Metropol

So be it. Somewhere along the line people have to compromise. Be it the smokers or non smokers I don't particularly care.

But with a smoking "area", surely all the smokers would spend their evening there smoking, and if their none-smoking friends want to join them, they'll have to sit in the smoking area.

Well they have the option to not sit with their friends in a non-smoking room or go and join them in the smoking room, or perhaps even flit between the two. However chris, if I judged the tone of your post accurately, I assume you'd be happier if the smokers stayed home.

The truth is, there is no compelling reason why adequate air filtration/conditioning units, already present in many pubs and clubs, shouldn't be the norm in all pubs. I've seen the pall of thick smoke in a cellar bar disappear in a matter of minutes when these things kick-in.

I don't know about the rest of the UK, but Edinburgh (City Council, presumably) have implemented a scheme which now requires pubs and clubs to display their smoking policy at the entrance. The policy is at the discretion of the publican. These include, "smoking allowed throughout" and, "smoking allowed in designated areas". There are "no smoking" bars here too, but I've never visited one. I hear the people there are judgemental, not to mention holier-than-thou.

There are basic economics to be factored in here. As you said yourself, out of your group (which is an extreme example and helps my argument), there are 19 other people spending money on drinks in pubs where they can have a smoke. Some people only smoke when they drink. Thats a lot of potential customers who could spend elsewhere.

'Expensive fans' are a business expense, no less important than a sound system, and the cost needn't be your concern.

Agree with Gavin's point about the hypocrisy of this. Following it to its logical conclusion, all non essential car journeys should be banned.

And yes it would be cheaper not to install extractors. It would also be cheaper to not install attractive decor, or someone to clear tables. But these places are in the business of attracting maximum custom aren't they?

By the way jb, I am undone. I got yours. But I do observe the rules.

http://www26.brinkster.com/tartpumper/lighter.html

Well, I hope they do ban it in public places.

It's quite a stupid thing to say "It's my right to smoke", when it's not, it's their choice. No one forces them to, in a way, it's a privelage (spl) to do it. However, it is our right to eat, drink, shop etc without having smoke blown down our throats because of other people's "right".

Yes, it is a legal drug, but like alcohol it has to be controlled. In Amsterdam, you can smoke the ol' Mary-Jane legally, but it is controlled. It's a legal drug, in a controlled enviroment, and that is what theyre trying to do with Tobbaco. If the goverment legalises it, the goverment controls it.

Cheese Head wrote:Well, I hope they do ban it in public places.

Which affects you how? I wouldn't have thought you'd venture out much.

Now that the obligatory insult has been hurled I shall continue.

It's quite a stupid thing to say "It's my right to smoke", when it's not, it's their choice.

It is both their right and their choice.

No one forces them to, in a way, it's a privelage (spl) to do it.

One which smokers pay dearly for. And for gods sake use http://dictionary.cambridge.org. Its almost as fast as typing "(spl)", but you'll find out its "privilege".

However, it is our right to eat, drink, shop etc without having smoke blown down our throats because of other people's "right".

That is so much nonsense. "Blown down our throats" is typical of this patronsing level of hysteria thrown at the issue. Strange that you don't object to the far greater number of car exhausts you are faced with daily, which *do* pump toxic fumes straight into the air at ground level.

Yes, it is a legal drug, but like alcohol it has to be controlled. In Amsterdam, you can smoke the ol' Mary-Jane legally, but it is controlled. It's a legal drug, in a controlled environment, and that is what theyre trying to do with Tobbaco.

"Mary-Jane" (if you must) is *not* legal in Amsterdam, it is 'tolerated'. That is *not* what they are trying to do with tobacco, they are implementing an outright ban.

I back a legal requirement to state smoking policies on the door, and for there to be legal reprisals for premises for people who smoke in non smoking premises, but I still believe it should be at the publican's descrition.

To hear people who back smoking bans acting as though every public place has a group of non smokers who don't want to be in a smokey atmosphere frankly quite arrogant. At my local pub in plymouth, 100% of the regular customers smoke. If they tried to enforce a smoking ban, the business just wouldn't be viable and would go bust within a week. In all likelihood they'd ignore the ban and continue to allow smoking on their premises in defiance of the law because the risk of being closed down through flouting the non smoking law is less than the certainty of having to close down through lack of trade if they tried to enforce a ban.

This is why it should be a decision for the owner/manager to decide their smoking policy. If they feel it would be better to continue to allow smoking, then it should be their call.

If non smokers don't want to be in a smokey atmosphere, then just don't go to one - for every pub/bar which allows smoking there will be one that won't. Before that's claimed as being discrimintary, well what about discriminating against smokers who effectively can't go to a non smoking premises because they'll have to keep outside to smoke? Are smokers not allowed to have any consideration?

Are they not allowed any consideration? As long as smoking remains a legal activity, then why should it be illegal to be able to enjoy a fag over a pint?

I really don't think non smokers get it when they claim it as being such a simple and obvious thing to do to just ban smoking everywhere in public - I'm sure my example above holds true for many other (often small family) businesses. Are people calling for blanket smoking bans also advocating the destruction of people livelihoods and causing potentially quite a large number of people into a life of existing on the dole? Or turning people who would defy a smoking ban just in order to keep their business going and put food on the table for their family into criminals with convictions for breaking the law? Because that's what it would cause.

It's just not as simple as banning smoking in public. As I said, I do back the introduction of making smoking in a place which has a no smoking policy illegal, but I in no means back arbitrarily forcing all public premises to adopt a smoking ban when that could cause serious problems.

To people who would like public smoking banned: get real. However much you don't like it, you live in a country where a huge number of people practice it - and it's still legal to do so. Until that changes, refusing to tolerate these people is demonstrating the very intolerance which you claim is practiced by people smoking in public.[/i]

Some articles writing about the effects of the Irish smoking ban:

From the Irish Examiner (registration required): http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/irelan ... 2fa91M.asp

Smokers take to the streets as Martin wins clash of the ash

By Harry McGee
MARCH 29, 2004, was, by any measure, a momentous day for Irish society, when the country’s most radical social experiment forced hundreds of thousands of people to take to the street.

But they gathered in the open not to protest or to march on Leinster House but to meekly accept with surprisingly good humour in most cases the tough medicine meted out to them by Health Minister Micheál Martin.

And in doing so, we witnessed the landscape of Ireland changing forever within the space of 24 hours.

Walking through Dublin was a strange experience yesterday. The streets bustled like the overcrowded cities of India with people standing in smoky huddles that grew larger as the evening wore on. What they were doing (smoking) was what they were talking about.

For once, descriptions of the capital as the Big Smoke achieved a literal accuracy.

The consensus was the first 24 hours passed off successfully, though the resolve wavered a bit as the night wore on and pubs began to fill up.

There was the carping you would expect from first-day stuff. Pubs reported drops in business. Vintners said a nasty shock lay waiting in the long grass for the Government come the next election. There were a couple of isolated reports of rebellions in smaller country pubs. Militant smokers grumbled about the 'nanny state'.

But, anecdotally at least, the widespread public backing predicted by Health Minister Micheál Martin materialised. Even hardened smokers were largely positive, perhaps temporarily beguiled by the novelty aspect of it. How long that will last is anyone's guess.

The ban also attracted enormous interest from the world's media, with dozens of cameras crews and journalists arriving into Ireland yesterday.

The minister himself had all the appearance of a guy who had been nervously awaiting his Junior Cert results and had just learned that he had got eight straight A's.

He told the Irish Examiner that it wasn't always so. During a critical period last autumn his initiative assumed a 'make-or-break' status that could have had serious political implications.

Mr Martin said Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's support had been crucial.

He helped steady the nerves of Cabinet colleagues and told publicans that the ban would not cause the world to end.

Speaking of the potential impact the row over the ban could have had on his own career, Mr Martin said: "Initially I did not look at it in this light but as something that was happening purely in the health arena. Then political commentators became more interested in a political context and began to look at what impact it would have on political careers."

He said the turning point came with his successive appearances on The Late Late Show and the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis in October. He had not anticipated the huge level of support before his appearances. They were "defining moments", when opposition to the ban wilted and he knew there was "no turning back".

Mr Martin said he was very happy with the way things had progressed on the first day.

He said he believed the ban had a "good wind behind it".

Irish Examiner:
http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/irelan ... 2fa91M.asp

All hunky dory as smoke hut shut
By Elaine Keogh
SO far, everything is just hunky dory for the erstwhile smokers in a County Meath food company.

The workplace smoking ban has spurred 80 of the 83 staff of Largo Foods in Ashbourne, County Meath, who were smokers up to last Friday, to try and kick the habit for good.

The company manufactures Perri and Hunky Dory crisps and employs 210 people, and had a smoking hut in its grounds for its 83 smoking staff.

Yesterday, however, it went up in smoke as all but three of the smokers put on their nicotine patches and signed up for a free week at a local gym, all incentives from their managing director Raymond Coyle who sympathised with the hard times facing them.

“This is the end of an era with the smoking hut gone, and anyone who wants to smoke will have to take their uniform off and go outside the gates now,” said a company spokeswoman.

The new law has become a watershed for the majority of the smokers, who are being given three weeks supply of nicotine patches by the company to help them kick the habit for good.

“We have also set up the Largo Food Smokers Quit Group and are going to do this as a team. For the first week we are also getting into a local gym free of charge and after that there will be a staff discount if we join it,” the spokeswoman added.

Further incentives to mark three, six and 12 months of being smoke-free are in the pipeline as the ban seems to have provided the catalyst for smokers who previously failed to give up the weed to try again.

The Irish Times - Smoke ban gets off to a smooth start: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/ ... FRONT.html

RTE - Waterford pub protests against smoking ban:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0330/tobacco.html

I could mostly find only positive articles, but it is still early days. Perhaps things might be different at the weekend?

I had an interesting conversation with a work colleague yesterday on this subject... she apparently hasn't been to the cinema since they banned smoking. She says she will never set foot in the Republic of Ireland ever again. Seems a bit ridiculous to me, but she was adamant, and serious.

For some reason (possibly because it causes a reduction in taste and smell), smokers simply don't realise that they stink. I have less of a problem with the theoretical health risks of passive smoking than I do with the fact that if I go to a club I end up with sore eyes and I stink to high heaven.

It seems to me that a higher percentage of gay people smoke. Don't know why... perhaps the lesbians think it makes them look butch and the queens think it makes them look girly. I don't know. But what that means is that if I go to a gay club, I come out even smellier and with sorer eyes than in a straight one.

I have no problem with anyone smoking... but in the privacy of their own homes. I don't want to have to come home from a night out smelly. It's be my right to stand beside you and fart, but it would also be rude and disgusting... smoking's much the same but the smell lingers longer.

It's only a matter of time before a ban on smoking is implemented... I'd say it'll be introduced once we get into the next parliament.

Sorry for the lateness here mister Scott, but I really just couldnt be arsed.

Gavin Scott wrote:
Cheese Head wrote:Well, I hope they do ban it in public places.
Which affects you how? I wouldn't have thought you'd venture out much.

Well I do, so it does. I went to Loughborough on Friday, and cos Liz (a friend o mine) is a Vegetarian, and instead of any usual fast food chain we went to some place called "The Coffee Pot". There was nothing wrong with it, just extremely uncomfortable to sit there eating as people smoke. If they dont ban it in public places, at least Restraunts.

However, it is our right to eat, drink, shop etc without having smoke blown down our throats because of other people's "right".

That is so much nonsense. "Blown down our throats" is typical of this patronsing level of hysteria thrown at the issue. Strange that you don't object to the far greater number of car exhausts you are faced with daily, which *do* pump toxic fumes straight into the air at ground level.

I can understand how its patronising hysteria, but I think I'm still right by saying "blown down our throats", all depending on where people are smoking. I hate walking through the eagle centre in Derby and people blatently ignore the No Smoking signs, and rush pass you exhaling the smoke.. Although the dumbasses in the shopping centre have bins with ash trays on them.

It's ok, I moan about exhausts to. I also roll over, and jump in the air.

In the morning, when I walk down to the bus stop, people park there cars on the side of the road still going, people still in them - because its "cold". Which means you have to walk through smoke to get to the stop.

Yes, it is a legal drug, but like alcohol it has to be controlled. In Amsterdam, you can smoke the ol' Mary-Jane legally, but it is controlled. It's a legal drug, in a controlled environment, and that is what theyre trying to do with Tobbaco.

"Mary-Jane" (if you must) is *not* legal in Amsterdam, it is 'tolerated'. That is *not* what they are trying to do with tobacco, they are implementing an outright ban.[/quote]

I shouldve checked about its legality, I wasnt sure. Either way, it's still a form of control, although I do agree with Hyma, it should be in "places" not in the street too.

Cheese Head wrote:I also roll over

notes that one down for future use.

Metropol

Smoking in Public Places banned in Ireland