Publicans defy smoking ban

Ajnag

Ajnag, everyboby in this country is subject to the laws of this country be they pub owners or not.

I never mentioned pup owners.But Im am somewhat curious as to why the focus of the law within this country is somewhat uneven.Maybe you should leave the enforcement of the ban to the ehb officers and worry about matters a little closer to home.

Cork

I never mentioned pup owners.But Im am somewhat curious as to why the focus of the law within this country is somewhat uneven.Maybe you should leave the enforcement of the ban to the ehb officers and worry about matters a little closer to home.

I never stated that the enforcement of the law should be taken away from anybody.

We had a TD who was cought smoking & he was interviewed by the relevant authoritys.

The same treatment should apply to Joe Public.

worry about matters a little closer to home.[/

The Pubs in my area abide by the law.

This law is there to protect our health aganist noxious fag smoke.

Bar Workers don't deserve to be breathing this stuff in night after night.

Victor

Originally posted by Ajnag
We could have dedicated smoking rooms in which there would be a ban on non-smokers in effect.

And who would clean these?

Ajnag

Victor FFS it was just a little tounge in cheek Comment, I even went as far as to point that out.However If we do wish to be so literal, then I would assume that there an hour after close of business would be suitable.

I suppose someone has stats on the dangers of smoke particulates even hours after the smoker has departed. :rolleyes:

Heh, breath your smog deeply my prettys.

Cork, feel free to remain aloof, the past wont go away anytime soon.

Cork

Originally posted by Ajnag

Cork, feel free to remain aloof, the past wont go away anytime soon.

What do you mean by the " the past "?

I acknowlsdge that bar workers have been subjected to passive smoking for years.

There was no excuse for this and smoking should have beem banned years ago in the workplace.

Ajnag

What do you mean by the " the past "?

I acknowlsdge that bar workers have been subjected to passive smoking for years.

There was no excuse for this and smoking should have beem banned years ago in the workplace.

Lol I was refering to the history of corruption in the fianna fail party.You know, That "past" , You have ignored my comments on the matter completly, however Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and atribute it on your part to a desire to remain on topic.

Funny tho, If you honestly feel smoking in the workplace should have been banned long ago and that was your feeling all along, then may I ask as to why you werent requesting a ban on Smoking altogher.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by Cork
The reason why turnover in pubs has fallen is the price of drink and the rising popularity of wine.

Smokers have subjected bar workers and restaurent workers to much noxious smoke over the years.

Yeah, the increasing popularity of wine indeed. Sure aren't all the aul' lads down the pub giving up the pint of plain and switching to the Chardonnay.

Meanwhile back on planet earth...

You obviously don't go to a lot of pubs cork because the vast majority of bar workers *are* smokers.

Bar workers make a full and free decision to work in that environment.

Just as guards and fireman make a full and free decision to work in risky environments. What next, should we ban firemen from attending fires?

Again, like the FF'ers themselves, you're not listening. The kicking FF got at the recent locals & euros was a direct effect of the ban. Many smokers I know are ex FF supporters and will *never* vote FF again.

sceptre

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Yeah, the increasing popularity of wine indeed.

Indeed. Sales grew by 8.9% last year while beer sales dropped for the second year on the trot (see the Indo from 6 July or Dave's posted the story here)

therecklessone

Originally posted by DublinWriter


You obviously don't go to a lot of pubs cork because the vast majority of bar workers *are* smokers.

Source?

Originally posted by DublinWriter

Bar workers make a full and free decision to work in that environment.

Just as guards and fireman make a full and free decision to work in risky environments. What next, should we ban firemen from attending fires?

And would you say that all employees covered by the legislation made that same choice. So factory workers choose to inhale other people's cigarette smoke in their canteen? Office workers love sucking on the passive smoke of colleagues?

RainyDay

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Just as guards and fireman make a full and free decision to work in risky environments. What next, should we ban firemen from attending fires?

There is of course no sensible comparison between firemen and bar workers. Unless of course, you intend to kit out every bar worker with full breathing apparatus/gas mask before they enter the bar.

Cork

Originally posted by DublinWriter

Again, like the FF'ers themselves, you're not listening. The kicking FF got at the recent locals & euros was a direct effect of the ban. Many smokers I know are ex FF supporters and will *never* vote FF again.

I agree FF did loose support over the ban. But I admire FF taking the stance. I think peoples health is far too important and If this ban saves one person from getting lung cancer it will be well worth it.

If you honestly feel smoking in the workplace should have been banned long ago and that was your feeling all along, then may I ask as to why you werent requesting a ban on Smoking altogher.

Could you name one Western country where smoking in banned?

Out in Oz, you can smoke on certain beaches. Out in New York - You cannot smoke in bars.

But certian drugs are banned and they still manage to get onto the streets.

I was refering to the history of corruption in the fianna fail party

Could you name one political party that is corruption free or one section of Irish society. It was FF who set up the tribunerals. It was not FF who awarded the second mobile phone licence and it is not FF who have links to an illegal army. This is completely off topic anyway.

Bar workers make a full and free decision to work in that environment.

So, many leave school early and work long unsocial hours for not great pay.

Where is it stated that they have to breath in noxious fumes to carry of their work of serving drink?

DublinWriter

Originally posted by Cork
I agree FF did loose support over the ban. But I admire FF taking the stance. I think peoples health is far too important and If this ban saves one person from getting lung cancer it will be well worth it.

Will you still say it's worth it when it costs FF the 2007 General Election?

You probably think it won't, but you're forgetting that a third of the population are smokers.

That's a third of the population that will never vote FF again. Have you any idea what that will do to FF's electoral chances for the next 50 years?

When you alienate one third of the entire electorate, hurt and humiliate them, then don't go a knocking on their door come election time.

bonkey

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Will you still say it's worth it when it costs FF the 2007 General Election?

I'll believe that when I see it.

You probably think it won't, but you're forgetting that a third of the population are smokers.

That's a third of the population that will never vote FF again.

Really?

How come demographics prior to the ban showed that a number of smokers supported the ban. Will they not continue to vote FF?

Not only that, but of that 1/3 of the country, only approximately 40% of them voted FF anyway, so we're now talking about having alienated somewhere around 1/7 - 1/8 of the voting population (1/3 * 4/10 = 4/30 = 1/7.5).

And lets not forget that 2/3 of the population aren't smokers, and that a whole lot of those have as much to be appreciative of from this ban as the smokers have to be critical, so one can assume that FF will equally gain some support over this. Even if only 1 non-smoker switches to vote FF for every 2 smokers who move away from FF, the fact that only 1/3 of the population smoke evens that out.

Have you any idea what that will do to FF's electoral chances for the next 50 years?

Well, looking at what I've been saying above, "less and less" would be my initial reaction.

Couple that with the fact that I cannot recall a single instance where the public have actually voted on a non-current issue come election time....I'd be inclined to say that the net effect would be minimal.

Hundreds of thousands actually got off their bums and protested our government's decision to take a semi-active role in a war. These people showed their dismay and dissatisfaction with their government far more clearly than the smoking brigade did. Do I think thats another huge chunk of people who will never vote FF again? Do I bollox. The vast majority of them who voted FF before will do so again come election time, when they look around and realise that they don't want to vote for anyone else and that this one issue wasn't quite enough to make them trust / want someone else in power.

When you alienate one third of the entire electorate, hurt and humiliate them, then don't go a knocking on their door come election time.

Firstly, your claim that every single smoker was hurt and alienated is complete horse. I know several smokers who couldn't care less about the ban. I know several more who welcomed it. I'm a smoker, and I approve fully (but living abroad as I do, I'm discounting my opinion's relevancy here). I know of a grand total of one friend who smokes who is as aggrieved as you say all of them should be. Thats out of about 20 smokers. Maybe you've got a different personal experience, or access to some information I'm missing, but personally I think you're overstating your case to a ridiculous extent and - quite frankly - I defy you to actually produce anything convincing to back it up.

And who, exactly, will these alienated people switch thrie vote to? Which party is standing up and saying "we oppose this ban....vote for us and we'll bring smoking back into pubs". Cause if they ain't doing that, then its a non-starter. I honestly can't see many people switching from their preferred party cause it supported a ban in pubs to a party they previously didn't prefer who also supported the ban.

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

I'd agree with that for anyone who is willing to sign away their right to any and all medical benefits from the State.

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!

No, the only difference is the probability that the smoker and non-smoker will contract cancer at all, when applied to population sizes rather than individuals.

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

I agreee, but it never ceases to amaze me how this point is constantly brought out by the only side in the issue who actually won't let the debate drop!!!

The ban is in place. The smokers should accept, move on, and get back to criticising Martin on the stuff he's been hiding away, show him to be teh complete and utter t1t you insist he is, and then when all of that is shown, and his credibility is entirely undermined, come back and attack the stuff you feel he did in order to create his smoke-screen.

But its amazing that its always defiance of the ban, or "the smokers side" who bring the debate back up, and then someone opposing the ban (not necessarily the same someone) who tells us that the entire debate is a shallow smoke-screen in the first place!!!

You obviously don't go to a lot of pubs cork because the vast majority of bar workers *are* smokers.

Oh, well, that makes it all alright then. As long as its only a minority who are ahving their rights trampled on, we shouldn't be concerned in the slightest....

The kicking FF got at the recent locals & euros was a direct effect of the ban.

Is there anything to show this, or is it just supposition. After all, there's been a lot of stuff FF have come in for criticism recently, all of which would be contributing factors, and lets not forget that the rise of parties like SF can actually be because of their own growing appeal rather than just from filling the vacuum caused by voters moving away from their established party.

I can't remember a single party opposing the ban when it came in....but that could be my memory. If they didn't though, what the hell are the public switching their votes to these parties for? It makes no sense.

jc

jc

arcadegame2004

When you alienate one third of the entire electorate, hurt and humiliate them, then don't go a knocking on their door come election time.

It is nonsense to claim that every single one of the 33% who are smokers are opposed to the smoking ban. Some welcome it saying that it helps them give up smoking. I have personally been told this by a smoker I know.

Zombrex

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Will you still say it's worth it when it costs FF the 2007 General Election?

You mean we get a ban on one of the most disgusting and dangerous habits ever, and also kick FF out of power.

This ban is the best thing ever!!!!

Batbat

you PC nazi's make me sick

RainyDay

Originally posted by Batbat
you PC nazi's make me sick

Actually, no - the research would show that it is the tar/arsenic/nicotine/sulphur dioxide and other chemicals in the cigarette that is making you sick.

Drexl Spivey

Originally posted by Batbat
you PC nazi's make me sick

Governments should ban the sell of cigarettes TOTALLY and make it illegal as it kills people like any other drugs but on top of that it also kills people who are not smokers.

In the mean time go smoke your filth at home !!! Let me enjoy my meal in the restaurant or my pint in the pub without having a bloody headache from hell the day after, or having my cloth REACK!



If this ...... of publican in Galway wanted to make more money, he could have decreased the price of the pint to increase the amount of customers and consumption , but no, instead he made puiblicity for himself, and is encouraging others to do the same..... it is a disgrace, and it makes me angry.

Victor

Originally posted by Batbat
you PC nazi's make me sick

Originally posted by Batbat
why dont they just allow proper airconditening inside the pub, I worked in Phillip morris in NYC they had amazing airconditioning in the office and allowed smoking (which i did not like in the office) but the air was perfect anyway

Originally posted by Victor
Batbat, do you now work for BAT (British American Tobacco)?

My question stands unanswered.

BuffyBot

Let me enjoy my meal in the restaurant or my pint in the pub without having a bloody headache from hell the day after, or having my cloth REACK!

I think you already can..or perhaps you haven't noticed...

DublinWriter

According to Weasail Martin based the ban on, 150 people die a year from passive smoking. This study/research was never published and is in effect, junk science.

A recent study showed that 350 people a year die from lung cancer in this country due to radon gas.

Yet both Martin Cullen and Bertie Ahern have both nixed the idea of buying 1000's of Radon gas monitoring devices in known areas of high radon concentration and refuse to commit a single cent to this problem.

It seems that they will do what they like as long as it doesn't cost them money.

The money used to employ the 40 or so smoking monitors would have better better spent employing 40 or so doctors/nurses.

Crazy country.

Cork

Passive smoking does kill. It is cancer causing.

But this never bothered some smokers. Many of whom did not give a damn about the health of those around them.

So, what if theyhave to go outside to smoke.

Big Deal!.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by DublinWriter
It seems that they will do what they like as long as it doesn't cost them money.

The money used to employ the 40 or so smoking monitors would have better better spent employing 40 or so doctors/nurses.

RainyDay

Originally posted by DublinWriter
The money used to employ the 40 or so smoking monitors would have better better spent employing 40 or so doctors/nurses.

Dead right - I trust this means that all smokers will ensure the need for 'smoking monitors'/environmental health officers is eliminated by complying 100% with the conditions of the ban - right? This would be a great way to demonstrate a true commitment to providing more doctors & nurses.

And while you're at it - clean up your butts & eliminate the need for litter wardens too.