Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Smoking ban law in car with a child, and smoking in home with a child in the room

2

Comments

  • #52
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think both parenting and indeed the act of smoking are a little more complex than a determination to kill kids or let them live.

    Who ever said anything about a determination or any kind of intention? Parents who beat their children have no determination or intention to kill them. What of it?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Parents can and do bad things with kids, feed them junk, drive badly, drink alcohol around them. It's all part of life's rich tapestry!

    Is that a lame joke or just the worlds worst sincere argument? That's a call to justify literally anything. "Life's rich tapestry" is a demonstration to children of what is, and not what should be. They don't need to learn about the bad stuff in life from experiencing it directly. We don't have to take a field trip to Syria or allow all kids to be abused so that they understand that life has some really crap parts to it.


  • #53
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Perspective.

    The mother who tore her uterus during the 2 days of labour with that child, who worked 2 jobs to make ends meet, who gave up her social life, holidays for that child, who lost sleep, aged, went without for that child, who is in every way the most devoted parent has a cigarette, her one solace, and you think "that's just SO unfair"?

    Maybe a little less judgement?

    You're so right. That mother has earned the right to do whatever the **** she wants with her child's health after what he put her through.


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Erm...
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You're so right. That mother has earned the right to do whatever the **** she wants with her child's health after what he put her through.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Is that a lame joke or just the worlds worst sincere argument?


  • #55
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Erm...

    Good one. I'll take lame joke over horrible sincere argument any day, if that's the choice.


  • #56
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's not assault. Assault involves contact or the threat of contact.

    I'm not 100% sure about Irish law but it seems that spitting on someone can be classed as assault or something similar in the UK and the US.

    There's no physical contact there.
    You're violating someone's bodily autonomy and that's enough.

    Whether you'd be charged or not is another matter but it is illegal.
    Expelling a poisonous gas at them rather than a liquid ought not to be seen any differently.
    It would certainly be more likely to cause harm.


  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gbear wrote: »
    Expelling a poisonous gas at them rather than a liquid ought not to be seen any differently.
    It would certainly be more likely to cause harm.

    So that's every car driver nicked?

    How about people with fires in their houses?


  • #58
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Gbear wrote: »
    Then how would you class blowing poisonous chemicals in someone's face?
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Why would you blow your second hand smoke into her face...

    Easy there Helen and Maude.


  • #59
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I know parents who never smoked around their children.

    Alcoholic, beat them, but never smoked.

    By that logic, it's OK to smoke wherever you want as long as you don't beat your kids, or commit worse crimes?

    The OP and others make a very valid point - it's simply wrong to smoke around your kids. Excusing people for doing it on the basis that other people are alcoholics and / or beat their kids / wives is simply a nonsense. Smoking around your kids may not be the worst thing you can do to them, but it's irresponsible parenting and there's nothing wrong with calling it what it is.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SVJKarate wrote: »
    By that logic, it's OK to smoke wherever you want as long as you don't beat your kids, or commit worse crimes?.

    Um.

    No.

    In saying that parents should not be judged because they smoke near children, I am not saying what you suggest at all. I think you are being deliberately obtuse, you could not have drawn that conclusion from my comments.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think both parenting and indeed the act of smoking are a little more complex than a determination to kill kids or let them live.

    Parents can and do bad things with kids, feed them junk, drive badly, drink alcohol around them. It's all part of life's rich tapestry!

    You can actually educate your kids for the better by drinking responsibly around them. Staying sober, exercising self-control, etc. and not driving afterwards.

    Smoking in front of your kids is unlikely to teach them anything useful, since it's already demonstrating poor decision-making and a lack of consideration.


  • #62
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think you are being deliberately obtuse, you could not have drawn that conclusion from my comments.

    Not intentionally at all.

    Perhaps you could explain what point you had intended to make?


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SVJKarate wrote: »
    Not intentionally at all.

    Perhaps you could explain what point you had intended to make?

    No problem...
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Um.

    No.

    In saying that parents should not be judged because they smoke near children, I am not saying what you suggest at all. I think you are being deliberately obtuse, you could not have drawn that conclusion from my comments.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    In saying that parents should not be judged because they smoke near children, I am not saying what you suggest at all. I think you are being deliberately obtuse, you could not have drawn that conclusion from my comments.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    In saying that parents should not be judged because they smoke near children, I am not saying what you suggest at all.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    parents should not be judged because they smoke near children...


  • #64
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No problem...

    Perhaps surprisingly (to you) quoting yourself from other posts does not help at all.

    This is the quote that I interpreted and which you've told me I interpreted incorrectly.:
    I know parents who never smoked around their children.

    Alcoholic, beat them, but never smoked.

    So the teachers couldn't judge and tut tut because, well the kids never smelled of smoke.

    The simple fact is that smoking does not make a parent bad.

    It would help me understand your thinking if you'd explain specifically the reference to alcoholics beating their kids in the context of the rights and wrongs of smoking in front of your kids?

    Thanks


  • #65
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    No problem...

    I've no problem judging a parent for smoking near their kids. It's bad parenting, IMO. I'm not saying they are bad parents but it is bad parenting.


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SVJKarate wrote: »
    Perhaps surprisingly (to you) quoting yourself from other posts does not help at all.

    This is the quote that I interpreted and which you've told me I interpreted incorrectly.

    It would help me understand your thinking if you'd explain specifically the reference to alcoholics beating their kids in the context of the rights and wrongs of smoking in front of your kids?

    Thanks

    I was responding to a poster's "I know parents who smoke, bad people" anecdote with a "I know parents who don't smoke, bad people" anecdote. That was my thinking.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    SVJKarate wrote: »
    You can actually educate your kids for the better by drinking responsibly around them. Staying sober, exercising self-control, etc. and not driving afterwards.

    Smoking in front of your kids is unlikely to teach them anything useful, since it's already demonstrating poor decision-making and a lack of consideration.

    While drinking 'responsibly' is preferable than to 'excess' , I find the notion that drinking in front of kids is in any way acceptable, frankly laughable. I'm not aiming scorn at you in particular, only at the concept of drinking alcohol being normalised to kids.

    Alcohol is a mind altering si
    substance. It is addictive. It's also a poison. How can anyone tell their kids ''hey it's ok kids, I glug this liquid drug because i need help to relax, or to enjoy myself, but I limit my consumption, it's fine''

    To the posters criticising smokers and defending alcohol consumption, seriously, look at yourselves.


  • #68
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Are there still people who are clinging to the 'ah it won't do the kids any harm' argument?

    I thought even the most basic knuckle-dragging moron on the street these days knew that it was bad for a kid to be inhaling second hand smoke.

    If you've got kids in the house and you're smoking around them then it's really hard to come out of that situation looking like anything except someone who puts their own wants needs before that of their kids.


  • #69
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Widdershins wrote: »
    To the posters criticising smokers and defending alcohol consumption, seriously, look at yourselves.

    I think the issue really is that while drinking all the time in front of a kid normalises the behaviour, smoking in front of a kid actually has harmful physical effects on the child as well as normalising the behaviour.

    Neither of them are good but smoking is worse because of the second hand smoke issue.


  • #70
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    I think we should all wear grey cotton jumpsuits, live in padded rooms, speak in flat monotone voices, eat a carefully regimented diet of five portions of vegetables, a carbohydrate and a protein source, and the only entertainment we should be allowed is to make a quiet 880Hz humming noise. Gentle physical contact will be allowed on public holidays.


  • #71
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,751 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I was responding to a poster's "I know parents who smoke, bad people" anecdote with a "I know parents who don't smoke, bad people" anecdote. That was my thinking.

    I believe you were responding to my "anecdote". I'm on the touch site at the moment, so can't multi quote, but I'd ask you to go back and find in my post where I, or indeed the teacher you originally replied to said "I know parents who smoke, bad people". I believe I actually said "good, devoted parent", and the teacher just mentioned junior infants smelling of cigarettes being "unfair".

    Between the teacher's post, your reply and my reply to that, you were in fact the only person/first person (others then responded to you) to mention bad people/bad parents.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    I think the issue really is that while drinking all the time in front of a kid normalises the behaviour, smoking in front of a kid actually has harmful physical effects on the child as well as normalising the behaviour.

    Neither of them are good but smoking is worse because of the second hand smoke issue.

    Well that I can understand, although I have followed up on another poster's comment about the research not genuinely supporting the passive smoking theory and I have to say it's interesting reading. Telling yourself that drinking is 'better' than smoking is deluded though, passive smoking aside.


  • #73
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I think we should all wear grey cotton jumpsuits, live in padded rooms, speak in flat monotone voices, eat a carefully regimented diet of five portions of vegetables, a carbohydrate and a protein source, and the only entertainment we should be allowed is to make a quiet 880Hz humming noise. Gentle physical contact will be allowed on public holidays.

    Or just not deliberately choose to blow cancer right in the face of children because of sheer laziness........

    If anything, the smoker will benefit from the little bit of exercise walking outside will give them.


  • #74
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Or just not deliberately choose to blow cancer right in the face of children because of sheer laziness........

    If anything, the smoker will benefit from the little bit of exercise walking outside will give them.

    I fully agree that people shouldn't do that. But there are lots of things I think people shouldn't do, which I also think shouldn't be legislated for. Which is what the thread is about.


  • #75
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Well that I can understand, although I have followed up on another poster's comment about the research not genuinely supporting the passive smoking theory and I have to say it's interesting reading. Telling yourself that drinking is 'better' than smoking is deluded though, passive smoking aside.

    The whole argument is about passive smoking though. You cant put it to the side. If the cigarette can be injested in drink form then knock yourself out. The issue here is the damage you're doing to those around you.


  • #76
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They also brought in speeding laws for cars, but I can drive my sitting room down the road at 150kmph if I want.

    I think that law covers mechanically propelled vehicles, which would technically include a motorhome, which you would certainly be done for if speeding in it.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's not assault. Assault involves contact or the threat of contact.

    Afraid not. If i was to throw acid on you, I reckon that's classed as assualt. What if I lock you in a room and pump noxious gases into it where you can't escape? Assault perhaps I think, whether or not you knew you were locked in, or that there were gases present. I am knowingly poisoning you and that is assault, because I am knowingly harming you. Same applies to kids breathing smoke from adults in confined spaces.

    It's a disgusting habit and many smokers (not all smokers) don't have the decency to respect those around them. They consider their habit over everyone else and push the boundaries to the point of breaking the law.

    Take last week for example. My niece was making her communion. I attended the church. When it was over, there was hailstones firing down from the sky. The entrances were clogged with smokers standing inside the doorway (as they often do at pubs) and people had to force their way through a disgusting, offensive stench to get out. They were smoking inside a public building, filled with kids and other non smokers, who would now smell of smoke for the day. Truly disgusting and totally inconsiderate.


  • #77
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I fully agree that people shouldn't do that. But there are lots of things I think people shouldn't do, which I also think shouldn't be legislated for. Which is what the thread is about.

    There are lots of things shouldnt do but do anyway and thats fine, as long as they are only doing it to themselves. When they are forcing damaging behaviour on others, including those in their care, then it absolutely should be legislated for.


  • #78
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,037 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Smokers and the obese are the only legitimate targets left now.

    Everything else has been muzzled by political correctness.


  • #79
    BalcombeSt4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,808 ✭✭✭BalcombeSt4


    Sound like you want to live in a Big brother style state Andy don't you with all these laws your proposing?

    While I agree with you that people should not smoke near kids period it's going to be very hard to enforce this law unless you want the guards to go around knocking on every single house in the state a few times a day to check nobody is smoking in front of a kid or you want your neigbhours to start informing on people.


  • #80
    wokingvoter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 828 ✭✭✭wokingvoter


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Well, you say my father was "most certainly" a bad parent so.

    I think you are wrong, we'll agree to disagree.

    Conor your father was a man of his time. We didn't know as much then about smoking as we do now. I'm sure if you were s child now that with what we know, he wouldn't be smoking around you. Would you agree with that?


  • #81
    daRobot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭daRobot


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Smokers and the obese are the only legitimate targets left now.

    Everything else has been muzzled by political correctness.

    To be fair, both are a huge burden on the health resources of the state, and being either of those things clearly couldn't be construed as being anything other than negative.

    It's not political correctness to try and massively reduce smoking and obesity, it's basic common sense.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,037 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    daRobot wrote: »
    To be fair, both are a huge burden on the health resources of the state, and being either of those things clearly couldn't be construed as being anything other than negative.

    It's not political correctness to try and massively reduce smoking and obesity, it's basic common sense.

    That's the complete opposite of what I said.


  • #83
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    daRobot wrote: »
    To be fair, both are a huge burden on the health resources of the state, and being either of those things clearly couldn't be construed as being anything other than negative.

    It's not political correctness to try and massively reduce smoking and obesity, it's basic common sense.

    it's revenue neutral for smokers not sure obout the big eaters


  • #84
    Winterlong
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭Winterlong


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    it's revenue neutral for smokers

    I did not know that. Does it mean that their estimated contribution to the state coffers thru baccy duty is more or less equal to the likely cost to the state of treating their ills when they get old?


  • #85
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,037 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Winterlong wrote: »
    I did not know that. Does it mean that their estimated contribution to the state coffers thru baccy duty is more or less equal to the likely cost to the state of treating their ills when they get old?

    Many of them don't reach old age, so save the State a fortune in healthcare.


  • #86
    micar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,907 ✭✭✭micar


    I'm anti smoking.

    Of course I've tried it.

    I went out with a smoker for 3 years. She never smoked inside when we lived together. Hated when she smoked in the car.

    Surely it's a smokers responsible not to smoke around children.

    To be honest, I find it quite selfish for smokers to light up around anyone else.

    Nothing worse than standing waiting for a bus for the person standing beside you to light up.


  • #87
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Many of them don't reach old age, so save the State a fortune in healthcare.

    And no pension to pay


  • #88
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Andy From Sligo wrote: »
    Sorry in advance if this has been covered on Boards already.

    If you smoke in a car that has a child in it, you will be fined €100 - that came into force 1st Jan 2016. to protect children from secondary smoke.

    So anything in place for protecting children in the home that are sitting down to watch TV with the family in a small living room, with the door and windows shut? - i dont think there is.

    I wonder how the enforcing of the smoking ban in cars are going? - I havent heard much on it, or of anyone getting caught yet.

    Because, at some stage, you have to rely on Parents being good Parents and Policing themselves .......... hopefully Parents aren't going to feed their children turkey twizzlers 24/7, washed down with a few beers and finished off with a relaxing cigarette before bed-time ......... we have to hope this isn't happening because it's impossible to Police every Parent in every home all of the time.


  • #89
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    I hope all those who want indoor smoking around kids policed are practising what they preach and using safe laundry products, household cleaners, and have banned air fresheners and scented candles from their homes, to prevent their children breathing in or coming into contact with carcinogenic chemicals. And I hope they know that processed meats are in the same category of carcinogen as alcohol and tobacco (class 1), so no sausages, burgers or chicken goujons, if you don't want to be inflicting cancer. Maybe families need to be policed for all of these things. They are all proven to be causes of cancer and they are very common.


  • #90
    IvyTheTerrible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭IvyTheTerrible


    Widdershins wrote: »
    I hope all those who want indoor smoking around kids policed are practising what they preach and using safe laundry products, household cleaners, and have banned air fresheners and scented candles from their homes, to prevent their children breathing in or coming into contact with carcinogenic chemicals. And I hope they know that processed meats are in the same category of carcinogen as alcohol and tobacco (class 1), so no sausages, burgers or chicken goujons, if you don't want to be inflicting cancer. Maybe families need to be policed for all of these things. They are all proven to be causes of cancer and they are very common.
    They are in the same group solely because they both are considered to cause cancer. They do not have the same level of risk (thank you, inaccurate scientific reporting in the media :rolleyes: )

    Quote from the WHO:

    "9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos? No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk."

    (taken from: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ )


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    IvyTheTerrible wrote: »
    They are in the same group solely because they both are considered to cause cancer. They do not have the same level of risk (thank you, inaccurate scientific reporting in the media :rolleyes: )

    Quote from the WHO:

    "9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos? No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk."

    )


    Indeed, but I wouldn't feel good about feeding children something that definitely causes cancer in thousands of cases, just because the neighbor smokes in the same room as their kids, and smoking is considered a cause of thousands more cases of cancer. Nor would I give out about the neighbor without examining my own practices. I'm not a scientist so you'll have to excuse my interpretation of that if it's not correct?


  • #92
    RollieFingers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,643 ✭✭✭RollieFingers


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Or just not deliberately choose to blow cancer right in the face of children because of sheer laziness........

    If anything, the smoker will benefit from the little bit of exercise walking outside will give them.

    In fairness I doubt they are blowing smoke directly into their children's face.


  • #93
    Andy From Sligo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,873 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    I wish the smoking in cars law/ban was in place when i was a nipper - not only was i suceptible to travel sickness there was at least 2 adults smoking in car and if I wanted to open up a window cause I felt car sick and was told pretty quickly to shut window because they were cold and it was causing a draught! :(


  • #94
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Andy From Sligo wrote: »
    I wish the smoking in cars law/ban was in place when i was a nipper - not only was i suceptible to travel sickness there was at least 2 adults smoking in car and if I wanted to open up a window cause I felt car sick and was told pretty quickly to shut window because they were cold and it was causing a draught! :(

    Perhaps a strongly worded letter, as opposed to a thread on Boards, to your parents would be the way to go?


  • #95
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Gbear wrote: »
    I'm a libertarian but I don't understand the "liberal" perspective on allowing people to smoke in front of others.

    I can't slap you in the face.
    I don't see why other forms of assault, such as blowing poisonous chemicals at you, should be deemed acceptable.

    You should be able to consume whatever you like. I'm not sure why you should be able to force others to consume it at the same time.
    Arguably, smoke would be diffuse enough outdoors that it ought to be permitted, but there's no escaping it in confined spaces.

    cars are far worse than smoking, Try going into an enclosed space with one running. You don't die from breathing in second hand smoke in a few minutes. Lets ban children in cars and cars outside schools sure just ban all cars.


  • #96
    Andy From Sligo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,873 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    MadDog76 wrote:
    Perhaps a strongly worded letter, as opposed to a thread on Boards, to your parents would be the way to go?

    Eh what u on about, I thought that's what boards were for, discussion on subjects?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Andy From Sligo wrote: »
    Eh what u on about, I thought that's what boards were for, discussion on subjects?

    *Eh, no it's not!!

















    *It actually is ...............


  • #98
    Andy From Sligo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,873 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Perhaps a strongly worded letter, as opposed to a thread on Boards, to your parents would be the way to go?

    and what would that achieve ? - history is in the past, it happened, Ive got over it and I have decreased lung function probably brought on by breathing in secondhand smoke! :rolleyes:


  • #99
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Andy From Sligo wrote: »
    and what would that achieve ? - history is in the past, it happened, Ive got over it and I have decreased lung function probably brought on by breathing in secondhand smoke! :rolleyes:

    Exactly ...............


  • #100
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I was responding to a poster's "I know parents who smoke, bad people" anecdote with a "I know parents who don't smoke, bad people" anecdote. That was my thinking.

    Ahh, I see.

    Forgive me saying - it didn't come across that way, but that's the limitation of the written word.


  • #101
    SVJKarate
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭SVJKarate


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    cars are far worse than smoking, Try going into an enclosed space with one running. You don't die from breathing in second hand smoke in a few minutes. Lets ban children in cars and cars outside schools sure just ban all cars.

    You're not making a lot of sense there, are you? You can cut your femoral artery with a knife and die in seconds, but that's not an argument for banning knives. Without combustion-engine vehicles it is certain that far more people would have died (and will die) than will ever have been killed by carbon monoxide poisoning. I would not consider that to be a valid reason to ban cars.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement