around that means they can have their establishment listed as a hazardous work environment, but then they get involved in hefty costs to keep up to legal safety standards, and their staff would demand more pay.

fitz

Originally posted by Batbat
So your choice to smoke is obviously more important than my choice not to smoke?

Jesus this is not rocket science, smokers are not saying which is more important, there is only choice, you chose not to go to a smokers pub, then you are in no danger to you.

The worker in the pub chooses to work there or work somewhere else or chooses to work in Iraq or whatever.

Dont curtail other peoples freedoms because you cant make a simple choice

You completely ignored the other points that you couldn't argue against.
Pubs are not public places.
They are licenced premises.

Those licences come from the government.

Now, read this part slowly so that you understand:

That means it is the governments business what is considered acceptable for granting licences.

Behaviour that is harmful to health is not acceptable.
So your Nanny State argument is pants.

Pubs are government regulated property.
They call the shots.

Batbat

Look on this topic people just have a fundamental difference of opinion, in my mind its very simple but other people look at it differently

RE*AC*TOR

ahh creative quoting.....

Originally posted by Batbat
...my mind its very simple....

po0k

Monty / Fanjita - might i suggest moving this to politics?

There's been little talk of actual drinking or the atmosphere of this particular pub and all this "serious" discussion (of a moot point) is getting in my way.

Batbat

Pubs are government regulated property.
They call the shots.

Actually thats a good point, best argument so fat to be honest.

but look at it another way,

the roads are government regulated
the TV government regulated
the Airwaves are government regulated
the land is government regulated
the air is government regulated
your pay is government regulated
how we handle garbage is government regulated
Im trying to think of something not regulated in some respect, and this is an awesome power which needs to be managed correctly,

its fair to say the government make a lot of stupid decisions, in my view focusing on this smoking issue is poorly handled, better to focus on the hospitals and their waiting lists,

the priorities are all messed up.

Batbat

hh creative quoting.....

quote:Originally posted by Batbat
...my mind its very simple....

__________________

haha reactor, nicely done, with rebuttal skills like that you should be working for the Bush government. but seriously i like the spock sig

sliabh

Originally posted by Batbat

its fair to say the government make a lot of stupid decisions, in my view focusing on this smoking issue is poorly handled, better to focus on the hospitals and their waiting lists,

the priorities are all messed up.

Ah, but smokers get heart disease and other nasty illnesses that clog up hospitals (as well as their arteries). A Doctor friend of mine says that about half of the beds in the hospital where he works are filled with people who have smoking related illnesses

Sleepy

Lads, the argument that some people would have no choice but to work in a smoking bar is as facetious as you can find. There is no way you can convince me that anyone is "forced" to do any job in this country.

Batbat

im bored with this topic, who wants a game of battlefield vietnam?, ill be on the EaUK server you can shoot me there haha

RE*AC*TOR

Originally posted by Sleepy
Lads, the argument that some people would have no choice but to work in a smoking bar is as facetious as you can find. There is no way you can convince me that anyone is "forced" to do any job in this country.

Not forced as in the put a gun to your head kinda forced. But forced as in, this is the best pay I can get, i have rent/mortgage/bills to pay. Johnny needs new shoes. Mona keeps getting on to me about new shelves. Cough is getting worse now, doctor says its only bronchitis. He says the blood will pass. Johnny's only 8 now, wonder if I'll see him go to college... become a man. *cough* *cough* Need to work over time tonight, bank is baying at my door... threatening foreclosure. etc etc

Ah, but smokers get heart disease and other nasty illnesses that clog up hospitals (as well as their arteries). A Doctor friend of mine says that about half of the beds in the hospital where he works are filled with people who have smoking related illnesses

Ya sure. I can point out anyone thats ill, ask them if they have ever tried a smoke, and if yes, then point out that their illness could be related to that smoke. Smoking is a convenient excuse for all those illnesses that happen to people. Personally I haven't seen this nanny-state of our ban people from going on Sun Holidays, because they might get Skin Cancer.

I smoke. I'm in favour of the smoking ban. I actually prefer it. But the issue here is still about choice. Non-smokers always had the choice not to enter a pub that was smokey. Just as smokers these days have the choice to enter a non-smoking pub. However, these blanket bans, just seem excessive.

As for the Galway pub, I hope they rip him a new hole. <Shrugs> This is not about smoking or non-smoking. He chose to break the law, and then advertise it nationally. Rip him to shreds for that I say.

Imposter

Originally posted by Batbat
the workers know the risk of cancer if they work there they accept this, they make a choice , this is all very simple.

Something is simple but i don't think it's what you think.

Batbat

quote:Originally posted by Batbat
the workers know the risk of cancer if they work there they accept this, they make a choice , this is all very simple.


Something is simple but i don't think it's what you think.

cant you think of anything better to say?, You bore me,

Imposter

Originally posted by Batbat
cant you think of anything better to say?, You bore me,

Obviously BF Vietnam must too.

RE*AC*TOR

Originally posted by Imposter
Obviously BF Vietnam must too.

oooh matron!

BUMP!

Okay fair enough, lets look at it this way, not everyone drinks either so maybe we should ban drinking in a public establishment aswell then. After all Mr. Joe Soap should be allowed out without having to put up with all of us (i mean me) drunkards with a reduced capacity falling around and fighting, and and what about the poor employees? They dont have the choice of where to work - remember? Sure aren't they at risk everyday of a more immediate danger - the drunk who's gone nuts on a severely intoxicating combination of vodka and wkd or something and decides he doesnt like the look of him?

If it is deemed by the govt to have an acceptably low risk then it should be legal otherwise they should stop messing and just ban smoking altogether - not half measures!!!

But sorry Fudger - I am an idiot who's opinions dont count aren't I??!?!?

Fudger

finally you make sense

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by BUMP!
Okay fair enough, lets look at it this way, not everyone drinks either so maybe we should ban drinking in a public establishment aswell then. After all Mr. Joe Soap should be allowed out without having to put up with all of us (i mean me) drunkards with a reduced capacity falling around and fighting, and and what about the poor employees? They dont have the choice of where to work - remember? Sure aren't they at risk everyday of a more immediate danger - the drunk who's gone nuts on a severely intoxicating combination of vodka and wkd or something and decides he doesnt like the look of him?

You do realise that it's illegal to be drunk in a pub?

The Brigadier

The whole arguement of people choosing to work in this sort of environment really does not hold up.

If somebody chose to harm themselves would you stop them? If someone said to you they were going to cut their finger off, would you stop them.....of course you would....

flogen

klaz, bump, your missing the point. Why would the government ban sun bathing, it may cause skin cancer, but it doesnt effect anyone else (so If i dont want to take the chance of skin cancer, i wont sun bathe.) The same goes for booze, it may cause liver disease, but it me drinking doesnt adversly effect the health of those around me.

And dont start any crap about 'but drunk people can start fights'. so can sober people, and besides, there are plenty of laws around to stop drink related violence, and its less likely for me to have my health damaged by someone beating me up than it is for me to work day and night in a smokey pub/club etc

flogen