Ban smoking in public places?

positron

As a non-smoker I dislike the smell and the sight of people puffing away at bus shelters, railway stations etc, at times with no consideration for people around them, and then there's the litter - I read somewhere that more than half of all litter in our cities and towns are cigarette butts! And the most important benefit from any step to discourage smoking is it's effect on nations health - healthier, more productive people and less cancer, stroke cases to hospitals around the country - which is more money saved.

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to smokers, and probably tobacco industry might take another small hit (small as people will continue to smoke at their homes or whatever).

Any thoughts?

MagicMarker

So, it's banned in private/work/enclosed places.

You want it banned in public places?

So, smokers should only be allowed smoke in their own homes?

Retarded.

Smoking outside doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I don't smoke.

Sea Sharp

Next you'll be saying that smokers should be put in camps so that they can concentrate on quitting.

Lando Griffin

Litter? If the councels bothered to put bins at these places you might be able put your butt in but they dont bother.

El Weirdo

I dislike the sight of fat people. Can we make sure that they stay in their homes?

Improbable

To be honest, if it bothers you so much, don't cozy right up to them at the bus stop or train station. Banning them at enclosed public areas/work etc makes sense. Banning them outdoors is completely overkill.

Mike 1972

Dunno if it would make much difference healthwise. We are into diminishing returns territory with this one

The litter point is a valid one but then by extension shouldnt chewing gum be banned/restricted too

Dont think its time for a ban yet but maybe some restrictions at train stations and bus stops

Caoimhín

positron wrote: »

And the most important benefit from any step to discourage smoking is it's effect on nations health - healthier, more productive people and less cancer, stroke cases to hospitals around the country - which is more money saved.

Fúck that nanny state crap, sure the sun causes skin cancer, should we ban people from going outside?

Its my life, if i want to choke myself smoking then i bloody well will.

akamossy

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, it's banned in private/work/enclosed places.

You want it banned in public places?

So, smokers should only be allowed smoke in their own homes?

Retarded.

Smoking outside doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I don't smoke.

Even though I hate the smell of smoke too, I agree with this post. You can't ban it everywhere, bit stupid to be honest

Improbable

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Dunno if it would make much difference healthwise. We are into diminishing returns territory with this one

The litter point is a valid one but then by extension shouldnt chewing gum be banned/restricted too

Dont think its time for a ban yet but maybe some restrictions at train stations and bus stops

What kind of restrictions would you have in mind?

mikemac

It's fine as it is.

Though maybe something can be done with gangs of smokers hanging around front doors.
Our local hospital has one main entrance and that's where everyone goes, staff and patients to smoke.

It's like walking through a cloud, anything up to 15 people right beside the door many times.

Would it be that hard to set up a bench away from the front door?
Maybe this is what the OP means

Improbable

feelingstressed wrote: »

It's fine as it is.

Though maybe something can be done with gangs of smokers hanging around front doors.
Our local hospital has one main entrance and that's where everyone goes, staff and patients to smoke.

It's like walking through a cloud, anything up to 15 people right beside the door many times.

Would it be that hard to set up a bench away from the front door?
Maybe this is what the OP means

Thats not a bad idea. I wouldn't even be particularly opposed to banning them outside of hospitals. But I think it would make much more sense to set up a dedicated smoking area away from the main thoroughfare.

Snowie

I like smoking......

music.babe75

Banning smoking in all public spaces would be stupid.

However, I'm a smoker and hate the way people huddle at the doors to pubs etc - its not fair on non-smokers going in and out - I always make sure I stand away from the door.

What does annoy me is say in Pearse Station in Dublin, the smokers only have a small bit of platform down at the end to smoke, now when non-smokers come down to stand beside you and then give out about the smoke its like, you have the whole rest of the platform to stand!!!!!

Likewise when nonsmokers are in beer gardens and give out about the smoke and say they can't sit out there - GO INSIDE - its smoke free!!!! We have to be outside hail rain or snow - you only want to come out on the one day the sun shines!!!!

Biggins

Slightly off topic but I think it just looks daft that people are burning leaves and paper in front of their face/lips - and paying for this privilege be it in-doors, outdoors or anywhere. :pac:

Radharc na Sleibhte

But I thought smoking was cool?

Improbable

Biggins wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I think it just looks daft that people are burning leaves and paper in front of their face/lips - and paying for this privilege be it in-doors, outdoors or anywhere. :pac:

It's called an addiction for a reason.

positron

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, it's banned in private/work/enclosed places. You want it banned in public places?

Yes, that's the gist of what I am suggesting alright.

Lando Griffin wrote:

Litter? If the councels bothered to put bins at these places you might be able put your butt in but they dont bother.

A lot of smokers are blind to bins around them. Don't believe me? Go to any railway station around the country - I am yet to come across a platform that doesn't have a bin, and just look at the tracks to see how many butts you can count between each rail sleepers? On a sidenote, at Drogheda station, I have lost count the number of times I have seen the IrishRail workers flinging their cig butts on to the track - while they are just meters away from bins - in their own stations!!

Mike 1972 wrote:

The litter point is a valid one but then by extension shouldnt chewing gum be banned/restricted too

I don't have the figures but if you compare litter from chewing gum to litter from cigarette butts, we are talking tens of folds. So I don't think it apples. Also chewing gum is not (so far anyway ) injurious to health.

Mike 1972 wrote:

Dunno if it would make much difference healthwise. We are into diminishing returns territory with this one

Yes. Banning smoking in public areas has been done in other countries in the world, and the results have been extremely positive so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health

Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighbouring towns without smoking bans showed no change. The decline in heart attacks was attributed to the smoking ban, which reduced exposure to secondhand smoke.[38] A similar study in Helena, Montana found a 40% reduction in heart attacks following the imposition of a smoking ban.[39] However, a larger and more recent study found that workplace bans in the USA are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.[40]

Caoimh&#237 wrote: »

Fúck that nanny state crap, sure the sun causes skin cancer, should we ban people from going outside?

Going out in the sun and smoking are not comparable, and you know it.


I was only floating an idea, don't shoot me for that please! And like the link above, there are clear health benefits to it. And I am yet to see a valid negative point about this idea, other than the ones I stated, and the general paranoia stuff like 'nanny state' etc.

Again, just thinking out loud!!

Cookie_Monster

feelingstressed wrote: »

Though maybe something can be done with gangs of smokers hanging around front doors.
Our local hospital has one main entrance and that's where everyone goes, staff and patients to smoke.

It's like walking through a cloud, anything up to 15 people right beside the door many times.

the existing ban covers this, its just not enforced by anyone, like employees smoking in employer vehicles etc.
It supposed to 5-10 metres from and entrance

Mike 1972

Improbable wrote: »

What kind of restrictions would you have in mind?

A designated area at railway stations/platforms for example.

Gordon

positron wrote: »

As a non-smoker I dislike the smell and the sight of people puffing away at bus shelters, railway stations etc, at times with no consideration for people around them, and then there's the litter - I read somewhere that more than half of all litter in our cities and towns are cigarette butts! And the most important benefit from any step to discourage smoking is it's effect on nations health - healthier, more productive people and less cancer, stroke cases to hospitals around the country - which is more money saved.

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to smokers, and probably tobacco industry might take another small hit (small as people will continue to smoke at their homes or whatever).

Any thoughts?

As a father of none I dislike the smell and sound of babies at bus stops, being pushed around shopping malls with complete disregard for other pedestrians in the vicinity, they make a lot of noise and I read somewhere that there is more rubbish from dirty nappies than there is from other rubbish! If there were less babies around then there would be less people off work tending to the babies, less people clogging up the hospitals with their babies hence more productive people and more money saved.

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to people that want babies, and maybe the baby industry may make another small hit (small as people will still continue to have babies at their homes or whatever).

positron

music.babe75 wrote: »

Banning smoking in all public spaces would be stupid.

Why? I have listed reasons for why it's a good idea. No one has actually posted a good / valid reason to say why it's a bad idea..!!

positron

Gordon wrote: »

As a father of none I dislike the smell and sound of babies at bus stops, being pushed around shopping malls with complete disregard for other pedestrians in the vicinity, they make a lot of noise and I read somewhere that there is more rubbish from dirty nappies than there is from other rubbish! If there were less babies around then there would be less people off work tending to the babies, less people clogging up the hospitals with their babies hence more productive people and more money saved.

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to people that want babies, and maybe the baby industry may make another small hit (small as people will still continue to have babies at their homes or whatever).

Gordon, you know yourself that having babies with you is not remotely similar to deciding to light a cigarette. Non-argument really, and you know it!

Gordon

positron wrote: »

Gordon, you know yourself that having babies with you is not remotely similar to deciding to light a cigarette. Non-argument really, and you know it!

Hey, I'm giving you my opinion and floating an idea, don't shoot me for it! I just happen to think that babies should be kept inside away from society, that's all

Biggins

Improbable wrote: »

It's called an addiction for a reason.

True, true...
If there had to be a practical reason for all the things we do, I would have to justify all the times I've whacked people.

positron

Caoimhín wrote: »

Its my life, if i want to choke myself smoking then i bloody well will.

Absolutely fine with me. And I am not arguing for taking away your freedom to smoke. My only concern would be that when you inflict cancer or a stroke, would you not ask my tax money to look after you? Well, you personally may have the funds to look after your illness, but vast majority of the smokers would expect others to foot the bill - so this is a small step to discouraging them, that's all.

stovelid

Detest smoking and am fully behind it being banned in enclosed spaces but let them smoke outside, ffs.

positron

Gordon wrote: »

Hey, I'm giving you my opinion and floating an idea, don't shoot me for it! I just happen to think that babies should be kept inside away from society, that's all

Perfectly fine with me - and let your idea be judged on it's own merit by others. Why would you want to use that against the smoking ban idea then?

Improbable

positron wrote: »

Absolutely fine with me. And I am not arguing for taking away your freedom to smoke. My only concern would be that when you inflict cancer or a stroke, would you not ask my tax money to look after you? Well, you personally may have the funds to look after your illness, but vast majority of the smokers would expect others to foot the bill - so this is a small step to discouraging them, that's all.

Would you also like to ban overeating? or how about just being even slightly overweight?

Gordon

positron wrote: »

Perfectly fine with me - and let your idea be judged on it's own merit by others. Why would you want to use that against the smoking ban idea then?

I'm not, I'm giving my opinion on not wanting to see babies and their dirty side effects like noise pollution, nappy pollution and health pollution etc etc

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I think it just looks daft that people are burning leaves and paper in front of their face/lips - and paying for this privilege be it in-doors, outdoors or anywhere. :pac:

Goddamnyou Biggins.. I looked down at my rollie nd felt pretty stupid straight away.
Then I continued to smoke and everything was ok again.

positron

Gordon wrote: »

I'm not, I'm giving my opinion on not wanting to see babies and their dirty side effects like noise pollution, nappy pollution and health pollution etc etc

Gordon, you were not just giving your opinion on babies, you were using that as an example of against smoking - did you forget?

Gordon

Where did I say that?!

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

Goddamnyou Biggins.. I looked down at my rollie nd felt pretty stupid straight away.
Then I continued to smoke and everything was ok again.

Gawd bless the drug nicotine. Where would you be without it! :pac:

Azure_sky

positron wrote: »

As a non-smoker I dislike the smell and the sight of people puffing away at bus shelters, railway stations etc, at times with no consideration for people around them!

I dislike the smell of garlic and body odour. I dislike the sight of fat and ugly people. I dislike the sound of dance and house music.

positron wrote: »

and then there's the litter - I read somewhere that more than half of all litter in our cities and towns are cigarette butts!

And the other half is from junk food. Right lets ban public eating.

positron wrote: »

And the most important benefit from any step to discourage smoking is it's effect on nations health - healthier, more productive people and less cancer, stroke cases to hospitals around the country - which is more money saved.

The most important step from banning religious public practise and actively discouraging religion would raise the national IQ. People would think more scientifically and live for today. People would have more money as they would'nt donate to churchs. They would also be more productive as they would'nt spend free time in churchs and praying.

positron wrote: »

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to smokers, and probably tobacco industry might take another small hit (small as people will continue to smoke at their homes or whatever).

Any thoughts?

Banning religious, fat people, ugly people and dance music would be a win win for everyone, except the initial discomfort it might cause to all of the above and anyone else who goes again'st my personal tastes.:rolleyes:

Nodin

positron wrote: »

As a non-smoker I dislike the smell and the sight of people puffing away at bus shelters, railway stations etc, at times with no consideration for people around them, and then there's the litter - I read somewhere that more than half of all litter in our cities and towns are cigarette butts! And the most important benefit from any step to discourage smoking is it's effect on nations health - healthier, more productive people and less cancer, stroke cases to hospitals around the country - which is more money saved.

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to smokers, and probably tobacco industry might take another small hit (small as people will continue to smoke at their homes or whatever).

Any thoughts?

Grow a pair and stop whinging?

BQQ

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Next you'll be saying that smokers should be put in camps so that they can concentrate on quitting.

Yes. We could name them by combining "camps" and "concentration" in some imaginative way.

And if the filthy smokers don't comply, then we'll march them to the showers and fill their lungs with toxic smoke. :pac:

Hank_Jones

This is certainly a bit of a crazy idea.
I don't smoke, but it doesn't bother me that other people do.

Way I figure it, the world in which we live in is fairly polluted anyway,
someone smoking out in the open isn't going to be much worse for me than car exhausts and the chemicals factories are pumping into the air.

Coriolanus

MagicMarker wrote: »

So, it's banned in private/work/enclosed places.

You want it banned in public places?

So, smokers should only be allowed smoke in their own homes?

Retarded.

Smoking outside doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I don't smoke.

Only if they don't have children. :P

Nodin

BQQ wrote: »

Yes. We could name them by combining "camps" and "concentration" in some imaginative way.

And if the filthy smokers don't comply, then we'll march them to the showers and fill their lungs with toxic smoke. :pac:

Bit harsh. What about tattooing a mark on their head and confining them to certain parts of the city first?

Improbable

Based on that premise, you couldn't really even smoke at home due to the risk imposed on your neighbors.

Mike 1972

Anyone seen my mate Godwin ?
Im told he was seen wandering around in here somewhere.........

Nodin

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Anyone seen my mate Godwin ?
Im told he was seen wandering around in here somewhere.........

Small dark haired fella with a little mustache...?

TheZohanS

Biggins wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I think it just looks daft that people are burning leaves and paper in front of their face/lips - and paying for this privilege be it in-doors, outdoors or anywhere. :pac:

It's even more daft when you see obese people queing up to buy fast food for themselves that will give them heart disease/diabetes etc and paying for the privilege be it indoors, outdoors or anywhere. :pac:

RichMc70

positron wrote: »

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to smokers, and probably tobacco industry might take another small hit (small as people will continue to smoke at their homes or whatever).

Which in turn means the Revenue will take a hit, which in turn will mean the Government will have to increase or introduce new taxes to make up the loss.

Taking into account that the tax take on a packet of 20 cigarettes is around €6, I really think it would be a 'lose-lose' for everyone.

Caoimhín

positron wrote: »

Absolutely fine with me. And I am not arguing for taking away your freedom to smoke. My only concern would be that when you inflict cancer or a stroke, would you not ask my tax money to look after you? Well, you personally may have the funds to look after your illness, but vast majority of the smokers would expect others to foot the bill - so this is a small step to discouraging them, that's all.

I do have my own health insurance but if you follow that line of reasoning then anyone who drinks a bit too much, anyone who drives a car, anyone who plays sport or anyone who works in a dangerous job should pay for their own treatment.

There are risks to almost everything.

Mike 1972

RichMc70 wrote: »

Which in turn means the Revenue will take a hit, which in turn will mean the Government will have to increase or introduce new taxes to make up the loss..

Unless the drop in tax revenue is offset by the drop in costs to the health/fire/street cleaning service resulting from smoking

mcmoustache

Biggins wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I think it just looks daft that people are burning leaves and paper in front of their face/lips - and paying for this privilege be it in-doors, outdoors or anywhere. :pac:

Yeah, it's a bit like those people who stare at a box, tap buttons with their fingers and move something that looks like a long-tailed mouse around.

mcmoustache

positron wrote: »

As a non-smoker I dislike the smell and the sight of people puffing away at bus shelters, railway stations etc, at times with no consideration for people around them, and then there's the litter - I read somewhere that more than half of all litter in our cities and towns are cigarette butts! And the most important benefit from any step to discourage smoking is it's effect on nations health - healthier, more productive people and less cancer, stroke cases to hospitals around the country - which is more money saved.

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to smokers, and probably tobacco industry might take another small hit (small as people will continue to smoke at their homes or whatever).

Any thoughts?

People are living too long these days. They're being incredibly selfish, Unless we can increase birth rates, we won't be able to financially support these selfish **** who think they have a right to live to 100. If you had any sense of civic responsibility, you'd adjust your lifestyle to to make sure you were dead by 70.

For the sake of your country, smoke.

Azureus

I cant stand smoking,but banning it from public places? Insane. Just avoid going where smokers are, they dont run after you with their cigarettes!!

Same time, there i nothing worse than sitting at a bus stop or something where somebody constantly blows smoke into your face! Pet hate. But thats just peoples lack of manners being the problem rather than the actual act of smoking in public places.

RichMc70

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Unless the drop in tax revenue is offset by the drop in costs to the health/fire/street cleaning service resulting from smoking

In their lifetime the average smoker would pay between 70k to 90k more in tax than a non-smoker because of their tobacco purchases.

Btw I'm a non-smoker myself but I just think some people are going way over the top about smokers. Sure we've got the smoking inside public places ban, so theres no need to carry on otherwise it becomes a joke and like other people jest, next it will be ban smelly people or ban people who eat garlic etc etc. The list would be never ending.