42 Comments

• mamaginnty | Aug 03, 2011, 11:26 AM EDT

  Kateonprint and Sirpeter....you light up my life. As for Finnegan, I do not think he would stand there allowing kids in uniform to smoke. At my own village local, once in a while on a cold winters night I would go down with a few friends, sit in front of the open fire with a nice hot whiskey, not many around ...and have our ciggies, .... (and a great night had by all)

• KerryLKing | Mar 16, 2011, 10:34 PM EDT

  While in Ireland I really never minded going out into the "smoking area" that most pubs offer. Actually, some of my best conversations took place out there. Now that I'm a non-smoker and headed to Ireland next month...I'm starting to become nostalgic for the times spent out with the smokers. Even when I did smoke I always fully understood the reasoning for the ban...and never felt inconvenienced by having to go outside.

• joebloggs | Mar 15, 2011, 09:01 AM EDT

  to clarify smoking is banned on the enclosed part of the premises, adjacent to, outside, outdoors the law does not apply, it does apply indoors. so now we get to choose which laws we comply with and which ones we can ignore, freedom of choice I suppose. Hey I dont want to pay tax, great I dont have to !!

• EHHarrison | Mar 14, 2011, 11:42 PM EDT

  Come on Ireland, you're better than this. Banning a legal activity from a pub. Really, no smoking, but drink yourself silly. The pub owner should decide if there's gonna be smoking in his pub. The public should decide if they're gonna go or not. Freedom is all but a memory

• wjcomerford | Mar 14, 2011, 04:01 PM EDT

  I think people are missing the true message here. The smokers were observed on the premise. What is the definition of premise? Is it the confines of the building or on the property surrounding it? Where were the smokers observed smoking? Smoking bans are the product of over zealous health advocates who have no concern for legalities. They just want everyone around them to stop smoking. They often write laws that have no practical common sense in them because they exaggerate and conspire to win financial benefits from the legislative acts. A single man cannot supervise the inside and outside of his premises at the same time it is physically impractical. If a non patron is smoking on his property is he still guilty? Is he supposed to have paid smoking police on property? Legislative acts often assume the pub owner has legal control of his surroundings. Often the smokers are on public property beyond the publican's control yet his establishment may be fined for offenses on government property. Why is the government not enforcing the police action upon the individual smoking? I have never seen a bar smoke, only people smoke. Why not fine the government for its failure to enforce upon smoking individuals? It can't afford to do it and neither can the publican so they pass the onus onto the proprietor and then send him to jail. They achieve their goal but at what cost? The bar closes, the business can no longer pay taxes, more pubs close, tourism drops and Ireland goes bankrupt. These nanny laws have consequences.

• joebloggs | Mar 14, 2011, 09:19 AM EDT

  is it idiotic to impose a law that is intended to protect the citizens of the State. Surely that is the function of Governemnt. He choose to ignore the law, in a democracy laws are made by the Government on behalf of the citzenry, so in effect this publican is ignoring laws made on his behalf by his government. If I think a law banning drink driving is idiotic can I ignore it. By the way EDDIE2K10 he isnt in jail yet as he is going to appeal.

• EDDIE2K10 | Mar 14, 2011, 02:21 AM EDT

  That is F**KING CRAP. RELEASE! That MAN IMMEDIATELY. "FREE SEAN McBRIDE". There OUGHT to be a LAW against, PEOPLE, who IMPOSE, such an IDIOTIC LAW. BUGGER OFF, Smoking Bans.

• jamieLM | Mar 13, 2011, 10:29 PM EDT

  In the U.S. the bar owner is reponsible for seeing that the non-smoking ban is enforced in his bar. In some states, if the bar owner allows smoking, he receives a fine and/or his liquor license can be revoked for 30 days. Repeated violations can result in stiffer fines and the permanent loss of his liquor license. The prospect of losing one's business for repeated offenses is usually enough to bring about compliance with the non-smoking law without putting anyone in jail. You have to be a total idiot to skip out on a court appearance. Good posts, joebloggs & Searlit.

• wasqazz | Mar 13, 2011, 09:31 PM EDT

  cut the guy a break.. prove he knew the kids were smoking IN his place.

• KellyShu | Mar 13, 2011, 05:00 PM EDT

  Here are some actual numbers from the AMA of america..... 416,210 people were treated for alcohol related illness/accidents in 2009. 704,006 people were treated for car accident injuries NOT related to alcohol/drugs in 2009. 600,326 people were treated for sexually transmitted diseases in 2009. 103,901 people were treated for possible smoking realted illness in 2009. Mind you, theses are from hospitals nationwide that took part in the study. Figures can vary slightly. If you want to complain about health risk and medical costs going up..perhaps we should ban driving, drinking and sex. Apparently they are all more dangerous than smoking.

• jacersagain | Mar 13, 2011, 01:31 PM EDT

  If a person continues to ignore the law, including showing disrespect by not turning up in court to answer his summons, he must be punished. However, jailing him is out of proportion to this crime, especially if the smokers were actually outside in the fresh air. >> On the subject of banning smoking – the Irish Govt introduced this measure to try limiting the effects of smoke on people. It is the singular biggest cause of smoking-related illnesses being treated in Irish hospitals, especially those borne by elderly people who’ve smoked all their lives. It is costing the Irish Exchequer (tax-payers) billions for their treatment, so something had to be done to limit its effects. I guess it will take at least a generation, perhaps longer, to free up hospital wards of these illnesses with the help of this law.

• Newrone | Mar 12, 2011, 06:42 PM EST

  "There’s three old women here now drinking tea, there’s two old boys drinking Guinness..." Cry me a river! You broke the law mate. Knowingly. Several times. You knew what you were doing. You should have checked what you were due before doing it, and made plans for your poor sick parents (sniffle) & your kids too. What kind of inconsiderate son/father are you? The law - and other peoples' health - are not optional accessories to your particular personal interest or to your business.

• joebloggs | Mar 12, 2011, 04:08 PM EST

  the last time I checked it was still legal to drink but not smoke in pubs, Micky 74007, maybe if you are that upset you should stay at home and smoke if you want, without polluting the air of people who want to socialise without being choked with smoke. Non Smokers who by the way are in the majority, deserve protection.

• MarthaAnne | Mar 12, 2011, 01:26 PM EST

  I am thrilled that smoking is not allowed in Irish pubs, nor here in metro NYC, but it is lunacy to put someone behind bars for allowing people to smoke in his pub. Vindictive lunacy. Jails should be reserved for the violent for the most part. This man could have been given a stiff fine and community service and maybe some checking on his pub from time to time. He has learned his lesson and I really am appalled that they are putting him behind bars. An evil and cruel act, in my humble opinion.

• Searlit | Mar 12, 2011, 12:03 PM EST

  It sounds like a suspended sentence is in order. I do agree with the smoking ban. It protects bartenders, (my son managed a bar for several years), performers, whoever may be a non-smoker, including myself. I like to go to pubs that offer live music, food and a smoke-free environment. There are many more non-smokers than smokers. This law, rightfully, protects the rights of the majority from exposure to a known carcinogen. It is not on the books to infuriate the smokers, though their addiction to smoking seems to make them feel that way.

• micky74007 | Mar 12, 2011, 11:14 AM EST

  Enough! If you don't want to breathe smoke, then drink at home. In fact, isn't dringing alcohol a health deterrent? Maybe we should ban drinking in pubs too! Wait, you can get diseases from intercourse. No more sex! And you can't go to church because of predetory priests. No smoking, no drinking, no normal sex, on confession. Life is grand!

• joebloggs | Mar 12, 2011, 09:58 AM EST

  the law in Ireland is for smoking on the premises, not outside, on the premises, as in an enclosed space. Secondary smoke is extremely harmful, there was enough publicity about the imposition of the smoking ban.He choose to ignore the law, he now should rightly suffer the consequences.

• casualMBA | Mar 12, 2011, 01:02 AM EST

  May I second

• sirpeter | Mar 11, 2011, 09:33 PM EST

  cillowen..I sentence you to 6 months in jail..Your posts are annoying.

• cillowen | Mar 11, 2011, 07:42 PM EST

  smokers should be jailed for causing injury and/or annoying others.

• feeblefrog | Mar 11, 2011, 07:22 PM EST

  How can he be responsible for what is going on outside the door of his pub, if that's where the incident occurred, (not very clear in the article) I think you're right Nitefeatherz, the judge, upset he didn't show up, had to put him in his place. Ridiculous punishment, hopefully he'll win on appeal.

• seadog4aces | Mar 11, 2011, 06:20 PM EST

  I am a bar owner in Buffalo, New York and a close friend of Paul Finnegan. I know Paul would not allow school children to smoke in his presence or in his bar for that matter. All of the terrible things that are happening in the world right now, they want to put a good man in jail for this. Come on, thats wrong

• kateomprint | Mar 11, 2011, 05:24 PM EST

  Oh God what has Ireland come to let us please put this terrible lawless person in jail we can't have this kind of behaviour oh no, did he murder someone on the side. People are being put in jail for so little and our Bankers and crooked politicians are roaming free What the hell have we come to very soon you won't be able to have pee without permission.

• FastEddy | Mar 11, 2011, 05:08 PM EST

  Hey, that's nothing: Here in Marin County California, a woman sued the bartender for allowing his customers to light up on the outdoor patio ... and the bar owners ... and the city ... and won! ... plus made them all pay US$400 fines ... plus lawyers (of course). I think I would rather spend the time than pay the fines, fees, taxes, tithes and tributes.

• KellyShu | Mar 11, 2011, 04:24 PM EST

  Its friggin ridiculous. More people die every year from alcohol related illness and accidents than smoking...that is a FACT. I dont like the government being able to tell hard working buisness owners what they can and cant do in their own establishment. Especially a bar. Pretty soon...you wont be able to drink there either.....remember " a government that is big enough to give its people everything they want...is big enough to take it all away." I say leave the man the hell alone. Bar owners should be allowed to choose. We can have smoking bars...and non-smoking bars. Of course the non- smoking places will probably get their panties in a bunch because they wont be doing enough buisness...but hey...

• Nitefeatherz | Mar 11, 2011, 04:10 PM EST

  If you read it says he has two previous convictions for doing the same thing- and on top of that he didn't show up for the court hearing at all. The judge was probably pissed off at him and for good reason. If the guy actually cared about the sentence he got he should have shown up for court. Obviously he didn't. Regardless of whether he likes the law or not he cannot choose which ones he is going to follow...kind of defeats the purpose.

• seagreen | Mar 11, 2011, 03:35 PM EST

  Not that it matters, Those were not all of my posts. JUst one about the environmental guy...

• generalsn | Mar 11, 2011, 12:56 PM EST

  This article fails to define "on the premisis". If they were outside, he has no control over what happens on the PUBLIC street. Here in the USA, underage kids are always bumming cigarettes from smokers outside the bar. Before the ban, the smokers were "out of sight, out of mind" Kids were not allowed to enter.

• Jamcelt | Mar 11, 2011, 12:16 PM EST

  Commit the crime, do the time.

• joebloggs | Mar 11, 2011, 12:07 PM EST

  why blame the cops when it is nothing to do with them, what about the non smokers in the bar, do they not deserve protection. He choose to ignore the law he should suffer the consequences,

• Oisinmilo | Mar 11, 2011, 11:50 AM EST

  This story is totally biased and some of the commments are plain stupid. Focus on the part where it says "in uniforms".This means under 18, and I'll take a wild guess and say this is not his first offence. Pubs are closing in Ireland for a lot of reasons. The price they charge is the main one, and sorry folks, the drinking culture is gone, so don't grieve for the average publican, they ripped you off for decades

• LoyalCitizen | Mar 11, 2011, 11:47 AM EST

  The publican is being blamed for smugglers. They have to take it out on somebody, which helps explain why they have introduced opinions in to law rather than common sense.

• seagreen | Mar 11, 2011, 11:35 AM EST

  I do not smoke, but I've found that those that have quit are worse than reformed drunks ! Environmental officer ? does he have a sword and shoulder boards. If Finnegan told the kids to get off the property, he would have been accused of being a child abuser...Hey judge, tell the cops to go an find some criminals.

• seagreen | Mar 11, 2011, 11:20 AM EST

  Justchrist - at least im Communist Russia they could smoke in the bars. Unconvinced - you're obvious a british tooge or you wouldn't say somethingbso stupid.

• seagreen | Mar 11, 2011, 11:14 AM EST

  Yup, this is a great way to help the Irish economy. My wife and I considered living our retirement years in my father's country. But the nanny state socialist government would make it unappealing. The cops need to worry about more important crimes than who is smoking around the doorway of a bar. And, before anyone throws out secondhand smoke issues they need to look up all the research on that (hint: there is none).

• STUMPTOWN | Mar 11, 2011, 10:59 AM EST

  Why do people think that a law that they do not like, it is correct for them to violate? This judge was correct and I bet the pub owner will not want to be back to meet this judge again. To bad the smoker was not at court to tell this judge what the smokers views are vrs the law also.

• justchris1 | Mar 11, 2011, 10:47 AM EST

  I think these bans are stupid...Im a non-smoker...but when you go to a bar or restaurant just sit in the appropriate place if you dont like it sit away from it...come on now.... pretty soon all the countries and states are going to be like the old communist russia.... where is the freedoms that we all fought for.... Its the crazy activists that need to be sent to north korea to see what its like to live with all the strict laws....or stay in you houses and dont bother other people....if you dont like a radio or tv channel change it...if you dont like the smoke move....hello its that simple....

• LinLinisme | Mar 11, 2011, 09:34 AM EST

  This smoking ban ir stupid, Here in America many business are closing. Bars and restaurants and losing customers. We who smoke have no rights. Ridiculous isn't a strong enough word for this hysteria about people smoking. No Smoking bans are causing all kinds or problems including people losing thier jobs.

• chloebean | Mar 11, 2011, 09:27 AM EST

  This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. Yes, I agree to fine him, but prison time...that's not even ethical thinking. What about the all of the priests that have abused young children over the years and the plea deals they have managed to get. What about punishing the REAL criminals that have walked on because of a small technicality. If someone doesn't want to be subjected to 2nd hand smoke then don't go in the damn pub. There are other pubs in Ireland, that I am pretty sure of.

• Paradigm | Mar 11, 2011, 09:27 AM EST

  I'm totally anti-smoking but this is ridiculous. Gaol should be for those who are a danger to society. How many smugglers of illegal cigarettes from China, with 30 times the poison content of legal cigarettes are in gaol - those are the dangerous people - not a law-abiding citizen who is out-smarted by michevious schoolboys.

• unconvinced | Mar 11, 2011, 09:27 AM EST

  That judge needs to catch himself on - Gerry Adams is a free man even after commiting some awful crimes and this poor man is jailed for that - No wonder the Irish people are leaving. Totally Lawless -Come off it , That man is a hard working person with everything paid up and trying to make a living - The law is a joke these days

• sirpeter | Mar 11, 2011, 07:39 AM EST

  How can you put a guy in jail for this.Fine him by all means and keep fining him..But Jail!!..Scumbags with 30 and 40 offenses,don't get jail. Judge Sean McBride described him as ‘totally lawless’...Bit harsh judge isn't it? I know you are sending a message out to all publican's. But is this man a real menace to society,that he has to be taken out of it? I don't think so.