| 03-05-2012, 09:34 | #16 |
|
Registered Goat
![]() Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: ...Oh my god, I'm full of stars!
Posts: 9,126
|
|
|
|
| (3) thanks from: |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
| 03-05-2012, 09:42 | #17 |
|
Registered User
![]() |
If they want to denormalize smoking for kids by banning it in public places, they should do the same for obesity and ban fat people from public places so that kids wont think its ok to be obese.
|
|
|
| (2) thanks from: |
| 03-05-2012, 09:49 | #18 | |
|
Closed Account
|
Quote:
Says much about me.I favour the ban, but not blanket. I understand the intent is that impressionable people should not see you enjoying something which is poisonous, but it should be OK to smoke if you want to where there are no children/sheep. I can't see how or why they would enforce such a law if you are effectively alone on a beach fishing at night, or sitting on Sugarloaf freezing your assets off at 04:00. |
|
|
|
| 03-05-2012, 09:55 | #19 |
|
Progress is a fine thing...
![]() |
I am a smoker. I think that banning smoking in parks is OTT, but I am in favour of banning smoking on beaches. Digging up some sand & finding a nest of fag butts is sooo disgusting.
Broadly speaking, I think the Govt should continue with a policy of restricting smoking & also making tobacco more expensive. Education does not work, IMO. The risks associated with smoking are well understood but that does not prevent many young people from starting. If a pack of cigs cost say 20 quid that would be a good deterrent, and would also encourage more adults to quit. |
|
|
| 03-05-2012, 10:00 | #20 | |
|
Registered User
![]() |
Quote:
The argument was originally concerning the damage that smoking would so (so warnings had to be introduced and adverts banned). Then the argument was that smoking cost the state in healthcare (so exorbitant taxes were imposed). Then the argument was that second hand smoke would damage non-smokers (so no indoor smoking in non-private residences). Then the argument claimed that young would still be able to buy cigarettes and be exposed to the implicit advertising of packages in shops (so now packets have to be hidden). Now the argument is that children will still see people smoking. I mean, I'm not even a smoker and I'm thinking... ffs. It went a bit stazi already with the hiding of the packets... :/ |
|
|
|
| Thanks from: |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
| 03-05-2012, 10:03 | #21 | |
|
Registered Goat
![]() Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: ...Oh my god, I'm full of stars!
Posts: 9,126
|
Quote:
![]() Enforcing the ban is not really the issue, it's that the ban is being put in place is what I am questioning. It's a death of a thousend cuts and our ability to smoke is being whittled away piece by piece. When the ban is put in place most of us (being law abiding citizens) will stop smoking in parks and beaches. I maintain that this is just being done to make political ground rather then having the actual health and wellbeing of children as the foremost concern. |
|
|
|
| 03-05-2012, 10:18 | #22 | |
|
Moderator
![]() |
Quote:
Dropping cigarette butts on the beach is already illegal. If the litter laws were properly enforced, it wouldn't happen. The new proposed law is not an anti-litter measure and your outrage would be better aimed at the poor anti-litter measures we already have. |
|
|
|
| (6) thanks from: |
| 03-05-2012, 21:44 | #23 | |
|
Progress is a fine thing...
![]() |
Quote:
I am not particularly outraged, BTW, and lecturing me is neither friendly, helpful, nor informative. |
|
|
|
| Thanks from: |
| 03-05-2012, 22:34 | #24 | |
|
Moderator
![]() |
Quote:
Sorry, outrage was the wrong word and I didn't mean to lecture. Litter on the beach is horrible. Pre-litter prevention is cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer and reduces the overall utility of the beach, however. |
|
|
|
| Thanks from: |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
| 06-05-2012, 18:23 | #25 | ||
|
Registered User
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
=-= As someone has said, I wonder what this smokescreen is meant to hide? |
||
|
|
| 06-05-2012, 18:40 | #26 | |
|
Registered User
![]() |
Quote:
This is a problem in: St Luke's Kilkenny The MW Regional in Limerick The Coombe in Dublin OLCH Crumlin Dublin and others I have submitted video footage about two other locations not named above some time ago but have heard nothing since. Why is he out looking to introduce new bye-laws, policies or whatever when the lard-arses being paid handsomely by the HSE cant't / won't enforce existing policy? |
|
|
|
| 11-05-2012, 16:02 | #27 | |
|
Registered User
![]() |
Quote:
It's not absolutely ridiculous at all. Smoking in an apartment means your neighbours are exposed to your smoke in their own homes. This can be under the front door of your apartment, but the main problem tends to be shared ventilation systems, which are very common in New York. This means that any smoke from your apartment goes directly into many of your neighbours' apartments. IMO your right to smoke in your own home goes out of the window when it starts impacting other people in their own homes. I live in such an apartment block and every time my neighbour lights up in his bathroom, our entire bathroom fills with smoke. It's as if someone has actually been smoking in there. Even with the bathroom door closed, the smoke fills the hall and we can often smell it elsewhere. Guests have commented on it and the landlord even accused us of smoking in the flat. We both have breathing issues and I don't see why we should have to put up with this. Surely it's up to the person producing the smoke to make sure it stays in their home? I believe in the right to choose what you do with your own body, to smoke if you want to smoke etc, but you can't pretend you live in a bubble. This is actually a really sensible law and I wish it would come into effect here. I wouldn't necessarily be in favour of a total ban on smoking in apartment blocks, but definitely in those with shared ventilation systems or in the case of say, bedsits, where neighbouring flats are often essentially rooms in the same house. Basically, if you can smell your neighbour's smoke in your home with all the windows and doors closed, then that's an issue that needs to be addressed, IMO. |
|
|
|
| Thanks from: |
| 15-05-2012, 04:14 | #28 |
|
Closed Account
|
They're not going to ban 'em in public ares unless they're.....stupid......
It's unenforceable and the Gardaí aren't going to be arsed enforcing it when they are much more focused on veh-hicul collisions. It's completely fair to ban tobacco smoking in pubs, restaurants and work places as it poses a fairly serious health threat but smoking in public places with the intent to denormalise the practice is really just plain wrong. It really is shows how taboo smoking tobacco is becoming.....while smoking other herbal substances are going the other way ![]() Any way, apart from the principle of the thing, who would actually stop? |
|
|
| 09-06-2012, 07:58 | #30 | |
|
Registered User
![]() |
Quote:
I'd miss the pipe. Your pipe, that is. I've always liked the smell of pipes and cigars. From a distance, as I'm a non-smoker. I wouldn't miss the fags though. One thing smokers cannot control is their exhaled and 'sidestream' smoke. Hence no-smoking areas, most especially indoors, make as much sense as non-urinating areas in a swimming pool. Another thing cigarette smokers cannot seem to control is their butts. I was at the beach recently with my two toddlers. The sand is always littered with cigarette butts, and the children have picked them up, sometimes accidentally, which I find disgusting. The seafront promenade is similarly littered, as a large number of smokers seem to believe they have a special licence to litter. Don't start me on the gum chewers and lawless Irish dog owners...
|
|
|
|