Smoking ban in pubs

amp

I think we're susposed to discuss on whether the government should compromise on the smoking ban or not.

Personally I think with modern airconditioning, it's possible to almost totally isolate diferent sections of an open room.

It's just another of the governments "let's change something so the population knows we're still here" type crap.

MiCr0

can you see these rooms going like smoking carraiges did on german trains?

no one booked smoking seats, for obvious reasons, - but every one went to them to smoke.
result: half full/half empty trains - the stats say the smoking carraiges were not being used.... so they got rid of them..........

jor el

I don't thing the Gov't should back down or change the smoking ban. It's a good thing and we'll all be better off without it. Sure, A/C could be used to isolate sections of rooms, but this would cost a fortune for every pub in the country to implement, plus when you pack a pub full of people it would need to be a hell of an A/C unit.
Also, usually in any group of people there will be at least one smoker, so then every group of people will go to the smoking area to facilitate the smoking friend, so eventually the whole pub will be a smoking area again. I for one am fed up of having smoke blown in my face all night just because someone wants to smoke and I'm glad that they now have to go outside.
It's time people faced up to the fact that smoking is a disgusting habbit, a disease, that is killing thousands of people in this country (direct and passive) and anything done to halt this is good.
Smokers have a right to be upset that they can no longer go out and enjoy a fag with their pint, but the non-smokers who want to enjoy a pint have had to put up with smelling like an ashtray afterwards for years. The tables have turned and I don't think it should go back.
OK, that's my mini-rant over.

mr_angry

What about the people who have to clean out the smoking room? I'm presuming there's going to be a LOT of ash, etc., and some poor sod still has to knock 3 days off his life expectancy to keep it in reasonable condition. Which completely defeats the purpose of the smoking ban.

I listen to all these people whinging on about the nanny state and everything, but frankly, the Irish people haven't demonstrated the ability to look after themselves, and even go to the lengths of infringing on other people's good health in the process. We were given the chance to behave responsibly, and we f*cked it up. Now the government have had to step in to safeguard its remaining responsible citizens. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

Yavvy

I thought the opening statements by each of the captains were weak at best. Maybe they are meant to be, maybe that are not allowed make any of there arguments in such a statement but still, lacking in conviction IMO.

However Fitz made an excellent opening argument. One I totally agree with. I cant see how the opposition will be able to counter it and so I look forward to their feeble attempts.

On a personal note, and to those of you who think ventilation is a possible compromise.

My father has never smoked a cigarette in his life. nor has he lit a pipe or chewed tobacco. Yet he is recovering for Cancer, a smoking related (caused) cancer. He has undergone chemo (Spelling) and several operations to control the cancer that grows inside him. why ? cause he was a barman for 25 years, cause he worked around cigarette smoke for 6 nights a week, 50 odd weeks a year. HE worked in some nice places too that wouldn’t have be considered a Smokey atmosphere... places that had invested in very sophisticated extraction systems ( tho at the time it was the clients not the staff they did this for) ..and yet he got Cancer.

Extraction systems are not the answer. The carcinogens in cigarettes will infect those in close proximity regardless.

Alan.

El_MUERkO

Smoke outside, get struck by lightning, its all good for me, I dont smoke, I never have smoked and frankly I was sick to death smelling like an ash tray every time I came home from the pub.

As to air con, pub owners being tight fisted bastards generallyput them on low settings or didnt have them at all, now after the smoking ban I've been in a fair few pubs where they've turned them off to save a buck leaving the place stinking of piss from the jacks they never bothered cleaning before.

Ameirgin

I have to say, I though fitz's opening argument was well thought out and to the point.

I smoked for nearly 20 years, and I gave up on 14/03/2003. And I don't believe that the government should back down one tiny inch. For years I puffed away, waving away the concerns of those who didn't smoke. I thought I was a "good" smoker - I only smoked where I was allowed to, and frowned upon those who did not. I asked in a restaurant before I lit up, to ensure that no-one would be offended by my smoking. I thought I had captured the moral high ground, and would have argued for my right to be there.

Last year I quit for health reasons - I am an asthmatic, who knew full well I shouldn't be smoking. I had a bad bronchial dose, and gave up. I decided that I wasn't going to be an ex-smoker like some I know (my mum, for one), who spared no opportunity to "have a go" at the smoker. No, in keeping with my moral real estate, I was going to be magnanimous about the whole thing.

Then I went out with some friends, some of whom smoked, to a cafe - and I came home stinking like a used ash tray. And it disgusted me - in fact, on one particular occassion, I was nearly ill. And it struck me that for nearly 20 years I had inflicted this on other people. I had made them feel the way that I now felt. And suddenly, my moral real estate got washed away, and I relaised that there is no justification for putting another person through that - none whatsoever.

So no, the government should not relax or compromise on the smoking ban. Smokers have little idea how intrusive passive smoking actually is, and how it really can ruin a night out for a non-smoker.

bonkey

Originally posted by Alany
However Fitz made an excellent opening argument. One I totally agree with. I cant see how the opposition will be able to counter it and so I look forward to their feeble attempts.

I don't think its as solid an argument as you make out. There's a number of flaws and omissions in its logic - some of which I would have expected to be plugged given that its hardly a rarely-discussed topic.

I'm also quite surprised that Fitz resorted more often to countering the arguments which were made before the ban came into effect, but didn't draw reference to the reality that can be observed now tha thte ban is in effect. For example - whether or not the ban is enforceable. You can theorise all you like about the Dutch Gold example - which has flaws as an example in its own right - but surely a far, far stronger case (or at least a complementary one) would be to look at the pubs since the ban has come into effect and conclude whether or not there is a problem with enforcement.

Maybe someone else is gonna take that slant and the team didn't want too much crossover, but I think that leaving it out weakened the point. Who cares what the theory said prior to the ban...the ban is "live" so-to-speak, so relying on the theory without even referencing the observable reality seems a bit...ummm...unusual.

Its an excellent starting point - don't get me wrong - but
its by no means an unshakeable position.

Also, bear in mind that the structure of the debate won't work if the teams get too focussed on picking apart each other's arguments in favour of presenting their own. I'm curious to see how the guys manage this...whether they will politely ignore each other, or just link in points they intended to discuss with refutation of related arguments already presented by the opposite side...or what.

Should the government compromise? Well, I'm guessing that the vast majority of non-smokers will say "no", and the vast majority of smokers will say either "yes". Hardly surprising that What interests me most is the reasons why people think the govt. should or should not compromise. Generally, it completely ignores the official reason for the ban.

For example - who cares if your clothes stank after a night in the pub before the ban. Thats not why the ban was introduced, nor will a compromise necessarily return you to stinkyclothesville. So what relevance is it?

This, for me, is what should be most interesting to see about this debate. Can the teams actualoyl focus on what is relevant, or will they succumb to discussing what is emotive or popular regardless of its true relevance.

We shall see.

jc

Yavvy

well I do conceed that I may have been hasty in saying attempts at a rebuttel or counter argument will be feeble. I dont know the opisition's ability and I should have said that I dont know how the opisition will counter the motion rather than Fitz's argument.

But I think the areas where you suggust there ar holes in Fitz's opening ar obvious ones that will be addressed by another member. Personally I would never give away the strongest points in the opening argument of a debate. I think many more "points winning" arguments will be made by fitz's team.

watty

I think it's great. I may even visit a pub (within walking distance, we need better Drink Drive enforcement )

Next they need to enforce the law banning sale to under 18 as a survey showed 65% of shops survayed in Limirick selling to under 18's

If younger people don't see smoking it will be less promoted.

Also the majority DO NOT smoke, why should 2/3rd of people suffer from the 1/3rd many of whom would like to not have to smoke if honest.

Also up to 1/3rd people have breathing conditions agrivated by smoke etc, not just the issue of passive smoking and disease risk.

We started with "smoking rooms" historically, if was a thin end of wedge. Also if that is were the "Crack" is then the non-smokers have to suffer.

My retired dad is into traditional music and play instrument, he can only cope with about 10minutes of the smoke filled atmosphere.


Publicans and Traditional music organisers need to stop worrying about the 26% to 40% that DO smoke and worry about the 74% to 60% who don't.

And my best advice to school kids is don't start. Only a few percent of smokers have will power to give up "Cold Turkey".


Smoke free pubs will greatly help those trying to quit, but a Pub even with a smoking room is hardest hurdle for socialite trying to kick the habit.

mr_angry

Good argument from OscarBravo - the smoking ban is pretty much a compromise already. Smokers can still smoke, and non-smokers can breath fresh air.

The only good "For" argument I can see so far is from Henbane about people in hospitals. There isn't an easy way to counter it either. I think I'll leave that up to the debaters themselves.

I'd quite like to see them refer to each other's points explicitly in the coming arguments.

Lump

Maybe they should put it to a vote.... the majority would win, but would that be the smokers of the non-smokers. People might say the non-smokers, but then there are plenty of non-smokers out there that like the atmosphere that the smoke creates. I don't know..... but it is a democracy or something like that, maybe the government should treat it like one.


John

Yavvy

must say very dissapointed with the "for" camp I thought DapperGents argument was weak at best, Henbane put across an interesting idea but nothing worth changing my mind.

It would take an amazing argument for me to change my view and TBH no one has come close.

Vader

Ive only read the first 4 threads (2 intros and 2 first anti smoking posts).

The intros from both sides were grand, short, concise and gave nothing away of their stratagies, something that may not be needed in oral debates but deffinitly important in correspondance debates.

I liked Fitz first thread but i feel it was a mistake to answer the yes question. He was trying to cover all the angles, which he did do a good job on, but he should have left loop holes and prepared rebuttles, lead the opposition into a wall.
The camparrison to speed limits was very good.


OscarBravo had a good point, the basic one of the issue, which didnt requirew much to be said but had to be said anyway. Being short it stuck better in ones memory.
However it could have benifited imo from a statement something like, "Yes you have rights, and with rights comes responsibilites" rather than your rights are no more important than other peoples. I dont think he made the point well enough and it really is one of the basic principals of democracy and the key counter to the nannystate arguement.

Suggestion to Admins
In oral debates there are time constrictions, is there limits to lenght in these debates? If not I think there should be.

JBoyle4eva

Quite frankly, I think that the smoking ban will fail eventually and we'll(i.e. Ireland) be a laughing stock for the rest of the world. I mean, I know someone who's a bouncer and he says that they get confused when honest smokers go out for a fag and someone who didn't actually go out for a fag and didn't pay their admission fee get inside the club because the bouncers' can't remember were they inside. Wjat I think should be done is that if you want to smoke, go outside and stay outside!

AngelofFire

I thought the smoking ban was a good idea for restaurants and cafes as nobody wants to have to hold their nose whilest they are eating anymore.but with pubs and nightclubs they went a bit too far.i think the government should compromise 50% of the seating area in a pub should be made non smoking and there should be no smoking in the restrooms or around the bar area or dance floor.The air conditioning systems in each bar and nightclub should be made to meet certain criteria. this will allow smokers their freedom of choice but it will also give non smokers protection from the health risks and the irritation caused by passive smoking

sionnach

i firmly believe that smoking should be banned outright, the only reason it has been allowed for so long is that it contributes quite a lot of money to the coffers of every nation. Let's face it, it's an addictive, harmful, lethal drug and i think any step on the path to banning it completely (such as this recent workplace ban) is entirely justified.

I really pity the pro smokers in teh debate, they don't have a leg to stand on, but it will be interesting to see how they go about defending the undefendable

the_syco

Originally posted by mr_angry
What about the people who have to clean out the smoking room? I'm presuming there's going to be a LOT of ash, etc., and some poor sod still has to knock 3 days off his life expectancy to keep it in reasonable condition. Which completely defeats the purpose of the smoking ban.

I see this type of thing quite often. An old boss once said to me, the other louge staff, and the bar staff, whilst smoking in the pub, having a drink, after the pub had closed.
"Who doesn't smoke?", and one person put up their hand. "OK" says the boss, "you don't go into the room to clean it, but the rest of you can. When your on a smoke break, could you pick up a few of the glasses, on ur way out".

Problem solved.

All 6 pernament bar-staff smoked. 4 out of 6 bar-persons smoked. All the lounge-persons smoked.

So out of this, all you get is making the publicans life a bit worse, cos they can't smoke.

Sure, you may say that some publicans rejoice, as they don't smoke, but WHY THE F**K DID THEY OPEN A PUB, THEN??? It's like becoming a builder, and wanting the goverment to stop all forms high buildings, so that nothing will fall on your head from a height. Its part of the job.

=====

One question, to all the non-smoking publicans; did ye ever install fans, and wot-not to reduce the amount of smoke in your premisies, or did you just moan?

=====

[edit]
You see the goverment wants to raise the tax on tabacco by EUR2. This is not, as they lead you to believe, to stop more people smoking. This is because the nice sum of money that the goverment usually gets from the smokers has dropped, as people don't smoke in pubs, and alot have given up. So if everybody stopped smoking, the goverment will start to heavily tax drink, to stop "binge drinking", and people will stop going to the pub.

Soon it won't be "off to the pub", it'll be "off to the fields/mate's/local-deserted-barn" to smoke and drink cans, as its EUR7 a pint in the pub, and I can't smoke there" (and for those young people who may not think this will happen, ask your parents was there once a time where you could get 4 pints, and still get change from a tenner.
[/edit]

the_syco

Delete this one. I pressed the quote button instead of the edit button :oopsy:

Lu[ifer

As I was pretty much undecided, but am now favoring the "For the smoking ban" side I guess they're winning (in my mind anyway).

The problem as I see it is this: the only real argument coming from the anti-smoking ban side is "I want to be able to smoke in pubs because I like to smoke while drinking".

Sure there's been some off topic discussion about cancer patients (I liked the rebuttle about giving alcohol to alcoholics (a little bit more relevant than the pyromaniac bit)) but the debate is "That the government should compromise regarding the banning of smoking from pubs".

The moral high ground definately goes to the pro-ban movement with their protection of workers health defense.

However, something thats just come to mind that might be worth considering is this: could pub workers possibly be safer if smoking was allowed, but alcohol banned? I imagine Batman and Robin (read Minister for Justice and Minsiter for Health) may have some figures to clarify this point.

Although we should endeavor to protect workers health, lets remember thats its OK to draw the line somewhere; we already have in so many other areas of life (sports most readily comes to mind but I'll leave this as a task for the reader to think of others ).

Surely there are jobs out there that some people refuse to do because they are too dangerous; and some people doing those jobs because they enjoy it, or simply because they need the money.

I'll sum up my wayward ranting on a personal note: perhaps in a few years, virtually nobody in this country will be smoking because everyone knows how bad it is for you and its expensive and dirty and when you really think about it not that enjoyable, and we'll all wonder why anybody smoked in the first place and the no-smoking ban in bars will smeem like nothing more than no-smoking in shops, cinemas, buses etc.

- A frequent drinker, a very occational smoker and a bad speller.

SantaHoe

Well if you know passive smoke is harmful to your health, and you know that pubs are generaly fogged with smoke every night of the week, and if it really worries you so much... why get a job in one?
Non-smokers know the facts of smoking just as smokers do, yet up until the smoking ban, they continued to drink in pubs regardless of their health concerns.
If non-smokers really cared that much about their health, they wouldn't be increasing their chances of liver cancer by over-doing it with alcohol in the first place.
I'm a smoker, but rarely drink so the smoking-ban really doesn't bother me, but the denial and hypocrisy of the non-smokers makes me giggle myself silly.
tbh :rolleyes:

Ameirgin

It's not just a ban in pubs though, is it? The ban extends to all places of work, and that includes restaurants, cafes, bars, hospitals, offices etc. So, I won't be damaging my liver with a glass of orange juice and a sandwich for lunch, and I won't have to breathe in someone's second hand smoke as an appetiser either. And neither will the staff, which was the purpose of this ban in the first place.

We are not the first place in the world to do this - New York already has very similar (if not identical) legislature, and there are several other states considering it. The UK is viewing our implementation of the law with an eye on doing the same thing, and even the EU has hinted that it is thinking along those lines. I don't believe that this law will fail as some have asserted it will, and I believe that within 5 to 10 years, this law or similar will be pan-European anyway.

And the thing to remember aboyut rights (seeing as so many want to use that as an argument) is that they extend only as far as the next person's. So your right to smoke cannot interefere with my right not to, and my right not to breathe your second hand toxins. As you cannot guarantee that, the smoking ban places it within a legal framework. That's all it is.

seamus

Originally posted by the_syco
I see this type of thing quite often. An old boss once said to me, the other louge staff, and the bar staff, whilst smoking in the pub, having a drink, after the pub had closed.
"Who doesn't smoke?", and one person put up their hand. "OK" says the boss, "you don't go into the room to clean it, but the rest of you can. When your on a smoke break, could you pick up a few of the glasses, on ur way out".

Problem solved.

All 6 pernament bar-staff smoked. 4 out of 6 bar-persons smoked. All the lounge-persons smoked.

It's a nice idea in theory, but what if none of the staff smoke? Not even the publican? Who goes in to clean it then? You can't hire another person simply on the virtue that they smoke, so they can clean the room....

Sure, you may say that some publicans rejoice, as they don't smoke, but WHY THE F**K DID THEY OPEN A PUB, THEN???

There's that issue of choice again. Why shouldn't everybody be free to choose to do what work they want? Besides, if the publican really really hated the smoke, he would choose to leave the business, but it's wrong for those it mildly irritated to rejoice? People are allowed to be happy when something makes their job a little nicer. It doesn't necessarily mean that they hated their jobs before.

antartica

best thing 2 happen in this country since the overthrow of the church[the catholic 1] in the 90's

Imposter

Should we break this thread in 2?
One thread to discuss the debate and another to debate the issue ourselves.

SantaHoe

Originally posted by Ameirgin
It's not just a ban in pubs though, is it?

*Points Amerigin to the title of this thread*

Yeah good points though, I feel the same way about having to breath toxic fumes from passing traffic... so I can see why non-smokers are delighted, I know I'd be.
Although there's far too many people standing to lose money if standard petrol engines were to get the boot.... but we live in hope

Dustaz

I keep on hearing in pubs (well, outside them) about all the places where the ban has been implemented and failed. Quebec, some parts of france and the excemptions in nyc have been bandied about but i have no idea whether they are based in fact or just Fat-Bloke-Down-The-Pub stories.


Anyone know?

AngelofFire

Originally posted by sionnach
i firmly believe that smoking should be banned outright, the only reason it has been allowed for so long is that it contributes quite a lot of money to the coffers of every nation. Let's face it, it's an addictive, harmful, lethal drug and i think any step on the path to banning it completely (such as this recent workplace ban) is entirely justified.

I really pity the pro smokers in teh debate, they don't have a leg to stand on, but it will be interesting to see how they go about defending the undefendable

In practise banning it wont really work.If it were to be banned it would lead to an increase in gangland activity as this would be a perfect opportunity for them to make money out of selling illegal tobacco. it will also put tobacco into association with heroin and coccaine as it would be sold by dealers. this would cause tobacco to lead to harder drugs

Dustaz

Originally posted by AngelofFire
In practise banning it wont really work.If it were to be banned it would lead to an increase in gangland activity as this would be a perfect opportunity for them to make money out of selling illegal tobacco. it will also put tobacco into association with heroin and coccaine as it would be sold by dealers. this would cause tobacco to lead to harder drugs

Ugh, entirely off topic but that has to be the lamest gateway argument ive ever seen. I cant see my mother suddenly deciding to try a bit of crack along with her 40 silk cut purple somehow.

Since I'm off topic now, i may as well stay there. I cannot understand how the government can still justify selling tobacco in non-specialist shops. This is a substance that is proven to be harmful, has no obvious benefits and is still available in any shop. The fact it makes small fortune for the exchequer is beside the point of course. The fact that massive tax hikes on it are 'in the public healths interest' is hypocrisy on a massive scale.

The sale of alcohol is massively controlled yet consumption laws are lax. With smoking it is the opposite.

Ive said on these boards before that i think the perfect 2 phase plan would be to:

1. Ban all smoking advertising of any kind (Done, i think under the new laws) Only allow the sale of cigarettes in Off Licences and Specialist Tabaconists (to the strictly over-18s)for a few years and then after 5 or 10 years,

2. issue free 'smoker' cards which enable only registered smokers to legally obtain cigarrettes from a licensed dealer. A five year 'no questions' policy on issuing these cards would probably suffice. Smokers can still smoke but as time passes less and less people smoke as there are less and less smokers.

Within a generation or two, we would have a far greater chance of having a no smoking nation than the current method.


Anyway, all this is very off topic, split it off if it offends.

dera

Surely the issue is this: The government is presiding over a country riddled with problems. There's disgusting social inequality, disgusting corruption, disgusting lack of planning, a collapsing peace process, and American military forces merrily and freely using our facilities and airspace.

And it decides that the important thing to do -- the flagship project -- is implement a ban on smoking in the workplace.

That's where the money and resources should go? Not to getting people homes? Not to funding somewhere to help people whom the courts can only send to prison, when what they need is rehabilitation?

Furthermore, prohibition is lazy governance. It's a lazy solution. It doesn't affect the causes of the problem; it just treats the symptoms. Education is, as they say, the silver bullet.

Not every problem has a magic-wand-wave-your-hands solution. Sometimes you have to see a bit beyond the next election.

sceptre

Originally posted by the_syco
You see the goverment wants to raise the tax on tabacco by EUR2. This is not, as they lead you to believe, to stop more people smoking.

I tend to agree. Every time there has been a tax increase on the old reliable, it's been a proportional increase that the market can take. Oh we had the 50p rise one year (when the proportion that 50p made up was higher) but that approach was retreated from on the basis of the rise in the inflation rate

To rob an idea from Yes Prime Minister, what's needed is a series of sharp progressive tax increases until a packet of twenty costs more than a bottle of whiskey. Reasonable whiskey, none of your dodgy distilled in feck-knows-where stuff. Or as Dustaz suggested a while back, an outright ban. I don't think he was being facetious when he touted the idea.

The government like the idea of raising taxes on the product as they make more money (or their loss on health provision is less, whichever way you look at it). They're terrified of losing the income while they still have to pay out for the health costs over the next forty-odd years and they're terrified that the black market will totally explode if they raise the price too sharply. And think of all those vote losses when one party fails to fall into line and condemns sharp increases as an infringement of people's rights. Then there's the lack of cash put into effective education. No government has ever had the balls to do what they need to do.


(incidentally AFAIk it isn't anyone in the government that has suggested a 2 euro rise. Can't remember who made the suggestion, though it was reported on only last week)

casper-

Originally posted by Dustaz
I keep on hearing in pubs (well, outside them) about all the places where the ban has been implemented and failed. Quebec, some parts of france and the excemptions in nyc have been bandied about but i have no idea whether they are based in fact or just Fat-Bloke-Down-The-Pub stories.


Anyone know?

I'm not sure about Quebec .. I try to pay as little attention that province as possible In Ottawa, though, the ban has been upheld quite well for some time now; yes, granted, there is still the occasional small pub (and I've been to one), where you can go in at 11am and smoke because it's just the regulars and a barman, but that's about it. I suspect no matter what city/country implements a smoking ban, you will still find small places that will allow long-time customers to break the rules. Over time, though, even those places will eventually have to give in completely I suspect.

That's not really much different to the lock-ins I've heard about here during Good Friday is it?

I'm also curious about what you mentioned with France; does anyone have any evidence to back that up? I didn't even know France had a smoking ban -- is it the whole country or just certain cities?

casper-

Not sure if this is the right thread for this; just finished reading irish1's post most recent post "The Waiver"

Ireland was not the first country to introduce a ban on smoking in the work place, the US also implemented a ban in 2003.

Uhm -- what is he talking about? I presumed the debate had to be based on facts (and proof backing those facts up). First of all, it's only a _few_ states that passed smoking bans; having lived in Florida in September/October 2003 I can guarantee that was not the case. Ireland is to the best of my knowledge, the first country in the world to institute a smoking ban.

The real facts are - five states (New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and California) had completely banned smoking in the workplace as of the start of July 2003, and Florida followed suit a short week later, but only in places where food sales comprised greater than 10% of sales. Read: the majority of bars (and some pubs) are still smoke-filled.

As I posted elsewhere; I dislike stats, and I dislike even more people making broad generalisations and using them as basis for arguments without having sufficient proof to back them up.

<disclaimer> I'm not sure what other states may have joined in since then -- I suspect the list will probably grow</disclaimer>

casper-

Originally posted by AngelofFire
In practise banning it wont really work.If it were to be banned it would lead to an increase in gangland activity as this would be a perfect opportunity for them to make money out of selling illegal tobacco. it will also put tobacco into association with heroin and coccaine as it would be sold by dealers. this would cause tobacco to lead to harder drugs

Well .. I'd have to disagree with this partially. Yes, the result of Prohibition in the States proved that if the government tries to take a legal "drug" away from the people in the recent past, then the general populate will go elsewhere to find it. I honestly think the same thing would happen in Ireland if in the near future the government decided that you couldn't buy cigarettes legally. Smoking is, I believe, far too entrenched (as alcohol was) to ban it outright.

At the same time, I find it mind-boggling to even suggest that making tobacco an illegal purchase would then lead to people buying harder drugs instead. Although, funnily enough, that sounds suspiciously like anti-marijuana arguments I've heard .... it's like suggesting that anyone that smokes pot is also a heroin/cocaine addict.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by Dustaz
Ugh, entirely off topic but that has to be the lamest gateway argument ive ever seen. I cant see my mother suddenly deciding to try a bit of crack along with her 40 silk cut purple somehow.

Since I'm off topic now, i may as well stay there. I cannot understand how the government can still justify selling tobacco in non-specialist shops. This is a substance that is proven to be harmful, has no obvious benefits and is still available in any shop. The fact it makes small fortune for the exchequer is beside the point of course. The fact that massive tax hikes on it are 'in the public healths interest' is hypocrisy on a massive scale.

The sale of alcohol is massively controlled yet consumption laws are lax. With smoking it is the opposite.

Ive said on these boards before that i think the perfect 2 phase plan would be to:
2. issue free 'smoker' cards which enable only registered smokers to legally obtain cigarrettes from a licensed dealer. A five year 'no questions' policy on issuing these cards would probably suffice. Smokers can still smoke but as time passes less and less people smoke as there are less and less smokers.

Within a generation or two, we would have a far greater chance of having a no smoking nation than the current method.


Anyway, all this is very off topic, split it off if it offends.

Just because you dont fully understand the content of my previous post doesnt mean you have to come up with some patronising response.

as for your two phase plan thats the worst idea ive ever heard, tightening up on availability of tobacco products is just giving drug dealers an opportunity to supply to tobacco to young people who wouldnt be able to avail of it because of the 2 phase plan.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by casper-


At the same time, I find it mind-boggling to even suggest that making tobacco an illegal purchase would then lead to people buying harder drugs instead. Although, funnily enough, that sounds suspiciously like anti-marijuana arguments I've heard .... it's like suggesting that anyone that smokes pot is also a heroin/cocaine addict.

i see where your coming from. i didnt say that anyone who smokes would go on to taking heroin if the only place where tobacco was available was the black market i meant that if it were to made illegal it would increase the likelihood of it leading to harder drugs. let me make an analogy. since they legalised cannabis in the netherlands use of heroin and coccaine has decreased sharply it took some time but its decrease was related to the legalisation of cannabis. because cannabis was being sold legally its association with coccaine and heroine was removed.

im not saying it will happen instantly. but if tobbacco were to be made illegal it would over time be in alignment with illegal drugs such as heroin. this will increase the likelihood of people who smoke tobacco of going on to harder drugs.

gaelic cowboy

I don't give a toss what smokers think i do not want them back in pubs outside with ye all. Smokers have the right to smoke but not the right to pollute the air I breathe tough. And no I dont have to accomadate smokers in pubs as they are now breaking the law and I not.

Gleanndún

i would like 2 say in regards 2 the ban failing, that i live in california and it has worked beautifully. i do concede, that many businesses, excepts bars, had already banned smoking on their premises, but on the whole, bars complied rather well, and so did the smokers. u barely even c smokers newhere now, the only place i find them is on the street, or in a park. u wouldnt even kno that there were smokers were it not for the stats and anti-smoking commercials, which by the way, we have very high taxes on sale of tobacco products, and it is written into the law that the funds go toward education against smoking, such as commercials, anti-tobacco organizations, guest speakers in classrooms, &c. and also some of it goes to health care. i just wanted to say this in response to people saying that it will fail miserably. I have a friend from Russia, who recently went back there, and he said that you dont really appreciate the smoking laws until u go outside california---he said that he almost couldnt wait 2 get back. so thats just my little bit of info. slan go foill,

gleanndun