# Total smoking ban in public places in Ireland, well done!!



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

This is enforced from tonight and it is great news. Finally the smoke free environment has reached Europe and I hope that UK will adopt this by next year.

As I hate smoking I avoid going to pubs and clubs as it is disgusting. I end up with sore throat and smell all over myself and my clothes.

Smokers have been complaining that it is their right to smoke if they want to. What about my right not be passive smoker? :x

Finally the time has come for smoke free public places...I can breath again!! Now we have to make sure that people stop farting as well.


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

If you dont like it, walk away...cough.... :x

But seeing as I gave up smoking 4 weeks ago, err, well said :roll:


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Well I think it's totally wrong to ban it. Smacks of nanny state and "big brother knows better" etc etc. :x

If you don't want to be a passive smoker, don't go into places where people smoke. If on average most people agree with you and stop going to such places, the owner of the restaurant / pub / bar will make it no smoking. This seems to work fine IMO: if I don't want to come home smelling of smoke, then I go to a place where it's not allowed, if I'm not fussed, then I go to a place where it is allowed.

My point is that it's much better if the "market" decides such things, not a government.

Lastly, can you imagine what pubs would smell of if they weren't smoky? :roll:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

The problem is that non smokers are discriminated. Because only at restaurants they have smoking and non smoking areas. So if you want to go the pub or a club you have to choke, which is not fair.

What would be better is if they had smoking and non smoking areas in pubs and clubs, but can't see how it can work.

In Ireland if you smoke the fine would be 3k euros. If the manager doesn't enforce it, he can be fine 3k euros. I can't wait when similar things would happen here. I know it will happen, but the quicker it happens the better would be.

If people don't smoke in pubs, the pub would smell of fresh brew and nice beer. Then you can enjoy the full taste of alcohol without the smoke in your nose and mouth.

It is also great news for non smokers that work in these places. They are victims and they have to suffer because they need the money. Justice is coming...finally.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

That's the first time I have ever heard of non-smokers described as being discriminated against. Smokers are the most persecuted and over taxed group of individuals (closely followed by the motorist) and are seen simply as an easy target by succesive governments who source huge amounts of revenue by taxing **** in the pretence that they are trying to discourage people to smoke.

If landlords wanted to make their pubs smoke free, they can do so. Why do you think they haven't? I'll tell you why, it's because they would lose customers. Imagine two bars / clubs next to each other. One of them has banned smoking. Which do you think would be more popular?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I think it is a very good idea that some public places have chosen to ban smoking. I don't smoke, never have and never will, but can see that it will interfere with the social aspect of going out. I can't really see people leaving the pub for a quick ciggie outside the landlord's doors with a couple of dozen of other people who smoke, to then nip back to their table to then sip their drink. Can you?


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

Abi - with you on this.

No, I can't.

Imagine what it's going to be like after a few pints. Someone lights up. Someone else complains.
The fight starts early..... :?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

raven said:


> If landlords wanted to make their pubs smoke free, they can do so. Why do you think they haven't? I'll tell you why, it's because they would lose customers. Imagine two bars / clubs next to each other. One of them has banned smoking. Which do you think would be more popular?


That's why it will be enforced by law, like it did in Ireland. So smokers will either have to go out to smoke or don't smoke at all.

The disrcimination comment refers to why is the smoker free to smoke in a pub and I am not free to breath fresh air? Smoking kills and I would rather die from natural causes than being forced to inhale smoke. The smokers time is limited. They were free to smoke in public places for far too long without respecting non smokers.

I don't know see that smoking is an integral part of the socialising life, but just a nasty habit that smokers will do every day. So they would either have to go out and smoke (very tricky as some pub licenses do not allow alcohol consumption outside the premises -although they can leave the drink inside and go out for a bit), not smoke at all, or start using nicotine patches!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Don't I Recognise You? said:


> Abi - with you on this.
> 
> No, I can't.
> 
> ...


...and the police is called and they fine you for smoking illegally and arrest you for fighting and the landlord bans you from the pub! How nice outcome just for a cigarette? :?

Do your colleagues light up a cigarette inside the office? NO, because it is illegal. So why do it in the pub, when it will become illegal?


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm very glad about this too as i can't stand the smell of ****.

Hope it catches on over here in Blighty


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

> ...and the police is called and they fine you for smoking illegally


Good use of police time :?


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

vlastan said:


> Don't I Recognise You? said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine what it's going to be like after a few pints. Someone lights up. Someone else complains.
> ...


Having seen what some people do after a few pints - *thinking* about the consequences of what is almost an automatic action, is not going to feature very highly....

Ah - but leaving your desk for a *** break means you get a break from work, whereas leaving your pint for a *** break is considered less of a good thing! 

More seriously tho - pub taking *will* (IMO) plumet.
Smokers will *not* (on the whole) give up smoking - yes, of course there will be some for whom this is would be the final 'push' they need to give up.
But most either don't want to, or can't.

They will be left with a choice - smoke or beer.
For some, beer will win.

For others - smoking.
Either way, pub revenue will decline.

Smokers choosing to go out, but smoke outside, will consume less beer.
Smokers choosing not to go to the pub at all - will obviously hit pub profits.

Just saying it as I see it!

And not trying to weigh up pub profits vs health issues of passive smoking!


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> This is enforced from tonight and it is great news. Finally the smoke free environment has reached Europe and I hope that UK will adopt this by next year.
> 
> As I hate smoking I avoid going to pubs and clubs as it is disgusting. I end up with sore throat and smell all over myself and my clothes.
> 
> ...


Total & utter bull$hit.

Smoking is not anti-social when compared to bad driving or drinking etc. When was the last time you saw a fight kick off due to over smoking?? When was the last time you saw anti-social behaviour due to over smoking??. Using your point, alcohol should be banned, as should all vehicles. The smell from car/truck/bus exhausts after walking down the road for 10mins is just as bad as a night out, plus if you're hygene levels are average, then you'd be putting your clothes in the wash after a night on the town regardless of smoke.

I've now given up smoking & am happy i have, but its bollox for the government to ban something like this & take one of many peoples pleasures away from them. They'd soon reverse this decision if the smokers decided to drink more alcohol to replace the smoking.

One final point, if the entire UK smoking population decided to give up smoking at the same time, have you any idea on the size of the revenue shortfall in this country?? it runs into Billions of Â£Â£ & has numerous times been shown to be far far lower than the cost of smoking related bad health costs to the NHS, so if they all gave up, your tax liability would increase by a significant amount.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > This is enforced from tonight and it is great news. Finally the smoke free environment has reached Europe and I hope that UK will adopt this by next year.
> ...


But I am not comparing smoking to bad driving or drinkinkg!!

I never said that oversmoking brings fights. Read again, someone else mentioned this above.

The smells from the road traffic is nothing compared to the cigarette filled up room within a pub. At least the road traffic fumes are outside and not enclosed in a room like a pub.

The government is not taking anybody's pleasure away. It is trying to create a fair environment for all of us. I have suffered so many years as a passive smoker and there is time where non smokers should get a fair deal too. Why should I be made to smoke when I don't want?

This is not a taxation issue. I don't discuss the implication to the tax office if people would stop smoking. This is there to give me a fair chance to enjoy an evening out without chocking in smoke, that's all.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

t'was I that brought up the fighting issue 

My suggestion was that after (several) pints, a smoker is very likely to spark one up on auto pilot.
If an ardent non-smoker (also a few pints worse for wear) chooses that as an oppourtunity to ask the smoker to kindly extinguish his cigarette, I can see things swiftly getting out of hand.

(was going to say 'flare up', or 'go up in smoke', but seemed a bit obvious )

Given that fights can break out over such weighty issues as 'you looking at me?', or 'Oi, that's MY pint'........ :?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LOL...Just had a funny thought here :idea: .

The smoking office worker goes out for their lunch down the local pub who has banned ciggies as well as his office where he works. He drinks more without realising it because he hasn't had a ciggie to pop in his mouth :lol: ! Comes back to the office pi$$ed! ooops forgets and has a ciggie at his desk in a banned office! LOLOL. Oh christ hell breaks out! LOL.

A pub is a social place where you go for a couple of hours or so. An office you sit in for most of your day (longer than you see your family)! I think it is a little harsh on smokers banning this in pubs, but I think possibly at the end of the day it will be down to the landlord's descretion OR they will have a smoking area and non smoking area like most restraunts have.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


I never said you did mention fighting, i was just making the point. As you quote smoking as being anti-social, then you are making a comparison to bad driving or over drinking.

You can't say that its only the smell of smoke thats offensive, i find vehicle exhaust fumes nasty, but i don't stay hidden away indoors, i also find the smell of fuel quite nasty, but i still buy it (in huge quantities  ) & ia also find smelly people very offensive, but i can't get them banned, so the same should apply to smoking. As long as i have a choice to sit in a smokey room or not to, then thats fine by me.

I'm all for stopping smoking in very confined spaces, like offices, trains & aircraft but FFS banning it basically everywhere is crazy.

As an ex-smoker, i never smoked in my house, in my car or in the company of friends who were non-smokers & never at the dinner table, but if i wanted to smoke, i'd slope of to the bar (this is no bad thing) or out of the way, that way i was being a considerate smoker. The idea of anyone banning any social activity that is not offensive or basically against the law is ridiculous. Yet another stupid law that will no doubt waste a fortune to enforce.

Matter is closed as far as i'm concerned.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Paul,

Car exhaust fume are outside not inside, so the comparison is not valid. People that smoke outside don't bother me at all, as they only harm themselves and not me.

You can avoid smelly people but not going near them. But you cannot avoid breathing cigarette smoke in a smoke filled room.

I do not find this a silly law at all. It is a god send and one of the best laws that I am hoping will be introduced in the UK too soon. They law is already in place in America. And I guess it works well if Ireland adopted it too. So why not the UK?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Fcuking pathetic. A good reason not to visit Eire. The French tried it a few years ago - they soon forgot about it. This should be entirely at the discretion of landlords and punters should be allowed to vote with their feet.

Pubs and smokers go together. There are fcuking Latte Bars, Harvesters, and Pizza Huts for the riff raff to go to if they don't like the smell of smoking.

I personally don't like the smell of poor people (wee and fried food). Can we ban them from public places too? :wink:

Long live the Public Bar.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

[smiley=smoking.gif] Think I will stick to passive smoking then [smiley=smoking.gif]


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Paul,
> 
> Car exhaust fume are outside not inside, so the comparison is not valid. People that smoke outside don't bother me at all, as they only harm themselves and not me.
> 
> ...


Bollox again. The US Government have not passed this as law, as you can smoke in 99% of places in the US, along with all but a couple of cities.

Los Angeles is the most noticable & given that place stinks with or without smoking & the millions of tons of pollution (localy called the haze), the smoking ban is seen as a joke in that city.

All i can say (as i thought i'd already closed this matter :wink: ) is that its a stupid law in Ireland & a stupid law in the couple of US cities that have adopted the same. Smoking is already a no no in almost all workplaces (can't remember how long ago it was when i last went into an office that had smoking allowed), but banning smoking in places of social activity is stupid & pointless & i hope the affected establishments find their revenue fall as a result.

Gary,

Poor people really do hum & should be banned from society. If they pass a no smelly people & no exhaust fumes law, then a smoking ban should rightly follow, but until such time, leave peoples social habits alone.

They'll be banning oral sex on planes next, calling this anti social.  8) :wink:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

garyc said:


> I personally don't like the smell of poor people (wee and fried food). Can we ban them from public places too? :wink:


Winky or not fantastically non PC Gary and very funny. Sometimes it is better to shoot from the hip and not mind our P's and Q's even if tounge and cheek!

What about poor smokers? Or given the tax do the two go hand in hand. :wink:


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

I reckon a smoking ban's not going to help. It would be a much better idea in my opinion to make compulsory non-smoking areas in restaurants, and make it optional in pubs. They should be classed on how smoking friendly they are and have a sticker on the door. Smoking should be banned at the bar, and small places should be able to get exemptions. And while they're at it, they should force bars to have a seat to floor area ratio limit in pubs, to stop the ridiculous "cram them in" attitude. Pisses me off.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

For the first time in memory I agree with V. I think this is a great idea, & I personally will not goto pubs etc because of the smokey environment.



garyc said:


> I personally don't like the smell of poor people (wee and fried food). Can we ban them from public places too? :wink:


Lol, I deliberately try to smell poor. It keeps the beggars away...


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

What do rich people smell like then? :roll:


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

Given that over 7000 people die as a result of passive smoking in Eire each year, I don't see our anyone could think they have a right to smoke in a public place. If smokers want to kill themselves, fine, but do it in your own home and leave the rest of us to enjoy fresh air.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

teucer2000 said:


> Given that over 7000 people die as a result of passive smoking in Eire each year


Hmmm, debatable. If people are spending so much time in a smoky pub that they get lung cancer, you wonder how much they are drinking. Don't you think that would play a factor in their early death??


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

The statistics were produced by their health service.

As a stark reminder of the dangers one of my staff's best friends died earlier today of lung cancer.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Was on holiday in the states a couple of years back touring through California , Nevada and Arizona as soon as you left California where you cant smoke in a restuarant ,you could tell the difference much better, oh and by the way after a night out my clothes dont stink of unburnt hydrocarbons


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

Good on the Irish , Make it like it is in the states in the UK I say. Arrest the smokers and treat them like the fools they are.
If you smoke you should be treated for what you are a DRUG ADDICT and you should accept it. If an individual wants to smoke it is up to them but why should everyone else suffer ?. Lets not beat about the bush , just face facts , if you smoke you are choosing to damage your own health by being a nicotine junky. So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past ."My dad smoked for 190 years and it never hurt him" you hear them say .But what about the other members of his family who died prematurely because of his selfishness ?. Try cutting open the lung of a smoker after he has died , all you find is black tar , while a normal person has yards and yards of fibrous tissue. Thats when it hits home. The facts are simple , smoking kills ! , everything else is just selfish bullshit.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

raven said:


> teucer2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Given that over 7000 people die as a result of passive smoking in Eire each year
> ...


The main drive for this is to protect the hospitality employees that are non smokers. I spent 3 years working in a busy pub as a student and it was like hell for me. At the end of the day I was chocking and coughing.

If I want to drink excessively at least I do it knowing about the risk to my own health and nobody else's. But with smokers I have no choice but to become passive smoker.

Anyway the first day in Ireland went perfectly. People observed the new rules. A lot of pubs provided tables outside so people can still smoke. As I said smoking outside is fine because the smoke goes away and you don't have to inhale it like in a closed pub.

I like CapTT's answer a lot!  Cigarette junkies...your days are numbered! :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

CapTT said:


> Good on the Irish , Make it like it is in the states in the UK I say. Arrest the smokers and treat them like the fools they are.
> If you smoke you should be treated for what you are a DRUG ADDICT and you should accept it. If an individual wants to smoke it is up to them but why should everyone else suffer ?. Lets not beat about the bush , just face facts , if you smoke you are choosing to damage your own health by being a nicotine junky. So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past ."My dad smoked for 190 years and it never hurt him" you hear them say .But what about the other members of his family who died prematurely because of his selfishness ?. Try cutting open the lung of a smoker after he has died , all you find is black tar , while a normal person has yards and yards of fibrous tissue. Thats when it hits home. The facts are simple , smoking kills ! , everything else is just selfish bullshit.


Right. Let's ban fast food and all high fat food too. Maybe strong alchohol should follow suit? And hard drugs? oh they already are banned (see what a difference it has made).

Perhaps weak-willed people should be banned in general?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

> Perhaps weak-willed people should be banned in general


Sounds like a plan to me


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

but if we banned *everything* addictive......

This place would be rather quiet


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

As far as I can see its just a matter of time, we (GNER) are one of the few railway companies that still allowsmoke on ,only because our parent company's boss smokes


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

> If you smoke you should be treated for what you are a DRUG ADDICT and you should accept it. If an individual wants to smoke it is up to them but why should everyone else suffer ?. Lets not beat about the bush , just face facts , if you smoke you are choosing to damage your own health by being a nicotine junky. So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past ."My dad smoked for 190 years and it never hurt him" you hear them say .But what about the other members of his family who died prematurely because of his selfishness ?. Try cutting open the lung of a smoker after he has died , all you find is black tar , while a normal person has yards and yards of fibrous tissue. Thats when it hits home. The facts are simple , smoking kills ! , everything else is just selfish bullshit.


Now I am intrigued, how should a drug addict be treated?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Sim said:


> > If you smoke you should be treated for what you are a DRUG ADDICT and you should accept it. If an individual wants to smoke it is up to them but why should everyone else suffer ?. Lets not beat about the bush , just face facts , if you smoke you are choosing to damage your own health by being a nicotine junky. So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past ."My dad smoked for 190 years and it never hurt him" you hear them say .But what about the other members of his family who died prematurely because of his selfishness ?. Try cutting open the lung of a smoker after he has died , all you find is black tar , while a normal person has yards and yards of fibrous tissue. Thats when it hits home. The facts are simple , smoking kills ! , everything else is just selfish bullshit.
> 
> 
> Now I am intrigued, how should a drug addict be treated?


In any way that doesn't affect other people rights. He can smoke in privacy without making fellow members of the public smoke with him. Simple as that!


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

> So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past


In that case, why the use of such emotive and prejudicial language?


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

vlastan said:


> This is enforced from tonight and it is great news. Finally the smoke free environment has reached Europe and I hope that UK will adopt this by next year.
> 
> As I hate smoking I avoid going to pubs and clubs as it is disgusting. I end up with sore throat and smell all over myself and my clothes.
> 
> ...


why don't you go live in ireland then?  :wink:


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Sim said:


> In that case, why the use of such emotive and prejudicial language?


Perhaps he's an ex-smoker... :wink: [smiley=smoking.gif]


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

jam said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > This is enforced from tonight and it is great news. Finally the smoke free environment has reached Europe and I hope that UK will adopt this by next year.
> ...


I would...but I don't understand the Irish language (supposingly English accent with bad Irish accent) :wink:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Sim said:


> > So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past
> 
> 
> In that case, why the use of such emotive and prejudicial language?


When I first came in the UK and was in a the hall of residence with 4 more guys, two of them introduced canabis. They asked me to try but knowing how hooked you get with this shit, I didn't. One of my flatmates got hooked and left university. Since then he recovered a bit, but still uses drugs.

The thing is people do have a choice. I was strong and I wasn't going to try any of this rubbish. But other's did and go wasted. Weak people use drugs and they always have a choice as drug habit is not forced on you. Same applies for smoking. It is your choice, your addiction and you should keep your smoke to yourself.


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

> raven Posted: 31 Mar 2004 15:39 Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


No I have never smoked and no I am not prejudiced. However I have witnessed first hand people being eaten away and slowly dying from cancer. If objecting to my friends and family being killed passively by other fools selfishness is prejudiced then I am however. But I suggest you go through the torture of watching somebody die from cancer before you are actually qualified to comment on this subject.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I don't really have any objection to people smoking but I do when i find it intrusive.

It is their life and their habit and choice to smoke. I don't smoke. But, one thing that really does get me down and gets to my throat, head and contact lenses is when your in one of those mails with shops. I for some reason, always get stuck behind someone who is smoking. The smoke drifts in my face and really pi$$es me off. No matter how I try to dodge them, it is as though they have rear sensors at the rear of their heads and they attack my foot steps where I try to pass.

Why don't they ban smoking in shopping mails aswell?

Gets to my contact lenses, can dry them out, make them uncomfy then I can't see which clothes shops I want to spend in  :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

^Abi^ said:


> I don't really have any objection to people smoking but I do when i find it intrusive.
> 
> It is their life and their habit and choice to smoke. I don't smoke. But, one thing that really does get me down and gets to my throat, head and contact lenses is when your in one of those mails with shops. I for some reason, always get stuck behind someone who is smoking. The smoke drifts in my face and really pi$$es me off. No matter how I try to dodge them, it is as though they have rear sensors at the rear of their heads and they attack my foot steps where I try to pass.
> 
> ...


Why not just ban Malls? That would solve other problems too: obesity from all the lattes, pastries and fast fat food; and credit and debt problems; behavioral problems from "I Want" brats, to name but a few. :wink:

The world could become a nicer place.

Although i guess Ocean Finance would lose a lot of fat ugly brassy customers. :twisted:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Sim said:
> 
> 
> > > So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past
> ...


V, that is complete and utter naive ignorance. Have a spliff and think about it. :wink:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Sim said:
> 
> 
> > > So lets just treat smokers for what they are anti-social junkies living in the past
> ...


V:

Now thats yet another bollox statement. You did not try Cannabis in fear of getting hooked :lol: i've never heard of anyone getting hooked on cannabis. I've heard of people moving on from cannabis to harder drugs & getting hooked, but the drug itself does not have any addictive qualities.

I have many friends who do/have smoked cannabis, but have never smoked a ciggie. I myself did/do indulge in the odd puff (thats puff, not poof), when the mood takes me & i see no evidence that cannabis is nothing more than a recreational drug for the millions of people who indulge & i've never had or ever will get a craving for a spliff. :twisted:

Where's me bong 8)


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

vlastan said:


> When I first came in the UK and was in a the hall of residence with 4 more guys, two of them introduced canabis. They asked me to try but knowing how hooked you get with this shit, I didn't. One of my flatmates got hooked and left university. Since then he recovered a bit, but still uses drugs.
> 
> The thing is people do have a choice. I was strong and I wasn't going to try any of this rubbish. But other's did and go wasted. Weak people use drugs and they always have a choice as drug habit is not forced on you. Same applies for smoking. It is your choice, your addiction and you should keep your smoke to yourself.


Rather odd then that the government have sought to de-criminalise the drug... :roll:

Perhaps it's not as bad as you thought it might have been. It's all very well you saying you were strong, but if you think about it, you were worried about being getting addicted to what is a non-addictive drug. Sounds like you were misinformed to me.


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

You have a choice of 3 people to chauffeur you.

The first smokes cannabis.
The second smokes cigarettes.
The third doesnâ€™t smoke at all.
They all have a driving licence and, on paper, have the same qualifications.

For GaryC only
another one has applied for the job but he is poor and smells of wee and fried food. (So true, but as you missed out on the smell of stale cigarettes you must be a smoker. :twisted: )

Who do you choose?


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Pass de dutchie on da left 'and side :lol:  :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Guy said:


> You have a choice of 3 people to chauffeur you.
> 
> The first smokes cannabis.
> The second smokes cigarettes.
> ...


For those about to hire chauffeurs this may be a highly relevant conundrum. Whatever their criteria I can't quite see the correlation between banning smoking in public and a chaffeur who does or does not smoke. Those in a position to hire chaffeurs presumably do not get _that _close to them, and if they did halitosis and general grooming would probably be more appropriate decsion criteria. :wink:

I am an ex-smoker giving up my occasional-smoke-with-pint some time ago and regular smoking 8 years previously. (although I indulge in 'herbals' occasionally). I find the smell of fast food restaurants about someone' person at least as offensive as *** smoke. Ditto excess wearing of cheap smelling scents. I actually quite like the smell of cigars and pipe tobacco -although have never smoked them.

Anyway, what if one of the candidates is fat? Or black? Or a radical vegetarian? Or a homosexual? Smokers have rights too. :wink:


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

Well things are hotting up.



> Rather odd then that the government have sought to de-criminalise the drug...


Firstly, on a factual note cannabis has not been decriminalised. We have quasi-decriminalisation as it has been reduced in classification (now class c). The justification for the reduction is that cannabis is that it is less harmful than other class B drugs and that for the majority of the users they are law-abiding in all other aspects of their lives (or as law abiding as most - see the thread on getting caught on camera, for example).

The gateway theory i.e. cannabis leads to harder drugs has been heavily critiqued by voluminous research over the years. Some people make transitions to harder drugs but their first drug use was often alcohol based - are you suggesting that we ban this? Or that alcohol leads to hard drugs?

This is not to suggest that cannabis use does not lead to problems (cannabis psychosis, cancer etc) however, these problems are rare. Moreover, these problems are more about the individualâ€™s consumption patterns than the drug itself. For example, people get liver problems, become alcoholics, but this should not mean that we ban alcohol consumption. Indeed, when we look at the effects of prohibition in America we can see some of the devastating effects that prohibition can have. The increase in the black market and related violence, for example.

All in all, there are far too many naive and potentially dangerous views about drug use and drug users. These views are more often than not tied into false distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' drugs and these are often context specific, i.e. it is okay to use some drugs in some situations.

The smoking debate is perhaps different, but when questioned it is often tied into generalised fears based upon moral panics about drug use and drug users. One thing is for sure, you are more likely to have an accident or related problems through driving your car than from passive smoking. Life is full of risks and some risks receive more attention than others.


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

CapTT said:


> Try cutting open the lung of a smoker after he has died , all you find is black tar , while a normal person has yards and yards of fibrous tissue. Thats when it hits home. The facts are simple , smoking kills ! , everything else is just selfish bullshit.


When you cut the lungs open of a normal person who doesn't and has never smoked but has lived in a city all their life they present a similar appearance to a smokers lung. When you say â€˜all you find is black tarâ€™ isn't it a little OTT?

As an interesting experiment to those with access to an MOT Exhaust tester (or perhaps his analyser) or the exhaust analyser on a rolling road, stick a lit cigarette in the inlet tube and look at the readings. Then come back and say that a cigarette doesnâ€™t pollute!


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Calm down you lot and take a nice deep breath of lovely fresh air. Possibly not the pulluted variety . Come on spring is in the air..reasons to be happy


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

I walk home along a busy road - I don't have a say in whether or not I inhale any of the exhaust fumes from cars and lorries. Would I be taken seriously if I asked to ban cars? Or course not. At least you have a choice as to whether or not you enter a pub.

Frankly, coming up with comments like, "have you ever seen someone dying of cancer" as a means to back a ban on smoking is just patronising. It turns an interesting debate into something more personal. As for the "black tar" comment, well it's barely worth a response.

For a lot of people I know, the pub is the only place that they smoke. I rarely smoke, but if I do, it will be in a pub after a few beers.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Guy said:


> You have a choice of 3 people to chauffeur you.
> 
> The first smokes cannabis.
> The second smokes cigarettes.
> ...


Presumably you're trying to say that it makes absolutely no difference. (unless the first guy's had space cake for breakfast)

And there are no addictive chemicals in cannabis (unless you smoke it with tobacco of course). It is addictive like eating a certain type of food's addictive or a certain type of drink, or driving a certain type of car. It can be given up using willpower alone, and doesn't require much. Other drugs have more adverse effects however. Everything in moderation, although one time I was in Amsterdam I rolled a big fat one using a gram of super duper weed, and I didn't even fall over. Nails.
Vlastan, suggesting you're a stronger person for not ever having touched drugs is absolute rubbish. You're a lightweight girl's blouse, and you know it 

Oh, and although I never really got into it, I know plenty who did and are doing rather well for themselves now. Most have given up smoking too.

Gone a bit off-topic, this.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

phil said:


> Guy said:
> 
> 
> > You have a choice of 3 people to chauffeur you.
> ...


If canabis is not addictive why people can't stop this bad habit?

Before this event in the university where I had the chance to try canabis, I had a major abdominal surgery. I was given morphine...lots of it for pain management. That shit was so good!! Used correctly for medical reasons is fine, but it can easily be abused and you can become addictic to it if you take it for longer periods.

So after I "tasted" morphine, I knew that I had to stay away from any kind of drugs, because it is is easy to like the effect that they have on your body and forget about life...which is exactly what happened to my flatmate.

Some people can be able to control this habit and only smoke for fun from time to time. But they are simply lucky that they are able to control this urge. They are also lucky that they didn't move on to harder drugs.

Raven, your smoking days in the pub may be very few now.  And as I said the ban is to protect the people that work in the hospitality business, NOT the customers that as you said they have a choice to get in the pub or not.

But it is about time that this is the choice that the smokers are facing. Should they go in the pub for a drink or stay out and smoke to death? :wink:


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Are you seriously comparing cannabis with morphine, vlastan?
Chocolate's addictive. People get fat from it. Should we ban that too? 
You say your student flatmate was addicted to smoking. I suspect that a lot of that's down to the fact that he was a student and had plenty of spare time to waste smoking dope. Plus, it's cheaper than drinking, thanks to it being illegal, therefore not being taxed. 
For the majority of "users" it's a social, occasional thing, and has the least evidence of causing harm, compared to the other popular "recreational" drugs, including the mess that excessive smoking or drinking can cause. 
While I agree that it, like many things, can have an adverse effect on some people (although I don't think it's the drug itself which is the culprit) I think it's very naive of you to assume that "drugs are bad" when you appear not to know all the facts.
I'm not suggesting you go out on a binge to see what it's like. All I'm saying is it's very easy to get judgemental over something you know nothing about and can't understand.
I've got a mate who doesn't drink. Never has. He doesn't understand why anyone would want to spend loads of money on something which makes you lose control and gives you headache. Fair point. But I suspect you know why people are happy enough to drink, without fear that they'll become addicted or die.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I am not comparing as such the two. All I am saying is how easy you can get addicted to any kind of drug.

My flatmate got addicted to canabis and left uni. He wasted his career. It took him a few years to recover and he is still an addict.

I can't understand either why people like drinking so excessively. As I spent 3 years working in a rowdy Cardiff pub I have seen too many things that I couldn't believe.

I do drink, but have only got seriously drank once in my life. I do not share the pleasure of excessive drinking, but I don't care about these people because their drinking habits do not affect me. They only harm themselves.

On the other hand, smokers do affect my health and this is what I am totally against.

And as the ban in Ireland was a success, London may be following.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

LOL! :lol: . This thread is starting to make me laugh! ALOT!


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

vlastan said:


> I am not comparing as such the two. All I am saying is how easy you can get addicted to any kind of drug.
> 
> My flatmate got addicted to canabis and left uni. He wasted his career. It took him a few years to recover and he is still an addict.
> 
> ...


Vlastan - your flatmate would probably not made it anyway. I know people who "wasted" their careers but didn't smoke dope. Equally, like Phil, I know people who did and have gone on to be very successful. Who knows, had you smoked some dope at university and not been such a pussy, you might be spouting this sort of shite on a Porsche Forum rather than an Audi one. :wink:

You've said yourself that you have a choice as to whether or not to enter a smoky pub and that it's the bar staff that suffer. I actually think that if they have a real problem with smoking, there are probably other career options out there - cleaning for example? Not quite as fun, but at least they wouldn't be suffering. Better paid too.

As for drinking excessively, most people don't, but those who do are more likely to have an immediate impact on your health than smokers. [smiley=smash.gif]


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

> If canabis is not addictive why people can't stop this bad habit? ...//... Some people can be able to control this habit and only smoke for fun from time to time. But they are simply lucky that they are able to control this urge. They are also lucky that they didn't move on to harder drugs.


They are not lucky! Luck has nothing to do with it. As you point out in another post you drink alcohol are you therefore lucky (like so many others) because you have not moved on to 'harder' drugs?

Cannabis use, like anything else that is pleasurable, can cause a psychological dependency. But then so can this forum and many would see this as bad and unhealthy :roll:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Sim said:


> > If canabis is not addictive why people can't stop this bad habit? ...//... Some people can be able to control this habit and only smoke for fun from time to time. But they are simply lucky that they are able to control this urge. They are also lucky that they didn't move on to harder drugs.
> 
> 
> They are not lucky! Luck has nothing to do with it. As you point out in another post you drink alcohol are you therefore lucky (like so many others) because you have not moved on to 'harder' drugs?
> ...


You always post so posh comments about this matter...Do you have a PhD in drug abuse or something?  :wink:


----------



## sonnyikea (Dec 31, 2002)

Only just saw this thread.

As this is the first weekend that the no smoking policy has come into effect it will be interesting to see if it is still as successful as the first few days. I have my feelings that it won't last. Already a publican has been head butted and then punched in the face for asking a customer to stop smoking.

I've been walking around and seeing groups of people standing outside pubs smoking - actually quite a funny sight especially in the rain.

Country pubs will never be no smoking places, the villages in Ireland are communities and the regulars are friends not just customers of the landlord so there is no way it will be enforced.

One landlord owns a pub with a flat upstairs and the whole building is licenced - therefore his wife cannot smoke in her own kitchen - what's that all about?

You aren't even allowed to take a cigar out and sniff it as that is liable for a 3,000 euro fine.

I'm out this weekend for the footie so I'll try and report back my verdict on whether it has been successfully implemented or not.

Watch this space


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

sonnyikea said:


> Only just saw this thread.
> 
> As this is the first weekend that the no smoking policy has come into effect it will be interesting to see if it is still as successful as the first few days. I have my feelings that it won't last. Already a publican has been head butted and then punched in the face for asking a customer to stop smoking.
> 
> ...


Cue lots of folk rolling up and idley toying with _unlit_ cigarettes in pubs, just waitng for that self righteous twat to pipe up with, "There's no smoking allowed in here you know." 

"I do know and I'm _not_ smoking thank you very much for your concern." :twisted:

Oh, and expect incidents of chewing gum damage to carpets, upholstery and furniture to rocket. :wink:


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

Couldn't be botherd to read it all but FYI I've been working in russia recently where smoking is the next most common thing to breathing. Non-smoking places are nigh on non existent. The habit for people to smoke thorughout their meal is scarey and quite disgusting for others trying to avoid food. Example, we all get to breakfast in teh hotel early, why because as soon as the first guest get there they light up - averaging 3 to 5 cigs over breakfast in close proximity to everyone else. And yes it does make me feel physically sick. Hence our away from home life is messed up as we have to avoid these people. Now this is coming from me, I don't smoke, but I don't have a problem hanging out in clubs and pubs where people do. But is does give me a stark reminder that my tolerance for smoke is much higher than many others. Some of the guys we work with are having serious problems with the environment and lack of clean air over a mealtime. 
Anyway both sides should chill out, smokers can go and smoke in private and harm no one but themselves, non smokers can go and eat and drink where they want.

Rant over.


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

I see the Laurel Tree pub in the city stated their takings went up 50% after they completely banned smoking. It has been such a success that other pubs in the chain are to follow suit.

Any of our moral high ground-claiming smokers ("we fund the NHS more than the NHS spends on us" ooooooh :roll: ) want to argue this point?


----------



## sonnyikea (Dec 31, 2002)

I never made it out over the weekend so my report will be brief. I haven't heard of any other troubles and I think all went well. The one thing I did notice on my way home from work on Fri night was the mess outside pubs. The amount of *** butts on the ground was disgusting. I think this is the responsibility of the establishment to provide fixed ashtrays to prevent the mess, otherwise it will get out of control.

Being an ex smoker I can see both sides of the argument, although some would say not objectively :wink: At the end of the day the no smoking in the workplace is for the benefit of those people working. The fact that a pub caters for the public who are in the majority is irrelevant as the ban is for the employees wellfare not the general public.

I for one am looking forward to walking in a pub and walking out only smelling of beer and nothing else


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> I see the Laurel Tree pub in the city stated their takings went up 50% after they completely banned smoking. It has been such a success that other pubs in the chain are to follow suit.
> 
> Any of our moral high ground-claiming smokers ("we fund the NHS more than the NHS spends on us" ooooooh :roll: ) want to argue this point?


This is fine because the market is deciding whether or not to allow smoking. What I am against is the nanny state government imposing a blanket ban regardless of what either landlords or pub-goers want.

Being a very occasional smoker, I would happily go into a pub which didn't allow smoking. I frequently go into restaurants that do not allow it and I freely admit that it's very pleasant to come home not smelling of smoke. I'm sure it would also help people give up if they had to go outside every 30 minutes for a ***. But the government should keep out of such debates / decisions.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> I see the Laurel Tree pub in the city stated their takings went up 50% after they completely banned smoking. It has been such a success that other pubs in the chain are to follow suit.
> 
> Any of our moral high ground-claiming smokers ("we fund the NHS more than the NHS spends on us" ooooooh :roll: ) want to argue this point?


Let's not get confused by cheap PR stunts from pub chains... :wink:

"I am convinced it is a major contribution to road safety."


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

raven said:


> This is fine because the market is deciding whether or not to allow smoking.


Which is kind of my point Ed, i.e. evidence suggests pub customers want smoking bans. Whether or not that warrants a blanket ban is hard to say, but I think all governments will be watching the Ireland case with keen interest. True, as Gary says, this one smacks of a PR stunt, but if more pubs makes money of such a PR stunt, then I think opinions may change.

The point being which habits are socially acceptable and which aren't. Drinking and fast food eating, in common with smoking, are acceptable, but I have yet to hear of passive obesity or cirrhosis. It is the capacity for smoking to harm others that is the trump card in the anti-smokers lobby. Rubbish, you cry? Well, would you let your pregnant wife smoke....?


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

I am not convinced that passive smoking is the killer the anti-smoking lobby say it is. Of course, if you are exposed to smoke from cigarettes day-in day-out, then there is definitely more of an argument. But if you are in the pub for a few pints a couple of nights a week? As has been said earlier in this thread, you are more likely to get cancer by living in a traffic-heavy city.

As for those who work in a pub, they *do* have a choice whether they work in a pub or not. If they cannot stand the smoke, then how about applying to Starbucks / Mcdonalds / Wagamamas etc etc.

I was in a packed pub last night, and there was not a single group of people where there wasn't at least one person smoking. I wasn't smoking, and of course you notice it more, but not unbearably so. And no, I would not only insist on my pregnant wife not smoking, I wouldn't allow her into a smoky pub either (he says, pretending he has some authority over his wife... :wink: )

PR stunt or not, if banning smoking genuinely does improve takings, why haven't more pubs done it? It might mean a few more pregnant women come into the pub, but they're hardly going to be drinking enough to make an impact on the pub's P&L.


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

raven said:


> I am not convinced that passive smoking is the killer the anti-smoking lobby say it is. Of course, if you are exposed to smoke from cigarettes day-in day-out, then there is definitely more of an argument. But if you are in the pub for a few pints a couple of nights a week? As has been said earlier in this thread, you are more likely to get cancer by living in a traffic-heavy city.


From today's Times (just under the story about living with a smoker taking years off your life :wink: )



> BANNING smoking in public places had a remarkable effect on the city of Helena, Montana, cutting hospital admissions for heart attacks by 40 per cent.
> 
> The ban lasted just six months before opponents overturned it. This allowed Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California to compare admissions for heart attacks before, during, and after the ban.
> 
> â€œThe observations suggest that smoke-free laws not only protect people from the long-term dangers of second-hand smoke but also may be associated with a rapid decrease in heart attacks,â€ he said.





> As for those who work in a pub, they *do* have a choice whether they work in a pub or not. If they cannot stand the smoke, then how about applying to Starbucks / Mcdonalds / Wagamamas etc etc.


Agreed 



> And no, I would not only insist on my pregnant wife not smoking, I wouldn't allow her into a smoky pub either (he says, pretending he has some authority over his wife... :wink: )


So you do actually accept some degree of harm in passive smoking by this statement, right ? :wink: And if you think you have no infuence over your missus now, wait until she's pregnant :lol:



> PR stunt or not, if banning smoking genuinely does improve takings, why haven't more pubs done it? It might mean a few more pregnant women come into the pub, but they're hardly going to be drinking enough to make an impact on the pub's P&L.


I think more pubs are about to do it. It would attract not just expectant mothers, but people with children, asthmatics (OK I'm clutching straws now I know :wink: ), and plenty of people wanting to enjoy clean air with their pint [smiley=cheers.gif]

Now, are you here for the five minute argument, or the full half hour


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> I have yet to hear of passive obesity


I'm sure there's passive obesity under Central Station in Glasgow. There's so much chip fat in the atmosphere people must absorb it.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

I was horrified to read some of the posts on this thread on smoking 
someone stated that smoking is "a matter of personal choice"
It is, 
But some people are missing one, all important, point
and that's the personal choice of those that choose not to smoke.
They also stated that "smoking bans have nothing to do with the government"
I agree,
But only if the activity is undertaken in a place, where, the individual exercicising their right of choice, doesn't infringe the choice of another.
Smoking in a confined public place clearly takes that choice away.
In my view a smoker exhaling in a public place, is little different from a promiscuous aids carrier.They are both putting personal satisfaction, before the possibly fatal health risks,of others.
Indeed the English language has thoughtfully invented a word to describe such actions
"SELFISH"
The laws on drug taking (which smoking undeniably is ) need a complete overhaul.
The law, as it stands, on all matters of personal choice, is to inconsistent
Why is it that some drugs are illegal while others are not?
Is it right that an ecstasy user be condemned as a criminal when a smoker is not?
Is possession of cannabis really any different than possession of a pint?
Its clearly nonsensical that government bans drugs that, only directly, affect the user, but allows other forms of drug taking that, indirectly, affects many. 
Surely if an activity affects nobody else but themselves (which includes smoking in private) than then it shouldn't be legislated against.
Have the goverment any right to tell us what we can or can't do with, or to, our own bodies?.
it would appear so 
what's next, a ban on tattoo's and moheecan hair cuts?
if we really wanted a "nanny" to tell us what to do on these matters, we'd hire, not elect one!
Its about time politicians took a broader view of these matters and repealed all laws that are anti-choice (including seat-belts and crash helmets)
Laws should be in place to enable the police to protect us from the actions of others not to waste their time saving us from ourselves.


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

Can any one give any feedback on how this is working? There have been reported individual instances of drug deprived people being upset but generally, how is it going ? :?: :?:


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Hmmmm well I went shopping to Lakeside which is a shopping Mall. Stank of ciggies :? . So no ban on cigarettes there as yet :roll:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

There are too many comments on this thread for me to respond to all of them but for hte record, I'm an ex-smoker, I used to work for one of the big tobacco companies, and I've just been to Dublin for a weekend.

I don't mind smoky pubs, but was very impressed to be ones that weren't. While I've always liked smoking, I never liked the fact that your clothes really, really stank in the morning.

Everyonw that I saw was obeying the rules - they had bouncers in most of hte pbs, so you'd be stupid not to.

The thing about virtually all of the other things mentioned (smell of wee and fast food for example) is that while they may be offensive, they're not likely to kill you with prolonged exposure. I feel for hte staff of the pubs - I used to work in a pub while at college and it was a local pub and htat was bad enough. Working in a city centre bar must be awful.

I think it's a good thing that they're doing this (and would do too if I was 
a) still smoking and 
b) still taking the money from the tobacco company.)

As for the car fumes argument, walk as far away from the kerb as possible, the damage caused by car fumes drops 100-fold within feet.

Now then, for the bigger debate about cars and how the usage of fossil fuels will result in global warming, yet bizarrely the coming of the next Ice age for the UK.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> what's next, a ban on tattoo's and moheecan hair cuts?
> .


RIGHT ON.


----------



## sonnyikea (Dec 31, 2002)

Guy said:


> Can any one give any feedback on how this is working? There have been reported individual instances of drug deprived people being upset but generally, how is it going ? :?: :?:


Guy,

Seems to be going quite well as Kell already mentioned. I've not seen anyone disobey the rule. The unfortunate thing is you still have to walk past the smoking crowd to get into the pub but that is probably the worst of it.

I was in a pub that had only been open for a few months and so the stale smoke smell wasn't an issue and it was actually very pleasant. Even the smokers I've spoken to seem not to be phased by it at all.

I think that town is generally quieter than normal, during the week more so. The taxi drivers are complaining as their takings are down - but taxi drivers complain about everything 

Cheers

Craig


----------

