Vintners and the smoking ban

oscarBravo

At the risk of anticipating the debut Boards debate:

It seems to me the vintners are tackling the forthcoming smoking ban very badly. To the country at large, it has deteriorated into a debate as to whether people should be allowed to smoke in pubs or not. Fact is, that's not the real issue.

The real issue is discrimination. As I understand it, pubs will be dealt with differently from all other businesses under the proposal. For example: if you smoke in a shop, you're legally culpable, not the shopkeeper. If you smoke in an office, it's not the business proprietor that's responsible. If, however, you smoke in a pub, the publican is guilty of an offence.

Is it just me that thinks that (a) that's bloody ludicrous, and (b) the vintners have been grossly negligent in not making more of an issue out of this?

bonkey

Originally posted by oscarBravo
If you smoke in an office, it's not the business proprietor that's responsible.

I believe it is if the proprietor does not do anything to stop you from smoking.

You may get a fine for being teh smoker, but if an employer refuses to enforce the smoke-free-workplace laws by tolerating smokers, then yes he most certainly is culpable.

Which is exactly what would be said to any vintner who raised the issue too, at a guess.

jc

Cork

A business owner has a reponsibility to ensure that there is no smoking in the workplace.

Vintners will have to comply with this. The Cork & Kerry publicians are in a very defiant mood with their determination not to enforce the ban.

I think the ban will be worth while from a health point of view. Vintners have a legitimate view that their business's may be damaged. But they have also to think about the health of their staff and customers.

I think to operate ,pubs need a licqor licence - I think that they should be very careful at any defiance of the laws of this country.

Vintners are not a law onto themseves & I hope they will operate their businesses in accordance with the laws of this country.

chill

Originally posted by oscarBravo
The real issue is discrimination.

I agree. Descrimination against people who want to be able to breath clean unpolluted air.

As I understand it, pubs will be dealt with differently from all other businesses under the proposal. For example: if you smoke in a shop, you're legally culpable, not the shopkeeper. If you smoke in an office, it's not the business proprietor that's responsible. If, however, you smoke in a pub, the publican is guilty of an offence.

As far as I now any of these businesses can ban smoking on their premises and in an office the employer IS responsible, hence the almost complete ban on smoking in major offices.

Is it just me that thinks that (a) that's bloody ludicrous, and (b) the vintners have been grossly negligent in not making more of an issue out of this?

There are simply too many of us who don't accept the right of a smoker to force his smoke down our throats any more.
Smoking KILLS tens of thousands every year and ruins the lives of hundreds of thousands more. We are sick of it.
If smokers insist in taking a militant stand against our freedom to breath clean air it is about time we severely restricted their unlimited right to health care for the damage smokers will likely suffer - that WE PAY FOR !!
Maybe we should have a little test in hospitals and reject those who deliberately and knowingly and persistently act in a manner that almost guarentees damage to theirs and others health.
Perhaps THAT would wake them up ...

oscarBravo

I'm going to try to drag this back on topic by stating for the record that I agree that there should be a ban on smoking in all workplaces.

Let me restate my point: If you smoke on a bus, you get fined. My understanding is that under the new rules, if you smoke in a pub, you don't get fined, but the publican does.

Does that seem fair?

seamus

The ban is on smoking in the workplace. The publicans have made their 'plight' the front and centre issue here.

The bones of it is that the owner/proprietor of a business is responsible for ensuring that his workplace is a smoke-free zone. That's pretty obvious, since an employee who is smoking can be disciplined, so the onus is obviously on the owner to ensure the law is enforced within his workplace.

Pubs and shops are different though, in that they have to deal with (for all intents and purposes) uninvited members of the public entering their workplace.

So the law of having the onus on the employer is sound, there should just be some provisions made for publicans and shopkeepers to be allowed to eject non-compliant customers, or have them fined instead of the owner.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by seamus
The ban is on smoking in the workplace. The publicans have made their 'plight' the front and centre issue here.

That's the first part of my point: the publicans have handled this extremely badly by allowing it to seem that they are opposed to the ban. My impression is that it's the implementation details that they really have a problem with, but they're not communicating it very well.

So the law of having the onus on the employer is sound, there should just be some provisions made for publicans and shopkeepers to be allowed to eject non-compliant customers, or have them fined instead of the owner.

That was the other part of my point: as I understand it, no such provisions are planned.

Syth

pubs need a licqor licence

That'd be a great way to get publicans to enforce the ban. If your caught allowing smokers to smoke, then you lose your licence for the next year. They'd conform pretty quickly.

It really isn't that hard for them to enforce rules. As Pat Kenny said on the Late Late, If someone went up to the bar and ordered an orange juice, took out a bottle of vodka, put it in the orange, then took out a bag of chips, they'd quickly tell them to get out. They can enforce laws that they want. It's all a matter of getting them to want to enforce this law.

Another way to get high enforcement, would be if you allowed people to sue publicans if they were in a smoky bar. It'd be very hard to avoid getting caught then.

Cork

Originally posted by Syth
That'd be a great way to get publicans to enforce the ban. If your caught allowing smokers to smoke, then you lose your licence for the next year. They'd conform pretty quickly.

.

I agree. If they can't enforce the ban - do they deserve a drink licence?

It will be up to publicans nationwide to enforce the law.

I see the vintners are now going to launch a legal challenge based on the fact that smoking with children in cars isn't banned aswell.

It's showing crocodile tears really...
"We'll care about passive smoking in our pubs only if you care about kids passively inhaling their parents smoke"

Although I'm for the smoking ban, a little advice Vintiners, thats shows up a total disregard for your customers health.
It compliments the fact that the VFI et al weren't pro active on getting rid of smoke untill the minister decided to do something about it.

mm

Billy Turdhed

At long last we see the greedy bastards in a true light..

They are scared sihtless that the huge earnings they get from the gullible public may diminish.

As previous contributers have said .... Its the law ... comply or lose your licence .... these punters want it every way.. a licence to print money but no responsibility for their workforce or people whos idea of enjoyment is NOT to horse back 10 or 12 pints and go thru about a pack and a half of major in a four hour period.

I just love those toe rags like Healy Rae who supposedly make the laws but chose to ignore any law that impacts on them!
Who elects these wakners?

Dont get me going.....

Wm.Oliver Turdhed

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I see the vintners are now going to launch a legal challenge based on the fact that smoking with children in cars isn't banned aswell.

No offense Man, but the article you link to says the following :

"The Irish Hospitality Industry Alliance says the law leaves the State open to litigation because it makes exceptions for some workplaces and not others."

Nowhere does it say anything about children in cars - and I'd be amazed if it does, because I can't imagine how that would classify as a workplace.

jc

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
No offense Man, but the article you link to says the following :

.....

Nowhere does it say anything about children in cars - and I'd be amazed if it does, because I can't imagine how that would classify as a workplace.

jc

In fairness to him, the quote was from a publican referring to smoking in cars with children present. But that was from a single source iirc, not a basis of the challenge.

I'll chase it up tomorrow, can't remember where I saw it myself.

sceptre

Originally posted by Billy Turdhed
I just love those toe rags like Healy Rae who supposedly make the laws but chose to ignore any law that impacts on them!
Who elects these wakners?

In Healy-Rae's case, let's put it this way. Most people I know from north Kerry reckon that most (or at least many) south Kerry people are hillbilly rednecks.

I'm not personally insulting anyone from southern Kerry, I'm just telling you what your northern cousins (or sisters) think.

Originally posted by bonkey
No offense Man, but the article you link to says the following :

"The Irish Hospitality Industry Alliance says the law leaves the State open to litigation because it makes exceptions for some workplaces and not others."

Nowhere does it say anything about children in cars - and I'd be amazed if it does, because I can't imagine how that would classify as a workplace.

jc

My Bad in this case, it was referred to on I think RTE's morning Ireland on the day that I posted and specifically the case of kids in cars while their parents smoked was mentioned as an example of the unfairness according to the publicans,
Ie that the government were moving to protect one section of society from passive smoking whilst ignoring another.
The link was only posted to indicate that they were going to launch a challenge .
I should have pointed out the source for the crocodile tears which was more or less what Seamus said.
The radio reference as far as I recall it mentioned, the child passively smoking in the car as an example.

mm

Billy Turdhed

Only one "l" in shovel horse


Billy

Cork

Smoking in Buses, planes & trains in banned.

Publicans are grasping at straws.

Are they concerned with profits or the health of their workers?

Let, them huff & puff as much as they like - but the smoking ban is necessary for reasons of health.

If they can't or won't enforce it - they will be sanction.

Originally posted by Billy Turdhed
Only one "l" in shovel horse


Billy

Billy I can't be held accountable for Dappers spelling
changing that would change the spirit of the signiture quote!

mm

RainyDay

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Let me restate my point: If you smoke on a bus, you get fined. My understanding is that under the new rules, if you smoke in a pub, you don't get fined, but the publican does.

Does that seem fair?

Actually, in the current legislation, the onus is on the proprieter of the existing outlets where smoking is banned (banks, hairdressers, cinema) - the proprieters are subject to fines if the ban is breached on their premises. So there is nothing new in the proposal to hold the publicans liable.

Billy Turdhed

Couldnt resist Man.. sorry you are right........


Maybe the Dapper should thunk a few fire logs into his machine ...it might start up the spell check!:D


A chastened W O Turdhed

angelofdeath

im a smoker and a hate this ban as much as any other smoker, but i agree with it, i think people should be able to go for a pint without being choked, but what really sucks is that you cant even bring your beer outside, they should change that so you could drink and have a fag outside, put up a canopy and everyones happy, well cept for the freezing cold but eh

RainyDay

Originally posted by angelofdeath
but what really sucks is that you cant even bring your beer outside,

This will vary from pub to pub. If the pub has a beer garden or patio, you will be able to bring your pint outside (subject to weather, of course). If it is a traditional pub with just a doorway entrance off the street, you won't be able to bring your pint outside.

angelofdeath

and while im airing my opinion on the subject, if tha ventilation systems in pubs were up to scratch and there were proper smoking and no smoking sections, wouldn't it be far better than an all out ban
of course nothin that any of us says makes a damned bit of difference, cos the polititcians who pretty much ****in control our lives, dont even listen anyway

RainyDay

Originally posted by angelofdeath
and while im airing my opinion on the subject, if tha ventilation systems in pubs were up to scratch and there were proper smoking and no smoking sections, wouldn't it be far better than an all out ban

Yes - it would be much better, assuming of course;

- you have found a way to get smoke to observe no-smoking signs & not drift into the non-smoking sections
- you have found a way to be able to deliver drinks to punters in the smoking section without the staff having to breath in the carcinogenic fumes
- you have found a way to allow cleaners to clean up the smoking area without breathing in the carcinogenic fumes (which are still dangerous even the morning after)
- you have found a way to persuade smokers to actually observe no-smoking sections and not pass through non-smoking sections with their fag in their mouth.

It ain't gonna happen. The ban is here to stay.

Cork

Originally posted by angelofdeath
cos the polititcians who pretty much ****in control our lives, dont even listen anyway

It is all about protecting pub workers from noxious fag smoke.

Fair play, for politicians standing up to the pub lobby.

It will be great to go into smokeless pubs.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by RainyDay
The ban is here to stay.

Y'know, up to a week ago I would have agreed. Now however, I honestly believe this ban will not/cannot come into effect in January. The main resolve issuing from the Vintners meeting in Portlaoise last week was a commitment to a series of legal challenges to the new law all the way to the Euro Court. Even if not ultimately succesful, this strategy will have the effect of stymie-ing the legislation for a couple of years. Expert legal advice has it that this law cannot be implemented while a legal challenge is in progress.

RainyDay

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Expert legal advice has it that this law cannot be implemented while a legal challenge is in progress.

Please provide your source for this nugget.

MadsL

Simply solution really.

Ask the vintners what they want;

A. Implement the smoking ban and they will be allowed to keep the outrageous monopoly that they have shafted everyone in the country with for generations.

OR

B. Make the smoking ban optional and open up the country to competition, whereby anyone with suitable premises and character can run a pub, like in virtually every other EU country.

That'd shut the feckers up.

Maybe I need to bring a legal challenge to the lack of competition and restrictive practices in the licenced trade.

ur mentor

interesting thought if th evintners decide not to pass on Vat on drink to Govt. as mark of protest will tehy then reduce prices by 21%. They can hardly collect tax from us the punter and then not hand it over can they?

seamus

interesting thought if th evintners decide not to pass on Vat on drink to Govt. as mark of protest will tehy then reduce prices by 21%. They can hardly collect tax from us the punter and then not hand it over can they?

They'll charge it. Their plan is to withhold VAT. So they'll charge it, and if they actually get anything out of the government, they'll pay it then. More likely, Revenue will pressure them for it, and they'll have to give it up, since what they're proposing is tax evasion, i.e. stealing from the state.

If they didn't charge VAT to customers, they'd still have to pay VAT to the state and then be out of pocket.

A quick question - My Dad has an office beside the house where he conducts his business. He's self employed and has no paid employees (my mum does some work for him from time to time). Purely theoretical (since he doesn't smoke anymore), since it's a place of work, but he's the only employee, does it still fall under the 'no smoking' rule?

I assume it does, but just checking

Cork

Originally posted by RainyDay
This will vary from pub to pub. If the pub has a beer garden or patio, you will be able to bring your pint outside (subject to weather, of course). If it is a traditional pub with just a doorway entrance off the street, you won't be able to bring your pint outside.

But would not beer gardens constitute part of the pub?

They are laws inacted aganist street drinking in many towns. Smokers will need to smoke in their own homes without subjecting others to their fag smoke.

I think, pubs will comply with vat legalislation - if they don't revenue will duly charge them interest.

Paddy20

As long as cigarettes are legal. Any law banning the smoking of a legal substance is a farce.

P.:ninja:

Cork

The farce was that there was no law to prtect those working in the bar industry aganist noxious smoke.

People can still smoke on the street.

carbonkid

all smokers are mainly concerened with is where are they goin to smoke while they're out drinking,wheather beer gardens or canopys or what not.

but i think its just goin to come down to not smokin while out drinkin...which makes me think the dan on smokin in pubs isnt just for non-smokers but for smokers too...

...how many people try givin up smokin but its when you go out at the weekend for that pint that you break...of course its still not goin to stop kids smokin at a young age which is where of course it really needs to be stopped

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
But would not beer gardens constitute part of the pub?

Nope. They may be part of the licensed area (to keep it legal they should be) but as you may have noticed, they're not part of the main enclosed building covered by the Act.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by RainyDay
Please provide your source for this nugget.

This was the advice given to the Vintners Association by their own retained legal team, and submitted to the membership at the Portlaoise meeting last week.

RainyDay

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
This was the advice given to the Vintners Association by their own retained legal team, and submitted to the membership at the Portlaoise meeting last week.

Mmmm - Not exactly an independent source eh? He who pays the piper, and all that....

Paddy20

I seem to have seen most of these points of view elsewhere!. However, I am still of the view that come January 2004. The Fianna Fail party are going to suffocate to death, in the still full ashtrays in Irish Pubs, unless they offer Publicans a sensible compromise.

P.:ninja:

MadsL

Sensible compromise is we'll make it optional, but remove the monopoly on licensed premises. A bit o' competition!

Cork

Originally posted by Paddy20
I The Fianna Fail party are going to suffocate to death, in the still full ashtrays in Irish Pubs, unless they offer Publicans a sensible compromise.

P.:ninja:

A suitable Compromise?

The law was inacted. If the publicans cannot enforce the ban - their licences should be withdrawn.

Pub De-Regulation is another issue. If current licence holders cannot comply with the law - the trade should be de-regulated.

Paddy20

MadsL,

Quote; " but remove the monopoly on licensed premises. A bit o' competition!." end quote.

What monopoly is that ?..

In the part of Donegal where I survive, we have 28 local licensed premises, but no monopoly.

Each establishment belongs to a different owner, mostly private individual family owned, with plenty of fierce competition, believe me.

P.:ninja:

ixoy

Well in Dublin I think there's a few owners who own a large percentage of all the highly profitable city centre bars. Capitol Bars owns a large number in the George's St area for example. As they have a lot of capital they can buy up pubs easier and invest the necessary money. This reduces competition alas. I'm sure someone else has a better breakdown of ownership.

Paddy20

ixoy,

With all due respect. Dublin is not IRELAND is it. Its just another ****ty city, that more people are trying to get out of, than get in too!.

Plus, we have more REAL PUBS in RURAL IRELAND, right ?...

P.:ninja: Note:No offence meant to any real Dubs !. o.k.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Paddy20
going to suffocate to death, in the still full ashtrays in Irish Pubs

which nicely describes the current situation for non-smokers in Irish pubs. So if it is the choice between suffocating the 71% of the population which is non-smoking or suffocating a few FF TD's, I know which one I'd choose.

ixoy

Paddy20, I was merely pointing out what they had been talking about when they said there was a monopoly - 'coz I assume they were talking about Dublin where there is a bit of a one! I wasn't making any comment either way about rural pubs. Sheesh.

Paddy20

Hey Bertie,

Listen carefully. BAN FAGS, OR BOG OFF!

P.:ninja:

Cork

The Minister is right to exempt hotel bedrooms. You rent these say for a night. There rooms are akin to your home.

Prisons are also a worthwhile exception.

The Minister seems to be covering all bases and making sure that the legalislation is safegaurded aganist possible legal challange.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Cork
The Minister is right to exempt hotel bedrooms. You rent these say for a night. There rooms are akin to your home.

Fair enough. But I thought the agenda behind the ban was to safeguard the health of workers ............... what about chambermaids whose entire working shift spent clearing/cleaning hotel bedrooms means they will be exposed to large amounts of smoke every day?

Same applies to prison officers, nurses in psychiatric units, etc etc.

With every passing day Minister Martin's ban has it flaws exposed. This tinkering with the ban will not pre-empt any legal challenges but, rather, encourage more.

Cork

It wold not be practical to outlaw smoking in psychiatric units or hospices.

I think delaying implementation and exempting some places will protect the ban aganist possible legal challange.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Cork
The Minister is right to exempt hotel bedrooms. You rent these say for a night. There rooms are akin to your home.

Prisons are also a worthwhile exception.

The Minister seems to be covering all bases and making sure that the legalislation is safegaurded aganist possible legal challange.

Why not add danger money to their pay - or make half of the rooms non-smoking. Given the choice I'd go elsewhere if I thought the previous occupant was a chain smoker...

It wold not be practical to outlaw smoking in psychiatric units or hospices.

or prisons aparently

or in Garda cells - BUT I can remember many years ago on the front page of a news paper reading about a Fireman whose widow got £10,000 while some drunk that set fire to himself in police custody got over £100,000

In prisons you simply give people the option of smoking or non-smoking cells where possible. In Garda cells you make it illegal since no one will be there long and it stops more claims.

It would help in the interview room - Garda tempts Suspect with the possibility of smoking a fag before they go back to the cell.
And it gives the Police more reasons to keep you in.. "yes yer honour he was helping us with our enquiries when he lit up a fag, afterwards he dropped it on the ground we also did him for littering as well"

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Cork
It wold not be practical to outlaw smoking in psychiatric units or hospices.

It is not practical to outlaw smoking in pubs either, but I don't see you admitting to that aspect of the ban. If. as you say, the proposed law is unworkable in one environment , then by definition it has to be unworkable in another. This is the kernel of the vintners argument ........... the ban is unenforceable; yet the publican will be prosecuted for somebody else's non-compliance with the new law.

QUOTED BY MIDNIGHT
___________________________________________________
Why not add danger money to their pay - or make half of the rooms non-smoking.
___________________________________________________

As it is, half the rooms in most hotels ARE non-smoking. But the point is ........... chambermaids will still have to clean them ( the smoking rooms) BY consequence, you are suggesting that the health and safety of hotel housekeepig staff is of less importance than that of public house staff.