Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

No smoking in the Park

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    I'm sorry sir, I'm not on the beach. I'm on the sea.


  • Options
    #33
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    You'll always be able to smoke on Boards, though, it being a haven for people with hard ons for reactionary fuming and hyperbole.

    Without wanting to moderate here you're post is not suited to this forum chap. Why don't you give a swing by AH for a post or two, I like your style dear boy..


  • Options
    #34
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,746 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    If you feel a post is unsuitable to a forum - use the report post function & leave the modding to the mods.

    tHB


  • Options
    #35
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    I was in brittas bay during the heatwave of 2012. Twice I had to move because smokers were upwind from me. Bit of a pain in the ass when I am there for sun and fresh air.

    While I would like to see smoking gone completely (in an ideal world) I just don't see this law as being enforceable thus it would be a waste of time. The only way such laws would work in Ireland would be if Irish people were willing to point out if someone is breaking the law or report people but that just does not happen in Ireland.


  • Options
    #36
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    BeerNut wrote: »
    Eww, no thanks. I remember when pubs used to have smoking licences and every pub held one. It made them less pleasant places to be.

    I'm fussy about the beer I drink. I don't necessarily want to drink what the customer next to me is having and I wouldn't go to a pub where spillover from other people's drinks were forced on me.

    Same goes for the tobacco I smoke.

    I've never heard that a pub needed a licence, without which no one would have been allowed smoke on the premises.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    BeerNut
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭BeerNut


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    I've never heard that a pub needed a licence, without which no one would have been allowed smoke on the premises.
    It's a licence to serve drink, but the permission to smoke was implicit in it before 2004. Anyone who held one could have kept their pub non-smoking if they wanted to.

    My beer blog | The Twitter | My other beer blog



  • Options
    #38
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    BeerNut wrote: »
    It's a licence to serve drink, but the permission to smoke was implicit in it before 2004. Anyone who held one could have kept their pub non-smoking if they wanted to.

    Thats what I thought, as I have never before heard of a licence being needed to smoke in any public place, such as shops, cinema's, buses and so on. Why would a public house have needed an "implicit" licence to permit smoking on the premises whereas buses, and trains, and cinemas and shops and so on didn't need any such licence, whether explicit or implicit?


  • Options
    #39
    BeerNut
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭BeerNut


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    Why would a public house have needed an "implicit" licence to permit smoking on the premises whereas buses, and trains, and cinemas and shops and so on didn't need any such licence, whether explicit or implicit?
    You don't remember when you could smoke in cinemas and on trains? They had implicit licences too. Unlike pubs, however, most of them opted to go non-smoking voluntarily before they were forced to.

    My beer blog | The Twitter | My other beer blog



  • Options
    #40
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    BeerNut wrote: »
    You don't remember when you could smoke in cinemas and on trains? They had implicit licences too. Unlike pubs, however, most of them opted to go non-smoking voluntarily before they were forced to.

    I've never heard of the concept of an "implicit" licence. What would have happened in court if someone without an implicit licence was up on a charge of allowing an activity without an implicit licence?

    Did, for example, brothels have implicit licences too? It's a fascinating concept.


  • Options
    #41
    BeerNut
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭BeerNut


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    I've never heard of the concept of an "implicit" licence. What would have happened in court if someone without an implicit licence was up on a charge of allowing an activity without an implicit licence?
    They get charged with allowing whatever it was they weren't supposed to allow.

    If you're caught driving with more than the implicitly licensed concentration of alcohol in your bloodstream you get charged with drink driving.

    My beer blog | The Twitter | My other beer blog



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    BeerNut wrote: »
    They get charged with allowing whatever it was they weren't supposed to allow.

    If you're caught driving with more than the implicitly licensed concentration of alcohol in your bloodstream you get charged with drink driving.

    In the example you give, the amount of alcohol is explicitly stated in the statute. There is nothing implicit about it.

    I'm fascinated by this concept of an implied licence. Can you point me to any court reports where someone was charged for not having the required licence?

    You state that "they get charged" but don't say what they get charged with, or under which statute they might have been charged. I am fascinated that you seem to say that it's the case that, in Ireland, individuals have been charged with this implied offence, while at the same time no such offence exists on the statute book, whereby an individual can be charged with not having a licence which, in itself, doesn't actually exist and is something called an "implicit licence" .


  • Options
    #43
    OldGoat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭OldGoat


    MOD: Interesting at this all is we are drifting from the original topic.

    I'm older than Minecraft goats.



  • Options
    #44
    BeerNut
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭BeerNut


    Apologies, OldGoat and fellow smokers. My last go at explaining this:
    ShanePouch wrote: »
    In the example you give, the amount of alcohol is explicitly stated in the statute. There is nothing implicit about it.
    The statute specifies 50mg per 100ml of blood. Concentrations lower than this are therefore implicitly licensed. The statute doesn't say "it's OK to have 20mg": it's implied. Pre-2004 pub licences didn't say "It's OK to let customers smoke": it was implied.

    All I was saying before we drifted off was: if pubs wanted the option of being non-smoking they should have exercised this option when they had it. Because none of them did, it was taken away.

    My beer blog | The Twitter | My other beer blog



  • Options
    #45
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    BeerNut wrote: »
    Apologies, OldGoat and fellow smokers. My last go at explaining this:
    The statute specifies 50mg per 100ml of blood. Concentrations lower than this are therefore implicitly licensed. The statute doesn't say "it's OK to have 20mg": it's implied. Pre-2004 pub licences didn't say "It's OK to let customers smoke": it was implied.

    All I was saying before we drifted off was: if pubs wanted the option of being non-smoking they should have exercised this option when they had it. Because none of them did, it was taken away.

    I know this is pedantic, but legally there is no such thing as an "implicit licence". The law is always specific and, in this instance expressly states that no one is permitted to drive with an excess of a stated (hence statute) level of alcohol in their blood.

    Where I was confused earlier is that it was said that pub s needed a licence to allow smoking on their premises, and I had never heard of such a licence in the law.

    It is no more correct legally to say that anything which is not proscribed by statute has an implicit licence, any more than it is true that one has an implicit licence to eat cheese at home or an implicit licence to use ones own lavatory.


  • Options
    #46
    OldGoat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭OldGoat


    MODERATOR:Last warning.

    Gentlemen, take it top PM's or to a forum that allows for the fine print of legaliteies to be discussed. The topic under discussion is the possible ban on smoking in parks and beaches.

    I'm older than Minecraft goats.



Advertisement