MrStuffins wrote: » this thread is not about whether smokers think they're immortal.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Funny how most folk run to the trenches and start firing at each other instead of digesting the OP properly. For those who missed it here's the OP's primary concern.I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????I Thought the smoking ban was to protect employees????
phasers wrote: » ah so what, the smokers can sit in their area and smoke, and non smokers can sit in the lovely non smoking area. Everyone wins.
Dudess wrote: » Being an atheist, being a non smoker - two things that automatically render a person "smug" apparently...
who the fug wrote: » No the non smokers keep stalking us
MrStuffins wrote: » The place the OP describes sounds like it doesn't even qualify as being "outside". And certainly wouldn't fit the criteria to qualify as a "Smoking Area". In this case, it should be illegal to smoke there if there are people working!
Little Acorn wrote: » Just because food was being served there doesn't mean it wasn't also the designated smoking area. Infact nearly all outdoor dining areas I see also have ashtrays on some of the tables, and more if requested, simply because it is their only smoking area. So I don't see how it is correct to say "god damn smokers, not smoking where they are meant to be smoking", if they are infact smoking in a smoking area that was provided by the establishment. If the smoking area does not conform to the smoking area rules and how it affects employees etc., then that is an issue for the management to fix, and is not the fault of people who happen to be just using the smoking area that was provided to them.
The owner, manager or person in charge of the workplace is legally responsible for ensuring that the ban on smoking in the workplace is complied with...
Any person found guilty of breaching the ban on smoking in the workplace may be subject to a fine of up to €3,000.
Chuck Stone wrote: » The 'evangelical' ones are insufferable bastards in fairness. I say this as an atheist and ex-smoker.
MrStuffins wrote: » Just because the management are the enforcers here............. does not mean that the individual is not breaking the law
who the fug wrote: » but are u teetotal
Logical Fallacy wrote: » But, no offence to the OP, if people are willing to witness the law being broken but not inform the proper authorities...well, it renders their arguments practically moot. "Why won't every but me take steps to solve this social issue????"
MrStuffins wrote: » It's not as easy as that though. "I saw someone stealing a bike today but didnt report it" doesnt equal "It's grand if we all steal bikes!"
El Weirdo wrote: » Jesus Christ, why are some non-smokers such sanctimonious wankers?
MrStuffins wrote: » Just because the management are the enforcers here............. Any person found guilty of breaching the ban on smoking in the workplace may be subject to a fine of up to €3,000. does not mean that the individual is not breaking the law
Little Acorn wrote: » But are the customers breaking the law, if they are just abiding by the law that the management have enforced? If the management are the main enforcers of this law, they set up the smoking areas in their establishment, they tell their customers "you are allowed to smoke here", and the customers in good faith follow the management's rules, then I don't see how they are breaking the law. They are following the laws that are given to them by the legal enforcers for that business, ie. the managers/owners, so if there is a fault it lies with the management not the customer. If the management has an outdoor smoking area, and I breach their rules by smoking inside in the bathroom or hallway, then yes -then I would be breaking the laws and would get a fine, but if I am obeying the rules that are set out by management of the establishment, and the management turns out to be the ones breaking the law, the it would be them and not the smoker who is following the rules, who are at fault.
MrStuffins wrote: » Now the answer, it's because if smoking just harmed the smoker, then fine! Do what you want! But it doesn't. therefore, the non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer just because some people are so stupid to take up such a ridiculous habit as smoking!
Chuck Stone wrote: » The 'evangelical' ones are insufferable bastards in fairness.
MrStuffins wrote: » So angry, relax the cacks and have a smoke. Now the answer, it's because if smoking just harmed the smoker, then fine! Do what you want! But it doesn't. therefore, the non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer just because some people are so stupid to take up such a ridiculous habit as smoking! it's pretty obvious if you think about it no?