Fuddland
It’s quite an interesting time to be in Éire: from midnight tonight, smoking tobacco is outlawed in all places of work. Just like that: no phasing-in or pilot schemes — an outright ban on smoking, the first national smoking ban in the world.
That of course means no smoking in office buildings and the like, but there are less obvious repercussions: it bans patrons from smoking in restaurants and pubs, for one. If you fancy a cigarette between sips of your pint, you’ll have to step outside, whatever the weather, into the beer garden if there is one, or into the street if not. This has lead to a lot of outcry from landlords who fear the ban will result in loss of business, in particular for those whose pubs are very close to the border: the ban does not affect Northern Ireland, and the freedom with which people can move between the two countries means that for those close enough, it’s easy to nip into a pub that does permit smoking.
An altogether different effect of the ban will be to dramatically [pun intended] reduce the number of smokers we see in Irish dramas — on screen or in the theatre. For scenes shot in any kind of building, the actors will not be allowed to smoke tobacco cigarettes; herbal cigarettes may be used as the ban explicitly says “tobacco”, but the downside to that is, apparently, herbal cigarettes are disgusting. In New York, where a similar ban has been in effect for a while, theatres are given an exemption for “artistic purposes”, but no such allowance has been made here. The herbal cigarette workaround may only be possible for a short time anyway: the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland believes they pose at least as serious a health risk as tobacco cigarettes, and may seek a similar ban. Expect to see a lot more scenes of smokers taking long walks outdoors in Irish productions from now on.
There’s a lot of doubt about how enforceable this ban will be — a lot of landlords are reluctant to police their punters but are threatened with losing their licence if they don’t, and Garda are voicing objections that they should have to waste their time being called out to deal with troublesome repeat offenders when they barely have the resources as it is, although if [as some people are predicting], a lot of people will just stay at home or go to friend’s houses and get drunk, there might be fewer drunken incidents to deal with at chucking-out time. [Sweeping social commentary ahoy!]
Still, the point is that the majority of people are law-abiding, and if they respect the ban and it results in a significant number of them reducing their daily total, or quitting altogether because the hassle of finding somewhere to smoke is too much, then the hope is a large dent will be made in the number of people having to be treated for smoking-related illnesses. It’s a bold move by the Irish Government, and I’m sure a few other countries will be watching with interest to see how it plays out.
Comments
richard | 2004 / 03 / 28 – 18:03
I don’t buy the argument that such bans will harm business for pubs. I know many people (non-smokers) who are reluctant to go out to a pub because they don’t like to come home stinking of cigarette smoke. There is one pub here in Harrogate that has a large no-smoking room and we often go there specifically because of that; even though it entails a 15 minute walk, going past several other pubs on the way.
There are a lot more non-smokers about than there are smokers and most of them enjoy a drink.
Gordon | 2004 / 03 / 28 – 18:20
I’m constantly amazed that this is even a topic for discussion. The repeated ‘freedom to choose’ argument used by smokers smacks of ‘can’t justify it any other way’…
I say bravo Ireland - I hope it works, on every level.
Phil | 2004 / 03 / 28 – 21:31
I don’t think it’s the first ban worldwide. Well, to this extent, maybe, but there are smoking bans in public places elsewhere, California and Singapore being examples.
David | 2004 / 03 / 28 – 21:49
Re #3: I was using that Sunday Times article as the source for that, so you’ll have to take it up with them. ;) You’ll probably find other national bans are restricted to certain types of building or area. [And note the word national — California’s not a nation, despite what Arnie might think.]
lump | 2004 / 03 / 29 – 07:43
I’m not a smoker and I despise the habit, the smell, etc. That said, I object to the ban for pubs.
Pubs are essentially meeting places for people to socialise in and consume alcohol. That’s “not good for you” alcohol to give it its full title. Banning smoking for health reasons but then not banning drinking is ridiculously hypocritical. By all means, have smoking and non-smoking sections if you want but a ban smacks of knee-jerk, PC fascism: “we know that smoking is bad for you so ban it! and we know that drinking is bad for you - but I enjoy it - so that’s okay!” Even the argument that drinking only hurts yourself falls over: by being in a pub you’re already effectively putting yourself in danger so a smoker nearby increasing your risk of cancer is all part of life’s gamble.
Worried? Stay home.
Workers at risk of passive smoking? Get another job. If you were one of those people who could die by touching a peanut you wouldn’t apply for a job as a packer at KP.
The fact that an outright ban may hurt businesses says that currently people are prepared to take the risk and I’m a big fan of choice. Why noy allow pubs to choose for themselves? Or, to meet halfway, insist that any chain of pubs must have every other pub a non-smoking one and then see what the patrons think about it?
mrtn | 2004 / 03 / 29 – 12:44
re #5: i’m not sure how valid the “by being in a pub you’re already effectively putting yourself in danger” argument is: personally, i like juggling chainsaws; can i pop round and practice at your table when you’re next in the pub? all part of life’s big gamble…
mrtn | 2004 / 03 / 29 – 13:42
couple of other points from the article:
“Currently the lead character lights up a cigarette and takes several pulls before extinguishing it in a cup. From tomorrow the character, played by Hilda Fay, will take out the cigarette, hold it for several minutes, but not light it.er, excuse me? a reformed smoker “in real life”? does smoking on the stage somehow not count then? if she really does “take several pulls” then she’s a smoker…Fay, a reformed smoker in real life, thinks the ban will help her stay off the fags. The character she plays in RTE’s Fair City is also a regular smoker.
“[the health department] has given exemptions to prisons…”odd: the one group in society who can be told exactly what to do, can be denied their liberty and goodness knows how many other things, won’t be denied the pleasure of smoking. presumably ‘cos there’d be a riot in every nick…
mrtn | 2004 / 03 / 29 – 14:14
finally, what if i happen to work outside and near lots of people, i.e. at railway stations, bus-stop cleaners etc. do i not deserve the same protection as indoor workers?
David | 2004 / 03 / 29 – 18:22
I’m going to try very hard not to go into anti-smoking-rant overdrive.
Re #5: Going to the pub is a social activity, and one that does not necessarily have to involve drinking alcohol. Granted, that is the predominant reason people go there, and having a drink can loosen tongues, relax inhibitions and perhaps make for a more enjoyable evening than if no alcohol is imbibed, but there is the all-important choice: you can not have a drink if you don’t want one, and still have a good time.
Smoking, on the other hand, is [in my view] an anti-social activity. I’ve seen no mutual joy in people twosing a fag; I see general reluctance for people to share their expensive [and getting dearer every year] cigarettes. It affects people around the smoker, from passive smoking to offending them personally with the smoke and smell. These are not auto-rants without foundation, they’re very genuine complaints from an ever-growing majority of the population, and have medical backing.
I’ve always argued that the difference between smoking and drinking — in terms of how bad they are for you, and in a purely biological sense — is that we have organs specifically designed to filter what we eat and drink, but our lungs are not designed, in any way, to deal with anything other than extracting oxygen from air. Of course you can drink too much and adversely affect your health, but the debate about moderate consumption of alcohol actually being beneficial is on-going; I’ve never heard of a serious report suggesting any level of tobacco-smoking is medically justifiable.
Going into a smoky environment is not a gamble in any sense: smoking [passive or otherwise] will increase the likelihood of developing serious health problems, and any smoker who denies this is kidding themselves. The advice to those people who mind this increased health risk to just “get another job” is over-simple and ignores many other factors such as availability of work which is similar in terms of hours and flexibility, which are important to those who traditionally make up the average bar staff.
The idea of having two identical pubs, save for one being smoke-free, would be an interesting social experiment but, particularly in Ireland, the chain-pub has not yet overtaken the individually-owned, and who wants two copies of every pub anyway? The problem with leaving it up to the businesses is that no-one wants to be the first — despite the polls which indicate there is public support for smoking bans. By making it a level playing field, in which all places of work must comply with the law, one business is not given an advantage over another.
Re #7: Yes, quite: that’s not so much “method acting” as “making excuses”. And they can’t ban smoking in prisons; if they did, what would the prisoners trade for rock hammers and posters of Greta Garbo? ;)
Re #8: Well, I think the open-air argument carries some weight in those situations — the ban is for enclosed areas of work specifically [and is applicable to company cars and work vans, etc.] because they do not allow the smoke to dissipate fast enough.
David | 2004 / 03 / 29 – 20:11
I should add that I went to a pub in Galway at lunchtime today — to fulfill my legal obligation to have at least one pint of Guinness whilst in Ireland — and it was blissfully smoke-free. Several people made the same joke to the bar staff — not really a joke as such, just the same rhetorical question in a joking manner: “Can I smoke here?” “No, you have to go outside now, as you well know.” — but nobody kicked up a fuss.
Gill | 2004 / 03 / 29 – 23:29
Living in New York for the past 7 months I have enjoyed first hand the smoking ban in public places. It is great going home and not having my hair and clothes stink of smoke not to mention having no fag burns in my favourite clothes. I completly support the smoking ban which benefits non- smokers and the employees of these establishments. Whilst many people still step outside for a quick fag I have seen many of them cut down on how many cancer sticks they smoke, which can only be a good thing.
Daisy | 2004 / 03 / 31 – 16:00
oooh have so much to say but no time to say it, except that I’m sad that I’ll not be going back to Ireland on holiday agan. We’d planned a two week holiday there in September, now looking at Scotland instead. I go on holiday to relax, eat and drink in bars, cafes, etc. and that includes smoking a post-meal cigarette. If I can’t do that then I ain’t going. Simple as that.
mrtn | 2004 / 03 / 31 – 16:19
re #12: (serious question): would you relocate if a similar ban was to be implemented where you live?
Phil | 2004 / 03 / 31 – 17:37
RE: #12
Now, smoking in restaraunts is one thing that seriously pisses me off. When I’m trying to eat a good mean the last thing I want is someone at the next table smoking and spoiling my meal. Screw your civil liberties because that’s just spoiling the enjoyment for many people for your own personal enjoyment. That’s simply selfish, rude, and grossly inconsiderate. Civil liberties? I’m getting sick to the back teeth of smokers spouting this fucking civil liberties fucking bullshit to justify them inflicting serious diseases on people. One persons enjoyment doesn’t justify harming the health of all the people around them. There is NO WAY that can be justified.
David | 2004 / 03 / 31 – 23:30
Re #12: Gosh, a genuine boycott of the entire country. I’m actually very surprised it’s such a deal-breaker — is waiting a few minutes and having a cigarette outside or back where you’re staying [hotel rooms are, I believe, excempt, as are private residences of course] really not an option?
I wonder if the ban will actually have a positive effect on tourism — people choosing to go there specifically because there is a ban on smoking — or at least, I hope it does not have a significant negative effect.
And as mrtn asks [#13], what’s going to happen when it’s introduced in the UK too? [I’d not be surprised if a similar smoking ban is enforced here within 10 years, especially if Ireland’s proves successful and relatively problem-free.] Of the numerous articles I read regarding the Irish ban, I don’t recall anyone quoted as saying they’re thinking of leaving the country.
Daisy | 2004 / 04 / 01 – 20:31
1. There are so many things more harmful to the health than smoking, passive or active - just tink what you’re breating in every time you stand by the side of any busy street.
2. If you’re going to ban something that’s harmful to your own health and that of other poeple, ban alcohol. What? Oh yes, ban fecking alcohol. It’s a cliche but no-one every got in a car after smoking a six-pack and killed a family of 5. Smoking cigarettes daily does not lead to physical and psychological abuse of family members.
3. Would I relocate if a ban was brought in to the UK? I don’t think so, I’d wait to see how effectively it was enforced. Let’s watch Ireland a year from now and see how the laws are actually implemented. New Yorkers have been very canny at cirucmventing the laws, I imagine our Irish cousins will be similarly inventive.
Daisy | 2004 / 04 / 01 – 21:37
Sorry for the typos, was dashing off to see ER at 9:30. And Phil? For goodness sake, calm down! Maybe I tend to know polite people but the smokers I know certainly don’t light up a cigarette at a table next to someone eating (unless it’s in a smoking section, obviously and even then I tend to wait until the other table(s) have finished eating). If you have a problem with smoking at other tables then either complain to the management to that they move you or the smokers or implement a better seating system that allows both smokers and non smokers to sit comfortably. It can be done!
David | 2004 / 04 / 01 – 22:55
Re #16.1: It’s clear that smoking isn’t the only aspect of modern urban life that’s bad for the health, and that’s why there are separate campaigns and legislative measures to tackle things like traffic pollution [e.g. mandatory catalytic converters in all new cars]. These initiatives may not be all-encompassing, although there is evidence they are having an impact, but they exist and not everything can be dealt with in one fell swoop; to point at other things that you might claim are more serious to a person’s health doesn’t negate any of the reasoning behind a ban on smoking — it’s tantamount to Lump’s “life’s gamble” argument above. It’s not like people smoke instead of going out into the street and breathing the fumes of traffic.
Re #16.2: It’s not an either/or thing: you can argue for a ban on alcohol, and you’ll get a lot of support [except from Al Capone]. I’m not going to go and check out the relevant statistics for deaths due to smoking and deaths as a result of drinking — I don’t think they’d have any impact on anyone’s viewpoints. I certainly wouldn’t change my mind about supporting a smoking ban simply because someone showed me more deaths occur as a result of drinking. And I totally agree that accidents or illnesses brought about by drinking can be devastating, but I do have to pick you up on your remark that “smoking cigarettes daily does not lead to physical and psychological abuse of family members” — as someone who has watched helplessly as a beloved family member died a very slow and painful death as a direct result of smoking, I can’t accept your point of view. Whilst it’s not the form of psychological abuse to which you were referring, it has had a deep and lasting effect on me, and forms the very foundation on which my anti-smoking stance is based: I wouldn’t want anyone who cared for me to witness the same deterioration.
Re #16.3: Finally, because they’re fun to make, a straw man comment on your third point: say we did have a smoking ban enforced in the UK. You’d wait and see how strictly it was enforced, maybe for the first year or so — and in the meantime? Quit smoking? Wouldn’t that be the ideal impetus to quit forever? :P
mrtn | 2004 / 04 / 02 – 13:50
re #16.2: yes, alcohol and driving does kill. the point is that drinking and driving is already against the law. the family of 5 killer drink driver is just someone who’d seen how the law was implemented and found a canny way of circumventing it.
re #16.3: see above…
Commenting Closed
Commenting on this post is closed. Thanks to all those who left comments. If you'd still like to say something about this entry, feel free to email me.
