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

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    djimi wrote: »
    Has anyone actually provided any good reason, other than nanny state/government controlling our lives etc, why a law like this shouldnt be passed? Has anyone actually come up with a compelling arguement as to why parents should be allowed to put the health of their children in serious risk, and why the government cannot step in to try and prevent this from happening?

    Its interesting that you do not feel the nanny state argument is compelling. In a modern westernised country people dont take it all that seriously. Im sure your point of view would be different if you spent some time in North Korea.

    Parents put their childs health at serious risk from a variety of factors, not just smoking in cars.


  • Options
    #93
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    username123 wrote: »
    Its interesting that you do not feel the nanny state argument is compelling. In a modern westernised country people dont take it all that seriously. Im sure your point of view would be different if you spent some time in North Korea.

    Nonsense, comparing this law to North Korea is complete nonsense,
    Parents put their childs health at serious risk from a variety of factors, not just smoking in cars.

    So you agree its a health issue, do you not think the government should do something about such a health issue?

    Should the government do nothing and ignore what selfish smokers do to their kids in small enclosed spaces?


  • Options
    #94
    Wetbench4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Wetbench4


    Would this new law even be mentioned if there were no fines associated with it, as in there was no way for the gov to make a return on it. Stop being blind people.


  • Options
    #95
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Wetbench4 wrote: »
    Would this new law even be mentioned if there were no fines associated with it, as in there was no way for the gov to make a return on it. Stop being blind people.
    ?? Show me a law that doesn't involve a sanction for breaking it.


  • Options
    #96
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Nonsense, comparing this law to North Korea is complete nonsense

    I agree. I didnt compare the law to North Korea. I pointed out that the poster not taking the nanny state argument seriously might have a different viewpoint if he/she spent time in North Korea. Or China. Or any country where there is excessive government interference in private lives.
    Cabaal wrote: »
    So you agree its a health issue, do you not think the government should do something about such a health issue?

    I dont disagree with it - but I think its nonsense.
    Cabaal wrote: »
    Should the government do nothing and ignore what selfish smokers do to their kids in small enclosed spaces?

    As a result of this law the government will still do nothing and ignore what selfish smokers do to their kids in small enclosed spaces, ie, their homes. This law wont change that. Strawman.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    username123 wrote: »
    As a result of this law the government will still do nothing and ignore what selfish smokers do to their kids in small enclosed spaces, ie, their homes. This law wont change that. Strawman.

    Very true, but its another nail in the coffin for smoking in this country.

    Go back 30-40 years and you could smoke everywhere in this country (includes airplanes), even in the 80's you could smoke on all public transport and in airports, workplaces etc.

    Fast forward to the 90's and public transport was restricted as were other area's

    Fast forward to the 00's and pubs and foot establishments were restricted,

    Now here we are in 2012 and kids playgrounds and cars with kids are the new places that the government want to restrict.

    Its all a natural progression towards an eventual total ban on smoking in this country, sure the total ban may take another 10-20 or even 30 years but it'll happen.

    People might laugh at me saying this but if you told somebody in the 80's or 90's that smoking in pubs in Ireland would have been banned they would have laughed at you.

    Sure its not a total solution to selfish smokers not caring about others (in this case kids), but its better then no action at all.

    Another thing that is likely to happen is if you are a smoker it'll start to really affect your life insurance and also could even affect your job opportunity's, after all smokers are more likely to get sick with chest infections etc and as such are more likely to be sick off work.


  • Options
    #98
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    username123 wrote: »
    I agree. I didnt compare the law to North Korea. I pointed out that the poster not taking the nanny state argument seriously might have a different viewpoint if he/she spent time in North Korea. Or China. Or any country where there is excessive government interference in private lives.
    The nanny state argument makes perfect sense when the freedoms of the individual are being curtailed without very good reason, but this isn't the case here. People should be allowed to do whatever they want, insofar as it does not negatively affect others.


  • Options
    #99
    Wetbench4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Wetbench4


    Anan1 wrote: »
    ?? Show me a law that doesn't involve a sanction for breaking it.

    The point is, they could increase policing around schools as someone earlier mentioned, ban schools from selling ****e food in their canteen etc. But these things don't return money. There are plenty of other ways to protect children im sure besides this money spinner


  • Options
    #100
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,595 ✭✭✭creedp


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Another thing that is likely to happen is if you are a smoker it'll start to really affect your life insurance and also could even affect your job opportunity's, after all smokers are more likely to get sick with chest infections etc and as such are more likely to be sick off work.

    While I have no difficulty with this proposal, I wouldn't smoke in a car with kid in it with or without the law, I'm waiting to see how its enforced. It is currently illegal for a worker to smoke in his work vehicle as it is his workplace. Now how often do you see this law being flouted? It happens right in front of the Gardai and they do nothing about it. So roll on this new law and see how it is enforced. As for the hysteria about parents smoking and harming thier children why aren't we banning pregnant women from smoking? Have a look at entrances to maternity hospitals and witness heavily pregnant women puffing away .. is this less harmful? Must be as we haven't people clambering to ban it!

    Finally, in my experience, alcohol is much more problematic when it comes to people more likely to be off work 'sick'


  • Options
    #101
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Wetbench4 wrote: »
    The point is, they could increase policing around schools as someone earlier mentioned, ban schools from selling ****e food in their canteen etc. But these things don't return money. There are plenty of other ways to protect children im sure besides this money spinner
    As money spinners go, banning parents from smoking in their cars with kids present would be a pretty poor effort.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    username123 wrote: »
    Its interesting that you do not feel the nanny state argument is compelling. In a modern westernised country people dont take it all that seriously. Im sure your point of view would be different if you spent some time in North Korea.

    Parents put their childs health at serious risk from a variety of factors, not just smoking in cars.

    And can you come up with a compelling reason why every one of those factors should not be legislated against if at all possible?

    Im not talking about the government controlling every aspect of peoples lives, but 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.


  • Options
    #103
    Wetbench4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Wetbench4


    Anan1 wrote: »
    People should be allowed to do whatever they want, insofar as it does not negatively affect others.

    So we should ban really fat people wearing swimsuits because that REALLY negatively affects me? What about queue jumpers too? , the list goes on.


  • Options
    #104
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Wetbench4 wrote: »
    So we should ban really fat people wearing swimsuits because that REALLY negatively affects me? What about queue jumpers too? , the list goes on.
    What now?


  • Options
    #105
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    djimi wrote: »
    Has anyone actually provided any good reason, other than nanny state/government controlling our lives etc, why a law like this shouldnt be passed? Has anyone actually come up with a compelling arguement as to why parents should be allowed to put the health of their children in serious risk, and why the government cannot step in to try and prevent this from happening?



    OK. Let's just talk about the pragmatics of this.

    Is it going to be illegal to smoke in a car while a child is present or is it going to be illegal to bring a child into a car where smoking previously took place?

    The latter is what any decent right thinking busybody would say is all they want to achieve. The latter would be such a ridiculous infringement of personal liberty that it should be unconscionable. ("Aha! A cigarette might have been smoked in this car a week ago! If you put a child into it you're a criminal!" or alternatively "Oh my God! I gave a lift home last night to somebody who lit up a cigarette. Sorry kids! You'll have to take the bus to school today!")

    So, assuming the former is the only offence, how in the name of hell is it going to be enforced?

    A Garda is going to have to stop a car, ascertain that the driver is indeed smoking a cigarette (or presumably cigar or pipe), determine that their are children in the car and issue a fixed penalty notice/summons.

    How is that going to happen? "The same way we check for those driving under the influence of alcohol" you might say. But it's very different. You have a fag in your mouth. You see the checkpoint up ahead. You extinguish it, close the ashtray and maybe turn on the blowers and open the sun roof. "Not smoking now, Guard. Had a fag on the way home from work, before the kids got in." is there a test for "being under the influence of nicotine? I don't think so.

    Far more likely is that the crusaders for children's protection are going to spot people smoking while they're out driving and phone in (on hands free sets of course) their details to the Gardai. Quite apart from the fact that concentrating on what other people are doing IN their cars is very bad practice for somebody driving their own car who should be concentrating on the road, the Gardai are likely to prioritise their meagre resources to more serious, or at least more readily indictable crime.

    So after a few months or years of blind eyes being turned and FOI requests for conviction rates for this crime revealing to the concerned citizenry that "Nothing is being done" a campaign will be launched insisting that "the law be upheld."

    So Gardai, yielding to "public pressure" from "Concerned citizenry" will, briefly, take a tough line and send out plainclothes units to peer into car cabins to make sure that children's lives are not being placed at any minute risk by smoke inhalation.

    Older people may remember what happened in Belfast in the 1960s when Sinn Fein hoisted a tricolour over their offices on the Falls Road and a radical young preacher named Paisley, demanding that the Flags and Emblems Act be enforced for the good of law and order, had the RUC sent in to take it down. Several days rioting ensued.

    This is not at all comparable to stricter enforcement of road traffic laws, alluded to by a former poster. That not only punishes the ill mannered and reckless but also reassures those who are willing and ready to observe normal road etiquette that they will not be unduly disadvantaged. EG, you're stuck in a long queue at a traffic light. People keep zooming up along the bus lane beside you and cutting in ahead. Nobody does anything about it. Why the hell should you continue to wait in line?

    Ditto for speed limits, dangerous overtaking of slow moving traffic etc etc. These are all about ensuring that everybody uses a common resource fairly and safely.

    But this is a completely different matter. It's about one individual saying to another that "You cannot do something that I have no intention of ever doing." It's infringing the personal habits of one person to satisfy the fastidious values of another.

    The prigs and busybodies (or people concerned for the welfare of children) should also be forcefully reminded that the preponderance of smoke-free locations nowadays is only made possible by the co-operation of smokers. If they chose to be stroppy about it, they could make life a lot worse for the rest of us.

    Scenario: a full inter city coach or train. Suddenly 20 people in unison pull out their packets of fags and light up. What are you going to do about it? Harrumph and tut tut. And they will say: "Tut all you like. We're making a point that if we really want to do something it's very difficult for you to stop us." And you might say "We'll call the police" And they will say "Good luck to that. How quickly do you think they're going to arrive and would you rather wait at the side of the road for an hour or so until they do, or would you rather just getting to your destination? How badly do you want to prove your point?"

    If it's going to be a fight every time you ask somebody to put out their cigarette just because it's legal, then nobody wins.

    To take the broader "Child protection" argument. For decades we had a superb solution to the protection of vulnerable children ie ( the sick, the orphaned, the mentally challenged, the abandoned) We let the church look after them. Church men, and women, were, we thought, beyond reproach, paragons of virtue, children of God in whom our trust was absolute.

    Turned out they were only human after all, As indeed are the guards and the traffic wardens and the railway ticket inspectors. How much power do you want to give these people? If you require their intervention every time somebody's personal behaviour outrages you, it will be necessary to give them powers that could corrupt a saint.

    At the moment we have a reasonable balance between the rights of smokers and the rights of those who don't want to breathe in secondary smoke. It exists because of the general cooperation of both sides. You need to think very carefully about increasing the coercive element beyond what is necessary.

    And telling people they can't smoke in their own cars is a step too far.


  • Options
    #106
    Wetbench4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Wetbench4


    Anan1 wrote: »
    As money spinners go, banning parents from smoking in their cars with kids present would be a pretty poor effort.

    Why?? Its a fine for little cost, easy money. Like i said earlier, it would be impossible to police anyway so what is the point.


  • Options
    #107
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    blastman wrote: »
    If you feel the "nanny state" is a non-argument, why not do the opposite and have laws for everything? My point is that you can't legislate for absolutely every aspect of people's lives.

    No you cant legislate for every aspect of peoples lives, nor should you, but you can take a look at the serious issues and legislate against those, especially where it involves the lives and health of others. What people do to themselves is entirely their own business, which is why Id not be in favour of banning smoking altogher, however when it affects others, and especially where those people are not in a position to do anything about it, then I think its only right that someone step in and try and do something.
    blastman wrote: »
    I don't think you should be allowed put the health of your child at risk, but I'm not in favour of banning McDonalds either.

    Whether or not children should be allowed to eat McDonalds is another valid arguement, but its another issue that would need another discussion.


  • Options
    #108
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Wetbench4 wrote: »
    The point is, they could increase policing around schools as someone earlier mentioned, ban schools from selling ****e food in their canteen etc. But these things don't return money. There are plenty of other ways to protect children im sure besides this money spinner

    Why do some people always assume that when a new law is brought in that its there to make money? NCT, speed cameras, now this; it gets a bit tedious when it gets dragged out again and again, especially when its blatently obvious that money making is not the primary concern (okay, maybe the speed cameras are questionable...!)


  • Options
    #109
    Wetbench4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Wetbench4


    djimi wrote: »
    Why do some people always assume that when a new law is brought in that its there to make money? NCT, speed cameras, now this; it gets a bit tedious when it gets dragged out again and again, especially when its blatently obvious that money making is not the primary concern (okay, maybe the speed cameras are questionable...!)

    Why do some people always assume that it isn't for money? I find it tedious when people keep assuming that the government has the best interests of its people as its MAIN priority when there has been little to no evidence of that in as long as i can remember.


  • Options
    #110
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    OK. Let's just talk about the pragmatics of this.

    <SNIP>

    Noones telling people they cant smoke in their own car. They are saying that they cant smoke in their own car when there are children present. Theres a world of a difference... This is not about trying to legislate against someones annoying habits, or trying to curb the rights of those to smoke whenever they feel like it; this is an effort to stop people from damaging the health of their children who are forced to be subjected to their smoking in an confined space.

    Im not entirely sure what bringing the church into it has to do with anything...

    Im also not sure I get your point about it being hard to enforce or hard to make people stop doing something if they choose to ignore the law. I agree, it will be hard to enforce, but I dont think its a million miles from the law against mobile phones, and they seem to be able to enforce that one just fine. As I said earlier, if they want to enforce it then the answer is to put a heavy penalty on it and come down hard on the first load of people who are convicted of it. It obviously wont stop everyone, but the thought of a €5000 fine if youre caught might make the majority think twice.
    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?

    I think Ive made my point on this so theres no point in me saying the same thing over and over. For me the bottom line is that its not a case of concerned citizens or nanny state or whatever; its a real problem that is caused by selfish and stupid people that is putting the health of children in danger, and I really dont see how anyone could have an arguement against it. However they do, and Im not really sure how to respond to it is so Ill leave it at that.


  • Options
    #111
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Wetbench4 wrote: »
    Why do some people always assume that it isn't for money? I find it tedious when people keep assuming that the government has the best interests of its people as its MAIN priority when there has been little to no evidence of that in as long as i can remember.

    Agree to disagree I guess. Take the NCT for example; biggest money making racket going according to some people, yet its taken the vast majority of the dangerous bangers off our roads. Sometimes theres more to their actions than just making money (not that Im saying profit isnt a factor).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    In reply to snickers man

    Seatbelts/mobile phones, individuals are stilll been caught every day, mobile phones fines are second only to speeding I believe; yet these require the 'crime' to be observed.

    I honestly don't get the unenforceable rant, how often do we as drivers see other drivers being pulled over for using their mobiles, yet it happens. As I said in an earlier post, it is a need for punishment to stop certain people from doing stupid things that we have certain laws.

    A lot of people have posted up that common sense alone, means that the vast majority of people will never smoke with a child in their car therefore this law will never effect them. There are however the 1% of people who do habitually drive while on the phone or not wearing a seltbelt and so we have laws to punish them!. Wearing a seatbelt prevents the driver alone from serious injury, should we allow the person who says the will never have an accident and therefore never need a seatbelt to drive without one?

    I agree with the prospect of this law being enacted, because it protects an individual who should be afforded the same rights as everyone else; but due to their age rely on the state to do it.

    This law is not attacking the civil liberties of smokers or is it a smoke screen (sic) to bring in some dracnoian laws in the future.


  • Options
    #113
    Wetbench4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Wetbench4


    djimi wrote: »
    Agree to disagree I guess. Take the NCT for example; biggest money making racket going according to some people, yet its taken the vast majority of the dangerous bangers off our roads. Sometimes theres more to their actions than just making money (not that Im saying profit isnt a factor).

    I can see your point completely, and the principle of the proposed law is great but for me its the trend of dropping in new stupid unenforcable laws to make it look like the government are doing a fantastic job while the country falls to pieces. The new irish SOPA law or whatever it was called, is another recent example.

    Also i think the celtic tiger had a lot to do with the reduction of bangers on the roads aswell.


  • Options
    #114
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Wetbench4 wrote: »
    I can see your point completely, and the principle of the proposed law is great but for me its the trend of dropping in new stupid unenforcable laws to make it look like the government are doing a fantastic job while the country falls to pieces. The new irish SOPA law or whatever it was called, is another recent example.

    Also i think the celtic tiger had a lot to do with the reduction of bangers on the roads aswell.

    Thing is, if the law is unenforcable then theres not really much point in bringing it in as a money making exercise. If they want to generate more revenue then all they have to do is go out and buy a hundred more speed camera vans and dot them all around the country; its like shooting fish in a barrel!

    I agree in some cases to an extent; the speed camera one is a bit iffy in that its hard to believe that safety is their primary concern when you mostly see the camera on dead straight stretches of the safest roads in the country when proper accident black spots wouldnt see a Garda from one end of the year to the next.

    There could (and probably is) an element of what you say in some laws that are passed, but (and maybe Im just being naive) for the most part I choose to believe that their intentions are right when they pass a law like this one.


  • Options
    #115
    blastman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,449 ✭✭✭blastman


    djimi wrote: »
    No you cant legislate for every aspect of peoples lives, nor should you, but you can take a look at the serious issues and legislate against those, especially where it involves the lives and health of others. What people do to themselves is entirely their own business, which is why Id not be in favour of banning smoking altogher, however when it affects others, and especially where those people are not in a position to do anything about it, then I think its only right that someone step in and try and do something.

    I think the problem is that this reaction i.e. potentially criminalising people for smoking in their car, is not in proportion to the actual risk.

    As I said before, should we charge people for bringing their kids to McDonalds, too? Or for allowing them to watch an age-inappropriate film? How would you measure which of the three activities is potentially the most harmful?


  • Options
    #116
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    blastman wrote: »
    I think the problem is that this reaction i.e. potentially criminalising people for smoking in their car, is not in proportion to the actual risk.

    As I said before, should we charge people for bringing their kids to McDonalds, too? Or for allowing them to watch an age-inappropriate film? How would you measure which of the three activities is potentially the most harmful?

    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?


  • Options
    #117
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Very true, but its another nail in the coffin for smoking in this country.

    Every nail in the coffin for smoking in this country is a good thing. So why dont they ban it outright? Oh wait - too much revenue to be made off it. I dont believe it will ever be made illegal.


  • Options
    #118
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    djimi wrote: »
    And can you come up with a compelling reason why every one of those factors should not be legislated against if at all possible?

    Yes - Id rather see my taxes that pay public servants go on fixing the broken mess that is this country than wasted on hours and hours thinking of, discussing, and enacting laws that are nonsensical, unenforceable, a waste of time and further babying the population.


  • Options
    #119
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    username123 wrote: »
    Every nail in the coffin for smoking in this country is a good thing. So why dont they ban it outright? Oh wait - too much revenue to be made off it. I dont believe it will ever be made illegal.
    We're going OT now, but does the state have any business stopping an adult from doing anything that affects only themselves? In my book, the only reasonable grounds for banning something is when it's absolutely necessary to protect non-participants.


  • Options
    #120
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    Anan1 wrote: »
    We're going OT now, but does the state have any business stopping an adult from doing anything that affects only themselves? In my book, the only reasonable grounds for banning something is when it's absolutely necessary to protect non-participants.

    It does affect you. Have you seen the state of the health service recently? Have you had to watch a family member spend 72 hours on a trolley in a corridor because there are no beds? Do you know how much smoking related diseases cost the health service? Smoking affects society at large, unless smokers are refused treatment by hospitals that are funded by the state.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    username123 wrote: »
    It does affect you. Have you seen the state of the health service recently? Have you had to watch a family member spend 72 hours on a trolley in a corridor because there are no beds? Do you know how much smoking related diseases cost the health service? Smoking affects society at large, unless smokers are refused treatment by hospitals that are funded by the state.
    True, but so does horse riding. Do we ban that too?


Advertisement