Proposed Compromises on smoking in the workplace

flogen

I understand that the actual ban is being discussed elsewhere, however lets have a look at the proposed compromises that the VFI have put forward, along with others.

Firstly I am a non-smoker and 100% for the ban. It may seem silly to force someone not to do something that is not illegal, however I think this is out weighed by the current situation of forcing non-smokers and more importantly workers to put up with smokey pubs etc for someone elses pleasure.

Anyway. Ill run through afew of the ideas that ive heard, feel free to add others, and discuss their usefulness.

1) to split pubs into two groups, non-smoking and smoking... so 50% of pubs in dublin are smoke free etc...
now this is stupid. really it is. firstly it means that a group of people who are mixed smokers and non-smokers have to either split on a night out or else someone has to give in, either the smokers or the non-smokers. however, more importantly there are still 50% of pub workers who are forced into putting up with a smokey pub, thus the health issue is lost.
also, who decides what pub is smoking and what is nonsmoking?

2) physically splitting a pub into smoking and nonsmoking areas.
Now the practical side of this is hard to figure. alot of pubs in ireland do not have the size or area to do this, they might be too small or designed in a perticular way that a wall cant just be slapped in the middle. also, once again groups of friends are forced to choose where to sit, smoking or non-smoking areas.
so lets say they sit in non-smoking and the smokers leave every now and again to have a quick fag. fair enough, thats that solved. however, the workers, yet again, suffer. they have to perhaps work in the smoking section. even with no bar, theyd have to clear glasses etc.... and lets not forget empty ashtrays.

3) Ventalation units for pubs.
probably the best compromise so far, but still very poor in my view. firstly, i dont know just how good these units will be, but from living with 3 smokers id imagine theyd have to be damn powerful to clear a room of ten maybe 100 times that amount of smoke. Also, yet again it might be a physical nightmare, as alot of pubs wouldnt be built to accomidate the units. to be honest, id be surprised if this was to work at all, i doubt ventalation is the answer

4) Stop smoking with x feet of the bar
This is the stupidest idea ever... it really is, stupider than point 1. firstly, smoke travels. its a gas, which disperces and floats freely in the air. so, you can smoke at the other end of the building and it wont take long for it to get to the other side. also, this, once again defeats the purpose of the ban. the workers dont stand behind the bar all night, they have to collect glasses, thus forcing them to walk through the smokey areas anyway.

thats All i can think of so far, but Im sure theres more, so put them up and discuss them, tell us what you think, also, give some feedback on my four, tell me if you think im wrong (and why) or if you have something to add to it.

Flogen

Éomer of Rohan

I can't just see why they don't ban the whole lot outright apart from the obvious massive loss of revenue. They banned opium after all...

bonkey

Originally posted by flogen
I understand that the actual ban is being discussed elsewhere, however lets have a look at the proposed compromises that the VFI have put forward, along with others.

I'm not entirely sure that this is a politics-relevant thread. It seems more appropriate for humanities.

I'll leave it where it is for now....

Oh, and while it does remain here....woe-betide anyone who thinks that this is yet another thread to hijack and turn into the same ol' "the ban is wrong/right" punch-n-judy show.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Oh, and while it does remain here....woe-betide anyone who thinks that this is yet another thread to hijack and turn into the same ol' "the ban is wrong/right" punch-n-judy show.

jc

How else would you expect this subject to be debated without the need to question the validity of the ban?

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
How else would you expect this subject to be debated without the need to question the validity of the ban?

Well, you tell me how you can suggest an alternative whilst saying the ban is the right way to go, and I'll be very impressed.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, you tell me how you can suggest an alternative whilst saying the ban is the right way to go, and I'll be very impressed.

jc

I'm sorry. And maybe I'm having a slow day here. But I do not understand what you mean.

1) My undersatnding is that the thread was started to debate proposed compromises to the banning of smoking in the workplace.

2) You are willing to let it sit, aslong as it does not spiral into a debate on the rights or wrongs of the banning.

My question is that, bearing in mind how contentious this issue is, how can one have a debate on the compromise (proposed as it is) without questioning the valadity of the ban in the firat place? I simply don't think you can have a discussio on one (non-existent) facade of the legislation without debateing the issue in it's entirity.

Anyhow, seems like a flogging to nothing for anti-ban ppl.

Originally posted by Hobart

Anyhow, seems like a flogging to nothing for anti-ban ppl.

I wouldn't think so, I'd see it rather as an opportunity to debate the benefits if any of the various possible comprimise solutions vis a vis a ban.
I'd imagine if a poster is arguing for a comprimise solution then they are against the ban.
The ban is clearcut in it's medical implications in that , no cigarette smoke means no innocent inhalation of it and therefore no harm is done to their lungs.
But are the various compromises as clear cut , and its that which seems to be up for examination here.
And What reasons if any should supercede the value of a non smokers health assuming that comprimise couldn't be as clearcut as a total ban in terms of it's effectiveness and results.

What is the purpose of a ban for instance, is it to take command for peoples overall good? whereas in a comprimise situation it would be left up to individuals to go with whichever is the strongest group and stay in the non smoking or smoking room.

If they do the latter, it dilutes the effect of any compromise healthwise albeit with the consent of the non smoker.
I doubt if we'd see bouncers on the door of the smoking rooms for instance checking for proof that all who enter were smokers.
In that case the cigarette manufacturers are laughing and the lung cancer doctors are still busy .
It would be better but not much and certainly not as beneficial as a total stop to enviromental tobacco smoke.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
I'm sorry. And maybe I'm having a slow day here. But I do not understand what you mean. .

OK...Yeah

The purpose of this thread is to discuss alternatives to the ban.

It is not to dicsuss :

1) Whether or not the ban is the right method. If it was, then there is no need for an alternative.

2) Whether or not something should be done at all. If that was the issue, then we wouldn't be discussing alternatives to the ban, but rather whether or not we should be changing anything.

1) My undersatnding is that the thread was started to debate proposed compromises to the banning of smoking in the workplace.

Correct.

bearing in mind how contentious this issue is, how can one have a debate on the compromise (proposed as it is) without questioning the valadity of the ban in the firat place?

To put it simply - start from an assumption that the government are making a change to the law, based on an attempt to make the application and enforcement of our health-and-safety laws more equitable. Now, suggest an alternate way in which this may be done which would be preferable (in your opinion) to the incumbent legislation, and explain why its a better and/or more practical solution.

Its not hard. If you still don't understand - or if anyone else doesn't understand - then read the very first line of the very first post. If you still don't get it, then PM me rather than posting here.

jc

Imposter

I agree with flogen on the VFI "compromises". They seem a lot more like damage limitation from a publicans point of view than a realistic compromise.

The compromise with regard to the prisons and mental health institutions is the one I find interesting. While I agree that the health of a prison guard or care workers are just as important as those of barstaff and everyone else I can't help but think that allowing the prisoners and patients to smoke is a good idea from the point of view of probably helping the mental state of the patient and from causing less agro in the case of the prison guards.

But looking at this compromise from the point of view of the main reasons behind the ban then there's no way it should be allowed. Looking at it from the point of view if the prisoner or patient then they aren't allowed to smoke at all as these locations are where they live and are generally never allowed out of.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to allow people to smoke in an environment where they live, provided nobody else objected. This would also work in the case of a smoker who needed a contractor to do work on their house.

In the case of the prisons and health institutions this might mean seperate smoking and non-smoking locations (entire sites or buildings at least) and in the case of contractors and the likes, a list of contractors who are prepared to put up with smoke in the workplace (provided that workplace is a residence) may be needed.

Hobart

I believe that any compromise will lead to litigation. If we are to allow smoking on the basis of aggro and (or) on the basis of mental health it will lead to litigation. Therefore ther should be no compromise and the status quo should be kept.

Imposter

This litigation you speak of, baring in mind what I say below, on what grounds?

If the compromise was that smoking was allowed in locations where people lived and also on the grounds that anyone attending this location on work related business knew beforehand there was a likelyhood of smoke.

Also anyone being incarcerated, such as prisoners and mental health patients had the choice of a smoking or no-smoking building. (Maybe family members or doctors get the choice in the case of the mental patient).

Hobart

Well then. If the Government allowed mental institutions to be outside of the ban on the basis that it would be "helping the mental state of the patient", well then I am sure that the Tobacco lobby or the VFI could present a case whereby it could be proven that it not only helps the mental state of those incarcerated, due to ill health, but also to smokers in general, as I believe, that nicotine affects the brains of us all and not just those incarcerated.

Imposter

But those who are incarcerated are in effect been banned from smoking whereas other smokers have an option open to them that would allow them to smoke under certain conditions (outside for example, in the case of a pub environment).

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
But those who are incarcerated are in effect been banned from smoking whereas other smokers have an option open to them that would allow them to smoke under certain conditions (outside for example, in the case of a pub environment).

Thats' all very fine. But that is not what you said. I won't repeat what you did say as it is up there for all to see. That's why I cited the litigation.


I am also sure that the "incarceration"/"aggro" defence is a weak one. It's not as if it's not the prisioners fault. I can eat when I want. Those locked up in Mental Institutions and Prisions cannot. However I do not see a case been brought before the courts by a prisioner demanding to be let shop for a Big Mac because I have the opportunity and he/she does not.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
Thats' all very fine. But that is not what you said. I won't repeat what you did say as it is up there for all to see. That's why I cited the litigation.

Then what exactly does this mean to you:

Looking at it from the point of view if the prisoner or patient then they aren't allowed to smoke at all as these locations are where they live and are generally never allowed out of.

I really don't want ot get into (another) 'discussion' with you about what I did and didn't say but I think we both get the main gist of each others points. Let's discuss the points and not tell each other what the other was thinking unless it's clear they've got conflicting opinions (with themselves).

Hobart

I no issue with that. But To be perfectly honest you cited grounds of "Mental Health". I addressed them. Then you "moved the goalposts by clarifying the "incarceration" element in a subsequent point. I have re-read your original post and I find your 3rd paragraph illegible and have no idea what you are trying to convey. (BTW this is not meant as an insult. I really have no idea what you are trying to say)

However I have addressed both points. You have not addressed mine.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I can't just see why they don't ban the whole lot outright apart from the obvious massive loss of revenue. They banned opium after all...

Quite possibly because the already large blackmarket industry of cigerette smuggling would explode to meet demand - having the effect of further financing the provos and drug smugglers, by the way.

Imposter

But looking at this compromise from the point of view of the main reasons behind the ban then there's no way it should be allowed. Looking at it from the point of view if the prisoner or patient then they aren't allowed to smoke at all as these locations are where they live and are generally never allowed out of.

(I presume this is the paragraph)
What I meant: (I hope this is clearer)
If you are looking at allowing a compromise from the point of view of a workers health, which is the main reason for the ban in the first place then allowing prisoners and mental health patients to smoke would not be acceptable, as those working there would be exposed to the smoke.

Looking at it from the smokers point of view it effectively means they're banned from smoking and that imo isn't right either. This may also apply to people in old folks homes and the like.

I am also sure that the "incarceration"/"aggro" defence is a weak one. It's not as if it's not the prisioners fault. I can eat when I want. Those locked up in Mental Institutions and Prisions cannot. However I do not see a case been brought before the courts by a prisioner demanding to be let shop for a Big Mac because I have the opportunity and he/she does not.

Incarceration maybe is a weak defense. I agree with you that prisoners do not (and should not) have the same rights as people who are not in prison. However it is still their home and I feel a case can be made for allowing smoking in this case. As far as the extra agro such a ban might generate is concerned then I dunno. That would probably be best discussed with the prison guards in terms of what they think.

As for mental institutions are concerned I don't think it's as clearcut. Again consultation with the relevant doctors or whatever would probably be best.

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
(I presume this is the paragraph)
What I meant: (I hope this is clearer)

Yep. It was and thanks for the clarification.

If you are looking at allowing a compromise from the point of view of a workers health, which is the main reason for the ban in the first place then allowing prisoners and mental health patients to smoke would not be acceptable, as those working there would be exposed to the smoke.

I agree, within the current politically motivated confines of this bill.

Looking at it from the smokers point of view it effectively means they're banned from smoking and that imo isn't right either. This may also apply to people in old folks homes and the like.

I disagree. It does not mean that they are effectively banned from smoking. It means, that like us, they are banned from smoking in certain areas. They are prisioners. I am not. Thats just their hard luck. you do the crime, you do................etc..

Incarceration maybe is a weak defense. I agree with you that prisoners do not (and should not) have the same rights as people who are not in prison.

It is. And they do not and should not have the same rights as me or you.

However it is still their home and I feel a case can be made for allowing smoking in this case.

It is not their home. It is where they are incarcerated. Big difference. It is somebodies workplace. My home is not anybodys workplace.

As far as the extra agro such a ban might generate is concerned then I dunno. That would probably be best discussed with the prison guards in terms of what they think.

No bullyboy tactivs should be allowed. Irrespective of what the prision guards think.

As for mental institutions are concerned I don't think it's as clearcut. Again consultation with the relevant doctors or whatever would probably be best.

Why is it not clearcut? I believe that smoking is not allowed on the wards as it stands. Exteding that to the complete interns of the building should not be an issue.

flogen

imposter makes a good point about smoking in houses, i agree with that, but it would have to be carefully worded as pubs are often also houses.

As for prisons, I think that everyone has the right to smoke or not smoke, but at the same time everyone has the right to work in a smoke free enviroment. Unlike you or me, prisoners cannot go outside for a cigarette, and so they have less freedom. Id expect there to be some kind of outdoor area on the prison grounds for them to smoke, it wouldnt be hard to do.
In hospitals however, you cannot expect sick people to sit outside just to smoke, but I cant think of an equal and fair way to combat this.. but lets remember that hospitals and alot of OF homes are smoke free anyway, for the well being of the nonsmoking sick/elderly.

finally

However I do not see a case been brought before the courts by a prisioner demanding to be let shop for a Big Mac because I have the opportunity and he/she does not.

Hobart, what the hell are you talking about? the point of imposter (i gather) is that they cant go outside to smoke like you can, and so an acception must be made for them... like the one above which will not effect workers. prisoners are not being banned from eating, they still do that enough to cure their needs, maybe i misunderstand what your getting at here.

Flogen

sceptre

Originally posted by Hobart
It is not their home. It is where they are incarcerated.

In a legal sense, it's where they reside. Hence it's their home.

Hobart

Less of the soundbites and more of the facts. What has the fact that they reside in a prison have any "legal" influence on what thier home is or not? And what has legalities got to do with where they reside?

Hobart

Originally posted by flogen
I think that everyone has the right to smoke or not smoke,

What do you mean by that? Why should it be a right? Hardly ranks on the scale when compared to the right to education or the right to freedom of speech? SO please expand.

at the same time everyone has the right to work in a smoke free enviroment.

Slight contradiction with the previous point you raised. Maybe you should re-phrase your original point by saying "the right to smoke in certain areas".

Unlike you or me, prisoners cannot go outside for a cigarette,

Yes they can.

and so they have less freedom.

Is this not the idea of prison?? Yes with all the rehab, punishment etc..... But still??

Id expect there to be some kind of outdoor area on the prison grounds for them to smoke, it wouldnt be hard to do.

There is. What is your point?

In hospitals however, you cannot expect sick people to sit outside just to smoke,

Why not? Should they further sicken sick people by smoking in the wards where sick people reside? I'm fairly sure that it is already against the law to smoke on a hospital ward.

but I cant think of an equal and fair way to combat this..

Ban it.

but lets remember that hospitals and alot of OF homes are smoke free anyway, for the well being of the nonsmoking sick/elderly.

you seem to be going around in circles

Hobart, what the hell are you talking about? the point of imposter (i gather) is that they cant go outside to smoke like you can, and so an acception must be made for them... like the one above which will not effect workers. prisoners are not being banned from eating, they still do that enough to cure their needs, maybe i misunderstand what your getting at here.

I'm sure you mean exception. I have no inclination to further explain what I meant. Simply put. Prisioners are in prison for a reason. I do not see a situation whereby we should make a special case for prisioners because they are in prision.

Imposter

Originally posted by Hobart
Why is it not clearcut? I believe that smoking is not allowed on the wards as it stands. Exteding that to the complete interns of the building should not be an issue.

That is true, but that does not consider the effects on patients that are addicted to smoking. If these patients are unable to go outside for whatever reason then it could have a negative effect on their already compromised mental health. In this case it may be better for the patient to allow them to smoke.

Originally posted by Flogen
imposter makes a good point about smoking in houses, i agree with that, but it would have to be carefully worded as pubs are often also houses.

To an extent yes, pubs are occasionally part of the publicans house, but they always afaik are split into public and private areas. How many pubs do people know of that the customer can wander in and have a look in the publican's fridge, or go sit in his living room watching his telly? A residence is usually private and a public house is public even though they may be connected in some way.

Hobart

Originally posted by Imposter
That is true, but that does not consider the effects on patients that are addicted to smoking.

Why should it? I don't know of any current exceptions to this rule. AFAIK No smoking is allowed on wards in Hospitals. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt it. I know some hospitals have smoking rooms. These will have to be closed, if the law comes into effect. And the smokers, who previously could make it down to the smoking room will have to go the extra yard (Pun intented) and smoke outdside.

If these patients are unable to go outside for whatever reason then it could have a negative effect on their already compromised mental health.

I explained my reasons why the whole mental health thing would not work. It still stands.

To an extent yes, pubs are occasionally part of the publicans house, but they always afaik are split into public and private areas.

They are. But not in the eyes of the law. The law prohibits the private areas of a "family House" being private (in terms of a Pub), and allows Guards full access to those areas, to prohibit flauting of the licencing laws. It means that a publican living on his/her premises cannot throw a "private" party, on the premises and claim that because it was in his "living" quarters, it was a private party and not in contravention of the licencing laws. Again this is a grey area in relation to the smoking ban, as in theory, some publicans could be banned from smoking in their own homes.

How many pubs do people know of that the customer can wander in and have a look in the publican's fridge, or go sit in his living room watching his telly?

None???? But what is your point here? I cannot wander behind the counter of the bar either. Why would you want to?

A residence is usually private and a public house is public even though they may be connected in some way.

Not true.

Originally posted by Hobart
Why should it? I don't know of any current exceptions to this rule. AFAIK No smoking is allowed on wards in Hospitals. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt it. I know some hospitals have smoking rooms. These will have to be closed, if the law comes into effect. And the smokers, who previously could make it down to the smoking room will have to go the extra yard (Pun intented) and smoke outdside. I explained my reasons why the whole mental health thing would not work. It still stands.

For years,you can see patients in dressing gowns outside the main door of st Vincents in Dublin smoking, so certainly there, many are already going the extra yard .

mm

Hobart

Originally posted by Man
For years,you can see patients in dressing gowns outside the main door of st Vincents in Dublin smoking, so certainly there, many are already going the extra yard .

mm

My local hospital inJames Connolly Memorial. And they have smoking rooms in them. So I would suspect that they will be closed.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Moriarty
Quite possibly because the already large blackmarket industry of cigerette smuggling would explode to meet demand - having the effect of further financing the provos and drug smugglers, by the way.

Not a good enough reason Moriarty, and one the pols simply couldn't make -- it would be an open admission that they couldn't control crime.

I'm a smoker by the way. I'm going to the pub tonight. And I'm going to smoke.

adam

rubadub

nonsmoking areas are like nonpissing areas in a swimming pool an absurd idea. ventilation removes smoke particles but not toxic gases, your clothes wont smell but you still get cancer.

the only half decent (but still flawed) comprimise i heard was the idea of vastly higher tax in smoking pubs and far lower tax in non smoking pubs. there has to be a price point where some smokers would go to the nonsmoking pub and stand outside to get cheaper pints. would any smokers care to say what price would change them? you would need to offset price in both directions so the government would still get the same revenue which would be very hard to calculate. say the pubs split 50/50 and sold the same amount each night so a pint that is €4 now is upped to €6 in the smoking pub and €2 in the nonsmoking, would the smokers still go the the smoking pub? the nonsmoking friends of the group would have a good reason to argue to go to a far cheaper pub.
nonsmoking pubs were opened and failed, i think mainly because the nonsmoking friends of the group saw asking their smoking friends to go and smoke outside as more of an inconvenience than was caused to them having to sit in a smokey room (still doesnt mean they dont want nonsmoking in ALL pubs)

employees in smoking pubs should be paid more accordingly, but would this happen? they should be getting "danger money" at the moment so some would argue the nonsmoking pub employees should be paid less than at the moment. it like having 50/50 "non-safety harness" building sites. without having to pay for saftey harnesses they can make a higher profit which should be passed onto the builders who could choose where to work. i cant see employers doing it of their own accord though.

Hobart

Originally posted by rubadub
nonsmoking areas are like nonpissing areas in a swimming pool an absurd idea. ventilation removes smoke particles but not toxic gases, your clothes wont smell but you still get cancer.

Nice analagy. Why can't we have pissing pools and non-pissing pools?

the only half decent (but still flawed) comprimise i heard was the idea of vastly higher tax in smoking pubs and far lower tax in non smoking pubs. there has to be a price point where some smokers would go to the nonsmoking pub and stand outside to get cheaper pints.

Flawed. You said it.

would any smokers care to say what price would change them?

None. I would go to the non-smoking pub. And watch acroos the street as the smoking pub closed it doors due to lack of business.Silly idea actually.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Hobart
I would go to the non-smoking pub. And watch acroos the street as the smoking pub closed it doors due to lack of business.Silly idea actually.

Silly statement.

adam

Hobart

Originally posted by dahamsta
Silly statement.

adam

Why is it silly? Do you actually believe that a pub charging 3 times the price for beer would survive? :rolleyes:

dahamsta

My apologies Hobart, I didn't get a full whack of the silliness you were responding to.

adam

flogen

Hobart, are you for the ban of against it?
the fact is, as imposter pointed out, many people who are smoking for a long time (all their lives) are so addicted that if they were to stop smoking they run the risk of their bodies going into shock which they cannot handle. And prisoners are there for a reason, but they still have basic rights and privelages. they have the right to smoke, just like you, but should only have that right when it does not effect others adversly. You cannot deny someone their rights just because they are prisoners, thats what Amnesty petitions about. But as i said, just like all rights and priveleges, they have a price. if you want to smoke you can do so, but not at the detrement of others just like if you want express an opinion you can do so but not at the expense of an ethnic group or a race.

What has the fact that they reside in a prison have any "legal" influence on what thier home is or not

alot actually, as your residence is legally your home

I have no inclination to further explain what I meant

why not? this is a discussion after all and your refusal to explain a point only damages your case more.

What do you mean by that?

I mean that every person has the right to choose whether they smoke or not. it is your right as a citizen of a democracy where smoking is legal. however, i think that you should not be allowed to infringe on the rights of others who chose not to smoke, which is what this ban is doing.

quote:

---

Unlike you or me, prisoners cannot go outside for a cigarette,

---

Yes they can.

not in the same way you can leave a pub. Ive already addressed the point that prisons can cater for smokers with an outdoor area on premisis. my point was it is not as easy for them to leave the wardens workplace as it is for you to leave a barmans workplace.

to be honest Hobart you seem to be in a bit of a bind yourself. your against the ban, however you want to see ciggarettes banned totally

quote:

---

but I cant think of an equal and fair way to combat this..

---

Ban it.

You are saying that as a prisoner you should be refused a basic (if not world changing) right.
You say that sick and elderly people shouldnt be allowed their basic right to smoke when the ban comes in, however you will have the ability to smoke outside a pub, at home, i your car. do you consider this fair??

finally:

What do you mean by that? Why should it be a right? Hardly ranks on the scale when compared to the right to education or the right to freedom of speech? SO please expand.

I never said it was a vitally important right, but its a right nonetheless. it doesnt compare to most rights, nor is it on the UN human rights charter, however it is a freedom of choice to take part in a legal 'activity'. But i have the right to a healthy living and a freedom to work in a safe and healthy place.

I may be repeating myself hobart, but thats just because you are too ignorant to recognise my point.

Flogen

Oh, and lets hope this now goes back on topic

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
Do you actually believe that a pub charging 3 times the price for beer would survive? :rolleyes:

Now hold on a sec...

the argument for compromise is generally along the lines that smokers should have the right to choose. This compromise would give them that right. It would give all of us that right, and then ask us to pay accordingly.

What you are in fact saying is that such a compromise would be untenable because money for pints is more important than smoking is to smokers, or that standing outside a pub to smoke is preferable to paying extra for the privilege of smoking in the pub.

Now, if thats their choice, then thats their choice. However, just because they would choose not to make use of the smoking pubs does not automatically make it a silly suggestion. Its a compromise. It leaves the choice available to the smoker. Its what they've been asking for - an alternative. So why is it silly?

Its strange, if this is so silly an idea, that raising the price of cigarettes hasn't deterred more people from smoking (or made them smoke significantly less). Apparently, smokers are willing to pay vast amounts of money to smoke, but asking them to pay more to smoke in a pub is all of a sudden "silly". Why?

Note - I'm not saying that this is a good or bad idea. I'm just pointing out that simply dismissing an idea out of hand as silly, or irrelevant, without explaining why (as you have been wont to do in your last chunk of posts) with more than a single throwaway comment would seem to be heading away from the "Less of the soundbites and more of the facts" idea that you were asking for earlier.

So please...Less of the soundbites, and more of the facts.

What is silly about offering this compromise solution? All the evidence points to the Irish being willing to pay inordinate amounts for our beer and our smokes. WHy is asking people to pay more a silly idea? If we were just in it to save money, we'd never go to the pub or smoke in the first place.

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by flogen
[...] many people who are smoking for a long time (all their lives) are so addicted that if they were to stop smoking they run the risk of their bodies going into shock which they cannot handle.

Oh, please. You don't seriously believe this, do you?

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
So why is it silly?

Well I think it's silly. It doesn't address the main reason for the ban in the first place which is the health of workers. Ok any worker that works in such a pub would know it was a smoking pub but all barstaff know this already of their current workplaces. Would this "danger-pay" lead to more people wanting to work in these pubs compared to non-smoking pubs?

How it would be implemented is another problem. Who gets to have a smoking and who gets to have non-smoking bars? Would the publican's abuse the idea by taking less margins in such pubs and more in non-smoking pubs?

Also would that mean that all workplaces could become smoking or non-smoking if say they were allowed to vary the wages to suit this status or charge more for their products or services? If not then surely it's discriminating against these companies.

I think such a compromise would undo all the work that has currently been done in trying to get people to stop smoking and making workplaces more bearable for those who wish to work in a smoke-free environment.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Now hold on a sec...

the argument for compromise is generally along the lines that smokers should have the right to choose. This compromise would give them that right. It would give all of us that right, and then ask us to pay accordingly.

But you are quoting simple economics in a situation which will never happen. It won't happen. Full stop. Yes I am for compromise. But a compromise which will work.

What you are in fact saying is that such a compromise would be untenable because money for pints is more important than smoking is to smokers, or that standing outside a pub to smoke is preferable to paying extra for the privilege of smoking in the pub.

in the ludicrous example above, Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

Now, if thats their choice, then thats their choice. However, just because they would choose not to make use of the smoking pubs does not automatically make it a silly suggestion.

€2 pint versus €6 pint. Silly suggestion.

Its a compromise. It leaves the choice available to the smoker. Its what they've been asking for - an alternative. So why is it silly?

See above.

Its strange, if this is so silly an idea, that raising the price of cigarettes hasn't deterred more people from smoking (or made them smoke significantly less). Apparently, smokers are willing to pay vast amounts of money to smoke, but asking them to pay more to smoke in a pub is all of a sudden "silly". Why?

Again see above. Really. €2 versus €6. A silly suggestion.

Note - I'm not saying that this is a good or bad idea. I'm just pointing out that simply dismissing an idea out of hand as silly, or irrelevant, without explaining why (as you have been wont to do in your last chunk of posts) with more than a single throwaway comment would seem to be heading away from the "Less of the soundbites and more of the facts" idea that you were asking for earlier.

I still say it is silly. And, while your at it, please show me where I did not address a point or dismiss it out of hand. If you have not got the common sense to see that a bar charging 3times the price for the same product would have a very short lifespan, and no I am no economist btw, well then I give up. I thought I clrified this when I said

None. I would go to the non-smoking pub. And watch acroos the street as the smoking pub closed it doors due to lack of business.Silly idea actually.

So please...Less of the soundbites, and more of the facts.

Maybe you should re-think what you have posted. Or, maybe you should show me where this "gap in the market" is.

What is silly about offering this compromise solution? All the evidence points to the Irish being willing to pay inordinate amounts for our beer and our smokes. WHy is asking people to pay more a silly idea? If we were just in it to save money, we'd never go to the pub or smoke in the first place.

One word. Economics.

rubadub

Originally posted by Hobart
Nice analagy. Why can't we have pissing pools and non-pissing pools?

i dont see any reason not to. though i would predict the pissing pools would get no business. just as many predicted a nonsmoking pub would get no business

Originally posted by Hobart
Flawed. You said it. None. I would go to the non-smoking pub. And watch acroos the street as the smoking pub closed it doors due to lack of business.Silly idea actually.

flawed yes but i still think it is less "silly" than the other suggestions.

i said before there has to be a price point where some smokers would go to the nonsmoking pub and stand outside to get cheaper pints. would any smokers care to say what price would change them?

you have answered this by saying it is "silly". i presume you smoke (if you dont smoke maybe you dont realise how far people will go to feed their habit for the most addictive substance on the planet) and you wouldnt pay €6 in the smoking pub if €2 across the road so how much would you pay extra? what about €5 instead of €3 4.50/3.50?

Hobart

Originally posted by flogen
Hobart, are you for the ban of against it?

I'm for compromise. But a workable one. I understand that non-smokers and employees have very real and genuine concerns in relation to passive smoking that have been too long over looked.

the fact is, as imposter pointed out, many people who are smoking for a long time (all their lives) are so addicted that if they were to stop smoking they run the risk of their bodies going into shock which they cannot handle.

Really? And your medical evidence to back this up is where?

And prisoners are there for a reason, but they still have basic rights and privelages. they have the right to smoke, just like you,

Another misnomer. I have no right to smoke. No more than I have a right to walk to the shops. I choose both.

but should only have that right when it does not effect others adversly.

and as smoking will affect the prision officers health adversly they therfore should not be allowed to smoke in prison.

You cannot deny someone their rights just because they are prisoners, thats what Amnesty petitions about.

What do you mean by this right to smoke? Nobody has been given, AFAIK, the right to smoke.

alot actually, as your residence is legally your home

But what has the legalities of where I reside, or a prisioner for that matter, got to do with anything. The fact that a prisioner "legally" or otherwise resides in prision has nothing got to do with the fact that it is also somebodies workplace. Wether it is the prisioners legal "home" or not, which btw I doubt, has no "legal" bearing on anything. The fact of the matter is that it is the workplace of prision officers.

why not? this is a discussion after all and your refusal to explain a point only damages your case more.

Because I explained it earlier in this thread. Why should I go to the bother of reapeating myself when you wont bother reading what I have previously said? The fact that it seems to weaken or damage my so called "case" is of no concern to me. I have explained it once already.

I mean that every person has the right to choose whether they smoke or not. it is your right as a citizen of a democracy where smoking is legal. however, i think that you should not be allowed to infringe on the rights of others who chose not to smoke, which is what this ban is doing.

The two are proably mutually exclusive as, it would appear, that smokers cannot exist without damaging somebody eles's health. Wether they smoke or not.

not in the same way you can leave a pub. Ive already addressed the point that prisons can cater for smokers with an outdoor area on premisis. my point was it is not as easy for them to leave the wardens workplace as it is for you to leave a barmans workplace.

I'm afraid that that goes with the territory of being a prisioner. And I can't see it changing. Smoking is not a right. It's a choice. Big difference.

to be honest Hobart you seem to be in a bit of a bind yourself. your against the ban, however you want to see ciggarettes banned totally

I think I have explained my position above.

You are saying that as a prisoner you should be refused a basic (if not world changing) right.

No I am not. It is not a right.

You say that sick and elderly people shouldnt be allowed their basic right to smoke when the ban comes in, however you will have the ability to smoke outside a pub, at home, i your car. do you consider this fair??

See above answer.

finally:

I never said it was a vitally important right, but its a right nonetheless. it doesnt compare to most rights, nor is it on the UN human rights charter, however it is a freedom of choice to take part in a legal 'activity'. But i have the right to a healthy living and a freedom to work in a safe and healthy place.

REF: Above answer.

I may be repeating myself hobart, but thats just because you are too ignorant to recognise my point.

Hope this addresses your points and less of the personal insults please.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by rubadub
[...] the most addictive substance on the planet [...]

Got a reference for that?

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart

€2 pint versus €6 pint. Silly suggestion.
...
See above. (added by bonkey : i.e. its a silly sggestion)
...
€2 versus €6. A silly suggestion.
...
I still say it is silly.
...
And, while your at it, please show me where I did not address a point or dismiss it out of hand.

Well, if by addressing a point, you mean posting a response saying "thats silly", then yes - you have addressed them all.

However, given that you are asking everyone who offers any opinion differing to yours for facts and figures, and you also specifically posted asking for less soundbites and more facts[/i], I'm baffled as to how you construe "thats silly" as a fact and not a soundbite.

And before you say that "but it is a fact...the idea is just silly", consider what your response would be if someone replied to one of your posts with a one-liner saying "you're wrong, and thats a fact, not an opinion". What would your reaction be? To ask for more details perhaps? To dismiss the post as it was clearly sound-bite in nature? So why should your posts be any different? You've said its silly repeatedly, but haven't addressed why it is silly in any detail.

Your entire argument - as presented - seems to revolve around disagreeing the €2/€6 figures presented by Rubadub, which were entirely illustrative.

Rub could have said €3.50 and €7 to give prices more in line with reality for the non-smoking pubs, and a simple doubling of them for smoking pubs. Indeed, one should be able to discuss the suggestion in the abstract. Forget specific prices, and deal with the idea of charging more for smoking pubs then non-smoking pubs. What is silly about the idea? Lets not forget that there are clubs and hotels in Dublin where you'll pay that type of cost - or close to it - already, and people pay it. People pay ridiculously inflated prices for late-night bars. They pay more for "elite" places (e.g. 5-star hotel bars, celebrity-owned bars, etc.).

This, incidentally is the only actual underlying aspect of the suggestion that you have addressed, even if just to say "no-one would pay that, its silly". Have you considered that cigarettes in Ireland are more than double the price in many European nations? If such prices are silly, why are people still buying them at all? Rolling tobacco is cheaper to use than purchasing pre-rolled cigarettes. Surely pre-rolled cigs are economically silly too then...but we still buy them. Pub prices are a minimum of double off-licence prices, so why are we paying them? Surely thats silly as well????

The simple fact is that people continuously show a great willingness to pay ludicrous markups for goods and/or services that they want. They pay ridiculous money for a little less effort, or a little more comfort, or however you want to look at it.

Your entire dismissal of the suggestion revolves around an assertion that this is a silly idea because people wouldn't do it - based on some unstated aspect of economics. But people already waste money in so many similar ways already, that there is no way your unqualified assertion can stand as fact. It is far more soundbite in nature - an assertion of what you say is true, with absolutely no evidence offered to support it, whilst there is plenty of evidence to show that it is far from an open and shut issue.

So, I'm back where I started...asking why its silly, and handing your own "less soundbite, more fact" right back to you.

Originally posted by flogen
I may be repeating myself hobart, but thats just because you are too ignorant to recognise my point.

I'd suggest you go and read our forum rules before posting again. You clearly haven't understood the point about not insulting other posters.

jc

flogen

Hobart, I apologise for the insult, allow me to get my point across in a more peaceful manner.

Firstly, smoking itself may not be a right, however the freedom to choose to smoke is a right and infringing of this is a violation of this freedom. And by smoking outside in a pre-designated area the prisoners will not harm the health of the workers and so there is no need to stop them.

also:

The two are proably mutually exclusive as, it would appear, that smokers cannot exist without damaging somebody eles's health. Wether they smoke or not.

the fact is that smoking always harms people health, however when you choose to smoke you chose to take that risk with it, on the other hand i do not smoke. I am trying to protect my own health. by others smoking around me they are refusing to recognise my choice. You can kill yourself if you want, be it with a cigarrette or something else, but you should not be allowed to effect my personal choice while doing that.
its all about rights and responsibilities

Flogen

Paddyo

First of all let me say that I am a smoker - unfortunately and I am looking forward to the ban coming in, albeit with some trepidation as I like to have a cigarette with my pint.

With regards to the suggestion that we have two types of pubs, ones which are non smoking ones and which are smoking with the suggested price difference. What happens if all of the pubs opt to be smoking pubs?

1) People will have no choice once again
2) The publicans will get even greater cash flow - and we all know that a cash business is 'the one to be in'

With regards to prisons I really have no suggestions other than to compare drinking to smoking. I presume that you are not allowed to have alcohol in prison - even if you are an alcoholic. Why should it be different for nicotine addicts. In fact, they could get one of the nicotine replacement products.

The people I feel most sorry for are the smokers who are aged and infirm who are residents in nursing homes through no fault of their own where they are not able to go outside and have a cigarette.

Paddyo

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, if by addressing a point, you mean posting a response saying "thats silly", then yes - you have addressed them all.

However, given that you are asking everyone who offers any opinion differing to yours for facts and figures, and you also specifically posted asking for less soundbites and more facts[/i], I'm baffled as to how you construe "thats silly" as a fact and not a soundbite.

And before you say that "but it is a fact...the idea is just silly", consider what your response would be if someone replied to one of your posts with a one-liner saying "you're wrong, and thats a fact, not an opinion". What would your reaction be? To ask for more details perhaps? To dismiss the post as it was clearly sound-bite in nature? So why should your posts be any different? You've said its silly repeatedly, but haven't addressed why it is silly in any detail.

Your entire argument - as presented - seems to revolve around disagreeing the €2/€6 figures presented by Rubadub, which were entirely illustrative.

Rub could have said €3.50 and €7 to give prices more in line with reality for the non-smoking pubs, and a simple doubling of them for smoking pubs. Indeed, one should be able to discuss the suggestion in the abstract. Forget specific prices, and deal with the idea of charging more for smoking pubs then non-smoking pubs. What is silly about the idea? Lets not forget that there are clubs and hotels in Dublin where you'll pay that type of cost - or close to it - already, and people pay it. People pay ridiculously inflated prices for late-night bars. They pay more for "elite" places (e.g. 5-star hotel bars, celebrity-owned bars, etc.).

This, incidentally is the only actual underlying aspect of the suggestion that you have addressed, even if just to say "no-one would pay that, its silly". Have you considered that cigarettes in Ireland are more than double the price in many European nations? If such prices are silly, why are people still buying them at all? Rolling tobacco is cheaper to use than purchasing pre-rolled cigarettes. Surely pre-rolled cigs are economically silly too then...but we still buy them. Pub prices are a minimum of double off-licence prices, so why are we paying them? Surely thats silly as well????

The simple fact is that people continuously show a great willingness to pay ludicrous markups for goods and/or services that they want. They pay ridiculous money for a little less effort, or a little more comfort, or however you want to look at it.

Your entire dismissal of the suggestion revolves around an assertion that this is a silly idea because people wouldn't do it - based on some unstated aspect of economics. But people already waste money in so many similar ways already, that there is no way your unqualified assertion can stand as fact. It is far more soundbite in nature - an assertion of what you say is true, with absolutely no evidence offered to support it, whilst there is plenty of evidence to show that it is far from an open and shut issue.

So, I'm back where I started...asking why its silly, and handing your own "less soundbite, more fact" right back to you.

jc

OK JC. Fair point. I was addressing the specifics as opposed to the indicitive, which in retrospect was clear. And I will also concede that it is probavbly one of the best compromises I have seen. I will say it agin, It's actually not a bad idea, in terms of penalisation. My only fear would be in terms of polocing it? DO we suddendly turn somebodys local into a smoking/non-smoking pub? How do we addres the rural question? What if there is only 1 pub in the village? Might work for a city such as Dublin/Cork/Limerick etc..... But Ballynowhere? I don't think so.

Hobart, I apologise for the insult, allow me to get my point across in a more peaceful manner.

Apology accepted. No worries.

Firstly, smoking itself may not be a right, however the freedom to choose to smoke is a right and infringing of this is a violation of this freedom. And by smoking outside in a pre-designated area the prisoners will not harm the health of the workers and so there is no need to stop them.

I agree with you in terms of the idea of it being a right. And again the freedom to choose is a right. However in the specific case of prisioners we have taken away thier liberity, and with that , most other "rights" that you and I take for granted.

i.e. The "right" to eat when they want. The right to converse when they want. And If this law is enforced this will simply be another conformance that they will have to take on board. That is why, IMO, we should not make a special case for people who are incarcerated. And BTW, if you hadn't guessed allready, I am a smoker (and here's the part I will get trounced for) I have 3 kids and I do not smoke in the house.

flogen

I must say paddyo, your point about treating cigarrette addiction the same way you treat alcohol addiction is a good point and well worth considering, however the nature of these beasts are somewhat different in their effects on people. still, a very valid point nonetheless

I also agree with your point on the elderly and infirmed, however it is quite obviously difficult to come to an agreement which appeases worried workers while causing minimal harm to the above.
sadly Im stumped for an answer at the moment, and so, if pushed would have to say that if they want to smoke, it must be outside, theres no other fair solution i can think of

Flogen

rubadub

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Got a reference for that?

you can get it in toxicology text books. i saw them in the UCD medical library.

next time you visit your GP ask them, it is common knowledge

google gives 1000's of hits about it i cant be arsed finding a really good one.

heres one with it top of the list

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/addicts.html

looks like a pro cannabis site

flogen

I suppose that this could be considered another thing that they would have to get used to like not being able to eat when they like, however its not as though they smoke whenever they like, although im sure they do smoke more often than they do eat.
as i said in a post that i was writing before i saw your last one, hobart, perhaps paddyo has a point about smoking being treated the same as alcohol in prisons, so maybe it should be banned altogther. I have no problem if it is or not, however if it is not i think it is vital they follow the guidelines and do not harm workers (which would be easy to do).
However, in legal terms i think it would be hard to ban smoking outright for prisoners, as it is not illegal, and it is, as i said a very different beast to alcohol in its direct effects. Once a prison can prove it can protect workers from smoke, one way or another, i think we can all agree its fair and equal to the situation in pubs.

and i dont see why youd get trounced for not smoking at home, however i would like to say this:
im sure you avoid smoking for the well being of your children, maybe im wrong. but if it is, then surely you can understand why workers would also like to be given the respect you show your children and their health by avoiding poisoning them against their will. And the only way you can respect your children in such a way is to avoid smoking in the house, and the fact is that the only way you can respect the workers is by doing similar and not smoking in a place they spend a majority of their waking day in.

Flogen

Flogen

oscarBravo

Originally posted by rubadub
you can get it in toxicology text books. i saw them in the UCD medical library.

next time you visit your GP ask them, it is common knowledge

Common knowledge doesn't make it true.

heres one with it top of the list

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/addicts.html

looks like a pro cannabis site

On the very same page:

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS 1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

---

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication

---

Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5

Heroin 2 2 1 2 2

I'm not denying that nicotine is addictive; I'm certainly never going to argue about how addictive smoking is; I take exception to the blithe assertions that (a) smoking is just nicotine addiction, and (b) nicotine is the most addictive drug there is.

Answer this for me: how come non-smoking bar workers are not nicotine addicts?

bonkey

Originally posted by oscarBravo
On the very same page:
....
I'm not denying that nicotine is addictive; I'm certainly never going to argue about how addictive smoking is; I take exception to the blithe assertions that (a) smoking is just nicotine addiction, and (b) nicotine is the most addictive drug there is.

If you have a look at that comparison you posted, you will notice that nicotine causes a more serious dependence on itself, despite ranking lower in all other categories.

As far as I am aware, dependence is generally what is interpreted as the level of addictiveness, so that chart would tend to back up the assertion that Nicotine is more addictive than heroin, not contradict it.

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by bonkey
If you have a look at that comparison you posted, you will notice that nicotine causes a more serious dependence on itself, despite ranking lower in all other categories.

As far as I am aware, dependence is generally what is interpreted as the level of addictiveness, so that chart would tend to back up the assertion that Nicotine is more addictive than heroin, not contradict it.

There's a creative use of statistics, if I ever saw one! If only dependence is included in an addictiveness evaluation, why list the others?

All of which misses the point: the figures quoted all refer to the addictive nature of nicotine when habitually and deliberately consumed in the form of tobacco smoke - which is my basic point. Smoking is addictive; nobody is arguing with that.

How come non-smoking bar workers are not nicotine addicts?

How come there are no clinics weaning people off nicotine patches?