No smoking in the Park

OldGoat

The Minster of Health has a new preposal - to ban smoking on the beachs and in public parks.
Source
So now I can't have a pipe during a walk in the woods, waiting for sunrise atop a mountain or while on the beach doing a bit of nightfishing.

BeerNut

OldGoat wrote: »

So now

No; possibly following review by the government and a legislative process voted on by your representatives. Then, maybe, you might not be allowed to, depending on which woods, mountains or beaches you mean.

In New York they're trying to ban it in apartment blocks. Absolutely ridiculous

OldGoat

My argument with this is that they are claiming protection of children by removing smoking from public view. Imaging if there were somewhere that only adults could go, somewhere off the roadside, behind closed doors that you can't get into unless you are over 18 - somewhere like a pub perhaps.
If some pubs had a smoking licence then smokers would be a lot less visible in the public eye. (We can argue the rights of the staff later if my argument is acceptable in principle)

Seems to me that smoking is a lot more visual these days as people crowd the pavements and block the enterences to almost every building. According to their own figures the Ban has shown no fall in smokers numbers but it has made us appear in public view much more frequently - thus putting the youngsters at risk of being lured into our smoking lifestyle.

A step back from their current stance rather then reinforcing it would make the smokers happier and reduce risk to children being drawn into our unhealthy ways.

BeerNut

OldGoat wrote: »

If some pubs had a smoking licence

Eww, no thanks. I remember when pubs used to have smoking licences and every pub held one. It made them less pleasant places to be.

I'm fussy about the beer I drink. I don't necessarily want to drink what the customer next to me is having and I wouldn't go to a pub where spillover from other people's drinks were forced on me.

Same goes for the tobacco I smoke.

tinyk68

I'm not a smoker and I'm glad smoking is banned indoors. It's much nicer going out now and not coming home reeking of other people's smoke.

However, I think this latest move to ban smoking in public areas is ridiculous. How do they propose to police this one. Are they going to have wardens of some sort on every beach, and in every park and forest in the country? It smacks of nanny state mentality and makes no sense whatever.

BeerNut

tinyk68 wrote: »

It smacks of nanny state mentality and makes no sense whatever.

If your aim is to stop everyone from smoking without actually banning it outright, it makes perfect sense. I saw a spokesperson saying that they were trying to achieve the "denormalisation" of smoking. Banning it in public places is the next obvious step.

tinyk68 wrote: »

How do they propose to police this one

At a guess, the same way they police littering, public drunkenness or skateboarding: an official is in charge of the area, and they can escalate problems to the local Gardaí if necessary.

pawrick

Sounds like they are trying to get people riled up about this as a diversion. I wonder why?!

As someone who doesn't like smoking I think it's creating a law to be broken. As said by the poster above it might be a step to an outright ban, which is something I would not be against but I don't think the population is any where ready for that.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Ahh the god dam health freaks are back with their hard ons for recreating the mighty fascists regimes of the 20th century.

Merch

As a non smoker, Im glad there are smoke free places like pubs but particularily places selling food,
I also think its bloody disgusting when i come across fag butts out and about.
And I know its unhealthy and fcukin hate people smoking at entrances where I have to get past and have to inhale their smoke or if its a cram as some biatch did (burn my jacket, ok it was accidental, but it ruined a perfect jacket)

however

While I am happy there are pubs that were smoking isn't allowed, I dont frequent pubs that much anymore anyway and I dont think the kind of health nuts that are trying to implement this do either?
I dont see why smokers cant have a drink and a smoke if they want in at least some places, plus I was never fully in support of the police/nanny state mentality of implementation or the general attitude of it.
So some aul lad out fishing cant puff away on his pipe?
what next? no motorbikes, too dangerous?
not allowed drive full stop? people die from the above too, I'm sure there's load of other things,
All in all, if smoking disappeared due to lack of interest, I wouldn't be bothered,
currently all I ask is dont block an entrance to a shop and make me breath in second hand smoke and please (my pet hate) dont litter butts everywhere (which I have seen on plenty of occasions, people tipping out ash trays of butts from their cars or even just the odd flicking:()

As for the police state shyte, not happy about that.

BeerNut

Merch wrote: »

I dont see why smokers cant have a drink and a smoke if they want in at least some places

Two reasons: 1. It's not fair on the people who work there; 2. "some places" in the past has meant "everywhere" -- pubs had the option of dividing themselves into smoking and non-smoking before the ban and not a single one of them chose to.

Merch

BeerNut wrote: »

Two reasons: 1. It's not fair on the people who work there; 2. "some places" in the past has meant "everywhere" -- pubs had the option of dividing themselves into smoking and non-smoking before the ban and not a single one of them chose to.

thats fair enough, particularily the first part.
and as far as I have experienced the members of the vintners association weren't/aren't very adaptable/open to change either.
Mostly I disliked the nanny state like attitude of telling/if not how they told people it would be implemented.

Procrastastudy

I am vehemently anti-smoking. (I know Hai! ) but this is just stupid. Firstly if smokers could figure out their litter IS ACTUALLY LITTER - the world would be a much cleaner place. Cig butts everywhere at the beach is one example. If they could actually figure out that in a crowd lighting up is just plain rude but I digress on a rant...

Banning it in a Park is just plain idiotic for the obvious reasons and that it's going to mean more kids take up smoking. At the moment its cool and taboo enough banning it in public is just going to make more kids try it rather than stop them. Hiding something never works education does.

BeerNut

tinyk68 wrote: »

I'm not a smoker

pawrick wrote: »

As someone who doesn't like smoking

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I am vehemently anti-smoking.

I think this thread is attracting the wrong sort to our forum

OldGoat

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

...but I digress on a rant...

Please - Read the charter. We KNOW already. We don't need to be told again. Pointing out our shortcomings is not news to us. This forum exists so that we don't have to be ranted against.

OldGoat

BeerNut wrote: »

I think this thread is attracting the wrong sort to our forum

On the plus side after the usual fingerwagging they each pointed out how daft the proposal is.

If they want to denormalize smoking for kids by banning it in public places, they should do the same for obesity and ban fat people from public places so that kids wont think its ok to be obese.

Mr. Presentable

OldGoat wrote: »

The Minster of Health has a new preposal - to ban smoking on the beachs and in public parks.
Source
So now I can't have a pipe during a walk in the woods, waiting for sunrise atop a mountain or while on the beach doing a bit of nightfishing.

Man, I first read that as "nightfisting" Says much about me.

I favour the ban, but not blanket. I understand the intent is that impressionable people should not see you enjoying something which is poisonous, but it should be OK to smoke if you want to where there are no children/sheep. I can't see how or why they would enforce such a law if you are effectively alone on a beach fishing at night, or sitting on Sugarloaf freezing your assets off at 04:00.

FoxT

I am a smoker. I think that banning smoking in parks is OTT, but I am in favour of banning smoking on beaches. Digging up some sand & finding a nest of fag butts is sooo disgusting.

Broadly speaking, I think the Govt should continue with a policy of restricting smoking & also making tobacco more expensive.

Education does not work, IMO. The risks associated with smoking are well understood but that does not prevent many young people from starting. If a pack of cigs cost say 20 quid that would be a good deterrent, and would also encourage more adults to quit.

RandomName2

OldGoat wrote: »

The Minster of Health has a new preposal - to ban smoking on the beachs and in public parks.
Source
So now I can't have a pipe during a walk in the woods, waiting for sunrise atop a mountain or while on the beach doing a bit of nightfishing.

It would be more honest if they just said they wanted to make cigarettes and cigars illegal, full stop.

The argument was originally concerning the damage that smoking would so (so warnings had to be introduced and adverts banned).

Then the argument was that smoking cost the state in healthcare (so exorbitant taxes were imposed).

Then the argument was that second hand smoke would damage non-smokers (so no indoor smoking in non-private residences).

Then the argument claimed that young would still be able to buy cigarettes and be exposed to the implicit advertising of packages in shops (so now packets have to be hidden).

Now the argument is that children will still see people smoking.

I mean, I'm not even a smoker and I'm thinking... ffs. It went a bit stazi already with the hiding of the packets...

OldGoat

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Man, I first read that as "nightfisting" Says much about me.

I meant Nightfisting. Nightfishing was a typo.

Enforcing the ban is not really the issue, it's that the ban is being put in place is what I am questioning. It's a death of a thousend cuts and our ability to smoke is being whittled away piece by piece.
When the ban is put in place most of us (being law abiding citizens) will stop smoking in parks and beaches.

I maintain that this is just being done to make political ground rather then having the actual health and wellbeing of children as the foremost concern.

BeerNut

FoxT wrote: »

I am in favour of banning smoking on beaches. Digging up some sand & finding a nest of fag butts is sooo disgusting.

We have a massive problem in this country of inventing new laws as a lazy substitute for enforcing the laws we have.

Dropping cigarette butts on the beach is already illegal. If the litter laws were properly enforced, it wouldn't happen. The new proposed law is not an anti-litter measure and your outrage would be better aimed at the poor anti-litter measures we already have.

FoxT

BeerNut wrote: »

We have a massive problem in this country of inventing new laws as a lazy substitute for enforcing the laws we have.

Dropping cigarette butts on the beach is already illegal. If the litter laws were properly enforced, it wouldn't happen. The new proposed law is not an anti-litter measure and your outrage would be better aimed at the poor anti-litter measures we already have.

Well, if the law is as you say, it sounds like it would be difficult & expensive to enforce. It is much easier to spot a person smoking than to hang around & wait to see what they do with the butt afterwards. Therefore I think an outright ban on beach smoking would be an improvement.

I am not particularly outraged, BTW, and lecturing me is neither friendly, helpful, nor informative.

BeerNut

FoxT wrote: »

It is much easier to spot a person smoking than to hang around & wait to see what they do with the butt afterwards.

Same goes for snacks and picnics. Would no eating on the beach be an improvement too?

FoxT wrote: »

I am not particularly outraged, BTW, and lecturing me is neither friendly, helpful, nor informative.

Sorry, outrage was the wrong word and I didn't mean to lecture. Litter on the beach is horrible. Pre-litter prevention is cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer and reduces the overall utility of the beach, however.

the_syco

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Firstly if smokers could figure out their litter IS ACTUALLY LITTER - the world would be a much cleaner place. Cig butts everywhere at the beach is one example. If they could actually figure out that in a crowd lighting up is just plain rude but I digress on a rant...

I've found that the... "element" of our society who doesn't care about other people generally do the above, and I cannot see said element caring much about the new law.

FoxT wrote: »

If a pack of cigs cost say 20 quid that would be a good deterrent, and would also encourage more adults to quit.

If a pack was 20 quid each, no-one would buy them in the shops. They'd source them illegally, and the government would see a rapid decline of tax money being received.

=-=

As someone has said, I wonder what this smokescreen is meant to hide?

mathepac

OldGoat wrote: »

The Minster of Health has a new preposal - to ban smoking on the beachs and in public parks...

This loolah needs to get a priority list set for him by someone - tackle the problem of people (staff, patients & visitors) smoking in and around hospital entrances and enclosed areas (portakabins and the like) on hospital grounds.

This is a problem in:

St Luke's Kilkenny
The MW Regional in Limerick
The Coombe in Dublin
OLCH Crumlin Dublin
and others

I have submitted video footage about two other locations not named above some time ago but have heard nothing since.

Why is he out looking to introduce new bye-laws, policies or whatever when the lard-arses being paid handsomely by the HSE cant't / won't enforce existing policy?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

In New York they're trying to ban it in apartment blocks. Absolutely ridiculous

Sorry but I feel the need to put in my 2 cents here.

It's not absolutely ridiculous at all. Smoking in an apartment means your neighbours are exposed to your smoke in their own homes. This can be under the front door of your apartment, but the main problem tends to be shared ventilation systems, which are very common in New York. This means that any smoke from your apartment goes directly into many of your neighbours' apartments. IMO your right to smoke in your own home goes out of the window when it starts impacting other people in their own homes.

I live in such an apartment block and every time my neighbour lights up in his bathroom, our entire bathroom fills with smoke. It's as if someone has actually been smoking in there. Even with the bathroom door closed, the smoke fills the hall and we can often smell it elsewhere. Guests have commented on it and the landlord even accused us of smoking in the flat. We both have breathing issues and I don't see why we should have to put up with this. Surely it's up to the person producing the smoke to make sure it stays in their home?

I believe in the right to choose what you do with your own body, to smoke if you want to smoke etc, but you can't pretend you live in a bubble. This is actually a really sensible law and I wish it would come into effect here. I wouldn't necessarily be in favour of a total ban on smoking in apartment blocks, but definitely in those with shared ventilation systems or in the case of say, bedsits, where neighbouring flats are often essentially rooms in the same house. Basically, if you can smell your neighbour's smoke in your home with all the windows and doors closed, then that's an issue that needs to be addressed, IMO.

Sindri

They're not going to ban 'em in public ares unless they're.....stupid......

It's unenforceable and the Gardaí aren't going to be arsed enforcing it when they are much more focused on veh-hicul collisions. It's completely fair to ban tobacco smoking in pubs, restaurants and work places as it poses a fairly serious health threat :rolleyes: but smoking in public places with the intent to denormalise the practice is really just plain wrong. It really is shows how taboo smoking tobacco is becoming.....while smoking other herbal substances are going the other way :eek:

Any way, apart from the principle of the thing, who would actually stop?

seanmacc

I suppose it will work about as well as the no smoking policy on Hill 16

Iwannahurl

OldGoat wrote: »

The Minster of Health has a new preposal - to ban smoking on the beachs and in public parks.
Source
So now I can't have a pipe during a walk in the woods, waiting for sunrise atop a mountain or while on the beach doing a bit of nightfishing.

I'd miss the pipe. Your pipe, that is. I've always liked the smell of pipes and cigars. From a distance, as I'm a non-smoker.

I wouldn't miss the fags though.

One thing smokers cannot control is their exhaled and 'sidestream' smoke. Hence no-smoking areas, most especially indoors, make as much sense as non-urinating areas in a swimming pool.

Another thing cigarette smokers cannot seem to control is their butts. I was at the beach recently with my two toddlers. The sand is always littered with cigarette butts, and the children have picked them up, sometimes accidentally, which I find disgusting.

The seafront promenade is similarly littered, as a large number of smokers seem to believe they have a special licence to litter.

Don't start me on the gum chewers and lawless Irish dog owners...:)

Iwannahurl

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Ahh the god dam health freaks are back with their hard ons for recreating the mighty fascists regimes of the 20th century.

You'll always be able to smoke on Boards, though, it being a haven for people with hard ons for reactionary fuming and hyperbole.

the_syco

I'm sorry sir, I'm not on the beach. I'm on the sea.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You'll always be able to smoke on Boards, though, it being a haven for people with hard ons for reactionary fuming and hyperbole.

Without wanting to moderate here you're post is not suited to this forum chap. Why don't you give a swing by AH for a post or two, I like your style dear boy..

The Hill Billy

If you feel a post is unsuitable to a forum - use the report post function & leave the modding to the mods.

tHB

UDP

I was in brittas bay during the heatwave of 2012. Twice I had to move because smokers were upwind from me. Bit of a pain in the ass when I am there for sun and fresh air.

While I would like to see smoking gone completely (in an ideal world) I just don't see this law as being enforceable thus it would be a waste of time. The only way such laws would work in Ireland would be if Irish people were willing to point out if someone is breaking the law or report people but that just does not happen in Ireland.

ShanePouch

BeerNut wrote: »

Eww, no thanks. I remember when pubs used to have smoking licences and every pub held one. It made them less pleasant places to be.

I'm fussy about the beer I drink. I don't necessarily want to drink what the customer next to me is having and I wouldn't go to a pub where spillover from other people's drinks were forced on me.

Same goes for the tobacco I smoke.

I've never heard that a pub needed a licence, without which no one would have been allowed smoke on the premises.

BeerNut

ShanePouch wrote: »

I've never heard that a pub needed a licence, without which no one would have been allowed smoke on the premises.

It's a licence to serve drink, but the permission to smoke was implicit in it before 2004. Anyone who held one could have kept their pub non-smoking if they wanted to.

ShanePouch

BeerNut wrote: »

It's a licence to serve drink, but the permission to smoke was implicit in it before 2004. Anyone who held one could have kept their pub non-smoking if they wanted to.

Thats what I thought, as I have never before heard of a licence being needed to smoke in any public place, such as shops, cinema's, buses and so on. Why would a public house have needed an "implicit" licence to permit smoking on the premises whereas buses, and trains, and cinemas and shops and so on didn't need any such licence, whether explicit or implicit?

BeerNut

ShanePouch wrote: »

Why would a public house have needed an "implicit" licence to permit smoking on the premises whereas buses, and trains, and cinemas and shops and so on didn't need any such licence, whether explicit or implicit?

You don't remember when you could smoke in cinemas and on trains? They had implicit licences too. Unlike pubs, however, most of them opted to go non-smoking voluntarily before they were forced to.

ShanePouch

BeerNut wrote: »

You don't remember when you could smoke in cinemas and on trains? They had implicit licences too. Unlike pubs, however, most of them opted to go non-smoking voluntarily before they were forced to.

I've never heard of the concept of an "implicit" licence. What would have happened in court if someone without an implicit licence was up on a charge of allowing an activity without an implicit licence?

Did, for example, brothels have implicit licences too? It's a fascinating concept.

BeerNut

ShanePouch wrote: »

I've never heard of the concept of an "implicit" licence. What would have happened in court if someone without an implicit licence was up on a charge of allowing an activity without an implicit licence?

They get charged with allowing whatever it was they weren't supposed to allow.

If you're caught driving with more than the implicitly licensed concentration of alcohol in your bloodstream you get charged with drink driving.

ShanePouch

BeerNut wrote: »

They get charged with allowing whatever it was they weren't supposed to allow.

If you're caught driving with more than the implicitly licensed concentration of alcohol in your bloodstream you get charged with drink driving.

In the example you give, the amount of alcohol is explicitly stated in the statute. There is nothing implicit about it.

I'm fascinated by this concept of an implied licence. Can you point me to any court reports where someone was charged for not having the required licence?

You state that "they get charged" but don't say what they get charged with, or under which statute they might have been charged. I am fascinated that you seem to say that it's the case that, in Ireland, individuals have been charged with this implied offence, while at the same time no such offence exists on the statute book, whereby an individual can be charged with not having a licence which, in itself, doesn't actually exist and is something called an "implicit licence" .

OldGoat

MOD: Interesting at this all is we are drifting from the original topic.

BeerNut

Apologies, OldGoat and fellow smokers. My last go at explaining this:

ShanePouch wrote: »

In the example you give, the amount of alcohol is explicitly stated in the statute. There is nothing implicit about it.

The statute specifies 50mg per 100ml of blood. Concentrations lower than this are therefore implicitly licensed. The statute doesn't say "it's OK to have 20mg": it's implied. Pre-2004 pub licences didn't say "It's OK to let customers smoke": it was implied.

All I was saying before we drifted off was: if pubs wanted the option of being non-smoking they should have exercised this option when they had it. Because none of them did, it was taken away.

ShanePouch

BeerNut wrote: »

Apologies, OldGoat and fellow smokers. My last go at explaining this:
The statute specifies 50mg per 100ml of blood. Concentrations lower than this are therefore implicitly licensed. The statute doesn't say "it's OK to have 20mg": it's implied. Pre-2004 pub licences didn't say "It's OK to let customers smoke": it was implied.

All I was saying before we drifted off was: if pubs wanted the option of being non-smoking they should have exercised this option when they had it. Because none of them did, it was taken away.

I know this is pedantic, but legally there is no such thing as an "implicit licence". The law is always specific and, in this instance expressly states that no one is permitted to drive with an excess of a stated (hence statute) level of alcohol in their blood.

Where I was confused earlier is that it was said that pub s needed a licence to allow smoking on their premises, and I had never heard of such a licence in the law.

It is no more correct legally to say that anything which is not proscribed by statute has an implicit licence, any more than it is true that one has an implicit licence to eat cheese at home or an implicit licence to use ones own lavatory.

OldGoat

MODERATOR:Last warning.

Gentlemen, take it top PM's or to a forum that allows for the fine print of legaliteies to be discussed. The topic under discussion is the possible ban on smoking in parks and beaches.