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
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Car smoking ban

1235

Comments

  • #122
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Anan1 wrote: »
    True, but so does horse riding. Do we ban that too?

    I could be wrong, and feel free to find the actual stats to prove me wrong, but I strongly suspect the cost of treating horse riding related illnesses is a lot lower than the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.


  • #123
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    username123 wrote: »
    I could be wrong, and feel free to find the actual stats to prove me wrong, but I strongly suspect the cost of treating horse riding related illnesses is a lot lower than the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.
    I'd say per participant you might be surprised - horse riding is not safe. Let's take a better example, though - alcohol. Would you ban that?


  • #124
    Jame Gumb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Jame Gumb


    Net the excise duty paid by smokers against the cost of their healthcare (and factor in that they die earlier).

    I'd say smokers MAKE money for the State


  • #125
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Jame Gumb wrote: »
    Net the excise duty paid by smokers against the cost of their healthcare (and factor in that they die earlier).

    I'd say smokers MAKE money for the State
    Quite possibly. And they don't inflate the crime statistics like drinkers either.

    Edit: Although of course they would if we banned it. :)


  • #126
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Jame Gumb wrote: »
    Net the excise duty paid by smokers against the cost of their healthcare (and factor in that they die earlier).

    I'd say smokers MAKE money for the State

    Smokers are less productive, take more time off work, go into a decline earlier than non smokers, choose smoking over health insurance, have more illnesses, get some very lingering illnesses, and cost the state in terms of production, health costs, litter, and cost of health to the children they smoke on (and presumably the others they smoke on).

    Then again, the revenue on cigarettes is huge. Id like to see a large study on it to make a call.

    @Anan1 - personally I wouldnt ban anything. I dont like seeing the government interfere too much in peoples lives.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Total ban on smoking?
    Intriguing, but what are they going to do?
    Will armed Gardai break down my door and take me away to be locked up because I am smoking a fag at home?
    Will it make criminals out of the people bringing back cigarettes from holiday in Spain?
    Do we have vast rooms in our prisons to house all those hardened criminals?
    And, most important, do I pick up the soap I dropped?
    And there's the people who smuggle tons of cigarettes into the country already.
    They are set for a bonanza. Gang wars will get more and more violent and bloody and where will the state get the money for all the manpower and equipment?
    How much money will the government spend on this unwinnable war?
    One billion? Two? More?
    There are of course fanatics who say that 10 billion is a small price to pay and harsher punishments that fill up our prisons with people who don't need to be there is worthwhile.
    But even in countries like Saudi Arabia where the penalty for possessing illegal drugs is death by hanging, people still do them.
    In the US you can also be banged up for having drugs. The only result from that is that the US has the highest prison population in the world, even ahead of China.
    The government won't ban smoking, because they know it will lead to even worse problems.
    They are trying for a gradual ban in more and more places, but at some stage they will run out of places to ban it, or start banning it in places where they can't possibly enforce it, i.e. in your own home.
    Time to roll another.
    And the only time I have taken time off sick in the last 10 years was this year and two years ago for a bad back.


  • #128
    blastman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,449 ✭✭✭blastman


    djimi wrote: »
    I have literally no idea what point you are trying to make? That because we cant protect every aspect of a childs life we should make no effort to protect any aspect of it?

    Yes, that's exactly my point. :rolleyes:

    I'm saying this smacks of a populist move by a government in reaction to a problem that is most likely exaggerated in its seriousness. Yes, we should address parents who smoke in cars; no, I don't think this is the way to do it.


  • #129
    OldmanMondeo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭OldmanMondeo


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Let's take a better example, though - alcohol. Would you ban that?

    Alcohol is not as addictive as smoking. Alcohol, in moderation, has been proven to be good for you. There is no medical evidence that smoking is good for you, infact all medical evidence says otherwise.

    Any hooo, how come the pros and cons of smoking is being discussed in the motor forum?


  • #130
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    OldmanMondeo wrote: »
    Alcohol is not as addictive as smoking. Alcohol, in moderation, has been proven to be good for you.
    True, but the cost to society of alcohol is still exponentially higher.
    OldmanMondeo wrote: »
    There is no medical evidence that smoking is good for you, infact all medical evidence says otherwise.
    Again true, but the harm with smoking is at least confined to the individual. No crashed cars, no assaults, no avoidable accidents clogging up A&E every weekend.
    OldmanMondeo wrote: »
    Any hooo, how come the pros and cons of smoking is being discussed in the motor forum?
    You know how we wander off on tangents..


  • #131
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Anan1 wrote: »
    True, but the cost to society of alcohol is still exponentially higher.

    Got anything to back this up? (Im not disputing you, just genuinely interested). What do you define as 'cost' - money value or cost in terms of emotional disturbance to those affected etc...

    Because although alcoholics wreak havoc within families, smokers who die from long lingering illnesses cause massive emotional distress also.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    username123 wrote: »
    Got anything to back this up? (Im not disputing you, just genuinely interested). What do you define as 'cost' - money value or cost in terms of emotional disturbance to those affected etc...

    Because although alcoholics wreak havoc within families, smokers who die from long lingering illnesses cause massive emotional distress also.
    By cost I mean everything from lost productivity & time off work to alcohol-related accidents & assaults and all the rest. Have a look here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm


  • #133
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Anan1 wrote: »
    By cost I mean everything from lost productivity & time off work to alcohol-related accidents & assaults and all the rest. Have a look here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

    Not a great reference tbh.

    Check this one out, quite a comprehensive study, I know its a bit old - data from 2004/2005, but the results are interesting.

    Look at the Total Costs table on page 65 (table 35)
    Of the total social costs of drug abuse in 2004/05 of $55.1 billion, alcohol accounted for $15.3 billion (27.3 per cent of the unadjusted total), tobacco $31.5 billion (56.2 per cent) and illicit drugs $8.2 billion (14.6 per cent). Alcohol and illicit drugs acting together accounted for another $1.1 billion (1.9 per cent).

    Its a good study actually and it compares back with results from 98/99 too. I know its just based on Australian figures though but still a good one to ponder.


  • #134
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Did you forget a link there? :)


  • #135
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Did you forget a link there? :)

    Eh no, click on the word 'this' - its working for me?


  • #136
    OldmanMondeo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭OldmanMondeo


    Anan1 wrote: »
    True, but the cost to society of alcohol is still exponentially higher.

    Again true, but the harm with smoking is at least confined to the individual. No crashed cars, no assaults, no avoidable accidents clogging up A&E every weekend.

    You know how we wander off on tangents..

    The cost of a drunk getting treatment would be far less than someone getting cancer treatment. The hardship a drunk abusive can cause a family could possibly be the same as losing a loved one to cancer.

    The cost of cancer treatment for one person would probably cost more then most less serious car crashes, treatment for assaults. Clogging up A&E I agree is a disgrace, maybe a drunk tank at each Garda station or Hospital would be the option.

    Oh hell yeah, Motors can speed off in the wrong direction very quickley...


  • #137
    pburns
    Registered Users Posts: 2,423 ✭✭✭pburns


    I haven't time to read 10 pages but my opinion on this is fairly straightforward. My uncle was addicted to cigarettes (and paid the price). He smoked in the car when I was present growing up but those were different times and I don't judge him harshly for it.

    I don't smoke, I hate smoking. Smoking in a car with children present - knowing all we know about the effects of 2nd hand smoke on young lungs - is disgusting and wrong.

    However this is another example of a minister making unenforceable laws to be seen to be doing something amongst the electorate and - more importantly perhaps - to make a name for himself amongst his peers in Europe (gravy train coming down the line if viewed as 'progressive' i.e. good at coming up with more-and-more rules!).


  • #138
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    username123 wrote: »
    Not a great reference tbh.

    Check this one out, quite a comprehensive study, I know its a bit old - data from 2004/2005, but the results are interesting.

    Look at the Total Costs table on page 65 (table 35)


    Its a good study actually and it compares back with results from 98/99 too. I know its just based on Australian figures though but still a good one to ponder.
    I'm actually surprised at those figures - I would have thought that the health problems due to smoking would peak at or after retirement age. Interesting.


  • #139
    Damien360
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Damien360


    pburns wrote: »

    However this is another example of a minister making unenforceable laws to be seen to be doing something amongst the electorate and - more importantly perhaps - to make a name for himself amongst his peers in Europe (gravy train coming down the line if viewed as 'progressive' i.e. good at coming up with more-and-more rules!).

    We all said the same about smoking in pubs and that is now policed by the public. It is unacceptable.

    The idea is to adjust our thinking so that you will not want to be seen by your neighbours/peers/kids smoking in the car. It will take years and will need a few court cases to highlight this. Unfortunately it will catch those who actually care about having their name in the paper. You will not stop your average scumbag smoking in the car but not everyone who smokes in the car is a scumbag. Ordinary people are susceptible to peer pressure. Eventually it will be seen as unacceptable behaviour when the kids are in the car.


  • #140
    Franticfrank
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Franticfrank


    We all said the same about smoking in pubs and that is now policed by the public. It is unacceptable.

    Back in the day, driving home after 7 or 8 pints was acceptable too. Thankfully now, things are different. Good points, hopefully this will result in a change of mindset. But when you're addicted to something like cigarettes, exposing your kids to passive smoking on the school run is probably the last thing on your mind. It'll take a long time and a lot of work.


  • #141
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Damien360 wrote: »
    We all said the same about smoking in pubs and that is now policed by the public. It is unacceptable.

    It is unacceptable depending on the pub. I am personally aware of a few pubs where patrons smoke and nothing is done, plus a number of places to do lock ins and allow smoking in the pub in the lock in.

    There have also been a substantal number of smoking areas developed where you feel as though you are in fact inside - and Ive seen staff move around those areas clearing glasses even though in theory they shouldnt.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    pburns wrote: »
    However this is another example of a minister making unenforceable laws to be seen to be doing something amongst the electorate and - more importantly perhaps - to make a name for himself amongst his peers in Europe (gravy train coming down the line if viewed as 'progressive' i.e. good at coming up with more-and-more rules!).

    Again, it's no less enforceable than the seat belt or mobile phone laws.


  • #143
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Again, it's no less enforceable than the seat belt or mobile phone laws.

    Wearing seat belts has become more culturally enshrined as the right thing to do but every singe day I see people using mobile phones while driving, there seems to be zero effect on mobile phone usage.


  • #144
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    djimi wrote: »
    The arguement that it will be hard to make people stop if they dont want to is just silly; are you proposing that we dont bother making laws because people might not like them and might choose to ignore them?

    That's exactly what I'm saying. And the cost of enforcement plus the backlash of resentment to a new law are ALWAYS factored in to the cost benefit analysis before a new law is enacted. Or they should be.

    The history of civil disobedience down through the years has been precisely large numbers of people flouting a law they consider unjust in order to show the authorities the limits of their power. Laws are best applied when people consent to obey them.

    I am not trying to put the issue of smoking on the same moral plain as black civil rights in the American Deep South or Indian independence from the British Raj but speaking purely at a tactical level, the actions of Martin Luther King in bringing large numbers of black people into segregated restaurants, or Gandhi leading millions of Indians to make salt in contravention of the government monopoly showed the limits of power of the government over the governed.

    If smokers wanted to make a big deal out of this, they could quite easily.

    I suggest that's a sleeping dog that would be best left lie.


  • #145
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    If smokers wanted to make a big deal out of this, they could quite easily.
    But how? Their right to smoke isn't being infringed upon, only their right to affect children while doing so. They can still smoke in the car if they don't brink the kids.


  • #146
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Again true, but the harm with smoking is at least confined to the individual. No crashed cars, no assaults, no avoidable accidents clogging up A&E every weekend...

    Wasnt the point of the smoking ban from workplaces that it most certainly isnt just confined to the individual? IT's the individual plus whoever is in the same enclosed area.

    This came up in work today and happened to be me in a room with 4 lads that smoke. All 4 said that smoking in cars with kids should be banned. 3 said it should just be banned in cars altogether.


  • #147
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Wasnt the point of the smoking ban from workplaces that it most certainly isnt just confined to the individual? IT's the individual plus whoever is in the same enclosed area.

    This came up in work today and happened to be me in a room with 4 lads that smoke. All 4 said that smoking in cars with kids should be banned. 3 said it should just be banned in cars altogether.
    It wasn't always, but it is now - in theory at least. Whatever about banning smoking in cars, i'd have my reservations about allowing smoking while driving. 99.999% of the time it's fine, but anyone who's ever dropped a lit cigarette in their lap will tell you that the other .001% is anything but.


  • #148
    the culture of deference
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭the culture of deference


    username123 wrote: »
    Impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone who doesnt understand the nature of addiction. Constantly spouting 'smoking is bad' information does not a reasoned discussion make. I suggest you educate yourself. There is plenty of information out there. Even people of lower intelligence should find it accessible. Addiction is long a medically well understood condition. Calling it just outlines ignorance of the subject.

    Way over the top.

    People now know smoking will kill you.

    Let me say this slowly for you....

    If you have kids or are pregnant put your children 1st. Do not use this BS addiction word to justify harming your kids.
    djimi wrote: »
    when a situation exists where people are too stupid/ignorant to realise that they are putting other people in harm, especially their children who can do absolutely nothing about it, then I think we have every right to expect the government to step in and try and take control.

    Agree
    Anan1 wrote: »
    It wasn't always, but it is now - in theory at least. Whatever about banning smoking in cars, i'd have my reservations about allowing smoking while driving. 99.999% of the time it's fine, but anyone who's ever dropped a lit cigarette in their lap will tell you that the other .001% is anything but.

    It's a habit.

    Watch a smoker after buying a new pack of fags in a garage.

    Get in car, rip plastic off cig box and remove tab, start car, throw rubbish out window, light fag (beside petrol pump)as you try to drive away, then steer one handed or with knees until fag is lit, and wobble up the road. Extra bonus if you are on the mobile too.


  • #149
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    username123 wrote: »
    It is unacceptable depending on the pub..................

    The ban works in the vast majority of pubs, it has been very effective, nothing (almost) is 100% effective.


  • #150
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    RoverJames wrote: »
    The ban works in the vast majority of pubs, it has been very effective, nothing (almost) is 100% effective.

    Oh I wasnt disputing you RoverJames, just pointing out that there are exceptions.

    I dont think its the public that police it, its the pubs - they are the ones who can be fined no?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    the culture of deference
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭the culture of deference


    RoverJames wrote: »
    The ban works in the vast majority of pubs, it has been very effective, nothing (almost) is 100% effective.

    It has been a great success.

    I have friends who may smoke 10 fags on a night out now, 10 years ago it would have been 2 packets for the night. Also plenty more girls to chat up now.

    I know 1 couple who are now married after meeting


Advertisement