Publicans defy smoking ban

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by dahamsta
:rolleyes: If you can't even fess up to something as simple as this, I have no reason to be reading your posts. Welcome to my Ignore List. You'll have plenty of company.

adam

And again, how exactly can that be defined as sarmongering?
If I likened the actual act of each crime to each other then yes I would agree with you. But as I stated already, you read far too much into that comment.

I might as well be on your ignore list, you're doing a pretty good job of ignoring what I'm saying anyway.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by DublinWriter
The law is not an absolute repository of common sense and sometimes it is an ass.

In this case though the laws are actually going to improve people's health, how can you say that's a bad thing?
And to answer your 1st question, if it gets to the stage where they're telling us what to wear I'll wait until after the coup to go out in public, rather than wear yellow boots

Batbat

no amount of argument or logic is going to change Frank Grimes mind, best just to agree to differ, he and others are entitled to their opinion.

At the end of the day his opinion is in the majority, best to just be just democratic

DublinWriter

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
In this case though the laws are actually going to improve people's health, how can you say that's a bad thing?

Health should be a personal choice and not mandated to you by the government.

Taking your argument to it's fullest conclusion would make me suggest that the government should pass a law to have Garda enforce aerobic sessions every morning.

That would be a law, and it would improve people's health.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Batbat
At the end of the day his opinion is in the majority, best to just be just democratic

That doesn't mean my opinion is right though.
Regardless, it's more the fact that cetain people seem to think it's alright to flaunt certain laws that they consider unacceptable that I've the problem with.
Personally I've no problem with people filling their lungs full of all manner of carcenogenic crap, I did it for nearly 10 years myself.
Fact of the matter is, it's the law. It's a law that is actually going to protect people's health, there's no real other way of looking at it.
As much as I detest the government, I don't think they brought this in to spite people.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Health should be a personal choice and not mandated to you by the government.

Passive smokers aren't given the choice.
They haven't banned smoking anyway, so the arguement about areobics isn't really a relevant one.

Stark

I said it before, but smokers will have the last laugh on this one because utimately it will be *all* PAYE workers who will have to stump up for the billion or so shortfall in excise duty caused by the ban.

Can you not look past short-term greed? It'll be the non-smokers and especially the bar staff who no longer have to put up with second hand smoke who'll have the last laugh, it's hard to laugh when you're breathing through a tube. In years to come this will save the health service money as smoking related illnesses go on the decrease. Mícheál Martin should be commended, for once a politician who looks beyond his own seven year term in government.

I hate to get into this argument again, but workers deserve to be protected. Why should bar staff be expected to have less status than any other worker? If people were allowed to light up in an office there'd be uproar, it should be no different for someone working in a pub/restaurant. A person has no right to poison someone else simply because it's "convenient".

uberwolf

Originally posted by DublinWriter


Remeber *each* cigarette smoked nets McCreevy 23c.

the net cost is actually to the exchequer when Health costs, lost productivity, etc. are considered

uberwolf

the Government (or one of its agencies) grants a licence to every pub in the country. These licences are dependent on the meeting of certain conditions. Now flouting the laws of this country openly and unabashedly is certainly contravening these conditions. Would not be a simple case of refusing licence renewals for these publicans?

DublinWriter

Originally posted by Stark
Can you not look past short-term greed? It'll be the non-smokers and especially the bar staff who no longer have to put up with second hand smoke who'll have the last laugh,

Most bar-workers are smokers. Those that aren't make a free and personal choice to work in that environment.

Originally posted by Stark

In years to come this will save the health service money as smoking related illnesses go on the decrease.

Here's some late breaking news for ya - non-smokers are not immortal.

Non smokers all have to die at some point and it's in the final year of all our lives that we require the most health care.

Non-smokers get heart diseases, cancers, alzheimers too.

If I as a smoker get cancer at 60 and you as a non-smoker get cancer at 80, the cost of both our care will be the same.

The only difference is that, using your economic logic, you will have cost society more as you'll have enjoyed 15 years of a state-pension!

Smoking related diseases kill quicker and faster, and smokers die younger (so it says on the ciggie packet I'm looking at!).

So if smokers die younger, then using your arguement, smokers are less of a drain on the social welfare system.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by uberwolf
the net cost is actually to the exchequer when Health costs, lost productivity, etc. are considered

Read my previous post about the economics of smoking.

Regarding productivity, there's more lost productivity in this country due to Monday morning hangovers.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by uberwolf
Would not be a simple case of refusing licence renewals for these publicans?

I'm wondering the same. Like I said in the post that got blown out of all proportion, this guy should have his licence suspended (I think that's possible to do, right?) at the very least.
Pubs have had problems renewing their licences in the past for things like serving kids repeatedly etc. so I imagine openly allowing people to smoke in the pub will/could be treated similar.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I'm wondering the same. Like I said in the post that got blown out of all proportion, this guy should have his licence suspended (I think that's possible to do, right?) at the very least.

Good idea, and the 10 or so people that work for him will be unemployed, but healthy!

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Good idea, and the 10 or so people that work for him will be unemployed, but healthy!

Ok, what do you suggest should happen to him?

uberwolf

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Good idea, and the 10 or so people that work for him will be unemployed, but healthy!

his drinkers will go elsewhere, the workers can follow if they desire.

rubadub

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Most bar-workers are smokers. Those that aren't make a free and personal choice to work in that environment.

why not legalise all the other forms of physical assault and let people work at home if they dont want to step outside the door
read this...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121592

Batbat

a large minorities civil liberties are more important then a tiny minorities (barworkers) right to clean air while they work, particulary when the the barworkers choose to work there.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, the majority non smokers can smoke in their non smoking pubs away from the smoking pubs. Everyones happy (except the barworksers)

Batbat

hope they close this thread before the flames start:D

jackofalltrades

Most bar-workers are smokers.

What about the other people who works in the bars, cleaners, electrician, carpenters and so on. Are all this people supposed to say no and risk losing their job every time they are asked to do a job in a pub.

Those that aren't make a free and personal choice to work in that environment

In that case lets repeal all Health and Safety laws in the workplace for the last 200 years, being a personal choice to work there and all.

uberwolf

Originally posted by Batbat
a large minorities civil liberties are more important then a tiny minorities (barworkers) right to clean air while they work, particulary when the the barworkers choose to work there.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, the majority non smokers can smoke in their non smoking pubs away from the smoking pubs. Everyones happy (except the barworksers)

to summise

majority > large minority > minority

non smokers > smokers > barworkers

therefore smoking ban.

ipso facto, QED, how you like them apples?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Batbat
The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, the majority non smokers can smoke in their non smoking pubs away from the smoking pubs. Everyones happy (except the barworksers)

Who are the exact reason the ban was introduced in the first place.

Batbat

I could explain but in the end its like talking to children

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Batbat
a large minorities civil liberties are more important then a tiny minorities (barworkers) right to clean air while they work, particulary when the the barworkers choose to work there.

This is not a civil liberties issue.

Boggles

Can people not see whats really going on? The Non-Smokers hailing Michael Martin as a great polition, forward thinker, a man with back bone. The Smokers demonising him. One thing for sure is, he is a very clever man, he has managed to create this smoke screen (forgive the pun) of the smoking ban, deflecting all other debate from real areas of concern with the irish health system. For God sake he's own Boss came out yesterday and said A&E departments in Ireland were a shambles. Theres no discussion on this today, the man is a genius! Alternatively the Irish people are stupid, take your pick.

zt

Why does the government not ban the sale of cigarettes completely?

Smokers could buy cigarettes from NI or other European countries (e3.40 in Holland and France). The savings made on the cost would easily pay for the travel and a good night out (cheaper drink and no smoking bans).

It is remarkable that smoking is so terrible on one hand and the government continues to be the main beneficiary.

The yearly tax impact per individual would only be about e250 - e500 per tax payer. This would certainly be treating smokers and non-smokers with more equality.

Meh

Originally posted by zt
Why does the government not ban the sale of cigarettes completely?

Great idea, we don't have nearly enough organized crime in this country.

zt

I find it insidious that statements made by the anti-smoking brigade focussed on the "international perception" of Ireland.

M Martin "It would be a huge disservice to the vast majority of the people if we were to go back now because it`s been a great story for modern Ireland."

Prof. Luke Clancy of Ash "The eyes of the world are on Ireland and this is a hugely important initiative" "To think it could be jeopardised because somebody believes this is why his profits are down is disappointing."

It appears these people are more worried about international perception than the local impact of the ban.

Imposter

Originally posted by Batbat
a large minorities civil liberties are more important then a tiny minorities (barworkers) right to clean air while they work, particulary when the the barworkers choose to work there.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, the majority non smokers can smoke in their non smoking pubs away from the smoking pubs. Everyones happy (except the barworksers)

The ban is on smoking in workplaces in general. If an exception is made for barworkers whats to stop an office worker looking for the right to smoke at his desk?

Your large minority who want their civil liberties are smokers. They are still a minority so should they be granted their "civil liberties" if the majority of the population are against it?

BUMP!

Did anyone hear what the story actually is in this pub? I know that smoking is only allowed upstairs so (depending on the layout) that should not inconvenience non-smokers so disregard them for the moment. What about the staff - do they have to work on the smoking level? If so has anyone heard what their reactions are to the thing i.e. are they upset/do they care?

Its all well and good to prefer a smoking/non-smoking pub but its the staff themselves who should be asked (seeing as its about their health) and really not a matter for therest of us who will never agree anyway. Did RTE interview the staff? I only saw the owners - and right or wrong I doubt they would care too much what the staff had to say...

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by BUMP!
If so has anyone heard what their reactions are to the thing i.e. are they upset/do they care?

Do you really think they're going to bad mouth their boss to the national media?