Should smoking be banned in parks, etc.?

miec · 25-04-2012 2:21pm #1

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/smoking-ban-on-cards-for-beaches-and-parks-191314.html

Smoking ban on cards for beaches and parks
By Evelyn Ring
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Health Minister James Reilly wants to ban smoking in parks and on beaches in a bid to discourage children from taking up the habit. Opening the Irish Heart Foundation’s Council on Stroke in Dublin yesterday, Dr Reilly said he did not want children to regard smoking as a normal practice.

The minister has signalled he wants to ban smoking in cars where children are present, but revealed yesterday he plans to go further. He wants to follow the lead of New York in banning smoking in parks and on beaches.

Dr Reilly said it was in parks and on beaches where children were likely to observe adult behaviour. "That is where they learn what big people do."

He intends to pursue the issue with the Cabinet.

"We don’t want children to see adults smoking in public areas. Areas where we would expect lots of children to be present, as in our public parks and on our beaches, should be smoke-free zones, and I will be putting a memo to Government to that effect."

The minister said he would legislate against smoking in parks and on beaches if necessary. He believed, however, that individual local authorities could introduce regulations to achieve the same end.

Despite the fact that Ireland had been a world first eight years ago in banning smoking in public places, the Irish smoking rate was 29%, which he said was still too high, whereas additional measures to ban smoking in New York had reduced the smoking rate to 22%.

Asked what action he would take on smoking in cars with children present, Dr Reilly said the practice should be banned outright.

He also rejected any suggestion such action was a "nanny state" approach.

"This is a duty of care we have to our citizens and that duty is all the greater to citizens who don’t have a voice — our children."

Cardiologist and spokes-man for anti-smoking group Ash Ireland, Dr Brian Maurer, said they would welcome any action to tackle the scourge of smoking in the community.

He said Ash Ireland had been calling for a ban on smoking in cars with children present for a long time and welcomed the minister recommitting himself in Government to the task.

Dr Maurer said the campaign group also agreed with the reason given by the minister for wanting to ban smoking in parks and on beaches — children did learn by example from adults.

Having read the above I have to say that this is taking things too far. I can understand the desire to ban smoking cars where children are but banning smoking in parks and beaches is taking it too far. I personally don't smoke but I believe people should be allowed to smoke in open air spaces, they need to have somewhere to smoke and it would be extremely draconian if these measures were implemented. Besides if the government are serious about the scourge of smoking then they should ban them all together.

eyescreamcone · 25-04-2012 2:30pm

Firstly I don't smoke.

I would like to see it banned in parks and beaches and wherever it is possible to ban it.

Smoking causes untold of sickness.
If it was invented today it would not be allowed.

I would be in support of Prof John Crown's (oncologist and senator) suggestion that we should say a year 2025 or 2030 for a total ban.
No imports
No sales
etc

Put that in your pipe...;)

25-04-2012 2:40pm

miec wrote: »

...they need to have somewhere to smoke...

Why? Change it to "they need to have somewhere to burn rubbish" and it's nonsensical.

A total ban isn't likely to happen anytime soon, but I'd like to see a real "smokeless" cigarette developed. I have no problem with people putting it in their own bodies, but it is virtually impossible to smoke without causing harm and/or nuisance to others

Sleepy · 25-04-2012 3:43pm

The outrage at the tax increases / cutbacks the government would have to implement if they lost the duty on tobacco would be immense. Never mind the fact there'd be unstoppable levels of smuggling (akin to marijuana use at present). I believe they've actually already increased duty on tobacco to the point where they're receiving less duty on it because they're actively encouraging the black market/people to bring in huge quantities with them when travelling within the EU etc.

Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, it simply made criminals rich.
Prohibition doesn't work with marijuana, it simply makes criminals rich.

Why would tobacco, a substance that's thousands of times more addictive than either alcohol or marijuana, be any different?

The Corinthian · 25-04-2012 4:48pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Firstly I don't smoke.

It shows.

Smoking causes untold of sickness.

Ironically, and especially because smoking is more prevalent in lower income and long term unemployed demographics, the sickness and early mortality it causes saves the government billions in state pensions, not to mention the revenue that comes from tobacco duty.

If it was invented today it would not be allowed.

Almost certainly not. But then again, as Sleepy pointed out, prohibition of drugs has not exactly worked out all that well. Instead it's spawned a lucrative criminal industry in it's production and distribution, not to mention expand crime levels as those who are addicted seek to attain money to buy it at bloated prices.

It's no secret that there is a correlation between the drop in such crimes and the US invasion of Afghanistan - poppy production went through the roof once the Taliban were removed and prices dropped, allowing addicts to be able to afford their daily fix through begging alone.

I would be in support of Prof John Crown's (oncologist and senator) suggestion that we should say a year 2025 or 2030 for a total ban.

Perhaps, but the attitude that some of the 'holier than thou' non-smokers has is not very constructive twoards this goal. Arguing from a position of complete ignorance (given you're a non smoker) you appear to believe that all that smokers need is to simply choose to give up, which of course is not that simple for the vast majority.

Generally you need both the carrot and the stick to implement policy, but all too often the latter is only employed and this ends up causing more harm than good.

So put that in your quiche and eat it

miec · 25-04-2012 4:48pm

Why? Change it to "they need to have somewhere to burn rubbish" and it's nonsensical.

You cannot compare an addiction to burning rubbish. People who smoke need to smoke because they are addicted to it until such time they can manage to quit smoking which requires a deep driving force. I find the black and white attitudes to smoking a little bit naive and lacking in deeper thinking.

eyescreamcone · 25-04-2012 5:07pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

It shows.

Ironically, and especially because smoking is more prevalent in lower income and long term unemployed demographics, the sickness and early mortality it causes saves the government billions in state pensions, not to mention the revenue that comes from tobacco duty.

Almost certainly not. But then again, as Sleepy pointed out, prohibition of drugs has not exactly worked out all that well. Instead it's spawned a lucrative criminal industry in it's production and distribution, not to mention expand crime levels as those who are addicted seek to attain money to buy it at bloated prices.

It's no secret that there is a correlation between the drop in such crimes and the US invasion of Afghanistan - poppy production went through the roof once the Taliban were removed and prices dropped, allowing addicts to be able to afford their daily fix through begging alone.

Perhaps, but the attitude that some of the 'holier than thou' non-smokers has is not very constructive twoards this goal. Arguing from a position of complete ignorance (given you're a non smoker) you appear to believe that all that smokers need is to simply choose to give up, which of course is not that simple for the vast majority.

Generally you need both the carrot and the stick to implement policy, but all too often the latter is only employed and this ends up causing more harm than good.

So put that in your quiche and eat it

Why bother trying to reducing the amount of people smoking at all, if our ultimate goal is not to reduce the population who smoke to ZERO per cent of the total ???

We not put in place a 15-20 year plan to eradicate smoking from this country??
Would that not be a worthwhile goal??

The Corinthian · 25-04-2012 5:10pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Why bother trying to reducing the amount of people smoking at all, if our ultimate goal is not to reduce the population who smoke to ZERO per cent of the total ???

You'll have to rephrase that.

We not put in place a 15-20 year plan to eradicate smoking from this country??
Would that not be a worthwhile goal??

Sure. Totally agree. How is where we may differ.

Chuck Stone · 25-04-2012 5:16pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ironically, and especially because smoking is more prevalent in lower income and long term unemployed demographics, the sickness and early mortality it causes saves the government billions in state pensions, not to mention the revenue that comes from tobacco duty.

I'd be interested in looking at the evidence to support this claim. Do you have a source?

eyescreamcone · 25-04-2012 5:21pm

The Corinthian - if you can come up with a plan that will eliminate smoking I'll back you.

(once it doesn't involve shooting smokers or suchlike

)

drunkmonkey · 25-04-2012 5:22pm

I'm currently giving up smokes down to 1 or 2 a day and they are evil but at the same time I don't think smoking anything should be banned in the great outdoors, it's an uncontrollable law and completely daft. Fine to ban it indoors where the owner consents but besides that leave it alone, there's a 101 things that can kill us.

It's complete nonsense.

seamus · 25-04-2012 5:22pm

miec wrote: »

People who smoke need to smoke because they are addicted to it

This argument doesn't really stack up I'm afraid. Addiction or not, it's still a conscious choice that society is under no obligations to make concessions for.
At the end of the day, while you have the right to smoke because it's legal, you don't have the right to smoke wherever you want. In exactly the same way that you have a right to go for a walk, but you don't have the right to walk wherever you want; you still must abide by the rules which set out where pedestrians (and people in general) are permitted to walk.

Alcohol is usually a good counter example in most cases; you wouldn't argue that it's unfair to ban drinking in public places because alcoholics need to have a drink. They have to go to designated places to do that. Why is it not reasonable to ask smokers to do the same?

That said, I'm not in favour of any "banning" laws which don't have a reasonable basis behind them. I don't really buy the environmental/smoke argument in this case, but I would have supported them if they'd spoke about it in a littering context.

eyescreamcone · 25-04-2012 5:23pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm currently giving up smokes down to 1 or 2 a day and they are evil but at the same time I don't think smoking anything should be banned in the great outdoors, it's an uncontrollable law and completely daft. Fine to ban it indoors where the owner consents but besides that leave it alone, there's a 101 things that can kill us.

It's complete nonsense.

That's your opinion!

The Corinthian · 25-04-2012 5:26pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd be interested in looking at the evidence to support this claim. Do you have a source?

Not at hand, although I've been tempted to dig one up, or the underlying statistics to extrapolate it, for years. It was originally presented in an economics lecture I attended when I was in college by one of the more colourful and eccentric lecturers in UCD (I'm sure some can guess which).

Nonetheless, I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate:

Demographically smoking is more prevalent in low income and unemployed areas - not difficult to show this.
Smoking will decrease the average lifespan of an individual - not difficult to show this.
People from low income and unemployed areas are a greater burden on the state (social welfare, lower tax income, state pensions, etc) than those in more affluent demographics - not difficult to show this.
Revenue from duty on tobacco - not difficult to show this.
Cost of treating smoking related illness - not difficult to show this.

Collate the above, extrapolate social welfare and pension costs if smoking related deaths were eliminated and smokers lived to ripe old ages plus loss of duty revenue, versus treatment costs and I'd wager that you're better off letting people smoke financially.

It's a pretty utilitarian and amoral viewpoint, but not entirely meant seriously, of course.

Sleepy · 25-04-2012 5:34pm

I can see the reasoning behind, and would support, a ban on smoking within a certain distance of a designated playground, larger parkland areas though? I see no reason for this bar harassment of those who's habits the OP dislikes: i.e. it's no better than me asking to ban the speaking of Irish in public because I find the sanctimonious tones of it annoying, the display of religious idols because I find religion offensive or banning people from wearing pyjamas outdoors because it offends my sense of fashion.

Seamus: we already have adequate anti-littering legislation. No need to create a tangental law when application of the existing legislation would be a more effective deterrent.

GarIT · 25-04-2012 5:34pm

Drinking in public places is illegal. I feel that smoking where anyone else might be anywhere near you should be illegal.

If I had my way it would be illegal to smoke outside of the home and designated smoking areas i.e. covered areas away from the general public. As well as in homes with children.

Chuck Stone · 25-04-2012 6:23pm

First of all I'm not sure why you're lumping low earners and the unemployed together, regardless...

The Corinthian wrote: »

[*]Demographically smoking is more prevalent in low income and unemployed areas - not difficult to show this.

You're lumping low income and unemployed together which doesn't make sense. Low income people would be tax positive (unless employed in the PbS).

[*]Smoking will decrease the average lifespan of an individual - not difficult to show this.

Agreed. But it will also increase health issues and for the unemployed this means the cost of providing healthcare is increased. Smokers wouldn't suddenly become sick at retirement age.

[*]People from low income and unemployed areas are a greater burden on the state (social welfare, lower tax income, state pensions, etc) than those in more affluent demographics - not difficult to show this.

The proportionate taxes from low earners is quite high. Even if you take the unemployed - the state recoups much of the transfers in VAT (especially so for smokers and drinkers).

[*]Revenue from duty on tobacco - not difficult to show this.

This needs to be balanced against the cost of lost productivity to illness and the cost of providing health services to smokers.

[*]Cost of treating smoking related illness - not difficult to show this.

This is where the argument that smoking is cost positive is contradictory. Smokers suffer from nasty illnesses. Ireland has the 2nd worst rate of respiratory illness in Europe and the cost of respiratory illness was €560m (2006).

In total 530,277 work days were lost by 36,098 individuals as revealed bb Illness Claims (due to respiratory illnesses) made to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in 2004 (18). This figure relates to short-term absence from work and not to long-term invalidity.

The study above doesn't specifically say how much respiratory illness is attributable to smoking but we can be fairly sure that smoking plays a significant part.

I doubt very much smoking is a gain to the state exchequer.

The Corinthian · 25-04-2012 6:53pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're lumping low income and unemployed together which doesn't make sense. Low income people would be tax positive (unless employed in the PbS).

Tax positive, but not by much. Additionally, many of them still have to avail of state pensions and other forms of social welfare upon retirement. Secondly, I've highlighted them, not 'lumped them, as they would be most affected if smoking vanished tomorrow. In reality one would have to examine all demographics for a more accurate assessment.

Agreed. But it will also increase health issues and for the unemployed this means the cost of providing healthcare is increased. Smokers wouldn't suddenly become sick at retirement age.

Yes, I know this and included it in the proposed calculation.

The proportionate taxes from low earners is quite high. Even if you take the unemployed - the state recoups much of the transfers in VAT (especially so for smokers and drinkers).

You may have a different definition of low earner. Low earners actually pay very little tax - up until recently they were largely out of the tax net altogether. Secondly, I address tobacco duty in a separate point.

This needs to be balanced against the cost of lost productivity to illness and the cost of providing health services to smokers.

Again, the latter I addressed, although the former is a fair point that could be added to the mix.

This is where the argument that smoking is cost positive is contradictory. Smokers suffer from nasty illnesses. Ireland has the 2nd worst rate of respiratory illness in Europe and the cost of respiratory illness was €560m (2006).

Then on duty alone, and even if all such disease is smoking related, we're turning a profit:

Excise revenue is an important source of tax revenue in Ireland. This tax has not been as badly impacted by the recession as some other taxes. Excise revenue decreased from €6.0 billion in 2007 to €4.9 billion in 2009, a reduction of about 18 per cent. During the same period, total tax revenue decreased by 30 per cent. Excise duty is payable on products such alcohol, tobacco and motor fuel. By their nature, demand for these goods tends to be quite inelastic so increases in prices or reductions in incomes will have less of a negative impact on quantity purchased.

www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf

So not only is smoking making the government a profit, but it's relatively recession proof to boot!

Seriously, are you sure you want to do this, as I'm not really in the mood to spend my evening doing research? The reality is that the whole question of smoking, health costs, tobacco duty and long term social costs actually throws up some rather surprising results and it really should not be news to people that it does:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1442555.stm

I'm not saying this is a reason to let people smoke - not at all. All I've done is questioned the cost of smoking argument, because it appears that smoking makes governments a net profit.

Chuck Stone · 25-04-2012 8:18pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You may have a different definition of low earner. Low earners actually pay very little tax - up until recently they were largely out of the tax net altogether. Secondly, I address tobacco duty in a separate point.

Income tax paid is low. Overall tax-burden is not. Low earners spend their money on living. Petrol, alohol, smoking and other goods and services are taxed at a flat rate which disproportionately affects those on lower incomes.

Then on duty alone, and even if all such disease is smoking related, we're turning a profit:

First of all I just cited respiratory illness. Smoking is liked with many other nasty illnesses - strokes, aneurysms, leukemia, cancers of the body etc. Also, there are other smoking affected quality of life factors that can't easily be costed. Passive smoking, smoking around children, reduced fitness, hygiene etc.

So not only is smoking making the government a profit

That's the part I have a problem with. The study you cited was carried out by Phillip Morris and even they said....

In a statement, Philip Morris said it "deeply regrets" suggestions of the beneficial economic effects of smoking.

Seriously, are you sure you want to do this, as I'm not really in the mood to spend my evening doing research?

I'd just like to see some solid empirical evidence for your claim! Tbh I don't think there is any uncontested evidence that smoking is cost positive for governments/tax-payers (in welfare states at least).

looksee · 25-04-2012 9:35pm

The object of the exercise is to de-normalise smoking. Its going to be a long process to do that but in the long run it will be worthwhile.

My spouse is sitting watching television, breathing oxygen because his lungs are shot. He has 30% lung capacity. From smoking.

I was talking to someone a couple of days ago who told me about a relative who was in advanced COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) as a result of working in a bar in the days when smoking was permitted in pubs.

We have moved on from there, lets go the rest of the way.

The Corinthian · 25-04-2012 9:44pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Income tax paid is low. Overall tax-burden is not. Low earners spend their money on living. Petrol, alohol, smoking and other goods and services are taxed at a flat rate which disproportionately affects those on lower incomes.

And your point is? Are you going to tell me how the multiplier effect generates loads of revenue, even though this is actually debatable, with some economists even going as far as to suggest that it is close to zero? Or were you trying to make some other point, which hopefully is relevant?

First of all I just cited respiratory illness. Smoking is liked with many other nasty illnesses - strokes, aneurysms, leukemia, cancers of the body etc. Also, there are other smoking affected quality of life factors that can't easily be costed. Passive smoking, smoking around children, reduced fitness, hygiene etc.

And I just looked at the income from duty, which was already ten times the costs you presented.

Money saved on social welfare payments, state pensions and health costs from non-smoking related ailments as such people grow older were would be additional.

That's the part I have a problem with. The study you cited was carried out by Phillip Morris and even they said....

Sure they would - who wants to be seen to be actively promoting such an amoral logic? Thing is that is exactly what they were doing and they got caught doing it!

I'd just like to see some solid empirical evidence for your claim! Tbh I don't think there is any uncontested evidence that smoking is cost positive for governments/tax-payers (in welfare states at least).

I don't know if there is any uncontested evidence that smoking is cost positive, however as you can see it's not exactly something I pulled out of my ass either.

As I said earlier, I'm not really interested in spending time doing research on this OT topic - so if you want to take this as a victory, feel free. However, so far your rebuttals have not been terribly powerful and those few figures that have been presented haven't gone your way.

gerryo777 · 25-04-2012 9:46pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

We not put in place a 15-20 year plan to eradicate smoking from this country??
Would that not be a worthwhile goal??

Why not alcohol too then??
That causes untold damage both to health and to society as a whole.
Never heard of anyone going out and killing someone because they were under the influence of cigarettes........

gerryo777 · 25-04-2012 9:49pm

GarIT wrote: »

As well as in homes with children.

How would you reckon that would be policed?

GarIT · 25-04-2012 10:05pm

gerryo777 wrote: »

How would you reckon that would be policed?

I presume it wouldn't be unless its reported. It would probably be just another charge seen only in child abuse cases. I don't see why money matters or anything else, as a human I feel it is my right to walk down the street or exit a pub without having my lungs filled with somebody else's cigarette smoke.

I'm sure you have seen the add with the woman smoking out the back and the inside of the house is full of unseen smoke. I think it should be illegal to smoke within 10 meters of a minor. What does everyone else think about that?

Chuck Stone · 25-04-2012 10:47pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

And your point is?

My point? You made this point.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Low earners actually pay very little tax - up until recently they were largely out of the tax net altogether.

This is not entirely true. Low earners pay very little income tax but income tax is only one aspect of taxation. The lowest percentile of earners pay a greater proportion of their incomes in taxes (all taxes) than the the next few percentile. (I'll try to find the link) Found link.

I don't know if there is any uncontested evidence that smoking is cost positive, however as you can see it's not exactly something I pulled out of my ass either.

I never accused you of pulling it out of your ass. I was just interested in seeing some evidence for your claim.

As I said earlier, I'm not really interested in spending time doing research on this OT topic - so if you want to take this as a victory, feel free. However, so far your rebuttals have not been terribly powerful and those few figures that have been presented haven't gone your way.

I think you're taking this way too personally tbh. Why are you framing this as a win/lose debate?

I would have thought that the cost of smoking was a massive burden to the state but from reading your posts I have to think more about it in purely economic terms and in those terms it's not so clear.

miec · 26-04-2012 5:13pm

Alcohol is usually a good counter example in most cases; you wouldn't argue that it's unfair to ban drinking in public places because alcoholics need to have a drink. They have to go to designated places to do that. Why is it not reasonable to ask smokers to do the same?

First of all smokers are banned from smoking in pubs / restaurants, etc where people can consume alcohol so if they are banned from smoking in parks and beaches the places that they can smoke in becomes smaller and smaller, and lets be honest, children don't just inhabit parks and beaches, some of them also wait at bus stops, walk down streets, etc, etc. So if you ban smoking in some outdoor areas soon enough it will be banned everywhere.

What concerns me is the sanctimonious tones of those who despise smoking, amazingly if this law comes through, people will obey it, not because of an increased Gardai presence etc but because so many of the sanctimonious types will report them and yet these same people will ignore all manner of other social ills. For instance I wish there was the same level of intolerance against those who drive cars and talk / text on their mobiles as they drive (hands free is fine) but I continuously see people driving recklessly like this.

GarIT · 26-04-2012 5:37pm

miec wrote: »

First of all smokers are banned from smoking in pubs / restaurants, etc where people can consume alcohol so if they are banned from smoking in parks and beaches the places that they can smoke in becomes smaller and smaller, and lets be honest, children don't just inhabit parks and beaches, some of them also wait at bus stops, walk down streets, etc, etc. So if you ban smoking in some outdoor areas soon enough it will be banned everywhere.

What concerns me is the sanctimonious tones of those who despise smoking, amazingly if this law comes through, people will obey it, not because of an increased Gardai presence etc but because so many of the sanctimonious types will report them and yet these same people will ignore all manner of other social ills. For instance I wish there was the same level of intolerance against those who drive cars and talk / text on their mobiles as they drive (hands free is fine) but I continuously see people driving recklessly like this.

I don't have a tolerance for anything you mentioned. None of it should be happening at all. I also don't have a tolerance for having to walk by somebody who is smoking. You look fairly off at times when you cross the road and cross back to avoid a smoker.

zenno · 26-04-2012 5:58pm

There you have a few million people in Ireland inhaling toxic smoke fumes from all vehicles and i'm damn sure it will affect your health especially if you live in the city and the stupid thing is that these people are crying about people smoking at the beach or parks where the wind blows the little bit of smoke away. fcuking hypocrites these people are. These people are like a gang of Nazis.

Also if you are a non smoker at the beach or park then what is your problem ? noone is forcing you to stand anywere near a smoker as the beaches and parks are so large. If you don't like the smell of smoke then don't stand near a smoker, it's not as if beaches or parks are so tiny that you are forced to stand close to a smoker. Also these people that are out to attack smokers are just wasters imo as they have nothing better to do with their lives except constantly attack people that enjoy a smoke outdoors. evil little dictators these people are and should be avoided like the plague.

GarIT · 26-04-2012 6:24pm

zenno wrote: »

There you have a few million people in Ireland inhaling toxic smoke fumes from all vehicles and i'm damn sure it will affect your health especially if you live in the city and the stupid thing is that these people are crying about people smoking at the beach or parks where the wind blows the little bit of smoke away. fcuking hypocrites these people are. These people are like a gang of Nazis.

Also if you are a non smoker at the beach or park then what is your problem ? noone is forcing you to stand anywere near a smoker as the beaches and parks are so large. If you don't like the smell of smoke then don't stand near a smoker, it's not as if beaches or parks are so tiny that you are forced to stand close to a smoker. Also these people that are out to attack smokers are just wasters imo as they have nothing better to do with their lives except constantly attack people that enjoy a smoke outdoors. evil little dictators these people are and should be avoided like the plague.

To know there is smoke around you would have to at least inhale 1 breath of it and that shouldn't have to happen. If I had my way all cars, home heating and cooking systems would be electric and all electric generators would be wind and solar powered. But that is unrealistic banning smoking in public is not.

zenno · 26-04-2012 6:29pm

GarIT wrote: »

To know there is smoke around you would have to at least inhale 1 breath of it and that shouldn't have to happen. If I had my way all cars, home heating and cooking systems would be electric and all electric generators would be wind and solar powered. But that is unrealistic banning smoking in public is not.

Banning smoking at beaches and parks is unrealistic. You would have to stand right beside a stranger that you don't know to have to inhale their smoke as i have said noone is forcing you or anybody to stand close to a stranger and you would not stand close to a stranger whether they were smoking or not.

This idea of banning smoking at beaches especially is completely insane and people have nothing better to be doing than whinging like little spoilt brats about this scenario.

GarIT · 26-04-2012 6:47pm

zenno wrote: »

Banning smoking at beaches and parks is unrealistic. You would have to stand right beside a stranger that you don't know to have to inhale their smoke as i have said noone is forcing you or anybody to stand close to a stranger and you would not stand close to a stranger whether they were smoking or not.

This idea of banning smoking at beaches especially is completely insane and people have nothing better to be doing than whinging like little spoilt brats about this scenario.

Obviously you haven't seen the add about smoking, if you research how smoke travels you will see that if you are anywhere within 10 meters of a smoker you are inhaling smoke. Probably not much of it but you shouldn't have to be near any at all.

Should smoking be banned in parks, etc.?

Comments