"Who runs the country? - We do." - Publicans

Victor

"Who runs the country? We do." or so said one of the publicans representatives on radio last night. So much for living in a democracy. Does anyone think publicans think they are special? And oooh, I'd like a full Revenue audit, if they try to pull anything like whats suggested below.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/1804563?view=Eircomnet

Vintners threat to withhold VAT a 'disgrace', says Ahern From:ireland.com
Wednesday, 29th October, 2003

The Taoiseach today described a threat by some publicans to withhold VAT in protest at the impending ban on smoking in the work place as a "disgrace".

Mr Ahern said the plan suggested by speakers at a meeting of the Vintners Federation of Ireland in Portlaoise yesterday would also be "illegal". He said this was a "disgraceful matter for them to get into. I hope they don't do it, it's illegal."

Mr Ahern said publicans should stop their opposition to the ban and concentrate instead on the harmful effects of smoking.

"The fact is that 7,000 people are dying from smoking and they should concern themselves with that.

"My own view is they will make more business because I think most of the pubs are fairly badly ventilated, fairly poisonous with people smoking.

"And I think now that will be gone, an awful lot of decent people will go back into them and I think they will." Mr Ahern quipped most publicans are "making too much anyway".

Mr Ahern was also quick to point out that the VFI had objected equally strongly when the rules on drink driving were changed.

"I remember when we tightened up on drink driving the pubs were all going to close down as well. Looks to me as if they are getting more expensive by the day, not to mind the price of what you get in them", he said.

He was responding to one of the plans suggested to oppose smoking ban in public houses at a meeting of more than 1,200 VFI members in Portlaoise yesterday.

The VFI's national executive will meet on November 26th to consider the proposals put forward which include the possibility of running candidates in the local and European parliament elections next summer in protest over the ban.

The federation is also taking legal advice before deciding what steps to take in their campaign of opposition to the ban.

Enforcing the ban was the main difficulty expressed yesterday. Members said they would not "put themselves and their businesses at risk" by trying to enforce "the unenforceable".

Earlier today the bar workers' union MANDATE called on vintners to end their confrontational approach and work with Government and unions to protect staff and customers

The union said that now the workplace smoking ban is a "fait accompli, the various vintners' organisations should engage in constructive dialogue over the ban's implementation."

Heard a VFI spkesperson on Declan meehans programme on Eastcoast FM this morning pull out the yarn ( again ) that the ban would harm childrens health as more and more parents left the pubs to smoke at home:rolleyes:

mm

Victor

Originally posted by Man
Heard a VFI spkesperson on Declan meehans programme on Eastcoast FM this morning pull out the yarn ( again ) that the ban would harm childrens health as more and more parents left the pubs to smoke at home

As opposed to letting the children smoke at home, alone, unsupervised. :rolleyes:

mike65

I am so looking foward to seing publicans in the dock and going down.../me wakes up...

Mike.

Victor

Theres a **story** of a Garda finding the local TD, a district court judge and his superintendant "on the premises" afterhours, having pints with the publican. He was asked did he "want a transfer or a pint". He responded "I'll take the transfer and a promotion".

sceptre

Originally posted by Victor
He was asked did he "want a transfer or a pint".

Wasn't that a *story* about our beloved serial tax cheat (and lover of fine shirts) Squire Haughey?

Mind you, there's a similar story told about a garda from Doneraile when he raided a pub owned by a FF TD (later minister for defence) in Mallow (where I lived till I was 18, hence my hearing of the story) during the 1966 Easter Rising commemeration.

mike65

That sounds like a variation on the old story (true) about Sean Doherty as famously exposed on Today Tonight.

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by sceptre
Mind you, there's a similar story told about a garda from Doneraile when he raided a pub owned by a FF TD (later minister for defence) in Mallow (where I lived till I was 18, hence my hearing of the story) during the 1966 Easter Rising commemeration.

Found a link at that (yay me!). Similar but no cookie. It's Doherty then is it Mike?

TomF

In fairness to the poor man from the Vintner's Federation, he was standing at the podium in front of a big crowd at the VFI meeting to say his piece, and he was shaking so bad that the podium and the table were also shaking. What he said about "We run the country" or words to that effect, I believe, meant that it is the people who run the country, not ministers who can with a stroke of a pen sign something into law.

That delivered, I look forward to smoke-free pubs even though it seems I hardly ever darken the door of a pub these days.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by TomF
What he said about "We run the country" or words to that effect, I believe, meant that it is the people who run the country, not ministers who can with a stroke of a pen sign something into law.

Yes indeed, that was the context in which those words were spoken.

And now and then we do need to remind certain politicians that we live in a democracy, and curtail the latent dictatorship tendencies of the decision-makers. An Taoiseach is fond of saying "the debate on smoking is over". What debate??? This law was passed without any debate in the Dail or without any discourse with publicans or their customers. A nanny-state attack on personal freedoms introduced by a Minister with a personal agenda (health fascism) and with the acquiescence of a Taoiseach whose grasp of democratic principles is highly suspect.

Imposter

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Yes indeed, that was the context in which those words were spoken.

And now and then we do need to remind certain politicians that we live in a democracy, and curtail the latent dictatorship tendencies of the decision-makers. An Taoiseach is fond of saying "the debate on smoking is over". What debate??? This law was passed without any debate in the Dail or without any discourse with publicans or their customers. A nanny-state attack on personal freedoms introduced by a Minister with a personal agenda (health fascism) and with the acquiescence of a Taoiseach whose grasp of democratic principles is highly suspect.

I think a majority are in favour of the ban and there's noone going to campaign that smoking is good for you so what's the problem? Plus we/ye elect the politicians so we/ye can blame yourselves if that's your attitude.

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
I think a majority are in favour of the ban and there's noone going to campaign that smoking is good for you so what's the problem? Plus we/ye elect the politicians so we/ye can blame yourselves if that's your attitude.

You think. Exactly. You think. But nobody knows, do they? No public vote has been taken. And if the Publics health was foremost in our beloved politicins minds why not ban smoking alltogether? Why not go the full hog and ban drinking? Driving? Not sleeping more than 6 hours?:rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobart

Originally posted by daveirl
You can't take a public vote on everything.

I never said we should???? If you re-read what I was replying to it was the inferrance by Imposter that the majority of people where in favour of this. I was saying that without a public vote on this it was an unproven "fact".

The democratically elected government have chosen this.

Thanks for claifying that. And here's me thinking we were living in a dictatorship.

That's how it works in Ireland, we choose the government and based on that mandate the goverment governs.

Again thanks for the clarification.

Do you think they should consult the country on every minute thing?

No. I think they should pass laws willy-nilly based on their current "mandate" and, as was quoted above, mis-quote the country and electorate on how we had such a wonderful debate on this issue. Now why don't you re-read what I was saying and if you have a valid retort we can start all over again.:rolleyes:

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Hobart
You think. Exactly. You think. But nobody knows, do they? No public vote has been taken. And if the Publics health was foremost in our beloved politicins minds why not ban smoking alltogether? Why not go the full hog and ban drinking? Driving? Not sleeping more than 6 hours?:rolleyes:

But this relates to how smokers are harming others not themselves.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
You think. Exactly. You think. But nobody knows, do they? No public vote has been taken. And if the Publics health was foremost in our beloved politicins minds why not ban smoking alltogether? Why not go the full hog and ban drinking? Driving? Not sleeping more than 6 hours?:rolleyes:

Yes I think. But this poll confirms what I think.

I was answering someone elses views on the subject as well, as in what they thought:rolleyes:

As for banning smoking altogether I think they're slowly getting around to it!:)
Drinking is not neccessarily bad for you, nor is driving. Your drinking is definitely not bad for the person sitting next to you.

You sound stressed, go have a ciggie while you still can!

Originally posted by Hobart
I never said we should???? If you re-read what I was replying to it was the inferrance by Imposter that the majority of people where in favour of this. I was saying that without a public vote on this it was an unproven "fact".

correct I suppose BUT...
anecdotal evidence though would back up the theory for me that there is majority support for the smoking ban.
Even some of my smoking friends are saying it has to be done.

There are lots of issues for which anecdotal evidence would suggest the public has widespread support for, yet it cannot be a "proven fact" unless you take a vote on it.

mm

growler

Irish publicans have a strangely over-inflated view of their own importance. Perhaps this comes from being the prime suppliers to (and prime beneficiaries from ) a nation of alcohol addicts. Maybe they see themselves as the facilitators of Irish community spirit(s).

Bottom line is that the irish booze dealing fraternity care only for their bank balances, they need to have rules forced on them by the government because they are unwilling or incapable of making progressive decisions themselves , such as their objections to lowering the drink driving limits and the smoking ban, only because they fear it might affect their turnover.

Hobart, there have been plenty of surveys (like this http://www.otc.ie/article.asp?article=45 ) that show a majority favouring the introduction of a smoking ban and more importantly the bar workers who the legislation was designed to protect ...are in favour of it.

Hobart

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
But this relates to how smokers are harming others not themselves.

Smokers know that smoking is bad for your health. Why noy ban them altogether then?

Originally posted by Imposter
Yes I think. But this poll confirms what I think.

58% in favour of an outright ban while 68% prefer a compromise. Hardly conclusive now is it?

I was answering someone elses views on the subject as well, as in what they thought:rolleyes:

Eh. No you were not. Pro stated a clarification of the original post. He then went on to demonstrate that what Bertie had actually said was a complete falsehood. You did not retort a single iota of what he said, which IMHO, was the most accurate post on this subject. (apart from my own of course;) )

As for banning smoking altogether I think they're slowly getting around to it!:)

And what do you base this on?

Drinking is not neccessarily bad for you, nor is driving. Your drinking is definitely not bad for the person sitting next to you.

Not necessarily. Then again a loaded gun sitting on a table would not kill anybody. It takes an idiot to pick it up first..

You sound stressed, go have a ciggie while you still can! [/B]

I'm far from stressed. And if you knew half as much as you seem to think you do about smoking, you would realise that smoking is more likely to increase stress levels then to dampen them.

Originally posted by Man
correct I suppose BUT...
anecdotal evidence though would back up the theory for me that there is majority support for the smoking ban.
Even some of my smoking friends are saying it has to be done.

There are lots of issues for which anecdotal evidence would suggest the public has widespread support for, yet it cannot be a "proven fact" unless you take a vote on it.

mm

True. I remember watching newnight on Tuesday and they were speculating that Ian Duncan Smith would be humiliated in a confidence vote. Words such as "toast" were used. The whispers in the corridors where that he had no more than 21 votes. In the end he lost by a very slim margin. A swing of 8 votes out of 165 would have done it for him. So I prefer not to present fact as fact until it has been proven that.

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Hobart
Smokers know that smoking is bad for your health. Why noy ban them altogether then?

People know that eating chips is bad for their health too but as long as they don't force chips down the throats of others then let them be.

Hobart

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
People know that eating chips is bad for their health too but as long as they don't force chips down the throats of others then let them be.

Look. there are plenty of examples of damage to a third parties health by what another does. e.g.
Inhaling Exhaust Fumes. We could be here all week talking about stuff which is bad for you, and yet we have little choice in absorbing. But lets not.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
58% in favour of an outright ban while 68% prefer a compromise. Hardly conclusive now is it?

No it's not conclusive but it's still nowhere near the publicans preferred position, which would be to change nothing.

Eh. No you were not. Pro stated a clarification of the oiginal post.

Correct

He then went on to demonstrate that what Bertie had actually said was a complete falsehood. You did not retort a single iota of what he said, which IMHO, was the most accurate post on this subject. (apart from my own of course;) )

He stated one thing he's alleged that Bertie has said (I don't doubt he said it). The rest was his opinion on the government. You thinking it was accurate hardly means anything other than to show that you've got similar views on the matter.

And what do you base this on?

This is my personal opinion that governments around the world will continue with trying to discourage people from smoking and eventually it may end up in a total ban.

Not necessarily. Then again a loaded gun sitting on a table would not kill anybody. It takes an idiot to pick it up first..

As with cigarettes

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
No it's not conclusive but it's still nowhere near the publicans preferred position, which would be to change nothing.

However they are willing to compromise. Which, the Government, is not. So who is being unreasonable here?

He stated one thing he's alleged that Bertie has said (I don't doubt he said it).

He did say it. As soon as I can find a link I will post it.

The rest was his opinion on the government. You thinking it was accurate hardly means anything other than to show that you've got similar views on the matter.

this is also true. But you said

---

I was answering someone elses views on the subject as well, as in what they thought

and you were not. You did not address a single point, opinion or statement that the previous poster had made. Don't muddy the waters with you aparent lack of recall.

This is my personal opinion that governments around the world will continue with trying to discourage people from smoking and eventually it may end up in a total ban.

Ok then.

As with cigarettes

Cars, Motorbikes, Big Trucks, little Trucks, eating, Not eating, Walking, Talking etc......... they can all "lead" to an untimely death in certain cirsumstances.

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Hobart
However they are willing to compromise. Which, the Government, is not. So who is being unreasonable here?

But there is no room for compromise. That's the whole problem.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
However they are willing to compromise. Which, the Government, is not. So who is being unreasonable here?

(I'm presuming you're for a compromise by saying this.)
Is this compromise just for certain sectors of the workforce and on why should a compromise be granted to these sectors? The publicans only argument is that it will lose them business. They fail to address the main reason for the ban which is on health grounds (The health of their bank balance does not qualify). However the prison service and the mental health sectors have reasons which are not so clearly selfish and imo are worthy of some consideration.

I don't think the government is unreasonable here. I think, for once, an irish government is making a decision that will be unpopular but will benifit the country in the long term.

But you said

---

I was answering someone elses views on the subject as well, as in what they thought

---

and you were not. You did not address a single point, opinion or statement that the previous poster had made. Don't muddy the waters with you aparent lack of recall.

Ok I'll rephrase what I meant:
I was responding to the view that the government were some sort of dictatorship by pointing out that the majority of the public are in favour of the ban and that the government were elected by the people to govern them and therefore is hardly a dictatorship.

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
(I'm presuming you're for a compromise by saying this.)
Is this compromise just for certain sectors of the workforce and on why should a compromise be granted to these sectors? The publicans only argument is that it will lose them business. They fail to address the main reason for the ban which is on health grounds (The health of their bank balance does not qualify). However the prison service and the mental health sectors have reasons which are not so clearly selfish and imo are worthy of some consideration.

Yes i am in favour of a compromise. But on a slightly different matter, I would also be in favour of a true public debate of the whole "smoking" argument (and not just here on boards). But as a non-prisoner and compos mentis (I think) individual do I not have a choice aswell. I am a smoker. I like smoking. I know that I am damaging my health. But that is my choice, stupid as it is. Now I am not in favour of damaging other peoples health. So lets have ventilated smoking rooms. Lets not put bars into them. Let the smokers go out for their drinks. I for one, as contradictry as it is, sit in the non-smoking sections when I go for a meal. Not out of concern for my health. But because the atmosphere is better.

You quote the position of Prisons and Menatl Helath institutions. Why is the health of a prison officer or nurse less then that of a bar man? What are the valid reasons?

I don't think the government is unreasonable here.

I do. And I do because I am a smoker who enjoys a pint now and again. I will be reasonable. I will re-locate to a smoking/ventalted area provided by the bar and smoke there.

Ok I'll rephrase what I meant:
I was responding to the view that the government were some sort of dictatorship by pointing out that the majority of the public are in favour of the ban and that the government were elected by the people to govern them and therefore is hardly a dictatorship. [/B]

Ok. Lets leave that at that so.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
But on a slightly different matter, I would also be in favour of a true public debate of the whole "smoking" argument (and not just here on boards).

What do you have in mind? Does such a forum exist?

But as a non-prisoner and compos mentis (I think) individual do I not have a choice aswell.

Of course you do but the choice has changed from "do I want a cig or not" to "do I want ot go outside for a cig or not have one"

So lets have ventilated smoking rooms. Lets not put bars into them. Let the smokers go out for their drinks.

They'll be called beer gardens.

I for one, as contradictry as it is, sit in the non-smoking sections when I go for a meal. Not out of concern for my health. But because the atmosphere is better.

Might the atmosphere not be better in a non-smoking pub as well?

You quote the position of Prisons and Menatl Helath institutions. Why is the health of a prison officer or nurse less then that of a bar man? What are the valid reasons?

I haven't read the details but I assume allowing prisoners to smoke will cause a lot less agro for the prison officers. As for the mental health institutions allowing a nicotine addict to smoke would probably be better for their mental health. Add to that that these groups are confined to their locations so going outside for a cigarette is not an option. Yes there's a problem with staff who work in these locations.

Originally posted by Hobart
So I prefer not to present fact as fact until it has been proven that.

Thats too rigid a stance in my honest opinion.
I'd hope you don't apply it to everything
"Oh I won't eat that, it says it's fat free but It hasn't been tested so it's not a fact.
I'll err on the side of caution and not eat it."

The only solution in my opinion to the problem of passive smoking is a full not a partial solution and that is a complete ban on the presence of a class a carcinogen in an enclosed public space.

mm

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
What do you have in mind? Does such a forum exist?

I think it's called a referendum. And Yes I am being ott here. But seriously the only TD to have any sort of a public debate on this issue has been Michael Martin, on the Late Late. Hardly a modern day debateing chamber now is it?

Of course you do but the choice has changed from "do I want a cig or not" to "do I want ot go outside for a cig or not have one"

That is a choise that I do not want to have to make. Why should I not be allowed to have a cig, inside, just as you can have your beer, inside?

They'll be called beer gardens.

Now you are just being silly.

Might the atmosphere not be better in a non-smoking pub as well?

Your really missing the point here are'nt you? It's about choice.

I haven't read the details but I assume allowing prisoners to smoke will cause a lot less agro for the prison officers.

So by that analagy if enough smokers create enough "agro" with , for example the Guards, well then smokers would, in your own words, have an argument worthy of some consideration.

As for the mental health institutions allowing a nicotine addict to smoke would probably be better for their mental health.

and Again if smokers could prove that continuing to smoke would be better for their "mental" health, it would also, in your words, be worthy of some consideration.

Add to that that these groups are confined to their locations so going outside for a cigarette is not an option.

Prison Yards, Surrounding grounds for mental institutions etc... Thare are options.

Hobart

Originally posted by Man
Thats too rigid a stance in my honest opinion.
I'd hope you don't apply it to everything
"Oh I won't eat that, it says it's fat free but It hasn't been tested so it's not a fact.
I'll err on the side of caution and not eat it."

I don't do fat free . But seriously. I will not accept such a wide sweeping statement such as was referenced as fact. When it is clearly not. It is simply an opinion. And I would except My Yoplaits word of the Imposters' anytime.

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Hobart

Now you are just being silly.
Your really missing the point here are'nt you? It's about choice.

You want the choice to be able to kill people... seems fair.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
I think it's called a referendum. And Yes I am being ott here. But seriously the only TD to have any sort of a public debate on this issue has been Michael Martin, on the Late Late. Hardly a modern day debateing chamber now is it?

Look what they did after the last referendum! And I think it would be a waste of money as the ban seems to have more than enough support, as in it's not even close enough imo, to warrant a referendum. Is it possible to have a referendum on this, from a legal point of view?

That is a choise that I do not want to have to make. Why should I not be allowed to have a cig, inside, just as you can have your beer, inside?

We've already had that argument.

Now you are just being silly.
Your really missing the point here are'nt you? It's about choice.

I'm not being silly or missing the point. The point is about the health of workers and not the choices for smokers.

So by that analagy if enough smokers create enough "agro" with , for example the Guards, well then smokers would, in your own words, have an argument worthy of some consideration. and Again if smokers could prove that continuing to smoke would be better for their "mental" health, it would also, in your words, be worthy of some consideration.

That's what the publicans want. I would say if the smoker who's causng the agro is not able to obey the law then they should be allowed to have a cigarette - if they are allowed - in either a prison or a mental institution, whichever is most appropriate for the offending smoker.

Prison Yards, Surrounding grounds for mental institutions etc... Thare are options.

Yes, they are options. Why isn't a beer garden or pub carpark not a similar option in your view?

Hobart

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
You want the choice to be able to kill people... seems fair.

Like I have stated before. The public environment is a hazardous one. It's people like you making ill informed, and frankly incorrect statements like that, that make a proper and educated debate on this issue almost impossible. I never said that I was pro-smoking. I agree that passive smoking is an issue. That's why I advocate a compromise. Is that not clear from what I have said? Or are you just flaming?

Originally posted by Imposter
Look what they did after the last referendum!

So on that basis we should never have a referendum again? Please!!

And I think it would be a waste of money as the ban seems to have more than enough support, as in it's not even close enough imo, to warrant a referendum.

I will ignore the first part of that statement as the cost of any campaign, for this government, simply ignored the financial impliactions on the public coffers. Now by the figures you dragged up 58% were against. Out of a poll of 1000+. I reckon a margin of between 2% and 4% of error on that and it's close enough. However there was a Question on compromise in that poll you also were keen to link to. 68% in favour. So ok. Lets go with the populous and have a ventilated system in each bar. Everybody happy. Yes?

Is it possible to have a referendum on this, from a legal point of view?

You can only have a referendum, in this country, if you change, or plan to change, the constitution. Legalities have SFA to do with it.

We've already had that argument.

I must have missed that so. Where? When?

I'm not being silly or missing the point. The point is about the health of workers and not the choices for smokers.

So now you are contradicting yourself. You see by your examples it is not about the health of workers. It is about the health of some workers. Prison Officers and Mental Health Personnel do not count, in your world, as there would be too much "aggro" and a deterioration of the mental state of mental health patients by their inability to supplement their addiction to nicotine. So shag them. Let the criminals and mentally suffering poison the lungs of the workers there as there would be too much hassle.

That's what the publicans want.

Stop avaiding the issue and answer my point. I am talkijng about what I want. I am not a publican.

I would say if the smoker who's causng the agro is not able to obey the law then they should be allowed to have a cigarette - if they are allowed - in either a prison or a mental institution, whichever is most appropriate for the offending smoker.

Very droll indeed. Now again stop avaoiding the issue and address the points I have made. If, again by YOUR analagy criminals and mental health patients have "an argument worthy of some consideration" because of "aggro" and the need to supplement ones "addiction" should not everybody be given the same consideration. Now stop semantiscising and answer the questions. They are your words after all.

Yes, they are options. Why isn't a beer garden or pub carpark not a similar option in your view?

Because it is my choice to go into a Pub or Hotel. It is not a prisioners or patients choice, in most circumstances, to incarcerate themselves in their respective institutions.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
It's people like you making ill informed, and frankly incorrect statements like that, that make a proper and educated debate on this issue almost impossible.

I would have said its a willingness by both sides to become highly insulted at the slightest provocation which makes it almost impossible, but thats just me....

If, again by YOUR analagy criminals and mental health patients have "an argument worthy of some consideration" because of "aggro" and the need to supplement ones "addiction" should not everybody be given the same consideration.

You have the freedom to step outside the front door of a pub to have a smoke. Whether you like that choice, or want something else is not the issue - it is a choice you have.

A prisoner or other ward of the state does not have that freedom, so how - exactly - would denying them the right to smoke be giving them "the same consideration" that smokers in pubs are getting?

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
So on that basis we should never have a referendum again? Please!!

I never said that. But you seem to put your trust in a referendum run by this government where IgnatiusJRiley, you and me all have one vote. Yet you obviously think we've got "ill informed" opinions on the issue. :rolleyes:

I will ignore the first part of that statement as the cost of any campaign, for this government, simply ignored the financial impliactions on the public coffers. Now by the figures you dragged up 58% were against. Out of a poll of 1000+. I reckon a margin of between 2% and 4% of error on that and it's close enough. However there was a Question on compromise in that poll you also were keen to link to. 68% in favour. So ok. Lets go with the populous and have a ventilated system in each bar. Everybody happy. Yes?

So what question exactly do you think you'd be answering in such a referendum? My opinion is that it would be "Should smoking be banned in the workplace?"

I must have missed that so. Where? When?

My beer does not damage your health. Your cigarette damages my health. This has been discussed to death and is not concerned with the effect on the health of workers.

So now you are contradicting yourself. You see by your examples it is not about the health of workers. It is about the health of some workers. Prison Officers and Mental Health Personnel do not count, in your world, as there would be too much "aggro" and a deterioration of the mental state of mental health patients by their inability to supplement their addiction to nicotine. So shag them. Let the criminals and mentally suffering poison the lungs of the workers there as there would be too much hassle.

They don't have the same choices as you or I if they want to smoke.

Stop avaiding the issue and answer my point. I am talkijng about what I want. I am not a publican.

Smokers know their options. If they cause agro then the law should be upheld. As i've said prisoners are unlikely to be allowed out to the yard or wherever for a cigarette. I've said it's an issue for prison officers and care workers if there's a compromise in these areas. I don't know how it would be solved and I don't think it's acceptable for these workers to have to work in these conditions. I can see why these groups might get an exception but I cannot see any reason why smokers not in these situations cannot exercise the options they have if they want to smoke. Ok it may inconvenience them slightly but no more than they've done to non-smokers over the years, not that that's the point being discussed.

Because it is my choice to go into a Pub or Hotel. It is not a prisioners or patients choice, in most circumstances, to incarcerate themselves in their respective institutions.

Exactly. So if you want to smoke while drinking, do so at home or in a beer garden which no doubt will be provided for such activities.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
I would have said its a willingness by both sides to become highly insulted at the slightest provocation which makes it almost impossible, but thats just me....

As you said........

You have the freedom to step outside the front door of a pub to have a smoke.

Yes I do. I currently have the choice of standing on my head singing " I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts" and smoking while I am outside that door. But that is no more the point than your "choice" is. I actually enjoy sitting at a table or bar having a pint and a cigarette when and if I want to. I am not saying that it is my "God given right" but I Currently have that right. Now as I have previously said I am willing to compromise. What is being argued here is, based on the data raised by some of those opposed to the argument, is to remove the compromise and go ahead and ban it alltogether.

Whether you like that choice, or want something else is not the issue

I'm sorry JC. It is exactly the issue.

- it is a choice you have.

How is it? If it is the only option? How is it a choice?

A prisoner or other ward of the state does not have that freedom, so how - exactly - would denying them the right to smoke be giving them "the same consideration" that smokers in pubs are getting?

Now you are missing the point. I am trying to make the point, based on the Imposters argument, that if due consideration and flexability is given in other cases well then it should apply across the board. Ban smoking in non-ventelated public bars. I'll vote for that. But give me the option of going to a bar which has a properly ventilated smoking area, where the employees health is not put a risk, and I will then have a choice. As it stands I do not have a suitable choice.

Imposter

I am not saying that it is my "God given right" but I Currently have that right.

Things change. Come next year there's a very large chance you won't have that right.

Ban smoking in non-ventelated public bars. I'll vote for that. But give me the option of going to a bar which has a properly ventilated smoking area, where the employees health is not put a risk, and I will then have a choice. As it stands I do not have a suitable choice.

And therein lies the problem.
Such ventilation systems do not exist (or are not practical in a pub).

You are not happy that you are being inconvenienced is your point no matter how much you go on about choice. You have choices, it's just you don't like the options.

Originally posted by Hobart


How is it? If it is the only option? How is it a choice?

Ah it's a case of turning the tables you see.
Currently the purveyer of carcinogenous passive smoke ie the smoker can walk into a pub and light up.
The non smoker must put up with this or leave.
Making the smoker put out the cigarette or leave seems to me to have the higher moral ground as it's the smoke thats doing the damage not the lack of it when you are told you cannot smoke in a confined public place.

mm

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
I never said that.

Ok. I apologise for inferring that that is what you meant by that statement. Could you therfore clarify what you meant by "Look what they did after the last referendum! ".

But you seem to put your trust in a referendum run by this government where IgnatiusJRiley, you and me all have one vote. Yet you obviously think we've got "ill informed" opinions on the issue. :rolleyes:

I never said I put my trust in any referendum. plesae do not put words into my mouth. I also never said that you opinions were ill-informed. Again. Do not put words into my mouth.

So what question exactly do you think you'd be answering in such a referendum? My opinion is that it would be "Should smoking be banned in the workplace?"

Yes. Aswell as. Should smoking be allowed in properly ventilated areas of public bars and hotels"

My beer does not damage your health. Your cigarette damages my health. This has been discussed to death and is not concerned with the effect on the health of workers.

For the final time, and I am getting tired of repeating myself. The dangers of passive smoking are taken as a given here. OK? Is that now clear?

They don't have the same choices as you or I if they want to smoke.

No they don't. And they are about to be given more than you or I.

As i've said prisoners are unlikely to be allowed out to the yard or wherever for a cigarette.

Where, exactly, did you say that?

I've said it's an issue for prison officers and care workers if there's a compromise in these areas.

No you have not.

I don't know how it would be solved and I don't think it's acceptable for these workers to have to work in these conditions.

and yet

I can see why these groups might get an exception

but I cannot see any reason why smokers not in these situations cannot exercise the options they have if they want to smoke.

What options. Tell me. If a plumber visits my home. DO I have to stop smoking because my home is now his workplace? Should I have to? What about the situation where a raffle ticket seller calls to my door while I am smoking? Should I have to stop then while answering the door? What choices do I have here?

LFCFan

Originally posted by Imposter
Yes I think. But this poll confirms what I think.

How the fcuk do people justify still voting for Fianna Fail? 38% say they'd vote for them. Are the people of Ireland just plain thick? Ok, so people might say, 'sure they're all as bad as each other', or, 'what's the alternative', but the fact of the matter is, FF have proven to us that they are a bunch of lying, cheating, corrupt muppets who couldn't run a piss up in a brewrey whereas any opinion of another government is pure speculation. I'd rather take a chance with a new government then vote back in the gobsh1tes that have continuously lied to us over the past 6 years.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
Could you therfore clarify what you meant by "Look what they did after the last referendum! ".

That was supposed to be taken as meaning that you'd trust a democratic referendum by this government whose opinions you seem to think are fascist. And then pointing out that the last referendum they held had to be done twice because we got the wrong answer the first time.

Yes. Aswell as. Should smoking be allowed in properly ventilated areas of public bars and hotels"

See my comments on ventilation

For the final time, and I am getting tired of repeating myself. The dangers of passive smoking are taken as a given here. OK? Is that now clear?

That's perfectly clear but if you keep bringing up the banning of beer I'll keep bringing this point up.

No they don't. And they are about to be given more than you or I.

Not really. I can't imagine they're allowed in pubs. You're still allowed to smoke in your residence.

Where, exactly, did you say that?

Sorry I didn't but Bonkey did.

No you have not.

Yes I have.

and yet What options. Tell me. If a plumber visits my home. DO I have to stop smoking because my home is now his workplace? Should I have to? What about the situation where a raffle ticket seller calls to my door while I am smoking? Should I have to stop then while answering the door? What choices do I have here?

Good questions, I don't know. It seems to me that a compromise in situations needs to be found in cases when people live where others work. What those compromises could/should be I don't know.

Originally posted by Hobart
If a plumber visits my home. DO I have to stop smoking because my home is now his workplace?

There is a big difference you know between a plumber who is doing a once off job in your house and a bar worker who is 8 hours a day in a smoky environment.
Or maybe your house needs daily plumbing attention

Should I have to? What about the situation where a raffle ticket seller calls to my door while I am smoking? Should I have to stop then while answering the door? What choices do I have here?

Again the ticket seller is not constantly in your house is he?? and if he is I'm surprised you have any money at all left for drink or cigarettes
You must be very charitable/generous- kudos

mm

Cork

Publicans need to abide by the laws - if they cannot do this - their licences should be revoked - subject to all due process.

Withhold tax, vat and not enforcing the law needs to be met head on by the relevant authorities.

Lemming

Originally posted by Hobart
I also never said that you opinions were ill-informed. Again. Do not put words into my mouth.

yes you did. You implied it by a thinly veiled insult

Yes. Aswell as. Should smoking be allowed in properly ventilated areas of public bars and hotels"

Define "properly ventilated areas". Here's part of the problem. I'm sure the publicans will have a VERY different view of what's "proper" to you or I. So who decides what's "proper". If the publicans don't, then they'll be bleating on about how it's unfair on them, etc, etc ad finitum ad nauseum

For the final time, and I am getting tired of repeating myself. The dangers of passive smoking are taken as a given here. OK? Is that now clear?

Well .. one "minor" problem with your stance is that the reason for the ban is because of the above fact. Not because someone wants to tell you you can't smoke in a pub.

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
That was supposed to be taken as meaning that you'd trust a democratic referendum by this government whose opinions you seem to think are fascist.

Look. You are either mis-reading what I am typing, or, you simply are choosing to ignore what I am saying. I have said that a referendum cannot and will not happen on this issue (ott remember??). Because it is not a constitutional issue. I never said nor agreed that the Government was facist either. I did, however, agree with Pro when he said that this policy was a facist one. And I still do. Again. Stop putting words into my mouth.

And then pointing out that the last referendum they held had to be done twice because we got the wrong answer the first time.

see above comments for clarification.

See my comments on ventilation

Again. Not true. Modern ventilation systems have the capacity to change air up 12 times an hour. The governments own "study" was based on equipment dating back to 1995 where the capacity was once an hour.

Not really. I can't imagine they're allowed in pubs. You're still allowed to smoke in your residence.

Is that not to be seen yet? Have my examples not cast doubt on that?

Sorry I didn't but Bonkey did.

I now. It seems you have an issue with not only reading what I wrote but also what you have written yourself :rolleyes:

Good questions, I don't know. It seems to me that a compromise in situations needs to be found in cases when people live where others work. What those compromises could/should be I don't know.

Yes you don't know. And there has been no provision in the paper that was signed this week for that. Roll on the litigation.

Originally posted by Man
There is a big difference you know between a plumber who is doing a once off job in your house and a bar worker who is 8 hours a day in a smoky environment.
Or maybe your house needs daily plumbing attention

What if that plumber does 4 jobs of 1 hour in 4 smokey houses a day? Exactly how much passive smoking does this law allow for?

Again the ticket seller is not constantly in your house is he?? and if he is I'm surprised you have any money at all left for drink or cigarettes
You must be very charitable/generous- kudos

mm

Again very droll. But see above comment for clarification

Hobart

Originally posted by Lemming
yes you did.

Eh. No I did not. And I will quote myself here "Like I have stated before. The public environment is a hazardous one. It's people like you making ill informed, and frankly incorrect statements like that, that make a proper and educated debate on this issue almost impossible. " That was in reply to a statement by IgnatiusJRiley. Could you point out where I said that The Imposters opinions where ill-informed? I

Define "properly ventilated areas".

An area where the Air purity is as good inside as it is outside.

Here's part of the problem. I'm sure the publicans will have a VERY different view of what's "proper" to you or I. So who decides what's "proper". If the publicans don't, then they'll be bleating on about how it's unfair on them, etc, etc ad finitum ad nauseum

Ventilation experts.

Well .. one "minor" problem with your stance is that the reason for the ban is because of the above fact. Not because someone wants to tell you you can't smoke in a pub.

Put a ventilation system in then.

**EDIT** Ah!!! Lemming. Just not quick enough on the ol' edit there. Or maybe I was too quick to quote you. Here's a hint. read what I post before you decide to comment on it. ok? Now I "implied" it did I? . If by me saying that one posters opinion is ill-informed is considered an insult, well then we better get the armour out for our very thinly covered bodies. Really lame actually **EDIT**

The Saint

Again. Not true. Modern ventilation systems have the capacity to change air up 12 times an hour. The governments own "study" was based on equipment dating back to 1995 where the capacity was once an hour.

But this is still not adequate and does not fully eradicate the carcinogens from the air therefore. If someone is sitting next to me smoking I can guarantee that much of that smoke will end up in my lungs regardless of ventilation.

As for the smoking only rooms; who is going to go into these rooms to collect glasses, clean tables, sweep the floor, empty ashtrays? Employees are going to have to enter these rooms at some point unless you want to be left to wallow in your own filth.

Hobart

Originally posted by The Saint
But this is still not adequate and does not fully eradicate the carcinogens from the air therefore. If someone is sitting next to me smoking I can guarantee that much of that smoke will end up in my lungs regardless of ventilation.

But you are never going to fully erradicate carcinogens from the air. Never. Would it be acceptable to you if the air-quality was as good inside as it is outside?

I talking about having these systems in a segregated room. i.e. a smokers room. If non-smokers are in there they are there by choice.

As for the smoking only rooms; who is going to go into these rooms to collect glasses, clean tables, sweep the floor, empty ashtrays? Employees are going to have to enter these rooms at some point unless you want to be left to wallow in your own filth.

Employees, of course. But I have already stated that these rooms should not have a bar so therefore, there should not be a "constant" environment smoke for employees to work in. Maybe they should introduce a system whereby the smokers bring thier own glasses out. Ventilate the room. Then let the employees clean it.

The Saint

None of these points adequately address my point. Even with ventilation I and employees will still have to breath in other peoples smoke regardless of ventilation.

As for you other point, do you really think people will clean up after thamselves in a pub and do you think that a room in a pub needs to be cleaned only once a day. Its no where near feasable.

Hobbes

Can someone explain to me how the smoking ban is unenforcable?

I buy a bottle of whiskey in a local shop then go into any of my local pubs and whip it out and drink it.. they throw me out.

How is smoking any different? If they can't enforce the ban in thier pub then basically they are saying the can't enforce anything?

The Saint

I heard the same analogy on the radio but saying that if a publican saw you whipping out a sandwich you bought in the shop and started eating it in the pub them I'm sure they'd have few qualms about chucking you out. If publicans cannot enforce what goes on in their place of business then they shouldnt be in the job. Can you imagine a foreman on a building site saying that? The place would be shut down within hours.