NIALL O'DONOGHUE,
Madam, - The people of this country are entitled to breathe unpolluted air in enclosed areas such as pubs. It is not just the smoke that causes the damage to health; much more damage is caused by the poisons that are invisible which remain long after the smoke dissipates. If the Minister for Health does not understand this, somebody in his large Department should explain it to him.
The proposals to ban smoking during meal times and allow it at other times in pubs is a complete nonsense. If smoking is allowed before meals the air will be already polluted. If on the other hand, I order a toasted cheese sandwich and a coffee at night, does this constitute a meal? Will all smoking cease while I eat my sandwich? What constitutes a meal? The Minister's proposals are a nonsense, as your recent Editorial pointed out.
There is also the question of democracy. Why should the 30 per cent who smoke dictate to the 70 per cent who do not? Most people who smoke would wish to give up smoking but find it most difficult or impossible to do so. This is because nicotine is the most addictive drug there is.
Why does the Minister not ban the use of nicotine in the manufacture and sale of products? That would solve the problem, instead of trying to introduce Mickey Mouse legislation. - Yours, etc.,
MICHEÁL Ó NUALLÁIN, Monkstown, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Philip Donnelly (November 13th) believes that "Ireland's anti-smoking laws have set a new and disgraceful standard . . .that I hope no other European countries will follow". The smoky conviviality that Mr Donnelly mentions is due to the fact that most pub and restaurant owners simply have not been willing to invest in proper air-conditioning systems, nor has the Government considered subsidising such improvements for the good of the nation's health.
The fact is that other European countries already have imposed further restrictions on smoking. They are by no means as severe as, for example, in Singapore. However, rather than the blanket ban on smoking in public establishments that Mr Martin seeks to mandate, other countries have taken a more pragmatic course by investing in better physical arrangements for smokers and non-smokers.
For example, there are dedicated enclosed lounges at Nordic airports where smokers can puff away contentedly, whereas the rest of the area is strictly smoke-free. Pubs and restaurants in these countries do facilitate both smokers and non-smokers, having invested in additional partitions and powerful air conditioning systems to ensure that smoke is not left lingering, to the discomfort of non-smokers.
The nub of the issue really should be whether or not the Government is willing to put its tobacco tax revenue where its mouth is by subsidising such improvements in public establishments and by implementing an air -monitoring and certification programme whereby establishments can advertise that they have met the benchmark and can still serve both smokers and non-smokers.- Yours, etc.,
NIALL O'DONOGHUE, Narva, Finland.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - With reference to Philip Donnelly's letter of November 13th, I would counter that the only relevant issue is that smoking poses a considerable threat to the health of others. To hide behind the rhetorical language of "nanny states" is infantile. The Minister is not threatening an outright ban on smoking and will continue to allow smokers to indulge themselves in the privacy of their homes or on our streets and open spaces.
It would be truly hypocritical for the Government to propose a total ban in the workplace but to leave those employed in pubs and nightclubs unprotected from the dangers of passive smoking. - Yours, etc.,
DAVID MURPHY, Cullenswood Gardens, Ranelagh, Dublin 6.