Ireland has just introduced a smoking ban in public places, something i would like to see in the UK, I think it's unfair I cant trouble my liver without having to worry about my lungs.

Gasp! They are only just introducing it? :eek:

Just for info, at Sydney airport where I work you can get fined for smoking even outside unless you are in a designated area!

You mean even while the planes are being refuelled??

The point is that there won't be *ANY* designated areas to smoke.
Personally, I can't see the rules being enforced outside of Dublin.

Another 'Smoking Ban' thread? I still remember the last one.

Same here. You're not allowed to smoke at the central trainstation, THE most polluted area you can find in a city. :rolleyes:

There's a ban of smoking in public area at my place as well. However nobody seems to bother about that ruling. People just continue to smoke their heart out.

I think its a good idea, but itl be hard to put into practice, I mean people wont just suddenly give up smoking just because theres a new law.

I voted no in the poll, because although I dont personally smoke, some of my mates do and I see no harm in it. Its there choice. And I know it would be awkward for them to always smoke in there houses etc.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Here the rules here varies from town to town here. Some have no public smoking, others have it so you can't smoke in restaurants that have kids. This puts the responsibility on the restaurant to decide to accept smoking customers, or customers with kids. So it is more of a ban kids rule than smoking. Some have it so you can't smoke near bus stops, others in the bus booths, but if the wind is smoke is blowing the wrong way you still get it in the booths. Since almost all smoking rules are municipal it can get very complex all of a sudden you end up getting a couple $100 fine and you are not quite sure what you did because you found yourself in the wrong town.</font>

[ 03-29-2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

As long as there are still some bars I can smoke in, I won't complain. Smoking in most all public places is banned here.

Actually, the ban here is on smoking in enclosed workplaces. This just happens to include pubs, restaurants and most other places indoors. People will still be able to go outside for a smoke. I think it's still allowed in prisons, hotels and nursing homes as well. But most people have been complaing about banning it in the pubs.

The government are making a big show of enforcing the ban. They've employed inspectors to check pubs and are giving out €3,000 fines to any place where the law is repeatedly broken. I don't know if it's going to hold up but I hope it does.

Most of my mates who smoke are in favour of the ban, at least they were until we were sitting in the bar today. It took five minutes before they cracked and went outside for a smoke. :D

Must've been nice when you got home and your clothes and hair didn't stink of smoke though ?

If there's ever a smoking ban in bars where I live, I'll get my pitchfork. :mad:

And then you'll smoke it ? [img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img]

[ 03-29-2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

I very much support a ban on public smoking. God bless them. I don't want to go to a bar or restaurant and have to breathe in smoker's garbadge.

No. That's what my rope is for. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

LOL [img]graemlins/troutslap.gif[/img] Thats always been banned, What 'they' are enforcing now is those that pop outside the hanger doors for a quick nail though they may be hundreds of meters from any aircraft.

Timber the ban in pubs causes problems for the first 6 months to a year then people just get used it and accept it, even most of the hardened smokers. And to those bars that hold out for a while soon come into line when an employee starts to take them to court [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] The power of lawyers eh! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Oh, sure, Wellard, it's amazing how easily we adapt to limits to our liberty. ;) Maybe we should wall off a part of town and let the smokers live there.

A ban on smoking inside I can see(except in bars), but A ban on smoking outside?

The old liberty argument! You KNOW that one goes both ways Timber [img]tongue.gif[/img] And if anyone tries to exercise there liberty of smoking in a pub (bar) restaurant near my asthmatic son they will find a bill of rights sticking out of where the sun don’t shine. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/smokybounce.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shooter04.gif[/img]

Freedom to a safe work place and freedom to breathe are IMO the higher cards to play and will win any game. Now private bars with membership (club) may be a different matter but I'm talking public bars and restaurants here.

Hm.... suddenly i see a whole new market..... now where do i put that sign ? :D

Do you guys mean that smoking shouldn't be banned in smoking bars?

[ 03-30-2004, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Gab ]

And then you'll smoke it ? [img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]ROTFL! That made me lose it at the desk. *still laughing and trying not to snicker out loud while boss passes by* [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

We already have a public smoking ban in NY state. I was glad when they enforced it in the workplace because I had a hard time breathing when co-workers were chainsmoking nearby.

The liberty argument may be old, but it never goes out of style. As I've pointed out before, the market would provide for both smoking and non-smoking bars. As well, zoning ordinanaces could establish a minimum % of each. You and your son can go to a non-smoking bar while I go to a smoking one. Why you need to BAN places that welcome me is beyond me, so long as you have places welcoming you.

And, no one has said anything about the workplace. Since I left college, I haven't worked anywhere where smoking was allowed in the workplace. I'm not talking about restaurants, either. I'm just talking about BARS -- those places many of us go to DRINK & SMOKE.

The liberty argument may be old, but it never goes out of style. As I've pointed out before, the market would provide for both smoking and non-smoking bars. As well, zoning ordinanaces could establish a minimum % of each. You and your son can go to a non-smoking bar while I go to a smoking one. Why you need to BAN places that welcome me is beyond me, so long as you have places welcoming you.

And, no one has said anything about the workplace. Since I left college, I haven't worked anywhere where smoking was allowed in the workplace. I'm not talking about restaurants, either. I'm just talking about BARS -- those places many of us go to DRINK & SMOKE. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess that answers my question. ;)

[ 03-30-2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

And then you'll smoke it ? [img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]ROTFL! That made me lose it at the desk. *still laughing and trying not to snicker out loud while boss passes by* [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

We already have a public smoking ban in NY state. I was glad when they enforced it in the workplace because I had a hard time breathing when co-workers were chainsmoking nearby. </font>[/QUOTE]And in general, that's fair enough. Although I think that bars and clubs are an exception and should be considered a standard occupational hazard of working in that particular industry.


I'm curious how this is going to play out in Ireland. I think that it will be a farce.

Problem one (as I already said), is that it is unlikely to be enforced outside of Dublin.

Problem two relates to the heavy drinking culture in Ireland (shared in the UK). Anyone who's been out drinking in Dublin at the weekend knows that the entire city becomes full of drunks - and with that there is a persistent problem of both violence and noise (a major problem already).
Add drunken smokers who will now stand on mass OUTSIDE of bars where they can cause trouble - or frustrated drunken smokers in bars: and you have a recipe for disorder. I wouldn't want to be the head of Dublin's police force right now...

[ 03-30-2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

The music industry? Why should singers and horn players trying to protect their voices and lungs from the damaging effects of tobacco have to simply "put up" with this "standard occupational hazard" of working in bars? It reduces our ability to make music. Less lung capacity = less vocal or horn ability.

Couldn't disagree more with you. (as usual). I've been addicted to tobacco through passive smoking alone and was very thankful when first Sydney and New York passed the laws they did.

And, like Ireland and England and New York, Australia is a huge alcohol consumer. The laws were accepted and worked around once implemented. It's all a big hoohar over nothing. It's been proven places make MORE money with a citywide tobacco ban, as the nonsmokers come out, and stay out once the ciggies are out. ;)

The liberty argument may be old, but it never goes out of style. As I've pointed out before, the market would provide for both smoking and non-smoking bars. As well, zoning ordinanaces could establish a minimum % of each. You and your son can go to a non-smoking bar while I go to a smoking one. Why you need to BAN places that welcome me is beyond me, so long as you have places welcoming you.

And, no one has said anything about the workplace. Since I left college, I haven't worked anywhere where smoking was allowed in the workplace. I'm not talking about restaurants, either. I'm just talking about BARS -- those places many of us go to DRINK & SMOKE. </font>[/QUOTE]Then just go there to drink. Smoke elsewhere. I'm glad I now have the freedom, the liberty to breathe air without tobacco while I eat or drink. I'm glad that I'm now free to pay my rent and put food on my table without compromising my health. I'm glad I'm free and have the liberty to hang out with my friends, in the bar culture of New York (bars are our loungerooms) without having my right to clean air infinged upon by someone lighting up next to me. I'm glad I have it on an airplane, a train, in a movie cinema, in a bar, at work. Halelujah!

For too long, smokers choices have removed freedom of choice, and liberty from nonsmokers. Now, the world is moving towards protecting our liberty and freedom. If you want to smoke, don't do it around nonsmokers. [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

I LOVE the liberty argument. It's the whole POINT!

Yorick, without re-hashing the arguments from the infamous thread, let's just say we agree to disagree here, okay?

Well, just remember freedom is a two edged sword. Pursuing "freedom" as an idealism is absurd because one persons freedom can directly negate anothers freedom. Like anything, BALANCE within the subjective values of freedom is important.

We see a common argument used defending freedom regarding:
Gun laws
Abortion
Smoking in Bars
Religion

I found the discussion in court concerning the pledge to be a case in point. If there is seperation of church and state, why should the state impose Atheism as it's national religion? The father stated the pledge meant his daughter was saying her fathers religion was wrong - his words, were his atheism was his religion.

Now, the pledge doesn't declare what God is. An atheist could quite happily be deciding that God is merely a concept or idea, while declaring all America is united under that concept. Meanwhile the Hindu is perceiving God to be everything, and that America is united under than "everything", while the Christian or Jew, is thinking of Yhwh when they state it.

So.. as I see it, the freedom exists. However, removal of it, is the state imposing atheism, removing freedom of religion.

Just as giving women freedom to kill thei unborn children, removes the child the freedom to exist.

Just as giving people the freedom to own a gun impacts on their freedom from being shot.

Freedom.

Give an argricultural society freedom to plant crops and it takes away from the nomadic society the freedom to graze herds, or gather berries.

The British Empire vs Australian Koori people being a prime case in point. One nations freedom to "colonise" was anothers decimation.

The funny thing is, in life you can gain freedom through restriction. Even better if it is self restriction.

With music, the simpler and more predictable the chord progression (say Blues for example) the more melodic freedom one has. Whereas, the more chordal variety in a song, key changes etc, the less melodic freedom a player has.

Interesting little law of life there.

If I restrict my life in certain areas, I gain freedoms in others.

A case in point:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_718327.html

Wow.

I just read, that in Australia, with only 20 million people, the have been 742,043 abortions in the last 10 years. 73,000 per year.

The article that quoted it then said:
Even if you believe abortion is an inalienable right for women, you must wonder at the waste of such human potential.

It later said:
But what is infrequently explained when abortion is contemplated is the deep regret many women feel later, when a child who might have been becomes a sort of eavesdropper on memory. Many priests will have heard self-accusations of murder in the confessional from women carrying abortion guilt. Whether that is justified or not, it happens. What a tragedy that there is such a lack of compassion at the time and perhaps a dark confrontation with despair. There seems no other solution than to get rid of the problem. They might hesitate if they believe they are getting rid of a person.

Man, I'm not sure if it's possible to come any further from left field there Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img]
I realise you are trying to keep to the freedom theme here, but abortion and smoking bans don't gel so well together in a single thread. Well, at least not from where I'm sitting.

LOL Hierophant :D

But the point is, as you realise, that one mans freedom is another mans restriction. So the freedom and rights card itself is double sided and its value depends on which side you look upon the card.

So the application of compromise and common sense prevails IMO. If the bar or pub or club is open to the public IE no membership needed then it should be a total ban, no segregation, no dark corner with a sign saying smokers only. The compromise is of a members only club like a cigar smokers club [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] who may have the right to continue under certain conditions set out in membership. But as for the protection of the workers therein? I will leave that one up to the lawyers. :D

Well, that's why I proposed a comprimise via city zoning ordinance establishing a minimum % of each. Yorick, again, let me turn this on you: you are the one who insists on restricting my liberty by banning my legal act in all bars. I don't want to keep you out of bars, so I proposed as system whereby you and I could each have places to go as patrons and/or work at as employees. Telling me "you can still smoke -- at home" is like me telling you "you can still work -- elsewhere." I want a place to drink AND smoke, and I think you have no right to deny me that.

You point the "double-edge sword" of liberty argument at me, and I say your argument actually goes against you.

I note that legally, Wellard's membership solution is about the same as my solution. My problem with his solution is that it would restrict me from enjoying bars when not near my local "membership" bar. In effect, it would limit me to ONE bar or A FEW bars rather a certain minimum % of bars across the land. How boring! Oh, and, Wellard, cigar bars operate as businesses and not private clubs over here.

To your expansion of this discussion to include every liberty-related issue, Yorick, addressing each in turn would drag this thread into 18 different directions. I know that it's fun to "get meta" and discuss big-picture relationships and theories, but there's a fine line between that and an inability to FOCUS, MAN, FOCUS.

[ 03-31-2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Ah but I am focussed Timber. One must continually adjust focus, from near to far, small to large, in order to see truly. I do it all the time in music. Focussing on a single note, then out to the part, to the section of song, to the song itself, to the album, and then back in again. One needs focal adjustments to see the context.

Just to remind you again Yorick, "Freedom From" is not freedom, but security, and is at the opposite side of the Liberty/Security axis. ;)

Sliding on Timber's coattails on the smoking issue only, a system that lets market forces determine the environment while maintaining a minimum % of both smoking and non-smoking establishments preserves everyone's freedom to partake their leisure or earn their living in an environment to their individual tastes. It leaves choice open.

I recognize that, I'm just saying that you've stated the point, and let's not open the can of words of discussing this in light of each of the different topics because this thing will fill up with tangential posts. I'm just asking you to fly at the 5,000 foot level rather than the 30,000 foot level. ;)

And NS beat me to the punch about "freedom from" and "liberty to." You should have freedom from having to work or socialize in places that are smoke-free. However, if you translate that into requiring that ALL places be smoke free, you have completely removed my liberty to have at least some places where I can smoke and drink.

I'm happy with what we have here.
Public open to minors; no smoking. Resturants, bowling alleys, etc..
Public off limits to minors; smoking. Bars, clubs, hard alcohol, etc.

We all have a choice. No infringement.

How do we have a choice ? what if I want to drink in a smoke free bar ?