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 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.

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

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #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...


  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #70
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #71
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 13,765 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
  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #73
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #74
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #75
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #76
    goz83
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #77
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #78
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


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

    Everything else has been muzzled by political correctness.


  • Options
    #79
    BalcombeSt4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #81
    daRobot
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #82
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #83
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,024 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #85
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #86
    micar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,876 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #87
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,024 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #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?


Advertisement