As the Italian already followed the Irish example, next: the French and the Swiss.

Great news altogether.

A bit disappointing that it won't be till March '07, but maybe some pubs will take the bull by the horns and phase it in a lot sooner!!!

Interesting that the vested interests of the "hospitality industry" are determined to ensure that their workforce continues to be exposed to passive smoking.

Not only should they be prosecuted but their insurers should refuse cover should they be convicted of breaking this legislation. Certain spokeswomen such as Nichola Carruthers should be held personally responsible for delaying this legislation and ensuring a continuing hazardous environment.

I'm surprised the French would consider such a ban, I thought they were big smokers.

Maca,

"I'm surprised the French would consider such a ban, I thought they were big smokers."

They certainly are, but this is because they are big smokers and all the campaigns against smoking failed that a ban will come sometimes. Still, it won't be easy.

I'm an ex-smoker, and I'm convinced the ban will help others quit - BUT - I am totally opposed to it.

Not only is it the worst type of nanny-state behaviour, it is also based on a myth. Passive smoking does not harm health to the degree outlined by some health officials. However, given that it is a popular campaign (who wants to have people smoking around them?) the science behind the research is interpreted with bias, and in some cases, fabricated to suit the policy.

'Passive smoking does not harm health to the degree outlined by some health officials.'

Tis all a conspiracy then?

Lonely Pint,
non-smoking bar workers tested one year after the smoking ban was introduced in the Republic had increased their lung capacity by 30%.

Can you explain that?

'Passive smoking does not harm health to the degree outlined by some health officials.'

Its amazing that those who work professionally in this area are assumed to know less than those who dont. Do you argue with a doctor who says you have a tumour?

This is a great day. Congratulations to all those involved in the campaign.

OK as far as it goes but does not ban smoking in shopping centres and streets.

Should also be banned on NIR station platforms.

This just in:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17102005/344/smoking-ban-northern-ireland.html

Looks like a UI is sneaking in through the back door :o)

I am actually basing my opinions on the evidence of experts in this field who conduct their research independently of any public campaign.

Those tests on bar workers in the republic should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

LP,

Salt is bad for you too ;)

'I am actually basing my opinions on the evidence of experts in this field who conduct their research independently of any public campaign.'

An not one red cent of funding by the powerless cigarette lobby.

Salt is very bad for you. So is drinking too much (alcohol), fatty foods, red meat, lack of exercise, crossing the motorway on foot with a blindfold on, feeding tigers by hand and taking questions at Fitzroy Presbyterian Church.

But we all should have the choice to do to our bodies as we please.

And just to head off the inevitable rejoinder - smoking affects only the smokers's health.

Passive smoking, or second hand smoke is a myth.

Michael Crichton, a best-selling author and scientist, on second hand smoke, global warming et al:

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

I don't even care if its a health hazard - its smelly!!!

Oh yeah - Crichton.
He's the guy that wrote those other works of fact Westworld and Jurassic Park isn't he. And didn't he just have another book launch where he was basically trying to sell these ideas as his latest best seller.

Michael Circhton is a best selling author. Meave Binchy is also a best selling author - and I wouldn't take her word for it either Lonely. Could you not have pulled out a more credible nay-sayer rather than someone who has units to move of shelves?

LP
You may choose to believe as you wish - you may not choose to enforce me or those who think like me to take a chance with our helath because of the risk you subject your own health to. That is the point of this decision and legislation.

How many people died from passive smoking in the 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, 1940s and back - era when smoking was permitted virtually everywhere.

Not a one. Not a single case.

And I rest mine.

'Not a one. Not a single case.'

Not a one, more like thousands.

Do you think inhaling nicotine is bad for your health? Yes/No?

If yes then the smoke that comes unfiltered from the end of cigarettes is also damaging to ones health. End of!

Talk about daft argumentation LP!
I mean just because people didn't know what was causing the problems doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Its like saying that its only because doctors discovered an illness that people have it. "God nobody had parkinsons before them there doctors starts talking about - now all the oldies have got it". Ignorance may be bliss - but its not a basis for sound argumentation.

Lonely Pint

You are not alone. I too am angered at this undemocratic dictat which is only another step down the line to a to a complete nanny state. I respect others wishes regarding smoking so why can't I be allowed my preference of a cigar with a pint in an area where no-one will be offended me ?

jamboni
do it in the street, if you havent learned of the reasons behind the ban now, its down to pure ignorance

jo

You have missed the point. Why can't I go somewhere that you do not want to go and ruin my enjoyment.

This is all starting to sound a little too familiar.
So there are a crowd of people who are used to doing something in a certain area - lets say its their tradition. No the majority of the people in this area find the activity repulsive and would rather that the particular behaviour be reserved for areas where those who wish to be exposed to it can, but those that don't still have the freedom to live their lives.

Where to the major unionist parties stand on a smoking ban in public places?

Everyone had a chance to express their views on this issue - unlike the other issue which has been raised.

8% of respondents didnt want a complete ban.

Those 8% are not being banned from smoking. Thats democracy for you.

As far as I'm concerned the ban can't come soon enough. I'd rather not to be exposed to carcinogens breathed out by the many poor wretches who just didn't the old lung cancer memo. And please spare me the crap about the ban being undemocratic.

Lonely Pint I can't believe you're using Michael Crichton's work as the "factual" foundation for your argument. A man who's not only just written a book explaining that global warming is a myth and that environmentalists are evil but whose ideas about reality have long been suspect.

Remember how his novel Disclosure proved that men are the primary victims of work place sexual harassment? Par for the course with Crichton.

And I rest mine.

Daft as a brush, as is your entire argument about passive smoking. It's well established that cigarette smoke kills people. It is an extraordinary claim to state that when cigarette smoke is exhaled by a smoker that all of the dangerous chemicals and carcinogens have been filtered out.

This ban can't come soon enough and I'm completely in favour of it. Nobody should be compelled to have their right to clean air compromised.

Did anybody see this go out to consultation? I grabbed the e-mail as it was doing the rounds, but very few other people seem to seen it.

I'm against a complete ban; if people want to have smoking dens or whatever they should be allowed them, provided everybody understands the risks involved; perhaps it should be liscensed, the same way that other legal, taxable drug that it's ok to be involved with, alcohol, is distributed.

I'd rather see drinking banned in smoking dens than smoking banned in pubs.

Find it hard to argue with this, can only be good for all concerned - smokers smoking less and non-smokers not having to breathe in second-hand toxins - and I'm i'm almost a chain smoker when i'm out having a few pints. We'll get used to it and the thought of sparking up inside a pub will be just as alien and ridiculous to us as lighting up while sitting in the office is to us now. There will be compromises in many bars and clubs where they have the space - outdoor smoking areas for those of us who feel the need. No biggie, people still go out and have a good night down south!

Really, this can and will only be a good thing and should be brought in sooner than 2007 - it's safer and healthier for all concerned.

Next step logical step though is for all those selfish bastards driving alone to work, to pick up the kids, nip out to the local shop etc in their by far more polluting, health damaging and environmentally polluting cars to get penality points for their selfishness and lazyiness. I hope, nay insist, this this and all other carcinogen causing devices are the clean air lobby's next targets....but I won't hold my smelly smokers breath ;-)

Paul
The MInister pointed out that in New York, one of the major vehicle tunnels - at rush hour - has one fiftieth of the pollutants and carcinogens that can be found in an average bar full of smokers.

I'm with LP on this one and I've never smoked a day in my life, this is nanny statism pure and simple, the government knows best, don't think for yourselves, let the man from the ministry do it for you. Where did we vote on this? No, I don't mean some half arsed "survey" or "consultation process" which result was already predecided. I seem to remember a similar survey which resulted in a majority wishing to keep the 11+ but that was ignored too, and if we're going to base our policies on opinion polls when can we get the death penalty enacted again. We can't? Oh I see it only counts when it's a talking point that the Guardianistas in the media and public service supports.

In an ideal world we are treated by our government as responsible adults who are capable of making their own minds up. Now I know that's a difficult concept for left wing pointy heads who want everyone to be good little sheeple who will always obey their masters in the government but I'm an independant grown up who likes to make my own mind up about things. Things like whether I am bothered by smoke in a bar and whether I am prepared to tolerate it in under to enjoy the conviviality of my friends who are smokers. A pub is a place where adults hang out ok? It's not a kiddy park, we can make our own minds up, if enough people don't like smoke they can go to the bar that has non smoking areas, let them vote with their feet, if enough people demand it it would happen but guess what, enough people didn't give a toss so instead the control freaks went crying to nanny government.

Oh and now Nanny wants to have compulsory flouride in the water, and I'll just have to accept compulsory medication because the government knows best and after all it's for the "kids", the cry of dictators everywhere.

'Not a one. Not a single case.'

Lonely Pint - I personally knew a woman who never smoked a cigarette in her life who went to the doctor's with a bad cough. Tests were done and a shadow was found on her lung...she subsequently died of cancer. She worked as a barmaid all her life.

'Not a one. Not a single case.'

Lonely Pint - I personally knew a woman who never smoked a cigarette in her life who went to the doctor's with a bad cough. Tests were done and a shadow was found on her lung...she subsequently died of cancer. She worked as a barmaid all her life.

Harry,

Do you think the Nanny State should insist people should not drink and drive?

The sensible arguments, rather than the pedants, have won the day - for once! Get used to it.