Publicans defy smoking ban

Imposter

Originally posted by BUMP!
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...

And how many of the staff would you expect would critisise their [strike]boss[/strike] ex-boss on national television?

BUMP!

Well it doesn't take a hell of a lot of investigative reporting (HA!!!) to go in and chat to the staff off the record and then give a general overview of staff opinion as it seems like a big enough place that would have quite a few - but point taken about interviewing them. (although you'd have a nice wrongful dismissal case if they fired you after that - unless of course you were part-time)

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BUMP!
you'd have a nice wrongful dismissal case if they fired you after that

That's something that occured to me: wouldn't a worker there be within his/her rights to quit, and then take a case for constructive dismissal?

Boggles

Actually the more I think about this debate M. Martin is going about this the wrong way. The overall goal of the smoking ban is 2 take pressure off the health system. Well if Mr. Martin was to truly have back bone and be a radical politician he should consider these options. If one third of the population of ireland were to die today, the health board would be fine.

Right Here is what he should do:

1. Lower the smoking age to Fetus.
2. Make it mandatory for pregant women to smoke. (Large fines for non compliance)
3. Make cigarrettes free
4. Introduce a milk token like system on cigarrette packets where you can get free gifts
5. Legalise firearms and ban that outdated commandment "Thou shall not kill" (Large fines for non compliance)
6. Kill himself shortening the waiting Q by one, even thou this won't work since he gets private treatment.
7. Ban Salad

7 easy steps that should go along way to ensuring a better health system. Please feel free to add to this list or better sill make your own lists.

oscarBravo

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0708/smoking.html

The Western Health Board has said it is preparing to take legal action against customers who were found smoking in the Galway pub which is challenging the smoking ban.

Whatever about the publican - he's getting a lot of publicity out of this - did it seem particularly stupid to anyone else that lots of people allowed themselves to be seen on national TV openly breaking the law?

ChipZilla

Originally posted by uberwolf
his drinkers will go elsewhere, the workers can follow if they desire.

By the same rationale, workers who don't like smoke are free to do likewise if they have objections...

uberwolf

not if there are no jobs avail in no smoking pubs. But if a pub shuts there are displaced drinkers and workers. these could move as a 'group' to another pub or disperse amongst pubs - maintaining a drinker:worker ratio. Which is not the same.

Latest I heard anyway the pubs have backed down.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Batbat
a large minorities civil liberties

Question - when the hell did smoking become a civil liberty???!!!???

It is like saying I am excersing my god given right to pollute the enviornment by sh*tting in a swiming pool!

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have a divine right to do it.

Smoking at its very basic, is the polution of the atmosphere around you, that you do not own or have an right to abuse.

Polution is not a right ... if you must smoke you confine your polution to areas you do have a right over, such as your home, or you do it outside (sh*tting in the middle of the ocean is better than sh*tting in a public swimming pool) ... but you have absolutly no right or ownership over the atmosphere in enclosed public areas.

arcadegame2004

Some illegal drugs are supposed to be safer than smoking tobacco e.g. cannabis. Yet abusing cannabis is illegal. Why then should smoking tobacco? Unfortunately the current ban only applies to within pubs and public-places.

Regarding those smokers yapping on about being a "minority" needing protection, don't make my laugh. You are CHOOSING to be a minority, through your behaviour. You could choose to become the majority, by ending your smoking.

The smoking-ban debate is a competition between 2 rights. The right to smoke, and the right to health. I believe the latter is far more important, and I question whether in fact the former should even be a right.

Michael Martin fine that pub heavily untl they come to their senses and if they don't then revoke their license. A harsh policy is needed to impose uniformity of obedience to our national laws.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Unfortunately the current ban only applies to within pubs and public-places.

Wrong. The ban applies to [most] workplaces, not to public places. A little bit of factual accuracy goes a long way towards establishing credibility.

arcadegame2004

Oops. Sorry.But it should be banned altogether in my opinion. Look at the cost to the Health-Service.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The smoking-ban debate is a competition between 2 rights. The right to smoke, and the right to health. I believe the latter is far more important, and I question whether in fact the former should even be a right.

Michael Martin fine that pub heavily untl they come to their senses and if they don't then revoke their license. A harsh policy is needed to impose uniformity of obedience to our national laws.

Ja-wohl mein uberleutnant!

The way you manage to get the words 'harsh', 'impose', 'uniformity' and 'obedience' all in one sentance really says it all.

A little tetchy today, aren't we? Just given up smoking perchance?

Anyway, for the umpteenth time:

1. Smokers actually cost the heath-care system less (see earlier posts)

2. Health is a personal choice and should not be mandated by a government

3. The majority of bar workers are smokers, those that aren't make a free and presonal choice to work in a bar.

4. The smoking ban debate is the perfect smoke-screen to deflect attention away from Martin's utter failure as health minister and the broken Fianna Fail electoral promise made in 2002 to end all waiting lists by May 2004

5. The majority of people that crow-on about clean air in pubs aren't regular pub-goers anyway (personal observation!)

6. As a nation we have become deeply unhappy, and as such, we try and look for new and innovative ways to make other people feel unhappy too.

uberwolf

why is it only one of your points is clarified as a personal opinion when they all are statements of opinion made with out any reference to sources, etc. You're trying to lend yourself an authority that you haven't established.

MrPudding

Originally posted by oscarBravo
A little bit of factual accuracy goes a long way towards establishing credibility.

Factual accuracy is not something our friend seems to concern himself with.

MrP

DublinWriter

Originally posted by uberwolf
why is it only one of your points is clarified as a personal opinion when they all are statements of opinion made with out any reference to sources, etc. You're trying to lend yourself an authority that you haven't established.

Nope...that was a personal observation. Slight difference.

What sources should I quote?

I think it's made pretty obvious by stating that it was a claim made in the 2002 Fianna Fail manifesto to end all health service waiting lists by 2002. Do you want me to get a copy for you?

Meh

Originally posted by DublinWriter
2. Health is a personal choice and should not be mandated by a government

Do I get a choice as to whether I want to breathe smoke in a pub? Or is it just smokers that are allowed personal choices?

bobbyjoe

A harsh policy is needed to impose uniformity of obedience to our national laws.

You vill obey, beating will continue untill moral improves................

These guys have 5 pubs or somthing can't feel sorry for them.
Still the nanny state issue is getting a bit much.

uberwolf

just in from the indo...

The Galway pub at the centre of the smoking row is to reinforce the ban. Just after 4.30pm the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern confirmed the move, which follows written correspondence from the Attorney General, the Government's legal adviser. The Taoiseach spoke to reporters on his way into Dublin Castle and said that following an exchange of correspondents between the Attorney General and Solicitors representing the pub in Galway. The particular pub had agreed to back down and to reinforce the smoking ban. The Taoiseach said that this was effectively the end of the matter, but he made it clear that the government was not going to take any further carry on from publicans who attempt to flout the law.

Zombrex

Originally posted by DublinWriter

1. Smokers actually cost the heath-care system less (see earlier posts)

And maybe we should ban seat belts ... kill off a few more before they get a chance to drain the system :rolleyes:

The most obvious flaw is that your (rather ridiculous) argument assumes that everyone who smokes will die from smoking related illness, no matter what the treatment (and therefore not require health care later in life). But there are plenty of smokers who have years and years of bad health relating to their smoking, that drain the system of money, and continue to live. My grandfather was in and out of hospital for years and years before he eventually passed away.

Originally posted by DublinWriter
2. Health is a personal choice and should not be mandated by a government

3 little words for you - Second ... Hand .... Smoke

Originally posted by DublinWriter
3. The majority of bar workers are smokers, those that aren't make a free and presonal choice to work in a bar.

And under the law your employer is required to take every step to ensure your safty.

Could you see the health boards allowing a power plant that refused to provide protective clothing to employees, or a hospital that required x-ray staff to stand infront of the x-ray gun all day. And when was the last time you walked on a building site that didn't require hard hats.

It is the responsibility of the employer to ensure the safety of their employees, not to turn around and say "if you don't like the unsafe conditions you can quit"

Originally posted by DublinWriter
4. The smoking ban debate is the perfect smoke-screen to deflect attention away from Martin's utter failure as health minister and the broken Fianna Fail electoral promise made in 2002 to end all waiting lists by May 2004

Maybe ... but it is still a damn good idea

Originally posted by DublinWriter
5. The majority of people that crow-on about clean air in pubs aren't regular pub-goers anyway (personal observation!)

Er ... there is a reason for that!! :rolleyes: They didn't go to pubs because they all stank of horrible smoke

Originally posted by DublinWriter
6. As a nation we have become deeply unhappy, and as such, we try and look for new and innovative ways to make other people feel unhappy too.

Funny, that sounds like what the smoking lobby are doing. No one is forcing smokers to do anything. You aren#t been force to stay at home, you aren't been banned from pubs. All you are required to do is to not smoke (just like you are required to not act anti-social in general - not scream at the top of your lungs, not poor drinks over people, not take off your clothes and go running around the place)

It is the addiction to the cigeratte that makes this very simple request hard for smokers. Why should the rest of us be punished because you have an addiction to a drug, that you cannot control.

arcadegame2004

Health is a personal choice and should not be mandated by a government

Health is a right and the Government has a moral obligation to act in the best interests of the health of the nation. Smokers harm not only their own health, but also that of the non-smoker who has to breathe in their toxic fumes.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by DublinWriter
1. Smokers actually cost the heath-care system less (see earlier posts)

Produce numbers to prove this. Back them up with sources.

2. Health is a personal choice and should not be mandated by a government

I'd rather my health was mandated by the government than by smokers, thanks.

3. The majority of bar workers are smokers, those that aren't make a free and presonal choice to work in a bar.

Produce numbers to prove this, and back them up with sources.

Ajnag

One word Missing in this entire debate:
Compromise.

I dont want others to breath my smoke, I simply want a room that is on the premise's where me and other smokers are free to poison ourselves with a drink.Since the ban has come in, the real inconvience has been the premise's where you cant have a drink in the smoking area.Accordingly I have taken my costom to premise's that have made an effort.

M.martin is in my opinion a pious individual who just found the one issue he could win on and then added his own little hint of extremism on by the lack of a basic regulated accomidation.This was exacerbated by the vinters being the greedy **** that they usually are.
I would hope that at least now their might be some slight disscussion, especially as come winter the effects of this ban will really only be felt.

Also I have to say I enjoy the shock from our perfect non smoking flawless law abiding individuals whom no doubt have never J-walked, Been Drunk in pubic, commited traffic offense's, Drank under age.
I salute you.No doubt this planet will fall before your shining and perfect example.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Ajnag
I dont want others to breath my smoke, I simply want a room that is on the premise's where me and other smokers are free to poison ourselves with a drink.

So how do you expect to comprise for the people who are paid to clean and work in that area?

Ajnag

Hobbes Im not intent in getting to the semantics of this debate again.We went through the motions a couple of months ago.I simply belive It is technicly and logisticly possible to have such a room.There is a search function should you wish to quote me.

Your free to belive otherwise, but If concern is such, then It is certainly unfair that staff have to inhale smoke as they clear the ashtrays in the areas currently provided.As are the provisions that discriminate against staff in prisons and psychiatric units in reguards to this ban.Not to mention the legal minefield this is laying down.Will M.martin be remember in years to come when the state is paying millions for the compensation to the staff of these institutions.

One word and It is also provided for in law.

Compromise.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
I dont want others to breath my smoke, I simply want a room that is on the premise's where me and other smokers are free to poison ourselves with a drink.

Should there be such a room in every office building? Hospital? Creche?

Remember, this law isn't about smokers; it's about non-smokers.

Also I have to say I enjoy the shock from our perfect non smoking flawless law abiding individuals whom no doubt have never J-walked, Been Drunk in pubic, commited traffic offense's, Drank under age.
I salute you.No doubt this planet will fall before your shining and perfect example.

Name one proponent of the smoking ban who has claimed never to have broken a law. Go on, one.

I mean, what the hell has that last point got to do with the debate? Are you saying it should be OK to smoke in a workplace, commit traffic offences and drink underage? That certain laws ought to be ignored? Or that anyone who has ever broken a minor law has forfeited the right to an opinion on other laws? Enlighten me, 'cos I have no idea what your point is.

Ajnag

Should there be such a room in every office building? Hospital? Creche?

Given that employers provide smoking shelters(many of which are not in complyance with the 50% open space stipulation.) at their discreation whats your point?. I was refering specificly to pubs in particular.But If any such room was in line with the regulations laid down for its provision then I fail to see what the function of the building has to do with the Issue.So long as non-smokers arnt exposed to passive smoke who cares what the context is.Of course Im sure your aware of the fact that a private individual cant smoke in a work vehicle but that Its still ok to smoke in a car with children so long as it isnt a work vehicle. :rolleyes:

Name one proponent of the smoking ban who has claimed never to have broken a law. Go on, one.

You want factual evidense to a point of opinion?
Well I cant do that.... But I can point to where that opinion was formed.GOTO: page one of this thread and read those who expressed their explicit outrage at the law being flouted.They seem to imply that they have never broken a law, so is my opinion flawed for drawing the inferance they wanted?

I mean, what the hell has that last point got to do with the debate? Are you saying it should be OK to smoke in a workplace, commit traffic offences and drink underage? That certain laws ought to be ignored?

No I never said or infered such a thing, I just merely pointed out that Its somewhat hypocritical to point to others civil law offense, when most people ignore unenforceable impractical laws when they find it convienient to do so.

Or that anyone who has ever broken a minor law has forfeited the right to an opinion on other laws? Enlighten me, 'cos I have no idea what your point is.

Sure thing, Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.So are you more concerned with the protection of non smokers from passive smoke, or with enforcing your anti-smoking opinion?

arcadegame2004

Ajnag is wrong to call for compromise in this area of policy. It is true that people can damage their health also if they eat/drink too many fatty foods/fizzy drinks etc. But at least unlike the situation with regard to the smokers you don't put your own health at risk from sitting near them, or even sitting in the same room. Unlike the situation regarding smoking. That is what makes smoking a special case, in which there can be and should be no compromise.

In fact, I'll come right out and say it. Ban it. Totally. Everywhere. Tax the companies to extinction that are supplying these pipes of death.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Ajnag

One word Missing in this entire debate:
Compromise....

...Since the ban has come in, the real inconvience has been the premise's where you cant have a drink in the smoking area.Accordingly I have taken my costom to premise's that have made an effort. ...

... It is technicly and logisticly possible to have such a room.There is a search function should you wish to quote me.

Who are you complaining about? It sounds like you are complaining that all pubs have not provided a room that you can drink and smoke in, but you say some pubs have

You seem to be complaining to the anti-smoking lobby that pubs are making the effort, which is a bit puzzling??

As long as that room is not connected to the pub, or is connected through an large out side area, and so long as no staff member is ever required to enter the room, then I see no real problem, though I imagine with no staff to clean up the room it would get pretty mess very quickly, and would not really be a place I would like to sit.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about a room connected to the pub with ventalation, then it has been shown time and again, even by the cigerett companies, that this does not provide safe ventalation from the second hand smoke. So it is not an option.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ajnag
Given that employers provide smoking shelters(many of which are not in complyance with the 50% open space stipulation.) at their discreation whats your point?.

If that's a given, then what's your point? The fact that some of these "shelters" are not legal doesn't make it de facto OK to allow smoking indoors; it merely exposes those employers to legal risks also.

I was refering specificly to pubs in particular.

This legislation is not specific to pubs - that's my point.

But If any such room was in line with the regulations laid down for its provision then I fail to see what the function of the building has to do with the Issue.So long as non-smokers arnt exposed to passive smoke who cares what the context is.

I certainly don't, but then I'm the one in favour of the ban.

Of course Im sure your aware of the fact that a private individual cant smoke in a work vehicle but that Its still ok to smoke in a car with children so long as it isnt a work vehicle. :rolleyes:

Hey, don't look at me - I'd ban smoking in cars quicker than I'd ban the use of mobile phones.

You want factual evidense to a point of opinion?

Only if you have any.

Well I cant do that.... But I can point to where that opinion was formed.GOTO: page one of this thread and read those who expressed their explicit outrage at the law being flouted.They seem to imply that they have never broken a law, so is my opinion flawed for drawing the inferance they wanted?

I didn't draw that inference. I'm outraged at the blatant flouting of the law, and I won't claim to have never broken a law.

No I never said or infered such a thing, I just merely pointed out that Its somewhat hypocritical to point to others civil law offense, when most people ignore unenforceable impractical laws when they find it convienient to do so.

There's a difference between committing an occasional minor infraction in the hope of not getting caught, and appearing on TV saying "I don't like this law so I choose not to obey it." I've broken laws in the past. I've mostly gotten away with it, but not always. When I was caught, I took my batin', because I knew I had done wrong - even when I didn't agree with the law.

Sure thing, Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.So are you more concerned with the protection of non smokers from passive smoke, or with enforcing your anti-smoking opinion?

My anti-smoking opinion stems from a desire to protect non-smokers from passive smoke. I'm puzzled as to why you would seek to distinguish those motives.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
That is what makes smoking a special case, in which there can be and should be no compromise.

In fact, I'll come right out and say it. Ban it. Totally. Everywhere. Tax the companies to extinction that are supplying these pipes of death.

You say Pipes of death...I say Tubes of Delight! *g*

Yes I will concede that smoking is bad.

But it's not the worst evil happening in our society right now.

Given the chronic state of our health services, education system, a national alcohol problem and the way we treat our OAPs, the whole issue of the smoking ban was a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Given the amount of airtime and discussion, we really should start seeing the wood from the trees and put this entire argument into context.

Interestingly enough, I was listening to 5-7 Live last week and they gave out some interesting statistics from a recent EU study.

Apparently Ireland comes out second worst in Europe regarding cocaine abuse!

But what I couldn't understand was the following:

Spain has the highest life-expectancy rate, even though most of them smoke like troopers and they are in the top three countries for smoking.

Ireland is in the bottom quadrant both for life expectancy and number of smokers.

I'm not using the above as justification for smoking, but it's interesting nonetheless.

And on a personal note, ever since coming back to Ireland post Celtic Tiger, I've noticed a complete turn-around in our national character. Far from being the easy-going, officialdom hating people we once were, we’ve now changed into this tetchy, supine, unhappy and whinging little race on the edge of Europe.

I was going to add '..with a crumbling national infrastructure and an over-inflated sense of our own cultural importance' to the end of the above sentance, but schure havn't we always had that anyways.

Apologies for going completely off-topic, but as this thread descends into personal clashes over semantics, I thought I’d just wrap up by saying the above.

...but it is great fun to bate the puritans and lifestyle-Gestapo on here. It gets me through the day almost as well as a few ciggies do!