# Fibber Magee's breaking the smoking ban



## alfraits (7 Jul 2004)

Big news this morning about the pub in Galway handing out the ashtrays and having a smoking party last night. They think they are heroes. The place should be closed down immediately and the manager/proprietor thrown in jail in case others are encouraged to do the same. The pub owners have been moaning a lot lately about lost business and recent statistical info suggests that people are drinking less. If the pubs are losing business so much the better. We have been overindulging in recent years and any measures that would reduce consumption of alcohol should be welcomed. If up to a quarter of licensed premises go out of business we should welcome this as a return of sanity to a country that has gone mad in its pursuit of its favourite drug.

The government should crush any revolt against the smoking ban and hold its nerve until Britain and other states introduce a ban on smoking in all work places. For once we are setting the trend. We should not lose our nerve.

Finally, all pubs using stage Irish names should be boycotted.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

I wouldn't like to see this guy go out of business personally, but the point is everyone's in the same boat.

It's a free market so he needs to find other ways to attract custom. Like everyone else has.

As far as I know he doesn't serve any food at the moment.


----------



## rory (7 Jul 2004)

I doubt if the guy who owns this pub is in any danger of going out of business. He owns a hotel and several other pubs in Galway.

The side of Eyre Square where this pub is located has been a building site for the last few months as the Council are completely revamping the square. Many of the local businesses adjacent to this pub have been complaining of lost revenues as a result.


----------



## Tom (7 Jul 2004)

*downturn*

The figures released this week show that we bought a lot less booze in 2003 than 2002 so the publicans have a hard neck in blaming the smoking ban for fewer punters.If they weren't so greedy in continually jacking up prices they might get more sympathy.Every time theres a government or producer price increase the publicans also had an extra rise to keep their margins.
This guy in Galway is saying a lot now but he'll change his tune when he starts getting hit with 3k fines.


----------



## N0elC (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: downturn*



> but he'll change his tune when he starts getting hit with 3k fines



Hope he rues his decision when his licence comes up for review.


----------



## shnaek (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: downturn*

The smoking ban suits me down to the ground. It is great for ones lungs in the morning and for ones clothes too. But I always admired the rebel heart that pops up so rarely in Ireland these days. The Irish moan about a lot of things, but the truth is that the government can really bring in any law it likes and we'll comply with it. I mean, if we were to be invaded today I think the Irish reaction would be, 'Jeez, that's a pity now' - and we'd all comply with another set of laws. 

Truth is, the law is not infallible, nowhere less so than our country where most of the laws date from foreign rule anyway. The only way to keep the truth of a law alive is to constantly and vigourously challenge it.

I am by no means encouraging the breaking of the law - I have a law degree and I respect the law. But one must challenge it too from time to time, to encourage debate about the merits of particular laws.


----------



## rory (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: downturn*



> The only way to keep the truth of a law alive is to constantly and vigourously challenge it.



There's a difference between challenging a law and breaking it. The owners of this pub are breaking the law if they permit customers smoke on their premises. The vintners had an opportunity to challenge the law in court and they declined.


----------



## Ben (7 Jul 2004)

*.*

The owner of the pub in question was just on local radio. He claims that from this morning the rest of his pubs in Galway (4 or 5) will allow smoking. He says he will not back down and reckons that he would be out of business if things remained as they were.

should this man not be locked up?


----------



## zag (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: .*

He will be out of business (or at least significantly out of pocket) if the Gardai arrive down this evening.  Those fines will soon stack up.

He should not be locked up, but at the very least there should be a Garda or health board person there taking note and administerinng fines.

The owner of this place has admitted openly that he knows he is breaking the law and is continuing to do so.

Failure to act on the part of the authorities will significantly weaken the power of the legislation.

z


----------



## Guest (7 Jul 2004)

Where's jem - the voice of reason on this matter?! :smokin 

:lol


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*What's missing in this country is a sense of outrage*

Except that the [broken link removed] of people in this country weren't against it in the first place.


----------



## Tommy (7 Jul 2004)

> What's missing in this country is a sense of outrage



This is patently incorrect. If you listen to the likes of Joe Duffy, Morning Ireland etc or read the likes of the Sindo, Ireland on Sunday etc or even browse AAM you will hear or see people expressing outrage about practically every issue from the smoking ban to the Luas and from Darina Allen to McDonalds. This country wallows in outrage and whinging.


----------



## michaelm (7 Jul 2004)

Indeed piggy.  What's missing is a sense of outrage in general.  That's why we have a pathetic health system, a poor and disjointed transport system and a joke of a justice system.  None of the the politicians have any real vision or can see the full picture, they're all 'party men'.  I'm not sure which is worse, the incompetence or the corruption.  Added to this Ireland must now be about the most state regulated country in the western world.


----------



## Guest (7 Jul 2004)

Here's a radical suggestion to publicans who claim that takings are down as a result of the smoking ban - instead of flouting the ban reduce your prices to attract more punters in. :rolleyes


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Added to this Ireland must now be about the most state regulated country in the western world*

I might not argue with all the points you made in your last post but in relation to the above have you any proof to back this up?


----------



## casiopea (7 Jul 2004)

*a different protest*

very good point <blank>


----------



## michaelm (7 Jul 2004)

Fair play to him.  I'm glad to see somebody (anybody) take a stand against this nonsense.  I'm a nonsmoker, in fact I hate smokers (I reckon it's smokers and smokers kids who litter this country) and I have benefited in practice from the ban however I am totally against it in principle.  

This is an example of the state trying to micromanage peoples lives and to do so under the pretense of protecting workers.  What's missing in this country is a sense of outrage.  If the government introduced a law saying people needed a licence to walk down the road there would be people queuing up at every Post Office to get theirs.

The Gardai don't enforce this law, it would seem that politicians are exempt, if you were fined €3000 in court and couldn't pay you could find yourself in prison (costing the state around €1000 per week) but you would then legally be allow to smoke.  Only in Ireland.  Laws come and go, nonsense laws should probably be ignored, the law and the Irish legal system are a poor vehicle for justice.

End of rant.


----------



## Tabac (7 Jul 2004)

*Fibber*

I heard this publican on the radio just now. He says that he has set up a special smoking section which should not affect the non-smokers.

Have we not been over the point a million times before ?
Was he on the moon when Mr Martin explained the whole concept of airborne carcinogens ?

Waste of time arguing with these people (and that includes piggy).

Gaillaimh abu !


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fibber*

*Waste of time arguing with these people (and that includes piggy).*

Considering I'm in support of this ban I don't see your point...unless it's just a sad attempt at trolling?


----------



## Natchessmen (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: a different protest*

There seems to be a misconception that the free market is unrelated to regulation.  This is absolutely not true.  With the freedom to make money comes an obligation to act in responsible way.  No one ever claimed that running a business is easy and regulation makes it more difficult; however the aim in a free market is to gain advantage by out smarting the competition e.g. added service, lower prices, novel product offers or whatever.

But not  for this Western entrepreneur,… breaking the law is his solution, the sign of a bankrupt mind I’d say.  Other ways to turn a profit by breaking the law: Don’t pay taxes, exploit workers, contaminate product. Would “head the ball” in Galway employ these just as easily?  We may not like some laws but I sure as hell don’t feel that I have the right to ignore them.


----------



## rainyday (7 Jul 2004)

*Smokers*

I hear business is down for many coke/smack dealers too following recent Garda seizures. Maybe we should let those parasites sell their addictive wares in the pub too.

The Environmental Health Officers & the Gardai need to shut this guy down straight away. I'll reserve my outrage for parasites like him who make a living hawking addictive substances, whether inside or outside the law.


----------



## Janet (7 Jul 2004)

*huh?*

I'm not quite sure I understand this bit:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gardai don't enforce this law, it would seem that politicians are exempt, if you were fined €3000 in court and couldn't pay you could find yourself in prison (costing the state around €1000 per week) but you would then legally be allow to smoke
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume that when you say "this law" you mean the smoking ban?
Are there instances where this law has not been enforced?  If so I'm all set to drum up a sense of outrage!

What politicians are exempt?  Didn't one even get fired for breaking this ban on the first day?  Did he get re-instated later on or something?


----------



## OhPinchy (7 Jul 2004)

*...*

This guy has got to pay the price for this anarchy. The law is the law, like it or not. An example needs to be made of him by hitting him with several fines, not just a single 3k fine, but a fine for each time he fails to make reasonable attempts to enforce the law, as per the regulations.

This small-minded, militant publican and his like have had it too good for too long and are failing to see that in the free-market - as described above, you must compete on grounds of quality, value etc. Why doesn't he try lowering his prices across the board to increase sales volumes, as every other industry sector has had to do?

Let's just hope that this issue doesn't get clouded in outrage and then, while we are all busy complaining, the authorities fail to apply the law to its full (as per election posters issue - where are the details of who got fined what, as I reckon Gay Mitchell should have got a hefty bill?)


----------



## jem (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: huh?*

I wasn't going to coment but what the hell.
I think this fella in Galway is dead right. He has set up a smoking room upstairs away from the no-smoking area. The non-smokers never need to go up there while the smokers can enjoy their drinks and smokes to their hearts content.
I would point out that cigs are a legal substance the same way as a pint is.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: huh?*

At least you're consistent jem


----------



## jem (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: huh?*

consistent and enjoying a smoke at this very min.


----------



## OhPinchy (7 Jul 2004)

*...*

the law is the law and this man is breaking it, and you seem to be supporting that jem. Before the law was brought in was the time to make these arguments and/or legal challenges. Democracy is based on the rule of law and its not up to each of us to choose which laws to adhere to, that ain't the way it works.

The point that a cigarette is a legal substance is irrelevant - you can have it in your possession, but lighting it in a workplace is against the law. There is ample evidence that demonstrates that having non-smoking sections is not an adequate protection to the health of others nearby. Air conditioning is not an option either as it takes an airchange every 3 minutes to remove the deadly carcinogens that smokers choose to emit into the air, and at this rate everyone in the pub would be frozen.

The law is there to protect the workers' health as their right to health takes precedent...we are each free to act as we please so long as it does not infringe on the human rights of others.


----------



## shnaek (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: ...*

'The law is the law, like it or not' - We are born free my friend. The law may be the law, but as free people we can challenge it. We would still be under British rule (not that that would be a bad thing   ) were it not for certain people breaking the law. In fact, most of the world would be. 

The judicial system is a serious system, deserving of respect and compliance - but when it is abused in a manner which affects our personal freedom then I have to question it. I am a non smoker, but I believe in personal freedom and choice - those great things that we are born with and man is not entitled to take these freedoms from his fellow man.

The job of government is to lead and to be fair. It is not the right of government to tell us adults what we can or cannot do with our own lives. We were born with choice and please God we'll die with it.


----------



## Csider (7 Jul 2004)

*A bit of a stretch*

to compare breaking the smoking ban to people fighting for their freedom from imperialist rule

What would happen to me if I walked into this guys pub and ordered five pints and then refused to pay for them - saying that I didn't like the law that said I had to pay for the drinks.  Would he call the Gardai?


----------



## Pitq (7 Jul 2004)

*smokers and the bandit*

shnaek, all sounds dandy but what about the personal rights of the workers.

should smokers also try and reclaim their rights to smoking in hospitals, offices, cinemas, planes  etc etc

flawed arguments everywhere. great new law. Ireland be proud.


----------



## Westbound (7 Jul 2004)

*The Publican*

They seem to be blind to the normal rules of competition.

Pubs in England compete on price, quality, value etc. In London if you want a cheap pint you go to the lad who sells cheap beer, if you want an expensive drink, you can get it as well.

They harp on about choice when it comes to tyring to have a fag, what about the consumer being denied the chance to choose to buy a pint at a lower price in the same area - they all charge the same. No choice. And saying 'go to the offy' is not a meaningful comparison, some of us still like having a pint in a pub.

That said O'looney's In Harolds X sells Guinness at €2.90 and Lager at €3.50. Why can't they all compete like this?

I have no sympathy for their whining - compete properly and you might make money. Moaning on about the ban clouds the issue and the fact that sales were falling before hand. They might go on about the ban too long and then realise it was the price all along and by that stage it could be too late to save the business.


----------



## michaelm (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: ...*

On a more general note, many Irish people seem to view the legal status of something as the determining factor as to whether it's right or wrong.  I would tend to view the law as a strong suggestion rather than something which must be strictly adhered to and to look at the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law (I know, I know . . tell it to the Judge).  I think laws need to be reasonable, practical and enforceable.  In the 1940’s a German doctor could kill Jews legally however now, naturally, he would be prosecuted for murder. Laws change. Truth and justice don’t.


----------



## piggy (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: ...*

*I think laws need to be reasonable, practical and enforceable*

If this is to apply to rules/laws in general then I see your point.

If you're inferring that the smoking ban does not fit into that category then I'd point out that with 97% compliance it clearly does.


----------



## shnaek (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: ...*

True. People here at work have been harping that 'The law is the law' arguement all day. Laws do indeed change.


----------



## OhPinchy (7 Jul 2004)

*...*

shnaek said 

"I believe in personal freedom and choice - those great things that we are born with and man is not entitled to take these freedoms from his fellow man."

I also fully believe in these values. However, we are all free to exercise our personal freedom and choice only so long as it does not infringe on the human rights of others. Of these human rights, the right to one's health takes precedence over the right of another to exercise their personal freedom and choice. I'm pretty sure somebody can find a reference to the UN Charter for Human Rights that will back this up.

An example: if Anto the boy racer likes driving fast, he is totall free to exercise that personal freedom and choice by renting out a private racing track where he can rally away to his heart's content. However, if Anto were to engage in this sort of wreckless driving on public roads, his actions would be putting the health of others in jeopardy. For this reason we, as a consciencious society, enforce laws to prevent Anto from exercising this particular personal freedom and choice.

Another example is racism: we are all entitled to voice our opinions through free  speech, but a civilised society outlaws racism as it infringes on the human rights of others.

So, apply this to the smoking ban: Anto aslo happens to be a smoker. He is perfectly entitled to smoke in his own home, and in doing so damage his own health. However, he is not entitled to engage in this behaviour in a workplace as this would mean that his own personal choice is damaging the health of those people who work there. We are all entitled to conduct our work in safe environments, so Anto is not permitted to smoke in the workplace.

I agree that sometimes a law should change, though this should only happen when there is a clear consensus amongst the population. Those of our ancestors who fought against British rule were fighting to change the law, but they had the backing of the people. The smoking ban is supported by the vast majority of the people, therefore there is no justification for breaking it.


----------



## shnaek (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: ...*

I take your point, OhPinchy. Perhaps I was being abit over dramatic in my defense of personal freedom. But why not have small bars run by smokers for smokers, for example? We all need to be protected against what Mill called 'the tyrany of the majority'.


----------



## rainyday (8 Jul 2004)

*The Landlord is revolting*

Western Health Board have given the landlord until 4pm on Thursday before they injunct him in the High Court. I don't know why they gave him so long at all at all.


----------



## Sssssmokin (8 Jul 2004)

*Smokers*

rainyday wrote - "The Environmental Health Officers & the Gardai need to shut this guy down straight away. I'll reserve my outrage for parasites like him who make a living hawking addictive substances, whether inside or outside the law."

God forbid an addictive substance should be sold and consumed inside a pub!!!!!


----------



## Natchessmen (8 Jul 2004)

*Lawless by name*

Not sure if it has been mentioned buy this joker's name is Lawless...I ask you!

As as Christy Moore once sang

"he was Lawless by name and lawless by nature
trouble right from the start....

Nature played a trick on Lawless and the humour of nature is cruel
he grew up like we all had expected into a dangerous fool"


----------



## Mr Ed (8 Jul 2004)

*Fibbers*

He said that his non smoking room upstairs was completely seperate from downstairs but on last nights TV you could see the upstairs balcony from down stairs so obviously the smoke would drift.


----------



## McGoo (8 Jul 2004)

*fibber*

He is part owner of at least 5 pubs in Galway. God love him. He can afford to pay a few fines and get great publicity.


----------



## rainyday (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: fibber*



> but on last nights TV you could see the upstairs balcony from down stairs so obviously the smoke would drift


Ah sure that would never happen - he has trained the smoke particles to obey the no-smoking signs downstairs.

Anyone like to join me on an excursion to Fibbers over the weekend? I plan on dropping in and ordering a large round of pints, but then deciding that I can't stay in that smokey atmosphere (after the pints have been poured and before they are paid for).


----------



## Sleeper (8 Jul 2004)

*hide and seek*

Having recently returned from a backpacking trip around europe, we came across a novel idea for keeping the authorities on their toes. Secret bars or "smoke easy clubs" pop up in different locations around a city for 1 or 2 nights at a time, then moves to a new location. You can drink (illegal liquor absynthe) and smoke what you like through the night and hang out in a relaxed manner in places like big house basements, disused factories and buildings. It was so refreshing to see such an inventive and rebellious approach by the people who ran these places.

Let's get the Irish to rebel again, resurrect our fighting spirit, take a stance against repression, c'mon SMOKE SMOKE SMOKE !!!


----------



## Janet (8 Jul 2004)

*support*

I'm one of those people who believe that the health reasons for this ban far outweigh the personal freedom issue.  Anyone know who would be the best person to contact to express my support for the ban and the hope that the authorities really will strictly enforce the law in this case?  I had a quick look at the Oireachtas website but wasn't sure if emailing the party directly would be better or should I just mail the office of tobacco control?  I'm sick of being politically apathetic (sp?) and feel this is too important to let just happen without letting someone know how I feel.


----------



## Guest (8 Jul 2004)

The guy claims that his pub is going out of business due to the smoking ban but ....

(1) He can afford to take lots of time off to highlight his flouting of the ban in the printed and broadcast media?

(2) He can afford the additional expense of engaging a team of legal experts to advise him on his response to the actions of the health board and the threatened high court injunction?

(3) The legal experts in question are willing to take this business from a business that is supposedly threatened with bankruptcy?

(4) He can afford the potential additional expense of fines arising from his flouting of the ban.

Er, excuse me while I take this large pinch of salt... :\


----------



## Tommy (8 Jul 2004)

The Vintners Association cannot be seen to back an illegal action on the parts of any of its members (as was the case with the farmers' pickets a few years ago orchestrated by "sources close to the IFA leadership" but officially disowned by the IFA). However, publicans will be "unofficially" pooling their legal and financial resources to fight this case if they think it is worth doing so, including funding the cost of legal fees and fines. This doesn't appear to be the sort of initiative that any publican could afford to take on their own.


----------



## michaelm (8 Jul 2004)

It's easy to get sidetracked in to whether the smoking ban is hurting this guys business or how may pubs he has or his real motives but that is irrelevant.

I couldn't care less about publicans.  They operate local cartels with the aid of the state limiting licences so there is no price competition.  Can the state do anything right?  Anything at all?  Anyone who meets a few simple criteria should be able to open a pub under a certain size and the licence should be renewed yearly for a nominal fee.  

The state regulation of drinking hours in pubs is another nonsense.  I think it was last year when the Minister for Justice decided I couldn't get a drink in a pub up to 12.30am on a Thursday anymore.  The week before I wouldn't have been breaking any law but all of a sudden I'm a criminal and the Minister is sending some young Garda to abuse me and collect some revenue for the state.  Perhaps he was worried that I might phone in sick to work on the Friday.  Pub hours should be 'recommended hours' by the VFI.  The smoking ban is just a further attempt to micromanage people lives in this increasingly nanny state.


----------



## piggy (8 Jul 2004)

*Pub hours should be 'recommended hours' by the VFI.* 

Eh...if that was the case, every publican in Dublin would laugh at it and open for as long as they wanted, ie all night every night. Given the violence and general state of Dublin on some saturday nights I'm not sure that would be such a great idea. I've lived in cities where they had 24 hr pubs, but they didn't have the drinking culture we have over here. Look at what's happening in Britain at the moment and the problems they're having with binge drinking (and measures they're having to take).

*The smoking ban is just a further attempt to micromanage people lives in this increasingly nanny state.* 

It's quite clearly not. The 'nanny state' argument is pathetic in my opinion. Non-smokers health rights are *above* the rights of smokers. Full stop. Any argument after that is overshadowed by that fact....which is why the ban is so popular throughout the country.


----------



## slammed (8 Jul 2004)

I'm living in Germany now and I miss the smoke free pubs of Ireland. I'm proud of Ireland leading the way with the ban. I'll be so sorry if this 'rebellion' spreads. It reminds me of being back in school dying to break the rules just for the hell of it. It all sounds like schoolboy antics. Sure there is some craic with rule breaking but wise up. The law is there for good reason.

I had the displeasure yesterday of listening to Liveline. (Isn't the Internet great?) Derek Davis was definitely bias in getting his old fashion point of view across and made sure his callers backed up his view. Even if as he said 'I work for RTE, I'm not allow to have a personal opinion.'

Women being forced to smoke in the street. The older generation don't think it's 'ladylike'. Yeah, and ladies shouldn't drink pints either.


----------



## Siddo (8 Jul 2004)

*Fw*

Anyone who rejects the smoking ban is ignoring the following:


     Smoking causes cardiovascular , respiratory , cancerous diseases and premature death. Ad in the lack of Oxygen to the brain , low blood flow , bad breath , eyesight , superficial damage to skin and teeth plus the odd voice box , windpipe , lung and you got allot of problems , mostly incurable ones.

Thankfully these people are a dying breed (as per above ) ,their own ignorance of the problem will undoubtedly lead to their physical demise. It will be too late for them when they are stuck in a Cancer Ward , Respirator or operating theater when they finally realise that they where ignorant of the most important thing in their life , their body!

Dont hold out on Fibbers contributing to your funeral expenses either


----------



## rainyday (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

Maybe somebody should tell Mr Lawless that real reason why his turnover is down;

1) Fibbers is a student pub, and they've all gone home for the summer
2) Eyre Square is and has been a building site for quite some time now, not encouraging a passing trade.


----------



## shnaek (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

It is interesting to note that despite the fact that we hear of 97% compliance and what a 'popular' piece of legislation this is - 5-7 live had a survey yesterday where support for Mr Lawless was 45% to 55% against. Also, TV3 ran a similar poll asking if there should be special smoking rooms and a majority supported that. Sounds like a divisive issue to me.

Also, an individuals health definitely outweighs and individuals right to smoke, but a smoker should be allowed serve drink to other smokers in a location where all can smoke. I cannot see a problem with this.


----------



## rainyday (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*



> but a smoker should be allowed serve drink to other smokers in a location where all can smoke.


And by the same logic, a builder who doesn't like hard hats should be allowed go without it, a builder who doesn't mind asbestos should be allowed go without protective clothing, a hot-head hot-hatch driver who doesn't like seatbelts should be allowed do without, a biker who doesn't like crash helmets should be allowed do without - OK?


----------



## Guest (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

> 5-7 live had a survey yesterday where support for Mr Lawless was 45% to 55% against. Also, TV3 ran a similar poll asking if there should be special smoking rooms and a majority supported that.

Populist phone in polls are not really a reliable indicator of general public opinion nor are they statistically sound (e.g. sample size may be limited and is self selecting etc.).


----------



## Bongo (8 Jul 2004)

*Seventh Commandment*



> Anyone like to join me on an excursion to Fibbers over the weekend? I plan on dropping in and ordering a large round of pints, but then deciding that I can't stay in that smokey atmosphere (after the pints have been poured and before they are paid for).


  Rainyday, that's incitement to steal. :smokin  :hat


----------



## michaelm (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

Just reading the last comment by rainyday and I'm not convinced that the state should be forcing adult citizens to protect themselves.  I would agree that Health & Safety is important and hardhats & seatbelts etc should be provided however I'm not sure that the state should force a builder to wear a hardhat nor a driver to wear a seatbelt nor a biker to wear a helmet.  Life is full or risks but individuals should be able to decide which ricks to take and which to avoid.


----------



## piggy (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

*I'm not convinced that the state should be forcing adult citizens to protect themselves...I'm not sure that the state should force...a driver to wear a seatbelt*

Michael,

What happens when the driver has a crash with other passengers in his car and because he was exercising his right not to wear a seatbelt he kills everyone in the car?
Seatbelts were invented and are enforced for a very good reason.


----------



## michaelm (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

Indeed piggy.  The power of advertising.  This is way off the original topic and I know I should just drop this but anyway . . I think seatbelts came in in 1973 or there abouts and the result was an increase in road accidents and deaths.  As extra safety features are added to cars and roads improved accidents go up.  It's an old idea but the best way to reduce road accidents would be to remove all safety features and put a metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel.

I except that by your own actions you shouldn't put others at undue risk however I don't think the government should legislate away an individuals right to take risks.  Was being a barman before the smoking ban any more hazardous than working in a chemical factory or a glue factor or a cement factory or a building site or on an oil rig or being in the army bomb disposal team etc etc . . ?


----------



## piggy (8 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

*It's an old idea but the best way to reduce road accidents would be to remove all safety features and put a metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel.*

:lol 

What if someone rear ended you?????

We'd have no more whiplash cases anymore that's for sure...we'd all be dead!!


----------



## slammed (8 Jul 2004)

*Free Will*

Yes we are free (in the sense we have ability to) to break the law but then there are consequences. Some actions have dire consequences. Killing, maim, disease-causing, murder. We all have free will. But does that make it right?

Funny how I think it is the older generation that is rebelling. I think the younger people are more in favour of it. Even the younger smokers.

Why is this an issue only for pubs? Aren't all workplaces affected by this 'right to smoke'? What would my boss and colleagues think of me if I just light up and smoke now in front of my computer.  Do I have right to smoke here?

Smoking in the pubs is just about money and profit. Publicans had it so easy for so long. They just need to adapt to the new marketing conditions. Like any business.


----------



## Summer (8 Jul 2004)

*Live and Let Live*

What would be wrong with having smoking pubs? If the owner/barman has no problem then leave people alone. Non smokers can go elsewhere.


----------



## piggy (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Live and Let Live*

*What would be wrong with having smoking pubs? If the owner/barman has no problem then leave people alone. Non smokers can go elsewhere.*

There'd be lots wrong with it.

For a start, what about the other staff bar the owner working there? Do they have no rights?

Wouldn't existing pub owners just switch their business back to smoking pubs, thereby making the idea of non-smoking pubs non-existent bringing us back to the original problem?


----------



## shnaek (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Live and Let Live*



> Populist phone in polls are not really a reliable indicator of general public opinion nor are they statistically sound (e.g. sample size may be limited and is self selecting etc.).



Just to respond to that point - the number who took part in the 5-7 poll was just over the 22,000 mark - not an insignificant amount.



> For a start, what about the other staff bar the owner working there? Do they have no rights?



What if they are all smokers? What if a law was framed so that a publican could open a 10mtr or xmtr sq amount of enclosed space where smokers would serve other smokers beer? Then many pubs could not just change over to smoking. There are innovative ways around issues without the black and white 'ban it or allow it' viewpoint.


----------



## Guest (9 Jul 2004)

> Just to respond to that point - the number who took part in the 5-7 poll was just over the 22,000 mark - not an insignificant amount.

Yes - but it's a self selecting sample so it's still not statistically sound.


----------



## slammed (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Live and Let Live*



> What if they are all smokers?


Isn't this measure also help to encourage people to reduce smoking as a positive effect as well as to protect the health of non-smokes? What incentive does a barperson have to quit if he or see has to be a smoker to wok in 'smoking area'.

Reducing smoking in society should in the long term help to improve society's health. Of course there are other health issues still to be tackled but doesn't mean we should ignore the health of the people.


----------



## shnaek (9 Jul 2004)

*Re:  Re: Live and Let Live*

Ever hear of personal responsibility? Or should the government take responsibility for us all?


----------



## slammed (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Live and Let Live*

We still have the freedom to smoke and the personal freedom to quit or not. The government has not banned smoking.

There is a balance to be made. Banning smoking in the workplace is where I draw the line. All laws to some degree restrict freedom but hopefully for the common good. E.g. restrictions on speeding, compliance to pay taxes.

If personal responsbility works why do we have laws?


----------



## Natchessmen (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Live and Let die*

News at 6 said that this jerk in Galway has called off his pathetic protest.  McDowell intimated on 57live that there may be objections to the renewal of his licience.


----------



## Ashtray (9 Jul 2004)

*Pub closing*

News also said the pub was closing for the forseeable future. Why is this I wonder? Surely some custom is better than none at all and, let's face it, that pub will be packed with curious punters after all the publicity it got


----------



## Simon and Garfunkel (9 Jul 2004)

*deep throat*

Micky Martin said on TodayFM that he suspected that the Tobacco industry were trying to stir up some protest. Bit of a conspiracy theory but they have been known to be ruthless and it seems many other European countries are bringing in workplace smoking legislation so turnover must be falling dramatically.


----------



## rainyday (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*



> I'm not sure that the state should force a builder to wear a hardhat nor a driver to wear a seatbelt nor a biker to wear a helmet. Life is full or risks but individuals should be able to decide which ricks to take and which to avoid.


And presumably you are quite happy to pay taxes to cover the healthcare of those people who chose to take a few risks? And to pay for the 24x7x365 nursing care for the biker who smashed his skull in the bike accident?


----------



## shnaek (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*

So it is to save money that we implement these laws?


----------



## michaelm (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: Fw*



> And presumably you are quite happy to pay taxes to cover the healthcare of those people who chose to take a few risks? And to pay for the 24x7x365 nursing care for the biker who smashed his skull in the bike accident?



Must everything be costed?  In that case should we simply terminate old or sick people because it might cost money to look after them?  Surely there's more to life than being a bean counter.  You might know the cost of everything but can you put a value on personal freedom?


----------



## Willy (9 Jul 2004)

*indeed*

Almost as moving as William Wallace speech in Braveheart.

The Smoking Ban - A Cause to die for !!

When will we see the first smoking ban martyr ?

Let them all smoke outside, get pneumonia and then give up in hospital.


----------



## shnaek (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: indeed*

But if they get pneumonia and then go to hospital it'll cost the taxpayer.
Better watch those fatties out there too. They might cost us money in healthcare in the future.


----------



## piggy (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: indeed*

*Better watch those fatties out there too. They might cost us money in healthcare in the future.*

Actually shnaek, you're quite right. Obesity is going to become more and more of a problem for us in Ireland and more of a strain on our healthcare and a problem for the health of Irish people in general.


----------



## rainyday (9 Jul 2004)

*Re: indeed*

You're sidestepping the financial question, which is a very real issue. Personal choice is fine when it doesn't impinge on others, either financially or socially. I can't see any value on 'personal choice' which leaves the rest of society to pick up the damage. I can't understand why anyone could hail the importance of 'personal choice' under common sense matters like wearing of seat-belts given [broken link removed].


----------



## Paul (10 Jul 2004)

*smoking ban*

Fair dues to the govt for introducing the ban on smoking in the workplace.   It is great.    Any bars are complaining about a downturn in business should lower their prices a bit.


----------



## Michael (13 Jul 2004)

*Reply to Willy*

"When will we see the first smoking ban martyr ?"

Dunno, but there's definately a few pregnancies. Non smokers are going outside for the "chat"!


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (13 Jul 2004)

*.*

The solution to rainyday's health care problem is pretty simple. Give people the choice to opt out of the welfare state.


----------



## OpusnBill (13 Jul 2004)

*Opting out*

Hi XXXAnother PersonXXX,


"The solution to rainyday's health care problem is pretty simple. Give people the choice to opt out of the welfare state."

Of course it is, by the way can I opt out of the taxation  system because I pay too much and while we're at it, can I also opt out of the justice system so that I can beat the living carp out of those smokers next time I see them lighting up in the pub/street/own homes etc etc..?

Could you just THINK about what you said in your email?

Jeez! :rolleyes 

OpusnBill


----------



## rainyday (13 Jul 2004)

*Re: Opting out*



> The solution to rainyday's health care problem is pretty simple. Give people the choice to opt out of the welfare state.


Doesn't work that way. What's going to happen when the smoker is coughing up his cancerous lungs on the hospital doorstep - Do you really think he will be refused entry?


----------



## Guest (13 Jul 2004)

*.*

>  The solution to rainyday's health care problem is pretty simple. Give people the choice to opt out of the welfare state.

I can see it now - XXXAnother PersonXXX stocking up on tins of beans and AK-47s and heading to the Wicklah hills Michigan Militia style to hole up until Armageddon! :lol


----------



## joesoapy (14 Jul 2004)

*Smoking causes cancer*

Passive smoking causes cancer and other health problems

There was a case taken by a pub worker in Australia who sued for passive smoking damage and won her case

Let publicans open smoking pubs, if they are willing to sign a document stating that their non-smoking staff can sue them if they do contract any passive smoking diseases


----------



## Prometheus2 (14 Jul 2004)

Going back to the point about it being a personal choice for a construction worker to wear a hardhat or a motorist to wear a seatbelt. I don't agree with this. What if a worker decides not to wear a hardhat and a block falls on him. Lets say he is working on a scaffold with a colleague at the time and knocks his colleague off the scaffold. Same thing with seatbelts. If a motorist fails to wear a seatbelt he is not just endangering himself. If a backseat passenger is not belted in and a crash occurs the passenger may harm the driver. As on the TV ad. These rules and regulations are not just put in place for the safety of the individual. They are put in place for the safety of all those involved in a possible accident. Personal choice is ok to a point but when the health of others is involved a line must be drawn. 

Therefore I don't see any issue with the smoking ban. Shnaek said it should not be as simple as a black or white ban, i.e ban it or allow it. But it is this simple. People are entitled to a safe working environment and if that means customers have to do without their cigarette/cigar/pipe while having a pint or carrying out any other kind of business well then so be it.


----------



## shnaek (14 Jul 2004)

People are indeed entitled to a safe working environment, but if you own a small bar and you are a smoker and you allow people to smoke I cannot see the problem here. There are very few black and white issues in life as I see it.


----------



## cushtie (14 Jul 2004)

> People are indeed entitled to a safe working environment, but if you own a small bar and you are a smoker and you allow people to smoke I cannot see the problem here.



Thats all very well until you take a week off for a holiday / get sick even and hire someone in to look after the bar for you. Your premises now becomes a workplace, so do you enforce the law just for this week.


----------



## rainyday (14 Jul 2004)

> you allow people to smoke I cannot see the problem here.



You may not see the problem, but the delivery guy who has to enter your bar for deliveries might see a problem, and the environmental health officer who has to enter your bar for inspections might see a problem, and the electrician/plumber who has to maintain the equipment in your bar might see a problem etc etc.


----------



## michaelm (14 Jul 2004)

IMHO

The smoking ban and indeed the penalty points system are a ploy to make it look like the government are taking action on health and road deaths.  There is no imagination in either policy simply the 'stick' approach.  Clearly in the face of breaking the election promise to clear hospital waiting lists within two years they had to come up with something which was inexpensive and would occupy the public and more importantly the media and take the focus off the huge waiting lists.  It has worked brilliantly in this regard.

The health system is crazy . . workers are forced to pay a 2% health levy toward the public health system but as the system is rubbish most workers also pay private health insurance (the majority VHI, also state owned).  The private health insurers rent beds from the public funded hospitals and because there is a huge waiting list on the public side the treatment purchase fund (tax payers again) rents beds from the private hospitals.  On top of this tax payers money has been going to subsidize the building of private hospitals.  Is it just me or is this a system which could only be developed in Ireland?

On the penalty points side the state don't really care about road deaths.  If they did they would reduce VRT so that base car models would be better equipped re safety as the current situation is that many safety features are left out of cars for the Irish market to keep down the price.  I don't thing anyone (maybe one person) has been put of the road but it has certainly generated a lot of revenue for the state.  In fairness given that most fatal accidents happen at the weekend, at night on back roads, the points system which is enforced on nice sunny days on major carriageways possibly has no effect on road death figures.

A few years ago while sitting at lights a Garda knocked on my car window and told me that both my brake lights were out.  He said they probably blew applying the brakes while going over a bump.  Makes sense.  I thanked him and replaced the bulbs that day.  If the same thing happened today I would receive 4 points (I think it's 4) and a fine taking up Garda time and starting a needless paper trail.  Is the points approach in this case making the roads any safer?  Even if you check all your lights every time you get in your car you can not be certain that a bulb won't blow en-route and then even the most compliant citizen could get the points but not the point.

END


----------



## N0elC (14 Jul 2004)

Shouldn't we have mandatory sprinkler systems introduced in every pub as part of their licence renewal ?

This way, inconsiderate smokers would result in the whole place getting a nice soaking. I don't think too many people would visit errant pubs if they knew they were likely to get a free shower !!!


----------



## piggy (14 Jul 2004)

*The smoking ban and indeed the penalty points system are a ploy to make it look like the government are taking action on health and road deaths.*

The issue of penalty points aside (a lot of which I'd agree with you) and even putting aside this governments failings on health...the ban on smoking will eventually result in a fall off in the number of young smokers thus alleviating problems with cancer sufferers in years to come.

The net overall result is a health benefit.


----------



## ajapale (14 Jul 2004)

*Fire Insurance, Public Liability and Illegal Activity*

Noel,

This is interesting, Is fibber magee's fire insurance invalid if the owners permit illegal activity involving lighting paper and leaves?

ajapale


----------



## rainyday (14 Jul 2004)

Hi MichaelM - THe penalty points system is nothing to do with money. It runs alongside and in addition to the existing system of fines. It does not raise additional revenue.

While I share many of your concerns about the health service, I don't see the relevance of this to the debate on the smoking ban. It's not as if Martin was facing a choice of *either* the smoking ban *or* reduced waiting lists. The ban proceeded because of its own merit, and is probably the one positive thing this Govt has done in 8 years.


----------



## Maceface (14 Jul 2004)

What the penalty points or hospital waiting lists have to do with the smoking ban, I don't know. I think people bring in these issues to distort the facts and the argument.

The smoking ban is good for me. It is good for you. 
Smokers are inconvienced by it, but surely if this means that some of them will give up or cut back, then it is a good thing.

How many people who are against this ban would like to bring back the days where people could smoke on the bus, in the cinema or even at their desks in work?

I find it hypocritical anyone who says that we should not be allowed to smoke in these places, but yet still smoke in the pub.

I, like most people here have spent a lot of time in the pub over my life, and I know that no matter how good any ventilation system is, it does nothing when the person at the table next to you blows their smoke towards you.
I don't think too much about the health consequences, but I do get really peed off with the arrogance that someone can do that and think nothing of it. Like someone belching towards me and they have been eating garlic.

I don't care about the bar workers or their health, I care about myself (like almost everyone else) and I want to be able to go out in a smoke free environment.


----------



## shnaek (14 Jul 2004)

I think the point being made on the penalty points and hospital waiting lists was to with the suspicion that these were easy things to bring in and keep people distracted when the real issues regarding health is the state of our health system and regarding road safety is the state of our roads. Bringing in these sort of measures helps a government that is unable to make hard decisions.

I agree with many of the points made above. I far prefer going to the pub as it is now - smoke free. I love waking up in the morning without the smell of smoke on my clothes. But the plight of the minority must be considered and I would always seek to accomodate them if the means were there to do that without damaging the health/safety etc. of the majority.


----------



## michaelm (14 Jul 2004)

> While I share many of your concerns about the health service, I don't see the relevance of this to the debate on the smoking ban.



Hi rainyday - I was expressing my opinion that the motivation for the smoking ban had less to do with workers health (not applied to all work places) and was more intended as smoke screen for our ruins of a health system.   They should put €3 on a pack or 20 and direct it to cancer research but they are afraid of the effect on the consumer price index.



> What the penalty points or hospital waiting lists have to do with the smoking ban, I don't know. I think people bring in these issues to distort the facts and the argument.



Hi Maceface - I have made no attempt to distort anything.  The thread has meandered somewhat and some of my comments may have been off the original subject line but if you were following the thread you wouldn't be put off by this.

I am a non-smoker so this ban suits me however I am just concerned at the trend of the state trying to micromanage peoples lives and bombarding us with warning of penalties over the smoking ban, penalty points, TV licence etc.  The justice minister continues to give more powers to the Gardai despite the fact that they don't use many of the powers they already have.  I just see personal freedoms starting to slip away.

I accept that I may have a minority opinion but this is the 'Letting Off Steam' section isn't it?   ah . . I feel much better now.


----------



## rainyday (14 Jul 2004)

See today's Indo for some interesting updates on this story;

First pub set to face court action

No butts, bars warned

Publicans back 'Fibber' boss's legal challenge

Great to see the butts issue being seriously addressed.


----------



## N0elC (15 Jul 2004)

The big American tobacco companies must be looking on at the success of the smoking ban in lil ol' Ireland with a great degree of alarm. If it works here, then it'll roll out across the rest of Europe.

I wonder if they're funding any of this campaign ?


----------



## ajapale (15 Jul 2004)

Noel,

Another interesting observation!

Have you noticed the timing of the more recent 'revolts' correlates more closely with events in the UK than here in Ireland? 

Has anyone sought to challenge the publicans when they say that business is down X%? These anecdotal figures are reported worldwide as if fact. Check out 'Google news' and see. The publicans should be challenged hard and fast when they make these unsubstantiated assertions.

Did anyone notice the 'so-called' independent survey carried out by "Behaviour and Attitudes" last week? Who commissioned the survey by this reputable firm? What were the questions asked? Are the results and methodology published in a public forum?

Finally, pick any political issue and ask people whether they support 'compromise' you will nearly always get a majority to agree. The so-called 'pro-compromise' view is a spurious argument.

Any comments on whether publicans in breach of the smoking regulations have invalid fire and public liability insurance? If publicans broke the law by adulterating drink with say 'anti-freeze' to improve profits I suspect their public liability insurance would be invalid. However I might be wrong.

Yes Big Tobacco have some Big Brains working on this one.

ajapale


----------



## rainyday (16 Jul 2004)

Some interesting updates from [broken link removed] regarding the impacts of the smoking ban in New York;



> • The city’s health authorities have found that air samples showed a six-fold reduction in air pollution levels in establishments, which previously allowed smoking.
> • A nicotine by-product, which is used to determine exposure to second-hand smoke in bar workers was found to have reduced by 85 percent.
> • Employment in restaurants and bars *has increased by 10,600 jobs*. Business and tax receipts in restaurants and bars *are up almost ten percent*.


----------



## Guest (16 Jul 2004)

> Some interesting updates from VHI news regarding the impacts of the smoking ban in New York;

Isn't it the case that the NY ban is no longer total and that certain exemptions are now granted? If so perhaps comparison with Ireland are not that meaningful? In any case increases in employment and turnover could well be related to wider economic factors that don't necessarily prevail here... ?


----------



## Michael (16 Jul 2004)

*Insurance*

Re: "This is interesting, Is fibber magee's fire insurance invalid if the owners permit illegal activity involving lighting paper and leaves?"

On the other hand have pubs premiums been reduced because of the obvious risk potential removal?

I'ld say not.


----------



## ajapale (16 Jul 2004)

*People who breach smoke ban ‘may be denied entry to US’*

Yes Michael I doubt if the decrease in risk will be reflected in premiums paid.

Another interesting point this time from IOL.

[broken link removed]



> People who breach smoke ban ‘may be denied entry to US’
> 16/07/2004 - 10:30:15
> 
> The Department of Health has reportedly claimed that smokers prosecuted for breaching the workplace smoking ban risk not being permitted entry to the US or Australia.
> ...


----------

