"Martin outlines plan to ban smoking in pubs"

Dustaz

Fine Gael health spokesperson Gay Mitchell said: "It's not fair that nonsmokers have to breathe in other people's smoke. I don't think it's realistic for a complete ban on smoking in pubs, but with smoke-free zones and ventilation it could make a major improvement."

Zero

Originally posted by Meh
The majority of drinkers do not have their health negatively affected by drinking. Some studies have even shown that alcohol can be beneficial in small quantities.

The majority of Irish drinkers don't drink small quantities. Therefore, the alcohol is not beneficial. Therefore the majority of drinkers DO have their health negatively affected.

On the whole smoking thing: As someone already argued, the "my taxes paying for cancer research for smokers" is bullsh1t, the governments makes more money on cigarette tax than it would ever spend on research, so dont be whinging about your taxes.
Secondly, I think they shouldn't ban smoking in pubs. I totally agree with what Blade said earlier on:

Originally posted by Blade
I don't think it's right to discriminate 'completely' against smokers because most of todays smokers got addicted when they were young and foolish and at a time when it was generally acceptable in society to smoke. Of course we have to move on and change that but an all out ban on smoking in a pub is IMO unfair to smokers in an environment where smoking and drinking always went hand in hand.

Ye all love quoting the "tests show". Well Tests Show that someone living in dublin is doing as much damage to their lungs as a 10-benson-a-day smoker, just walkin on the street. And I know the argument back is "why damage them more?", and it may be true, but its a point to be made for all you (Trojan) who think ye are the picture of health and smokers are going to kill you.

The main argument for banning the smoking is that non-smokers should have the right to go to the pub for a pint without breathing in other ppls smoke, therefore ban the smoking, which if fair enough but in fairness, the smoker has every right to sit down in a pub with a pint and a smoke and enjoy himself too. Smokers are, after all, drug addicts, addicted to a legal drug, which the govt will never ban because they make too much money off them. The only solution as fair as i can see is to split the pub like restaurants into non-smoking and smoking areas. If you want to go to the pub with mates who smoke, there has to be a compromise.

Victor

Originally posted by Dr. Loon
Better yet, drive a car through town, that way you can pollute the city and humans walking through it.

The smoke levels in a pub on an average evening are probably much higher than kerbside on College Green on a cold winters morning. Smoke pollution in Dublin on a general level is only an issue immediately (with 10 metres) adjacent to main roads. It is an environmental issue, rarely is it a health issue.

Pepe LeFrits

I liek dat no smokin' plan ting

Gweh outta dat dustaz ye maed thin

smiles

Originally posted by Meh

The majority of drinkers do not have their health negatively affected by drinking. Some studies have even shown that alcohol can be beneficial in small quantities. Kills 10,000 brain cells per pint? Rubbish. Let's see you back this up.

9 out of every 10 statistics are made up. :P that enough backup for you?

<< Fio >>

seamus

Wow, Dr. Loon you need to chill a bit I have absolutely no problem with people smoking, but I see no reason why I should have to suffer because of some other people's enjoyment, that's all. No, I don't think the majority of smokers are ignorant, and many do try to keep smoke away from non-smokers. But I've noticed that after 3 cigs they've forgotten, and especially if alcohol has been consumed, all thinking of other people is out the door. I've had people literally blow smoke up my nose while I'm talking to them, and I'm sure, even as a smoker you wouldn't appreciate that. Everyone else has pretty much got there before me in sayng what I want to say anyway

Victor

So, can I bring an air-horn to the pub next time?

Originally posted by Zero
On the whole smoking thing: As someone already argued, the "my taxes paying for cancer research for smokers" is bullsh1t, the governments makes more money on cigarette tax than it would ever spend on research, so dont be whinging about your taxes.

All well and good, but you appear to be avoiding the issue of the extra cost of the health care for smokers.

smiles

I know from experience that smoking in pubs turns some people away, my sister for example has chronic asthma and literally cant go into a pub without collapsing.

I also know that banning smoking completely would simply empty alot of the pub if it was enforced, which i dont honestly think it would be fully! Plus people who smoke are entitled to do so, up to the point of blow into other people faces IMO.

So I'm with those who want the introduction of a non-smoking section, it'd solve alot of the problems!

<< Fio >>

Trojan

Originally posted by Zero


Ye all love quoting the "tests show". Well Tests Show that someone living in dublin is doing as much damage to their lungs as a 10-benson-a-day smoker, just walkin on the street. And I know the argument back is "why damage them more?", and it may be true, but its a point to be made for all you (Trojan) who think ye are the picture of health and smokers are going to kill you.

Yes, I am the picture of health.

Bow down before me and worship.

I find it hard to believe that walking down the street in this fair city is equivalent to smoking 10 B&H: anyone got a link for this "tests show"?

Originally posted by Zero

The main argument for banning the smoking is that non-smokers should have the right to go to the pub for a pint without breathing in other ppls smoke, therefore ban the smoking, which if fair enough but in fairness, the smoker has every right to sit down in a pub with a pint and a smoke and enjoy himself too. Smokers are, after all, drug addicts, addicted to a legal drug, which the govt will never ban because they make too much money off them. The only solution as fair as i can see is to split the pub like restaurants into non-smoking and smoking areas. If you want to go to the pub with mates who smoke, there has to be a compromise.

Agreed, but the S/NS sections must be actually *effective*: cigarette smoke is extremely pervasive. I don't believe for one second that sectioning will actually work in real life though: do you honestly believe it will Ronan?

Not a hope.

And for the record, I don't agree 100% with Martin, never said I did.

Al.

Zero

yeah al you're the picture of health.......HAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAAHAA:p



(and thats the first time i've clicked on those gay smilies, but the point had to be made.)

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by Trojan


.... rant like that. It's really very unbecoming.

Cheers,
Al.

Thanks. In all honesty, I think you're more wound up then me, but sure that's the idea.
All I really would like to see is compromise, but for smokers there is rarely one. Non-smokers generally want the whole lot, which annoys me, why wouldn't it? I'm willing to compromise, I'm a mannerly person, and I am not ignorant with my smoking around people. What am I to do?
I ain't gonna give up smoking completely because there are non-smokers in my group of friends. Yep, it's a bit selfish, but I try not to annoy them with smoke dwindling up their noses.
I think most non-smokers and smokers here are compromising in our opinions and saying "smoking areas" are the way forward. This is what I think. It's a compromise. Could you deal with that?

bonkey

Originally posted by Dr. Loon
I think most non-smokers and smokers here are compromising in our opinions and saying "smoking areas" are the way forward. This is what I think. It's a compromise. Could you deal with that?

I think its the easy compromise to discuss, but it wont work as well in a pub as in a restaurant.

Why?

Well - look at most people's eating habits. The vast majority of smokers that I know would never dream of lighting up at a dinner table while others are eating. Most dont smoke between courses either - they have a ciggie with their aperitif, and one with their coffee, but none during the meal. Thus, there is a happy compromise reached almost by silent agreement, and everyone gets to enjoy their food. Also, the vast majority of restautant buesiness comprises of smaller groups than pubs, so you are more likely to find groups which are entirely non-smoking in a restaurant.

In a pub, however, you have a higher density of people, and you have no inherent compromise to limit the smoking of the smokers. They will smoke more, and combining this with the larger numbers of people results in substantially more smoke.

Thus, when you go out with a bunch of friends, odds are that there is a smoker amongst them.

You have a choice to make - do you split up, do you all go into the smoking section, or do you all go into the non-smoking section?

Splitting up completely defeats the purpose of having gone out together, so we can disregard that one.

The smoking section will be as bad as any pub is today. In fact, if you put all the smokers into a smaller region, odds are it will be even smokier.

The non-smoking section is as problematic for the smokers as a smoking ban - they have to leave their seat and their group of friends and go elsewhere in order to light up. OK - its not outdoors, but thats the only effective difference.

Thus, as has been evidenced in most pubs with non-smpoking sections today, the approach does not work. Sure - it theoretically gives people the option, but in reality, its not that workable a solution.

I would go with ventilation over sections as a possible compromise, but the cost of this would cripple many smaller pubs, and I do not support the notion of a law which only applies to pubs of certain sizes. I would instead propose (as I may have done in an earlier smoking thread) that the requirement be for air of a certain quality, however that is provided. If a pub cannot meet these requirements without banning smoking, then that is what it must do. If it can shell out enough cash on good ventialation, then they have the option of allowing smoking. I think you'd find, however, that the ventilation needed to clear smoking from many larger pubs would be practically impossible to design, and would make the entire pub feel like it was under the effect of a mid-strength breeze - which has its own health issues

At the end of the day, this is the type of problem which has no easy solution. The government would like to ban smoking for health reasons, but for practical reasons know it cannot be done.

The current steps are, in fact, a compromise between an outright ban and the current situation (which is obviously unacceptable in the govt's eyes). Its not a great compromise, but I cant actually see a more workable one.

jc

Dr. Loon

I've seen a smoking section work very well in the case of a hotel bar, obviously a hotel bar won't be frequented as often as your typical pub, but still it wors well... The Marine Hotel in Sutton, Dublin in case anyone's interested, but yeah, you're right about the situation. I suppose it all depends how seriously people take passive smoking, a pub with good ventilation and sections is the best compromise I can think of, but the cost in alkot of cases isn't practical.
It's a toughy alright.

NeRb666

I think part of the problem is that pubs (in Dublin anyway) are far too overcrowded anyway. That's why some people find smoking more irritating in a pub as opposed to, for example, a smoking area in a restaurant.

Victor

Originally posted by NeRb666
I think part of the problem is that pubs (in Dublin anyway) are far too overcrowded anyway. That's why some people find smoking more irritating in a pub as opposed to, for example, a smoking area in a restaurant.

Part of that is that knives and forks satisfy the smokers hand/mouth obsession.

Dr. Loon

Originally posted by Victor


Part of that is that knives and forks satisfy the smokers hand/mouth obsession.

Or maybe it's the fact that some smokers (such as myself) do respect other people, and don't smoke while a meal is being eaten??? Per chance? Can you imagine? A nice smoker....

seamus

I'd say it's about 50-50. I was eatin dinner at a party in Captain America's one night and a guy who turned up late sat down beside me and lit up. While I was eatin. It's absolutely disgusting. Of course I didn't know him and it was pretty much me and all of his mates at the table so I wasn't gonna say it to him. Nearly enough to put me off me lasagne. Family members have done it before too, but they got a swift smack (from me).

Goodshape

I don’t smoke... and find it difficult to eat when there cigarette smoke flying around.... but... fs... its the pub!!!

You can't ban smoking in the feckin pub. That’s ludicrous!

My local is defined by the unbreathably smoky atmosphere... wouldn’t be the same with out it.

End of the day, it should be up to the publican to decide.

SantaHoe

Good idea... with any luck no-smoking in pubs will see a huge decline in pub culture and alcoholism... then again - maybe not, but we can always hope.

Would any of the smokers reading this actually go into a non-smoking pub, and sit for hours drinking pints without smoking?
Maybe people will go outside to smoke, that'd be fun for the bouncers I'm sure.
As a smoker, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be arsed going into a non-smoking pub... the whole point of pubs is to have a nice relaxing time innit?
See this is what happens when you get non-smokers in government... I reckon we should drag Bob Dole over here and make him minister for health.

The Sweeper

Originally posted by SantaHoe
Would any of the smokers reading this actually go into a non-smoking pub, and sit for hours drinking pints without smoking?
Maybe people will go outside to smoke, that'd be fun for the bouncers I'm sure.

I couldn't see myself in a non-smoking pub. It'd have to have really cheap pints for starters...

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Dr. Loon
Sorry, I got a bit angry there, but I do know too many non-smokers who are a bit self righteous, including people who have given them up. Just annoy me, don't take it personally.

maybe those ex-smokers are so self righteous becuase they can see clearly now the smog has gone?
personally id prefer a non smoking pub.
and i smoked up until a month ago.
it is a filthy disgusting habit, and i hope i never start back on them.
but, a nicely ventilated pub with a non-smoking section is fine.
you smokers can go and pollute your own air. i am enjoying tasting stuff again, being able to smell, although its not nice now that i can smell your smoke on my clothes.
its a waste of money, its a waste of time, its a waste of health and i for one am glad to be rid of those fúcking awful things.
i still want one, but thats addiction for you.

as for alcohol being compared to cigarettes, well thats just silly.
no one makes you drink, but passive smoking is not a choice that anyone would agree to.

shame, i used to be one of those annoying arrogant smokers who declared i had rights.
now im happy to say im an ex smoker who thinks that smokers now have no rights. oh, and up the tax while youre at it...

flyz

Originally posted by SantaHoe

Would any of the smokers reading this actually go into a non-smoking pub, and sit for hours drinking pints without smoking?

As a smoker yes I would, if that's where the crowd was headed.
Yeah it would mean that I'd have to go outside the door to have a smoke, but I can't imagine me being the only one doing that.

Plus I wouldn't smoke even half as much as I would on a normal night out and my lungs would be all the better for it

The Sweeper

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan


maybe those ex-smokers are so self righteous becuase they can see clearly now the smog has gone?
personally id prefer a non smoking pub.
and i smoked up until a month ago.
it is a filthy disgusting habit, and i hope i never start back on them.
but, a nicely ventilated pub with a non-smoking section is fine.
you smokers can go and pollute your own air. i am enjoying tasting stuff again, being able to smell, although its not nice now that i can smell your smoke on my clothes.
its a waste of money, its a waste of time, its a waste of health and i for one am glad to be rid of those fúcking awful things.
i still want one, but thats addiction for you.

as for alcohol being compared to cigarettes, well thats just silly.
no one makes you drink, but passive smoking is not a choice that anyone would agree to.

shame, i used to be one of those annoying arrogant smokers who declared i had rights.
now im happy to say im an ex smoker who thinks that smokers now have no rights. oh, and up the tax while youre at it...

Bite me. Why don't you go and wash your car.

Venom

Maybe its just me,but considering there is a gererial election coming up and the ole minister comes out with such a radical plan seems to me to be nothing more that just hype to scrape togeather some votes.

Non-smoking pubs have been tried and went back to smoking pubs very fast due to lack of business.Some crazy nutter even tried opening a fruit bar,no smokes and no non fruit based drinks a couple of years back and was out of business in under a month.


Pubs will never go for the no smoking gig due to loss of earnings due to loss of customers.As a smoker I really enjoy a ciggie with my vodka and couldnt be arsed going to a pub if I couldnt smoke.Id just drink at home or in he homes of my smoker friends.

The whole discussion about smokers going to the doors/outside of pubs is the thinking of a fool for the following reasions...
a)Most smokers are to fooking lazy
2)whats the point of going to the pub for the enjoyment of drinking with your mates if you miss alot of the conversation.
3)The logistics of it.The amount of smokers on adverage per pub who are smoking at the same time all in one cramped location(entry to pub)with the bouncers most pubs have these days,doing the usual lark of not letting people in for usual crap reasion.It would be total chaos.I can see the amount of grief just waiting to happen, about folks going for a smoke outside and the goons on the door not letting them back in.Also consider so much consintrated 2nd hand smoke all in one place?Bet you non smoking heads will just love that
The amount of peeps on mobiles at a pub door is bad enough.

Even if on the mad crazy assed alternative world where this law might come in,the price of drink would skyrocket due to lost earnings the pubs would be hit with,and lets be honest,do you think the publicians will take the lost profits with a smile knowing there keeping their customers health in tip top shape?

Will they ****.

The only sane suggestion here is better ventilation in pubs but this can have a dire effect as well,the quicker spreading of germs being the main thing.Having worked in air condisioned building I have seen the spread of things like colds and flues happen alot more than in non ventilated buildings.

As for the whole cost of health care for smokers,the amount of money in tax gererated by the buying of a pack of smokes per year is a hell of a lot more that is spent by the state on the medical care of patients who suffer from any smoking related illness per year.

Drink cause's far more damage to our society.The amount of people killed or injured on Irish roads is a good deal more than those injured by passive smoking,not to mention the lives ruined by perants/spouces who are related/living with alcoholics.But no minister will ever try and ban the ole pint due to the political sucide it would bring about.

Black and white issues are for fools and weak minded people.The world is full of many grey issues and the sooner the majority out there realise this,the sooner the world can become a better place to live in.

wsquare

Many cities in North America have banned smoking in restaurants and bars. Los Angeles, I believe was the first. New York gave up on bars and restricts it in restaurants, however, they'll hand you a plate but butts after everyone's finished eating - kind of lax. Toronto has tried to do the same thing but the by-laws were changed to accommodate 25% smoking in restaurants for the next two years. Bars are OK to smoke.

If you think this is bad, go to Davis and Oakland, California. Can't smoke within 100 feet of a commercial building - that's going a bit far. Pretty soon they'll be restricting your car and home.

Europe is still pretty flexible in smoking laws but it's changing. A losing proposition I fear - even though I'm not a habitual smoker, I think it sucks and is exaggerated to the point of being fanatical. It's become a power issue now - not a health issue.

Pubs in Ireland - doubt it. Won't go over without a fight.

Wsquare

Europe is still very

Victor

For all you smokers out there. You _do_ know that they will eventually ban smoking on the street?

Uphamizer

They will eventually ban smoking all together, everyone knows how damaging and pointless it is.

androphobic

Originally posted by logic1
Hopefully smoking will be banned in pubs. I hate everything about cigarettes from their disgusting smell to the horrible ashes that get everyplace to the yellow fingers they cause and the cancer they kill with.

I couldn't be happier if cigarette companies were all put out of buisness.

I totally and wholeheartedly agree.

Comparisons with alcohol are useless at this stage. We're talking about the banning of cigarettes, not drink. The thread is interesting but haven't we all seen it before. Anti-smokers are fascists blah blah blah.

The bottom line is, smoking kills. Don't compare. Just accept it.

Ban cigarettes. Ban them everywhere. In the pubs, on the street, in restaurants, on the train.
Up the price to 50quid a pack.
Or just stop them from being sold.

Or just wait for them to kill you.. or those you love.

Your choice.. plain and simple.

Neil3030

"Martin outlines plan to ban smoking in pubs"

Good.

halkar

How about the people that only smokes when they go to the pubs?????

Yes ban the smoking in the pubs and then what? What will you fight for next? Streets? Stop selling them? and so on and go on and blah, blah, blah!!!! As it is said somewhere in this thread with one of my smoking colleagues that it is all down to compromise but it doesn't look like non smokers are compromising except going on ban this and banned that!! Sorry but it doesn't work like that!! You banned it in cinemas we said fair enough, you banned it in most restaurants we said fair enough, you banned it in tax office where you have to wait for hours if not for days we said fair enough!! Hospitals ok, busses ok. And now the pubs?????? Nope as a smoker I will not agree on this one and if ever banned on the streets me leave the country and find somewhere where I can smoke in peace..:D
Enough is enough, as it was said before it is all down to compromise...:)

Lets banned the non smokers from the pubs!!!!!

frankly

I only smoke when I go to the pub, honest, oh & when I play snooker. But banning smoking in pubs will never happen IMO.
Originally posted by wwm

maybe those ex-smokers are so self righteous becuase they can see clearly now the smog has gone? personally id prefer a non smoking pub. and i smoked up until a month ago. it is a filthy disgusting habit, and i hope i never start back on them.

Typical answer you'd expect by the "woman" and I wonder is she still off them

Typedef

You see.

One of the fallacies of human philosophy is that in many ways and for a plethora of reasons it espouses the omnipotentce and infallibility of the individual, to the detremant of the individual. Clearly and without ambigiuity smoking causes cancer, and the only groupings that actively deny this fact are the corporations with a 'vested' interest in the selling of tobacco products and ancillary products.

Consider if smoking were outlawed and were effectively smashed so that no longer could any citizen of the Republic voluntarily or involuntarily engage in the practice, life expectancy would sharply increase in the Republic, the cost of treating cancer in this country would decrease sharply as would the incidence of cancer and the freed up health service money could be diverted elsewhere.

One of the real evils of human society on this issue is that it holds up it's hands and says 'hey smoke or don't we collectively are not culpable', while at the same time society allows quasi-subliminal images and icons influence the undeveloped mind of young teenagers into smoking, you can find images of rock stars driving fast cars and smoking pot and in a wider sense smoking is regarded as 'wrong' but an acceptable kind of rebelliousness. Still humans allow young very young people to gain access to the physically addictive substance tobacco and in some areas of Dublin people must have noticed children of 10 years smoking.
It crosses my mind, in allowing people 'freedom' to smoke(or voluntarily pollute themselves with carcinogenic chemicals) do humans delude ourselves that laws against self destruction are anything but a convienance? Clearly if lobby groups can make a mockery of 'our' health system and our intellegence our vaunted morality means nothing, it is an illusion a mere convienance to be shed when and where it suits us?

Obviously I think smoking should be completely outlawed, because as I have stated willful self destruction is illegal in this society so why should such an ethic not pertain to tobacco products? 'We' outlaw heroin because it is 'too dangerous', what and cigarettes are acceptable? Not everyone dies from heroin who takes it, similarly not everyone dies from smoking who does it, but in reality smoking is a person's way of inviting death upon themselves, but society has this image of Rambo the bullet proof man, the invincible man who 'we' all seek to chizel ourselves in the craven image of, thus it becomes 'easy' or 'expiditous' to simply placate notions of our own mortality with regard things like smoking when we must measure up to iconaclastic demi-gods like Stallone.

What kind of intellegent people think that civilization and law means anything if it can't stop cigarettes from being? You may say 'oh it's the individuals choice', but that is a nonsense, tobacco is physically addictive and most people start smoking when they are young impressionable youth, youth that has not managed to seperate the image of Rambo the bullet proof from the 'desert of the real'.

Don't just ban the smokes from pubs, ban them from human life end of story, once the things no longer exist, and people have never even heard of the things, the 'choice' (for the self-id denial that the word entails in this context) becomes irrelevant.

Therefore humans must act more in unison for the good of our species and move away from our traditional simian groupings and individualisation within groupings to a more 'marxist' if you wish notion of collective responsibility.

halkar

Originally posted by Typedef
You see.
.....................
Consider if smoking were outlawed and were effectively smashed so that no longer could any citizen of the Republic voluntarily or involuntarily engage in the practice, life expectancy would sharply increase in the Republic, the cost of treating cancer in this country would decrease sharply as would the incidence of cancer and the freed up health service money could be diverted elsewhere.
......

What a rubbish!!!!!! Consider what??? No one lives forever!! Smoke or not smoke!! Outlaw the smoke and live longer???? *LMAO* Do you not think that you probably will need more health service when you live longer???? Lets assume that you are living till 80-90 years and do you think you will be all singing and dancing at those ages? You probably will need 24 hours health care at those ages and where will the money come from?? Remember no money from smoking!!! And consider the state that will pay you the pension till you die!!! You can add up the numbers yourself if your maths are as good as your literature!!
Personaly I don't think I would like to that long while being depended to the loved ones!!!!!! And older you get, less capable you become of and you start wishing to be dead it is just a fact!!! Hmmmm you can always start smoking then!!:D Oh sorry forgot it was outlawed!!:D Oh no , we used to have drug dealers and now we have smoke dealers!!!:D
Compromise man, compromise!! smoking is a choice and if you want to live forever then go and live in the jungle with monkeys and watch out for the disease carier flies!!!!
No comment for the rest of the rubbish you have written because I doubt my poor literature can understand a word of it!!:D Maybe that is another side effect of smoking!!

Meh

Originally posted by halkar
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

The inverse relationship between intelligence and use of exclamation marks is proved by the content of this post.

Originally posted by Typedef:
Consider if smoking were outlawed and were effectively smashed so that no longer could any citizen of the Republic voluntarily or involuntarily engage in the practice, life expectancy would sharply increase in the Republic, the cost of treating cancer in this country would decrease sharply as would the incidence of cancer and the freed up health service money could be diverted elsewhere.

What a fantastic idea! We should ban cigarettes, then all those smokers will have to quit, since they will have nowhere to get cigarettes. I wonder why no other country has tried this one -- must be the evil tobacco pushers that have prevented it. But let's not stop at smoking -- let's apply this solution to other problems. We can wipe out drug abuse completely by simply criminalising heroin and other opiates. We can eliminate rudeness and discourtesy by having a legal requirement to say "please" and "thank you".
You must be some sort of unrecognised genius sir -- what's your address, so that the Nobel Prize committee know where to send the award?

I think the only thing this thread has shown is that non-smokers can be just as stupid and closed-minded as smokers. (They do smell better though.)

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by frankly
I only smoke when I go to the pub, honest, oh & when I play snooker. But banning smoking in pubs will never happen IMO.
Originally posted by wwm
Typical answer you'd expect by the "woman" and I wonder is she still off them

im glad you can still be bothered to read what i have to say.
typical answer maybe, yes im still of the smokes.
whats youre point frankly.
i mean lets face it youre just still sore becuase you are a man utd fan and id rather man utd fans were outlawed instead of smoking.
besides, you are old and cranky.....

Typedef

Originally posted by Meh

The inverse relationship between intelligence and use of exclamation marks is proved by the content of this post.


What a fantastic idea! We should ban cigarettes, then all those smokers will have to quit, since they will have nowhere to get cigarettes. I wonder why no other country has tried this one -- must be the evil tobacco pushers that have prevented it. But let's not stop at smoking -- let's apply this solution to other problems. We can wipe out drug abuse completely by simply criminalising heroin and other opiates. We can eliminate rudeness and discourtesy by having a legal requirement to say "please" and "thank you".
You must be some sort of unrecognised genius sir -- what's your address, so that the Nobel Prize committee know where to send the award?
(They do smell better though.)

Oh psycophantic flattery will get you everywhere!

Similarly you will find that if 'we' allowed heroin to be legalised all that would happen is that it would more readily available, and sure people could try to fool ouselves into thinking that decriminalisation was not exponenciating the use of such a substance, but it would be a fallacy.

Your logic seems to suggest that banning smoking would not destroy it so therefore the notion is without merit, which I disagree with because if a similar logic were applied to heroin, amphetamines and other dangerous and addictive psycoactive substances, what you would find is that to decriminalise such a substance to a level that you would undermine a black market in said substance you would in effect have to make that substance available in a cafe style.
This is what your logic seems to suggest to me
:
Yes it is true politicians like Ken Clarke, you know the British politician and his counterparts in just about every country (like the Republic of Ireland) are nothing to do with a tobacco lobby, who suggested they were? I mean just because the man makes or imports cigars(I keep forgetting which) doesn't mean that when it comes to his or the tobacco lobbies interests in general that there is any corruption present. Just because the non-smoker plot that include the corrupt and repressive Minister for Health in the Republic, invent movies like the Insider with Russell Crowe from real life events still doesn't mean that there is some large tobacco conspiracy, of course not, that is why it is legal for children, people not old enough to drink in a pub, get married of fight for their country to buy carcinogenic products like cigarettes.


All moronic scarcism aside, if we applied your logic to governance, there would be no law as seeing as how people would invariably break those laws, it would be futile by your definitions to attempt to enforce them, so in effect you are saying, it is futile for me to ban smoking because the black market will supply some tobacco products and the argument follows it is futile to ban murder because no matter what it will always exist!

Wrong it is better to try and fail then fail to try.

Victor

Originally posted by halkar
What a rubbish!!!!!! Consider what??? No one lives forever!! Smoke or not smoke!! Outlaw the smoke and live longer???? *LMAO* Do you not think that you probably will need more health service when you live longer???? Lets assume that you are living till 80-90 years and do you think you will be all singing and dancing at those ages? You probably will need 24 hours health care at those ages and where will the money come from??

My, you really know how to come up with irrelevant points. I've lost an aunt (46) and uncle (47) to smoking, I'm sure they lead full lives .... maybe I'll point out the above to my teenage cousins who will now be relieved of the burdens of caring for their parents in their old age.

halkar

Originally posted by Victor


My, you really know how to come up with irrelevant points. I've lost an aunt (46) and uncle (47) to smoking, I'm sure they lead full lives .... maybe I'll point out the above to my teenage cousins who will now be relieved of the burdens of caring for their parents in their old age.

Well, sorry about your aunt and uncle, I have lost a dear friend in early thirties whom never smoked and drink in his life. Maybe you should re-read my post, I am not talking about your or my family but my point is we'll all die one day, you could be hit by a bus or fall of the stairs, what's there for you won't pass you. My point was made against outlawing the smoke of which I found too extreme. Smoking is an habit just like eating and drinking, you don't ban the drink while it wrecks families and kills people sometime and you don't ban eating because it makes you fat and can cause hearly dead in some cases then why ban smoking? I am just so sick and tired of hearing from people blaming everything to smoking and running smokers down to grounds while showing no sign of compromise and yet talking about banning and outlawing or whatever.

Ok ban the smoke, burn the tobaco farms close the factory and then what?

Meh

Originally posted by halkar
Smoking is an habit just like eating and drinking, you don't ban the drink while it wrecks families and kills people sometime and you don't ban eating because it makes you fat and can cause hearly dead in some cases then why ban smoking? I am just so sick and tired of hearing from people blaming everything to smoking and running smokers down to grounds while showing no sign of compromise and yet talking about banning and outlawing or whatever.

I take it all back. Smokers are stupider than non-smokers after all.

Victor

Originally posted by halkar
Well, sorry about your aunt and uncle, I have lost a dear friend in early thirties whom never smoked and drink in his life. Maybe you should re-read my post, I am not talking about your or my family but my point is we'll all die one day,

If I may elaborate, smoking has very few positive going for it and too many negatives. Drink isn't really that far behind (sad but perhaps true, too many people need to drink to be sociable). When they die early, smokers tend to have been ill for about the same time as non-smokers, but over a (often, much) shorter life span. My grand-mother lived to about 96 and it was only really the last 3-4 years where she had problems.

halkar

Some choose to smoke some doesn't. Smokers doesn't pressure anyone to smoke with them and you do have a choice of not being with them but as for banning in the pubs where many goes with their friends whom some of them smokes is just a stupid idea where you are trying to divert the people. Personally as a smoker I don't think I can stay in a pub for few hours without a smoke, I can do it in a restaurant or in movies but not in a pub.

dccarm

Good to see the smokers still bleating about their right to poison us all. You can't go a few hours without a fag? Tough. If you're too weak to give them up then stay at home and smoke them. The sooner they ban it in ALL public places the better.

Smokers doesn't pressure anyone to smoke with them

No they don't even have the decency to ask us to join in, just light up and poison us without consideration.

Kopf

Ok, I don't smoke, but I think it's outrageous to ban it in pubs.. If the government was *really* interested in the wellbeing and happiness of its citizens, it'd ban cigarettes altogether. They don't do this because of the enormous tax revenues they collect from the sales of tobacco. I know a lot of smokers and not one of them *wants* to, but has to.. They all want to drop the habit, but they can't. If prohibition was imposed, it would fuel the already thriving illegal cigarette market..

Perfect situation , I think, is if they banned cigarettes and legalized cannabis to copensate for the drop in tax revenue.

Happy days ahead? hmm..

PHB

Want to smoke? Fine by me.
Whats not is smoking near me.
You can kill yourself slowly if you wish, don't kill me.
Go smoke in a little tiny poorly lit room, if you really want to

halkar

Originally posted by dccarm
Good to see the smokers still bleating about their right to poison us all. You can't go a few hours without a fag? Tough. If you're too weak to give them up then stay at home and smoke them. The sooner they ban it in ALL public places the better.


No they don't even have the decency to ask us to join in, just light up and poison us without consideration.

Yep, I am too weak to give it up, besides i have no desire (yet) to give it up so it is my choice. You are getting poisoned? Though. Why don't you stay at home then?

I am sure you will have a smart answer for that too..

Victor

Originally posted by halkar
Though. Why don't you stay at home then? I am sure you will have a smart answer for that too..

Hang on, I thought it was usually the smokers bleating the "but i have a right" line.

halkar

Originally posted by Victor


Hang on, I thought it was usually the smokers bleating the "but i have a right" line.

it wasn't a smokers bleating about banning them in the pubs, was it? As I said I have nothing against banning smoke in most public places (which already have been done) but banning in pubs is a little bit much. You see, it is just a bleat between smokers and non smokers for "but i have a right" line and it if you really dig the roots you will have to go and complain to your government as after all if I am paying 5 euro for a package of cigarettes 4 euro (probably) of it is going to his pocket so if I am buying a cigarette I am buying the right to smoke it and every none smoker has a right to keep away from me if they want

It is all biiiiiiig red tape really when you think about it. After all government is trying to please the both sides but too much ban can backfire for them too. Maybe 10-20 years time but today you can't just ignore the smoker population and public houses are for the both parties, anyone doesn't like it they simply don't go to it or they can go to one of the none smoking pubs (not sure if there is any. )
After all there are many pubs around and some areas have only one or two local pubs and they do have customers smoke as well as doesn't smoke, what will they do?

Originally posted by dccarm

No they don't even have the decency to ask us to join in, just light up and poison us without consideration.

then you just walk away and get poisioned by the already poluted air and start campaigning to ban the cars too.

I know one day the only place I will be able to smoke is going to be my own car (if that is not banned before smokes ) Where no one can ban it for me

Then again one day I may give it up

dccarm

Yep, I am too weak to give it up, besides i have no desire (yet) to give it up so it is my choice. You are getting poisoned? Though. Why don't you stay at home then?

I work in a bar. Should I change career? Or should I be given a safe and healthy working environment as is my right?

davros

[I'm a non-smoker]

A few points...

- Irish social life revolves around meeting in pubs. Advising non-smokers to stay away is unreasonable.
- Despite the above, I actively avoid pubs because of smoke. A smoke-free environment would attract my custom (and presumably others').
- If I had a choice of a few city-centre pubs where I could go with non-smoking friends and come away without smelling like an ash-tray or with irritated eyes, I'd be happy with that. Other pubs can do what they like.
- To answer fears of lost custom for pubs that go the non-smoking route, provide tax-incentives (perhaps even reduced VAT on drinks served). It's quite reasonable to do this in the cause of a national health aim (to discourage smoking).
- Smoking and non-smoking sections do not work currently in many restaurants. I may be sitting at a table in non-smoking but the adjacent table is in smoking. And no smoker respects the fact that strangers near him are eating, whatever he thinks about smoking during his own meal.
- Pubs that have upstairs and downstairs bars could easily devote one to non-smokers and I reckon nobody is pigheaded enough to insist on smoking there (getting around the enforceability problem).

Although it's quite extreme, I'd have to say that the Californian system (outright ban in bars) seemed rather successful to me while I was there. Certainly it was very pleasant to socialise in a clean environment. If it's introduced here, it might prove massively popular.

halkar

Originally posted by dccarm


I work in a bar. Should I change career? Or should I be given a safe and healthy working environment as is my right?

You knew where you were going to work when you choosen your career if the health and safety was your primary concern why choose to work in a bar when you know the environment there? After all you could choose to be a soldier and sent to somewhere and get shot, but that is the risk you take. Every job has their own risks. No one is asking you to change career and you should be given your right of working in a healty environment but for banning smokes which is really a bit away from reality and you probably know that. And what will you do about that? Continue working in the same un-safe and un-healty environment?
To be honest if I was so concerned about health and safety I would change a career.