Smoking Ban reversal?

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

prinz

jackiebaron wrote: »

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

No doubt some places ignored the ban but not all. There are specific grounds on which you can claim an exemption to the ban in Germany. If you don't meet these, smoking is banned. Ironically enough, one of the grounds for being exempt is being styled as an Irish bar IIRC.

Wertz

prinz wrote: »

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

Yeah I didn't see that bit in the article. Pubs that don't employ anyone, but you'd imagine most of those are family run...running a pub singlehanded would be pretty rare, you're nearly always going to need some support/relief staff.

irelandrover

pmcmahon wrote: »

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

But why limit it to small bars? Whats the purpose of that. Why not allow it in the larger bars. They'd just be large smoking bars in that case.

Fuhrer

If the smoking ban was reversed it would make it really hard to get away from someone you hate in a night club, "Yeah, sorry mate, just going out for a smoke!"

Celly Smunt

irelandrover wrote: »

But why limit it to small bars? Whats the purpose of that. Why not allow it in the larger bars. They'd just be large smoking bars in that case.

limiting it to small bars because there are alot of people who want to go out and enjoy a drink without having to deal with the smell of smoke etc.,if you have an extra room sealed off from the lounge you could have it as big as you want as long as you 1-2 staff can cope,there'd be guidelines of no children etc and people who want to smoke when they go out can do so at the smoking bar.

irelandrover

pmcmahon wrote: »

limiting it to small bars because there are alot of people who want to go out and enjoy a drink without having to deal with the smell of smoke etc.,if you have an extra room sealed off from the lounge you could have it as big as you want as long as you 1-2 staff can cope,there'd be guidelines of no children etc and people who want to smoke when they go out can do so at the smoking bar.

I live in Holland and I honestly dont mind the smoking in bars. I just fail to see your logic that you can smoke in a pub if there are only two staff working there.

Celly Smunt

irelandrover wrote: »

I live in Holland and I honestly dont mind the smoking in bars. I just fail to see your logic that you can smoke in a pub if there are only two staff working there.

no you're not understanding me,im talking about a seperate bar within a pub where smoking is permitted or in the case of a small pub (rural pubs etc) its up to the owners discretion whether to apply for a smoking bar or a non smoking bar

OldGoat

Mr.S wrote: »

Seriously? Pain in ass sometimes having to go into a packed smoking area, or go outside the pub in the rain. Even worse when theres a **** smoking area.

Find a pub with better facilities?

If you can't be arsed complaining about the quality of the smoking area in your chosen local pub then you deserve what you get tbh.
The quality of the smoking area is a major factor when I am making a decision on where to go.

Wertz

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

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

Smoke at home and then go out? Smoking isn't like drinking...you don't top up the tank and then go out and sit over a few pints all night. There's plenty of people who ponly smoke when they drink (me being one)
Clean people? lol get over yourself...plenty of non smokers I've met with personal hygiene issues or an aversion to teeth brushing.

irelandrover

pmcmahon wrote: »

no you're not understanding me,im talking about a seperate bar within a pub where smoking is permitted or in the case of a small pub (rural pubs etc) its up to the owners discretion whether to apply for a smoking bar or a non smoking bar

So what your're talking about is just a fancy smoking room. One which most large pubs have already. Except for the small local bar where you say that as long as it only has one or two staff you can smoke indoors?