Posted on 03/30/2004 7:27:23 AM PST by 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.
At the end of the day, I really don't care about your opinions or your ideology. I would really have no problem using the court system to put somebody like you out of business, if they pissed me off enough.
Heck, I'm a real estate lawyer and I've had court orders executed and business owners kicked out on several occasions. Never for violating smoking laws, mind you, but who knows what the future will bring? If you do own a restaurant/bar, as you've implied, keep that in mind if your town or county passes a smoking ban. Your libertarian ideology won't save you when the Sheriff comes calling. court order in hand.
The question is, when people get pissed off enough at goofs like you, will your thugs be able to save you? When they come, they won't have court orders.
Go do some more dope, dope.
What a surprise that you are a lawyer! I'm shocked! (BTW, you are also an unindicted criminal)
Do you pay taxes in Nebraska? If not, forget it.
The State of Nebraska, in return for my princely salary, puts all sorts of conditions on my employment and activities. So the people of Nebraska do dictate my activites, to a great extent. They dictate I have to teach class in an hour, and I better get back to preparing for it.
How do you define Right Wing? Is it more Right Wing than your far left peers?
I don't answer impertinent questions. We're here to debate issues, not personailities.
For example, if they told me I couldn't work more than two days a month on outside employment? If they could fire me if I commit a criminal offense, even if it has nothing to do with my job?
I guess I don't mind, much.
In any case, this is beside the point. Smoking bans are very much related to the business of catering to the public.
They have a full bar, vegetarian food (and some chicken and seafood), and they have been smoke free since they opened ten years ago. Their outdoor patio is a smoking area.
I'm still researching Lincoln.
I think I made my point.
More hyperbole. Of course the gummint caters to the public. It's called democracy.
Now, with the smoking bans, at the time the property owner reaches an agreement with the government (liscense being issued) the rules said one thing. Now, later the rules are changed and they MUST change the intended use of their property without just compensation.
Modifying the terms of a license is something that happens all the time. When they raised the drinking age to 21, meaning that it is now illegal to serve a class of people it was formally legal to serve, should they have compensated tavern ownders for the lost business?
In fact, the government is showing gains by allowing smoking to remain legal. If they had any real concerns or costs, they would just outlaw tobacco usage. Instead, the billions are considered a positive revenue stream and they feel entitled to that money while depriving the property owner of his rights.
Outlawing tobacco outright is infeasible. If you make is more and more unc0omfortable to be a smoker, you'll be able to eliminate tobacco eventiually, recoup your costs in the interim, and not have to deal with the problems of prohibition.
But you, being an ungrateful SOB, don't want to hear about it.
Did you ever wonder just why therr AREN'T very many nonsmoking bars in that area? Maybe because the average working joe doesn't give a flying f*** whether the guy next to him is smoking or not.
I was trying to prove a point, moron. I have no intention of drinking at some organic food bar. The point, since it blew right by you the last time, was that while people often claim that if there were a demand for non-smoking bars, they would be opene, in fact, the only non-smoking bar you could find in days of searching was attached to a veggie restaurant.
It mostly appened long ago, with the abolition of the property requirements and direct elections for the Senate. Most of the measures the founders put in to prevent mob rule are already gone. But as it happens, the non-smoking rules I'm aware of were put in by elected officials, and therefore are as republican as you'd like.
Yep, and they grandfathered the legal drinkers at 18. The customer base was uneffected.
Not in any state I'm aware of. I was under 21 at the time they were beginning to raise it, state by state; I'm pretty sure it went up immediately, at least in Massachusetts.
So, you favor back door prohibition.
Yep. It's not social engineering. It's eradication of an evil. Conservatives (right-wingers, if you like) favor all sorts of simiilar measures - laws against prostitution, drugs, sodomy, strip-clubs, even pornography. In the past some of us supported prohibition of alcohol.
Don't confuse libertariaism with conservatism.
The other point is that there must not be enough business for a nonsmoking bar.
So unless the govt, bowing to junk science, mandates that the bars go nonsmoking, incidentally putting several out of business, you should put your money and time where your mouth is and start your own nonsmoking bar.
Assuming perfect efficency and rationality of consumer and business choice, neither of which is likely to be true.
Until very recently, there were three national news organizations and one cable news organization. All were liberal. There are now maybe four cable news organizations, and only one is conservative. Yet conservatives make up around 40% of the population, more than liberals, and likely have more disposable income. WHy hasn't the market adjusted? Why do we still have no conservative broadcast news operations?
Face it prof, if there was a market for nonsmoking bars, there would be nonsmoking bars.
There are PLENTY of nonsmoking restaurants in the area. Where are all the nonsmoking bars.
If there was a market for nonsmoking bars the anti-smokers wouldn't have to use the govt and junk science to force a private property owner to make his bar nonsmoking against his will.
Your entire case comes down to this unproven, child-like faith in the market. The market generates no conservative broadcast news stations for a majority-conservative nation. The market preferred VHS over Beta. The market mostly works, but it's not infalllible. There are plenty of scenarios where the market will not cater to a widespread consumer desire.
The fact is, the pople care enough about non-smoking facilities to elect officials who will mandate them, in Dublin, Boston, New York, and here in Lincoln.. Yet the market doesn't generate such facilities. That's a contradiction, and you need to examine your premises to resolve it.
The contradiction is that the officials elected are NOT elected on a no smoking platform and they take it on themselves to run private property through legislation. Many times after they do enact such legislation they are voted out of office.
More times than not the no smoking bans are enacted by UNelected officials such as a "health" board.
Also, look where the smoking bans are legislated. New York? Not exactly a bastion of conservatism, is it? Boston? Same thing. Lincoln? Didn't that one get overturned? California? Yeh, THERE'S a bastion of conservatism.
Conservatives usually don't enact legislation against private property rights on the basis of junk science
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.