Pub smokers fume as Irish ban begins

The Guardian ^ | March 30, 2004 | John Waters

[ijcr]

Ireland smoke-free will never be at peace, to rather disrespectfully paraphrase the famous rhetorical avowal of its dead, non-smoking teetotaller patriot Padraic Pearse. Or so it seems right now, anyway, a matter of hours into what some are describing as a seismic cultural shift.

In recent weeks one felt that many of Ireland's smoking classes were in a state of outright denial at the impending introduction of Europe's first ban on smoking in the workplace. Now, facing into an era of smoke spies and freephone snitch lines, such hype seems to be rather less fanciful than at first appeared.

For here is a law that, like the civil war of 82 years ago, has set brother against brother. And it is in Ireland's pubs, the traditional repository of the hundred thousand welcomes, that the smoking ban finds its most contentious arena.

The lunchtime trade yesterday in the north-west tourist town of Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim, manifested the same complex range of divisions as exist everywhere else. At about 2pm, in the Poitin Stil, on Carrick's main street, a woman got up from her stool at the counter and announced that, in deference to the new regime, she now had to go outside for a fag.

A nearby supporter of the smoking ban, who later boasted that for 20 years he had specialised in drawing official attention to contraventions of smoking bans on trains and buses, urged her to embrace the new health-giving atmosphere and discount all thought of narrow personal inconvenience.

"Why must we be the guinea pigs of Europe?" the smoker demanded. "Why must we be first in line to demonstrate our subservience? This is all that cursed EU. If Hitler could have foreseen that it was this easy to bring the people of Europe to their knees, he might never have bothered going all around the houses!"

According to the manager of The Oarsman on Bridge Street, many tourists from places like Germany and the Netherlands have already pledged not to return to Ireland under a smoking ban.

The greatest indigenous incomprehension is likely to arise from the older clientele of the more traditional rural pub, where the same stools have been occupied by the same posteriors since Adam came of age. The idea that outside forces have intruded on what for many drinkers is a fundamental element of their recreational existence is one even the most ardent pro-ban bartenders do not look forward to trying to get across.

As a lifelong non-smoker, I find myself in an odd position. It arises, I believe, from more than the widespread belief that the smoking ban is the thin end of an insidious wedge which will enable the fun police to encroach on more and more aspects of our lives.

The ban, far from being a positive social instrument, will make social life that little bit weaker. Do I, as a non-smoker, have a right to dictate to my smoking fellow-citizens that they can only consort with me if they are prepared to see things my way?

What is most worrying about the debate is that it has ended, uniquely among bar-room debates, with a trophy being awarded. The non-smokers have won. I am not as happy about that as a year ago I thought I would be.

[Just another Joe]

You know of a non-smoking bar in a city where smoking in bars is permitted?

Yes, I do. What city would you like?

[Right Wing Professor]

Was the name Socialist Professor already taken when you signed up?

Didn't check. Did you look for Complete Moron?

[Right Wing Professor]

What city would you like?

Lincoln, NE. Or if you strike out there, try Omaha, NE.

[LisaMalia]

Let's just take this one step further, and prohibit ALCOHOL in bars/pubs? Wouldn't that make everyone happy???

[Right Wing Professor]

You break out your studies, I'll break out my studies, and let's see whose studies are peer reviewed, have better methodologies, and who has more studies that back their stance.

The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Centers for Disease Cotrol, and National Institutes of Health have done this, and come to the same conclusion as I. I happen to think their expertise is better than mine, and almost certainly better than yours.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Did you look for Complete Moron?

Think I just found one. Thanks!

(Apparently you seem to think that your positions here in some way jibe with your screen name.)

[Right Wing Professor]

Before smoking bans you had the option of patronizing a smoking or non-smoking estabishment

Really. Where within 100 miles of Lincoln, Nebraska is there a non-smoking bar? Or is this one of those hypothetical options?

The 'hands-off'' approach to tobacco smoking in this country had 30% of the population addicted, and the rest of us disgusted with the reek of tobacco smoke everywhere we went. Since the government started to regulate tobacco use, we're a healthier country, with fewer deaths from heart disease and lung cancer (and that's a horrible death; if you want motivation to quit, I recommend paying a visit a dying lung cancer patient). Sorry, I happen to think the strict regulation of tobacco use, working towards a complete elimination, is excellent public policy.

[Right Wing Professor]

Did you look for Complete Moron?

Think I just found one. Thanks!

There's a spray on product that will reduce those distracting reflections from your monitor screen.

(Apparently you seem to think that your positions here in some way jibe with your screen name.)

Apparently you're yet another FReeper who's confused libertarianism with conservatism.

[Mears]

Thanks for your reply in Post 216.

Ireland's education puts that of the USA to shame.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

There's a spray on product that will reduce those distracting reflections from your monitor screen.

Gee, thanks for your kind advice. I'll look into it. Sorry that there is nothing similar to recommend to correct your particular disorder.

Apparently you're yet another FReeper who's confused libertarianism with conservatism.

Nope. Just not the kind who's myopic enough to favor government trampling of property rights in order to further my own pet social agenda.

[qam1]

Since the government started to regulate tobacco use, we're a healthier country, with fewer deaths. Sorry, I happen to think the strict regulation of tobacco use, working towards a complete elimination, is excellent public policy

"Right Wing" Professor, I don't think so

[tdadams]

Having my options restricted makes life unpleasant for me, and for others, too.

This is your jutification for government intervention? First of all, if your options are restricted in this case, it's a self-imposed restriction. You don't like bars where there's smoke so therefore you won't go in those bars. If you like to visit bars more than you dislike smoke, you'll go anyway. No one but you is restricting you.

Secondly, you options in life will always be restricted in some way. Maybe you'd like to own a yacht and park it in New York harbor, but unless you've got about $10 million laying around, you're restricted from that option. Should the government give you the yacht and the New York marina just because you don't like your options restricted? Talk about an infantile mentality.

[qam1]

Apparently you're yet another FReeper who's confused libertarianism with conservatism.

Smoking bans have taken place in New York, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maine.

Yeah those are real bastions of Conservatism

[tdadams]

Apparently you're yet another FReeper who's confused libertarianism with conservatism.

In other words, "I'm a conservative. Don't accuse me of promoting liberty."

[DefCon]

"...Really. Where within 100 miles of Lincoln, Nebraska
is there a non-smoking bar? Or is this one of those hypothetical options?..."
- - -
If there was a real demand for non-smoking bars,
I believe someone would have opened one.
If there was a demand and nobody opened one,
it was a market niche waiting to be exploited
by some new entrepeneur.

[freeeee]

Where within 100 miles of Lincoln, Nebraska is there a non-smoking bar?

I've never been there so I couldn't tell you. There were a few voluntary smokeless bars around here before the law passed.

Since the government started to regulate tobacco use, we're a healthier country

The legitimate purpose of this nation is to guard my liberty, not my health. That is my job. Is this the land of the free or the land of the safe? Take your pick, but if you choose the latter don't gloat about how we're so much better than other countries, because we're not. And don't ask people to fight and die for freedom. Tell them they should risk their lives so they can be healthy.

if you want motivation to quit, I recommend paying a visit a dying lung cancer patient

I saw my grandmother die of emphysema, which is part of why I chose not to smoke.

I happen to think the strict regulation of tobacco use, working towards a complete elimination, is excellent public policy.

So you finally admit it. At least you're honest. An "excellent public policy" you say. And given the outstanding example of the WoD, you have every reason to believe that.

How else will government manage to criminalize an even larger segment of the population? And don't forget the immense increase in drug testing, no knock raids, police forces, forfeiture, prisons, and courts. And a great big lucrative opportunity for criminals of every sort to make enormous sums of money through smuggling and violent black markets. Then there's the increased compelling interest to further encroach on the Bill of Rights, since all these smoking "criminals" are running around.

And if the current WoD is any indication, people are going to smoke anyway. And tobacco will become more potent. And kids won't get carded, because drug dealers don't need ID.

But it's all ok because we don't own our bodies any more than people own those bars. We're just cattle on government's big plantation. And if government telling me what I can and can't do serves the state, who am I to complain? After all, my body is theirs and I'm just the caretaker. And I'd better do a good job keeping up their property or I'll feel the sting of the Master's whip.

Free country, my arse.

[freeeee]

Apparently you're yet another FReeper who's confused libertarianism with conservatism.

Tobacco has been legal since before this country began. What is it you think you're conserving? And last I checked, conservative values had something to do with property rights and small government.

I'd post a link to the DU thread where we can read a few hundred posts similar to yours, but the moderators have asked we don't link to DU.

[eXe]

"It's a disgusting habit, which kills its addicts, and makes life unhealthier and more unpleasant for the rest of us."

Same could be said about drinking, You propose we ban that too?

I would much rather have a smoker near me then someone who is slobbering all over the place drunk.

[Right Wing Professor]

I've never been there so I couldn't tell you. There were a few voluntary smokeless bars around here before the law passed.

You said I had options. Apparently you were wrong.

And given the outstanding example of the WoD, you have every reason to believe that.

I have no problem with the WoD. I don't want methamphetamine or narcotics legal either.

How else will government manage to criminalize an even larger segment of the population?

I don't propose to criminalize tobacco use. Limiting its use in public spaces, combined with taxation and increasing social stigma, should do the job nicely.

And if the current WoD is any indication, people are going to smoke anyway. And tobacco will become more potent.

Doubtful. It's a crappy drug; rewards are minimal given the ill effects. People could OD on nicotine patches right now, if they wanted to.

[Right Wing Professor]

Same could be said about drinking

No. Limited drinking is probably good for you. It isn't, in itself, disgusting, at least no more than drinking lemonade. It doesn't impact anyone else except through the behavior of the user.

I would much rather have a smoker near me then someone who is slobbering all over the place drunk.

Few people who drink are slobbering drunk. Every smoker exhales smoke.