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
Ban smoking in public places?
Options
Comments
-
-
Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »I honestly did not see any reasons or links only; "smoking outside does not cause harm".
What's boyles law?
It's Junior Cert Science - Boyle's law says that gas expands to fill a volume that it occupies. When you smoke, the smoke expands to fill the room and stays in the room, and other people breathe it. When you smoke outside, the gases quickly expand to fill an effectively infinite space - the atmosphere. They don't hang around long enough for people to breathe them.Does it not infringe? Does it not cause problems? You will find that nobody, including smokers, enjoy taking a gulp of air from another persons exhaled breath which is smoke.
There are plenty of things I don't enjoy that I don't wish to see banned. I don't like the smell of lynx - it's unnecessary and I find it really unpleasant. However, in the western world we are generally free within limits to do what we want as long as it doesn't harm other people. Everything else is common courtesy and common sense.Got a link? I have, will show you later in the post
I can't find a public link for the full paper, here's a rundown
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522114813.htm
They found cotinine in the cafe workers.
Yes, the atmosphere.What is with this "smoke doesn't effect you outside", is there some sort of magical barrier surrounding you outside? Why do people believe this?You know that laws don't normally make outright bans on things, they are gradual. This is mainly because people do not like change, when change is gradual people accept it more. Was it proposed in 2004?
I don't see the relevance of this. They made a new law about smoking on public health grounds. It only affected indoor areas - if there were any grounds for making it an outdoor ban, it would have been done. The idea that laws gradually ban things is known as a "slipper slope" and a common logical fallacy. You might be thinking of tobacco denormalisation, which is separate from legislation.
.You, nor anybody else here, cannot disprove what I have said.
Lots of "smoke rage" going on in this thread though.
See my first response - there is no proof that outdoor smoking causes demonstrable harm for short term exposure. This is how science works.The alternative is not even nearly as feasible. Driving to the shop 100 yards away in most cases = stupid and/or lazy.
Lazy use of cars is not essential, and causes harm. By your logic, it should be banned.It's quite difficult to compare two nations on most things. Just because it is not enforceable in one country, does not mean it should not be tried here. They obviously made a complete balls of it if they can't even enforce it in one building, you know?
Can you tell me what is different in Ireland that would mean it would work here? The Czech Republic is a very similar country.Without the fines and the imprisonment, do you think people would do as they do now? Will a fine have any effect? I know not to park in certain areas as I will get fined. I don't litter because it's disgusting, but subconciously I am aware that I might get a fine too. Smoking is banned in Tokyo on some streets. That's outside They also have designated smoking areas. Classic, something I mentioned earlier and was laughed at. If you want to compare countries, then I give you Japan :P Follow how they implement it, enforce it and carry out punishments and away ya go.
Have you been to Tokyo? The street bans are totally unenforced! I can't believe you used that as an example. Absolutely everybody smokes in Japan, even in taxis. One of my friends started smoking there after two weeks. The smoking rooms are for keeping smokers warm, not off the streets. You should try reading the wiki article on smoking in Japan, since you linked to it!
This one is also good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans#Japa
You just linked to ASH - that's like Godwin's law in a smoking thread. They are a propaganda machine, as you know. That PDF has been ripped to shreds here before. Please link to something reputable, this would be like me linking to a tobacco company or even another boards poster. ASH are not an authority.
Just try to read any of the articles they cite - the first three don't even match up to the paragraphs they contain. For starters, note that ASH refer to health hazards that take years to develop when discussing exposures measured in milliseconds.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
michael222 wrote: »I see but thats the whole issue to ban in a public place is that they way to go, this will only push people in doors, so you know what the outcome will be there. The kids will get more of parents smoking around them.
Would you like to see that happen??.
Because thats what would happen. Making changes to the human race and habits takes a long time and with the net today and easy living for some, why change anything.
The mistakes where made a long time ago when Industry came about. Thats where everything went all wrong, smoking is just a small factor, thats in a bigger picture off life today.
I don't know what you mean by the following:
"And please dont be putting down the comments you make, you have a valid point here, thats why + and - always come together at some point in time, to trash out the rights and wrongs. "
Just a reference to the pdf file download, you where putting this down before anyone made any comments on this.
Thanks
Michael
Sorry members I have to go to the labber now but will pick this up in the morning
Thanks for a interesting evening and a great topic well worth the reading and posting.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't force people inside, just onto private property. Also, if this were to come into play then it would only be fair that places be designated for smoking.
I was putting it down as I am here long enough that people will discredit your links before even reading them, as it does not suit their agenda With simple research and studies right in front of us, people still harp on about how it doesn't effect us. There has been two links already which people suggested otherwise but you will see some people below determined to keep going on about how it's not harmful with no evidence to back it up.generalmiaow wrote: »It's Junior Cert Science - Boyle's law says that gas expands to fill a volume that it occupies. When you smoke, the smoke expands to fill the room and stays in the room, and other people breathe it. When you smoke outside, the gases quickly expand to fill an effectively infinite space - the atmosphere. They don't hang around long enough for people to breathe them.
The JC was quite some time ago, i'm hardly going to remember that
Does boyles law state that gases don't hang around long enough for people to breath them? No, it doesn't, because that would be a crazy assumption. People do breath them in, simply put.There are plenty of things I don't enjoy that I don't wish to see banned. I don't like the smell of lynx - it's unnecessary and I find it really unpleasant. However, in the western world we are generally free within limits to do what we want as long as it doesn't harm other people. Everything else is common courtesy and common sense.
Serious lack of common sense and common courtesy obviously. Smoking harms other people. Simply put. I find it hard to believe you dislike lynx, do you prefer BO? Or is it just the brand lynx? Or all deoderants?I can't find a public link for the full paper, here's a rundown
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522114813.htm
They found cotinine in the cafe workers.
Thanks for supporting my argument.
I had another link from sciencedaily.com but didn't think it would have been taken seriously.Yes, the atmosphere.
How does the atmosphere protect me from smoke? If you are smoking beside me, it doesn't.I don't see the relevance of this. They made a new law about smoking on public health grounds. It only affected indoor areas - if there were any grounds for making it an outdoor ban, it would have been done. The idea that laws gradually ban things is known as a "slipper slope" and a common logical fallacy. You might be thinking of tobacco denormalisation, which is separate from legislation.
Of course you don't, it doesn't support your argument.
If any amount of alcohol impairs your judgement and ability to drive, surely as soon as they found out about this they would have banned drinking outright? Oh, no they didn't, it has been a gradual banning of drink driving since day one. It's down to 20mg now.
There's a reason why bans are not implimented immediately and outright. Come on, think about it, it's not that difficult, or do you want me to explain it to you?See my first response - there is no proof that outdoor smoking causes demonstrable harm for short term exposure. This is how science works.
Your own link suggests otherwise, also I linked you something, but that's not good enough, is it?Lazy use of cars is not essential, and causes harm. By your logic, it should be banned.
How do you set the bar? How do you differentiate between a lazy driver and a non lazy driver? Now that's impossible.Can you tell me what is different in Ireland that would mean it would work here? The Czech Republic is a very similar country.
By your logic we should never try anything another country fails. Why? Czech Republic is a VERY similar country? Regardless, of how similar you may think the two countries are, how does that mean it won't work here? Explain that one please. I am interested in your reasoning of this.Have you been to Tokyo? The street bans are totally unenforced! I can't believe you used that as an example. Absolutely everybody smokes in Japan, even in taxis. One of my friends started smoking there after two weeks. The smoking rooms are for keeping smokers warm, not off the streets. You should try reading the wiki article on smoking in Japan, since you linked to it!
Have you been to Tokyo? Anyway, another poster debunked this part of your argument.You just linked to ASH - that's like Godwin's law in a smoking thread. They are a propaganda machine, as you know. That PDF has been ripped to shreds here before. Please link to something reputable, this would be like me linking to a tobacco company or even another boards poster. ASH are not an authority.
Just try to read any of the articles they cite - the first three don't even match up to the paragraphs they contain. For starters, note that ASH refer to health hazards that take years to develop when discussing exposures measured in milliseconds.
Miliseconds does not equate to 30 minutes, which is what they have talked about. Unfortunately, lying about something that is in writing before us is not very wise. Each point is referenced, that's good enough for me, but it doesn't suit your argument so I can see why you don't agree with the paper.In Europe smoking (of tobacco at any rate) has only been around for hundreds of years. In Ireland its been around (to and sizeable degree) for less than 150 years
From the google search I found that it has been in England since 1550 or there abouts. Can safely say that it was in Ireland not too long after that.The health risk of a wisp of second hand smoke being inhaled in the open area is negligible; that is the issue under discussion here. We are not discussing smoking in enclosed or partially enclosed environments.
There have been some links already which prove you are wrong. Do try read the thread. Your whole argument is null and void.The health risk of the increasing normalcy of obesity is very very significant.
So if anything, the genuine health risk lies in allowing fat people to promote the normalcy of their lifestyle choice by wearing skimpy outfits or just walking around generally.
I was unaware that being obese was "normal" and accepted. I think you will find that it is not and that there is much awareness about it. Again, how do obese people directly effect the health of others around them? They don't.As the 'health risk' is an entire non-issue, all you are left with is the 'dislike' of the sight and smells of people smoking. Many people dislike the sight of people gorging on fast food in public, or indeed of fat people. That is where the analogy lies.
That a crap analogy. Can you not see how bad it is? The health risk is very much an issue, but don't let facts get in the way of your argument. We'll just brush the health issues aside to strenghten our argument... lol.0 -
Im a smoker and i dislike the sight of non smokers.. can i ban that too?
Trying to ban or place restrictions on others based purely on your opinion is whats wrong with this country. The law at the moment is more than adequet as it caters for non somkers sufficently.
If you want a law to remove smokers from your line of sight i suggest you stay at home in an oxygen tent
That would be the typical response from a smoker. 0 -
Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »That would be the typical response from a smoker.
im only smoking 2 years, and while i agree they are vile things and will kill me if i continue, we as a society cant be ran by a nanny state either0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement