Fibber Magee's breaking the smoking ban

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.
 
Re: fibber

but on last nights TV you could see the upstairs balcony from down stairs so obviously the smoke would drift
Click to expand...
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).
 
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 !!!
 
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.
 
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... :\
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Re: Fw

but a smoker should be allowed serve drink to other smokers in a location where all can smoke.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.).
 
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).
Click to expand...
Rainyday, that's incitement to steal. :smokin :hat
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 . . ?
 
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!! ;)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top