Smoking

[Sue Denim..]

It says in the bill that to 'smoke' is defined as having lit tobacco or a substance containing tobacco.

This means that herbal fags are still allowed in enclosed spaces.

.... and possibly grass too if they change the law!

[Snowball]

Herbal cigarettes still being allowed may sound perfectly reasonable, but have you ever sat next to someone working their way through a pack in a pub? I have. They smell like a mixture of kippers and a dead cat. Yuck.

[HeinzHines]

I think at the end of the day a total smoking ban is stupid....

I believe that people do have a right to clean air in a bar area and that non-smokers shouldnt be punished for being in a smoking enviroment...

But at the same time, smoking isnt illegal and the goverment give you the right of choice to smoke after the age of 16, therefore wouldnt the easiest solution being that there should be a proper smoking area in all pubs/clubs/indoor-area of any sort that is well ventilated to prevent smoke leaking into non-smoking areas....it doesnt have to be big...just enough so when you feel the need to have a fag you just nip into the smoking area...no harm done to anyone but yourself and fellow smokers....

And also i read on a beer mat last night that 83% of people in scotland were against a total smoking ban, survey was done by the Scottish Exec....

They should listen to what the people want....smokers arent all cretins and im sure that 99% of smokers would be in favour of a small smoking area in indoor places

[Swingin' Ryan]

It's a joke that the government can sell something, allow people to become addicted to cigarettes that they've sold for a profit, then ban it in public places.

Whats wrong with smoking and non-smoking sections? Can anyone in favour of the ban provide a legitimate problem with that idea?

[Larsen B]

It's a joke that the government can sell something' date=' allow people to become addicted to cigarettes that they've sold for a profit, then ban it in public places.

Whats wrong with smoking and non-smoking sections? Can anyone in favour of the ban provide a legitimate problem with that idea?[/quote']

Even costly for pub owners to comply with? Especially for ventilation to be up to scratch.

[Swingin' Ryan]

If you look at the amount that Dublin bars have lost in sales post-ban, improving ventilation looks like the most money conscious option. I'm very rarely in non-smoking areas of restaurants and been able to smell smoke, and I've been in some shittily ventilated restaurants.

[Larsen B]

If you look at the amount that Dublin bars have lost in sales post-ban' date=' improving ventilation looks like the most money conscious option. I'm very rarely in non-smoking areas of restaurants and been able to smell smoke, and I've been in some shittily ventilated restaurants.[/quote']

I'm not sure the fact that you can't smell means you aren't inhaling it.

[Swingin' Ryan]

Unless you lived in a restaurant, I'd be amazed if the passive smoke from another ventilated area of the restaurant which is so faint you cannot see or smell it, had any effect on you.

[Da Fat Porn Star]

BUt I've had to walk out of small bars because the overwelling smoke factor has been so much.

[soundian]

It says in the bill that to 'smoke' is defined as having lit tobacco or a substance containing tobacco.

This means that herbal fags are still allowed in enclosed spaces.

.... and possibly grass too if they change the law!

I read in the paper, can't remember which one, that herbal cigarettes won't be allowed in theatre productions, only artificial cigarettes. I assume that extends to everywhere.

[Marillionboy]

That is dispicable re theatre productions. It should be up to the actors and directors. If one of my plays that required smoking was present with actors using plastic cigarettes I'd be livid.

[Stuart]

The only problem I have on the 'second-hand smoke' topic is when it's around children, so I'm more than happy that restraunts should be completely smoke free. But children aren't allowed in bars anyway.

All this talk about 'rights' to clean air is getting a bit old.

Even outside you're not going to be inhaling clean air, you are inhaling car exhaust fumes, deoderants CFC's, chimney fumes, the other fumes you get when things are burnt.

If the right to 'clean air' is bothering you so much, by all means write to Mr McConnnal and put forward your case for an outright ban on cars, buses, setting things on fire, factories etc.

On the topic of rights, it is my right as a person over the age of 16 to smoke in permitted areas. And the law currently says I can do that in bars. Until this law is changed in March next year, whine all you want to, but I, and many many other smokers will be upholding our right to smoke.

It's not like smoking in bars is a new thing. Perhaps if it was only introduced in the last few years, I can understand people complaining about being in smoke-filled bars, as non-smokers wouldn't be used to it. But the fact is there has been smoke in bars since each of you started going to them, and you knew this when you decided they would be the establishments you choose to frequent. If smoking really bothers you that much, you would have chose to do something else with your weekends etc rather than go somewhere you were well aware would subject you to cigarette smoke.

I am aware this law has been set, and that bars will be a smoke free area, so rejoyce non-smokers, don't moan about the fact that there is smoke in bars, and has been for all this time, and the damage it does to your poor lungs - there wont be any more soon.

[Marillionboy]

Since I've given up I'm in favour of the ban as its not actually a ban curtailing individual freedoms, its a ban to prevent inflicting damage on others. If I go to a gig three nights a week its gonna seriously damage my lungs, and if I work in a bar or enjoy going to them, or perform in such places its the same thing.

I think with pubs it should be optional or pubs that have the space should have non smoking areas, like on trains. But theatres are different: smoking herbal cigarettes on stage is not going to damage anyone's health in the auditorium one bit.

[Stuart]

Since I've given up I'm in favour of the ban as its not actually a ban curtailing individual freedoms' date=' its a ban to prevent inflicting damage on others. If I go to a gig three nights a week its gonna seriously damage my lungs, and if I work in a bar or enjoy going to them, or perform in such places its the same thing.

I think with pubs it should be optional or pubs that have the space should have non smoking areas, like on trains. But theatres are different: smoking herbal cigarettes on stage is not going to damage anyone's health in the auditorium one bit.[/quote']

The concentration of carcinogenic elements of cigarette smoke is so small that 1 cigarette directly inhaled wont harm you in the slightest, so imagine the concentration that the passive smoke will have dispersed in the air of a thousand seater auditorium. It's ludicrious.

Stanislavski would have a fit.

[Sue Denim..]

I remember an Irish landlord being interviewed on Sky News about the effect of the smoking ban and he said...

"At least before all we could smell was cigarette smoke... now all we can smell are farts!"

Class.

[catherine]

what a pile of fucking shit!

it shouldnt bother you...

i am for it. i hate smelling of smoke and breathing in peoples smoke. i work in a pub and used to work in a pub and a night club and i really enjoy it but hate the smoke factor.

i know of some smokers who say they dont mind it cause it means they will smoke less. my friend fiona is like a chain smoker when she drinks, but we were at a houise party were she had to go outside to smoke and she had like 3 the whole night. and it didnt bother her.

i like the idea cause i love going out and dont see why i have to put my health at risk to enjoy myself. i know it means others may not be able to enjoy themselves as much. but its a price to pay for smoking. im trying to think of something to compare it too... hmmm

[Sue Denim..]

i like the idea cause i love going out and dont see why i have to put my health at risk to enjoy myself. i know it means others may not be able to enjoy themselves as much. but its a price to pay for smoking. im trying to think of something to compare it too... hmmm

You won't have as many pubs to choose from though when they all get shut down.

[catherine]

what cause everyone is going to decide not to go out anymore? the ones i go to are the kind of places people will go to whether they can smoke or not. people are going to have to learn to deal with the changes. or yes they'll have to just stay at home and drink and let the pubs and clubs shut down

[Marillionboy]

The thing about the smoking debate is you have to have smoked and no longer smoke to see boith sides. if you smoke you are addicted and it is embarrassing when you look back how it affects your judgement of things. You use excuses like it giving you something to do with your hands or caliming your nerves or that you only smoke when you drink or whatever, and that when questioned about what you are doing to others...its a free country, i have a right to smoke, and the usual way smokers look down on non smokers as if they are cowards or spoil sports etc out of frustration.

At one time you could smoke on tube trains: that was banned outright years ago for safety reasons and now no one can imagine lighting up on a tube. Any ban like that will be adjiusted to, but with pubs I would say they are not public places like public transport, they are places you choose to go to where smoking is likely to be part of the place. Therefore some people should be given places to do that in a pub. But if it gets more people giving up then fine ultimately, because everyone is better off without cigarettes, like heroin addicts are better off without heroin but deny it because they can't face giving up.

[Guest AmbientMood]

I'm a smoker and not bothered by the ban at all. It would make me feel rather selfish to oppose it.

[spellchecker]

SOUR FUCKING GRAPES YOU MISERABLE OLD SMOKERS

most likely in 30-40 years (even less now for you ian) most of you smokers will be dead if you continue to smoke, so at least future message board users will not have to put up with your boring self-centered rights to smoke tirades. you don't have the right to smoke in a hospital. SO FUCK OFF. you don't have the right to smoke in a cinema. SO FUCK OFF. you don't have the right to smoke BEHIND the bar. SO FUCK OFF.

[delboy]

having spent some time in the republic of ireland recently where the ban has been in force for a year or so, it does work though a lot of pubs have gone out of business because of the ban.

as a smoker i have accepted the whinging demands of non and former smokers and the fact that soon i will not even be able to smoke in the comfort of me own car.

if the government hate cigarettes that much then why dont they ban it full stop? oh yes they dont mind taking the tax on fags do they?

[Guest tv tanned]

SOUR FUCKING GRAPES YOU MISERABLE OLD SMOKERS

most likely in 30-40 years (even less now for you ian) most of you smokers will be dead if you continue to smoke' date=' so at least future message board users will not have to put up with your boring self-centered rights to smoke tirades. you don't have the right to smoke in a hospital. SO FUCK OFF. you don't have the right to smoke in a cinema. SO FUCK OFF. you don't have the right to smoke BEHIND the bar. SO FUCK OFF.[/quote']

*applauds*

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

SOUR FUCKING GRAPES YOU MISERABLE OLD SMOKERS

most likely in 30-40 years (even less now for you ian) most of you smokers will be dead if you continue to smoke' date=' so at least future message board users will not have to put up with your boring self-centered rights to smoke tirades. you don't have the right to smoke in a hospital. SO FUCK OFF. you don't have the right to smoke in a cinema. SO FUCK OFF. you don't have the right to smoke BEHIND the bar. SO FUCK OFF.[/quote']

Yeah! This guy's stickin' it to the man!

[Da Fat Porn Star]

I'm sure Roy Castle would be fully behind the ban.