Ireland's Smoking Ban

[Urban Ranger]

Fair enough. My argument still stands though.

Also, there are other considerations like the health of employees in these establishments. Even if the employers don't have to get medical insurance for them, it is still a social cost.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is a ludicrous law. No one is forced to walk into a pub.

What about us in the liquor service industry that are non smokers? I work at a friggin off licence and I still come back stinking of smoke.

Boohoo, find another job.

--

If an establishment wants to allow smoking let 'em. No one is forcing you to be there.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is a ludicrous law. No one is forced to walk into a pub.

What about us in the liquor service industry that are non smokers? I work at a friggin off licence and I still come back stinking of smoke.

Boohoo, find another job.

So you are saying that non-smokers are second class citizens?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If an establishment wants to allow smoking let 'em. No one is forcing you to be there.

If an establishment does not want to follow fire or hygiene regulations, should it be allowed to do so?

[bipolarbear]

We should invade.
reason 1: the smoking law is facism.
reason2: to take abck northern Ireland for the Irish.

[Skanky Burns]

Boohoo, poor smokers.

Acutally I was in a supermarket today and was thinking about how, back in the day, they used to allow people to smoke in supermarkets and pretty much whereever they happened to be. Talk about grotty.

[Urban Ranger]

Not that long ago smoking was allowed on buses.

::vomit::

[Solly]

Wezil,

If it was good for business the State would not have to force business to comply

Not necessarily. See this as an example of game theory, and the state's regulation as the enforcement of co-operation.

Cockney

i'm a non-smoker but i live with 6 smokers (2 of whom are 'social smokers')

"Social smokers" My solution to places that leave u reaking of smoke is to go in one night when you can actually tolerate smoke, with plenty of mates. All poklish off three cigars in about half an hour, and look at the greyness of the place. Then leave. It makes the place stink for hours and deters customers.

Azazel

Why doesn't anyone like my idea? Vents are perfect. They'll suck all that smoke away.

Yep, that's the ideal solution. But the pubs don't seem to want to spend the money for this. Seems like the obvious reason why they would actually be happy with enforced co-operation through regulation. The government (UK) has definitely given enough hints that if the industry doesn't regulate itself with stuff like excellent ventilation, then it will step in and force certain changes.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by our_man
So, let's get this straight Laz. You object to us non-smoker's theatrical coughing and self-righteous little homilies, while I object to smokers putting my health at risk because they have complete disregard for their own.

In fairness, both acts endanger your health if you do them around me.

[GePap]

Who cares? People will have to find another oral fixation, big deal.

[Boris Godunov]

There is, however, no conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke is enough of a health risk to warrant these measures that are blatantly against the right of a business owner to run his establishment as he sees fit. The most comprehensive study conducted on the issue found, to the surprise of those running it, that nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke for a great periods of time had no significant increased propensity over other nonsmokers to develop health problems.

So it really isn't a health issue, it's an issue of comfort. And in that regard, I don't see much justification for the laws, as a bar or restaurant owner should be able to allow smoking should they so choose. I think a better, and potentially more lucrative idea, would have been for NYC to require licensing for establishments that wished to permit smoking, as they do for alcohol.

[GePap]

That would be just fine as well.

I just think it silly for people to act as if there were a right to smoke.

[Boris Godunov]

As much as there is a right to chew gum, or use any other legal product. However, business owners should have the right to permit smoking in their establishments, IMO. The ban is an encroachment on their rights to run their business as they please.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you are saying that non-smokers are second class citizens?

As opposed to smokers being second-class citizens? Non-smokers can have their own non-smoking restaurants and bars. There shouldn't be a blanket ban. If the owner wants to allow smoking... let him.

[debeest]

Several studies in California, conducted by a variety of parties with no stake in the results, have all concluded that smoking bans have either no effect whatsoever, or a very small positive effect on the income of bars and restaurants. The "profits-will-suffer" argument has been pretty thoroughly disproved.

I suspect that the reasons why owners tend to oppose these laws are (1) a reasonable, but inaccurate, expectation that profits will suffer, (2) resistance to any rule that tells them what they have to do, and (3) a strong aversion to having to tell their customers they can't do something.

[Ming]

I have no problem with smoking in "Public" indoor spaces...

However, private establishments should be allowed to set the rules. Smoking is a legal product... and owners should be allowed to make the decision for themselves. Most bar owners I know have talked about how they will lose business if they didn't allow smoking.