Smokers legal rights and the smoking ban

With the announced proposed changes to the no smoking ban, I was considering the situation in Ireland. I am a smoker, and whilst I initially supported the Bringing in of the smoking ban, I'm beginning to wonder about the overall situation. Smoking is legal.

While I can see and understand the governments right to protect citizens from other peoples smoke, I don't see how it has the right to further impose restrictions on a legally allowed substance. Furthermore, since it's a legal substance, surely the focus of the government on this, is a form of discrimination against smokers.

Now, I'm not seeking to allow smokers to smoke in the presence of those who don't wish to be around them. Nor am I approving of smoking around children. I accept that there are health risks for others. However, from a legal perspective, I'm curious if the governments actions are allowed? After all, I have not seen any notifications against other legally allowed addictions like drinking, obesity, etc.

Since they haven't sought to make smoking illegal and completely ban the usage of tobacco, surely, there are legal grounds to prevent further moves against smokers?

(I'm not looking for a humanities, morality or health debate. I'm interested in the legal rights of a citizen regarding these issues)

Paulw

As with smoking, there are restrictions on drinking. You can't drink in a public place. You can't drink at certain venues, etc.

You don't have a right to smoke (legally).

Paulw

Paulw wrote: »

As with smoking, there are restrictions on drinking. You can't drink in a public place. You can't drink at certain venues, etc.

You don't have a right to smoke (legally).

Do you have a legal right to drink water?

Pro Hoc Vice

Deleted User wrote: »

With the announced proposed changes to the no smoking ban, I was considering the situation in Ireland. I am a smoker, and whilst I initially supported the Bringing in of the smoking ban, I'm beginning to wonder about the overall situation. Smoking is legal.

While I can see and understand the governments right to protect citizens from other peoples smoke, I don't see how it has the right to further impose restrictions on a legally allowed substance. Furthermore, since it's a legal substance, surely the focus of the government on this, is a form of discrimination against smokers.

Now, I'm not seeking to allow smokers to smoke in the presence of those who don't wish to be around them. Nor am I approving of smoking around children. I accept that there are health risks for others. However, from a legal perspective, I'm curious if the governments actions are allowed? After all, I have not seen any notifications against other legally allowed addictions like drinking, obesity, etc.

Since they haven't sought to make smoking illegal and completely ban the usage of tobacco, surely, there are legal grounds to prevent further moves against smokers?

(I'm not looking for a humanities, morality or health debate. I'm interested in the legal rights of a citizen regarding these issues)

It's perfectly legal to do lots of things in private but not in public, it's ok to have a tug at home with the curtains closed try do it in a pub at 9pm. It's also perfectly legal to have a nice shag in private but do it in the middle if the street a different thing. I could go on and on. Yes a person has a right to smoke just not in a work place.

hullaballoo

I must have missed the memo, but what changes are the government making to the smoking ban?

Is it to do with smoking in parks etc? Iirc, it's illegal to smoke anywhere in public (except designated public smoking areas) in California. We could be heading that way and it wouldn't be a bad thing. (I say that as a heavy smoker.)

henryd65

If you look at another perspective, the smoking ban in Ireland was brought in to protect workers, not to restrict the rights of smokers. The restriction of the rights of smokers was a consequence of the protection of workers.

You mention drinking and obesity. They do not directly adversely affect workers. Smoking in a work environment does.

Technoprisoner

infosys wrote: »

It's perfectly legal to do lots of things in private but not in public, it's ok to have a tug at home with the curtains closed try do it in a pub at 9pm. It's also perfectly legal to have a nice shag in private but do it in the middle if the street a different thing. I could go on and on. Yes a person has a right to smoke just not in a work place.

depends which country you are in http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/09/19/sweden-allows-public-masturbation/

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have a legal right to drink water?

That's a bit of a strawman argument, but in the strictest sense your basic human rights include the right to access food and water. Cigarettes don't count as either. That said, it's perfectly legal to tell someone they may not drink water on your premises.

"Discrimination" is a loaded word here as you're implying a legal usage in a non-legal context. Discrimination in isolation is neither legally or morally wrong. There are plenty of valid reasons for discriminating on various bases.

It is perfectly legal to discriminate against smokers, in the same way that it's legal to discriminate against motorists (denying them access to certain streets), and it's legal to discriminate against people on the basis of education - denying someone access to a job without a specific qualification.

"Discrimination" is often used as a bad word, but it's only illegal in specific circumstances. In general, it's very legal to discriminate.

Bepolite

hullaballoo wrote: »

I must have missed the memo, but what changes are the government making to the smoking ban?

Is it to do with smoking in parks etc? Iirc, it's illegal to smoke anywhere in public (except designated public smoking areas) in California. We could be heading that way and it wouldn't be a bad thing. (I say that as a heavy smoker.)

Recent articles surrounding the rather 'aspirational' targets by the health minister to make Ireland 'smoke free' by 2025.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Bepolite wrote: »

Recent articles surrounding the rather 'aspirational' targets by the health minister to make Ireland 'smoke free' by 2025.

Just James Reilly trying to remind us he's still alive since he's doing nothing else about the health service to generate any kind of good publicity. It'll never happen.

backtobass

Did you know that you will get your car clamped quicker in a hospital then smoking a cigarette inthe foyer. Reason...its the manager of the hospital who is prosecuted ...not the smoker. The enforcement persons are generally ex nurses..health workers...so this is why its a pub smoking ban only. Their have been no prosecutions for smoking inside hospitals in ireland.

you could say..pubs are being discriminated against.

endacl

As a smoker of over 25 years, I must jump in with an informed 'feck it'. Smoking isn't a right. Its a choice. The more awkward it is to smoke, the better, IMHO.

Far to many things masquerading as 'rights' these days, that should more properly be considered 'just things that people can choose to do and aren't illegal'.

I'm a smoker. I don't feel persecuted. The restrictions encourage me to smoke less. That is a good thing. Nobody's telling me I can't smoke, just that there are certain areas where I can't. There are also areas where I can't ride a bicycle. Nobody has deprived me of my 'right to cycle'.

I humbly suggest that smokers who feel their 'rights' are being impinged on, take a long hard look at themselves....

No Pants

backtobass wrote: »

Did you know that you will get your car clamped quicker in a hospital then smoking a cigarette inthe foyer.

What?

whippet

Driving is legal in ireland ... but there is plenty of restrictions as to where, how and when you can drive. You can't drive on footpaths outside schools at 100mph monday morning at 9am ....

Just because it is legal does not mean your use of the legal substance can't be restricted

Losty Dublin

backtobass wrote: »

Did you know that you will get your car clamped quicker in a hospital then smoking a cigarette inthe foyer. Reason...its the manager of the hospital who is prosecuted ...not the smoker. The enforcement persons are generally ex nurses..health workers...so this is why its a pub smoking ban only. Their have been no prosecutions for smoking inside hospitals in ireland.

you could say..pubs are being discriminated against.

It is not or ever was a pub only smoking ban, the law here applies to virtually all workplaces and there is no discrimination at play here.

Perhaps hospitals have a lower rate of prosecution as they take it seriously and actively won't allow people to smoke on site or perhaps they address cases of smoking on site without the need for prosecution.
As it is, the rates of prosecution are low but most of it is down to the fact that the vast majority of people are more than happy to comply with the law here, people are not ratting out places where and when the law is broken (Have you reported anywhere to the powers that be?) and that enforcement officers are not out on a trigger happy policy and are willing to give places every chance to deal with infringements when they do happen.

Either way it's silly to allude that hospitals are somehow exempt or above the law here.

Ken.

Smoking in hospitals has been inforced for a lot longer than the pub ban. For as long as I can remember (20 years plus) smoking has been NOT allowed in hospitals.

dazberry

ken wrote: »

Smoking in hospitals has been inforced for a lot longer than the pub ban. For as long as I can remember (20 years plus) smoking has been NOT allowed in hospitals.

With the exception of psychiatric hospitals.

D.

Gertrude2

I've been smoking for 35 years and as far as I'm concerned the more restrictions the better. I'd like to shoot the shopkeeper who sold me my first cigarette.

I hope Reilly faces down the tobacco companies with their whining about "intellectual property rights"

endacl

Feck. Smoking would be gone in a generation if smokers had to register for a 'smoker's card' to buy the bloody things. No other restrictions. just present a card that you already had to be a smoker to obtain.

No Pants

Gertrude2 wrote: »

I've been smoking for 35 years and as far as I'm concerned the more restrictions the better. I'd like to shoot the shopkeeper who sold me my first cigarette.

I hope Reilly faces down the tobacco companies with their whining about "intellectual property rights"

Intellectual property? It's dried leaves rolled in paper with one end on fire.

endacl

No Pants wrote: »

Intellectual property? It's dried leaves rolled in paper with one end on fire.

Ah, but which end? That took a team of world class product designers years to come up with.

Grolschevik

No Pants wrote: »

Intellectual property? It's dried leaves rolled in paper with one end on fire.

The reference is in the context of the proposal for plain packaging for all cigarette brands, which some have argued represents a restriction of the cigarette companies' use of the intellectual property in their distinctive logos and trademarks. And indeed that it sets an unwelcome precedent in this regard.

It's discussed here:
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202013/Gazette-AugustSeptember2013.pdf#26

p24 (p26 of the PDF).