* Please note that the results of the online poll represent just a snapshot of opinion from the site members who participate. The results of each poll do not necessarily represent the national picture. Participants are only allowed to vote once in each poll.
Joanna(WUU11802) Posted:
29/03/2004 22:19 |
|
I am against the smoking ban, so if I had a small rural business I would not enforce the ban.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/03/2004 13:49 |
|
Delighted with smolking ban Congradulations to Mr Martin
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/03/2004 15:45 |
|
It's about time. Non-smokers have rights too.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/03/2004 16:29 |
|
I am undecided about the appropriateness/enforcability of the approach that has been taken to implement the smoking ban... if we are talking about the publicans who have illegal after hours 'lock-ins' around the country - what would make them respect one law & not another???
I'm a non-smoker, not an anti-smoker.
I respect peoples right to choose and I would have prefered to see a different approach taken
through ventilation, non-smoking areas at the bar, and non-smoking seating areas... we are intelligent/adult enough to make this work in restaurants... and if pub-go-ers are too inebriated to be able to make the judgement of whether they are in a non-smoking area or not, then they probably shouldn't have been served their last drink!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/03/2004 18:36 |
|
I think the smoking ban will not be inforced after the hype about it dye's down, and I think the government should stop trying to impress the world with their new rules and start impressing their country with fixing it instead of trying to make us healthier, what are they trying to do make sure that they dont have to spend the money on the healthcare next you'll have them banning chocolate and fatty foods its easier to ban things than fix them. Im very angry about this smoking ban, I'm a non-smoker but my dad is 83 years old and he goes out every night for two pints of guiness and a cigar, as he has done for the last 25 years but now he cant and i think its a disgrace!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/03/2004 22:00 |
|
Credit where it's due to the Minister. Who now remembers the 'right' to smoke on aircraft and in cinemas? Maybe now Mr Martin can tackle some of the other blatant scandals in healthcare, such as the fact that a person on HALF the MINIMUM wage is considered too well-off to qualify for a Medical Card, while wealthy elderly crooks like Squire Haughey of Kinsealy can sponge free medical care and drugs off the rest of us!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/04/2004 09:12 |
|
If it cannot be enforced in the Dail Bar, what hope is there for the rest of the country?!?!?!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
01/04/2004 13:43 |
|
Enforcement of the ban will depend on the willingness of non-smokers to stand up for their rights to clean air and make it very clear that smoking is just not acceptable indoors. Save the Smokers Hotline number (1890 333100) on your mobile now and use it every time.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/04/2004 14:31 |
|
I'm all for the ban but I will be verey surporised if it is enforced appropriately. It will be like all the other pieces of legislation in this country - more like guidelines for self regulation than anything else.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/04/2004 16:13 |
|
The first law breaker in the Dail bar has been sacked by the minister. This is a message to the rest of us how serious the ban is been taken
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/04/2004 17:03 |
|
The only way that this ban can be enforced is if those people who respect the rights of others take part in enforcing it. It shouldn't just be the responsibility of bar staff or 'smoke inspectors'. Both smokers and non-smokers who agree with the ban should also take on the task of ensuring its implementation.
Also, I don't agree that pubs and restaurants will lose custom, in fact, I am of the opinion that turnover will increase. I know for sure that a certain pub in Dublin city will have the pleasure of my custom this Sunday morning for brunch - somewhere I have always wanted to go to read the papers and watch the world go by but couldn't because smoke polluted lungs, clothes and hair is not the most pleasant experience the morning after the night before!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/04/2004 22:29 |
|
i am a smoker and while i may be put out by the ban i think it is for the best as it will save lives in the long term. i do fear it may effect businesses particularily smaller ones but hopefully because of the inconvenience this ban imposes maybe we'll end up giving up too
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 00:12 |
|
Minister Micheal Martin is the only minister who had the guts to stand by his smoking ban, and as such, he remains one of the few men of our time who means what he says. Actions speak louder than words. He will be remembered long after the rest are consigned to oblivion! Congrats on a job well done!
|
| |
|
liam(mail4liam) Posted:
02/04/2004 00:47 |
|
i am a non smoker but i believe that the smoker is a eu citizen , and alternative places for smoking should have been put in place for them before this stupid ban was put in place.we are not young kids , and we should not act as same.i have not been into bars for years, on account of having chronic sinutisis but am looking forward to going back .so i think that this state is slowly but surely becoming a police state, what next proabition, like the us in the 20's ban, drink, totally, yes sure, over my dead body, but who has the ****s to do so.come on mickey martin and square up.
|
| |
|
X(razoi) Posted:
02/04/2004 09:17 |
|
Hopefully not. I think Ireland has to address far more important problems than making individuals feel like criminal for being a smoker. Why didn't they start to introduce non-smoking and smoking areas, instead? What about peoples right to choose and what about the drinking problem in Ireland, doesn't that affect our healt but nevertheless alcohol is not illegal.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 09:36 |
|
As somebody who will be enforcing the ban, I can asure you that it will be enforced "long after the hype has died down". Environmental Health Officers have been enforcing tobacco control legislation for the last 10 years. The only difference this time is that pubs and the other 50% of restaurants are now encompased by the legislation. Although the number of complaints received so far are small, we are already responding. It's in everybody's interest that this legislation works, not least the people enforcing it.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 09:57 |
|
It's a disgrace that we do not have the right to choose. Mr. Martin has provided, excuse the pun a "smoke screen". The real issues like our hospitals and schools are no longer the topic of conversation. How dare he tell the public how to live their lives! If I want to kill myself I have the choice to do so.
|
| |
|
Anne Marie(ammohanly) Posted:
02/04/2004 10:38 |
|
I don't know that the ban will be enforced around the country at all but I congratulate Minister Martin on sticking with his decision. It WILL save lives!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
02/04/2004 11:26 |
|
"If I want to kill myself I have the choice to do so"
Have you actually followed this debate? The issue is not your right to kill yourself - it is the fact that you are killing bar staff by your selfish actions.
Go stand outside now. I said NOW......
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 11:29 |
|
To the person who says 'if I want to kill myself I have the choice to do so' (02/04/04) The entire point of the ban is that you're not just killing yourself, you're killing those around you and until now, they had no choice in the matter. You still have the right to smoke, just not in certain places.
|
| |
|
Patrick(paddymac870) Posted:
02/04/2004 12:35 |
|
As an Ex-smoker I do understand how frustrated people feel about this very serious health issue.
However, I do not believe that the ban will be enforced fairly. It is fundamentally flawed, and I do not see how Environmental Health Officers will be able too effectively enforce the new law, as they are understaffed and can not even stop the local newsagents from selling cigarettes too the underaged.
This smoking ban is unenforceable, and is therefore bound to fail.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 12:56 |
|
I think the ban will be enforced because the hype will not die down. It is in Micheal Martin's interest to keep up the hype to distract attention from the real problems in the health service. It is alot easier to be remembered as the Minister who eliminated cigarettte butts than the Minister who stock piled patients on hospital trolleys.
I can now understand why Fianna Fail dropped "the Republican Party" from its name. It was to make room for "the Communist Party".
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 13:14 |
|
I do believe that workers have more rights to breathe clean are than smokers have to smoke.But I am one of those people that on the 3 or 4th drink I do like a couple of cigarettes, so it will affect me, but its better in the long run that I can't!!
However I cant really see it being enforced in country pubs esp where the proprieter smokes!! is it his workplace or his home???
I wonder if this is being done because Ireland are seen as a big drinking nation and if we can ban it in EU any other country can?
I was in NY recently and many of the suburb pubs were not smoke free, only ashtray free (butts everywhere!!)and some pubs allowed smoking after 11pm etc.
Manhattan itself was indeed smoke free, but it has lost a bit of its fun image of 'anything goes'in NY!!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 14:35 |
|
Lets not start pleasuring Michael Martins ego. The health service over which he presides is still a shambles. Superimposing a smoking ban from the US is no reason to re-elect the man. He still has a long way to go before I will vote him or his party into power again.
|
| |
|
Thomas(stone) Posted:
02/04/2004 15:05 |
|
No I do not believe the Ban will be enforched fairly. It's just another law on top of hundreds of others not enforced. But I think the ban is the best thing that has happened. We are a great example to the rest of the world.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 19:22 |
|
People like Joanna who think they are above the law should be the first to be fined or arrested! Nobody is above the law.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/04/2004 19:58 |
|
Yes I believe the ban will be enforced and that its strict enforcement is fair. At long last my family and I can enjoy a meal in a restaurant, or have a drink/meal in a pub, without being forced to inhale second hand smoke. Well Done Minister Martin!
|
| |
|
Maria(Eccle) Posted:
02/04/2004 21:09 |
|
The smoking ban is a great idea, whethter it will be enforced all over the country is another story. It will possibly be the same as the driving laws, both speed and drink driving, which are blatantly ignored every day of the week.In parts of this country people are getting behind the wheel when they can barely see where they are going and doing it many nights of the week. So I'm sure when all the hype dies down the smoking ban will be mostly ignored; a pity because we non smokers have rights too, the right to a smoke free environment.
|
| |
|
Elaine(QUG10466) Posted:
03/04/2004 23:08 |
|
It is hard to say, as some are not taking it seriously, but rules are rules - some would say, and rules are made to be broken - others would say! I think non smokers have rights also and this would be the first time their rights have been acknowledged. My one fear is that it will cause a lot of aggravation - for example when smokers have to leave a premises and smoke outside - this in itself will be very atagonistic, and no doubt will cause disharmony especially if a few drinks have been taken, or if the weather is (like it usually is) bad and patrons of establishments have to go outside to smoke. On the other hand it may help those who have wanted to give up smoking - take the final plunge. Could I just add a light note to this - CARLESBERG DON'T DO CIGARETTES, BUT IF THEY DID THEY WOULD BE THE BEST SMOKE FREE CIGARRETTES EVER! GOOD LUCK TO ALL YOU SMOKERS - FROM A NON SMOKER
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
03/04/2004 23:15 |
|
I think the smoking ban is a good move, but i think that smokers should be given real help and support ao try and kick the habit.I was a heavy smoker for 20 years plus. I stopped because i was loosing my breath and because i was lighting up and one lit in the ash tray, lighting one leave it in the ash tray and forget about it. I proved to myself that about 60-70% of my smoking was just a very costly HABIT.Patches or chewing gum did not work for me, a change of thinking and mind set is what is required to kick this dirty weed. Good luck.
|
| |
|
Catherine(PTF12035) Posted:
04/04/2004 02:28 |
|
I hope the smoking ban will be enforced fairly and countrywide. As a health professional working in the area of public health I have a strong commitment to its success and I look forward to Ireland leading by example in other public health initiatives - the world is watching us so let's make this one a winner. On a personal level I enjoyed a function in a local pub last night without the overhanging fug of smoke and coming home with clean-smelling clothes. The difference is so noticeable already; perhaps it will be the catalyst for a lot of smokers to quit.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/04/2004 21:40 |
|
I wish it would be fairly enforced but I recently went onto a northside garda station to get a form and could smell cigarette smoke from the back of the office. Obviously the law is not being enforced by the lawmakers themselves! I hope that the powers that be can enforce the law within the force, but I doubt it!
|
| |
|
Harmony(NEP12061) Posted:
05/04/2004 00:12 |
|
Ireland is the most excellent country in the world and people take it for granted i am very pround to have learnt the Irish culture before my own and honestly you guys are the only country in the world to make such are strong statement knowing very well it would upset people the only people upset are the ones who will not profit from your ban and thats just to bad to sad cause look at the bigger picture the children will benifet the hospitals will benifet and alot of people will breathe easier i wish N.Z had the balls to do that but of course money first health latter good on Ireland your the bomb
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
05/04/2004 00:18 |
|
As a smoker I think there should be a compromise. In larger pubs and hotels there should be a smoking room provided or an outside sheltered area. I have found the smug comments and looks from some non-smokers while I smoke outside is very offensive. It makes us smokers appear as if we were lepers. We too have rights and we too are first class citizens
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
05/04/2004 13:25 |
|
To be honest, I think the smoking ban is working fine so far anyway. I don't believe people are looking smugly at the smokers, I actually think people are saying 'fair play to you' for going outside and obeying the law. And anyway, looking around at the w/e, the smokers outside seemed to be having a whale of a time! Did anyone notice tho, the smells in the pubs, there was a mixture of perfume, stale beer and musty uphosltry!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
06/04/2004 16:08 |
|
How can something that is fundamentally unfair be enforced fairly? What is fair about not having the right to choose? Compromises could have been drawn up to satisfy both smokers and non-smokers.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 08:33 |
|
What about non smokers choices up to now? Its all about the smokers, always was. Now its the non smokers time and smokers just cant seem to handle that.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 10:22 |
|
To Anonymous 08:33 - No, its non-smokers who are unreasonable in wanting a complete ban! The smokers were willing to compromise, but the non-smokers? God no!!! Compromises should have been reached with some pubs smoke free and some smoke friendly. It could have been licensed as an addition to the publican's liquor licence, and on a proportional basis (1 in 4 pubs smoke friendly within a 2 mile radius for instance?) subject to strict adherence to guidelines which could have been developed regarding to ventilation etc, but the bloody non-smokers would STILL be whinging! And before you say anything - I'M A NON-SMOKER! Gave up two years ago and found it bloody hard to give up. I think any curtailment on an individual's right to choose is a step backwards. Fine, let the non-smokers have smoke free pubs! But let the smokers have smoke friendly ones, and before you start on about "what about the staff" theres plenty of bar staff who smoke! There is nothing fair about this ban!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 11:24 |
|
Quote "theres plenty of bar staff who smoke!". And there are plenty of drivers who dont like seat belts. And plenty of builders who don't like hard hats. Should we set aside these regulations too in the name of the great god CHOICE?
As it happens, the fact that some bar staff smoke is irrelevant. The 2nd hand smoke can be MORE dangerous than their own cigarettes, as it doesn't come through a filter.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 11:45 |
|
To anonymous 10.22 - I think you need to go back on the smokes. Not only are you a tad over the top but your points are fundamentally flawed. I was a bar worker and a smoker but I am convinced that unless there was a level playing pitch, i.e. all pubs non-smoking, this ban would not work. In your world, would bar workers in 'smoking pubs' be paid extra, danger money so to speak? What happens if a 'smoking' barman decides to give up smoking - is he fired? Would staff have to sign a contract stating that they won't hold their employers negligent in the event of getting a smoking related illness? The ban is working for everybodys benefit. Stop knocking it.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 12:00 |
|
It will be enforced in Hotels and big pubs but what about small places in the country that are operated and run by the owner and their family. People aren't going to report their neighbours and friends and smoking officers will be thin on the ground
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 12:09 |
|
This forum is regarding whether or not the ban will be enforced fairly. Bottom line, the the ban is unfair, so the answer is NO.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 13:43 |
|
To Anonymous Posted: 07/04/2004 10:22 perhaps you think I was always a non smoker however, like you I gave up. However, the main reason why I am in favour of the ban is because the only place and times I smoked was in the pub, around other smokers. Now that the ban is in, I can enjoy my pint when I go out. Further, I can enjoy the clean air, I wake up in the morning without a chest about to burst, my clothes, and my room do not stink of stale smoke, I do not stink of stale smoke, my breath does not stink like an ashtray any longer. If the smokers were smart enough they would use the ban to give up because face it, very few people actually want to remain smoking. But no, all the John Deasy's are coming out like little scolded children digging their heals in and probably smoking more in some silly little defiant game "no one's gonna tell me what to do" sort of attitude. The sorriest bit of this whole issue is that ciggarettes should never, ever have been legal in the first place. However, we now know what smoking does to smokers and non smokers alike. You and some smokers want compromise, rare has a smoker compromised previously. Many is a smoker who could not be bothered to ask if any on smokers at a table minded if they lit a cigarette, no, they just light up with no thought for anyone else. Why should non smokers compromise on an issue that has their health and enjoyment at risk.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 14:20 |
|
To Anonymous posters at 11:24 and 11:45 - In "my world" everything is open to discussion and compromise. Try it - it could open up "new worlds" for you. If someone chose to give up smoking it would be their CHOICE to stay or go. Why did so many anti-smokers apply for jobs in pubs in the first place? They knew what they were getting into!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/04/2004 15:35 |
|
Almost everyone working in a pub smokes and since it is a free world nobody is forced to apply for a job in a pub or a restaurant. The pub is the one place where it should be allowed to smoke and fair enough if people don't want to inhale smoke or smell of it but there should be an option for smokers too. Why not launching non smoking and smoking pubs. It is ridiculous to force smokers to stay outside in the cold and the rain. Ireland is not southern Spain.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
08/04/2004 09:26 |
|
Why do smokers on this forum and all other forums on this ban believe that this is a ban on them and they have to stay outside the pubs all the time. I was a smoker myself for about 20 years and gave up last August when this debate began in earnest. All you have to do is go outside for a few quick drags of a smoke and then come back inside. Really, you people are your own worst enemy. If I was as opinionated and outright blinkered in my views before I gave up then I am doubly glad now that I gave up.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
08/04/2004 21:29 |
|
would the Food fascists and Health Nazis please get out of the way. The rest of us have lives to lead. Ban the Ban. Its the only fair thing to do. Theres a vote in June. Use it wisely.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
09/04/2004 13:07 |
|
No political party is going to reverse the ban. It would be sheer political suicide, given that 75% of the population are non-smokers and many smokers are in favour of the ban too.
Get over it, smokers - If you have to feed your addiction, do it somewhere that it doesn't impact me.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
10/04/2004 19:26 |
|
Isn't it a poor day when there is no political party with guts enough to stand up and say that this ban is an affront to liberal democracy? Deasy was right, they are all too comfortable.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
12/04/2004 06:16 |
|
Why should the enforcement of the smoking ban be any different from that of any other law? Get over it smokers, you can still go outtside if you're desperate for a nicotine hit, otherwise vote with your feet and stay away from the pubs en masse. There are plenty from the majority non-smoking group who will be happy to take your place. It's your choice - what's more important to you, your drug fix or your social life?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
13/04/2004 01:52 |
|
I have read with interest the comments of the obsessive health conscious non- smokers above.What a dreadful right wing, reactionary,sanctimonious bunch some of them are.
The truth is that the smoking ban has very little to do with public health rather it is a very clever diversion by a very cute politician to distract attention away from the appalling state of the health services.And it has worked brilliantly.
In this country there is a substantial number of very right wing people who enjoy restricting the rights of others-they did it for years with restrictions on divorce and contraception- so I think smokers will just have to accept it is part of the national psyche.Even my sister who lives abroad and is trenchantly anti-smoking was shocked when I told her that a TD,Mr. Deasy, might be fined 3000euro for smoking 3 cigarettes in breach of the ban.How ludicrous is this in view of the corrupt and unchecked practices of some of those he sits with in the Dail chamber ? Is it any wonder a friend in the USA (also very anti-smoking)emailed me to ask if a"Gestapo like cabal"(his words,not mine) had taken over the running of the Irish government ? There seems to be a growing number of people in this society who want to be protected from themselves and are appealing to politicians to bring in laws and restrictions on everything.The country is becoming a European Iran.
However, there is an opportunity to register your disapproval at what is happening and I for one intend to do so in June at election time.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
13/04/2004 09:15 |
|
It's quite true. It is so mucheasier for Michael martin to ban drink advertising, ban Big Macs and ban smokign in pubs, than to actually DO anythign about the worsenign state of teh health service. Smoking is a disgusting, unhealthy, dirty etc, but perfectly legal activity. I don't smoke but before the smokign ban was introduced, I went either to a pub witha decent air filter system or I went out on a quiet night. Yes, I can see that employees should be protected but no-one is forced to work in pub. If you don't want rough cloused hands, don'ty work on a building site, if you don't want tanned weatherbeaten skin, don't work as farmer.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
13/04/2004 20:40 |
|
I congratulate the two posters of April 13th in their observations regarding this oppressive law. One cannot uphold "majority rights" at the cost of suppressing those of the minority, whether that be in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, or here in the republic. This issue will not go away and if not readdressed in a fair and balanced manner it will itself become a cancerous sore at the heart of Irish society. There certainly is an insidious gestapo-like movement afoot here. I too will make my voice count at the june elections and at future elections.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
14/04/2004 09:23 |
|
Quote: "it will itself become a cancerous sore at the heart of Irish society" - How ironic.....
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
08/07/2004 19:54 |
|
Well is IS becoming a cancerous sore at the heart of society.... We're in july now, in the fine weather and there is already a fall-out with severe loss of business in hospitality sector. When the government is forced to reconsider this lunatic law, unfortunately it will sadly be for the reason that MONEY is being lost, not for the much better reason that it is not acceptable to any of us that people are thrown out into the street.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/07/2004 08:31 |
|
As usal, no regard for other patrons of the pub or staff who work there.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
14/07/2004 23:12 |
|
Plenty of regard for everyone. Very simple. Smoking Pubs for well-informed mature grown-up adults; Non smoking pubs for the intolerant; and an adult choice for everyone!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
15/07/2004 14:27 |
|
Quote: " an adult choice for everyone!"
Except of course the staff who you expect to put their health at risk for a low-paying job. [& don't claim that all bar staff are smokers anyway - they're not, and even if they were unfiltered 2nd hand tobacco smoke from other peoples fags can be more dangerous than filtered smoke through your own fag.
Quote: "Well is IS becoming a cancerous sore at the heart of society.... " Clearly, the irony has gone right over your head. The REAL cancerous sore (really, i.e. medically proven in the HSA report) at the heart of society (pre-March 2004) was 2nd hand tobacco smoke. The cancerous sore has been removed.
Any pub that is losing business is failing to market to the 75% of the population who DON'T smoke.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/07/2004 02:09 |
|
The only irony round here is that no smoker wants a RainyDay. There IS no medical proof that "passive smoking" leads to anything other than annoyance and the majority of studies show the effects of passive smoke to be so small as to scientifically negligible. There is a great health risk though, if one's freedom of choice is forcefully taken away which is scientifically, anecdotally and historically proven Ref: North Korea, Iran, Iraq, the old soviet union, george orwell's 1984, and hitlers germany.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/07/2004 08:31 |
|
The HSA eport proved inconclusively, medically and scientifically (in case cancer deaths from passive smokign aren't proof enough for you) that passive smoking caused carcinogens to be inhaled which can and do cause cancer.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
22/07/2004 09:43 |
|
Quote "IS no medical proof that "passive smoking" leads to anything other than annoyance and the majority of studies show the effects of passive smoke to be so small as to scientifically negligible"
King Canute is trying to stop the tide from coming in. The evidence is there in the HSA report and the recent Lancet paper. You are only kidding yourself if you pretend otherwise.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/07/2004 10:18 |
|
The only reports that say there is no proven link between cancer and passive smoking are those sponsored by the tobacco indusry.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
22/07/2004 10:42 |
|
No proof that passive smoke is harmful? Take a quick reality check: we already know that the inhaled smoke is harmful. What would lead any sane person to believe that what the smoker exhales it is healthy breathable air, when what comes out still looks, smells and irritates like smoke?
|
| |
|
Robert(robbied) Posted:
22/07/2004 12:40 |
|
I don't understand why this discussion is still continuing. The argument is going around in circles. The legislation is in, it's working and it's for the betterment of the majority of the population. More importantly, the anti-ban contributors here are forgetting that this legislation is primarly worker-protection and covers all workplaces not just the pubs. New debate please, this is getting boring...............
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/07/2004 15:12 |
|
If it's getting boring for you then don't read it anymore.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/07/2004 00:51 |
|
Why are anti-people people so dog-in-the-manger about this? What is so wrong with smoking venues for smoking people? As you think about whatever answer may be forming, why not stop for a second and see if fair-mindedness has any place in your thinking (really) or have you simply determined to become brutal to your fellow citizens. This crude, politically correct evil is fundamentally a wrong piece of legislation. As for passive smoking, the original scientist to publish research suggesting any link between illness and smoking, Professor Sir Richard Doll, said: "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".(BBC radio February 2001). Thats good enough for me too.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/07/2004 08:48 |
|
I don't smoke. I do beliuve that passive smokign is dangerous. But hey, the radiatipon we experience daily from mobile phones and microwaves is also dangerous, and the UVA form daylightis also dangerous. But this doesn't mean I never went to a pub, used a phone or went outside.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
23/07/2004 09:22 |
|
Quote: "Thats good enough for me too". It may be good enough for you, but it is not good enough for me, for the HSA, for the Govt and for the 75% of the population who don't smoke. Your smoking venue is your home. When you smoke anywhere else, you are imposing your filthy habit, your health risks and your waste products on other people. There is no possible 'smoking venue' that does not impose a health risk on staff at that venue.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/07/2004 09:51 |
|
Not all non-smokers agree with RainyDay! I am a non-smoker and before the ban, whenever I went to the pub with my work colleagues, I always sat with the smokers - they were a lot more fun! The pub is no fun since the ban. Sure, your clothes would smell a bit the next day, but personally, I wouldn't be wearing them again the next day, and would have a shower and wash my clothes - removing any odour - so, I never got the "oh my clothes and hair stink" whinge. I believe in the concept of "live and let live" so I as a non-smoker, would have no problem with smoking being licensed in some venues. All this PC crap is going too far! As regards employees, if you don't want to work in a venue that allows smoking - don't apply for a job there!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/07/2004 10:56 |
|
I think you have a point ananymous. No one is forcedto work in a pub. I don't want hard calloused hands, so I don't work ona building site. I don't want tanned skin, so I don't do an outdoor job like a gardener. I'm a non-smoker but no-one forced me to go to the pub. I went because I wanted to. On days when I thought the smoke would bother me, I would go for a drink in the local hotel whicbhad both a non-soking section and a good filtration system. My piint is - we have achoice. Smoking is still a perfectly legal habit, digusting, dangerous etc, but legal. No one forces anyone to smoke but also, no one forces non smokers to go to smoky pubs.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
23/07/2004 13:28 |
|
I presume those who don’t care about the health of pub employees would be happy to see all Health & Safety requirements for employers removed – Yes? So no more compulsory hard-hats for builders, no more compulsory protection equipment for asbestos removal teams, no more protective clothing for those who work with chemicals – Yes? No more compulsory safety guards on cutting equipment, no more compulsory electrical cut-out switches, no more maximum driving hours for lorry drivers, no more maximum loading weights for artics, no more minimum light/heat/space standards for office workers – Yes? Or to be more specific – think of the health & safety restrictions that operate in YOUR workplace – Are you happy for all of those to be wiped away? It’s easy to dismiss the ban with a glib comment about political correctness. But the ban is nothing of the sort – it is about protecting the health of workers at their workplace – a basic right for all of us.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/07/2004 13:48 |
|
Are you suggesting that pub workers should have been fitted with gas masks!!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/07/2004 17:30 |
|
Rainy seems utterly convinced that "75%" of people don't smoke. Even if this figure were true - and i strongly suspect it is not - her assumption is that all nonsmokers agree with her narrow definition of what is acceptable to the majority in Irish society. My experience tells me, that the very vast majority of irish people (whether smokers or nonsmokers) are open, tolerant and fair minded and, on the contrary, would willingly support measures to accommodate people who are currently treated appallingly "in the name of the law".
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
27/07/2004 09:16 |
|
Hi Anon - see http://www.otc.ie/article.asp?article=69 for confirmation that less that 25% of the population smoke. Have you got any independent sources for your contention that most people are willing to accept smoking areas? Have you any sensible ideas as to how you could achieve this without putting the health of staff at risk? My own anecdotal experience leads me to believe that the majority of non-smokers AND smokers are delighted with the ban, as it ensures they are smoking less and makes pubs more pleasant places for all.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
27/07/2004 19:11 |
|
Then, there is a minority of intolerant fixed minds about, who are willing to swallow everything the Orwellian styled "Office of Tobacco Control" says. The statistic is as unbelievable as the notion that this dreadful law has anything to to with "worker's health". We all know that the so-called law was framed around the notion of "workers health", as a means of maximising the exclusion of people who smoke from society. The state has a constitutional duty to cater for all of its citizens equally. No amount of pc blather about the scientifically negligible effect of cigarette smoke can change that.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
28/07/2004 08:31 |
|
Hi Anon - Got any facts back there, or is it all just spin? Your sad attempts to discredit the facts from the Office Of Tobacco Control aren't really working, so here's my suggestion - Why don't you clamp your hands over your ears & sign a happy tune whenever anyone starts presenting some facts about the smoking ban that you don't like? That way you can ensure that mere facts don't get to intrude into your mind.
The state's first duty is to protect the health of all its citizens, and it cannot & will not jeapordize the health of the majority to accomodate the minority of addicts.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
28/07/2004 08:38 |
|
The effects are not scientifically negligable. When are you going to get that thru your head.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
28/07/2004 09:15 |
|
Hi - to quote RainyDay "see http://www.otc.ie/article.asp?article=69 for confirmation that less that 25% of the population smoke" I would not consider the office of tobacco control unbiased or an "independant source"! Statistics can be manipulated, and certainly more than 1 in 4 of my friends smoke. I think they are including every child in the country in the "non-smoker" category to give them the 75% figure!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
28/07/2004 09:27 |
|
So do you really think OTC are biassed, or is ut just that you don't like what they are saying? Of course they are counting children in the total population. Children go to pubs/restaurants too! Do they not deserve consideration & protection like adults? It is laughable that you wont believe the OTC (the independent statuatory body) which has conducted serious, independent market research on this topic, but you expect us to take seriously your anecdotal 'more than 1 in 4' comment. Unless you can present substantial, detailed comments about the OTC stats or present a better alternative source of stats, then they are the best available stats that we have.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
28/07/2004 10:10 |
|
Why not? in your posting 27/07/04 09:16 you asked me and all the posters on the board to believe your anecdotal evidence, may I quote? ..."My own anecdotal experience leads me to believe that the majority of non-smokers AND smokers are delighted with the ban".... so why is my anecdotal comment less valid than yours? My own experience is that they are not happy with the ban. The bottom line is I believe what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears. I believe statistics can be manipulated to suit the purpose of whoever is quoting the statistics, so therefore, I don't have any faith in statistics. At the end of the day, the ban, AS IMPLEMENTED, is unfair. :-)
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
28/07/2004 11:28 |
|
I highlighted my own anecdotal experiences as just that - anecdotal - so all readers can interpret it accordingly. You use your own anecdotal experiences to contradict an independent professional market survey. I know which one I believe. Did you see Paddy O'Gorman on RTE TV last night interviewing British smokers outside the bars in Temple Bar. The smokers were extolling the virtues of the ban and hoping for something similar to be implemented in England.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
28/07/2004 14:00 |
|
I know that direct & passive smoking has been linked to many diseases
BUT smoking cigarettes is legal in this country
AND its my right as a citizen to choose to take any legal substance ( even if I know its bad for me )
AND I understand completely that bar staff are also entitled to choose whether they smoke or not
SO - instead of the government bringing in blanket smoking bans to all workplaces - in doing so taking away the choice from everyone...
- in fact they should have spent more time working on the legislation - to mandate that ALL workplaces must have improved ventilation to extract smoke & other airborne pollutants, and to have designated non-smoking areas - thus we would not be living in a nanny state, we would still have a democracy.
My question is if its so bad for us why are cigarettes still legal? While other drugs have been proven to be less harmful and classified
illegal.
- I have a feeling that the answer is: because the tobacco companies are powerful, the tax revenue on cigarettes is too important to all governments, and other drugs are usually controlled by the underworld and therefore not generating any tax revenue!!!
- so my solution is decriminalise all substances & put taxes on everything! create a social environment where there is true freedom of choice for all, without fear of criminality. This would also reduce crime, and the power/amount of money avalable to criminal gangs.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
29/07/2004 12:08 |
|
A total ban on cigarettes is just not practical. This would drive addicts into the arms of organised crime. Remember what Prohibition did for the mafia in the US in the 30's. By continuing to permit smoking, the state is taking a non-nanny line, i.e. addicts can continue to feed their addiction in their own homes/cars & out on the streets, but not where it would damage the health of workers. Seems quite logical to me. I wouldn't have a huge disagreement on your point about decriminalisation of supply of all such drugs, but that is a totally seperate issue to the smoking ban in pubs. I was at a gig in a pub in town last night - It is just amazingly refreshing to be able to watch a gig & have a pint without having to put up 2nd hand smoke.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
29/07/2004 22:43 |
|
Putting people out in the cold, worse - ditching them from society completely - so as you can "watch a gig and have a pint" is not democratic, not just, not equal, is in contravention of constitutional rights and is, for all of these reasons and more besides, untenable. Counting children as "nonsmokers" when it would be illegal for them to BE smokers is typical of the deceptive manipulation of statistics by biased interests such as the Office of Tobacco Control. This is an adult issue pertaining to adult venues. Whatever one's opinions on "2nd hand smoke" may be, there is nothing precluding the obvious and common sense solution of providing smoker friendly venues for those adults who want to choose them. Isn't it amazing that in this age, with high tech everything, we have people earnestly advocating medieval solutions to straightforward problems.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
30/07/2004 12:08 |
|
Hi Anon - Your 'obvious and common sense solution' of smoking venues does not address the health & safety issues - How are you going to protect staff working in such venues? And your claims of the ban being undemocratic & unconstitutional are somewhat ludicrous. Which specific parts of the Constition does the ban breach? Why aren't you down at the Supreme Court this morning knocking on their door and staking out your claim? And if the ban is undemocratic, how come the few crank candidates that stood in this issue in the recent elections crashed so badly? How can you seriously argue for exclusion of children from smoking statistics when we see children of 8 or 9 smoking on the street every day?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/07/2004 15:29 |
|
Rainy Day you're getting over the top now. I've been reading this debate and you are obviously just so militant that nothing anyone can say is going to make you budge an inch - even if they're right. And no, seeing 8 and 9 years olds smoking on the street is NOT and everyday sight, so that is just a total exaggeration. - Lou
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/07/2004 22:01 |
|
There is only one issue here rainy - and that is your stubborn refusal to treat your fellow man with any degree of compassion.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
03/08/2004 08:39 |
|
Hi Lou - Try walking past my local primary school in south Dublin between 8.30 and 9.00 on any school day and you'll see exactly what I mean. Hi Anon - I have great compassion for any addict, but my compassion does NOT run to permitting them to impose carcinogenic substances on others. Let's see some good faith by the smoking community for a change - How about the smokers stop littering the outside of every shop/pub/office with their butts (which take 10-15 years to decompose) for a change?
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
03/08/2004 20:03 |
|
Oh well, if there are 8-year-olds smoking down your street, then that is illegal. Where are the (other) Health Freaks when you REALLY need them - ah they\'re down the pub preserving the purity of Ireland and keeping smokers off the premises. Not only is the OTC biased, it is their job to be biased. Thats what they are paid for. In my opinion there is absolutely no scientific evidence, let alone proof, that second hand smoke is carcinogenic. The WHO merely \"declared\" shs to be carcinogenic based on \"research\" \"authoritative opinion\" and other biased skullduggery.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
04/08/2004 09:48 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - The fact that underage smoking is illegal doesn't solve the problem unfortunately, just like it doesn't solve the problem of underage drinking or drunk driving.
You show no evidence why you believe the OTC is biased, and you offer no alternative 'better' source of data. Your protestations have no weight. The evidence of the damage caused by 2nd hand smoke is available for anyone to see in the HSA report. This was prepared by a panel of non-aligned independent experts drawn from Ireland & abroad. The medical evidence of the damage of 2nd hand smoke is clear. You can clamp your hands over your eyes/ears to stop this disturbing evidence getting into your own head, but that doesn't change the facts.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/08/2004 09:48 |
|
I am pro the smoking ban
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
04/08/2004 23:05 |
|
Objective "Medical evidence" of the effect of shs is not only not clear, it is non existent. If you expect the thinking people of this country to suppose, that anyone medically aligned will step out of line with received wisdom within the medical industry, then you are insulting their intelligence. All such "research" produces the "right" findings and in one direction only. After all, reputations are at stake. As are untold billions in research money. I therefore cannot accept the "findings" of the "experts" as you would like us all to RD. The fact that the effects of shs are grossly overstated and exaggerated never gets related (though there is plenty of evidence for that, if you care to think for yourself and look around). All credit then to The British Medical Journal who published (but once only) an alternative view as recently as May 2003, with the heading "Has the health effect of passive smoking been overstated?" (it has) Of course, this was not good enough for the powers that be who recoiled in shock/horror that any medical source could suggest such a thing. Its been all Correctspeak since. The truth is that medical opinion is divided on this issue, but the vast majority of all research ever produced - including WHO studies - concludes that the effect of shs is statistically negligible. My argument is not about smoke. If they can produce equipment sensitive enough to remove micro organisms from operating theatres, they can provide a secure ventilation system for smoker-friendly venues. My argument centres on the constant creeping erosion of individual civil liberties (and responsibilities) in this society often presented as being "for our own protection" and usually backed up with "data", "new research" or findings from "experts". For instance, seamus brennan in his latest onslaught against motorists - the very vast majority of whom are decent and law abiding - is adding a further 60 offences to the penalty point fiasco in september for "health and safety" reasons. It isn't that smokers and nonsmokers are in competition here either (though MM is RELYING on people to be so). It is that intelligent responsible adult smokers are being completely deprived of any normal social outlet. In a modern republic, this is not good enough. Neither is it good enough that people support it by default, albeit for their own good reasons. This issue will not go away as long as one significant sector of society is being sacrificed for the perceived benefit of another. It is important for every person, smoker or non, that an amicable solution is found to this impasse because a REAL health issue - social democracy - is at stake.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
05/08/2004 08:10 |
|
Smokers, by there very definiton, could be neither responsible nor intelligent.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
05/08/2004 08:35 |
|
hear! hear!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
05/08/2004 09:34 |
|
I never know whether to laugh or cry when I hear anti-smoking ban protestors talking about civil liberties. Where were your civil liberties concerns for the decades when non-smoking customers & staff had to endure carcinogenic substances being forced into their lungs and their clothes and their hair? How civil is that? Let's face it - you are not concerned about civil liberties at all - you are simply concerned about being able to indulge your own selfish addiction and you don't really care about who it impacts.
Your post is contradictory. You tell us that all medics are afraid to tell the 'truth' about the effects of smoking, and then you quote that one BMJ article that appears to support your view. Have you check out how much funding the authors of this study (Dr Enstrom & Prof Kabat) received from tobacco industry? Quite a lot, if you do a quick google search. Many, many doctors smoke - and the smoking doctors that I have heard commenting on this matter all accept that 2nd tobacco smoke is harmful & carcinogenic. It can even be more harmful than filtered tobacco smoke inhaled by the smoker.
I'm intrigued by your proposal for operating theater style clean rooms for smokers in pubs. Have you any idea what this would cost? Are you prepared to pay 20 euro a pint to be able to smoke? And how can the bar staff clean the area, pick up the butts that the smokers will litter around, keep good order without putting their health at risk? Or perhaps your civil libertarian concerns don't run as far as protecting the health of 17 year old lounge girls?
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
05/08/2004 11:01 |
|
Oops - nearly forgot to come back to your points about the medical evidence. I'd be grateful if you could point me towards which specific WHO study concluded that 'the effect of shs is statistically negligible'. Or point to a single study (not funded by big tobacco) that supports this view. And by the way, the Irish HSA report was not prepared solely by medics. Here's the list of those who prepared it. Do you really think that many people will ignore their view in favour of unsubstantiated postings from 'blaggarde'?
Dr. Shane Allwright (Chairperson), Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology, Trinity College Dublin.
Dr. James P. McLaughlin, Radiation/Aerosol Physicist, University College Dublin.
Dr. Dan Murphy, Director of Occupational Medical Services, Health and Safety Authority.
Dr. Iona Pratt, Chief Specialist in Toxicology, Food Safety Authority of Ireland.
Professor Michael P. Ryan, Professor of Pharmacology, University College Dublin.
Dr. Alan Smith, Specialist Registrar in Public Health Medicine, Faculty of Public Health
Medicine, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland.
Brenda Guihen, Health and Safety Authority, Secretary to the Group
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
05/08/2004 19:56 |
|
If you are unsure about laughing or crying about the serious loss of civil rights and human freedoms in this country (not to mention the rise and rise of hard hearted intolerant health fascists) then I suggest you cry – at least you still have a choice. The fact that your neurotic personal fears about being near smokers have been temporarily translated into law does not mean that the rest of the nation has to share those fears. Your negative suppositions and second guesses regarding the integrity of my position on civil liberties is really a low argument in an adult debate – but of course it is your perfect right to express yourself in this way. My post isn’t at all contradictory in the manner in which you suggest – how about reading it again, slowly. And I just can’t follow the logic of your proposal that shs is more "dangerous" than filtered smoke, by which argument all smokers are "damned" not by actually smoking, but by being in the presence of their own shs. And I bet you’re serious too. The cost of the air purifier which I mentioned is €3,200 and is a mobile purifier that removes germs, spores, fungal spores - even anthrax, all manner of microscopic contaminants and 99% of fumes at 1,000 cubic feet per minute, to the extent that indoor air is substantially cleaner than oudoor air. Not good enough though is it? How many of those HSA people are not medically connected again? I don't have the time to count. People with your view RD won't be happy until the entire country is turned into one giant happy clinic, with no risks, no illness and no death. Utopia - where even hair washes itself.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
06/08/2004 08:26 |
|
Interesting to note the total absence of any hard data to support blaggarde's views (by contrast to the very hard data offered in the HSA report). So please do show us the detail, blaggarde. Show us the WHO report that concluded that concludes that the effect of shs is statistically negligible? Show us where we can by an air purifier for 3,200 which will remove smoke from a crowded pub? [And don't forget to check out the running costs (power, maintenance, changing filters) which may be more signficant than the capital costs. Show us your how much funding the BMJ study you like to quote got from the tobacco companies? PS Smokers have the choice too - they have the choice to step outside for a few minutes to smoke. Why is that such a big deal?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
08/08/2004 23:28 |
|
You'd see the "big deal" if you looked with an open mind at the people standing outside the pubs. That is no way to treat anyone.Statistics can be quoted like the devil quoting scripture. Of course it is a question of civil liberties and believe it or not smokers have these too!! If the powers that be had any imagination a compromise solution could have been found. Unfortunately for smokers though our minister thought he saw the fast track to heaven, avoiding the hospital trolleys, and there were enough "right-minded" people around to encourage him.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
09/08/2004 10:46 |
|
Quoting: "You'd see the "big deal" if you looked with an open mind at the people standing outside the pubs. That is no way to treat anyone."
Is blowing smoke in people's faces any way to treat anyone?
Anyway, nobody is forcing smokers to go outside - it's their own desire for a nicotine hit that they consider more important than being with the other inside that is "forcing" them to be there. They can alway choose, eg, to get the nicotine in non-offensive forms, if they wish.
Quoting again: "Of course it is a question of civil liberties and believe it or not smokers have these too!!"
And non-smokers have the right to be able to socialise without being subjected to the smoke of others, don't you agree?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/08/2004 10:48 |
|
Sokers civil liberties do not grant them the right to infringe on the civil liberties of others
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
09/08/2004 22:00 |
|
The state, Richard, is forcing smokers outside. The made a law you see........ And EVERYBODY has "a right" to socialise without smoke. So apart from dumping smokers out into the streets, an action recently made legal, what open-minded caring positive inclusive solution do you recommend?
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
10/08/2004 08:39 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Isn't the onus on the smokers to come up with a workable solution themselves?
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
10/08/2004 10:46 |
|
blaggarde, you seem to deny the "right" to socialise without smoke. The smokers only need to go outside *while they are smoking* - they're perfectly welcome inside at other times.
To help clarify your thinking, imagine this scene: you are in the pub socialising with your friends. I, a long term addict of excessively loud music, carry my boom box with me everywhere, including the pub. I'm alo clinically deaf as a result of my addiction, so I need the volume up high to hear anything at all. I come in to the pub and turn on the music full blast, so loud you can't hear your friends' conversation and your hearing is being damaged by the music.
Do you: a) tell me to take my loud music elsewhere, b) tell me to use headphones so you don't have to listen to it, c) put up with the noise and try to carry on your conversation in vain, or d) leave the pub with your friends, rather than impinge on my "right" to enjoy my music at the volume I need to hear it? If you answered c) or d) (following the logic many smokers expect non-smokers to adopt), would you be prepared to do that *every* time you go into the pub? Somehow I doubt it.
|
| |
|
June(junec) Posted:
10/08/2004 22:43 |
|
Five months into the smoking ban, we smokers are still outdoors trying to enjoy our puff. Some say we have taken this law sitting down and should have done more to stop it being enforced. Just like now we have the law regarding children in public houses after 9pm. The logic behind this law may be reasonable but what about holidaymakers enjoying a meal in a licenced premises when it reaches 9pm they are like cinderellas.
It is now time that WE ALL left this government know that they have become dictators and remind them that we have the last word when it comes to the polling booths. Still smoking - M. Martin doesn't dictate to when I decide to give them up!.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
10/08/2004 23:45 |
|
I have come up with several solutions several times RD. My preferred option is smoking venues for adults who wish to choose them (including adult workers) and nonsmoking venues for those who don't. There isn't anything wrong with that, but you want to deny people their choice. The big flaw in your quiz, Richard, is that no LAW has been specifically brought in to put you on out the street (if you play loud music) and the Sound Police will not be deployed by the health boards to keep you out of every venue all the time, nor will you be fined up to €3,000 if you do, nor will you be made a criminal. The fact is that there are loud music venues & non-loud music venues where varying tastes can be catered for (why didn't you include this as option e). People who smoke now don't have ANY choice at all, like, forever - according to the legislation the way it currently stands. It seems to me that both of you nice people, having gotten your pound of flesh (in the form of a law unprecedented in its oppression of people in this state) are quite happy to deny all comfort to people who smoke and I would really like you to tell me why, without going back over all the old arguments.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
11/08/2004 08:51 |
|
The problem with a smoking venue is that if non-smokers wish to socialise with the smoking friends, the smokers addiction will determine thatthey go to smoking venues, So non-smokers still have to put up with a a disgusting health hazard. With the law as it stands, smokers only have to go outside for a couple of minutes whenever they feel the need to smoke.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
11/08/2004 10:18 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Your proposed solution still results in an unacceptable risk to the health of the staff who may work in such establishments. Or perhaps you'd prefer to eliminate all H&S legislation and send children up cleaning chimneys again, provided of course it is their own 'choice'?
Hi June-You can of course choose to continue to smoke where you don't impact other people. The results of the survey released today (82% in favour of the ban, 70% say improved experience in pubs) show that you are in the minority.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
11/08/2004 11:01 |
|
Quoting blaggarde: "My preferred option is smoking venues for adults who wish to choose them (including adult workers)". I agree, and I think that we will see the return of private smoking clubs for those who are genuinely that attached to their ciggies.
"The big flaw in your quiz, Richard, is that no LAW has been specifically brought in to put you on out the street (if you play loud music)" Actually, there are laws against disturbing the peace. If you don't believe me, try the scenario I described, and report back your results.
Anyway, the quiz was intended to make you stop and think whether I should be allowed to impose my particular addiction (excessively loud music) upon you, and how you would respond if I did.
And no, nobody is denying you your right to smoke, just making it harder for you to impose your habit on others. We're only talking about the few minutes it takes to smoke your ciggie, then you may return to the pub.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
11/08/2004 12:02 |
|
Was there not a cigar smoking club established in tthe quarters of the cuban embassy (technically Cuban soil) in response to the smoking ban?
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
12/08/2004 00:50 |
|
"Unacceptable" in terms of "risk" RD, is a matter for individual adults (and that would, again, include adults who are workers) to decide for themselves, not for the state to impose, nor for you to impose - and i was rather hoping that you would lever yourself away from your old safety blanket and answer my question, which you declined to do. I understand Richard, that you were attempting a certain line of reasoning which is credible enough in as far as it serves YOUR purpose in this discussion but you did not address the concerns of both sides as i have. There are 1000 ways of disturbing the peace whereas the anti-smoker laws were brought in to specifically target smokers (no matter which way you look at it). My solution, at least, offers a clear and unambiguous choice to people of every persuasion and none, as to what they want to do and where they want to be - and this you would expect in a free country. There is, on the other hand, a screaming lack of amicable resolve coming from your position, and that would include you Anon who seems to think that the State making our life decisions for us is a welcome development. I assume you have all read about the HSE across the water, which, amongst other things, is issuing "directives" to kids on beach donkey rids to wear hard hats and the hilariously funny ruling that police can by all means carry guns, but for health and safety reasons, are forbidden to use a puncture repair kit. Something's gotta give before we're all turned into lunatics - or is it too late. I'll vote with you June.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
12/08/2004 11:00 |
|
I notice, blaggarde that you showed no enthusiasm for options c) and d), the very ones you expect non-smokers to adopt when smokers are about. :-)
I will gladly embrace any solution that doesn't involve me inhaling yuor smoke, and does not impinge on my right to socialise normally. I'm open to your suggestions :-)
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
12/08/2004 11:12 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - I wasn't avoiding your question. I really didn't think it necessary to go over all the old ground AGAIN. The reason for the ban is simply to protect the health of staff. The reason why smokers don't get to choose is the same reason why drivers don't get to choose about wearing seatbelts, why motorbikers don't get to choose about wearing helmets, why builders don't get to choose about wearing hard-hats & steel toecaps, why chemical operatives don't get to choose about safety clothing etc etc etc.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
12/08/2004 14:34 |
|
RainyDay, You are militant and keep repeating yourself constantly. Get a live!
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
14/08/2004 20:23 |
|
Shur, Richard, You go to your smokeless (apart from the blazing log fire, plethora of sexy candles and sweet smell of burning turf)pub where you can discuss the latest threat (teflon, i believe)with RD and those staff who are not out on a smoking break, and i'll go to my den of iniquity with the other 80% of pub-goers. Can't say fairer than that ;-)
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
16/08/2004 07:54 |
|
Quote: "i'll go to my den of iniquity with the other 80% of pub-goers" - I think you got your percentages the wrong way round, Blaggarde. Check the results of last week's survey - 82% in favour of the ban, 70% say improved experience in pubs.
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
17/08/2004 09:02 |
|
A couple of points.
1. The introduction of smoking-capable ventilation in work places must be very expensive (or it would be widespread). It will drive up the cost of doing business, and will cost jobs. A workplace smoking restriction is free and, outside the huge labour costs of lounge girls and boys (€2 per hour plus tips), doesn't cost jobs. So - which road do we take?
2. Can anyone explain how the journey from a cigarette tip to somebody else's lungs removes all dem poisins?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
17/08/2004 09:21 |
|
Hello all. I don't wish to get into an argument about statistics but if the ban is so popular, can anyone explain why my local is practically empty during the week, and only half full at weekends? Whereas, before the ban, there was music on regularly during the week (cancelled) and getting a seat on Saturday night would have been considered a miracle! The ban has had a huge impact on my local.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
17/08/2004 11:04 |
|
Fair enough, blaggarde, but just be warned: if I do decide to come to your smokey pub with my boombox, I expect you to just put up with the excruciating noise, or leave if you don't like it :-)
As for the previous poster whose pub has suffered a decline in business, I'd say it's a shame that the people who no longer go there apparently don't know how to have fun without a cigarette in their hand...
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
18/08/2004 07:38 |
|
Hi Anon - Maybe your local is half-empty because punters have finally copped on to the constant profiteering & price increases by publicans? Maybe people have decided to drink less & smoke less? Maybe they have decided to spend more time with their families? All good things in my book. The CEO of Beamish & Crawford stated last week that the smoking ban has NOT affected their business.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
18/08/2004 09:46 |
|
Or perhaps people are dinking at home or in each others houses (on on their patios during the good weather) where the drink is bought in the local supermarket (and a hell of a lot cheaper) and they can smoke away to their own content
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
18/08/2004 18:59 |
|
I see your sense of humour RD is only matched by, well, your sense of humour. Have you ever wondered about the teflon situation. The "survey" commissioned by the Department of Health to show how wonderfully well their ban is going down, is, of course, a totally objective exercise and Not Propaganda At All. And Richard, i think you're only bluffing about the boombox. I just don't think you have one - you're only talking tough. All together now: The king is in the altogether the al....Ouch!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
19/08/2004 08:03 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - There is none so blind as he who does not want to see.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
19/08/2004 20:41 |
|
I can see clearly now the rainy has gone.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
20/08/2004 08:49 |
|
Whether the ban is enforced fairly or not is not the issue. The ban is widely welcomed and the health of the country wil benefit. Ideally, tobacco and even alchohol should both be banned entirely as being the major causes of illness and 'health' expenditure in the country. No Politician will have the guts to go down that road though, but well done Michael Martin so far. (I like a drink but not in a smoky pub so we have friends at home instead).
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
20/08/2004 09:02 |
|
Good to see that all that tar in your arteries hasn't affected your sense of humour!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
20/08/2004 09:21 |
|
SO YOU WANT TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL BOTH BANNED?
Tell me do you have a personal interest in the development of the mafia and a alcoholic nation - as happened during the prohibition in the US in the earlier part of the last century or do you just liek the taste of home brew?
Or erhaps you're on eof these hilarious people who enjoy yhr naany styate so much you'd liek to see everything banned including chippers, fairgrounds, smiling, sex and the right to enjoy yourself
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
20/08/2004 09:44 |
|
Unfortunately, nobody has answered my questions. First, should we spend hundreds of millions, possibly billions, on ventilation systems at the cost of thousands of jobs, or should we not allow smoking in the workplace, which is free? Second, how do those 4000 or so poisons in smoke become safe on the journey from a cigarette tip to somebody else's lungs? Answers on a postcard....
On reading all the (sincerely held) views here, a couple of thoughts occur to me. This is not a ban or prohibition, but a restriction on smoking in the workplace. Most workplaces have all sorts of restrictions, for example on asbestos, including those that provide leisure and entertainment. The thing about tumours and heart attacks is that we previously made sure that there was one for everyone in the audience, or on stage, or behind the bar. The other point is that the topic is not whether there should be a workplace restriction, but whether it will be enforced fairly around the country. Not whether it will be breached (as it undoubtedly will be), but whether it will be enforced in a similar manner everywhere. Opinions please.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
20/08/2004 22:23 |
|
See ross, we've discussed all of them there points already. Basically, what i am saying is that this law is total discrimination, ugly, un-irish, unprecedented, trashy, wrong, evil, based on opinion and represents the thin edge of the wedge for further prohibition-type law if we let them get away with it. It is also the nastiest piece of social engineering perpetrated on the citizens of this state since the Black & Tans burned down half the country and excluded the natives, except this time its being done by our own to our own (which is why FF got thrashed in the locals). Rainy says that i'm wrong and quotes the WHO, the HSA and any crazy opinion-based "research" to back up her beliefs, while Richard - who has temporarily gone missing (i have an alibi)- is threatening me with a Boombox but i think he's bluffing. We're all going to die for whatever reason and because we're not all going to go at the same time, its inevitable that some will go earlier than others.... but while we're all waiting for that to happen, the control-freaks are trying to dictate how everybody should live, and they've now managed to get it into law (however temporarily) that people who smoke should be turfed out. They also think this is fair and reasonable because it doesn't affect them personally and they go off on a tangent of righteous indignation when confronted with the unfairness of it. We can argue til the cows come home about smoke, ventilation, workers, filters, statistics, junk science, toxins (thats a great one, toxins), healthNsafety, how FF are going down at the next election, RD's sense of humour and (name your own thing here), but nothing can change the fact that treating people appallingly is now state-approved and written into law and that is JUST not good enough in a modern democracy. I would like to thank my parents......etc etc
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
21/08/2004 03:31 |
|
No, blaggarde, I'm still here. I'm not going to keep hammering home to you the absurdity and hypocrisy of your position if you didn't grasp it the first time around. (I suspect that one day scientists will identify a chemical in tobacco that inhibits rational thought.)
As for FF going down, well, that would depend on the others running on the platform of rescinding the law. Is anyone publicly taking that position?
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
23/08/2004 23:18 |
|
Very glad to see that i don't have to rely on my alibi Richard ;-) I'll bet you don't think that you're being one bit arrogant when you talk in tiresome tones about having to hammer home your beliefs. The fact that the state has already hammered home your beliefs under totally discriminatory terms probably doesn't strike you as inequitable either. My position is neither absurd nor hypocritical. I am arguing for freedom of adult informed choice in this democracy and i have proposed that the solution is (A) venues that are smoker friendly and (B) venues for non smokers. That protects your position (you have proposed nothing to protect mine) and gives people who smoke SOME hope of a life - where at present they have absolutely none. I am amazed that you cannot see, or cannot try to imagine what the feeling of being excluded - forever - is like. The smokers of this country, who contribute over 1.3bn to the exchequer on cigarette tax ALONE have been crucified for the past twenty years, excluded by stealth, up until now when the exclusion has become total. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have not been out and about since March because of this inequity. Most smokers have been cowed by the limitless propaganda directed against them and very few are now inclined to speak out about their treatment. But they can all vote, and the reason FF will go down is because they abused the trust of their smoking constituency (and fair-minded people everywhere) - not because any other party necessarily will talk publicly (yet) about the maltreatment of one third of the electorate.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
24/08/2004 08:21 |
|
If you want to have a life why don'tyou seek help foir your addiction - No-one is forcing you to smoke, then you could go out and about as much as you want.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
24/08/2004 09:14 |
|
Maltreatment of one quarter of the electorate.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
24/08/2004 09:20 |
|
Blaggarde,
The reason for the legislation is to protect the workers. Your inconvenience is an unfortunate side affect for you and a added bonus for the non-smokers. I hope that you have nothing against protecting the health of the workers of this country. Health & Safety regulations are in place for all sorts of situations, and are generally not discretionary, so your propsed solution of smoking & non-smoking venues is not a runner, in the same way as it would not be a runner for some building sites to be allowed to take shortcuts with scaffolding and other building sites to be forced to apply all scaffolding regulations. If the application of Safety legisation was discretionary, surely you see it would be open to explotation. And finally safety legisation also applies to the self-employed, in the very same way as the car seat belt rule applies whether you are on your own in the car or not. So bar-owners of small pubs with only the bar-owner employed also come into the net.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
24/08/2004 09:23 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - You really do seem to be enjoying wallowing in your victimhood & self-pity. Let's keep things in context - The impact of the ban on smokers is the requirement to step outside for a few minutes while smoking. No more & no less than that. You speak about giving smokers 'some hope of a life' - Is your life so empty that it centres around sitting in a pub smoking? And you still fail to present any workable solution for a smoker-friendly venue that will protect the health of workers. This ban is the only decent thing that the current FF government have done. When the government gets thrown out in the next election, it won't be because of the smoking ban (as the dismal performance of the few anti-ban cranks who stood in the local/euro elections clearly demonstrates).
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
24/08/2004 10:50 |
|
Rainy Day, I think that blaggarde is pushing for a kind of apartheid, with separate venues for smokers and non-smokers. What if they want to socialise with each other, blaggarde?
I think you're having trouble coming to terms with the fact that the boot is on the other foot.
If stepping outside for a few minutes out of an evening's socialising is that much of a burden on you, perhaps you should consider whether your addiction is really worth hanging on to.
And if that's arrogance, well tough...
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
24/08/2004 14:49 |
|
A fair point. Alcohol is a ruthlessly efficient diuretic, and so all of us drinking in pubs must disappear, as for nicotine addicts, at regular intervals to answer an unconquerable physical need. However, I will not be calling for the right to have a wee in the lounge bar, just because my bladder fills up.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
24/08/2004 14:53 |
|
And the need to empty the bladder is a physical need, wheras smoking is an addiction indulged in by choice.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
24/08/2004 23:48 |
|
Good lord, I seem to have triggered an attack of the sh sh ....Toilet Talk. What is everyone so afraid of? After all you've got your state-approved ethnically cleansed pubs (Apartheid, richard) and you should all be happy with that. But oooh nooooo! The sums on the electorate are very simple ANON 1. If, even on the twisted figures of the OTC, 25% of people smoke (which i do not accept) and there is a population of 4m, then take away 1m for children, we are talking (very conservatively) about one-third of the electorate. Let's also get another one out of the way and leave it there; this law has nothing to do with "the health of workers". Nobody actually believes it, not even yourselves. We all know, even if you do not care to publicly acknowledge it, that "the health of workers" is a cutesy mechanism to enable the crafting of this dreadful piece of legislation. Its not that MM of FF woke up one morning and said "ah..... I'll have to do more to protect workers....hmmm, let me think...." He woke up one morning and decided to get rid of smokers. After all, one third of "workers" are smokers too, as are the self-employed (probably higher) and so, like the boy scout insisting on bringing the little old lady across the road when she doesn't want to, there is a high proportion of workers who don't want to be "protected" either (and would be delighted to work in smoker-friendly venues). I don't do Victim RD, but if i did i would probably be the best..... aw never mind...... And richard. I thought we had a musical soiree planned with your boombox. I'm not so sure i want to go now you've agreed you're arrogant. HealthNsafety is the new Fascism lads, don't say you haven't been warned - and wake up fast, before you find yourself in one of its concentration camps.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
25/08/2004 08:04 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - It's a fair cop, guv. You've caught us out. We are all out to get you!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/08/2004 08:08 |
|
But blagarde, it's not a form of apartheid. Smokers can still go to the sme pub as non-smokers, they just have to step outside to feed their addiction so as not inflict it on others.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/08/2004 11:00 |
|
Blaggard, My point about the smoking ban being Health & Safety legislation, is that it can’t be discretionary, as it could be open to exploitation. Who would decide which bars are smoking, and where they would be located. What about the non-smoking staff in these bars then? Are they obliged to put up with the smoking or move jobs for their own safety and comfort. I think that would be coming close to constructive dismissal!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/08/2004 20:21 |
|
This is my first visit to this discussion, and I'm gobsmacked at some of the vitreol I've read! I don't know if the smoking ban will be enforced fairly around the country and quite frankly, I don't care! What I do care about is the Third World Health Service we have, thanks to Martin and his cronies. The smoking ban has been one hell of a "stroke" to divert peoples attantion from the more important issues.
I've recently returned from holiday in Ireland and met many people from Northern Ireland, the UK and Europe who think we're living in a dictatorship here. Many said they wouldn't be back.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
28/08/2004 00:37 |
|
Hallo 'allo 'allo. Wots all this then! You coming quietly RD or will i 'ave to insult you some more ;-)...... Ok Anon 1 - This is apartheid alright and don't you have any semantic doubts about it. What you are saying is "Oh, of COURSE you can travel on this bus, yessah, so long as you sit on the roof.........". And Anon 2 - You are quite right, the legislation is also undoubtedly flawed for the reasons you quote (no discretion, trouble at 'mill etc) which is another reason it should be rescinded. Perhaps if it were then the essential missing ingredient - respect for ALL - might have a chance to flourish along with a bit of common sense, and you'd be relieved of your technical anxieties. Customer choice, proprietors policy and voluntary practise are much better and more equitable vehicles for promoting smoke-free venues than is coercion. As for living in a dictatorship Anon 3, I have no doubt that the message has been received abroad loud and clear and the lack of tourists, including domestic ones, is already strongly evident even this year.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
30/08/2004 08:28 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Pity to see you are still avoiding the question on how the health & safety of workers can be protected in a smoking venue? And all the oul scaremongering about the effects on the hospitality industry has been blown away by recent comments from the CEO's of both Beamish & Crawford & C&C that the smoking ban has NOT affected their revenues. If they are concerned about any possible drop in revenue, why aren't they marketing Ireland as the ideal venue to suit the vast majority of non-smoking customers?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/08/2004 09:12 |
|
Apartheid seperates peple. This law only prevents people inflicting the side effects of their addiction on others.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/08/2004 13:02 |
|
Blaggard, you are correct to a point when you say MM and FF did not bring this legislation in to protect the health and safety of workers, per se. One school of thought that has been bandied about is that they government could be sued by cancer victims for not protecting their health (rightly or wrongly). Anyway, I am a smoker and find this ban inconvenient but I agree that it shouold have been brought in. I would also go a step further and say that I'd like to see the sale of cigarettes banned entirely. It serves no purpose, it is an addiction, it stinks, it makes me stink and I wish I never started smo9king in the first place. I have tried giving up many times but never successfully. Most smokers are the same and wish they never started. There may be some who dont want to admit this but it is the truth.
The smoking ban is not aparthied, you are not banned from entering pubs, you just can not smoke in them. It is not a ban on people, it is a ban on what people are allowed do in the pubs. YOu would not be allowed ride a horse in a pub so is that an infringement on the rights of people from Kildare? Quite a few of them ride horses so why cant they partake in this pass time in their local.
Grow up and stop sounding like an idiot.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/08/2004 13:41 |
|
Do you think banning them would noty just drive them underground, like alcohol, during the prohibition. All the prohibition created was damaged livers from bathtub gin and a mafia that still persists today.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/08/2004 15:09 |
|
Would that be the Rothmafia?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/08/2004 15:31 |
|
No, just the blackmarket
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
31/08/2004 22:49 |
|
Hey Anonymous, you're a smoker but you want to be put out, you want fags made illegal even though you can't give them up, you're professing a difficulty about no horses in pubs, and you're accusing ME OF SOUNDING LIKE AN EEJIT>>> ! Hey RD - YOU keep avoiding the idea that grown adults can make their own decisions, preferring instead that the state make them for us. Now really. How healthy is that? AND i might add, the reason B&C is doing well apart from the fact that its a fine Cork company ;) ) is because their prices are 40c per pint+ lower; the publicans have been switching from diageo products towards B&C because of yet another ongoing vintner row (its all over the papers since early summer)..... Smoking may or may not be an addiction as may drinking tea/coffee as may drinking pints as may eating chocolate etc etc.... So it is interesting, the other Anon, that you are happy enough to talk Addiction when it comes to other people's preferences - what's yours? And would you embrace a law against it? What about live and let live? The real UNHEALTHY thing in all of this is the state-approved social engineering/apartheid/exclusion AND the po-faced politically correct acceptance of it in some quarters. Ireland has become a foreign and alien country as a result of it. We should all be in mourning, because damage, once done, cannot be undone.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/09/2004 08:20 |
|
Hi, I am not a smoker, not do I want them made illegal. I just don't want to be exposed to the side effects of your addiction. May addiction? It's coffee - which as far as I am aware, my fellow cafe users patrons cannot passive drink.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
01/09/2004 08:31 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - The core issue just hasn't clicked yet, has it? Smoking smokers aren't 'making their own decisions', they are making the decisions for everyone within 5 yards around them (without consultation or consideration). The purpose of the ban is to ensure that smokers don't impact the health of workers. The very welcome side effect is that smokers don't impact other pub customers. But please stop avoiding the key question - How do you propose to protect the health of workers in smoking venues?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/09/2004 09:38 |
|
Rainy you're really p***ing me off. Everybody with half a brain knows this ban is NOT about protecting the rights of workers. Otherwise, why did they grant exemptions for prisons and nursing homes?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/09/2004 09:47 |
|
Rainy Day - if you continue to use impact as a verb to replace affect, I will have to withdraw my support for your position.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/09/2004 11:00 |
|
They granted exemptions for prisons and nursing homes becuase these are peoples dwelling places.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
01/09/2004 13:10 |
|
Oh get real, folks. You're not going to wiggle out of the ban using the exemptions that were granted for valid reasons. Just because we can't protect that 1% of the workforce (nursing homes, prisons) doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect the other 99% - where is the common sense in that? And to the other anon poster, 'impact' is a verb meaning 'to have an impact on' - see Websters dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=impact
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/09/2004 14:53 |
|
According to the Good Word Guide (hard copy), the use of impact as a verb meaning affect is best avoided. Luckily, such use does not undermine the strength and cogency of the arguments against smoking in the work place. Smoking outside the workplace is of course a matter for the individual, however much it may increase insurance premiums and deprive granchildren of active grandparents. Generally, I have been struck with the good-natured fortitude with which smokers have adjusted to the restriction, making it much easier to enforce pleasantly.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/09/2004 20:57 |
|
According to a Garda aquaintance of mine, the ammount of pill popping in Dublin pubs has rocketted since the introduction of the smoking ban - a means presumably of masking the craving while still guzzling!! This is widely known in certain cirles...but in ireland inconvenient evidence is left unspoken.
That, as ever, is the result of well intentioned social engineering, banning this that and the other - unforeseen consequences!!!
I have always been of the opinion that inspiring our young people is always more effective than placing restriction....that's why I was in favour of the Bertie Bowl.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
02/09/2004 02:02 |
|
Yeah, but Rainy, if the other people around are ALSO adult smokers and don't share your fears about it; then what is the problem? In that scenario - smoker-friendly venues for adults & workers who want them - there isn't one. Its adult choice you see. We've already well and truly discussed - nay thrashed to death - the argument about whether passive smoking is "harmful". I say it isn't. You say it is. There is not one iota of hard objective unbiased real-science EVIDENCE that it is - there is only "research", opinion and personal belief - most historic research highlights the fact that any "risk" is SO tiny as to be negligible, and that is my belief. So protected from what - apart from YOUR beliefs?? .... And Coffee Anon, my question wasn't about passive coffee but about your own "vice" being treated similarly: Supposing some overfunded twit - and God knows we're breeding em - comes up with "research" that "proves" coffee is without doubt the worst poisonous substance known to man (it probably is, an all). And suppose, in the fullness of time, the government introduces a blanket ban on this demonised evil drink in all workplaces for your "protection" (cheered on by the Pure Water People) - but you CAN stay at home and drink it - then what would your attitude be? No more out for coffee. This is the more direct analogy and you may well laugh at the stupidity of it - for the time being. Perhaps it sounds so outlandish, you cannot imagine it at all. But you can't rule it out. This is the sort of lunacy currently being imposed on people who smoke - approved by your good self and others without any consideration for those whose lives are now severely restrained. What recourse will you have when future harebrained bans, directly restricting YOUR life, come to be wheeled out?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/09/2004 08:13 |
|
So, what if the smoking workers give up smoking? Arethey then forced to leave their job to protect their health because their employer or the governemnt won't act? Is this not constructive dismissal.
Your piont about the coffee simply doesn't wash. My indulkging my coffee addiction doesn't impose side effects on others. But just to indulge your notion, if it were made illegal to drink it in the office (for whatever, farcical reason you fancy) I would simply, like the smokers at this office have domne since the 80's - take my addiction outside.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/09/2004 08:27 |
|
Blaggard, Your option of “smoker-friendly venues for adults & workers who want them” just is not a runner. As previously argued, who would decide which bars are smoking, and where they would be located. What about the non-smoking staff in these bars then? Are they obliged to put up with the smoking or move jobs for their own safety and comfort. I think that would be coming close to constructive dismissal! Your argument about coffee does not compare to smoking, as coffee drinking really only affects the coffee drinker, whereas smoking affects everyone in the vicinity.
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
02/09/2004 09:51 |
|
Once again. If you drink beer in the pub, you have to step out to the loo every now and then for a few moments. No big deal. If you are also a smoker, you now have to step out for a few moments to answer that need. Apparently a big deal. Why?. And could someone attempt, finally, to answer my earlier question - by what mechanism does cigarette smoke, which we must all accept has proven dangers to the inhaler, get transformed into a safe substance in the journey from the gigarette tip to somebody else's lungs? Poisonous substance travels three feet, beomes safe - I'd like to believe that it could happen, but it is not very likely, is it?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/09/2004 10:46 |
|
I am a small employer, and a former heavy smoker, who has successfully quit for about 5 years now. I have provided my employees with an outside, sheltered smoking area, I've bought them a nice wooden garden set and a patio heater so they can smoke. They're not allowed to go out every ten minutes to smoke but I don't object once its within reason and not abused. That arrangement is fine in the summer. I'm really worried though about my employees getting sick in the winter. Before the ban we had a smoking room which was well ventilated and had no problems. This ban is too restrictive, and will cause more absenteeism in the long run. And before you say "well if they give up smoking they won't get sick" - its not that easy to quit. I can empathise with any smoker. I can see the next thing will be employers actively seeking out non-smokers versus smokers when recruiting additional staff. Or employers will jump on the chance to let smokers go from their jobs for having an illness which may possibly be smoke related. Even if the chest infection was caused by getting soaked waiting for the bus! Smokers will become even more discriminated against for something that is not illegal in this country. Just my view.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/09/2004 10:59 |
|
Hi Small employer, I really wouldn't worry about the prospect of your employees getting sick in the Winter because they go outside 4 or 5 times a day for their smoke breaks. Our office has a strict anti-smoking policy since the late 80's. However we don't have a seat or patio heater, Nevertheless, the smokers go out for their smoke breaks, when it's dry (more regularly than you'd imagine). They just put on their coats as you would if you were waiting on bus or walking to the shops. They don't get any more winter illnesses that the rest of us. In fact thety seem more relaxed durinfg stressful periods and get more time away from their computers. - coffee drinker.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
05/09/2004 22:55 |
|
Smokers are only "harming" themselves too Anon; but the brainwashing has obviously got you to the point where you now believe the opposite. The option of smoking & non-smoking venues is most certainly a runner and the decision as to which is which down to (a) the owner, whose property rights are seriously defiled by this law and (b) the customer who should have just as free a market choice in this area as in any other. I.E - not the state. And Ross, your insistence that smoke is a "poisonous" substance should surely be placed in perspective; Methane gas is also a poisonous substance, as is carbon dioxide beyond certain levels, both of which are naturally produced by humans and certainly travel more than three feet. There's a surfeit of both issuing from the anti's here, but thankfully it can't travel down a phone line. If it could, i might constructively dismiss myself.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
06/09/2004 10:20 |
|
Blaggard, I am afraid that Health & Safety legislation is too important to be left at everyone’s discretion which parts to implement and which parts not to implement. In the same way as it would not be a runner for some building sites to be allowed to take shortcuts with scaffolding and other building sites to be forced to apply all scaffolding regulations. How could this make sense?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
06/09/2004 10:22 |
|
Blaggard, Your only real argument is that you think passive smoking is safe for the workers of this country. At best the jury is out on that one. Why take the risk, when the combined health benefits are so obvious, i.e. workers and non smoking customers in pleasant & comfortable surroundings, good indications that workers and non smoking customers not being exposed to potentially harmful passive smoking, and finally of course smokers being inconvenienced and therefore possibly smoking less. This is unless you are saying that you think smoking is safe for smokers as well. You are asking that workers (especially non smoking workers ) have to work in smokey uncomfortable conditions for their 40 hour week, and be exposed to potentially harmful smoking just to cater for your selfish unhealthy habit.
|
| |
|
alan(grehound) Posted:
06/09/2004 21:03 |
|
Congrations to Mr martin on receiving a award in Scotland for bringing in the smoking ban Hope this great man enjoyed himself
He certainly deserves it.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/09/2004 07:40 |
|
Well I hope his conscience is disturbed by the fact that he used a piece of legislation to disguise the fact that he was in my opinion too lazy / ineffectual to tackel the real health crisis happening in our hospitals and on our waiting lists every day.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/09/2004 08:51 |
|
How can you call Mr Martin a great man???? Have you been to A&E recently?? Or how would you feel if diagnosed with breast cancer and had to wait six months for treatment? Get Real! - Louise.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
11/09/2004 00:21 |
|
Fascism is nothing new Anon 1. HealthNsafety has become the new Fascism and there is a whole new state-appointed gestapo out there whose job it is to enforce this Irish version of it. We have health boards "investigating" ashtrays and bringing decent people to court over their "findings", at a time when the entire Health Service is crashing down around our ears. How can you POSSIBLY attempt to equate building sites & scaffolding with sitting in a pub with your friends? It is an outrageous abuse of the legislature of this country that this minister could be allowed enable prohibitionist legislation over people's social lives - under Health and Safety or any other heading. I have lots of real arguments about this issue Anon 2 and most of them are fairly well represented here already. Your pen picture of a cosy club where "workers and non smoking customers" are all happily ensconced ignores the fact that your scenario comes at a huge cost to people who smoke. The fact that you can write it off as "inconvenience" is a nice way of plunging your head in the sand and ignoring the plight of those who no longer have choice. You must have great peace of mind. Cheers.
|
| |
|
alan(grehound) Posted:
12/09/2004 20:42 |
|
TO reply to anonymous dated7/9/04
time 07:40
most of the people against the smoking ban like to post with that big word ANONYMOUS I wonder why
|
| |
|
alan(grehound) Posted:
12/09/2004 20:54 |
|
louise I am very sorry to read in your post that you have breast cancer allso I would like to wish you a speedy and good recovery
To reply to your post I was to Mr Martin dealing with the smoking ban and I like a lot of other people have to wait in the A/E on different times On the issue alone the goverment have failed all of the people in this Country and be given there marching at the next election BUT allso some of the health boards should get the boot.
|
| |
|
alan(grehound) Posted:
12/09/2004 22:15 |
|
In my reply to Louise's post dated7/9/04 @08:51 I made a error in it, I misread part of it and on reading it again I stand corected
I apologise for the mistake
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
13/09/2004 15:02 |
|
Ah give us a break, Blaggarde. This is nothing to do with fascism. The pre-ban situation where non-smokers were forced to inhale dangerous, carcinogous fumes while having a pint or a meal was the true facist state. The current state is one of freedom for all. Non-smokers can breathe freely, smokers can step outside. I was speaking to a smoker today who mentioned how uncomfortable she gets when going into a pub in Northern Ireland now with the stinking, dangerous fumes. All the evidence shows that ETS is carcinogenic - the only report which contradicts this was produced by two doctors who have received funding from the tobaco companies (surprise, surprise).
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
14/09/2004 08:39 |
|
It is a bit disappointing to see words like fascism and apartheid thrown about carelessly (on both sides), although at least fascism has direct connections with people being put in rooms full of poisonous gas. Bad things are done under all political systems, but few enough have this is aa their official guiding principle. Apartheid was a particular political system, where your legal status was determined by your skin colour. Like it or not, the architects of apartheid did not include smoking as a referent within that system. The particular evils of twentieth century fascism, and the human cost, do not need repeating here.
The easy use of pejoratives weakens any argument. As I tell my 9 year old, saying something doesn't make it true. For example, saying that ETS is not dangerous does not explain that claim - and doesn't answer my question about how a dangerous substance (tobacco smoke) suddenly becomes not dangerous in the trip from a cigarette tip to somebody else's lungs, when it is indisputably a bad thing for the cigarette owner. Simply saying it is safe doesn't make that statement true, and doesn't answer my question.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
14/09/2004 21:23 |
|
Hiya Rainy..... welcome back. Thought you had gone away and would have been soooooo disappointed ;-) But see, if everybody keeps on repeating to you that there are rats in your attic - even when you know there aren't - the squeamish bit of you will create for you a nice dubious frame of mind about going into ANY attic anytime. So your smoker friend (up north) has been CONDITIONED - just like you've been. And Ross, you know, the world is full of danger, and it all ends in death. This is because, apparently, God decided to do without the services of a healthNsafety officer. If you think the words "fascism" and "apartheid" are not apt to describe what is happening in this country, then you must remember that there was a time worldwide when neither of these evils were current. But they began with one group trying to exercise control over the behaviour of another and by excluding them from society. This action & mindset was state approved and was successful to the degree it was because NOBODY SPOKE UP. I invite you to compare and contrast this with what is now getting underway here and suggest that while you're at it, you could also ponder over what might be next. Total exclusion is totally unacceptable. Is anybody listening ?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
15/09/2004 08:08 |
|
Blaggard, we are tired of listening to your repetitive nonsense. Undisputable fact is that there are absolutely no health benefits to anyone from smoking, end of story and debate. Get over it Blaggard, there is 80% approval for the smoking ban and people (including most smokeres that I know, but excluding a few whingers) and just getting on with life.
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
15/09/2004 09:12 |
|
Pity the poor handgun owners and the drunk drivers - also needlessly excluded on the dubious grounds that they might damage someone else.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
15/09/2004 09:58 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - It is quite ironic to hear you asking 'Is anyone listening', given that you choose not to listen to clear medical evidence available about the damage caused by smoking.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
25/09/2004 23:00 |
|
Oh come off it!! All three of you subscribe to the exclusion of people for your own selfish reasons and hide behind "medical evidence", "drunk drivers" and twisted statistics to avoid the reality of what you advocate. While i was away for the past ten days you had nothing to say. Did you miss the witch hunt? - your sole motivation for commenting on this board.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
27/09/2004 09:47 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Putting quotation marks around 'medical evidence' does not detract from the validity of that evidence. You are unable to point to any significant evidence (which has not been funded by big tobacco) to support your view. You refer to 'twisted statistics' but you are unable to untwist the statistics for us. We're not hiding behind anything - we're just waiting to see if you have any real evidence to support your rants. So far, it appears not.
I'm certainly not out for any witchhunt - but neither am I going to leave your special brand of fiction unchallenged in the public domain. I foresee a great career in tabloid journalism ahead for you - your ability to take up an opinion which is totally unsupported in reality will be very useful in that arena.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
30/09/2004 22:24 |
|
Sad though i am to disagree with you RD, it would seem that you are incapable of allowing people who disagree with you to share your planet. People who smoke have done all the giving here. Personally, i am a living statistic that is somehow not dead yet, and my career days are far behind me. As far as "real evidence" goes your argument equally applies to your own position. I think witch hunt sums it up best.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
01/10/2004 16:01 |
|
You're twisting again, Blaggarde. Smokers are most welcome to share my planet. They are just not welcome to impose their dangerous carcinogens on me - Hardly unreasonable, is it? And of course, plenty of evidence of the harm caused by 2nd hand cigarette smoke is available in the HSA report.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/10/2004 16:06 |
|
Blaggard, I think that I noticed your mask slipping slightly in your last mail. You seem to be implying that smoking is not even harmful to the smoker now, never mind the passive smoker. If that is the case, now you really are ignoring well established indisputable facts. Just because you personally are still alive, does not negate that fact that smoking does in fact cause lung cancer & heart disease. You personaly have just been lucky. I wish you a long and healthy retirement.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
08/10/2004 02:53 |
|
Smoking venues should be available for those who want them; for those who do NOT share the Anti opinion on "passive smoking", for those who have been smoking for decades and for those who are in the practice - equally for decades - of making their own life choices without state interference. And those venues should be available to people WHETHER OR NOT any individual - or even a "majority" - agrees/disagrees with the half-baked and frankly non-believable "research" that is being passed off as genuine science because, despite all prejudice, it is the right thing to do. What is more RD, you know this to be true and you have never directly responded to it in any of your posts; rather you continue to propound your selfish view that all smokers should be excluded permanently. Many thanks for your kind comments on retirement anon, it makes a pleasant change to be the recipient of good wishes. I'll be around for a long time yet!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
08/10/2004 10:59 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Are you going to make any specific criticisms of the HSA report on the damage caused by passive smoking, or are you just going to continue to spread clouds of poisonous innuendo without any real detail to back them up? Are you going to come up with any solution to protect the staff in the smoking venues that you propose?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
08/10/2004 11:00 |
|
Of course smokers shouldn't be excluded from venues. They just have to step outside everytime they need to feed their addiction so as not to inflict their poison on others.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
08/10/2004 11:12 |
|
My God would you two ever give it up? (And I don't mean smoking). You're going around in circles. Just agree to disagree and be done with it. Louise.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
08/10/2004 18:54 |
|
This all comes down to adults "making their own life choices without state interference". I am a bar worker and I smoke... both my own choices. I am sick of listening to people talking about protecting MY health. It's like the boy scout 'helping' the old lady across the street whether or not she wants to go. I would to happy to work in a bar for smokers and so would several of my colleagues. Business is significantly down where I work since the introduction of the ban but I don't see any wannabe boy scouts trying to protect my mortgage repayments! It's time the people of Ireland woke up to the mean- minded stupidity that's going on here under the guise of 'doing the right thing' and demand their right to choose.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
11/10/2004 09:05 |
|
What about a bar worker who gives up smoking, would he then have to leave his job? Constructive dismissal surely.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
11/10/2004 09:24 |
|
But you conveniently ignore the fact that your 'choice' to smoke impacts the health of those around you? What happens when one of your smoking colleagues gives up the fags for the benefit of his health? Do you expect him to have to find another job elsewhere?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
12/10/2004 15:58 |
|
IF a colleague decides to give up smoking, he/she MAY no longer WISH to work in a smoking environment and CHOOSE to seek alternative employment in a non-smoking establishment. Of course not all non-smokers are fanatics! I have good friends who neither smoke nor see me as the angel of death when I light up. The research on the effects of second-hand smoke is far from conclusive. This coercion of a significant percentage of the population has to stop and we need to create an equitable society where "adults can make their own life choices".
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
13/10/2004 09:17 |
|
The smokey fog must be obscuring your vision. There is nothing 'equitable' about having to go get another job simply because you want to protect your health. There is nothing equitable about non-smokers being expected to endure your smoke in their lungs/clothes/hair.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
15/10/2004 01:10 |
|
IF there were smoking venues for smokers RD - as you well know there should be in a free society - there would be absolutely no compunction whatsoever on you to enter therein. You could still continue to not wash your hair or clothes or whatever, and you could still visit your local Sterile Unit for your ballygowan and water and have a ball with all your interesting pals. It doesn't seem though, from everything you continue to say, that you could stand the thought of ordinary decent people (who smoke) enjoy an ordinary night out in their local smoking-pub, as you continue to avoid this perfectly logical proposal at every turn. Now I am asking you again:- what is wrong with the idea of smoking pubs for smokers who want them, including staff who want them, (as i have asked you several times already) and would you be good enough to give a direct answer without running off on a tangent.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
15/10/2004 15:10 |
|
Blaggard, Your "perfectly logical proposal" as you call it persistently ignores the fact your proposal of smoking & non-smoking venues will impose on a potential non-smoking employee the option of putting up with a smokey, smelly, uncomfortable and more than likely unhealthy work environment, or alternatively move jobs. This is effectively constructive dismissal, if the employee feels that they must move jobs. In a lot of situations it will not be a realistic choice anyway, due to lack of suitable alternative employment. For such a employee how is this a "perfectly logical proposal"? This is the question that you consistently avoid.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
15/10/2004 15:37 |
|
Do you see anything wrong with building sites with no hard hats for those builders who 'choose'? Or asbestos removers with no safety gear if they 'choose'? H&S legislation protects workers from explotation. It sets out the minimum standards to protect worker safety. The fact that you are so enthusiastic to override this safety just to save you a little 3 minute trip outside is staggering.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
15/10/2004 18:38 |
|
A straight answer to a straight question is all i am asking. Are you going to give it, or are you (both now) clinically incapable ?? Its a yes or a no really.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
16/10/2004 01:18 |
|
Come on people, I think we've fed this troll "blaggarde" for long enough. Nothing we say will convince him, and the legislation isn't going to change to accomdate him.
|
| |
|
catherine(NMH12187) Posted:
16/10/2004 16:43 |
|
I think you're hitting your head against a couple of stone walls, Blaggarde. I hope you're wearing your hard hat!
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
18/10/2004 09:07 |
|
Dear Blaggarde
I quote you - "A straight answer to a straight question is all i am asking. Are you going to give it, or are you (both now) clinically incapable ??" I have asked a simple question several times now, which you have chosen (adult lifestyle choice?) not to answer. It is this - how does tobacco smoke, undeniably dangerous to the smoker, somehow become safe for everyone else in the room? A straight answer to a straight question is all I am asking.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
18/10/2004 20:13 |
|
I answered your question, Ross, on September 5th, but let me elaborate further in case you didn't understand it: Just like carbon dioxide and methane - produced by humans at an unnerving rate in pubs - violently poisonous substances if inhaled in substantial quantities, but harmless and negligible when dispersed, smoke is not "dangerous" when dispersed either. And if you think smoke IS dangerous no matter how little of it there is, then for god's sake stay well away from candles, "air freshener" candles, coal, timber and turf fires, barbeques, incense burners, oil lamps, tea-lights, frying pans, cookers, grills, camp fires, ovens, lighters, matches etc etc etc, because by YOUR beliefs we'll all die a horrible, premature death from all the dangerous smoke. It's all total lunacy of course, but if you are being consistent..... And Richard, welcome back. Why its been MONTHS. You're trying to sweeten me up aren't you? Now ladies and gentlemen, i am still waiting for your straight answer to my straight question, and if you were to avoid further solo runs up a nearby tangent, that would be most helpful: What is wrong with smoking venues for adults including staff who want to avail of those venues?
|
| |
|
catherine(NMH12187) Posted:
18/10/2004 21:22 |
|
Ross, Anybody who thinks it is unsafe to be in a room where there is tobacco smoke should not be in that room. Indoor smoking areas should be available to people who wish to use them. Why is this not an option?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
19/10/2004 11:07 |
|
Indoor smoking areas are not an option nor are \'smoking venues\' becuase if staff choose to give up smoking then they are forced to leave their jobs in order to have a safe working environment - this is constructive dismissal.
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
19/10/2004 12:00 |
|
Thanks for that clarification. Water, also, is fatal if inhaled, so workplaces don't require you to put your head in a bucket of it. It's probably dangerous to breathe mashed potaotoes as well. I think your argument is described as reductio ad absurdum (Latin scholars please correct). However, all of this is becoming a little academic. I was at a christening afters on Sunday, in a formerly notoriously smoky Dublin northside "worker's" pub, with over a hundred adults and about 30 children. All there, smokers included, thought the lack of smoke was, to quote, "bleedin' brilliant". Not one dissenting voice from the 40 or so smokers, and delight from the lounge staff. Face it, fellas, the ashtray has gone the way of the spittoon, not just in pubs but in all workplaces.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
19/10/2004 14:38 |
|
Smokers are jokers...
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/10/2004 11:11 |
|
To Blaggard, from “Clinically incapable”, you keep asking for an answer for your question “What is wrong with smoking venues for adults including staff who want to avail of those venues?” I have given an answer already but you chose to ignore it. Your "perfectly logical proposal" as you call it persistently ignores the fact your proposal of smoking & non-smoking venues will impose on a potential non-smoking employee (i.e. a current smoker, who is considering giving up smoking) the option of putting up with a smoky, smelly, uncomfortable and more than likely unhealthy work environment, or alternatively move jobs. This is effectively constructive dismissal, if the employee feels that they must move jobs. In any case, in a lot of situations it will not be a realistic choice anyway, due to lack of suitable alternative employment. For such an employee how is this a "perfectly logical proposal"? This is the question that you consistently avoid.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/10/2004 12:34 |
|
As I understand it, Constructive dismissal only applies if and employee is forced to resign due to the EMPLOYER making an intolerable change to the terms in the Contract of Employment. An employee who chooses to give up smoking could not leave and claim constructive dismissal - in this hypothetical scenario the Employer has done nothing to change the contract of employment, the employee has just chosen to give up smoking. He cannot then insist that a smoke free workplace be added to his contract of employment just because he has choosen to give up smoking, and then shout constructive dismissal when he doesn't get it!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/10/2004 15:34 |
|
Dear Anon 21/10/2004 12:34, I think that you are getting away from the general thrust of the argument by concentrating on the definition of constructive dismissal. However, seeing as you brought it up, the argument is that the employee would feel compelled to resign due to the employment conditions (i.e. due to unnecessarily smokey, smelly, uncomfortable and probably unhealthy working conditions). In simple terms Constructive dismissal is where the employee feels that there is no alternative but to resign due to the conduct of the employer. An employee (non smoker or even a smoker) who felt to forced to work in unnecessarily smokey, smelly, uncomfortable and probably unhealthy working conditions OR resign, could be said to constructively dismissed, if they resigned.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/10/2004 16:04 |
|
Sorry, Anonymous Posted: 21/10/2004 15:34 - but you are wrong about that. Legally, the newly non smoker would not have a case for constructive dismissal, as the employer would have done absolutely nothing that effects their employment. They have made a choice to give up smoking, and therefore, they are the ones "changing the goalposts", not the employer. Hence, they are not being constructively dismissed. You are twisting the facts to suit the anti-smoking argument. Check the facts!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/10/2004 11:25 |
|
You really are getting hung up on the constructive dismissal argument. Constructive dismissal is not about changing goalposts, it is about the conduct of the employer. I personally do not think that it is acceptable for an employer to impose on an employee unnecessarily smokey, smelly, uncomfortable and probably unhealthy working conditions on an employee. Maybe you do. In any case the law is now there to protect the worker from such conditions.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
23/10/2004 01:06 |
|
Ross I'm as game as anyone to engage in rip-roaring flights of fancy. But if people DID want to inhale potato then i see no reason why they shouldn't if that is their considered choice. But you haven't answered the question. Smelly Smoky ANON; you are hiding behind your (apparently limited) knowledge of Unfair Dismissal legislation to evade the question also. It strikes me that you would rather shake hands with the devil than admit honestly that adults in a free society have a right to decide for themselves to use a legal product without state interference, even in premises specifically defined. To continue to evade the issue reduces your arguments to the point of worthlessness, as it is blatantly obvious that you are stonewalling on a basic, fundamental human right. The biggest issue remains that this totalitarian nazi-like law utterly discriminates in a devious way against a very substantial proportion of the population. And that is both illegal and unconstitutional.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
26/10/2004 11:19 |
|
Blaggard, legalities aside, you keep evading the answer that you have sought. Namely that your proposal of smoking & non-smoking venues will impose on a potential non-smoking employee (e.g. a current smoker, who is considering giving up smoking, or just a plain ordinary non smoker) the option of putting up with a smoky, smelly, uncomfortable and more than likely unhealthy work environment, or alternatively move jobs. In a lot of situations it will not be a realistic choice anyway, due to lack of suitable alternative employment. Maybe you think that this choice is acceptable to the workers of this country, I do not. In any case the law is now there to protect the worker from such conditions, and if the law was illegal and unconstitutional, wouldn’t you think that there would be a successful court case by now. There have been a few court cases and all came down against the publican.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
26/10/2004 14:42 |
|
Hi - Anonymous Posted: 22/10/2004 11:25 - you said yourself, "Constructive dismissal is not about changing goalposts, it is about the conduct of the employer". OK, we've established that constructive dismissal is about the conduct of the employer. So, if the employer has not changed his conduct in any way, and it would be considered constructive dismissal and unacceptable if he did, why is it therefore acceptable for the newly non-smoker employee to demand changes in his contract due to his newly non smoking status?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
26/10/2004 15:06 |
|
Forget I ever mentioned Constructive dismissal, and just address about the worker conditions. The issue is not about change in conduct in employer, but about the employer providing acceptable safe working conditions. You seem to think that an employer imposing smoky, smelly, uncomfortable and more than likely unhealthy work environment on a worker is acceptable. Glad I don't work for you.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
26/10/2004 16:13 |
|
Your argument is laughable - you ranted on about non-smokers being constructively dismissed, it was a large part of your argument against having both smoking and nonsmoking venues, but now that the actual facts don't pan out in favour of your own argument, you would like us to conveniently forget you mentioned it in the first place?!? You should have been a politician! :-)
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
27/10/2004 09:46 |
|
I have repeatedly said that you are hung up on the constructive dismissal aspect of the arguement. I have not ranted on about constructive dismissal. I have ranted on about workers working conditions, and how smoking & non smoking wenues would impose unfair choices on workers and how this law helps protect the workers. Please look at the whole arguement and respond to the full arguement and not get hung up on one little detail. Again to summarise the arguement. The proposal of smoking & non-smoking venues will impose on a potential non-smoking employee (e.g. a current smoker, who is considering giving up smoking, or just a plain ordinary non smoker) the option of putting up with a smoky, smelly, uncomfortable and more than likely unhealthy work environment, or alternatively move jobs. Maybe you think that this choice is acceptable to the workers of this country, I do not.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
27/10/2004 11:02 |
|
Yes, I think this choice is acceptable! At least in this scenario the employee / smoker / non smoker has the right to make a choice for themselves! With the current ban, the right to choose was thrown out the window - and don't delude yourself, this ban was brought in under the blanket of "workers rights" but I could right now name 20, 30 workplaces were I know and have witnessed were smoking is still allowed, because the employers AND the employees in those workplaces don't agree with the ban, and accomodate each other. This ban has just pushed smoking in the workplace underground, for want of a better phrase. Its still going on! And if any employee has a problem with it, they could ring and report it, the law is there to protect their jobs, so why don't they ring up? I'll tell you why - because not all non-smokers are as hung up about passive smoking as you think. The totally over the top way some posters on this thread are carrying on, you would swear that cigarette smoke within a hundred yards of the non smoker, would have the same effect as Zyklon B! Smoking venues for smokers should be permitted. End of argument, as far as I'm concerned.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
27/10/2004 13:19 |
|
Yes, of course not all non-smokers feel strongly about this issue. Likewise, not all smokers are against the ban - many of the smokers that I know think it is a great development. I guess the willingness (even enthusiasm) of some of the smokers on this thread to impose their unhealthy lifestyle choices is simply a measure of the desparation of their addiction, and highlights the importance of society getting on top of this issue and ensuring that non-smokers have the choice of protecting their health, ALL of the time.
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
27/10/2004 14:05 |
|
20 or 30 workplaces - out of how many? Many, many workplaces have been smoke-free for years, with no complaint. There is no issue of choice - if you smoke (in my office, my workshop, wherever) then I smoke, so I have no choice. But none of this matters - the workplace ban is here, the workers of Ireland, smokers and non-smokers, have accepted it, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is that.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
27/10/2004 14:14 |
|
I still fail to see what problem smokers have with walking 30 or may 40 metres to indulge their addiction rather than force their filthy habit on those who don't want it.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
02/11/2004 14:03 |
|
To all the advocates of smoking in pubs, or any other work place, you still have the choice (to smoke) just not inside. If / when you smoke in the pub (or other enclosure) the non smokers do not have a choice but to inhale the second hand smoke. Even if this is not hazardous to your help, it is not nice. The choice of going outside wouldn't cut any ice if one was to use such argument against me because as soon as the non smoker walks back in, they have to inhale the smoke. The ban is here and will stay, live with it.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
09/11/2004 18:19 |
|
NOBODY, with the exception of one anon, has yet answered my straight question with a straight answer. I'll put it a different way to see if there is any enlightenment: If, in a free society, there are adults (and that still includes "workers") who want to have smoking venues for smokers, then what right does the state have to legislate against them? This most central of concepts - individual freedom - cannot be reduced to splitting hairs, with Smelly-Smokey or anyone else. The principle of freedom and individual choice is too important to all individual citizens not just on this issue, but on every issue. The legislation has created a dangerous precedent in terms of individual liberty in a so-called free & democratic state - i.e. ANY individual freedom is now an expendable commodity. This is the issue. Nobody here has been prepared to address it.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
10/11/2004 10:05 |
|
Because, as many people have tried to explain toyou, it is the duty of employers to provide a safe comfortable working environment.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
10/11/2004 10:50 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - You've got many many answers to your question above. The fact that you don't like the answers does not mean that they aren't good answers, all the same. The smoking ban in pubs has done more to ensure individual freedom and good health in this country than any other piece of legislation.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
10/11/2004 11:37 |
|
Blaggard, Your suggestion of freedom of individual choice really favours the smoker. i.e. a potential non-smoker has the CHOICE of putting up with the discomfort and probable health risks of a smoking working environment, or getting lost, and finding alternative employment, (which is quite likely to not be a viable option) Not much of a choice being offered by someone advocating personnel freedom. Personnel freedom really only can be an option so long as it does no harm to another.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
11/11/2004 13:55 |
|
Blaggarde, give it up. There have been a few people here who have agreed with you but your views seem very much in the minority here. Accept defeat. You are wrong. The smoking ban is good for Irish society, has given more people in Ireland freedom of choice and a more enjoyable drinking environment. I am a smoker and I am all for the ban. It does not bother me to go outside, even in the cold and rain when I think about the benefits of the ban. I dont smoke indoors anywhere anymore and I am the better for it - I dont smoke as much, my clothes, hair etc do not stink, my house does not stink, my kids dont have to breath in the smoke all the time, I chat to new people at the pub while having a smoke without fear of people thinking I am starnge etc. (OK the last comment was a little fiseascious (wrong spelling I'm sure)). All in all, the country is better off. PErhaps a reduction in income tax take due to less cigarettes and drink sold, but less money needed to fund the black hole that is the health service in years to come. Ireland is a more healthy and better place to be now. Accept it and get on with your life.
|
| |
|
john(VPH13931) Posted:
11/11/2004 22:37 |
|
I dont know why the smoking ban causes such massive controversey.If it did not happen the State- which licences public houses,-would be faced with massive litigation from employees working in such premises.Like the asbestos lawsuits in America.
If you want to argue about more serious topics in Irish Society,check out the web site; www.soldiersofdestiny.org
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
12/11/2004 19:30 |
|
It is very worrying that so many people should be, to say the least, unconcerned that the freedom of many individual citizens has been taken away. Whether or not we approve of them, smokers have the right to socialize in a civilized manner. There are elderly people now standing outside pubs in the rain and cold to have a cigarette. Some don't even go out anymore. These people worked all their lives and paid taxes but the state has now decreed how they should live out their retirement. We should be fighting for a compromise solution for these people, and many others like them, instead of revelling in the fact that our hair is no longer smelly!
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
13/11/2004 00:54 |
|
"Blaggarde, give it up.......... Accept defeat. You are wrong.......Accept it and get on with your life." Well what a wise and worthy commentary. Will i ever be able to thank you enough for your insight and wisdom. Is their no end to your selfless munificence anon, out there in the wind and the rain sacrificing yourself for everybody. Is there no end to your Ego? RD, you and your friends there have consistently and deliberately avoided, fudged and prevaricated over my question and have NEVER addressed it with a straight answer (or any answer, other than more of your same old same old). As long as a significant section of ordinary law-abiding society is locked out "for the good of" another section, this issue will not go away. This fact seems to be getting through to you though, because it would seem that you all feel the need to desperately defend your untenable positions any time i pop my head up. There should be smoking venues for smokers who want them. Try accepting that, Anon, and see if you can resist the urge to drown us all in your syrupy self-righteousness.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
15/11/2004 09:00 |
|
Dear Blaggard, This is “syrupy self-righteousness”, or between us friends, you can call me “smelly, smokey”. Why do YOU persisently avoid responding MY response to your question on smoking and non-smoking venues. Your suggestion of freedom of individual choice really favours the smoker at the expense of the non-smoker. Of course that has been the situation for generations, so it is taking you a little while to get used to the tables being turned. For instance, with YOUR suggestion a potential non-smoker has the “CHOICE” of putting up with the discomfort and probable health risks of a smoking working environment, or getting lost, and finding alternative employment, (which is quite likely not to be a viable option) Not much of a choice being offered by someone advocating individual freedom. An overriding principle in individual freedom is that it really only can be an option so long as it does no harm to another. Are you so blinded by your own selfishness that you cannot see that your suggestion does not offer a genuine choice to a potential non-smoking employee?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
15/11/2004 11:07 |
|
Blaggarde, its the self righteous smoker here. To answer your question, no I dont think you will be able to tank me enough because my ego is so big that no level of thanks would placate the enormous ego of mine. Have fun this winter!!
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
16/11/2004 01:16 |
|
Well, see, smelly-smokey - or SS for short, there are so many friends in here trading under the Anonymous tagname, that it is only you know its you, if you get my drift. One cannot base national legislation or argue one's case from the limited perspective of whether or not some individual barworker may or may not wish to not be in a smokers bar. That is a truly selfish dog-in-the-manger perspective and amounts to holding people to ransom. Supposing s/he were allergic to perfume ??? If that were the precedent for all decision making at national level, then there would be no freedoms for anyone, on any issue..... Here's a different perspective though: On average and depending on a string of factors, the majority of which are genetic, we have an average stay on this planet of 70-odd-years. Within that timespan we have the opportunity to uplift or burden our fellow human beings (on any issue) and you know well there are those who make life a joy for others as well as those who make life a misery. In this greater scheme of things, you must come to some conclusion about where you stand. I believe I am on the side of maximising liberty and free will and minimising discomfort and misery. I believe that such a stance upholds the greater good in a (truly) healthy society and that it should be upheld by all of us, whether or not we personally disagree with smoking. Smoking venues for smokers does not deny anti-smokers such as yourself the opportunity to choose nonsmoking venues. So i cannot comprehend your argument that my suggestion is "in favour of smokers" when in fact, it is in favour of individual freedom and choice for ALL in a democratic state. The current inhumane situation is that smokers have no life to speak of anymore, outside the home. Your position seems to be that this inhumanity should continue, because it personally suits you. I hold your position to be fundamentally flawed in any interpretation of human rights.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
16/11/2004 10:04 |
|
If stepping outside for two minutes every hour to indulge your addiction constitutes \'no life anymore\' - I dread to think what sort of existence you deemed to be a life, prior to this.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
16/11/2004 10:20 |
|
Blaggarde, SS here. This legislation is not to protect an isolated relatively rare individual who is allergic to perfume. It is to protect any worker (smoker & non smoker) from what even you must admit is a very unpleasant work environment, and what most people would say is probably unhealthy work environment. The legislation is benefiting the general population (not just a rare allergy at the expense of the general population). Your suggestion “benefits” the smoker at the expense of the general population. (Of course that is if you consider smoking a benefit in the first place) When most people visit the pub it is for 2-3 hrs on a night out. The worker has to put up with the atmosphere for their 40 hour working week. Don’t forget that a large significant proportion of the population are non-smokers (I won’t give you a chance to dispute the often quoted 2/3 of the pop). You still refuse to address how the choice that you are offering these workers is not really an even-handed choice. I.e. a potential non-smoker has the “CHOICE” of putting up with the discomfort and probable health risks of a smoking working environment, or getting lost, and finding alternative employment, (which is quite likely not to be a viable option)
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
16/11/2004 10:48 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Given your huge concern for what you style as 'personal liberties', would I be safe in assuming that you have been campaigning for years for the introduction of smoke-free pubs as an optional choice for non-smokers? Or perhaps personal liberties are only important when they restrict your abilities to impose your carcinogenic fumes on lowly-paid bar workers? You really don't expect that anyone takes this oul guff about 'liberties' seriously, do you?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
16/11/2004 13:44 |
|
Blaggarde, if people enetered pubs spraying perfume around the place all the time then, assuming that a landlord would be stupid enough to allow that to happen, then legislation I'm sure would be enacted to stop such behaviour. God help those poor perfume puffers on cold winter nights having to go outside the pub to spray their perfume. Could we not open perfume spraying pubs and non perfume spraying pubs. Where is the liberty in all of this???? Forgotten I tells ya in this martial law country with dictators as health ministers. Individual liberty is at stake. We must rise up now and stop this outrage!!!!
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
19/11/2004 02:21 |
|
Well I'll tell you what kind of a life i had before Anon 1....... Every Friday I went to the city centre, mused the bookshops, walked my usual haunts, met people and ended the evening with a good sit-down for coffee, a cigarette and a chat, in one of the few remaining places that then remained available to me to do just that - in a coffee-shop the size of an aircraft hangar, where the last thing one could detect was the smell of smoke, so thin was the dispersal...... I don't go out on Fridays anymore not even to browse. Capture the feeling; there is NOWHERE to stop and rest and be relaxed for someone in my position; and you choose to not see my point. Once a fortnight or so, i met up with friends in a local pub - the very vast majority of whose customers were smokers - again large sized, with recognised smoking areas and good ventilation - i don't do that anymore either and according to you and everyone else in here, that's just fine. Well,it's not. There is no place i can go, like you can, if one of your friends phones up to say "lets go to........" This is what i (along with hundreds of thousands of others) wake up to every day, EVERYDAY, week in week out. I was last out on March 28th and said my goodbyes then. Can you think of any other members of society who are treated in this intolerably cruel way - and how can you stand over it for ANY reason? In my Ireland - the one i grew up in, it would have been inconceivable to treat people like this. We may forever disagree on smoke and smoking, and we will certainly disagree on the idea (for me) of standing out on the street, but i am fighting for accommodation as a citizen - the state has an obligation to provide equally for us all - and i will continue to do so despite your unthinking, inhumane and sometimes vicious take on what is happening to ordinary decent people in this country at this time. And i say that to all my friends in here, as a member of a generation who delivered to YOU your freedoms and your wealth and the wherewithal to live your lives according to your choices.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
19/11/2004 09:52 |
|
Oh my god get the violins out for Blaggarde - I have never heard such a pile of self-pitying cr*p. First off, just because a place is 'like an aircraft hanger' and you can't see the smoke, doesn't mean it isn't entering everyone in the vicinity. But please-you refuse to go out and see any of your friends in any social setting because every once in a while you might have to get up and walk a couple of feet to a door to have a smoke. That is YOUR choice. Someone sitting next to while you're smoking - well they have NO choice.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
19/11/2004 09:54 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Your comment that "the last thing one could detect was the smell of smoke, so thin was the dispersal" speaks volumes on how little you understand about the impact of your habit on non-smokers. I can absolutely guarantee you that if I was in the same coffee shop as you while you were smoking, your smoke would make me uncomfortable. I'd bet a tenner that if I were in the same coffee shop as you two hours after you had been smoking, your smoke would make me uncomfortable. I'd bet a fiver that if I were in the same coffee shop as you the next morning after your smoking, your smoke would make me uncomfortable. And of course that is before we even get near the important issue of the impacts of your smoke on the health of those around you. You are clearly wallowing in your victimhood and cutting off your nose to spite your face. There is nothing to stop you book-browsing, coffee-shopping or pubbing. You just have to step outside for a few minutes to have your smoke to make sure you don't impact the health of others. That really isn't too much to expect.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
20/11/2004 00:33 |
|
Actually Anon, I would be very pleased if you would get out the violins. Unlike you or your associates in here, I have attempted a sincere response to a question that was specifically asked of me. It is NOT my choice to not go out, it is a state imposed condition that i remove myself from any premises if i smoke, and i am not prepared to be a second-class citizen. I am just as entitled to my dignity, as you are to yours. And IF someone sitting next to me decides they don\'t enjoy my company after all, for reasons of smoke or otherwise, they have every right to go somewhere else. When there are smoking venues for smokers and non for nons, you\'ll see what i mean. RD, sweetie, I\'d bet much more than you would that almost ANYTHING would make you feel uncomfortable and/or annoyed. (not me, of course, we go back too long a way) But you have indirectly, again, given the game away: Your primary emphasis is the fact that smoking is ANNOYING to some non-smokers, who then turn anti, which is the REAL REASON you support this law. Your usual health..impact...workers...blah blah, came a poor second and you nearly forgot to mention it at all. We all accept that the \"worker\" thing is only a hook to hang it on.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
20/11/2004 02:54 |
|
Well of course, RD, blaggarde meant HE couldn't smell the smoke - it's no surprise that smokers' sense of smell is messed up by their habit.
What's more amusing though is that he apparently values his smoking habit over his social life. Truly, drug addicts of any kind are the most boring and pitiful people on the planet... :-)
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/11/2004 09:47 |
|
Blaggarde, I have to agree with the last two posts, you have turned out to be an even bigger self pittying whinger I've heard in quite a long time. YOu say the last time you went out to meet your mates was March 28. Well, you obviously took the opinion that Ireland was about to change permanently and decided that going out would be quite a drag. Well it hasn't turned out that way. Your true colours are really on show now. By the way, why did you bother going into book shops to book browse? You haven't been allowerd to smoke in shops for years. How did you stand the inhumanity?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/11/2004 11:08 |
|
Of course you ahve a choice blaggarde, don't be such a self-pitying whiner, you can either step outside, or not smoke. Why should others have to go elsewhere just so as not to puit up with the after-effects of your filthy disgusting addiction.
|
| |
|
Catherine(Mollycathy) Posted:
22/11/2004 13:56 |
|
i do hope the ban will stick, however lets remember why it is enforced -to protect the people working in pubs & clubs, and by that token preventing them becoming victims and suing their employers for work related illness in the future. It was a natual progression to ban smoking in the workplace -why should workers in one trade suffer on when office workers would not stand for someone at another desk with a pipe and an open window?
However prosecuting a publican on achil or whatever island off mayo and letting the owner of fibber magees in Galway (and numerous other pubs) get away with flouting the law is just another example of making examples of the small people and turning a blind eye to the big shots.
my health as an asmatic has definately improved from a night out.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
24/11/2004 02:18 |
|
If the best you can do is suggest that i am self-pitying, then all you are doing is displaying your totalitarian unwillingness to accept that this legislation is causing genuine suffering and hardship to your fellow citizens. I have to record that my posts to this board, in particular the last one, were heavily cut by the powers that be on this site. Apparently big brother is alive and well in here too. Only a matter of time now before it will be too late to protest your opposition to any measure.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
24/11/2004 10:21 |
|
Or maybe big bro is sick of your whining as well. You talk about genuine hardship in relation to having to walk a couple of feet to a door to smoke. Genuine hardship is watching someone you love deal with lung cancer brought about by smoking. Your so-called hardship is so minimal in comparison. I have to stop writing I am so angry.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
24/11/2004 10:23 |
|
Of course it is self-pitying. You would prefer to stay at home and smoke rather than meet your friends ina pub or coffee shop and either not smoke, or step outside every hour for 2 or 3 minutes (like everyone has to while in work) to pacify your addiction.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/11/2004 10:17 |
|
Blaggard, your post was endited by the site so that they can not be sued by an overly zealous public Ireland for lawsuits and compensation, not to mention the PC briggade. That is one of the reasons that the ban was brought in - smoking in the work place gives the compo culture much fodder upon which to feed. We are not all wrong so you should face up to the reality and accept the ban. It is not a symptom of a totalitarian regime, it is a good law for the protection of all citizens - the non smoker, the emkployer, the state (AKA us the tax payer), all of whom could be sued by someone claiming they contracted cancer due to smoking in the work force. And yes, you are a bundle of self pity.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
26/11/2004 01:57 |
|
What crass hypocrisy. Would you feel as free to utter your abusive comments to any other minority section of society, or is it that you feel you now have state sanctioned licence to affront people who smoke? Can you imagine telling, say, travellers that they are bundles of self-pity because they genuinely describe their situation in response to a direct question? Did my answer make you feel THAT uncomfortable? This is NOT, Anon1 about "walking a couple of feet to the door"..... This is about being driven out of normal society under threat of criminal prosecution and YOUR acceptance of it. This is about freedom and liberty and fairness and equity. Smokers contribute in excess of 1.3bn in indirect taxation on top of their ordinary taxes...... We are being told ......"we'll take your money alright, but we are removing your rights...." How dare you speak of anger, Anon1, as if it justifies your position. And who decided you are "not all wrong.... " Anon3? Leaving out the immediate issues, the "evidence" on passive smoking - the basis on which this ridiculous draconian legislation is originated - is so thin, so unbelievable and so scientifically insignificant, they had to talk it up! Otherwise intelligent people have now been brainwashed into thinking that excluding ordinary law-abiding people is the answer. How nazi is that?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
26/11/2004 09:49 |
|
Blaggarde, travellers coming into a pub and sitting besise me does not affect my freedom and liberty. Someone smokign beside me in a pub DOES. Why should i sacrifice my freedom and lierty to accomodate your addiction.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
26/11/2004 10:56 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Paying tax does not give you the right to impose on others. I pay road tax - Does that give me the right to drive at 90 mph up & down the street where you live? Of course not. And yet again, I'll remind you that you have failed to produce any serious evidence to support your claims regarding medical evidence (except of course for that one study from the Doc who got his funding from where - big tobacoo - surprise surprise). You are still free to smoke. You are not free to smoke where it will affect the health and comfort of others. Have you noticed a trend? Now that Ireland had the guts to lead the way on this important development, many many other countries are following suit - Scotland, Norway, Sweden even the scallies in Liverpool have banned smoking in pubs. In years to come, our children will look back in horror on the primitive manner in which we used to inflict ill-health on others. Remember they used to empty chamber pots out the windows into the street, Blaggarde. Is it an infringement of your personal liberty that you now have to flush your sewage down the loo?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
26/11/2004 14:39 |
|
Blaggarde, you pay 1.3bn in taxes through the purchase of cigarettes. How much money do smokers drain from the exchequer through smoking related illnesses?!!!! You are correct in so far as your liberty and freedom to smoke in a pub / restaurant etc has been outlawed but lets say it again, you are not banned from smoking. Go outside and do it. You are also banned from going to the toilet in public, why not rant about that? Afterall, you have to leave the company of your friends when you need to go. Lets all use the pubs and restaurants as toilets and see how THAT affects your liberties.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
27/11/2004 22:25 |
|
Smokers "drain" absolutely nothing from the exchequer. They are net contributors. Even the tainted statistics on "smoking related illness" admit that the exchequer gains by a ratio of 4:3 , on this very point. Your puerile conjecture linking smokers to lavatory use is nothing more than further abusive comment. RD, you constantly trot out the idea that the onus is on me to "back up" my arguments with "evidence" of some kind. Apart from the fact that one cannot prove a negative, I have to say to you that the onus is firmly on the state - and on all who support this state purge - to provide absolute, objectively scientific, as well as universally accepted proof that what YOU claim is true. "We enacted/I support this legislation because.....[insert objective, absolute, universally accepted proof here]....." The fact is, there is no such thing. And we should all be reassured that if there WERE such, then it would be up there in lights with bells and whistles and prizes awarded by the Health Nazis. It must be a source of great frustration, evidenced by the complete and utter twisting & exaggeration of the facts, that no such proof can be found. But it should come as no surprise either, because there is none. While you're at it - suggesting that "big tobacco" is in on all of this (and it may well be - who knows) on one side, i would suggest you look at the role of "Big Pharmaceuticals" on the other side and wonder to yourself how many billions upon billions are poured by them into "research" tailored to support outcomes they wish to find.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
27/11/2004 22:54 |
|
If there were smoking and non-snoking pubs, we could all choose and nobody's liberty would be sacrificed. You have failed to produce any arguement other than the health of bar workers and 'potential non smokers' and now you are resorting to abuse and ridicule. You all seem to be of the impression that you have the right, even the duty, to think and speak on behalf of all bar workers. Well you DON'T! If we need you, we know where you are! Smoking is not illegal and smokers are tax-paying citizens who are now being forced onto the street. When they stopped emptying chamber pots on the street, a designated area was provided indoors ie a bathroom. How long must we wait for a smoking room?
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
29/11/2004 09:24 |
|
Anon poster - what makes you think YOU can speak for bar workers? Oh Blaggarde, this is just getting tedious now. The evidence is clear. Check out the WHO site, or the ASH site, or the very detailed report which the HSA commissioned from a broad range of public health experts (not the pharma industry) last year. The evidence that smoking is damaging is rock solid. Smoking kills. Passive smoking kills. On my way to work this morning, I passed a young girl in school uniform who looked about 13 having her quick smoke before she went into school. If the ban discourages just one schoolgirl from taking up the habit by making it clear that this is not a socially acceptable habit, it is more than worthwhile.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
29/11/2004 09:30 |
|
Dear Annon 27/11/2004 22:54, Smelly, smokey here. Your comment that the only arguement that we (SSB; Supporters of Smoking Ban) have produced is "the health of bar workers and 'potential non smokers'" really says a lot. Do you think the "the health of bar workers and 'potential non smokers'" is not important? I personally do not care that you want to smoke; that is your free and legal right. This legislation protects me the customer and more importantly all bar workers( during their 40 hour working week) from having to endure the effects of being in a smoking envirnoment. And yes sometimes the state does have to step in and provide protection for everyone, whether they want it or not. Other examples include speed limits on the road, safety regulations for construction and chemical industry. Are you against this type of thing also? Why shouldn't you be allowed to drive at 50mph through a residential area; never mind those nuisance pedestrians, and their petty health concerns!! And as I argued many times the so called "choice" of smoking and non-smoking venues is not really a viable choice for a potential non-smoker. In many cases the choice will be put up with the smoke or get lost; not really much or a choice. This was the "choice" that we faced before the legislation came in. Not anymore thank God and Michael Martin.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
29/11/2004 09:31 |
|
The govt. has a duty to legislate for all workers not just bar workers.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
01/12/2004 01:10 |
|
The government has a duty and an obligation to cater for all citizens equally. That would include smokers. RD, None of those sources, as i've already said several times - you're right its getting tedious - have come anywhere NEAR the sort of evidence required to prove the case for this legislation. It is all conjecture, opinion, and BIAS. As i've just stated, if they had that standard of proof on passive smoking, which is what this law is allegedly about, then we would all know it and it would be universally accepted. We don't and it isn't. Thank god there's another anon who values a free society. And SS, if you mention the phrase "potential non-smoker" again, i will retaliate with words like impairment and disempowerment.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/12/2004 09:39 |
|
Blaggarde, we do have proof on passive smoking and it is universally accepted. By everyone except you. Not havig the right to poison others while you poison yourself neither disempowers nor impairs you.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
01/12/2004 11:54 |
|
Blaggard, SS here. You will have to explain your reference to impairment and disempowerment; I don't understand. At the risk of getting up your nose, the reason I use the phrase "potential non-smoker", is to try and convey the idea that the legislation will help current non-smokers and also smokers who might be thinking of giving up. As a life-long addict(and thankfully for you long-life; others are not so lucky), surely you would want to assist anyone who wants to try and deal with their addiction, rather than give into it. Again at the risk of being tedious, but you keep avoiding the issue, I must raise your so-called choice. For someone like you who is so concerned with free society etc, as I argued many times your "choice" of smoking and non-smoking venues is not really a viable choice for a potential non-smoker working in one of your smoking venues. In many cases the choice will be put up with the smoke or get lost; not really much or a choice. A regards the impact on health & safety of the nation, that the legisaltion is meant to have. Surely even you must acknowledge that a 17% reduction in smoking in the country has to in the long run have a dramatic effect on the health & safety of the nation. As you know the figure quoted is 25% of bed admissions in hospitals are smoking related illnesses. No doubt you will dispute the actual figure of 25%, but you must concede that a significant volume of sickness is due to smoking. Don't tell me that you think smoking is not bad for your health.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
01/12/2004 14:45 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - It is just too easy for the embittered smoker to dismiss years of research as 'conjecture, opinion & bias' - but you have failed to offer any specific contradictions of the evidence presented in the HSA report. So I guess we have the choice of taking your vague, unsupported allegations or the professional views of the HSA expert group of non-aligned, independent public health experts - I know who I believe (but you can of course continue to tell the tide not to come in if you wish). I just have the feeling that you might be a happier man if you were to embrace the change.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
20/12/2004 00:20 |
|
Logic doesn't come into it at all guys, does it? You're just dead agin it and will bend your own consciences as far as it takes to support your small-minded views. Happily, I grew up in a time when we were taught to think for ourselves and defend the rights of others. Unfortunately for you, the same doesn't appear to be true. Your attitude is truly dog-in-the-manger. No room at the inn. How appropriate.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
20/12/2004 10:51 |
|
How anyone can talk about 'logic' and 'defend the rights of others' in relation forcing minimum wage workers to breath carcinogous noxious fumes is beyond me. Let's get real - this is nothing to do with 'rights' - this is all about infliction the substantial side-effects of your addiction on others.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
20/12/2004 10:54 |
|
I was driving thru Dublin city centre on Saturday night. It was rainign and bitterly cold, but despite this, there were little huddles of sad addicts outside the doors of most venues shivering in the cold and rain, attempting to use their numb fingers to get one last pathetic drag out of the toxic weed.
|
| |
|
Ross(usmar) Posted:
20/12/2004 12:26 |
|
It saddens me to write about this and I didn't want to, but the rights debate forces my hand. I have the evidence, extremely regrettable evidence, of my own eyes to confirm the damage possible from passive smoking. I watched my father-in-law, a lovely and gentle man, die a terrible and painful death this year from a range of smoking related conditions. However, he stopped smoking 20 years ago, following a heart attack. From then until the smoky coal ban (another "threat to the way we live and our individual freedom") he spent the whole of each winter grey and wheezing, a prisoner in his own house. Although a non-drinker, he was very sociable, but for the last few years he found it increasingly difficult to go to weddings, christenings, anniversaries and all the other family and social outings he loved so much, because of the smoke. The effect of being in a smoky room for the day or the night became increasingly like the coal smoke, leaving him breathless, grey and incapacitated for a day, two days, then a week, until he could no longer go, which hurt him deeply. For the last two years before the workplace ban, we could see that he no longer recovered fully from each exposure, but was weaker each time. Although he managed to get out to a couple of dos since the ban, which gave him great pleasure, the damage was done. This relatively young man should have been enjoying his retirement, his grandchildren and his life. Instead, he died needlessly, well before his time, in the cause of Blaggarde's individual freedom and freedom from oppression. How do separate venues deal with this? Have half his wedding aniversary (his 40th) in a smoking pub and the rest of us in a non-smoking one? Tough choice here - should the right of my children to another decade of love and care and wisdom from this lovely man take precedence over the inconvenience of people having to step outside for a few minutes every now and then for a cigarette? Your views, please.
|
| |
|
john(VPH13931) Posted:
20/12/2004 20:37 |
|
Hear Hear!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/12/2004 09:23 |
|
Welcome back Blaggard, SS here; I missed you and your open-mindedness, and your great concern for free society. Instead of dismissing me and my arguments as small-minded, why not try dealing with some of the arguments that I rose on 01/12/2004 11:54.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/12/2004 13:45 |
|
Blaggarde, have you changed over to our side and started arguing with yourself?
blaggarde Posted: 20/12/2004 00:20
Logic doesn't come into it at all guys, does it? You're just dead agin it and will bend your own consciences as far as it takes to support your small-minded views. Happily, I grew up in a time when we were taught to think for ourselves and defend the rights of others. Unfortunately for you, the same doesn't appear to be true. Your attitude is truly dog-in-the-manger. No room at the inn. How appropriate.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
23/12/2004 10:08 |
|
Interesting news item from http://www.moh.govt.nz/smokefreelaw, about the recent ban on smoking in pubs in New Zealand.
Quote: "Second-hand smoke contains poisonous chemicals such as arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia and carbon monoxide." All perfectly harmless, eh blaggarde? (Check out http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/hydrogencyanide/recognition.html if you think so.)
A story in the New Zealand Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9004272) says that HCN levels in pubs had dropped 45 percent since the ban.
Blaggarde seems to be the only one choking now :-) Happy Christmas to everyone else!
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
27/12/2004 18:39 |
|
Thank you for your welcome back SS. I have so many fans in here, its truly moving, but i hope you understand that i can only address one issue at a time. I just read in the paper that the state executed a 16-year-old woman because she was having an illegal relationship. The fact that the state is not this one does not particularly matter. It outraged me that in 2004, any state could act in this way, be supported by the populace and tolerated by the international community. Banning smokers totally from society is a step in the same totalitarian direction. Not only do you people approve of state interference in people's personal lives, you actively support it. There are one hundred and one ways of arriving at a satisfactory-to-all solution in the smoking debate, but you deliberately close your eyes to it. Then you descend to attacking me personally because i have strongly held views on liberty in a democratic society. It is probably a good time of year to step back and ask yourselves, what has brought you to this point - a full-blown fundamentalist, fanatical, negative mindset in the name of "doing good". I don't particularly care that you stoop to using the childish tactic of shooting the messenger - it only shows up your motivations for what they are. Control freakery dressed up as concern.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/01/2005 09:54 |
|
There are certain fundamentalist fanatics who mutilate their children, stone or flog people to death for having sex. This is not the same as preventign uoi from inflicting your noxious habit on others and instead walking a few metres to the nearest door for a couple of minutes.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/01/2005 11:30 |
|
SS here. Again you refuse to deal with my arguement re your so-called "choice" of smoking venues. I will take your lack of rebuttal as you conceding my point, that it is not a genuine choice for a potential non smoking employee. To move on, in a free society, I personnaly have no problem with you choosing to smoke. That is your choice and right so long as it does not impinge on others. The difference with smoking, compared to other vices is that there is no level of smoking that is not harmful to you. So far last year the smoking ban has resulted in a 17% drop is smoking. This you must admit is good for Irish society, from a health and welfare point of view. Also, as you know a significant proportion of hospital bed admissions are due to smoking related illnesses. (The figure quoted is 25%, but no doubt you will dispute the actual figure, but hopefully not the principle). Again the smoking ban will have an impact on all smoking related illnesses and therefore on the 25% bed admissions due to smoking related illnesses. Again another very positive effect on Irish society. Finally, by making smoking inconvenient in a public social environment, it hopefully will reduce the amount of new young smokers, who must replace the dead smokers who died from smoking related illnesses. Again surely a good thing for Irish Society. In summary the smoking ban will no doubt have a positive effect on the health & welfare of this nation. The amount of smokers & the associated illnesses will reduce. The price of mild inconvenince to current smokers is small by comparison.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/01/2005 23:16 |
|
Interesting to note that the RTE poll of 'top things from 2004', the smoking ban came out No.1, i.e. the best thing that happened in 2004 based on an independent survey. Even Eamonn Dunphy admitted that he was wrong to oppose the ban initially, and he thought it was a great thing now.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
16/01/2005 11:11 |
|
I'm shocked at the views of others
I know sould not be that surprised!
All I have to say to all those who
are sooo against us smokers-look at yourselfs?? everyone is addicted
to something-yes you are,be it slagging of the rest of us or just too much tea ,coffee,salt you name it yourselfs?I am so glad I finally hit on this site because for so long now I have wanted to voice my opinion on this matter.If te idea was really to make us live longer than where are we supposed to go when God forbid we need te state to find a bed for us?
I am a considerate person and I do not need the Government to teach me good manners.We should all look inside ourselfs and stop judging people who smoke-I was smoking outside my work-place 1 day when this drunkerd invaded my space & told me in no uncertain terms what he thought of my smoking in the street!!!!!!!!Bertie is sly he must wake up soon or he will have
lost all credibility,jobs are being lost-they are I happen to know people who worked in Cafe's and such now they are drawing the dole? I am just wandering what is next!!!!
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
16/01/2005 17:07 |
|
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that MY addiction to tea ,coffee, salt does not impact YOUR health, whereas in the bad old days, I was expected to put with the impact of YOUR addiction to smoking on MY health.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
17/01/2005 10:46 |
|
To Anonymous Posted: 16/01/2005 11:11, perhaps the smoking ban only accelerated the closing down of the cafe's to which you refer. It has been proven that business was slowing in the pubs even before the ban, I'd reckon the same is true for cafes and all establishments that over charged the public. I fear the smoking ban will be the fall guy for many ills. Sure wasn't it the smoking ban that closed Bewleys.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
17/01/2005 10:48 |
|
To Anonymous Posted: 16/01/2005 11:11, it would be good manners not to make non smokers suffer the discomfort of your smoking habit so I do not see your gripe with this ban because if you do not need the government to teach you good manners then you should be well used to going to pubs etc and not smoking inside. I'm sure you have politely been either not smoking or going outside to smoke. Well done you.
|
| |
|
Margaret(TSA22870) Posted:
17/01/2005 18:05 |
|
Are we all so cool nowadays that we have to be told by our stupid government what we should be allowed to do with our lifes?
All you fanatics out their who have only our best interest at heart???? think what you may be addicted to!!!!
Margaret
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
18/01/2005 09:50 |
|
Margaret,
As with most of the smokers comments above, you entirely miss the point of this law. As a non-smoker, I don't care that you smoke; it is your free choice. What this law ensures,is that I do not have to put up with the smell and discomfort, not to mention the probable health effects of your smoke anymore, especially if I am working an 8 hour shift in a bar. Get it yet, Margaret?
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
18/01/2005 09:53 |
|
You're missing the point (AGAIN) Margaret. It's not about telling you what to do with your life. It's about telling you what to do with MY life. You are welcome to pollute your own lungs, just don't pollute mine.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
20/01/2005 00:46 |
|
Glad to see you're all back in your workplaces, shiny happy people that you undoubtedly are, and commiserations to those who, according to Margaret there, have no workplaces to go back to. I believe there are thousands. SS, i addressed your particular whinge many a time. Just because you and rainy personally don't like the smelly and the smoky - as you see it - doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of thousands who PREFER that sort of environment despite all the Health Freakery and skewed statistics, and many hundreds of thousands more who don't mind it in the least. In a true free society, smoking venues would be just as available as non smoking venues. What is it that you're so scared of? Choice?? When will you guys realise that dying is caused by death, not by statistics or opinion, and that we all face it. And while you're at it why not take a moment to consider, that of the puny average of 75 years we spend here - out of countless millennia - you can choose to spend your time making life either a misery or a joy for others. It is perfectly obvious your choice is misery, and plenty of it, for those who do not see it your way.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
20/01/2005 11:30 |
|
Dying is caused by many things - lung cancer and emphysema are two of them. As for misery. You refuse to accept the misery cuased to bar workers who would not have the same CHOICE as you'd like when they worked in smoky environments.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/01/2005 15:24 |
|
Blaggard, SS here. In this debate, I think that name-calling is not very constructive. So far you have already called me a whinger, small-minded and miserable. I am not the one complaining (whinging) about a law put in place by the democratically elected government of this country, and which seems to be overwhelmingly supported by the general population. I am not the one whinging about a law that can only have great benefical effects on the general health of the population of Ireland. I am open-minded enough to see the future long-term benefits to our society of children growing up in a country where it is normal for no-smoking in any public places. I can see the great benefits for both the customer and more particularly the barworker during their 8 hr shift, of a smoke free working environment. I can see the benefit to the non-smoking barworker of not having to make the "choice" of continuing to work in the smoking pub, or moving to the non-smoking pub, which is not in a convenient area. Who truely is the whinger here? Who is so small minded not to be open the the huge benefits to Irish Society that this law provides? When was the last time that Ireland passed a law that other countries have admired so much, that they are studying the effects and going to implement themselves. Please Blaggard stop whinging and open your mind to the positive!! The law is here to stay, so it is either accept it and adapt or die in the misery of moaning and whinging. I am not atall miserable or a whinger. I am delighted with this new law. I am not small minded. I can see the bigger picture, and the benefits to all of society, and not wallow in the self pity of my own personnel situation.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
24/01/2005 22:47 |
|
The answer for bar workers and everyone else SS, is smoking venues for smokers and appropriate ventilation. As an aside, my son has been a barworker for the past 6 years. He's down to one night a week now. We are living in the 21st century, with electricity, technology, phones, glass in windows, real roofs, indoor toilets, cars....... not in the middle ages with witch-hunting, bubonic plague, burning the furniture, and bringing our your dead - - though you wouldn't think it with the callous treatment being meted out to smokers. I'm not really into name calling (except for the Smelly Smoky bit - SS) But i do hold that your VIEWS are miserable, fanatical, fundamentalist, disrespectful, discriminating, mean-spirited, intolerant, misleading, inaccurate, and unfair. But you yourself are probably a very fine person entirely.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/01/2005 10:21 |
|
Blagarde, you persistently ignoe the rights or non-smokign bar-workers in smoking venues
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/01/2005 12:10 |
|
Blaggarde, one point that seems to be missed in all of this and that point is that at one time bar owners were offered the choice of installing proper ventilation units and extractors but the bar owners refused saying it was not a viable option. I think this is similar to the taxis before regulation when they argued successfully in the High Court that the government did not have the authority to restrict the number of new licences issued (the government tried to issue 1000 or so new licenses which the taxi drivers faught in the High Court). Point I'm making I suppose is that the bar owners shot themselves in the foot when they tried to do things on the cheap. The government just stepped in a did what was right.
|
| |
|
Roger(YPD23226) Posted:
25/01/2005 23:03 |
|
I believe if health care such as we have in Canada depended on a person not smoking more peple would stop. As long as there are bars there will be people inhaling poison chemicles.Can a ban be enforced,logic never dictates, I would have to say no.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
26/01/2005 10:37 |
|
But Roger, the ban is already enforced.
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
04/02/2005 23:47 |
|
For what its worth SS, my son the barworker is a non smoker. It never troubled him that bars were peopled by smokers and his straightforward opinion is that this nanny legislation is a load of piffle. I do not 'keep ignoring other peoples "rights", ' - i have consistently voiced the view that there is room for all and that basically, God allows freewill even if the state does not. If you insist on discussing rights in this way, then you must equally address the rights of ALL. How about this from the UK Independent of January 29th.... "Four employees at Weyco, a healthcare company based in Michigan, USA, have been fired after they refused the firm's ultimatum to quit smoking. Weyco began random drug tests for nicotine at the beginning of this year and said it would fire workers who failed the test or refused to quit smoking. Other firms are refusing to hire applicants who admit they smoke while many American companies require workers to take breathalyser tests that detect traces of carbon monoxide in the lungs or else submit to urine tests to detect nicotine. In Florida a sheriff's office is demanding that all job applicants who have a recent history of smoking pass a polygraph test proving they no longer smoke outside work......." That's direct to you from "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave....." You think it couldn't happen here?? Now talk to me about rights.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/02/2005 09:23 |
|
Blaggarde, that is astonishing - people being fired because they smoke OUTSIDE the workplace? Surely this law is aginst even the American constitution. Afterall, smoking is not illegal. Next they'll be doing blood and urine testing for traces of alcohol and tests to see if a person is eating too many sweets or fatty foods a the weekend. That IS going too far.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
07/02/2005 09:39 |
|
Blaggard, SS here. Welcome to democracy. Ireland democratically elected our government and our government has introduced a law according to the laws of this country. It being a free (ish) society, you have the right to disagree with it, and you are availing of that right in strong measure. Quoting your son as an example of why the law is wrong doesn’t make sense. Can you not imagine your son’s position if he was troubled by the smoking environment? It is such a person that this law will benefit (while at the same time not impacting on your son with his current view). Our government historically also banned smoking in cinemas, buses & bingo halls. These laws are now part & parcel of normal living in Ireland now. The whinging has stopped on that score. It is approx one year since the smoking ban in bars was introduced and most of the whinging has stopped, with a few notable exceptions. The examples that you have quoted from the States are of course outrageous, and in the main would not be supported in Ireland today, whereas the law that we have introduced is in the main supported in Ireland. In another generation or so the examples that you have quoted might be acceptable, in a very changed Ireland with little or no smoking. Would that be such a bad thing in future generations? There are absolutely zero benefits to smoking, unlike nearly all other legal vices. If this law makes it totally undesirable to want to smoke, would that be such a bad thing? For your generation, you still have the option of smoking, but just not in a public enclosed space, that may impact on me. Again the principle of being allowed to do anything in a free society with the proviso that it does not impact on others. Say, you & I both shared a local bar, why are you so insistent on smoking (with absolutely no benefits), in my presence, when you know it has a negative impact on me? Why do you insist that I go to a different pub that might be too far away, or not as nice as our current shared pub?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
15/02/2005 12:08 |
|
blaggard what ya on about
|
| |
|
blaggarde Posted:
20/02/2005 03:25 |
|
Hi SS, you picked a whole load to talk about there; but i can still only address one point at a time so it has to be about democracy. The current government introduced this law without mandate. It was not part of their election manifesto and people did not actually vote for it. Statistical evidence from the UK where the smoker/nonsmoker base is comparable, indicate 70% in favour of a pro-choice position regarding smoking in bars & clubs and a very solid majority against a total ban in such places, in one of the most wide-ranging polls taken last year. Now the results of the local elections HERE resulted in an unprecedented loss (in the history of the state) to government parties, who themselves admitted that they had "become arrogant and out of touch with the people". No one is admitting directly that the vote was hugely influenced by the one million+ smokers who have been ostracised. I find that strange but not surprising. There will be opportunities to vote again. Democratic government DOES NOT MEAN that the majority crush and oust the minority as is the case with this ban. That is known as totalitarianism, or fascism if you wish. As a society, we are OBLIGED to cater for and take care of our minorities. I see evidence for it everywhere, but not for smokers. You and I will perhaps never agree on the smoking issue, but on fundamental principals, if you are a supporter of democracy you are obligated to defend minority rights, even if you disagree with them. Otherwise you are not a democrat. The other lesson to be learned from this exercise is that if in your naievity you stand over the stealthy withdrawal of rights as evidenced in THIS case, then you are tacitly surrendering all or any rights in future cases. Freedom is hard won and in this country's case, extremely hard won. Our forbears didn't fight a war of independence to have our older people thrown out on the street. Incidently, my son the non-smoking barman, whose hours were systematically reduced is out of work. He finished up last saturday night. Try telling him he is better off. I can't.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/02/2005 15:51 |
|
Blaggard, SS here. I think that we are agreed on the general thrust of democracy in action. The ultimate evidence of this that you can always vote them out at the next election. Your point about a democrat having the responsibility to defend minority rights, even if you disagree with them, is true up to the point where it does not impact on others. In the case of smoking, it does have a negative impact on others (maybe not your son). Please explain to me in the hypothetical scenario, where, you & I both shared a local bar, why are you so insistent on smoking (with absolutely no benefits), in my presence, when you know it has a negative impact on me? Why do you insist that I go to a different pub that might be too far away, or not as nice as our current shared pub? (You could be surprised; we might like the same kind of pub or music, or sports or people, and might end up frequenting the same pub). The alternative is what the law now allows, that we can both sit in the same pub, enjoying the same clientele, music, sport etc, and every so often when the pull of your addiction is too powerful, you go out in the fresh air, have your smoke without impacting on me atall, and then come back in and enjoy all the other things we have in common.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/02/2005 16:09 |
|
Incidentally, Blaggarde, my father-in-law is dead. Try telling my children that they are better off because people smoked around him. Your son can get another job. My children can't get another pal.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
06/03/2005 22:40 |
|
Hiya SS, Blaggarde here. Someone kindly changed my tag name. I don't know why. Anyway, I was smiling as I read your post, at the irony of your position - you hypothetically having to go to a bar further away, when in real life you are talking to someone who has not been able to set foot inside ANY bar because of the "law". Before you rush to judgement, about for instance, this being "my own choice" I can assure you it is NOT my own choice. The law says i cannot smoke and drink at the same time, the way people have done for four hundred years, in a public bar. So-called "public" bars are privately owned and by right, it is the prerogative of the OWNER, not the government to decide whether it is a smoking or non-smoking house. If you were a true democrat, as you purport to be, then you would support compromise on this issue, and not hog all the bars in the country to yourself and your fellow anti-smokers, which is the current position. I take issue with your subjective notion which puts smoking in a benefit/no-benefit frame. I derive enormous pleasure and satisfaction from it and always have done. I also take issue with the notion that a smoking area with proper ventillation cannot be accommodated - they're doing it in the UK. And i definitely take issue with the notion that "passive smoking" is in any way harmful as the so-called "experts" say it is. I agree that a smoky atmosphere can be ANNOYING, but that is not the same thing. People are "addicted" to many things. For instance, it's a bit Irish for you to be talking down to me as if i'm some kind of deranged addict, from your cosy smoke-free BARstool. Supposing, hypothetically, the law were reversed so that ONLY smokers were allowed inside, while you were provided with the open-air frozen awfulness now offered to people who smoke, you might begin to understand the injustice of this law and the reason why compromise is the Right Thing To Do.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/03/2005 13:03 |
|
Blaggarde, your supposition is not applicable here because the law does not ban smokers from bars, however, the hypothetical law you are talking about bans non smokers from bars.
Incidentally, this law bans smoking in the work place. Assuming you did work, have you also chosen to give up working as the law now bans you from working and smoking at the same time (of course if you work outdoors this is not an issue).
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
09/03/2005 16:28 |
|
Oh get over yourself, Blaggarde. You are not banned from entering pubs. You are not banned from smoking. You just happened to be banned from doing both at the same time. If pub life is so important to you, then why is it such a big deal just to step outside for a few minutes to have your smoke.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
12/03/2005 21:03 |
|
Hiya Rainy...... good to see you again. Of COURSE i'm barred from pubs. Smokers smoke. And when smokers smoke they will be criminalised if they do so in a pub. Ergo smokers are banned. When, in the fullness of time, they ban all meat from restaurants in another good-for-you lunatic putsch, it will mean restaurants will be for Vegetarians only, in the same way that bars & clubs are for Non-Smokers now. Here's a quote from John Reid, the British Health Minister on why they won't be Doing It Our Way in England and Wales (Source, Guardian Feb 25th): Health Secretary Dr John Reid has defended the Government's decision to opt out of a full smoking ban in England and Wales.... Reid conceded he had gone against the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, in deciding not to follow Ireland and Scotland in opting for an outright smoking ban. "We are not talking about thousands of deaths, or even hundreds", Mr Reid said. "We are talking about the potential of an ESTIMATED [my capitals] four to five deaths a year [in a population of 60 million]...That estimation will have to be reduced further because we are taking into account we are protecting the bar area from the effects of passive smoking...The fully engaged scenario would require a degree of government direction in your life that was not acceptable in Britain...." Can't say fairer than that. And they will still have their non-smoking venues, Rainy. We need a John Reid to restore the equitable treatment of all citizens in THIS country.
|
| |
|
Gary(SRA25786) Posted:
13/03/2005 08:15 |
|
I am not Irish. I visit this website as an American who lives in Upstate New York. Ireland\\\'s PM visited New York not so long ago, and he asked about the smoking ban. My understanding is that he was told NOT do it.
My country started this nonsense, and I\\\'m sorry for it. Please don\\\'t believe that we\\\'re all in favor of it, despite the statistics you might see. The statistics are made up by people who have a political agenda. If you would like to know what is really going on with those whole thing, I suggest you read Jacob Sullum\\\'s book: \\\"For Your Own Good: The anti-smoking movement and the Tyranny of Public Health\\\".
|
| |
|
Gary(SRA25786) Posted:
13/03/2005 09:45 |
|
Some other things from the American front:
Our National Transportation and Safety Board reports the 43,000 people a year die in car accidents in the US. Our Center for Disease control and Prevention reports that 63,000 people a year die from inhaling secondhand smoke. This defies common sense and I believe I have evidence of this.
First, I\'ve personally known no less than 6 people who have died in car accidents and I\'m only in my thirties. Second, please type the phrase, IN QUOTATIONS, \"was killed by secondhand smoke\" into the Google search engine. You\'ll get two or three results. These results will increase as the social engineering succeeds, of course. However, I have saved my results and dated them. You can try without quotations if you like, as long as you use that same phrase, and please use as many grammatical connotations as you wish; misspell, use hyphens, phrase it differently if you like. If you do this Google search, you\'ll see that two of the results contain the same complaint I\'m making here and the other is from a child who thinks his horse died from secondhand smoke. However, you can\'t use \"were killed by secondhand smoke\", you have to use \"was\". Why? Because if you use \"were\", you\'ll get tons of results from what has been fed to all of us about the dangers of passive smoking. \"were\", being the plural form, will give you the general results and no one\'s individual experience. If you use the individual experience, or \"was\", you\'ll find virtually nothing. You can\'t say that your brother, your mother, your wife, your husband, your sister was killed by passive smoking unless you use \"was\". If you were to type, for example, the phrase \"died from secondhand smoke\", you\'ll see that you\'ll still get the same plural result that doesn\'t reflect the views of any outraged individual who thinks their loved one died as a result of you or anyone else smoking. Even when you click on the results that you think are outraged testimonies, you\'ll find that they\'re sarcastic responses on message boards about the utter stupidity of the whole idea. You will, to be fair, get one result regarding an individual lawsuit that was won contending that secondhand smoke killed a loved one. Most of all, again, you\'ll get the result that the whole idea of \"passive smoking kills\" or \"secondhand smoke kils\" is ridiculous.
Don\'t you think that if 20,000 more Americans died from passive smoking than from car accidents that there would be at least five testimonials from those who have lost loved ones on the most powerful search engine available? To this day, you\'ll get more results on the Google search engine for the phrase \"was killed by a toaster\" than you will for the phrases \"was killed by secondhand smoke\" or \"was killed by passive smoking\". Go ahead and try it and save it and date it because I will promise you that the people in favor of the ban on smoking are so incredibly militant that they\'ll start putting the phrase out on the web simply to contradict you.
Of course, smoking is probably the worst decision you can make for your health, but I suspect that you already know that. If your primary concern in life was living to 80 instead of 70, I think you would\'ve already made your own decision regarding smoking. Don\'t let these scaremongers fool you.
I notice that this a \"health\" website and my experience is that they edit out responses they don\'t like. I\'ve noticed that websites of this type usually don\'t welcome powerful points of view that oppose a health agenda.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
14/03/2005 22:05 |
|
Would that be the same John Reid who infamously managed to 'suck his way through 105 cigarettes during 10 hours of talks with union leaders at the Govan shipyards' in his smoking days? Let's not expect an unbiased opinion from him. There was an interesting article in yesterday's Sunday Tribune assessing the impact of the ban one year on. It was broadly welcomed by all (including the barman) except the whinging pub owner, surprise surprise.
Gary - Let's not confuse Google searching with true research. Your findings prove nothing. The research conducted by the team of non-aligned experts on behalf of the HSA had real value, and indentified a clear danger from 2nd hand tobacco smoke. But if you want to put weight on anecdotal evidence, start Googling for Roy Castle the UK entertainer who never smoked but died from lung cancer after spending years playing gigs in smoky clubs.
|
| |
|
Gary(SRA25786) Posted:
18/03/2005 04:39 |
|
1 out of ten smokers get lung cancer, but this accounts for 90% or lung cancer deaths. 10% of lung cancer cases take place in non-smokers. My understanding is that there is no conclusive way to distinguish whether one's lung cancer came from exposure to smoke or other causes. We only know that there is certainly a much higher incidence in smokers. As for Roy Castle; I find these sort of conclusions questionable. First, it assumes that if all pollutants were removed from the air, smoking related or not, that no one would ever get lung cancer. Second, it assumes that there is a correlation where one may not exist. By the same logic one could conclude that since nightclubs tend to be dark, darkness causes lung cancer. However, as you stated the evidence I provided is from anecdotal experience (albeit from the world's largest pool of anecdotal experience that I'm aware of), it is compelling. When one asks the question "Did you have a loved one who died from secondhand smoke?", the question itself suggests the answer. However, if nothing else, my Google test proves that there is comparatively very few people extemporaneously making the claim that they lost a loved one to ETS. American Andy Kaufman also died of lung cancer and similar speculation exists about his death and ETS. According to the same logic, maybe telling jokes on stage causes lung cancer in non-smokers. There are so many other factors that have to be taken into consideration before these kinds of conclusions can be drawn. This is the problem with these studies on ETS that seem to not take into consideration whether other factors might contribute a lung cancer incidence of say, 1 in 10,000 for those not exposed daily to ETS and 1.4 in 10,000 of those exposed daily to ETS.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
18/03/2005 12:03 |
|
Hi Gary - Do you really expect anyone to take your selective use of statistics and your fairly wild jumping to unsupported conclusions seriously, given the existence of sound research (such as the HSA expert report)? Have a read of the report and then come back and we can have a serious debate.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/03/2005 12:52 |
|
Gary, I agree with Rainy Day, your conclusions arew a tad spuriouos to say the least. In addition, it is not so much the death from second hand smoke that has garnered much support for the smoking ban, but rather the comfort factor that one experiences post ban. Even smokers will admit that it is uncomfortable to be in a smokey atmosphere, have the stale smell of smoke in your hair and clothes after a night out, not to mention the tight chestedness - and a smoker will say that. What do you think it was like for a non smoker? Worse still, trying to enjoy a meal in a restaurant as a non smoker (or even fort a smoker for that matter) all the while have that stench waft around the restaurant - and dont give me that non smoking section lark. So long as both sections were in the same room, that stench travelled everywhere.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
21/03/2005 22:52 |
|
Rainy, the British Health Minister is primarily in favour of balance and their proposed legislation, which will cater for smoking and non-smoking venues as well as adult responsible choice for all, reflects such balance. The state does not have a mandate to interfere so personally in peoples' lives. [he said that too] This is the argument i have been putting forward from the outset. If you want an example of bias, its in the authorship of your beloved hsa report; all "experts" with an agenda whom you've named in your earlier posts. Speaking of bias it was the trib, which in its editorial almost a year ago, sneered most loudly and offensively at smokers. I welcome Gary's observations and comments and i thank him for taking the trouble to speak in this debate. His words ring true - as well you know. This ban, along with other repellent politically correct excursions into personal liberties, is ripping the heart and soul out of this country. It is high time our political elite developed some backbone and put matters right.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
21/03/2005 22:56 |
|
Gary, your well-researched contribution is a welcome addition to this discussion but don't be surprised to find yourself being contradicted by people who think the rights of a significant section of the population should be denied them for no reason other than 'that stench' from cigarettes!
|
| |
|
Gary(SRA25786) Posted:
22/03/2005 06:39 |
|
First, if what I present is either spurious or selective, please refute it point by point rather than attempting to wave me away with a reading assignment (you could have at least provided a link, btw). It logically follows that if you are going to make a claim that hundreds of thousands if not millions of people worldwide are killed by a specific behavior of others, that you must present a good sized representative sample of people who can say that they know of someone who died from exposure to that behavior (of course, the supposed victims can't speak for themselves) It is wrong to say that I am being selective when I am using possibly the most powerful infomation gathering tool on Earth (Google) to try to find the very information that would refute what I'm saying! I know (now) of two comedians, a couple of people involved in lawsuits that Sullum covered in his book and a waitress named Heather Crowe who they have make anti-smoking commercials that play not only here but in Canada. These are all of the supposed victims of ETS I have with the unfathomable devastation that is supposedly being caused? Can't they find more than one woman to cover two countries?
As for personal comfort, I don't deny anyone their comfort and go to much greater lengths to accomodate non-smokers behavior then they do for me. Since I'm the one engaging in the behavior, I, of course understand that this is just the way it is. I don't see why I have to stand outside in below 0F freezing weather when, if available, I could stand in a basement, garage, attic stairway, etc, but I do so without complaint. How far do you want to stretch this? Where do you draw the line? Here in New York, for example, if I wanted to open a bar down the street and hang a huge neon sign out front reading "Gary's Smoking Bar" and put a huge warning on the door, and have my employees sign a release and provide a filtration system, I am, by law, not allowed to open that bar! How can you possibly believe that people's rights are not being taken away? One of America's leading anti-smoking advocates, John Banzhaff, believes that people who smoke should lose custody of their children (if you're familiar with the movie "SuperSize Me", Banzhaff is portrayed in it as a concerned, common-sense health advocate). An insurance company in Michigan recently fired employees because they smoked in their off hours at home! I met a bar owner in New York City who was fined $500 because, when he attempted to accomodate his smoking customers with a small outside seating area, he was allowing people to smoke under a four foot canopy! There were no employees out there, unless they were smoking themselves. My understanding is that you can't smoke on the street in San Francisco. This is what I really want to know from anti-smoking advocates and please answer this:
Where does this end? What exactly, is the goal of all of this? Given the health and ethical considerations of eating meat, how long is it before we have government enforced vegetarianism? If you play enough television commercials showing the way animals are treated, you'll certainly garner more and more public support over time. Also, of course, if you're successful in eliminating smoking to the desired degree (total elimination will never happen), meat eating will quickly take its place as the number one cause of death. Also, anyway you look at it, animals are being slaughtered for food that we can do without with some simple supplementation.
Many people enjoy sunbathing, it causes skin cancer, and, after all, they're not required to sunbathe, it's pure aesthetics. No one "needs" to sunbathe, one could argue that we don't need a bunch of people lying around exposing themselves and giving themselves cancer. Yes, of course, that seems far fetched. However if you have put enough money into a clever, government sponsored advertising campaign, you'll change the minds of a good portion of the people. History has shown that once you start the ball rolling with government propaganda it's hard to stop. Consider Prohibition, Nazi Germany, McCarthyism, Stalinism, Fascism, Totaliarianism, or Orwell's novels "1984" and "Animal Farm". The use of government advertising to convince the public of a point of view and then claim that they independently chose to support it without giving equal voice (or any voice, for that matter) to a contrary point of view is dangerous business, to say the least.
So, again, please answer, where does this end? Are you under the impression that policymakers are going to arbitrarily make the same decision that you do as to where to stop a pro-health agenda? Me and others like me feel like we're being treated unfairly now. Do you think they're going to recognize the unfairness when it applies to you rather than me? With the human life span longer than it has ever been, what is it you want? For everyone to live forever? To 120? What? For every behavior that might carry some potential harm to another to be eliminated? Do you assume that these distinctions are easy to make and everyone will agree with you, and, if they don't, they're just deluded? And once your own, personal line is crossed, then you'll start saying otherwise? Are you familiar with the saying from Martin Niemoller? Do you think that dangerous policies are always easily identified by the black hat they wear when they come riding into town?
Also, regarding personal comfort, (and I will admit that the following portion of my argument is neither logical nor scientific, but I'm not going to convince you if God comes down from Heaven and agrees with me anyway) I don't see people waving their hands in annoyance in, say, news footage from the fifties or sixties. And that's with people smoking a foot away from their face. Watch, for example, the footage that surrounded the Kennedy assasination. Except for rare occasions, I don't remember any people feeling such a great need to object when I was younger, even in private circumstances, when they were perfectly free to do so. I noticed that this behavior markedly increased when anti-smoking media campaigns increased. I even saw one poll from the fifties (I can't verify where I saw it) that said 57% of non-smoking respondents liked the smell of tobacco smoke. I can tell you, personally, that I was not born with a cigarette in my mouth. I didn't start smoking until I was twenty and I don't recall ever having anything close to the level of annoyance people today show. This, is, of course, I recognize, just my personal experience that I'm thinking of now as I'm writing.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/03/2005 11:08 |
|
Gary, that sure is a long contribution and you make soime interesting points. I suppose being a resident of the US you are well used to a government manipulating the people via the media. All examples you use - eating meat, sunbathing etc are all soliotary actions that do not have a direct impact on the ejoyment of other people space. Smoking on the other hand does, it travels everywhere and is impossible to contain. You also fail to recognise that the government, by its very mandate, must legislate for the benefit of the majority. The Irish goverhnment has done this but has also kept the minority in view also, as any governbment should do. It has not banned smoking, just smoking in the work place. You are still allowed to smoke outside or in a beer garden should the pub have one. Other curbs on personal freedoms that the govenment has brought in to protect the majority is - speeding laws and other road traffic regulations, laws against robbery (even if the robber is less well off than the vistim!!!), laws against murder (even when one might want to or have just right to, kill another), curbs on the right to drink alcohol before a certain age and also time restrictions on the right to drink alcohol, laws against the use of certain drugs - heroin, cocaine etc, and there are many others. Why now only jump up and down about the smoking ban, which is not an outright ban, just a ban on smoking in the work place.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
22/03/2005 11:17 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Please expand on your allegations of 'experts with an agenda' - You can't make a vague allegation like this about named individuals without backing it up with something specific. As I understand it, all the HSA report authors were chosen specifically because they had no agenda, they had no prior involvement with lobby groups on either side of the debate, they had no funding from the tobacco industry (unlike the author of the Lancet study you quoted). So please be specific with this allegation or if (as I suspect) it actually has no substance, have the decency to withdraw it. Gary - This really takes the biscuit. YOu manage to drag stalinism, enforced vegitarianism and the Kennedy asassination into the debate - none of which really have any relevance. But obviously the key point of the passive smoking issue has gone right over your head. There is no comparison with vegitarianism or sun-bathing, because these only effect the individual doing the activity. Passive smoking effects those around the smoker, who have no choice in the matter. This is the nub of the problem which you haven't yet grasped.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/03/2005 11:40 |
|
Well, the smoking ban is here now and its too late to complain now but I still think smoking and nonsmoking bars/ cafes would have been a better solution. All the chips and crisps and rashers they eat in this country isnt healthier. And the bad teeth a lot of irish people have because of this lousy health system should be banned too. And what about the alcohol itself? Doesnt that causes many diseases? ANd the drunks who start fights or beat their wifes? I know its ridicoulous, just like the smoking ban!!!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
22/03/2005 12:23 |
|
I beleive that not allowing people to smoke in the street, or under a canopy is going way too far. As for finign employees for smoking on their own time - this is bang out of order.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
22/03/2005 13:03 |
|
Oh not the tired old "ANd the drunks who start fights or beat their wifes?". You may not have noticed, but there is already legislation in place to ban beating your wife. Unless you are forcing the chips/crisps/rashers down the gob of the person at the next table, the comparison is totally irrelevant. While I don't object to smokers smoking in a designated area out of doors, smokers should be conscious that non-smokers having to 'run the gauntlet' of smokers at the doors of an establishment is pretty inhumane. What about my rights to fresh air?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/03/2005 10:50 |
|
Rainy, there are also laws against being drunk in public too.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/03/2005 12:31 |
|
Oh for heaven's sake rainy, it takes you how long to go into a pub. 3 maybe 4 seconds to pass by those smokers on the way in (presuming they don't have a smoking shelter out the back) and another 3 or 4 on the way out. That's 8 seconds. If you're in the pub 3 nights a week, that 24 seconds a week. For 52 weeks a year, that's little over 20 minutes of smoke you're exposed to. Not even you can be justified in making the outrageuous claim that that's likely to have damaging effects to your health. -. By the way, I'm a non-smoker who dislikes smoke and I'm quite happy with the ban -.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
23/03/2005 12:39 |
|
I'm not claiming that it damages my health to any sigificant extent. I am telling you that I find it quite uncomfortable. I'm also horrified at the filth that many smokers leave behind them. Pubs need to start looking after the 75% of the population who don't smoke first.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/03/2005 13:15 |
|
running the gauntlet... hmmm, I find it very annoying when the smokers fill the PUBLIC footpath outside a pub - as they now tend to congregate in gangs where they are all carefully holding their ciggies behind them so they dont get smoke in their faces and I have to leave the footpath to get past them... in the city centre, this can be a dangerous thing to do - I agree with the previous poster about the rubbish ... there are certainly more butts on the ground on our city streets...
also when getting on a bus or luas... there is a nasty habit of some smokers - of flicking the butt behind them without any regard for people behind them in the q... WHERE ARE THE LITTER WARDENS?
BTW - I am a non smoker, but most of my friends smoke. I am against the smoking ban we have here, I would have preferred the approach that seems to be favoured in the UK - improved ventilation and non-smoking areas in all pubs (incl at the bar) & totally non-smoking pubs only if the demand is there -> that way we respect everyone's rights, there's no alienation of any individual based on their personal addictions. We are alienating a lot of the visitors who come from mainland europe.
a phased approach, with the intent for an outright ban a few years down the line would have been a more rational approach, but it wouldnt have gotten Micheal Martin that award from the WHO... nor stopped people talking about the shocking mess of a health service...
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
23/03/2005 14:17 |
|
Hi Anon - Don't the staff who work in the venues that you propose to be smoking venues deserve to have their health protected? Should we really worry about alienating the minority of smoking tourists when we are offering such a clean atmosphere to the majority of non-smoking tourists?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/03/2005 14:17 |
|
You know, if there is a gang of smokers filling the path outside a pub, there's one quite effective thing you can do - Say 'excuse me'.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/03/2005 14:25 |
|
Anonymous Posted: 23/03/2005 13:15, and a few others who have brouoght up this issue, including Blaggarde, the government, long before the ban was announced, asked the publicans to install proper ventillation systems on their premises. A big wall of resistence came from the publicans to this idea. So what did you expect the government to do? If you have anyone to blame for this ban, blame the publicans.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
23/03/2005 15:49 |
|
I dont have much time to reply... but here goes...
try getting yourself heard when you're short, female & talking to a gang of drunk people, and trying to be heard over music from inside the pub & on-street noise!
of course everyone is entitled to H&S in the workplace, BUT my point was that the gradual approach of making the bar areas smoke free & improving ventilation could have achieved that.
the government could have legislated for improved ventilation so then the publicans would have had to fall in line
I believe that the legislation was rushed in order that MM could benefit politically ( as I mentioned before ) - creating a 'smokescreen' for other problems in the Health service
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
23/03/2005 23:38 |
|
Rainy, your and SS's core argument is that you want all pubs & clubs reserved exclusively for non-smokers. In support of your argument you are even willing to deny smokers having venues of their own. Apart from the wholly awful self-centredness of this position, it is complete and utter discrimination which is totally alien to any free democratic society. The government, in causing such inhumane discrimination, made a serious error and this is yet another reason why this law will fall.
|
| |
|
Gary(SRA25786) Posted:
24/03/2005 05:05 |
|
Rainy Day, you should try refuting what I say rather than simply attempting to wave it away. Also, to say that I'm dragging the Kennedy Assasination into the debate indicates that you either didn't read my point or are deliberately attempting misconstrue my words. I was making reference to old newscasts and the way people smoked at that time, even the newscasters. The news coverage around the Kennedy Assasination is usually available for people to watch on television from time to time. Also, I think the point that you are missing is that I disagree with you on the the harmfulness of ETS. To which you will probably again point me to the Irish report on the issue when I've already looked at the reports here. You, again, didn't refute me or, again, at least provide the courtesy of an internet link to this report that I am not able to find on the net. I suspect that is because you really hope that no one will read it and those who you do refer to it simply won't be willing to go the effort. You're not participating in a discussion or debate, you're proselytizing regarding something you've already accepted as dogma. So, I don't see the use in continuing this and won't post again. I will say to you folks that you should tread carefully. Anti-smoking advocates have a very all-or-none attitude about this. They get one thing and they want the next thing. Notice , as you're discussing here, that now that your forced to step outside, they want you to step away from the door. I again submit to you this incremental loss of your rights will continue until the anti-smoking advocates have succeeded to the degree that they need something else to fill their time. It will be your food, most likely, and they'll say that your poor eating habits are causing them the secondhand damage of increased costs on the health system. They'll also make the point about the animals. If you think I'm wrong, watch, wait and see. It's already happening here and these sort of trends are not bound by geography or political system.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
24/03/2005 23:58 |
|
My recollection, Anon of [Anonymous Posted: 23/03/2005 14:25 ] from a Late Late show programme involving Mr Martin and representatives of the two publicans associations, was that the publicans reps stated there was NO CONSULTATION AT ALL, even though they had requested meeting after meeting with the minister, and such requests were stonewalled/denied. Ventilation was CERTAINLY discussed on that programme and there were ventilation experts in the audience whose input was equally stonewalled/ignored. It was certainly true that there was no governmental consultation with the Irish public - this law was introduced without mandate, and no poll asked the question "would you support a total ban on smokers in pubs".
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
25/03/2005 10:57 |
|
Your claim of 'no consultation' is not true. The HSA did an extensive consultation exercise (I attended one of their meetings in Dublin). Remember the press reports of the publicans fighting at one of the meetings in Galway or Sligo? Please get your facts straight.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
25/03/2005 15:21 |
|
excuse me blaggarde, but the publicans WERE offered the ventilation option by the government and they turned it down.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
06/04/2005 09:21 |
|
SS here. First things first, as a strong supporter of the smoking ban, I would like to ask fellow supporters to try and keep the smoking on the footpath thing in perspective. By in large the ban has been a great success, and I am willing to tolerate the every mild inconvenience of passing by smokers at the doorway, in return for the great reward of a lovely clean-air environment inside. Lets not go overboard kicking someone when they are down. Back to the main point of discussion. There is a lot scaremongering by smokers that this the thin edge of the wedge, and that the next targets in this police state of ours will be fat, salt, crisps, rashers, red meat, sun bathing etc. The difference between all of these “vices” and smoking, is that there is no level of smoking that is good for you, whereas all other “vices” have a certain level that is not harmful, and none of them impact on anyone but the original consumer, unlike smoking. Blaggard claims he derives enormous pleasure and satisfaction from his smoking, and this is a benefit. Blaggard, of course you do know that this so-called benefit is the body having the craving of its addiction fulfilled; therefore without the addiction there would be no benefit, and this become a never-ending circular argument, that would not start without first becoming addicted. Finally, to the smokers please explain to me in the hypothetical scenario, where, you & I both shared a local bar, why are you so insistent on smoking (with absolutely no benefits), in my presence, when you know it has a negative impact on me? Why do you insist that I go to a different pub that might be too far away, or not as nice as our current shared pub? (You could be surprised; we might like the same kind of pub or music, or sports or people, and might end up frequenting the same pub). The alternative is what the law now allows, that we can both sit or work in the same pub, enjoying the same clientele, music, sport etc, and every so often when the pull of your addiction is too powerful, you go out in the fresh air, have your smoke without impacting on me atall, and then come back in and enjoy all the other things we have in common.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
13/04/2005 23:20 |
|
Rainy, the your beloved HSA is not the government, is not an elected body and is not competent to carry out an independent democratic consultation process. On the contrary its brief is to uphold that which is now unjustly embodied in Irish law. It operates under headings such as "Health & Safety Legislation" "Enforcement" and "Prosecutions". So please, don't quote "HSA" at us again as if it were some benign caring body - it is a Government Enforcement Agency. If the "ventilation option" had been offered, why is it not still on the table? And at what point was it rescinded? And by whom?? SS, you are repeating yourself word-for-word to the point of utter selfishness on the "shared pub" front. There can be no doubt in any reader's mind, that you want ALL of it YOUR way. No room in your vision of venues for smokers, for any smoke could PREVENT YOU FROM GOING IN to such venues. Well, i'd drink to that based on your current blinkered, one-sided view of the rest of us. Your self-interest, apparently, knows no bounds.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
14/04/2005 10:08 |
|
Blaggarde, the ventilation option was offered to and rejected by publicans as being too expensive
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
14/04/2005 10:17 |
|
So Blaggarde, if the HSA had not recommended proceeding with the ban, would you honestly have opposed this outcome?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
14/04/2005 12:00 |
|
Blaggarde, the rest of us are getting a little sick of youor one sided approach also. Non smoking areas in a pub would not work because, as said time and again on this forum, you CANNOT contain smoke, it travels EVERYWHERE. Ventillation was knocked out of hand by the publicans as being too expenses so you could say that it is the publicans fault that you cannot smoke in the pubs now - they tied the governments hands. SO, take YOUR ire elsewhere.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
15/04/2005 10:30 |
|
Blaggarde, SS here. I think it is a bit rich you calling me selfish, when you want to insist on your right to smoke, in my pub, despite the very negative impact you know it has on me, and a lot of the bar workers who are exposed to it for their 40 week working week. Your only offer to me and such workers is that if I don't like it I can get stuffed and go down the road, to a pub that I may not like, in a possible inconvenient location. What the law provides is that you now go outside every so often for five minutes to have your cigerette. A lot of pubs now have very nice outdoor areas, with decking, patio heaters etc, and in fact these areas have enhanced these pubs greatly. Who really is being selfish here?
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
30/04/2005 00:41 |
|
My dear SS, it is I who am suggesting that there should be smoking venues for smokers and non smoking venues from non-smokers; you are the one who wants to exclude all smokers from all venues all the time. Is that straightforward enough for you? Or is your self-interest so invisible to you that you do not recognise it?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
03/05/2005 11:54 |
|
No one wants to exclude skersall he time. You can go to any pub you want, you only have to step outside every so often to feed your addiction so as not to harm the non-addicted.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
03/05/2005 14:56 |
|
Blaggearde, SS here and I fully understand what you are suggesting. You are right it is very straight forward. (And I know I am about to repeat myself, but I believe that your suggestion needs to be exposed for the truely selfish suggestion that it is) You want to insist on your right to smoke, in my local pub, despite the very negative impact you know it has on me, and a lot of the bar workers who are exposed to it for their 40 week working week. If I don't like it, I can get stuffed and go down the road, to a pub that I may not like, in a possible inconvenient location. What the law now asks is that you now go outside every so often for five minutes to have your cigerette. Does this really impinge on your particular self-interest so much? When you read the above description which depicts your suggestion very accuratley, do you realy not see how selfish you are being?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
03/05/2005 16:33 |
|
I think this ban has made us into a nation of 'holier than thou' excessively Politically Correct nitwits who like nothing more than to see their fellow man suffer while they sit back smugly & say 'well I'm not an addict so I dont care about anyone who is'! Never mind a balanced approach, lets ostracize a portion of the community who don't fit in with our idea of normalcy/ accepability/ perfection...sounds a bit like we need a FINAL SOLUTION for these horrible smokers... does this sound familiar to anyone?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
03/05/2005 16:48 |
|
If you're looking for a FINAL SOLUTION (anonymous, 03/05/05), try lung cancer.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
04/05/2005 12:34 |
|
"I think this ban has made us into a nation of 'holier than thou' excessively Politically Correct nitwits who like nothing more than to see their fellow man suffer while they sit back smugly & say 'well I'm not an addict so I dont care about anyone who is'!"
As distinct from being a nation of ignorant and arrogant drug addicts who like nothing more than to see their fellow man suffer while they sit back smugly & say 'well they can go somewhere else if they don't want to breathe my toxic exhaust'? Thanks, I'll take the latter :-)
How do you smokers who attend a weekly church service cope with not being able to smoke there?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/05/2005 12:55 |
|
What about smokers on flights of say, longer than 3 hours?? How do they cope?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/05/2005 14:37 |
|
To 'Anonymous Posted: 03/05/2005 16:48'... final solution is lung cancer, He!He! good one... you're may have a point there... hey, so if this is the solution... let 'em kill themselves! then there wont be a problem eh?
-> the nanny state will get its idea of perfection ...nasty air pollution gone... oh except for fossil fuel related pollution of course... litter reduced ( never mind the massive landfills, and illegal dumping all over the country )
-> we'll all live longer & put even more strain on the health services & social welfare systems in our old age, so that our kids will be paying more tax than they take home
-> and what will we be talking about banning next... alcohol? it makes sense - it kills lots of people on our roads, it destroys many lives indirectly through alcoholism (usually the non-addicts are the ones who suffer), it is the cause of a lot of 'sick days' translating into lost revenue for state...
YEP, sounds like a convincing enough arguement...
its a slippery slope... so glad to have been placed on it & living in a country where my rights are being eroded... ( I can hear ye already - well then leave the country... I might just do that eventually, but I'm stuck for now as I had bought my house before MM took his place in history!
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/05/2005 15:26 |
|
For heavens sake, some posters make a career out of being hysterical. NO-ONE is banning smoking and no-one is stopping you from smoking as long as you don't do so to the detriment of others on a business premises. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of U.S. history would know that banning alcohol is both unworkable and unfeasible.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/05/2005 15:28 |
|
To Anonymous Posted: 04/05/2005 14:37 Please stop irrational scaremongering. The difference between all of the examples that you quote and smoking, is that there is no level of smoking that is good for you, whereas all other examples have a certain level that is not harmful (especially alcohol) or there are mechanisms for dealing with them (I would agree that we certainly have to improve how we deal with waste, but that is another debate).
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
04/05/2005 15:47 |
|
sorry, what? - I'm hysterical?? tell me exactly how many people have been proven to have been killed directly by passive smoking? if its more than are directly killed by alcohol, then I'll concede the point. Please note that I was trying to point out exactly the hysterical type of reasoning that could be applied, now that we are on the slippery slope.
everyone knows that prohibition did not work, so why do they insist on doing it over & over
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
05/05/2005 08:38 |
|
What? Are you simply not reading the posts? NO-ONE is suggesting a prohibition on smoking. You CAN STILL SMOKE. Just not among others on a business premises.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
05/05/2005 09:21 |
|
Hi Anon - Take a deep breath (of fresh air), count to 10, then exhale. Now let's look at the facts; 1) There is no 'prohibition' on smoking, just a ban on smoking in workplaces. 2) The ban is working extremely well, with 97% compliance and 90%+ public support in surveys. This ban has done more to ENHANCE rights than any other initiative from our Govt.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
08/05/2005 20:19 |
|
Awful sorry now SS, and you know i wouldn't DREAM of telling you to get stuffed - but the fact is, you have a bar to go to and i don't. You want to keep it that way too. Is it that you don't understand logic? For all those other supreme masters of logic who have been recently been putting out the line that "smoking is not banned", i have to tell you that it is and anyone who lights up in any "indoor" public place, will be fined 3000 and/or jailed and given a criminal record. For those others who are putting out the line "you can smoke away, but not in here", i would like to remind you that things were that way once before in Ireland - and not all that long ago either - when the Black & Tans upheld the ideal that people should be excluded because of their ways of life and their personal beliefs about it. Rainy, you are increasingly, and ever more desperately, sounding like the shrill voice of the Ministry of Truth. What will you be declaring next? Strength through joy perhaps, or maybe a cure for death.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/05/2005 12:01 |
|
Blaggarde - You DO have a bar to go to. You just have to step outside it when you feel the urge to satisfy your addiction.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
09/05/2005 12:06 |
|
Blaggarde appears to be trying a new tactic of simple repetition of fallicies, assuming that if he repeats the 'smoking is banned' fallicy often enough, people will start believing it. He's wrong (again).
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/05/2005 12:37 |
|
Blaggard, SS here. Your suggestion does in fact tell me to get stuffed, if I don't like it, whereas the law as it stands asks you every so often to step oustide for 5 mins for your ever so-vital cigerette. People in general do not choose their pub based on the smoking content. People choose their pub based on criteria to a standard that is accepatble to them, such as music taste, sports taste, TV taste, general personalities, ambience, age group of clientele, access to your home. You are saying that if I choose my ideal pub based on such criteria, and it happens to be one of your suggested "smoking" pubs, then I have to put up or get lost. What the law is offering is that if I choose a pub based on these kind of normal criteria, and if I happen to be a smoker, I go to the outdoor area (which in many pubs now is very nice, with lovely decking, patio heaters etc), and so not negatively impact any of the non-smokers that have chosen the same pub, based on the wide range of criteria mentioned above. Now I know that you being the considerate, caring person that you are, always thinking of other people, you did not mean to tell me to get stuffed
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
09/05/2005 14:23 |
|
Not only are you, Blaggarde, teling non-smoking clientele to get stuffed, you are also telling non-smoking staff to go and get a job elsewhere. This is tantamount to discrimination.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
14/05/2005 16:52 |
|
Has anybody noticed how many Taxi drivers / Lorry and Van drivers are smoking as they go about their days work ?
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
19/05/2005 01:49 |
|
Ah, Clearly I was totally wrong Rainy......... You are declaring that Black is White. Very stupid of me. So Sorry. Wrong prediction. SS, if you REALLY REALLY want me to actually tell you to "get stuffed" - as it seems you do - then you should ask me to, politely. Like, putting words in my mouth just isn't mannerly. When i have my smokers pub, you can have the choice, like a real grown-up, of coming in and "risking it" or not. Who knows. When we're all equal again, I might even venture in to your smoker-free haven. But until then, I still have no pub, no choice and no place in society. How are you on the "obesity" front?? Your kinda people are setting out to ostracise the overweight now too. What kept em?
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
19/05/2005 13:09 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - I assume your comments were really intended to be addressed to the Anon poster, not me. Please don't hold your breath waiting for your smoking pub to come back. I wouldn't like anything to damage your health (further).
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
19/05/2005 13:49 |
|
Blaggarde, don't be ridiculous? Of course you have a choice. You have chosen not to go to the pub becuase you don't want to step outside to smoke just becuase otherwise didn't like not having e choice of whether or not to have the side-effecs of your addiction in their atmosphere. Tell me ,how is Rainy attepting to ostracise obse people? How are they being ostracised??
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
19/05/2005 14:41 |
|
Blaggard, SS here. On the obesity front, I personally have no problem with it, and also I have no problem with obese people in my vicinity. As you know, that is their problem, and not mine. As a society, people need information & education on good nutrition & exercise etc, and this needs to be pushed by the gov, especially through our schools, but after that it is up to individuals, and their actions have no direct impact on anyone but themselves. Also most food is beneficial up to a certain level (including fat). That you see, is the big difference with smoking; smokers directly impact negatively on both themselves and non-smokers, if they smoke in the presence of a non-smoker. On the smoking venue thing, you really are suggesting that it is better for us all, if we chose our ideal pub based on the normal citeria mentioned before, music, ambiance, clientele etc, and after that just "risk it", if it happens to be one of your smoking pubs, or alternatively get stuffed and go down the road to a less suitable pub, that happens to be one of your non-smoking venues. This is what you consider fair and equal to non-smoking customers and workers!!!. As said, ad nauseum, what the law much more fairly asks, is that you step outside, onto in many cases a lovely decked and heated patio area, for your oh-so precious cigerette every hour or so for the 5 mins it takes. It is on this petty basis that you have decided to exclude yourself from society and have no pub to go to. I hope that you are enjoying your precious cigerettes, as it sounds like a very sad life to me.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
28/05/2005 02:18 |
|
The more you go on SS, the more ludicrous is your defence of the indefensible. It is wrong to discriminate against and exclude people. It is wrong to support a law that discriminates against and excludes people. It is wrong for a government of a free country to pass a law that discriminates against and excludes people. What is more, you know this instinctively to be true. Did you smother your conscience?
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
30/05/2005 12:11 |
|
Oh, give up blaggarde, you're talking nonsense. The law discrimates and excludes NOBODY - it only targets BEHAVIOURS. You only see this as a problem because you value your drug habit more than your social life.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/05/2005 12:32 |
|
Blaggard, instead of calling my argument ludicrous, why not just try dealing with it. Or is it that my argument makes sense and you cannot get around this. The law fairly asks you to step outside every so often to have your cigarette, so that you do not impact on other customers & workers in the pub, that you all chose based on normal everyday criteria like music, decor clientele etc. You refuse to comply with this, and so you have excluded yourself from society. You seem so caught up in your addiction, that you fail to realise that people choose their pub on a much more broad a basis than whether or not it is a smoking venue. Having made this choice based on a broad spectrum of criteria (music, TV, sport, decor etc), you expect them then to put up with your smoking, rather than you do the honourable thing. Again, I hope that you are enjoying your principled cigarette. You have decided to exclude yourself, not the law.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
30/05/2005 14:16 |
|
Blaggard, the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind, when I read your submissions. You stubbornly refuse to enter pubs, because the law now asks you to step oustide to have your cigarette. Yet, you continue to whinge about how you have been exluded. You need to do a life-value assessment to determine which is more important to you, either going to the pub, or sticking to a principle that you will not step outside to have your cigarette. Then abide by that decision and get on with your life and stop whinging. Life is too short, and you are consumed by this.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
30/05/2005 23:43 |
|
The matter is very simple and the facts are plain. I have not excluded myself from anything: the law has made it clear that all who smoke are excluded - if you smoke, you are excluded. That\'s a full stop. It\'s WRONG. Remember wrong?? How dare you, Richard, imply i have a \"drug habit\". I have no more a \"drug habit\" than those who frequent pubs have a \"drug habit\" and i strongly object to your use of such terminology - implying the lowest of the low - in this debate. Anon, I don\'t know which night-class you got the phrase \"life value assessment\" from. But if you are talking about quality of life, then this is precisely that. Not a day goes by now without ordinary compliant Irish people being further squeezed and controlled (while thugs of every hue get away with murder and our society is rushing headlong down the toilet). We are being regulated out of existence right across the board. Your choice of a very blinkered take on these matters is your prerogative. But equally, your short-sighted acceptance of the current status quo has serious negative long-term consequences for our country and its people. I will keep on keeping on, til you wake up and see what our once-proud, tolerant, neighbourly, friendly country is being turned into, right under your politically correct nose. By the way, are you all working in the same office ?
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/05/2005 11:39 |
|
Blaggarde (interesting handle, by the way), I think you are being extremely demeaning implying that Richard 'picked up' the phrase, life value assessment from soem night class. And incidentally, if you smoke regularly, ans a esult of being addicted to nicoteen (this being the reason WHY people continue to smoke) then you do, indeed, have a drug habit, similar to those who must have their coffee fix first thing in the morning (the difference, of course, being that coffee doesn't impinge on the rights, health and welfare of others).
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
31/05/2005 12:14 |
|
Dear me, blaggarde, you seem to be in denial about your drug habit. And yes, tabacco (or nicotine if you want to be picky) addiction is a drug habit. As for your assertion that "having a drug habit" equates to "lowest of the low" is YOUR perception. And no, blaggarde, you are wrong: smokers are allowed in pubs, it's just that they are not permitted to smoke in there. Again, it's your perception that needs to be examined: are "a moker", or just "someone who smokes sometimes"? By denying you have a drug habit, you are trying to put yourself in the later category, but your ongoing whining here suggests you belief you are identify more closely with your drug, and therefore go into the former category. Once you come to terms with this personal incongruity, I think you will find the ban, and life in general, a lot easier to cope with.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
31/05/2005 12:39 |
|
Blaggarde, SS here. A few simple facts, seeing as you are into facts. First fact, you do in fact have a drug habit, namely an addiction to nicotine. At this point in your life it is not your fault, but it is never-the less a fact. As I have said before, any pleasure you claim to derive from your smoking, is just your body having the craving of its addiction satisfied. Without the addiction there would be no such pleasure. Fact is, there are many negative aspects to your habit that affect other people as well as yourself. Another fact, the law is refusing to allow you to impose the many negative aspects of your habit on other customers & workers. Fact is that you are refusing to accept that people choose their pub on a much more broad a basis than whether or not it is a smoking venue. Fact is, having made this choice based on a broad spectrum of criteria (music, TV, sport, decor etc), you expect them then to put up with your smoking, rather than you do the honourable thing (if it happens to be one of your smoking venues). A very sad fact (for you) is that faced with the choice of going to the pub and stepping outside for your cigarette, or staying at home for your cigarette, you are stubbornly & obstinately choosing to stay at home. You would rather the satisfaction of having your rant and being able to say you are excluded. Another fact is that you have been refusing to engage in the actual substance of this on-going argument over the last few submissions, but instead just rant on about how “wrong” & “ludicrous” it all is
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
31/05/2005 16:07 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Once again, your exaggeration shows your tendancy to wallow in your pool of self-pity & victimhood. It is factually untrue to say "if you smoke, you are excluded". The truth is that 'while you smoke, you are excluded'. There is an important difference. If you are choosing to sit at home like a sulky teenager and never visit a put again, that is of course, your choice. But that choice is driven by your determination to wallow in self-pity, not the smoking ban. You might manage to kid yourself on this point, but you're not kidding the rest of us.
|
| |
|
S(RainyDay) Posted:
13/06/2005 14:25 |
|
Those who still claim that there is evidence of the damage done by passive smoking might like to check out this article - http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?src=ez&link=8089&level=4&id=7634 - which concludes "long-term exposure to passive smoking was associated with a 27% increased cancer risk among women who were lifetime non-smokers. This risk was even more marked among non-smokers who had not yet gone through the menopause. In fact, among these women, breast cancer risk increased by 68%."
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
25/10/2005 23:25 |
|
Rainy Day, none of us believe that stuff anymore. It's gone boring. No-one cares about passive smoking anymore.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
27/10/2005 01:18 |
|
Charlene, there are people out there who still think the Earth is flat and the centre of the universe. It doesn't mean they are right. Likewise, tobacco industry stooges and self-deluded smokers claiming that passive smoking is harmless doesn't make it so.
If you wish to claim that it is, then please explain how the inhaled smoke (proven by half a century of research to be harmful) becomes harmless by the time it is exhaled. To me, it still looks, smells, and irritates like the smoke that comes directly from the cigarette.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
27/10/2005 14:48 |
|
Yes, Richard the anti-smoking lobby believes that the world is still flat! None of us feel any different than we did before. People are still getting colds and flues, heart attacks and cancer. A bit of irritation is all that it was after.
This ban is only down to discrimination. People just seem to want a new breed of people to vent their anger of the problems of the world onto. It's disgraceful!
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
27/10/2005 15:13 |
|
Hi Charlene - No-one ever claimed that the smoking ban would prevent all 'colds and flues, heart attacks and cancer'. This ban is not about discrimination - it's about solving the discrimination against non-smokers which went on for decades. Our grandchildren will look back with horror at the idea of smoking in pubs, in the same way as we look back in horror at those who used to empty their raw sewage into the streets some centuries ago.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
27/10/2005 20:32 |
|
Rainy Day, While the raw sewage is now hidden away the streets are now as dirty and yes, our grandchildren will be looking back in horror wondering why they ever took smoking outside! The most of them will be at it!
You have absolutely nothing to be proud of. This is a huge step backwards!
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
28/10/2005 09:15 |
|
Charlene, if the street are dirtier now, as a result of the ban, I persume that you mean that this is due to smokers dropping their butts on the street. Who really does this reflect on do you think; will our children & grandchildren think that smokers must be dirt litter louts, throwing their rubbish on the street?
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
28/10/2005 09:37 |
|
Hi CHarlene - Yes, smokers littering is now a huge problem too, but the relevant authorities are taking steps to enforce the law in that area too, so I'm expecting to see substantial improvements over time. I suppose it's too much to expect that smokers would use litter bins like most other citizens?
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
28/10/2005 13:33 |
|
I do not blame the smoker one bit for what they are doing. When people are spitful against them and call them dirty and all sorts of names it is hard to blame them. At least this is one area that they can fight back in and it's quite a good one.
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
28/10/2005 16:26 |
|
Hi Charlene, very mature and civic minded of you!!! What example for our children, it is ok to be a litter lout if you are a smoker.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
28/10/2005 18:14 |
|
The example I am giving our kids is to make sure that they never get walked over in life. I am telling them to stand up for their rights instead of being pushed around by a bunch of a**holes who think they can tell everyone what to do with their lives!
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
29/10/2005 00:55 |
|
Smokers engaged in such slovenly behaviours long before the ban came into place - what was the excuse then, Charlene?
Anyway, the ban is in place, and no matter how much petty "defiance" smokers show by throwing their rubbish on the ground, the law will remain, so who's having the last laugh?
All you're doing is providing the government with a new revenue stream (should it choose to enforce the littering laws, of course.)
|
| |
|
Chesterfield Posted:
30/10/2005 23:10 |
|
Newspaper Articles
Take a look at this selection of newspaper articles - just two of many this week:
http://www.scotsman.com/?id=2168052005
http://www.sundaypost.com/news3.htm (very interesting indeed!)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1849212,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article323342.ece
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/story.jsp?story=667109
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/story.jsp?story=667110
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
30/10/2005 23:10 |
|
Richard, It proves my point that this ban was always about getting at a particular breed of society. There are some type of organisations who specialise in always 'having a laugh' at a sector of society. Ash are having this laugh at this moment in time. They believe that their time has come to join the mocking nature of the human psyche and it's true that they and their supporters are loving every minute of it.
Whilst 'having their laugh' they see the smoker and portray the smoker as this new freak of society. Something like The Elephant Man.
What they don't realise is that the smoker is a far more intelligent person than those previously mocked down through the centuries.
Littering is only one of the areas that smokers fight back in. There are many more hidden areas that are being affected at the moment, some of them immediately and some of them that are going to create long term problems. You would then want to keep yourself on your toes because the wheel I believe will turn and hit you right back in the face. And you will be wondering where you went wrong.
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
01/11/2005 08:31 |
|
Hi Charlene, we are all quite clear on where you stand regarding the rubbish problem in Ireland. I am glad that I am not one of your neighbours, you obviously have no qualms about about throwing rubbish on the street, for the benefit of the rest of the Irish public. Out of interest, what do you tell your children as regards whose job it is to pick up the rubbish that throw on the street for us all to see? What do you say to them if they throw rubbish inside your house?
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
01/11/2005 09:22 |
|
Hi Charlene - What a great asset to your community you are! And I'm sure you children will grow up to be charming citizens too.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
01/11/2005 12:47 |
|
Hi PJK and Rainy Day, When my children throw rubbish on the ground in my home I pick it up quietly and put it into the bin. I prefer to lead by example rather than make my kids do something. When they see a man sweeping the streets with his brush I tell them that he is as important and necessary as any other person on the planet. This is how I show my kids that no person gets mocked or looked down on. I am then showing respect for the person who cleans up after us and therefore creating employment. While you may not like to live next to me, the feeling I can assure you is mutual. Getting my kids to stand up for their rights will hopefully ensure that they will not be left exposed to horrific abuses that have been shown to all of us all along. Powerful organisations try to make people afraid in life and have succeeded in the past. It is my job as a parent to make sure that this does not hold it's grip for our future generation. I will make sure that they will not be as afraid as we were in every area of their lives. The days of conforming and behaving in so-called proper fashions are over.
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
01/11/2005 14:31 |
|
Hi Charlene, a very interesting point of view on litter, very altrustic of you providing all this employment; persumably you have a similar view of criminals and their behaviour, as it keeps police, lawyers, prison officers etc all in employment, keep up the good work all you great criminals. What about vandals who damage public property or even private property, oh all the tradesmen & women kept in gainful employment by the honourable vandal. A very interesting view of the world indeed. Interesting that you seem to view one your purposes in life to pick up your childs rubbish, and not try to teach your child that we all have a resposibility with regard to rubbish; i.e your lesson is that it is someone else resposibility. Of course Charlene you are not unique, and your attitude has made Ireland one of the dirtiest places in Europe. Thanks for your contribution to Irish society. Well done.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
01/11/2005 18:53 |
|
I was one of those great decent people that you talk about one time in my life but it got me no-where did it? Now I'm just kicked out with no-where to go. No-one wants me anymore so I may as well become like the criminals. At least they can smoke in jail!! So, I don't really care anymore so every cigarette I smoke will indeed go on the ground and anything else I can do like buying cigarettes on the black market I will do also. As I said before conforming days are over because for the rest of my life I am going to make sure that no-one ever puts me into this position again or my kids. If you can't be fair then I won't be fair either and I will encourage everyone that I come into contact with to do the same. I'm not going to stand back and just take this kind of Elephant man treatment!
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
02/11/2005 08:34 |
|
Hi Charlene, what age exactly are you; with your "if you don't play fair, I won't play fair" attitude, you sound like my 6 year old, when she plays with her 3 year old brother and he isn't playing by her rules. I assume that you are a mature adult, as I gathered that you have kids. But really you do not sound it, and your contribution to Irish society it to support litter louts, criminals and vandals; what a vision for Ireland you have; I am wondering what political party you would vote for to achieve you vision?
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
02/11/2005 09:56 |
|
Hi Charlene - How sad. You really should do some hard thinking about whether it is a good thing to pass on your bitterness to your children. You do know that the best thing you can do for your kids is to give up smoking yourself. This will ensure you get to spend a lot more time with your children, and give you a chance of getting to meet your grandchildren. It will also give you a whole additional pile of money that you can spend on family activities. Please think about it.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
02/11/2005 13:27 |
|
PJK,
How can I as a 6 year old child play ball with my 3 year old brother if I'm supposed to be outside with the ball and he is inside! We are supposed to pass the ball to each other aren't we?
How then does a good citazin get treated so badly on the outside by not being allowed to have a smoke inside while a criminal can? What messages have you then sent out to the better citazins?
You get treated better in this life by being bad!!
|
| |
|
charlene Posted:
02/11/2005 13:43 |
|
Rainy Day, If I gave up smoking in the morning, something else would come into play. That is the way that this country works. It is constantly telling us what to do with our lives instead of leaving us to choose for ourselves. The power of The Catholic Church is still with us, it has just taken a different form. There will always be people who think that you make wrong choices and as adults we shouldn't have to bow down to this pressure. While you are trying to make me stop smoking, you shouldn't be allowed to be able to go so far as to try and exclude me from society. No-one should be given such power!
Of course this creates bitterness and of course it will be passed on. Smoking bans create bad feelings just as the church did on it's abuse of kids.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
02/11/2005 16:08 |
|
Hi Charlene - I'm not trying to make you stop smoking. You seem to feel that it would be wrong to give up smoking just because that would be 'giving in'. This is pure spite, and your children will suffer as a result of your spite. Don't expect anyone to take your concerns about exclusion/choice seriously as long as you proudly continue to litter your butts. You obviously have no concern for the rest of society. You had no concern about inflicting your smoke on minimum-wage staff & other drinkers in pubs. Why should non-smokers now be bothered to accomodate your addiction?
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
02/11/2005 18:23 |
|
I cannot get the one about me inflicting my smoke on non-smokers and staff. A cigarette is supposed to do that! I didn't make it! That is what it is designed for. Do you try and stop your fire at home from smoking? Of course you don't because that is what a fire produces. Why are you blaming me for what a cigarette does?
Are you also trying to say that if I put my butts carefully into the bin that you will accommodate me better in the future? When is that going to happen? If you can promise me that I will have a place to sit down inside then I will gladly pick up my butts and I'm sure that every other smoker will do the same. But now that I have lost the trust of the anti-smoking lobby, I am not going to make the first move this time. You put me out there so the ball is now in your court!
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
03/11/2005 10:41 |
|
Hi Charlene-Blaming the cigarette for the smoke as opposed to blaming the smoker is just ludicrous. If we meet on the street and I shoot your kneecap off, will you blame the Mr Smith & Mr Wesson (the manufacturers of the gun) or will you blame me? I think we both know the answer.
And in relation to 'first moves', I'd have to go back to the old Govt line of 'we don't negotiate with terrorists'. I'm not going to negotiate with you as to what concessions you might get if you do the decent thing, comply with the law & stop littering. You should do this simply because it is clearly the right thing to do. Littering is horribly anti-social, but many smokers seem to feel they have some god-given right to dump their butts anywhere & everywhere.
The reason why I was so passionately in favour of an absolute ban on smoking in workplaces was that my past experiences showed that smokers largely ignored no-smoking areas when it suited them. I have no confidence that the majority of smokers show any respect for the non-smoking majority of the population. Fortunately, common sense has prevailed and the law is now on the side of the non-smoking majority. If you expect to recieve any future concessions, you're going to have to go a long way to build up confidence.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
03/11/2005 13:26 |
|
Rainy Day, What exactly are you trying to say with regards to the cigarette? Am I suppose to just stand there and not light it? Or am I just to buy them for fun? If I caught the cigarette and tried to burn you with it then that would be a different matter altogether. That would be like shooting your kneecap off!
Buying the gun and using it at a firing range is the same as me smoking my cigarette. Ventilation inside would ensure that the cigarette would be pulled upwards and out of your way.
Why would you say that my littering is the right thing to do at the moment? To please you again, is it? But it is you who created this mess and now it is my fault again! On the one hand you call us these dirty obnoxious creatures just for smoking alone and on the other hand you cannot understand why we litter. Which is it? Are we decent citizens or are we dirty animals?
How could smokers in the past have ignored no-smoking signs when they are obeying the law now? How could I have possibly sat at a non-smoking table in the past and smoked?? I wouldn't dream of doing it! The law was on your side back then as well and that is what I obeyed. So, you are only using that one as an excuse.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
03/11/2005 16:56 |
|
Hi CHarlene - Let me take your 'firing range' analogy one step further. Your attitude to smoking would be like saying you can shoot away at the firing range, but if your aim is off and you happen to kill a bystander, then that's the gun's fault - not yours! Not very realistic, is it?
My experience with smokers before the ban does not match your comments. I've seen smokers ask for ashtrays in the no-smoking area of a pub. I've seen smokers light up in a no-smoking auditorium towards the end of a gig. I've seen smokers walk through non-smoking areas with a fag in their mouth. I've seen smokers smoke at the baggage carousels in the airport, even though there was a smoking area just a few yards away. That's why I've such little trust in anything other than the absolute ban.
There were few laws on my side before the ban. There were regulations that required a restaurant to have a no-smoking area, but there were no penalties for the customer who breached this area. The current ban works, and it's here to stay.
|
| |
|
Rainy Day Posted:
03/11/2005 22:09 |
|
If someone is stupid enough to stand in my way at a firing range then surely they are to blame. Now they are not being very realistic in my eyes!
If smokers asked for an ashtray in a no-smoking area before the ban why were they given the ashtray by the employee or the owner? The same goes for the other smokers. If employees were doing their job right they should have ensured that these instructions were given to the smoker. Why do the rest of us have to suffer because people decide to break laws? That is the same as a whole classroom of children getting punished because of one child's bad behaviour. That is not fair at all. I have always thought that I was a very respectful smoker. I know for a fact that I never smoked in a non-smokers area. You are tarnishing us all with the one brush and that is why I am so angry. There are many of us out there who were always respectful in our smoking. When I went for my cup of coffee I sat in the smoking section, had my coffee and cake and one cigarette and I was gone. I bought the cake so that a cup of coffee on it's own would not look miserable. But I went in there especially to have that one cigarette and coffee and I now no longer do that. This was my way of having a small relaxed break and then carrying on with my shopping. Even if someone in the smoking section was eating alongside of me, I always asked them if they minded if I smoked. I was a very polite person. Now you have made me out to be some kind of a monster and I do not deserve this.
The ban does not stop these people that you talk about. I have seen people at work smoking and no-one tells them to stop. I have seen other smokers who will start calling names to people outside of pub doors. Some people feel very intimidated now when they pass groups of smokers.
I prefer not to stand outside doors. I will avoid places rather than do this. I am learning to adjust somewhat by just not going for my cup of coffee or going out. I have taken up a few different interests at home. But I would prefer if I was amongst the people.
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
04/11/2005 09:50 |
|
Charlene, like blaggarde (who seems to have lost interest in this discussion), you seem to value your drug habit above all your other interactions with the rest of humanity. How you cope with that is up to you, but you are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
I'd suggest you review the lessons you're giving your children: that it's fine to consume poisonous drugs, that if you are too stupid to dispose of your litter in a responsible manner someone else will always clean up after you, to expect others to accept the most lame of excuses for your irresponsible behaviour, that you are free to inflict the byproducts of your drug habit on others, and that the world is victimising you if it requires you to sep outside for five minutes to indulge your drug habit. What a fine role model you are - you may think you are some kind of revolutionary thinker, tossing your trash on the ground, and a one-woman menial make-work agency, but I for one disagree. You should hook up with blaggarde - at least you could be miserable together.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
04/11/2005 22:10 |
|
Welcome back, Richard! I thought you were after doing a runner on me! Thanks for that powerful lecture on my childish, irresponsible habits! I hope that made you feel a lot better!
Now let me make myself nice and clear in a nice quiet easy-going manner while I am indulging in my drug habit. Just hang on a second while I take two or three large puffs first.....aaah, that feels a lot better!
Now could you please explain to me why I have to go outside this door? Explain it really properly to me and tell me why I can't have a room inside. A seperate room now mind you, where you won't have to inhale my fumes. A room that would have the best of ventilation with the minimum amount of exposure. A room where no youngster outside on the street would have to see me. A room where I wouldn't have to advertise my cigarette. A room that would bring back employment for crystal ashtrays. A room that would be cleaned more often and be rid of germs more often than is happening at the moment. The smoker was great for keeping places clean remember. Half the cleaning isn't done anymore so where are the germs going to go. Maybe this is what is happening in our hospitals today. Maybe the smoker was a blessing in disguise after all.
Until then all butts and cigarette packets, plus the silver paper, plus the plastic that surrounds them , plus burnt matches, plus matchboxes or lighters WILL go on the ground.
Rainy Day said something about "not negotiating with terrorists" earlier on. Well these are the terms of the 'terrorist'. Give us a room or else.....pick up everything after us!
|
| |
|
Blaggarde Posted:
06/11/2005 18:09 |
|
Actually, Richard, i\'m spending a year dead for health reasons. But i see you, RD and SS (will the real SS please stand up) all in, talking your usual rubbish and trying to appear Very Responsible Indeed; This time in response to Charlene. So no change there then: someone says something liberating and up you all pop like Double, Bubble, Toil & Trubble (who prefers to remain anon) to brew up some response in support of banning smokers everywhere. You\'re just not convincing anymore, and more & more people are beginning to see through your awful guff. Like, nobody believes you. By far the busiest - and growing - topic is the injustice of the Smoker Ban. But didn\'t i predict as much way back. Do keep it up please. Your collective attitude is the prime living working example of why the state got it wrong and why the law will inevitably be amended.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
07/11/2005 09:24 |
|
For the record, the post marked as 'Rainy Day Posted: 03/11/2005 22:09' most definitely did not come from me. From the content, I guess it came from Charlene.
Charlene - Don't expect us to take your attempts to paint an image of yourself as law-abiding/polite/respectful seriously, given what you told us earlier in the thread about your littering habits.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
07/11/2005 18:20 |
|
I was always wondering who Blaggard was and was dying to meet him. Now that I have read his post it looks as though I have a bit of support. I was beginning to feel a bit tired answering all these posts myself but I was still willing to go as far as I could on my own.
Blaggard is right when he says that this is definately a hot topic everywhere you go. Everyone that I meet is definately aware of the whole unfairness of it and one problem that was recently brought to mind that I hadn't thought about was this one. If there are so many smokers finding it easier to meet people outside because of the smoking ban, aren't we now setting up two smokers for life deliberately! I know that in the past there have always been couples of smokers but surely we are increasing this practice rather than decreasing. Two smokers together gives each of them less of a chance in the future of coming off the cigarettes and will their children be subjected more to cigarette smoking than ever before. What would you think of this one, Richard and Rainy Day?
I already know of one such couple who are living in a one-roomed flat. Both of them smoke 40 cigarettes a day and their one year old daughter has been hospitalised twice due to smoke inhalation. Now smoke inhaliation would be prettty obvious when there is no ventilation and they would not be inclined to open the windows in winter. So, are we heading for a disaster?
|
| |
|
Richard(HTQ11812) Posted:
08/11/2005 01:40 |
|
Charlene, it's hard to keep up with the twist, turns, and self-contardictions. You're not even attempting to present a coherent argument.
But, for the record, I have no objection to you smoking indoors in a separate isolated room. Why don't you turn your anger on the publicans who won't build you one?
As for your smoking couple with the unfortunate child... what difference would you expect ventilation to make if (and many other smokers) when you have already stated your steadfast belief that second-hand smoke is harmless?
And why haven't you reported them for child abuse, when they clearly you think it's better to poison their child than endure a bit of cold each time they want a drug fix?
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
08/11/2005 09:23 |
|
Hi Charlene, sorry to pounce on you, but did you say that the one year old was hospitailsed twice due to smoke inhalation from her parents. But wait I thought the whole point of the anti ban campaign was that passive smoking is not harmful to others. I don't understand.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
08/11/2005 09:48 |
|
Hi Charlene - The solution to your couple in the flat who are poisoning their baby is quite simple, and is nothing to do with the smoking ban at all. The solution is for them (as most parents would do) to prioritise their baby's needs over their own selfish needs and not to smoke around their baby. As a parent of a little girl myself, I find it incomprehensible that anyone could be so selfish as to harm their child in this way. Isn't this just another form of child abuse?
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
08/11/2005 13:07 |
|
To all, Ventilation makes a huge difference where smoking is concerned. It is absolutely essential to have it. You are blaming the smoker when he lights up instead of the governement or the tobbaco companies. I will fully admit that smoking 80 cigarettes a day inside a one-roomed flat with no ventilation would cause problems. That is akin to smoking that many in a car. I am looking for a separate room outside with proper ventilation and somewhere where you don't have to inhale my fumes. Richard seems to have no problem with this. He has just asked me to ask the publicans to build me one! What about the cafes and the restaurants? Could I have one here as well?
Incidentally when people can only get a one-roomed bedsit to rear a child maybe that should be looked on as abuse also. If they had a second or a third room they may be able to use one of these for their smoking.
Having a smoking ban has also pushed many people back into their homes and yes, it is the children who will have to put up with the passive smoking. But it was you who created that problem!
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
08/11/2005 15:02 |
|
Thanks Charlene, you acknowledge that pasive smoking is harmful.
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
08/11/2005 15:09 |
|
Charlenen, having acknowledged that passive smoking is harmful, how would you legislate the ventilation of your smoking rooms. What standards would you apply, how many changes of air per hour, how would you get in & out of this room without letting smoke out, if the pub was having a music band, which room would you put it in and wouldn't that discriminate against someone, how would any lay person know if the standards for the ventilation were being applied correctly, how would you police that the ventilation was working properly? It would be a very unworkable solution and very hard to ensure was not being exploited by some bars; the total ban is the only thing that is really workable.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
08/11/2005 15:33 |
|
Hi Charlene - Have you any evidence to support your claims of increased smoking in the home as a result of the ban?
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
09/11/2005 15:47 |
|
Hey, Where did my last post go to? It seem to vanish into thin air but I can see that you are all still waiting patiently for me!
Ventilation. Well, I am no expert in this department but those companies seem to think that it can be achieved quite easily. Surely travelling this route would be more financially viable for the country in the long run. Ventilation systems would generate a lot of ongoing employment, bring more smokers back, get the atmosphere going again inside the pubs. People are under the impression that the best atmosphere is outside now and it is!! The smoking ban is an attraction not a detraction.
|
| |
|
Chesterfield Posted:
09/11/2005 21:05 |
|
Hello folks!
As the issue of pharmaceutical companies comes up with significant frequency on these strings perhaps you might like to download the following free book.
It's called "The Brave New World of Zero Risk" and it's available at:
www.zero-risk.org
This book covers in depth the current relationship between the British government and major pharmaceutical companies. It's author is Martin J Walker. Enjoy!
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
11/11/2005 14:36 |
|
Chesterfield, There are 350 pages in that book to download! Can you not just give us the gist of what they are saying in it regarding the smoking issue?
Rainy Day, Why do you need evidence for the obvious? Sure, I'm joining parties in homes that I used never go to before!
|
| |
|
Chesterfield Posted:
13/11/2005 20:50 |
|
For Charlene.
Charlene, in response tp your post of 11/11/2005 14:36, I'm sorry that the book "The Brave New World of Zero Risk" is indeed so long.
With regard to a brief summary as to what it's about, it examines and documents the relationship between the UK government, the health establishment and pharmaceutical companies. The purpose of the book is to show how all pervaisive the influence of the pharmaceuticals is, although the interest of the author is particularly on MMR vaccination and ME. I advertised this book as background reading because the influence of the pharmaceuticals alo extends to smoking.
However, as you require something short and DIRECTLY to the point, may I direct you to this very interesting and highly unusual article, written by KGMM ALBERTI, President of The Royal College of Physicians,
http://www.elliott-wald.com/nosmokewithoutfire.htm
Hope you find this more to your liking; it's certainly an illuminating article.
Chesterfield.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
14/11/2005 09:28 |
|
Hi Charlene - The fact that you are "parties in homes that I used never go to before" does not mean that this is happening for a significant number of other people. Indeed, the NI health spokesman mentioned formal research which showed the reverse, i.e. less smoking in homes. But hey, let's just ignore the research and build our 'truth' around your unverified comments.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
15/11/2005 03:27 |
|
Thanks Chesterfield, After reading that article I will never ever use any of those anti-smoking products. I have printed this article out and I am going to show all my friends. That's what smoking bans are all about, to make another crowd rich. It is one of the highest forms of abuse on this planet!
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
15/11/2005 14:58 |
|
Charlene, I havn't read the article that you are reffering to, but out of interest, why do you think cigarette companies sell cigarettes. The answer is only to make themselves rich. To help ensure that this happens, they deliberating & knowingly put nicotine into them, so that all their customers become addicted. So what exactly is your point about the anit-smoking procucts; they would not have any market atall without the addictive nature of smoking cigarettes.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
15/11/2005 16:45 |
|
PJK, If you read the article you might see where I am coming from. I believe now that we are just being codded up to our eyes. Another thing that I have noticed is that the patches are so expensive! If you really wanted to help the smoker, why aren't the patches given out free! I once tried the chewing gum and the mints and they were absolutely disgusting! And yet I had already paid for them! It was a pure waste of money!
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
16/11/2005 08:54 |
|
Hi Charlene, I do not sell the patches etc. I am not in a position to give them away for free, and neither are the companies that produce them. They are fulfilling a market need, with profit as their motive. Perhaps in line with the spirit of your comment, the Gov might in someway substitize them for people who wanted to give up smoking. All I am saying it is not really fair for you to one-sidedly condemn the patch companies etc for making a profit, without also acknowledging that the root cause of the profit-making is due to the cigarette companies who knowingly put nicotine into cigarettes to get their customers addicted, in order to enhance the cigarette companies profits. Or are you saying that the cigarette companies are doing all this for the greater good of humanity. Of course not, they are doing it for profit.
Going back to market need, please do not come back and say that cigarettes companies are also fulfilling market need. The cigarette companies created the market need by adding an addictive substance to their product.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
16/11/2005 13:27 |
|
Note that Nicotene replacement therapy products are available free of charge for those on medical cards - see your GP for more details.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
16/11/2005 14:33 |
|
PJK and Rainy Day, The report goes onto to say that people will be back on the cigarettes within a year and that there is only a 2% chance of them working. You have a 1% chance of giving up the cigarettes by using will-power and yet most people that I know of have given up the cigarettes this way. Why knock something that works for most people? It is because they want to see these things and nothing else. Some people have also claimed that they went back on the cigarettes worse after coming off the patches. And then of course we have all heard of some people getting heart attacks after packing up the fags.
You can see then why smokers are nervous. Do we try to pack them up or do we carry on? We don't know what is the truth. I am fed-up of the truth not being properly told. I don't know what is the right thing to do anymore.
Confusion reigns big time!
Sometimes I wish I wasn't a smoker and sometimes I am glad. I wish I could get up in the mornings and just say that I won't smoke today but that cannot happen for some reason. I certainly wish I could have more control. It annoys me that I haven't but all this bickering and fighting about us smokers makes it much worse. It is like a tug-of-war. One company pulling us one way and the other another. And then I am kicked out wherever I go. This whole smoker thing is in a shambles!
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
16/11/2005 16:52 |
|
Hi Charlene - There is absolutely no doubt about the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to give them up. There are many questions about HOW you should give them up. But for your health's sake, your family's sake and your bank manager's sake, give them up.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
16/11/2005 19:11 |
|
Rainy Day, If I give them up then I will be abandoning my fellow smokers and I will be a different person. I will only start looking down on them and I don't want to do this. There are people out there who only hate the smoker and try and persuade us to stay away from them. But that is class distinction. That is not the way I work in my life. I will not abandon people who others are trying to degrade and humiliate. We here in Ireland have moved on from this or so I thought. Would you turn your back on your neighbour if he was hungry? Some people would, in fact they would laugh at him! But I am not one of those. The smoker is hungry for acceptance at this moment in time and therefore I will not turn my back on him/her.
|
| |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
18/11/2005 12:30 |
|
Charlene - you can give up smokes without looking down on the Smoker.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
18/11/2005 12:39 |
|
How could I possibly manage that?
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
18/11/2005 13:04 |
|
Hi Charlene - Who do you think you're kidding? You're not sticking with smoking out of solidarity for your fellow smoker. You're sticking with smoking because of your physical addiction. Isn't about time you faced up to this?
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
18/11/2005 23:09 |
|
Why would I be kidding, Rainy Day? If I am addicted then you have to accept my addictive thinking as well. It would bother me and it would bother me big time. Yes, I would genuinely feel that I was abandoning my fellow smokers. It is obviously not a worry for you but it is for me. I feel very strong about this one.
I told you earlier on that confusion reigns and it reigns in a couple of departments. I have even got disillusioned with my job because I have to wait so long for a smoke. I have thought of packing it up several times and going for a part-time job so I'd manage my life a bit better.
So when I tell you something try and listen will you! I am NOT kidding at all.
Who will I become when I am sitting inside while they are outside? This great happy person is it? It certainly doesn't sound like it! I am a smoker and an addict. That makes me a different person than you are.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
19/11/2005 22:21 |
|
"Isn't about time you faced up to this?".............
Still playing at Being Mummy Rainyday??
Charlene is most probably afraid of turning into someone like you. Or pjk (ss, 9.42 etc etc). And that would be very scary to most of us.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
21/11/2005 17:01 |
|
Welcome back, Blaggarde - I've missed your little gems so much.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
22/11/2005 02:20 |
|
Blaggard, I have to say I found your post really funny!!!
Rainy Day,
On a serious note though, this sticking together is a serious issue. I have often joked about giving them up but my friends jump on me straight away and say things like. "I hope you're not thinking of deserting us now after all your talk about how unfair this ban is! Or, "Oh, yeah! If I see you sitting down inside with so-and-so, we'll never speak to you again!"
I'm afraid that we are comparing you with certain people out there. Just as you think that we are dirty creatures we see ourselves as turning into something like Mrs Bucket or Daniel O'Donnell or someone that would make you cringe. That's the tug of war that is there at the moment. I'm on one side and you're on the other. This is the first time in my history that this has happened. Sorry Rainy Day.
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
22/11/2005 09:35 |
|
Blaggarde, ah welcome back. As you rightly spotted I have historically been SS & 9.42. You have been keeping very quite. You should get out more and meet people (or maybe you have been and maybe that is why we haven't seen much of you lately). Hopefully you have decided to get out more, because when we last talked you had made the decision that faced with the choice of going to the pub and stepping outside for your cigarette, or staying at home for your cigarette, you were stubbornly & obstinately choosing to stay at home. You rathered the satisfaction of having your rant and being able to say you are excluded. You sound a lot happier now, so I do think that you must be getting out. Good for you.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
22/11/2005 11:06 |
|
Hi Charlene - It's a bit sad to see an adult mother still subject to the kind of peer pressure that we all encountered in our schooldays. Can't you make your own decisions now without worrying about what your friends think? It's a funny kind of friend that encourages you to shorten your life.
|
| |
|
Charlene Posted:
22/11/2005 15:51 |
|
Rainy day, Adults are under more peer pressure than youngsters. Some of us are with the same friends for years. It might mean starting all over again trying to form new friendships. This is daunting for some people especially when you have had such a great time with your older friends.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
09/01/2006 20:28 |
|
"Do you believe the smoking ban will be enforced fairly around the country?" - the question on which this thread is based - is a quite the same as asking "do you think the concentration camps will be distributed fairly around the country?". The assumption in the question is that all agree with having concentration camps, the only remaining doubt being, if people approve or disapprove of where they are located. It must be patently obvious at this time - more than one and a half years into the smoker ban, with lively and ever-growing smoking threads on this healthsite, that people do NOT approve of concentration camps, or to bring it right into focus, people do not approve of people who smoke being abused, either "fairly" or "unfairly".
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
10/01/2006 13:10 |
|
Blaggard, I absolutely adore your comparison to concentration camps. And by God, it sure does feel like that doesn't it! It's time to kill off Hitler again I think.
|
| |
|
Mary Posted:
12/01/2006 09:57 |
|
Ok, reality check. Concentration camps were responsible for the daths of millions of people.
Your comparison is not only absurd it is insulting
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
12/01/2006 13:27 |
|
Mary, It certainly feels as if we are dying outside the doors on a freezing or wet day in the height of winter!
|
| |
|
fifi Posted:
12/01/2006 17:14 |
|
As a smoker I must say that it is only fair that we dont smoke around those who do not. Not only that, but I actually prefer to sit in smoke-free pubs now. Its much more pleasant. However, whoever thought that bringing in this ban would lead to a drop in the number of people smoking were very much mistaken. Statistics show that if anything, those taking up the habit are increasing & those people already smoking have not or have no intention of giving up. If the government were really concerned for people's health (they are not) they would ban the sale of cigs completely in the country. This would outrage people at first, me included, but if I had no means of getting cigs easily, it might make me give them up. It would probably be THE only way I would give the damn things up.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
12/01/2006 17:51 |
|
Fifi, your proposal to shove smoking under ground would probably increase cigarettes even more. It is more or less in the prohibitionist state as it is now and it is clearly not working. You only have to look at the whole drug scene to see this picture. It is disgraceful that a smoking ban has produced these results amongst smokers. It proves without a shadow of a doubt that something has gone radically wrong and badly needs to be addressed. If anything it proves that the smoker himself hasn't been listened to at all!
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
14/01/2006 00:31 |
|
I was in around town today, passing the coffee shops, looking IN through the windows where the first-class citizens are allowed by law to be, and then OUTSIDE at the wet, cold, filthy seats where the second-class citizens are allowed by law to be.
Like most smokers, together with a growing number of civil-minded nonsmokers, I sat neither inside nor outside but kept on going. That is called voting with your feet. The real election is in 2007.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
14/01/2006 04:06 |
|
Thank you God for people like Blaggard! Thank you again and again. These are the type of people that I want to live with in this country! This is what being truly Irish is all about! Worded so brilliantly and so proper. I too do the exact same thing. I peer through the coffee windows and walk on by! Oh, hang on a second! After peering in the window I shove two fingers in the air and walk on! Now that's more like it and I feel like a pig in s***!
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
14/01/2006 07:34 |
|
Hi Fifi - Your view that 'Statistics show that if anything, those taking up the habit are increasing & those people already smoking have not or have no intention of giving up' is not supported by the official statistics that I've seen on www.otc.ie. Can you please tell us what particular statistics you were referring to with this comment?
Hi Blaggarde - You continue to personalise the debate. It's not the smokERS that is the issue, it is the smokING. Your so-called 2nd class citizens are more than welcome to come inside the door. They just need to leave their fags outside.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
16/01/2006 02:39 |
|
Rainy Day, Of course the issue is about smoKERS and not smokING! How would you class yourself as an individual? As a small, fat, drinker? A tall, skinny, anti-smoker? Everybody is given labels and we take some of them on as our own. I would consider myself as a slim, blonde, smoker. Most of us are known by our drug. Even if you don't use a drug you could be classed as the blocky, black-haired, fitness fanatic. Fitness fanatic being the drug. Then again if you are not seen to be using any kind of drug At All, you could be classed as the small, red-haired, dry-drawers!
So yes, this issue is of course about the smoKER!
|
| |
|
NoButts Posted:
16/01/2006 09:49 |
|
So, Blaggard, I take it you'll be running for public office in 2007? Or is someone else running on a "you can't enjoy a pint unless you can see the air" ticket? :-)
Also, how were you able to tell from your walk past that nobody inside was a smoker?
|
| |
|
Mary Posted:
16/01/2006 12:55 |
|
Kevin - fitness is NOT a drug. Not is it a substance or any kind
- from a tall brown-haired coffee drinker.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
17/01/2006 15:55 |
|
Mary your drug could be known as your passion as well. I meant it more along that lines.
From: Still a slim, blonde smoKER.
|
| |
|
Mary Posted:
17/01/2006 16:19 |
|
Kevin, I admitted, my drug of choice is coffee.
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
18/01/2006 01:18 |
|
Well then Mary, you had better watch out. "Cancer Chemical found in coffee" is the latest scare story {headline on last sunday's times [p5]} where it is reported that yet another "new study" finds that "coffee gives those who drink it anything from 13% to 39% of the acrylamide they consume"........ and ....."acrylamide has been identified as carcinogenic......" However i'm sure you won't lose any sleep over that until the health/thought police take steps to protect you from yourself.
Incidentally, another recent article heavily warned that people were increasingly becoming ADDICTED to exercise, gym-work and the endorphin highs that resulted (no drug huh?), to the point where such activity was controlling their lives.........
RD It is really not important whether or not you think i am personalising, depersonalising or impersonalising this debate, or in fact standing on my head. The facts are clear. SmokERS have been legally relegated to second-class citizenship, or worse, in our new brave two-tier society. I don't know how you can sit there and gloat about it, as you have been doing for the past year-and-a-half on various threads here. I always wanted to know if your interest in these debates is a professional one (i.e. this is part of your job) or is it a personal one. Maybe you'd enlighten us.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
18/01/2006 18:48 |
|
Hi Blaggarde-I'm happy to confirm that I have no professional interest in the smoking issue. I have a huge personal interest, as you've seen from my dedication to debunking the myths & fiction being spun by some of the smokers on this thread.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
19/01/2006 03:04 |
|
Yeah, Mary, would you ever get off the bloody coffee!!! Do what me and Blaggard do when we pass the coffee shops and become a second-class citazin just like us! If you can't beat us you may as well join us!
Oh, and there is no way that I am going to join a gym. I don't want to end up Addicted (again!)
Rainy Day, just out of pure curiosity. What's the personal reason?
|
| |
|
Mary Posted:
19/01/2006 08:50 |
|
Yes Blaggarde, I'll risk it.
So, you think people are becoming addictd to the exercise.
We are rapidly approaching an obesity epidemic and you think people are addicted to exercise???
That's beyond belief
|
| |
|
NoButts Posted:
19/01/2006 09:39 |
|
Blaggarde, I doubt that Mary is forcing others to exercise or to drink coffee (nor foisting the byproducts of the latter habit on them), so you should have no cause for complaint there.
But, look, I'm really curious: you haven't told us yet how you could tell that none of the people in the coffee shop were smokers.
|
| |
|
Mary Posted:
19/01/2006 14:16 |
|
No, I enjoy it and ahve no intention of beating you.
Incidentally, I have joined a gym too and I GO 5 mornings a week.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
19/01/2006 14:20 |
|
Hi Kevin - No one single reason, but here's a few reasons which contributed to my view. My father died when I was 3 (he was 46) leaving a widow to bring up 6 children on her own. While I never wen't hungry, things were not easy. My father was fit, healthy (as it seemed), not overweight, exercised regularly, but he was a smoker. One of my older brothers had his first heart attack at 26 and has gone through a series of heart problems since. While smoking isn't the only cause in his case, it is undoubtedly a major factor. I've seen that the only one of my many nieces & nephews who has asthma is the one who comes from a smoking home - coincidence eh? I've also been struck many many times by the general lack of consideration shown by many smokers for non-smoking areas. We were made to feel like the bad guys for being bold enough to ask for smokers to stay in smoking areas. It is just so amazingly civilised now to be to bring my toddler into any pub or restaurant for lunch without having to worry about who is going to sit down beside us.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
20/01/2006 04:06 |
|
Rainy Day, It sounds like you are on a bit of a mission which could be understandable. A person dying in the family is a hard one. Of course having your brother having a heart attack at such a young age is also very frightening. But I see more. Maybe you are blaming all cigarette smokers for this happening. I see it particularly in your last sentence when you say that you don't have to worry about Who sits along side of you. This was obviously referring to the smoker. How very paranoid you are! Well, just to add to your paranoid, the next time you sit in a pub or restaurant there could be a ghost sitting alongside of you smoking a big huge smelly cigar! And just when you thought everything was alright!
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
20/01/2006 13:51 |
|
Hi Kevin. I'm not blaming anything. I don't look backwards. I'm looking forwards, and I'm just doing everything I can to make sure those things don't happen to me. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite fond of pipe or cigar smoke, so the ghost wouldn't bother me at all.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
22/01/2006 01:37 |
|
Rainy Day, When I came off the computer I had this huge grin on my face over the ghost! But when I went back again to see the reply, my face dropped! I had got it wrong!
The ghost is smoking 20 disgusting fags so! I know it's not the same but sure it might still bring a smile to your face!
When you say that you are looking forwards I would say that you are looking sideways because you forgot to take the smokers with you. Having everyone on your side is really looking forward I think.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
23/01/2006 16:36 |
|
Hi Kevin - Bringing the smokers with me is a nice theory, but absolutely impossible in practice. Do you expect the police to get agreement from the criminal fraternity before they can imprison them?
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
24/01/2006 01:12 |
|
Putting us all in a nice little cosy room is bringing the smokers with you, Rainy. So it's not impossible.
The police cannot get agreement from the criminal fraternity anyway because they have to go through their lawyers! You are the real criminals because you never went through the people. You just forced your views on everybody. Do you force feed your children too?
|
| |
|
Mary Posted:
24/01/2006 15:13 |
|
It is impossible because havign a smokign room means staff would have to have access to it whihc defeats the purpose of introducing a ban in order to protect the staff.
Short of using a naso-gastric tube and sedating someone, I can't think of any possible way to force feed them.
Kevin, did someone force you to smoke?? That's awful.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
24/01/2006 16:22 |
|
Hi Kevin - It's ironic that you use the term 'force feeding'. Were you worried about force feeding your second hand smoke on those around you? The problem with the 'nice cosy room' option is that (based on my pre-ban experiences) smokers won't respect the limits. They will litter their butts all over the floor. They will smoke on their way into the room, and their way out of the room. They will smoke near the room. Let's start seeing some consideration from the smoking community (i.e. stop littering our streets with butts) as a trust-building measure first.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
25/01/2006 00:11 |
|
Actually, Rainy Day. That's one of my new year resolutions! Since January 1st I have stopped putting 15 cigarettes a day on the ground outside (the other 25 were smoked inside). That's a massive 25 x 15! I promise you that I'll tell all my friends not to throw butts on the ground and I'll carry a plastic bag with me everytime I go out and I'll pick up as many as I can. Whenever I travel to Dublin or Waterford or wherever I'll do the same! And I don't want any pay what-so-ever for it, okey! I mean that now.
Maybe then you'll give me a room, huh!
|
| |
|
fifi Posted:
25/01/2006 10:12 |
|
Well Rainy day, us smokers seem to littering all the lovely footpaths too. Its all that standing around in the rain you see. We kind of get pissed off standing & smoking in bad weather with passing people gawking at you like you were a streetwalker, so we end up throwing our butts on the ground in frustration like any good reject will do!
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
25/01/2006 10:49 |
|
Kevin, Your resolution is a good one, and to be congratulated. However unfortunately there are more people with FiFi's atitude than yours. This apalling atitude is not confined to smokers atall, but seems to be endemic in the Irish population. Ours streets & countryside are a disgrace, and this is down to individual Irish people just droppoing their litter anywhere. People have this atitude that it is someone else's job to put their litter away properly.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
25/01/2006 11:05 |
|
Hi Fifi-It's hard to believe that your littering habits are anything to do with your feelings of rejection given that the littering was so prevalent before the ban.
Hi Kevin - It's great to hear that you'll be persuading your friends not to litter (though one wonders why they need persuasion in the first place). Once you work your way through the other million (approx) smokers in the country, I'll be happy to talk about some accomodations for smokers.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
25/01/2006 13:29 |
|
Fifi, I was going grand in that last post until you came along! Now I have to try and figure out a way for a million smokers to stop! Christ!
There is one way but I don't know if it would work or not. Everytime someone buys a pack of cigarettes, they must also buy a disposable ashtray. If they already have an ashtray on them then they don't have to buy one. All the money from the ashtrays could go towards health funding. That will drive up the price of the cigarettes without putting it on the packet itself and help more people to pack up cigarettes. It would also create new employment.
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
25/01/2006 15:08 |
|
Kevin,
There is no need to buy an ashtray at all. Just use the many street litter bins, which all seem to have a metal top, for quenching your butts before putting them in the bin. Most pubs also have ashtrays on the walls at their doorway. So no need for any special purchases, just be civic minded and use the facilities provided, rather that throwing your rubbish on the ground. Simple really!!
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
25/01/2006 15:50 |
|
Ah, butt see, if you put the smokers in a room you would clean up at least half the country in one whip! Then you would only have the other half to deal with. About one third of the smokers are using the bins so that leaves one third of smokers not using them. So with a room you will have 3/4 of smokers nice and tidy! That's a lot of litter off the ground.
If you don't decide to go with a room until the smokers clean up then the ashtray is the way to go first. If every smoker in the country had to use a disposable ashtray, you would also catch the hash smokers because they would stick out more amongst the crowd if they had no ashtray. So you would be killing two birds with one stone. Worth thinking about!
|
| |
|
Mary Posted:
25/01/2006 17:34 |
|
By heck, Kev, are you serious about the disposable ashtry?? I don't know but could this actually work?
|
| |
|
NoButts Posted:
25/01/2006 22:16 |
|
On the subject of disposable ashtrays... at my wedding I had a number of Japanese guests, some of whom were smokers. Each carried a small pouch with a spring-loaded opening (rather like change purses one sees occasionally). They deposited their ashes and butts into them, to be transferred later to a bin when it was convenient. There's no reason why Irish smokers couldn't do the same.
(Perhaps when blaggarde gets elected, he'll make such pouches available for free. :-)
Alternatively, how about a deposit of, say, 1 euro on each cigarette butt and packet? I think the litter problem would disappear overnight.
Or, how about supplying nicotine in inhaler form, like asthma puffers. This could also open a market in designer dummy cigarettes that smokers could use to keep their hands busy, without releasing any junk into the air.
|
| |
|
PJK Posted:
26/01/2006 08:56 |
|
Kevin, sorry to be picky but you said "About one third of the smokers are using the bins so that leaves one third of smokers not using them". If one third are using the bins, well that leaves two thirds (66%) not using the bins, not as you say one third. Your whole argument about ashtrays is rubbish: all that has to happen is that the two thirds of smokers that you refer to that are not currently using the bins, only need to start using them, rather than waiting for someone else to clean up after them. It is called taking responsibility. It is simple really; no need to make it complicated.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
26/01/2006 22:17 |
|
PJK, If it was that simple people would be taking responsibility now. I mentioned the one third using the bins After I put a room inside for smokers.
Responsibility only comes with fairness. You do something for me and I'll do something for you. That is the better system all the time and is proven in simple ordinary matters.
There is no fairness in the smoking ban so you are left with irresponsiblility. That's the nature of the human being and this is not going to change.
No butts mentioned an inhaler for nicotine. No good I say. If it's through the nostrils forget it but if it's in the mouth maybe.
Dummy cigarettes are also useless, no one likes these. There is only one way to go and that is to make some kind of a safer cigarette that tastes very similar to our ones at the moment. A cigarette that supplied a vitamin I think would go down a bomb or a mineral, still have smoke but no smell. That I think would be my ideal cigarette. Herbal smell so awful but their taste isn't that bad. Lots of other smokers have told me the same thing. Those that are on lighter cigarettes would especially favor this one.
This is what we want. We don't want substitues at all because they only work for very little people. Leave us pack up in our own time, just give us a safer cigarette. We are literally shouting for one at the moment and I really mean that.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
27/01/2006 09:16 |
|
Hi Kevin - You tell us that responsibility comes with fairness - Where were all the responsible smokers before the ban when they could smoke where/when they liked? We still had a huge littering problem with fag ends in those bad old days.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
27/01/2006 14:38 |
|
Ah, Rainy day, come off it! A stray butt is all that there was before! My eyes are sore from looking at butts now. Millions upon millions of butts went into ashtrays in offices, restaurants, cafes and pubs. Sure where can they go now? The amount of bins around are pathetic and there are none at all in some villages. On top of that the bins get filled in no time so they overflow onto the ground. Other bins get vandalised.
I saw a woman stopping her two year old from putting one in it's mouth! Now that's disgusting!
Use your common sense. Stop waiting for smokers to clean up because they may never do it unless of course that you want to give out for the rest of your life. Some people love to complain and they're never happy so nothing gets done in the meantime. Are you going to be one of those ones, Rainy Day?
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
29/01/2006 20:41 |
|
I hope all of you aren't gone away making a disposable ashtray and leaving me out! I want a cut out of this idea!
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
29/01/2006 21:23 |
|
Kevin, oul son, Anti's like RD and PJK will be only too delighted to run forever around in circles with you on a discussion about litter, if that is what you want.
RD, I was impressed - genuinely as you know - when you told us about your personal circumstances back along there. I empathise with your loss and it can't be easy living with hereditary doubts. I've experienced it both ways; in my inlaw family there have been two deaths at age 38 & 40 (one non- smoker, one smoker)and two serious scares. In my own family, my father's father - who smoked all his life up and until - died of a hospital bug aged 92.
While you may or may not consciously be "looking back", experiences of the sort of strength you describe are bound to have a conditioning effect on your current motivations and lifestyle choices.
The problem arises when you are motivated to inflict your solutions on others who don't share your beliefs, in much the same way as you complain about smokers formerly inflicting their smoke on you.
Your way of thinking about this issue - even if it is invisible to you - can be summed up in one word. Totalitarianism. And while i can now see why you might be led in that direction, if that solution is the best we can do then we are no better than nazi germany, the former soviet union or any tin-pot dictatorship that you care to think of. There has to be accommodation for all, and that involves smoker-friendly venues for those that want them.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
30/01/2006 12:08 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Thanks for your empathy. It's just a pity that in the same post, you go on to prove Godwins law (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) true.
But you are clearly misguided. Cleaning up the air in pubs & other workplaces is the absolute opposite of totalitarianism. It is the absolute opposite of 'imposing my will on others'.
It is all about stopping smokers from imposing their will on others, as they saw fit to do for decades.
|
| |
|
fifi Posted:
30/01/2006 14:43 |
|
As a smoker I believe its only right we do not subject non smokers to our addiction. However, I do have one gripe. Every pub should make the best possible effort to ensure they provide a warm comfortable shelter for those who do smoke. We are paying top dollar for our drinks, we kept you in business for years before this ban was enforced. All we ask is that you oblige us by providing such facilities. There is nothing more humiliating than smoking out on a street in the wind and rain.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
30/01/2006 15:46 |
|
No, Rainy Day. It is all about a government who sold a product that imposed it's will on others. Stop blaming the smoker all the time. The government are happy with what they are doing and they are only trying to keep the Anti-smokers quiet so that they won't lose out a fortune of money.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
30/01/2006 19:00 |
|
Fifi, How can pubs provide facilities if they have no room outside. Some of them have a small bit of room but have to put up with neighbours complaining about noise. Others are situated dangerously and will put their customers at risk. What is most laughable is a beautiful place inside and all the customers outside in a makeshift hut! Why the need to do up your premises inside at all for? A place inside is no problem and could be given to you easily without imposing your will on anyone but our retarded government won't allow it!
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
30/01/2006 23:58 |
|
Well RD, throwing smokers out to create your hallowed smoke-free atmosphere in all pubs everywhere all the time is most certainly totalitarian. This view of things was perfected by hitler who banned smokers too and for exactly the same reasons as you propose. In terms of totalitarian i can't think of a more authoritative source. And you say i'm misguided...... Wrong end of the stick there RD.
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
31/01/2006 10:49 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Have you got any sources for your Hitler story? I didn't think that the health dangers of cigarettes were known at all in Hitler's time - but I'm open to correction if you have some hard information on this?
|
| |
|
fifi Posted:
31/01/2006 14:13 |
|
Kevin I do agree that all the crack does end up out in these shelters. Even the non smokers dribble out in search of a laugh & put up with the smoke in order to gain some fun for the night. By the way, another thing Ive noticed since the smoking ban came into pubs is the obnoxious smells we have to put up with now. Between people farting to people who see a bar of soap and a deodrant once a year on christmas eve. At least when we could smoke before the ban, it managed to cover up the stink
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
31/01/2006 16:03 |
|
Fifi, On the subject of farting, I just have to tell you this one! Picture this!
One hell of a cranky woman sitting in the corner of a pub. Gives out about everything and of course couldn't bear cigarettes. But I couldn't even do the anti-smokers justice by allowing this person into their areana because they wouldn't want her.
Anyway another customer is standing by the counter at her corner and silently leaves a massive stinker! It rushes over specifically in her direction and the next minute she is buried inside her jumper coughing and literally choking! This goes on for about five minutes! Then some customer pipes up, "My God, I never saw you as bad as that when the smoking was here!".
But she can't answer him back because she is still choking and every time she comes up for air her head plunges back down in a frenzy!
Boy, I tell you, that really made my day! It's a wonder that I didn't spray urine all over the place!
|
| |
|
fifi Posted:
01/02/2006 11:48 |
|
ha haaaa... ohh nice one indeed! give me the smell of lovely smoke anyday compared to toxic human gases, body odour, cleaning bleach & general lack of personal hygiene.
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
02/02/2006 13:21 |
|
Well,Fifi, at least the smoke would have dispersed the 'stinker' a bit more and more people would have had the honour of smelling it! I think it's very unfair that only one person got to smell that one don't you think!
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
06/02/2006 00:35 |
|
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450
Knock yourself out RD !
|
| |
|
RainyDay Posted:
06/02/2006 12:22 |
|
Hi Blaggarde - Thanks for educating me on that interesting material. I presume you did read all the way through to the final conclusion that "That does not mean, however, that antismoking movements are inherently fascist"?
|
| |
|
Kevin Posted:
06/02/2006 18:18 |
|
Beautiful, Blaggard! Where did you find that? Hey, Rainy Day! Did you also notice that when Hitler died many of his anti-tobacco underlings either lost their jobs or were silenced?
Hmmmmm.........
|
| |
|
Blaggarde(JLK24692) Posted:
07/02/2006 01:41 |
|
The final conclusion RD about your views "not" being totalitarian, i.e. inherently fascist, though referenced by the author, does not appear in the reading referenced. There can be no doubt that it is his personal opinion, intended to mollify any nagging guilt arising in current Anti's, such as yourself, when campaigning to legally discriminate against people who smoke.
The desire to quell smokers has its roots in fascism and nothing has changed about that. The ideology is precisely the same today; "public health" or "strength through joy" - take your pick.
The ideology tie-in is discussed in the following article from the BMJ, together with a mention of how smokers could not expect to have equal medical treatment in Nazi Germany; something which is echoing around the modern-day Anti movement also.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/310/6976/396?ijkey=5684b3b61ddf7376ac82f09d6c7c81ff5dbad785&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
|
| |
|
Jane Posted:
09/09/2006 17:30 |
|
Is the ban being enforced fairly??
What a great question.
Its not being enforced at all.
|
| |
|
cleanorpoision Posted:
16/10/2009 23:49 |
|
I am not a smoker but I think the ban is been used to bully smokers I have seen in my work place been bullied for smoking out side in the shed .
while inside the same bosses are always spraying fly spray air fresher and making workers use a lot of cleaning chemicals I counted 29 different bottles of sprays been at one time surely in the bottles there is a lot more chemicals then there are is cigarette's .
I would sooner be in a room full of smokers then have the aerosol sprayed in the room .
|
| |
|
|
| To join the discussion, register by clicking here
|
