Smoking Ban reversal?

trish23

Dutch backtrack on smoking ban
The new Dutch government has opted to partially reverse the smoking ban imposed on bars and cafes more than two years ago
It said it will amend the law to allow smokers to light up again in small owner-operated bars which are less than 70 sq.m in size and which have no other staff. The ban will remain in force for larger establishments.
The government banned smoking in restaurants, pubs and cafes in July 2008, but the law has been openly ignored as small pubs complained the measure was costing them customers.
In a letter to Parliament, Health Minister Edith Schippers said the law would now be amended and that fines already imposed on small pub owners will not be enforced.
The measure to reverse the ban will affect a couple of thousand bars across the country, the minister added.

Can't see it happening in Ireland...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1104/smokingban.html

prinz

Nor should it be reversed here.

Celly Smunt

it would help a lot of small pubs around the country,but i think the smoking ban is a load of balls anyway tbh.

Princess Peach

I hope not! I like coming home after a night out and not stinking of smoke.

Biggins

Won't happen here. We have too much to sort out already and backtracking on this would just bee seen as another failure to rack up to FF's many others.
...And FF wouldn't want that alone to add to their historic record.

I wouldn't want to see it reversed in all honesty.

Celly Smunt

Princess Peach wrote: »

I hope not! I like coming home after a night out and not stinking of smoke.

it's only in small bars

Cookie_Monster

I think a lot of people would stop going to pubs.
I can't imagine going back to sitting in a horrible smoky room all night

Mr. Manager

Great idea IMO

Adam

it should be reversed, it should be up to the publican. i still agree with public buildings etc.

Princess Peach

pmcmahon wrote: »

it's only in small bars

What defines a small bar though? I drink in places that are fairly small

dr.bollocko

Bit farcical there with a number of coffee shops having one pro smoking sign for the weed and one no smoking sign for ciggies. I wonder will they reverse this in the hotels also.

Black Swan

It will go up in smoke!

Max Power1

If they bring this back lots of non smokers (including me) wont go out to bars as much. As said earlier, I like not smelling of smoke after a night out.

Celly Smunt

Princess Peach wrote: »

What defines a small bar though? I drink in places that are fairly small

just the barman in the pub,not big lounges,maybe one staff who accepted the job to work in the establishment

Princess Peach

pmcmahon wrote: »

just the barman in the pub,not big lounges,maybe one staff who accepted the job to work in the establishment

Seems a bit fuzzy to me and will absolutely be abused.

Celly Smunt

Princess Peach wrote: »

Seems a bit fuzzy to me and will absolutely be abused.

not really,in a pub where there is only 1-2 people working,so that is going to be a small bar,more like a smoking room where you can buy pints separated from the non smoking area entirely,i don't see the problem tbh

Mr. Manager

Princess Peach wrote: »

What defines a small bar though? I drink in places that are fairly small

Somewhere less than 70 square metres?!

Adam

Princess Peach wrote: »

What defines a small bar though? I drink in places that are fairly small

it's quite clearly stated in the article at 70 sq.m

Princess Peach

Adam wrote: »

it's quite clearly stated in the article at 70 sq.m

Yeah see I just skimmed over that

barrackali

It certainly won't be reversed here, I would never go out to a stinky, smoke filled pub again.

iPlop

Everybody ignored the original ban over there thats why they partially reversed it ,it was too hard to police with so many establishments sticking their fingers up to the government.We complied with it over here.We had a little moan about it for a while but we just got on with it.

trish23

I agree that larger establishments should be smoke free but I've been in small rural (& not so rural) pubs where the whole clientele & the owner were standing at the back door! Too many of these pubs have closed down in recent years. Maybe if we didn't live in a nanny state, & that they & their customers had been given a choice, some of them could still be open?

Adam

Princess Peach wrote: »

Yeah see I just skimmed over that

maybe you should spend more time skimming and less time typing then?

jackiebaron

Hooray!
I live in Amsterdam. Of course in Germany they just ignored the ban (so much for German conformity...and Irish rebelliousness!!).

Some dingy little pubs in Holland never bother to enforce the ban and the police never bothered to so check up on them either.

It's a stupid law and one that was very poorly thought out.

jackiebaron

barrackali wrote: »

It certainly won't be reversed here, I would never go out to a stinky, smoke filled pub again.

Oh! You must be important if you're able to hold an entire piece of legislation hostage by not going to a pub.
Tell us your secret.

Wertz

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Bit farcical there with a number of coffee shops having one pro smoking sign for the weed and one no smoking sign for ciggies. I wonder will they reverse this in the hotels also.

The reason it's banned in hotels is fire safety not health of staff and patrons.

This should be revoked here but it won't be...it at the very least should be up to the individual licensee, allowing a separate room (not an exterior area that is cold and dark at this time of year) with ventilation, with no bar or any staff interaction with customers.

Common sense from the Dutch in response to the fears raised by small premises owners...you know, those people that pay rates and employ people. All the more reason it won't happen here.

BTW as an ex-smoker I agree it's great for a non smoker to be able to go out and avoid 2nd hand smoke and all the stink from clothes or whatever...but where is the fairplay for those who do wish to go out, have a drink and a smoke in the comfort of indoors?

Sanjuro

I'd prefer if they extended off-license opening hours and introduced staggered closing of pubs and club. [/tangent]

fontanalis

At least the smell of smoke will get rid of the smell of farts.

prinz

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh! You must be important if you're able to hold an entire piece of legislation hostage by not going to a pub.
Tell us your secret.

I think you'll find that poster isn't alone..

Celly Smunt

prinz wrote: »

I think you'll find that poster isn't alone..

i feel so .....

prinz

Wertz wrote: »

Common sense from the Dutch in response to the fears raised by small premises owners...you know, those people that pay rates and employ people.

Isn't one of the caveats that they don't employ people?

Chairman Meow

jackiebaron wrote: »

It's a stupid law and one that was very poorly thought out.

Yeah, its ****ing stupid trying to protect non smokers and bar staff from getting lung cancer from second hand smoke just cause smokers cant hold off from puffing their brains out for an hour or two. As a non smoker i ****ing loved coming home from a night out stinking of cigarettes all over my clothes/hair and with my eyes bloodshot and my lungs hurting, it was delightful. Cant see any reason why that law was introduced in the first palce, its jsut the typical nanny state etc etc..

biko

Woohoo, Dutchland here I come!

Mountjoy Mugger

I doubt very much if the members of ASH will be missed from the pub. There's feck all going to the boozer anyway. Most are taking their beer home nowadays.

trish23

Wertz wrote: »

The reason it's banned in hotels is fire safety not health of staff and patrons.

I'm not sure of that as a hotel is actually one of the only public places where you can book a smoking room?

irelandrover

pmcmahon wrote: »

not really,in a pub where there is only 1-2 people working,so that is going to be a small bar,more like a smoking room where you can buy pints separated from the non smoking area entirely,i don't see the problem tbh

The pub can't have any staff as far as I know. Has to be the owner working there. The smoking ban was just ignored in a lot of the smaller pubs anyway so nothing will really change.

AAAAAAAHHH

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Yeah, its ****ing stupid trying to protect non smokers and bar staff from getting lung cancer from second hand smoke just cause smokers cant hold off from puffing their brains out for an hour or two. As a non smoker i ****ing loved coming home from a night out stinking of cigarettes all over my clothes/hair and with my eyes bloodshot and my lungs hurting, it was delightful. Cant see any reason why that law was introduced in the first palce, its jsut the typical nanny state etc etc..

Puffing their brains out!!! It's smoker madness!!!!!

Snakeblood

Wertz wrote: »

BTW as an ex-smoker I agree it's great for a non smoker to be able to go out and avoid 2nd hand smoke and all the stink from clothes or whatever...but where is the fairplay for those who do wish to go out, have a drink and a smoke in the comfort of indoors?

Sit in the car with some cans.

OldGoat

Ì love the smoking ban.
It hasen't ruined the drinking trade, people still go out. Pubs are much more plesant places these days. Smokers are still catered for in ever improving smoking sections/areas.

I do occasionally reminise about and lament the loss of smoke filled jazz clubs but being a moaney oul codger is a way of life for me.

I always admired the draconian approach the government took here about the ban. It was a very unIrish way of going about things and it worked well.

Now if only there was a way of stopping non smokers from taking up all the seats and tables in the smoking section - I have had people ask me if I would mind not smoking. :rolleyes:

Pace2008

Nice, this means that I won't have to stick to bongs and reefers when I'm hotboxing some tiny coffeeshop in the 'Dam. In any case, when I was over there in January the ban seemed to be largely ignored in bars.

As a smoker, I have no problem with the ban remaining in effect over here. It’s really not that much of an inconvenience to prise your arse off the barstool and shuffle 10 feet to the door for a smoke. It’s a nice novelty when you’re able to smoke in bars when you go abroad as well.

Celly Smunt

irelandrover wrote: »

The pub can't have any staff as far as I know. Has to be the owner working there. The smoking ban was just ignored in a lot of the smaller pubs anyway so nothing will really change.

but thats no reason why a pub can't have 1-2 staff who can contract up to working in a smoking area,thats if it was slightly changed and enforced over here

irelandrover

pmcmahon wrote: »

but thats no reason why a pub can't have 1-2 staff who can contract up to working in a smoking area,thats if it was slightly changed and enforced over here

But then why stop at one to two staff? As long as all your staff contract up to working in a smoke filled enviroment. What difference does ity make how many staff?

jackiebaron

prinz wrote: »

Nor should it be reversed here.

Why shouldn't it be reversed?
What we have here is failure to communicate <cool hand luke>.

The ban was brought in under dubious circumstances, based upon questionable science and it was enforced by playing off one side against the other using emotional blackmail. That right there is grounds for a law to be rooted out.
The legislators KNEW they couldn't ban smoking on the grounds that it's bad for the smoker so they went for the guilt trip route by saying that the smokers are jeopardising the health of the staff. Cunning little trick. Only they didn't figure that some establishments might be owner-operated by a smoker.
They never even bothered to try to come to a balance that would accommodate both smokers and non-smokers....why? Because this isn't an issue about health, it's simply more nanny-state draconianism. Some politician wanting to introduce his own little law. Mark his own little territory like a dogs pissing on trees.

I personally am a smoker but I hate those pubs where there's a pall of stale tobacco smoke shrouding the place. I get out of there as soon as possible and find a nice well ventilated lounge where I can enjoy a pilsner, the crossword and a ciggy.

Peace!

Lab_Mouse

fontanalis wrote: »

At least the smell of smoke will get rid of the smell of farts.

and feet

strobe

Smoker here and don't think it should be reversed. I much prefer going to the pub since the smoking ban, for the reasons non-smokers do, in that, it's not a very pleasant or healthy experience to sit in a pub absolutely full with cigarette smoke. But also because I just think pubs became much better craic. People mixed more because they would be up and down to the smoking area rather than just sitting with their own specific group at their table for most of the night, and maybe running into someone at the bar on occasion. Also it saved me an absolute fortune, not only on smokes but on drink too. Since the smoking ban I can head out for a joint anytime I want now without it looking odd and when I smoke weed on a night out I might only have two or three pints the whole night, whereas otherwise I might have 8 or 10. It's been win all round for Strobe.

pwd

I smoke. I think the smoking ban is a good thing. I thought a lot of smokers would have the same opinion. Don't see why anyone would want the ban reversed tbh.

Celly Smunt

irelandrover wrote: »

But then why stop at one to two staff? As long as all your staff contract up to working in a smoke filled enviroment. What difference does ity make how many staff?

because it would limit the places where smoking in pubs could be allowed,for example you need more than a barman and one lounge girl in a large lounge,night club or restraunt,basically keeping smoking to smoking bars

Wertz

prinz wrote: »

I think you'll find that poster isn't alone..

Probably not...but then again (and I don't have exact figure) about 20-25% of the Irish adult population smoke. I'm not saying they should have right to smoke where they wish, but why shouldn't there be some capitulation to what amounts to roughly 900K people/potential bar customers (external smoking area does not apply) ?
In the times before the smoking ban what did all those non-smoking people who drank in smoke filled pubs do?
Put up with it? Mostly. Go somewhere else? Possibly. Stay home? Doubtfully.

A relaxation on our law to allow individual bar owners to provide a suitable smoking area would allow the market to cater for both groups, and for smokers and non smokers to choose their venue.

Wertz

trish23 wrote: »

I'm not sure of that as a hotel is actually one of the only public places where you can book a smoking room?

He's talking (at least I think he is) about Holland.

Wibbs

jackiebaron wrote: »

Hooray!
I live in Amsterdam. Of course in Germany they just ignored the ban (so much for German conformity...and Irish rebelliousness!!).

Ditto for a lot of other places it was tried. Italy another. Greece should be interesting given even the cats and dogs on the street smoke. Actually above and beyond the pros and cons, the complete conformity in Ireland was a bit of a disappointment for me. We're very conformist and non rebellious as a culture, contrary to our image of ourselves. The successive governments screwing us over, the church screwing us over, even to the point of interfering with our own bloody children and sweet fcuk all happened for a very very long time and for all the Grrrr rhetoric about the current debacle surrounding the great and good, we do very very little. A lot are very quick to roll out the low level stuff of "ah shure isn't it for our own good/others know best, they're experts you know/etc". Going agin the grain is lauded on the one hand and considered deeply suspicious on the other. Few enough will actually stand up and even fewer will stand behind them. I've seen a fair few examples of that on Boards debates too.

Osgoodisgood

Wertz wrote: »

but where is the fairplay for those who do wish to go out, have a drink and a smoke in the comfort of indoors?

Well, they could have their smokies at home and then go out? But if they do, I'd prefer they had a shower just before they leave to come meet the clean people