"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.