Smoking Ban

[Dodge]

For or against?

[brendy_éire]

Judging by the other thread, this could turn out to be a very one-sided poll.

[pineapple stu]

Hell yes. Any argument I've heard against the ban has been purely selfish and stubborn (people have a right to smoke; the publicans will earn less, etc. etc).

[liamon]

I don't smoke. Most of my friends don't smoke. Yet, when I go out, I come home smelling like a used cig butt. Now how is that a good thing?

I'm sick of smokers and vintners complaining. Horrible, stupid habit and if you want to harm yourself, then go do it in the privacy of your own home.

[Macy]

Originally posted by liamon
Horrible, stupid habit and if you want to harm yourself, then go do it in the privacy of your own home.
So what of alcohol?

Totally against the ban - nanny state gone mad.

[Macy]

Originally posted by brendy_eire
Judging by the other thread, this could turn out to be a very one-sided poll.
Could indeed, especially if I get very narked this afternoon... ;)

[Robinski]

I'm a smoker (condem me to hell) and I've voted yes in the above poll. Cleaner air in confined spaces, for God's sake how can that not be a good thing?

[Macy]

Well then Ban smokes altogether then. Oh I forgot, the Government make too much money from them.

[SÓC]

Originally posted by Macy
So what of alcohol?

Totally against the ban - nanny state gone mad.

Big difference. If you go to the pub and drink its not going to give me cancer.

[Macy]

Originally posted by SÓC
Big difference. If you go to the pub and drink its not going to give me cancer.

Really?


Alcohol damages cells, thereby promoting cell division; stimulates enzymes that activate other carcinogens; robs the body of cancer-protective nutrients such as Vitamin A, folate and selenium; it irritates delicate organ linings; diminishes the body’s ability to eliminate dangerous cancer-causing particles called free radicals, and harms enzymes that repair damaged DNA. Some forms of alcohol also carry their own carcinogens, such as nitrosamines, into the body. The Director of Clinical Nutrition at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that those at the Cancer Center consider alcohol a toxin.
{Cancer Smart newsletter, published by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, March 1996}

A seemingly small amount of alcohol is a very potent carcinogen. Alcohol is a poor choice of beverage if you have cancer. Avoid alcohol to prevent cancer and cancer recurrence: alcohol can greatly speed up the disease of cancer.
{Alternative Medicine, Definitive Guide to Cancer, John Diamond, MD, W. Lee Cowden, MD, and Burton Goldberg, 1997}

A Harvard University study found that one alcoholic drink daily led to an eighty percent higher melanoma risk, and in an Australian study, two or more drinks daily resulted in an increase of two to two and one-half times.
{in the book, “Skin Deep,” Carol Turkinton and Jeffrey Dover, MD, 1998}

Alcohol is a tumor-promoter and a carcinogen. The use of alcohol increases cancer risk and has a profound effect. For the lowest possible cancer risk, alcohol should be avoided.
{International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in the 1999 book, “Stopping Cancer before it Starts,” by the American Institute for Cancer Research}

The National Toxicology Program at the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services now warns that alcoholic beverages are “known to be human carcinogens.” The NTP now lists alcoholic beverage consumption along with arsenic, asbestos, benzene, and others as cancer-causing. This was based on three years of study and may call for future labeling of all alcoholic beverages to have warnings about cancer risk.
{Center for Science in the Public Interest Bulletin, May 2000}

A U.S. Government report on what causes cancer now includes alcoholic beverages.
{"New Cancer Report removes saccharin and adds alcohol," Reuters, nutrition.about.com - June 2001} Author's comment: Aspartame and ethyl acrylate were removed from the cancer causing list because of the pressure from industry groups.

Cancer risk may be increased by drinking any amount of alcohol. It doesn't matter if it's beer, wine or whiskey, and the best way to protect yourself from alcohol-related cancers is not to drink. Alcohol increases cancer-causing free radicals. Cancers of the mouth, pharynx, esophagus and larynx develop when sensitive tissues are directly exposed to alcohol in beverages.
{"Alcohol/Cancer Link Is Solid," American Institute for Cancer Research (AIRC) Newsletter -aicr.org - October 2001}

Exposure to chemicals is just one environmental factor that combines with a person's genetic predispositions to cause cancer. Others include diet, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, and exposure to sunlight, radiation, and viruses. Most cancers arise in people who were born with healthy genes: environmental factors play a role in perhaps 80% of all cancers. Prevention could greatly reduce this.
{"Cancer and the Environment: A Primer for Primary Care Physicians," www.psrus.org - April 2002

[WeAreRovers]

Originally posted by Macy
So what of alcohol?

Totally against the ban - nanny state gone mad.

100% totally bang on. If tobacco is so bad then ban it. If they are really worried about our health what about alcohol? Hypocrites.

When the thought police are round your house checking what your having for your dinner remember where this **** started.

I'm just glad I drink in ****holes where the ban won't be enforced.

KOH

[brendy_éire]

The arguments against the ban are pathetically weak. For those against the ban, how can you justify damaging another person's health just so a smoker can have a fag? Answer us that.

[sadloserkid]

Originally posted by Macy
Really?

The point being made there referred to passive smoking. I don't think passive drinking has yet hit the public consciousness in the same way.

[SÓC]

Originally posted by sadloserkid
The point being made there referred to passive smoking

Yup.
Let me rephrase
Ok if YOU (Macy) go to the pub and drink it wont give ME cancer.
Whilst smoking will.

[Macy]

Originally posted by sadloserkid
The point being made there referred to passive smoking. I don't think passive drinking has yet hit the public consciousness in the same way.
Jesus, don't tell me I have to trawl the internet for drink related brawls, attacks, drunk driving deaths and injuries etc etc. What was that case outside Annabell's that was in the papers recently again?

[max power]

i was in a pub the other night having a pint, i tripped and spilled my pint on someone, they fell over and died.......very sad indeed.

[Macy]

Originally posted by SÓC
Yup.
Let me rephrase
Ok if YOU (Macy) go to the pub and drink it wont give ME cancer.
Whilst smoking will.
So that stops you going to the pub now does it? How many barpersons didn't relise they would be working in a smoke filled environment?

Open up pub licences only to non-smoking pubs, and give customers and workers the choice of which they prefer. Or are they scared of the answer?

[Macy]

Originally posted by brendy_eire
The arguments against the ban are pathetically weak. For those against the ban, how can you justify damaging another person's health just so a smoker can have a fag? Answer us that.
They don't have to be in the pub if they don't want to be. Are you saying you walk into a pub expecting no one to be smoking?

[max power]

i work in the only pub ever to be on the cover of time mag, one of the most famous pubs on the planet, the temple bar and ask the management there about the smoking ban, they can't wait...a lof of foreign customers won't go into smoke filled pubs in Ireland, so a lot of people do care and will not go into these venues but will after march 29....eating ina pub with be a much nicer experience as well.....

[eoinh]

Originally posted by Macy
So what of alcohol?

Totally against the ban - nanny state gone mad.


You dont damage other people when you drink - unless youre stupid enough to drive. you do damage other people when you smoke.

200 barworkers a year die because of passive smoking in ireland - perhaps thats a good enough reason.

if i come home from a pub i reek of crappy tobacco smoke plus it aslo damages my health.


it would be kinder of you to urinate on me - less harmful (thats not an invitation for you to do that to me however :) )

[SÓC]

Originally posted by Macy
So that stops you going to the pub now does it?

People smoking stops me going to pubs as much as I might otherwise do.

What I cant understand is the logic of non-publician anti-ban people.

Its your right to smoke? What about everyone elses right not to have tar in their lungs?

Is their another arguement?

[tiktok]

Originally posted by Macy
So that stops you going to the pub now does it?

Where I live there are three pubs within a few minutes walk, the one that is now my regular, I chose because the other two have low ceilings and were very smoky. Simple as that.

As for tobacco being outlawed, brilliant bloody idea! Not going to happen though with the amount of tax the government takes in on it.

[Macy]

Originally posted by tiktok
As for tobacco being outlawed, brilliant bloody idea! Not going to happen though with the amount of tax the government takes in on it.
Exactly, so they should ditch the "health of the nation" rhetoric...

[WeAreRovers]

Originally posted by Macy


Open up pub licences only to non-smoking pubs, and give customers and workers the choice of which they prefer. Or are they scared of the answer?

Choice????? In this poxy country? Not a chance.

And SoC and others there's the argument above from Macy. SoC have you ever left a Wetherspoons boozer smelling of smoke?

I have no problem with a ban IF there's an element of choice. No smoking where food is served, no smoking at the bar etc but what about a pub like for instance the Horse and Jockey? Will the ban be enforced there? Of course not, and there's hundreds of working class/local pubs across the country like that.

If ******* who read the Irish Times and visit the pub a couple of times a year to eat bruschetta and have a glass of merlot want a smoke free environment fair enough. What about the actual drinkers? Where's our choice?

I'll be smoking in every pub I go in - I hope I meet one of you there!

KOH

[SÓC]

Originally posted by Macy
Exactly, so they should ditch the "health of the nation" rhetoric...

Well I know a fair few smokers who plan to give up when this comes in or who have already given up in preparation.

Add to that the amount of social smokers who wont smoke anymore.

Hence introducing this law will reduce the amount of smokers which is good for the health of the nation.

Banning fags would just force them underground. They would carry health warning etc.

Better way is, just like this, through education and policy make it socially unacceptable to smoke. If people dont buy them the companies who sell them wont continue to do so.

[Dodge]

Originally posted by Macy
What was that case outside Annabell's that was in the papers recently again?
Now thats a ban I'd actively campaign for. banning ****head public schoolboys!

[SÓC]

Originally posted by WeAreRovers
Choice????? In this poxy country? Not a chance.

SoC have you ever left a Wetherspoons boozer smelling of smoke?


Yup.

But of course not as badly as other pubs. Of course Im still inhailing the stuff just by being there.

WAR makes a good point about pubs in certain areas.

Down in the Gaeltacht past Dingle, like many other rural parts of the country the pubs dont obey the licencing laws so they are not going to pay a bit of notice to this. Gardaí are aware of this.

[WeAreRovers]

Originally posted by SÓC
Gardaí are aware of this.

The Guards aren't policing it though. It's up to the individual Publican and the couple of litter/dog/smoke wardens they employ. Hence my point about it not being enforced.

The point about people giving up and social smokers stopping just proves Macy's point about the nanny state. It's nobody's business if I smoke/drink/eat Big Macs/take smack etc

Then again I'm a crazy libertarian and hate all laws and authority. :D

This **** jeeps up I'm off to live in Cardiff.

KOH

[max power]

Originally posted by WeAreRovers
The Guards aren't policing it though. It's up to the individual Publican and the couple of litter/dog/smoke wardens they employ. Hence my point about it not being enforced.

The point about people giving up and social smokers stopping just proves Macy's point about the nanny state. It's nobody's business if I smoke/drink/eat Big Macs/take smack etc

Then again I'm a crazy libertarian and hate all laws and authority. :D

This **** jeeps up I'm off to live in Cardiff.

KOH

its noone s business if you smoke etc, well then if you i'm i pub its nobodys business if i swing my arms wildly and hit you in the face ???

its your business if you do it and it does not effect others, if youe at home smoke/f*rt/p*iss all over the place but from 29 march if your in a pub and i'm thre and you light up....don't think i for one will say or do nothing.......

[Macy]

Originally posted by max power
its your business if you do it and it does not effect others, if youe at home smoke/f*rt/p*iss all over the place but from 29 march if your in a pub and i'm thre and you light up....don't think i for one will say or do nothing.......
Scenario 1 - It's a big fúck off weight-lifting scumbag - are you going to tell him to put out his smoke?
Scenario 2 (esp for WAR) - There's 20 Rover's fans smoking in one corner of the pub. What are you going to do then?

Some of my regular spots, the landlord would be none to impressed if started grassing (no pun intended) on smoking in their pubs.

[max power]

don't really care who they are..most pubs in dublin have door men and i know most of them ( only a few companies and i know people who work for all of them ) so no problems......and as a wise man once said, no matter how big man be, kick him between legs and he falls...

you contact management and if they refuse to deal with the problem you report tehm, same as you would with the cinema or non smoking section of a restaurant.

the real problem is a woman, can' t say anything to them or its haressment and door men hate dealing with troublesome females

[SÓC]

Originally posted by WeAreRovers

The point about people giving up and social smokers stopping just proves Macy's point about the nanny state. It's nobody's business if I smoke/drink/eat Big Macs/take smack etc


Untill you get sick and start clogging up the health care system which the Government pays for.

As for Cardiff, my lease is up in a month if ya want it. I'll even throw in a Civil Serivce job for ya.

[WeAreRovers]

Originally posted by SÓC
Untill you get sick and start clogging up the health care system which the Government pays for.
.

That's what I pay my taxes for! If you drive a big **** off car and crash you'd expect to get treatment. We've entered the realms of making judgement calls on people receiving health care. And that's too scary for words.

KOH

[WeAreRovers]

Originally posted by max power
don't really care who they are..most pubs in dublin have door men and i know most of them ( only a few companies and i know people who work for all of them ) so no problems......and as a wise man once said, no matter how big man be, kick him between legs and he falls...

you contact management and if they refuse to deal with the problem you report tehm, same as you would with the cinema or non smoking section of a restaurant.


Vast, vast majority of Dublin pubs don't have doormen. The crappy city centre superpubs and suburban warehouse boozers do, luckily I don't drink in either kind of establishment.

"contact management....report them." That's what's known round our way as being a rat. Try telling a pub full of Rovers fans they can't smoke. Best of luck. We'll be bringing smokers to all of our away trips and we'll be smoking in your pubs. :D

KOH

[SÓC]

Originally posted by WeAreRovers
That's what I pay my taxes for! If you drive a big **** off car and crash you'd expect to get treatment. We've entered the realms of making judgement calls on people receiving health care. And that's too scary for words.

KOH

No No ok I didnt make myself clear (again).
An extreme example:
You smoke. Grand. Your right to do so. You pay taxes like me and my 3 friends.

Me and my 3 friends dont smoke. But becuase you smoke we end up in hospital, just like you. Now if you didnt smoke then we wouldnt have ended up in hospital.

Government looks at that and says; "Hey if this guy didnt smoke in public places then only he would have ended up in here giving us four free beds. If we had an active anti-smoking policy we'd save a **** load and free up beds."

Hence your rights are infringed. Ours are not.
Public Policy, Public Health, Public Security are accepted as ground for denying rights.

[WeAreRovers]

Originally posted by SÓC
No No ok I didnt make myself clear (again).
An extreme example:
You smoke. Grand. Your right to do so. You pay taxes like me and my 3 friends.

Me and my 3 friends dont smoke. But becuase you smoke we end up in hospital, just like you. Now if you didnt smoke then we wouldnt have ended up in hospital.



As you said it's an extreme example but even still it's ridiculous. When the day comes that 1 smoker can hospitalise 3 innocent passive smokers I'll be the first one charging the gates of PJ Carrolls.

My only point is that yes you have a right to a smoke free environment, I fully accept that but what if punters/staff and management of a particular pub want to allow smoking? Where is the harm? Who has the right to tell all these consenting adults what to do?

If someone walks into just such a "smoking" pub and doesn't like it they can take their business elsewhere. It's called choice and it's what makes our capitalist world go round. But it makes too much sense for our so-called leaders.

As you can tell I'm pretty wound up by this but it's the nanny state aspect of it that particularly annoys.

KOH

[eoinh]

Originally posted by WeAreRovers
When the day comes that 1 smoker can hospitalise 3 innocent passive smokers I'll be the first one charging the gates of PJ Carrolls.


youre right they dont put them into hospital - they kill them !

[SÓC]

Originally posted by WeAreRovers
As you said it's an extreme example but even still it's ridiculous. When the day comes that 1 smoker can hospitalise 3 innocent passive smokers I'll be the first one charging the gates of PJ Carrolls.

ok 1 smoker wont put 3 in hospitial. 1 million might effect 3 million peoples health though.



My only point is that yes you have a right to a smoke free environment, I fully accept that but what if punters/staff and management of a particular pub want to allow smoking? Where is the harm? Who has the right to tell all these consenting adults what to do?

Problem is that employers are duty bound by law to provide a safe working environment. Its grand to say the employees dont mind working there, until 20 years later they come back and sue. Even if there contract had an express term saying that they dont mind working in a smoking pub a court could strike such a contract down on a number of grounds.

It annoys me too to an extent that they go after smoking in workplaces becuase it grabs headlines but then decide not to have an extra taxes etc on those big industires who put tonnes of smoke and gases out each and every day.

[my left foot]

personally i cant wait for the new law forcin all of you poisonous drivers to drive your cars only in the privacy of your own garages.it`ll put a stop to the rise in childhood asthma ......mebbe

[WeAreRovers]

Originally posted by SÓC
ok 1 smoker wont put 3 in hospitial. 1 million might effect 3 million peoples health though.

Problem is that employers are duty bound by law to provide a safe working environment. Its grand to say the employees dont mind working there, until 20 years later they come back and sue. Even if there contract had an express term saying that they dont mind working in a smoking pub a court could strike such a contract down on a number of grounds.

It annoys me too to an extent that they go after smoking in workplaces becuase it grabs headlines but then decide not to have an extra taxes etc on those big industires who put tonnes of smoke and gases out each and every day.

This is my last post on this, for today anyway - I'm off to the pub for a pint (and a smoke)

The workplace thing is a sham. Martin used the Barworker's union (Impact?) to bring this in. They represent less than 30% of barworkers.

I'm not defending the fact that only 30% are in unions merely that they don't represent barworkers. This will cost jobs but hey the one's with with jobs will be healthy. :mad:

And Conor, top post apart from the apologetic FF sign-off. ;)

KOH

[eoinh]

Originally posted by Conor74
As a fellow who's work takes him into courtrooms

Most FF'ers do end up in court ...... or tribunals:)

Yore right though about the great damage drink or uncontrolled drinking does to society. Is it one in four people in hospital are there due to drink?

[Footie_Fan]

I'm completly in favour of the ban. I'm sick of getting smoke blown in my face and my clothes smelling disgusting in the morning. If you want to damage your own health fair enough but do it at home.

[Qunnie]

Originally posted by eoinh
You dont damage other people when you drink - unless youre stupid enough to drive. you do damage other people when you smoke.

you don't have to drive to damage other when you're drunk!

look at the case last week for one. I have been damage by a person that was after drink and there are 1000's more.

FACT 100% of non-smokers die! :D

BTW I am a smoker and do plan to give them up when the ban comes in cos I don't want to die from the cold standing outside the pub everynight.

The ban will come in even to the rural pubs i.e. my local. it may not come in straight away but the treat of been sued you bet it will come in.

[Footie_Fan]

Originally posted by Conor74
Not as bad as having sand kicked in yer face...:D ;)

True!

[ger121]

Have to say I voted yes. I'm an on/ off smoker.Unfortunately I'm more on than off:o

[the 12 th man]

Originally posted by Footie_Fan
I I'm sick of getting smoke blown in my face .

you know thats a major sign that a bird wants yeh to shift her
dont yeh:D

[Peadar]

By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Smokers are up to four times more likely than non-smokers to develop a disease that is the leading cause of adult blindness, public health experts have said in the British Medical Journal.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is an irreversible and progressive illness that robs people of their sight. Although its causes are unknown, evidence from three large studies shows smokers have a higher risk of suffering from it.

"Smokers are three to four times as likely to develop AMD," Richard Edwards, a public health expert at Manchester University, told Reuters.

In Britain an estimated one in five cases of AMD are attributable to smoking. AMD caused by smoking has impaired the sight of about 54,000 people and blinded nearly 18,000.


Full story on MSN.co.uk (http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=article&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=11881&id=14246&d=20040305&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&lc=en&ae=windows-1252)

[Macy]

No mention of over what period that those cases have been.

Also says that high saturated fat diet is a cause. Ban Burgers from Pub Grub?

[Peadar]

Originally posted by Macy
Ban Burgers from Pub Grub?

Or make it compulsory to have treadmills in your pub if you sell burgers and chips :D

[max power]

if we were to ban all things that make you feel bad then i'd call for a ban to city fans talking cause there a pain in the ar*e !!

that was a very bad joke and i wish to whip myself until i understand just how bad it was........