Davy_S
Well-known member
Re: Davey_S
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif
<hr width=100% size=1>
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif
<hr width=100% size=1>
Smoking ban - Ireland.
- Thread starter westernsailor
- Start date
l'escargot
New member
>>total nonsense........what about passive exhaust fumes??<<
If you have been taking your car into the pub - it's got to stop!
Smokers a far from an easy target, they argue back very loudly, but it is about time they accepted that the majority of people would not choose to sit in a smokey atmosphere given the choice.
<hr width=100% size=1>
If you have been taking your car into the pub - it's got to stop!
Smokers a far from an easy target, they argue back very loudly, but it is about time they accepted that the majority of people would not choose to sit in a smokey atmosphere given the choice.
<hr width=100% size=1>
CaptainChaos
New member
"The gas detector on boats is always under the stove"
Lawks, another rule I'm not familiar with. Seen quite a few gas detectors on a quite few boats in my time, too. Usually placed in low points under the sole where gas might collect - not where crumbs collect under the cooker.
Are you making this stuff up to tease an old sea-dog? Or is this some new-fangled regulation applying to all those Euro-style plastic fantastics you see bobbing about on top of the Solent these days?
Lor', it'll be smoke detectors in the cockpit next. And buckets with water in, just in case....
<hr width=100% size=1>
Lawks, another rule I'm not familiar with. Seen quite a few gas detectors on a quite few boats in my time, too. Usually placed in low points under the sole where gas might collect - not where crumbs collect under the cooker.
Are you making this stuff up to tease an old sea-dog? Or is this some new-fangled regulation applying to all those Euro-style plastic fantastics you see bobbing about on top of the Solent these days?
Lor', it'll be smoke detectors in the cockpit next. And buckets with water in, just in case....
<hr width=100% size=1>
oldgit
Well-known member
Re:As time goes bye
Things which were once thought acceptable,no longer are,due to public opinion having changed.It was once thought acceptable to defecate in public and ok to spit wherever you you wanted to.Remember not so long ago the "No spitting on bus "signs
It was felt that due to reasons of public health etc this should no longer be acceptable .
Smoking will go the same way eventually.
<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.
Things which were once thought acceptable,no longer are,due to public opinion having changed.It was once thought acceptable to defecate in public and ok to spit wherever you you wanted to.Remember not so long ago the "No spitting on bus "signs
It was felt that due to reasons of public health etc this should no longer be acceptable .
Smoking will go the same way eventually.
<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.
Dirk
New member
No gas on my boat! Just Paraffin and diesel. And you can bet your navtex and your autopilot that I'll be smoking my sweezing tarred up lungs when ever I'm on board!
No good having a potting shed if you can't enjoy your self in it!
Dont get me wrong, we must respect others about us and in truth I think the ban is a great idea. I regret having ever started and I dare any smoker to say otherwise
<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Dirk on 24/03/2004 20:51 (server time).</FONT></P>
No good having a potting shed if you can't enjoy your self in it!
Dont get me wrong, we must respect others about us and in truth I think the ban is a great idea. I regret having ever started and I dare any smoker to say otherwise
<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Dirk on 24/03/2004 20:51 (server time).</FONT></P>
halcyon
Well-known member
Re:As time goes bye
From what I see with our local youth, spitting is in public is again the norm, so it is possible that all things could be reversed in time, or is it because there banned or not acceptable.
Brian
<hr width=100% size=1>
From what I see with our local youth, spitting is in public is again the norm, so it is possible that all things could be reversed in time, or is it because there banned or not acceptable.
Brian
<hr width=100% size=1>
TheBoatman
New member
I\'m confused
As a smoking sailor, drinking and eating traveller, self-employed person, I have a problem!
As a sailor I have never smoked below decks, I think it's dangerous and unfair to non smokers.
As a drinker, I believe that I should be allowed to smoke in bars and I don't mind going to a specially reserved bar do do so.
As a traveller, I object to being sent to an area 30 feet square (as at Gatwick) miles from anywhere to have a fag. After all between 25-30% of the population smoke and given the numbers of travellers thats a lot of people to put in such a small space.
I genuinely don't want other people to suffer from my "addiction" but when outside in free air I find it somewhat difficult to accept that I'm causing a problem when we are surrounded by car/lorry exhaust fumes and if we talk about airports there are more exhaust fumes from one take off than I could generate in a life time?
I know that I have to try to stop my addiction to the weed, both from a personnel level and a social one, but why am I treated as a lepper by non smokers when I add so much money to the exchequer. If I and all other smokers quit tomorrow you non smokers would have to pay a lot more tax to compensate for it! Gordon would go mad.
From memory, the tax on ciggies and drink equates to about the same level as half that required to run the NHS.
Maybe I should quit the fags and drink just to teach you non smokers/drinkers a lesson and hit you where Gordon hurts?
Unfortunately I have just realised that as a drinking, smoking, car driving, travelling, self employed, VAT registered, boat owning, Middle Englang Man, in a normal stable marriage with kids that want to go to Uni, born in England of white parents, detacted home owner, I stand no chance. I can but wait for Gordon to tax me out of existance!
What then I ask?
Will I go on state benefit, I seriously doubt it, Gordon and his cronies will contrive to make sure that I don't quailfy because I'm not an asylem seeker, coloured or an ethnic?
<hr width=100% size=1>
As a smoking sailor, drinking and eating traveller, self-employed person, I have a problem!
As a sailor I have never smoked below decks, I think it's dangerous and unfair to non smokers.
As a drinker, I believe that I should be allowed to smoke in bars and I don't mind going to a specially reserved bar do do so.
As a traveller, I object to being sent to an area 30 feet square (as at Gatwick) miles from anywhere to have a fag. After all between 25-30% of the population smoke and given the numbers of travellers thats a lot of people to put in such a small space.
I genuinely don't want other people to suffer from my "addiction" but when outside in free air I find it somewhat difficult to accept that I'm causing a problem when we are surrounded by car/lorry exhaust fumes and if we talk about airports there are more exhaust fumes from one take off than I could generate in a life time?
I know that I have to try to stop my addiction to the weed, both from a personnel level and a social one, but why am I treated as a lepper by non smokers when I add so much money to the exchequer. If I and all other smokers quit tomorrow you non smokers would have to pay a lot more tax to compensate for it! Gordon would go mad.
From memory, the tax on ciggies and drink equates to about the same level as half that required to run the NHS.
Maybe I should quit the fags and drink just to teach you non smokers/drinkers a lesson and hit you where Gordon hurts?
Unfortunately I have just realised that as a drinking, smoking, car driving, travelling, self employed, VAT registered, boat owning, Middle Englang Man, in a normal stable marriage with kids that want to go to Uni, born in England of white parents, detacted home owner, I stand no chance. I can but wait for Gordon to tax me out of existance!
What then I ask?
Will I go on state benefit, I seriously doubt it, Gordon and his cronies will contrive to make sure that I don't quailfy because I'm not an asylem seeker, coloured or an ethnic?
<hr width=100% size=1>
BrianJ
New member
Re: On the table
ThereI was ON the table.. no, not sitting AT the table, and the surgeon performing my open heart surgery said to me , just before they put me under. Oh by the way ,do you smoke "?.. I said "No I gave it up 20 + years ago". I asked why he wanted to know, his reply , "well I would cancel the operation now, no point in doing it if you still smoke."......surely a message here.
BrianJ
<hr width=100% size=1>BrianJ
ThereI was ON the table.. no, not sitting AT the table, and the surgeon performing my open heart surgery said to me , just before they put me under. Oh by the way ,do you smoke "?.. I said "No I gave it up 20 + years ago". I asked why he wanted to know, his reply , "well I would cancel the operation now, no point in doing it if you still smoke."......surely a message here.
BrianJ
<hr width=100% size=1>BrianJ
PerL
New member
Majority of people have been given a choice and are still going to restaurants that allow smoking. Given any sort of belief in supply and demand theory, no smoking restaurants should be doing really well if your statement was correct,. Unfortunately, most of them that I know of have ceased to exist.
The fact of the matter is that - while most people do not like smoke in their food - most restaurants have a rather sensible approach to this, trying to limit the smoke while not banning it by use of fans, high ceilings etc. This has worked well, and most people do not feel that there is a problem going to restaurants with non-smoking tables.
WHat we are seeing now is a non sensible approach to the matter. I believe noone should be forced to endure smoke against their own will, however this can - and should - be achieved in a different way.
<hr width=100% size=1>
The fact of the matter is that - while most people do not like smoke in their food - most restaurants have a rather sensible approach to this, trying to limit the smoke while not banning it by use of fans, high ceilings etc. This has worked well, and most people do not feel that there is a problem going to restaurants with non-smoking tables.
WHat we are seeing now is a non sensible approach to the matter. I believe noone should be forced to endure smoke against their own will, however this can - and should - be achieved in a different way.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Davy_S
Well-known member
Bravely spoken!
To make the benefit work, you must remember to have 10kids and a council house that works even if your white british.
<hr width=100% size=1>
To make the benefit work, you must remember to have 10kids and a council house that works even if your white british.
<hr width=100% size=1>
l'escargot
New member
Find me a non-smoker (or even a smoker) that says that given a choice they would rather sit in a smokey restaurant. There are many non-smoking restaurants doing really well at all levels from supermarket restaurants and fast food outlets, through Pizza Hut to "select" restaurants. There are many more that do not allow smoking in the dining area that do equally well.
Smokers are finally being driven out to the windy corners as the social pariahs they are.
Your argument is probably clouded by associating with smokers in the same way as mine is by associating with non smokers - but the non smoker is now in the majority and that majority is still increasing. That is why this legislation is finally coming in because the Government know it will succeed. (and yes I am an ex smoker - 60 a day at one time - and I would rather stick pins in my eyes than start again)
<hr width=100% size=1>
Smokers are finally being driven out to the windy corners as the social pariahs they are.
Your argument is probably clouded by associating with smokers in the same way as mine is by associating with non smokers - but the non smoker is now in the majority and that majority is still increasing. That is why this legislation is finally coming in because the Government know it will succeed. (and yes I am an ex smoker - 60 a day at one time - and I would rather stick pins in my eyes than start again)
<hr width=100% size=1>
oldgit
Well-known member
Re:Some thoughts.
Can you explain to me why If I wish to go to any resturant or bar of my choice that I have to endure smoke wafting over to my bit of the world and making my clothes reek.Of my little regular group of bon viveurs numbering a dozen or so,no one smokes and we often outnumber other people in the restuarant,but all it takes is one smoker and we are the spoilsports.It is simply not possible to segregate smokers from those who not enjoy the habit.
Being fortunate enough to run my own company I am able to work live and boat smoke free,so why not eat and drink to?
Is it not possible for smokers to go without for a small part of the day while in public areas.
Regarding car fumes they are an unfortunate part of the need to travel.
<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.
Can you explain to me why If I wish to go to any resturant or bar of my choice that I have to endure smoke wafting over to my bit of the world and making my clothes reek.Of my little regular group of bon viveurs numbering a dozen or so,no one smokes and we often outnumber other people in the restuarant,but all it takes is one smoker and we are the spoilsports.It is simply not possible to segregate smokers from those who not enjoy the habit.
Being fortunate enough to run my own company I am able to work live and boat smoke free,so why not eat and drink to?
Is it not possible for smokers to go without for a small part of the day while in public areas.
Regarding car fumes they are an unfortunate part of the need to travel.
<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.
Bergman
New member
Re: On the table
Presumably then he would have asked the hepatitis patient if he had given up intravenous heroin use.
Or the AIDS patient if he if he had given up sodomy
Or the injured driver if he had given up drinking
Or the syphylis patient if he had given up sex
I never realised that doctors made value judgements on their patients lifestyle before condescending to treat them.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Presumably then he would have asked the hepatitis patient if he had given up intravenous heroin use.
Or the AIDS patient if he if he had given up sodomy
Or the injured driver if he had given up drinking
Or the syphylis patient if he had given up sex
I never realised that doctors made value judgements on their patients lifestyle before condescending to treat them.
<hr width=100% size=1>
PerL
New member
Re:Some thoughts.
What you're basically saying is that - when given the choice of a smoking ansd a non smoking restaurant - you demand the right to choose either of them and not being affected by smoke. I find this a tad egoistic.
As a person enjoying the occasional cigar and frequently attending both smoking and non-smoking establishments without much of a thought, I nevertheless like to have the possibility of sitting down after a nice meal (often enough in a separate area) with a cigar and a calvados. I do not consider myself a great hazard to my environment, I never smoke at work, on my boat, in my flat or in my car and I always make a point of asking before lighting up, knowing that I do produce a substantial amount of smoke.
I am also generally a nice guy and realise that some people smoke more than me and I respect their preferences as being different and realise that establishments catering for their tastes should be allowed to exist. Unfortunately, this approach does not seem to be shared by the so called majority.
When looking at preferences - as many try to do, it is also important to look at the strengths of preferences. While I may wish to dine in a smoke free establishment (causing me - alas - to be temporarily part of the majority), my preference is almost never strong enough to change my preference for a particular restaurant on other grounds or indeed to stand up against those of smokers in my company. So, whereas the majority might indeed have preferences against smoking, it does not imply that the total preference of society should be to that effect.
It all ends up with one question - why does it have to be so difficult to respect that other people may be different?
<hr width=100% size=1>
What you're basically saying is that - when given the choice of a smoking ansd a non smoking restaurant - you demand the right to choose either of them and not being affected by smoke. I find this a tad egoistic.
As a person enjoying the occasional cigar and frequently attending both smoking and non-smoking establishments without much of a thought, I nevertheless like to have the possibility of sitting down after a nice meal (often enough in a separate area) with a cigar and a calvados. I do not consider myself a great hazard to my environment, I never smoke at work, on my boat, in my flat or in my car and I always make a point of asking before lighting up, knowing that I do produce a substantial amount of smoke.
I am also generally a nice guy and realise that some people smoke more than me and I respect their preferences as being different and realise that establishments catering for their tastes should be allowed to exist. Unfortunately, this approach does not seem to be shared by the so called majority.
When looking at preferences - as many try to do, it is also important to look at the strengths of preferences. While I may wish to dine in a smoke free establishment (causing me - alas - to be temporarily part of the majority), my preference is almost never strong enough to change my preference for a particular restaurant on other grounds or indeed to stand up against those of smokers in my company. So, whereas the majority might indeed have preferences against smoking, it does not imply that the total preference of society should be to that effect.
It all ends up with one question - why does it have to be so difficult to respect that other people may be different?
<hr width=100% size=1>
westernsailor
New member
Health & safety issue.
The smoking ban is being brought in undet Irish Health and Safety regulations.
An employer must ensure that en employee is not exposed to cigarette or cigar or pipe smoke.
This gives rise to unusual circumstances. A saleman drivung in a company car ????
<hr width=100% size=1>
The smoking ban is being brought in undet Irish Health and Safety regulations.
An employer must ensure that en employee is not exposed to cigarette or cigar or pipe smoke.
This gives rise to unusual circumstances. A saleman drivung in a company car ????
<hr width=100% size=1>
PerL
New member
Re: Health & safety issue.
Are firemen allowed to extinguish a fire at a tobacconist or a tobacco warehouse?
<hr width=100% size=1>
Are firemen allowed to extinguish a fire at a tobacconist or a tobacco warehouse?
<hr width=100% size=1>
kesey
Member
Re: Health & safety issue.
Perl, I will be happy to frequent only non-smoking restaurants. Congrats to the Irish government on having the courage to consider the health and well being of Irish employees, and of the population in general.
If anyone wishes to frequent smoking restaurants good luck to them. They are welcome to the stink and unpleasantness. I see no reason on earth why I should be expected to suffer the latter, in silence or otherwise. Do you?
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://homepage.eircom.net/~ajpower>http://homepage.eircom.net/~ajpower</A>
Perl, I will be happy to frequent only non-smoking restaurants. Congrats to the Irish government on having the courage to consider the health and well being of Irish employees, and of the population in general.
If anyone wishes to frequent smoking restaurants good luck to them. They are welcome to the stink and unpleasantness. I see no reason on earth why I should be expected to suffer the latter, in silence or otherwise. Do you?
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://homepage.eircom.net/~ajpower>http://homepage.eircom.net/~ajpower</A>
TheBoatman
New member
Re: Health & safety issue.
Only last week I returned from a business trip to Ireland and the new regs are the topic of much conversation, mainly because of the ludicrous situation they find themselves in. I will give an example.
If I’m not staying in the hotel I can smoke in the street.
If I buy a pint and stand outside the hotel and smoke, I’m breaking the law.
If I’m a resident I can smoke in my room but in no other part of the hotel.
If I buy a pint and ask the hotel to rent me a room for (say) 2 hours I’m breaking the law.
Within the law there is no allowance for the hotel/bar to provide a completely separate room for smokers.
When I asked the hotel owner if it was possible for him to supply an outside garden area for smokers he said he genuinely didn’t know the answer. He also added that he thought his business was going to be seriously affected as being in a rural area a lot of his business was with farmers that after a hard days work on their own came down to the pub for a drink, smoke and chat with the neighbours.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Only last week I returned from a business trip to Ireland and the new regs are the topic of much conversation, mainly because of the ludicrous situation they find themselves in. I will give an example.
If I’m not staying in the hotel I can smoke in the street.
If I buy a pint and stand outside the hotel and smoke, I’m breaking the law.
If I’m a resident I can smoke in my room but in no other part of the hotel.
If I buy a pint and ask the hotel to rent me a room for (say) 2 hours I’m breaking the law.
Within the law there is no allowance for the hotel/bar to provide a completely separate room for smokers.
When I asked the hotel owner if it was possible for him to supply an outside garden area for smokers he said he genuinely didn’t know the answer. He also added that he thought his business was going to be seriously affected as being in a rural area a lot of his business was with farmers that after a hard days work on their own came down to the pub for a drink, smoke and chat with the neighbours.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Dominic
New member
You said.....
- but the non smoker is now in the majority and that majority is still increasing. That ....
Is that true ?
The data I read says that young women are the heavy smokers and increasing.
There goes your plans for an active future sex-life.
<hr width=100% size=1>
- but the non smoker is now in the majority and that majority is still increasing. That ....
Is that true ?
The data I read says that young women are the heavy smokers and increasing.
There goes your plans for an active future sex-life.
<hr width=100% size=1>
cgull
New member
Re:Some thoughts.
Always amuses me Little Chef restaurants...always ask Smoking or Non, but tables are only 6ft apart!
Motto If you dont smoke I wont Fart
<hr width=100% size=1>
Always amuses me Little Chef restaurants...always ask Smoking or Non, but tables are only 6ft apart!
Motto If you dont smoke I wont Fart
<hr width=100% size=1>