Pub smokers fume as Irish ban begins

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.

"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."

Therefore, we conservatives should support further erosions? What exactly is right winged?

"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."

Wrong. Most of the non-smoking rules are put into place by unelected "appointed" groups funded by smoking revenue. If you are unable to understand the hypocracy, then you need to do some personal introspection to figure out exactly why you feel you stand on the side of the Republic.

"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."

They grandfathered it in Michigan. I know that for a fact. Of course, you probably were unaware of any grandfathering due to the fact that you were afraid to go to the bars that allowed smoking.

You should really do some research on your own state before you spew your "facts". A simple google search later and I found that the drinking age was increased from 18 to 20 in 1979 and in 1986 it was increased to 21 with a grandfather clause. Look at page 45:

http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/occpapers/occ28.pdf

"Yep. It's not social engineering. It's eradication of an evil."

Who gets to decide what is "evil"? Do you also support the back door prohibition of religion? About half the nation has decided that freedom of religion now means freedom from religion. Based on your support of the tyranny of the majority and the fact that someone has deemed religion as "evil", I must assume that you support the effort to eradicate religion from society. You can't use an argument to support what you deem as appropriate and then not use it for something that someone else deems appropriate. If you are really supportive of restricting private property rights based on your convenience then be prepared for the same arguments to be used to demonize something you support.

"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."

I don't know one conservative that supports usurping the constitution and growing government. If you think conservatism is for limitation of personal liberties and the growth of government, then you need to rethink your positions. Any intellectually honest Conservative will tell you they want the government to be smaller and they want individual liberty. In addition, they will tell you they want people to be personally responsible for their decisions resulting from liberty.

In one post you said that prohibition of tobacco was not possible, in the next you say you supported prohibition of alcoho. Glad to see that you supported the growth of government that brought us the Kennedys. Glad to see you support the growth of government to the point of elimination of private property and personal liberty. Not everyone will make a "good" choice, however it is not the government's role to dictate those choices. Keep in mind, the tyrannical government that can tell you a choice is not allowed can also force that choice upon you.

"Your entire case comes down to this unproven, child-like faith in the market."

Your entire case comes down to this unproven, child-like faith in the government.

"The market generates no conservative broadcast news stations for a majority-conservative nation."

What do you call Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, FR, etc. Just because the "major" news outlets are left leaning doesn't mean that there is no conservative opportunities.

"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."

Name one! If you are so concerned that a non-smoking bar doesn't exist in Lincoln, then open one. Of course, earlier you admitted that you were to lazy to do so and that you preferred the government do your bidding. A market doesn't consist of just one person with your preferences.

"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.."

The fact is these same people don't care enough about non-smoking facilities to actually invest their own time and effort into creating these facilities. The "people" you reference only care enough about non-smoking facilities to mandate the interference on private property just in case they MIGHT want to go to one of these places. They didn't care enough take any effort themselves to create a non-smoking facility or to make their preferences known to the private property owner.

No conservative I know would ever wish the government do their bidding because they were to lazy to do it themselves!

I found this on another thread. It addresses the private property vs. public argument.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=407&invol=551

According to the SCOTUS in LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) involving rights associated with property ownership: “Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner's privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center's operations; and petitioner's property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner's tenants.”

What do you call Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, FR, etc. Just because the "major" news outlets are left leaning doesn't mean that there is no conservative opportunities.

I repeat, the market has failed to create any broadcast TV network with a conservative or even moderate news organization, despite a manifest need.

There are plenty of scenarios where the market will not cater to a widespread consumer desire.

I just did. If you haven't got the intelligence to read what's written here, I certainly don't have the time to argue with you further.

If you are so concerned that a non-smoking bar doesn't exist in Lincoln, then open one. Of course, earlier you admitted that you were to lazy to do so and that you preferred the government do your bidding.

You are untruthful as well as slow on the uptake. You join Protagoras on the ignore list. Bye!

"I repeat, the market has failed to create any broadcast TV network with a conservative or even moderate news organization, despite a manifest need."

How about Fox News? You wouldn't call them "moderate"? Actually the market is working. The alternative sources that conservatives use are very successful. The "broadcast news" is continually losing market share to the alternate offerings. Your own example is a good example of the market at work.

"I just did. If you haven't got the intelligence to read what's written here, I certainly don't have the time to argue with you further."

I did read what you typed and I responded. However, you failed to address the outlets that are meeting the market demand for conservative views. Your blanket statement that the market is not being met is false. Conservatives tend to get their news from alternative sources and the necessity of a "broadcast news station" catering to the conservative base is a false premise. Conservatives aren't clamoring for a conservative broadcast news station because they turn elsewhere, therefore the market is working.

"You are untruthful as well as slow on the uptake. You join Protagoras on the ignore list. Bye!"

What you specifically typed in post #375:

"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."

If that isn't a statement of support for the prohibition of alcohol, then I don't know what it is. You stated "some of us" as an inclusive statement. If you are going to call me a liar, you should certainly do a better job of figuring out what you posted. The same arguments are used in the eradication of religion from our society.

"That's an idiotic assumption. Based on CSM's use of it, I deduce he's an idiot."

What is idiotic? You openly support the tyranny of the majority, you openly praise it as meeting some fictitious demand. I show you a case where that same tyranny has been used against religion. Do you now admit that the tyranny of the majority is not such a good thing? Which is it, good or bad? It can't be good sometimes and bad others, either it is a philosophy you support or it isn't.

Whenever tyranny of the majority is the default, it can and WILL be used against something you cherish. That is precisely why we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

"I never posted any support of the prohibition of alcohol. Once again, CSM has resorted to crass falsehood to try to make his case."

Reference post #375. You prove yourself wrong.

I did take a look at the thread again and you are correct, you never stated you were to lazy to start or invest in a non-smoking bar. I had you confused with another poster from another thread. What you did do was continually complain that the option did not exist. Joe has provided you with a couple of locations, one you didn't like and the other you haven't responded to.

How about it, are you willing to open up a non-smoking bar? How about investing in one?

God help me, I'm Irish, this c**nting smoking ban, amongst other tyrannical regulations, (can't burn rubbish in your OWN backyard, etc.,) I believe it has to be something to do with the Nice Treaty.

This government (which many commentators bizarrely call a 'centre right' government), refused to accept the verdict of electorate first time round, thus ramming the Nice Treaty down our throats the second time, which I believe is unconstitutional:

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN

THE REFERENDUM

Article 47

2. 1° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register.

2° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall for the purposes of Article 27 hereof be held to have been approved by the people unless vetoed by them in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing sub-section of this section.

I guess they'll ram the European 'constitution' down our throats as well (time to throw up the rope then, even if suicide is a mortal sin, and I end up in Hell, it would on balance have to be the better alternative).

Either that or I'll move to Iraq

I'm off now on a smoke free piss-up, Viva La Counter-Revolution

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.