Car smoking ban

MetzgerMeister

Anan1 wrote: »

What, so you could pay €50 a packet to a dealer?;)

Nope, I wouldn't do that. The less available something like that is, the more of a chance I wouldn't bother with it.

You might say "oh shur they'll be readily available from any dealer" but that doesn't make a difference to me. Hash etc. is readily available but I don't bother with it.

dharn

i totally agree with the idea but it will be unenforceable, the number of people you see on mobiles is astonishing, saw a guy drive an artic on aroundabout i wondered why he seemed to be doing such a bad job steering it ,when he came closer ..he was on the phone so im afraid with the number of guards we have it will be totally ignored

dr.fuzzenstein

It's just something that should be common sense.
People who agree with this law would not smoke in a car with kids present anyway and the rest won't know or care about this law in the first place.
Next there will be a law outlawing eating chips in front of your kids, etc...
The government should concentrate on running the country, infrastructure, health and education.
Of course it is wrong to smoke in a car with kids, but we don't need a law telling us that.
And people who cheer for this law:
This is just to distract us from the real problems. The initial smoking ban was brought in by Micheal Martin because the health service was on the front page of every paper, every day and he desperately needed a distraction. And it worked, for a year or more, nothing else was talked about.
Of COURSE I won't smoke in a car with kids, but this is so annoying I am considering getting a child seat with a doll in it and drive around smoking cigars all day just to be obnoxious about it.

As for banning fags:
I buy all my tobacco abroad, I spend less than a hundred quid a year on my fags and I am proud to say that the Irish exchequer hasn't gotten a penny of me and never will, because I will not support that type of greedy robbery.
Banning fags is stupid, will not work and cannot work.
Consider Hash, Smack, Coke, Ecstasy and many other illegal substances. Give me 10 minutes in any city and I can have one of each.
Oh yeah, banning them really worked.

MetzgerMeister

dharn wrote: »

i totally agree with the idea but it will be unenforceable, the number of people you see on mobiles is astonishing, saw a guy drive an artic on aroundabout i wondered why he seemed to be doing such a bad job steering it ,when he came closer ..he was on the phone so im afraid with the number of guards we have it will be totally ignored

True, I've seen a lot of people on mobiles while driving recently. I don't think anyone actually gives a crap,

Henry Ford III

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

True, I've seen a lot of people on mobiles while driving recently. I don't think anyone actually gives a crap,

They should, as mobile use whilst driving has been shown to be dangerous.

pred racer

My parents used to smoke in the car, and guess what........I'm not dead yet;)

Government has more important things it should be doing right now.

Anan1

pred racer wrote: »

My parents used to smoke in the car, and guess what........I'm not dead yet;)

Mine never wore seat belts, and they're not dead yet either. And nor am I, in spite of having done 135mph on the N11. Are all these things safe, or is your reasoning flawed?

Reg'stoy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's just something that should be common sense.
People who agree with this law would not smoke in a car with kids present anyway and the rest won't know or care about this law in the first place.
Next there will be a law outlawing eating chips in front of your kids, etc...
The government should concentrate on running the country, infrastructure, health and education.
Of course it is wrong to smoke in a car with kids, but we don't need a law telling us that.
And people who cheer for this law:
This is just to distract us from the real problems. The initial smoking ban was brought in by Micheal Martin because the health service was on the front page of every paper, every day and he desperately needed a distraction. And it worked, for a year or more, nothing else was talked about.
Of COURSE I won't smoke in a car with kids, but this is so annoying I am considering getting a child seat with a doll in it and drive around smoking cigars all day just to be obnoxious about it.

As for banning fags:
I buy all my tobacco abroad, I spend less than a hundred quid a year on my fags and I am proud to say that the Irish exchequer hasn't gotten a penny of me and never will, because I will not support that type of greedy robbery.
Banning fags is stupid, will not work and cannot work.
Consider Hash, Smack, Coke, Ecstasy and many other illegal substances. Give me 10 minutes in any city and I can have one of each.
Oh yeah, banning them really worked.

I like your duplicity in that you want the goverment to concentrate on doing all the things that require funding raised by taxation, as in education, health etc, yet proudly boast that you avoid same taxation because you deem it greedy. As for the smoking ban, well that is now pan-global and lauded as one of the most innovative pieces of legalisation after CAB to be brought in by any Irish government.

As for driving around with a doll (being facetious I would imagine, but then you never know) did you also go into mcdonalds when they began saying 'contents may be Hot' and start drinking your coffee dangerously.

The problem with expecting people to use common sense is that invariably "well no one told me that..." will be used as an excuse. Self regulation doesn't work be it on an individual level or corporate. There are some people who quite literally should not be allowed have kids, but do, not the childs fault, but some some safeguards be they what you might consider nanny stateish to basic human rights; need to be enforced.

Common sense would dictate many things, but people being people means we need rules and regulations and so by due process we elect our government to do this on our behalf. Just because you didn't vote at all or vote for the present government doesn't exclude you from the regulations.

Del2005

It's a stupid law, that sounds good,but it won't change anything. Some parents never smoke with kids around some do. Making it illegal won't stop the people who smoke around kids and the ones who never did don't need the law.

Every time I'm out I see people driving on the phone or taxi drivers smoking(also van/truck drivers smoking but they aren't PSVs so I don't really care what they do to themselves). If every time I'm out I see this then Gardaí on patrol must see this and they do nothing about it. Go to any school and see the amount of dangerous parking when parents are collecting kids. We've plenty of parking laws but the Gardaí largely ignore illegal parking outside schools and churches.

We've plenty of laws which aren't enforced adding more won't make a difference.

dr.fuzzenstein

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I like your duplicity in that you want the goverment to concentrate on doing all the things that require funding raised by taxation, as in education, health etc, yet proudly boast that you avoid same taxation because you deem it greedy. As for the smoking ban, well that is now pan-global and lauded as one of the most innovative pieces of legalisation after CAB to be brought in by any Irish government.

As for driving around with a doll (being facetious I would imagine, but then you never know) did you also go into mcdonalds when they began saying 'contents may be Hot' and start drinking your coffee dangerously.

The problem with expecting people to use common sense is that invariably "well no one told me that..." will be used as an excuse. Self regulation doesn't work be it on an individual level or corporate. There are some people who quite literally should not be allowed have kids, but do, not the childs fault, but some some safeguards be they what you might consider nanny stateish to basic human rights; need to be enforced.

Common sense would dictate many things, but people being people means we need rules and regulations and so by due process we elect our government to do this on our behalf. Just because you didn't vote at all or vote for the present government doesn't exclude you from the regulations.

Well firstly my point was that we do not need a law for every single thing.
Too many people subscribe to the idiotic notion "If it's not compulsory by law, it's illegal". I do not want to have to consult with my solicitor if I accidentally mismatched the color of my socks, just in case some moron has decided to make it illegal. Taxation and funding are not central to my argument.

I simply cannot follow your "McDonalds" argument.
My point is that I will get a doll of a child and drive around smoking cigars simply to annoy and outrage.

My main point:
Most people will agree with the sentiment of this law but argue that it is simply a symbolic gesture. The Gardai will not set up anti smoking checkpoints.
Of course no sane people will smoke in a car with kids present.
And the ones that do, won't care either way.
So it's a good thought, but is along the lines of compulsory asparagus for breakfast by law.

Wetbench4

This is over the top. You wouldn't be able to tell if a young child was strapped into their car-seat unless you pulled the car over and checked. There are sun blinds and window tints which also make it impossible to see any child young or old in the back. How will it be enforced, pull every smoking driver over to check? They should also ban diesel engines if they wanna go down this route. I gotta face full of dirty black diesel smoke yesterday because i had the windows open in the car.
I just get the feeling that politicians come up with these "ideas" to get their name remembered and try advance their career. The country is getting more and more controlled and restricted. Makes me wonder what it will be like in 20 or 30 years.

PS: I'm an ex-smoker

blastman

This is completely unenforceable nonsense done purely for show by a government that if it was seriously about being anti-smoking and had any balls at all, would ban smoking altogether and be done with it. But of course, that would kill a pretty handy revenue stream and they don't want to do that, especially given the depth of the hole we're currently in.

You can't legislate against being as thick as pig-sh!t, otherwise we'd all be in trouble at one time or another. As someone said, just because you can't protect kids all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't try to protect them when you can. Who gets to decide where the line is drawn? Is the next step outlawing smoking in the house with kids? How rigorously is that enforced? Can the gardaí kick in your door to check?

the culture of deference

Eggonyerface wrote: »

IMO theres a huge difference. Taking a drag from a cigarette is no more distracting then scratching an itchy nose, or changing gear.

What about taking it out of the box, getting a lighter, then lighting it,

dharn wrote: »

i totally agree with the idea but it will be unenforceable, the number of people you see on mobiles is astonishing, saw a guy drive an artic on a roundabout

The number of vehicles I have seen where the driver has the phone in one hand and fag in the other.

pred racer wrote: »

My parents used to smoke in the car, and guess what........I'm not dead yet;)

blastman wrote: »

This is completely unenforceable nonsense done purely for show by a government that if it was seriously about being anti-smoking and had any balls at all, would ban smoking altogether and be done with it.

Smoking in your car when you have kids in it makes you a selfish moron, but judging by the amount of pregnant women who smoke (when they know the risks to the baby), there are plenty of stupid people out there.

If you have children you should know not to smoke in your house or in your car. If this is beyond your level of comprehension then you will need to have government interference.

senordingdong

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of this ban coming into effect. The problem is that with the smoking ban in pubs etc., if it happened, there was always someone there to witness it. This won't be the case for an in-car ban and you will most definitely have people doing it anyway.

Fair point but here's the catch. The pub rule was succesful because the responsibility was left unto the manager, and not the customer, with the manager/establishment enduring the fine/punishment. The pub owners had to police their own business which was a great success.

Meanwhile, there is no such policy of responsibilty on parents to fulfil their obligations as parents.

Tigger

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

As for banning fags:
I buy all my tobacco abroad, I spend less than a hundred quid a year on my fags and I am proud to say that the Irish exchequer hasn't gotten a penny of me and never will, because I will not support that type of greedy robbery.
Banning fags is stupid, will not work and cannot work.
Consider Hash, Smack, Coke, Ecstasy and many other illegal substances. Give me 10 minutes in any city and I can have one of each.
Oh yeah, banning them really worked.

you can get smack in 10 minutes in kilkenny?

i disagree

blastman

the culture of deference wrote: »

Smoking in your car when you have kids in it makes you a selfish moron, but judging by the amount of pregnant women who smoke (when they know the risks to the baby), there are plenty of stupid people out there.

If you have children you should know not to smoke in your house or in your car. If this is beyond your level of comprehension then you will need to have government interference.

So what's next, give pregnant women who smoke points on their driving licence? Force them have an abortion? Someone smokes in the car with their kids, why not just take the kids away from them? Surely that's the best way to protect them? Giving their ma a fine won't help their asthma.

Being stupid isn't illegal (not yet, anyway).

Reg'stoy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well firstly my point was that we do not need a law for every single thing.
Too many people subscribe to the idiotic notion "If it's not compulsory by law, it's illegal". I do not want to have to consult with my solicitor if I accidentally mismatched the color of my socks, just in case some moron has decided to make it illegal. Taxation and funding are not central to my argument.

I simply cannot follow your "McDonalds" argument.
My point is that I will get a doll of a child and drive around smoking cigars simply to annoy and outrage.

My main point:
Most people will agree with the sentiment of this law but argue that it is simply a symbolic gesture. The Gardai will not set up anti smoking checkpoints.
Of course no sane people will smoke in a car with kids present.
And the ones that do, won't care either way.
So it's a good thought, but is along the lines of compulsory asparagus for breakfast by law.

Ah yes jump to the ludicrous, socks?, asparagus?. I mentioned Mc Donalds as most people use the 'Caution contents may be Hot' as an allegory for the nanny state gone mad.

The symbolic/impossible to police law arguement was first mooted when the smoking ban came in, yet here we are 10 years later and it's a law that's policed by the individual rather than to a huge extent the state.

I'm not saying that we should legistate for every eventuality, but to claim that a law would be difficult to police and should therefore not be created is taking the easy road.

The carrying of knives is against the law, but walk down any road and it is neigh on impossible to know if an individual is carrying one. The majority of us don't carry knives because, why would we! plus to a lesser degree it's illegal . Those who do carry them, do so for nefarious reasons, and in reality are only caught when stopped and searched (how often is this) or they have been caught after using one.

I use the analogy between carrying knifes and smoking in cars because both are in essence impossible to police by your logic. Thankfully common sense and deterrent stops 99% of us carrying knives and yes as you said hopefully common sense would stop people smoking in a car with a child present. Unfortunatly there will always be that 1% where not only a deterrent but punishment is required.

As for the arguement that if the government were serious about smoking they would ban it completely, well that arguement is disingenuous, as it is the individual who chooses to smoke; that choice is not afforded to the child in the back of the car.

username123

the culture of deference wrote: »

Smoking in your car when you have kids in it makes you a selfish moron, but judging by the amount of pregnant women who smoke (when they know the risks to the baby), there are plenty of stupid people out there.

If you have children you should know not to smoke in your house or in your car. If this is beyond your level of comprehension then you will need to have government interference.

Smoking is an addiction. Stupidity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Many smokers are high achieving, highly intelligent individuals. My own GP only quit a few years ago - in her early 30s. Do you think a doctor is stupid? No, but she had an addiction.

Smoking in cars with children in them is bad for children, so is smoking in the home with children there, hitting children, using bad language around children, feeding children junk food, being drunk around children and bad parenting generally.

Would you wish for the government to intervene in all of these things? Personally I think people should have to have a license to breed at all because we live in a society where wasters breed dozens more wasters funded by the state. Stopping people smoking in cars is not going to address protection of children. But it might make the roads a little safer - if it was enforced, which it wont be.

MetzgerMeister

username123 wrote: »

Smoking is an addiction. Stupidity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Many smokers are high achieving, highly intelligent individuals. My own GP only quit a few years ago - in her early 30s. Do you think a doctor is stupid? No, but she had an addiction

Let's be honest, it takes a certain amount of stupidity for someone to start smoking when they know exactly what harm it's doing them.

blastman

Reg'stoy wrote: »

As for the arguement that if the government were serious about smoking they would ban it completely, well that arguement is disingenuous, as it is the individual who chooses to smoke; that choice is not afforded to the child in the back of the car.

And using limited and contradictory evidence regarding the actual dangers of second-hand smoke isn't disingenuous?

dr.fuzzenstein

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I use the analogy between carrying knifes and smoking in cars because both are in essence impossible to police by your logic. Thankfully common sense and deterrent stops 99% of us carrying knives and yes as you said hopefully common sense would stop people smoking in a car with a child present. Unfortunatly there will always be that 1% where not only a deterrent but punishment is required.

As for the arguement that if the government were serious about smoking they would ban it completely, well that arguement is disingenuous, as it is the individual who chooses to smoke; that choice is not afforded to the child in the back of the car.

I actually agree with the first point I quoted from you above.
99% of us would never carry knifes or smoke in a car with children present.
My argument is simply that this is so obvious, that the kind of moron who does so anyway won't give a blind bit of a toss whether it's law or not.
So to the 1% it will simply not make a difference.
For all the laudable intent behind it, it will simply not achieve much other than grab headlines.
The original smoking ban made a massive difference, everyone smoked everywhere and maybe the world is a better (and less smelly) place for it. But this will just not have the same groundbreaking effect, it's Malibu Stacey with a new hat.
Don't mind if it comes into effect, no difference to me.

Snickers Man

Jesus there are some prigs in this world!

When I was a youth it was illegal to buy condoms in this country. People were afraid it would encourage fornication and put our mortal souls in danger.

When I was a young man the adult population of this country were forbidden from going to see Monty Python's Life of Brian in the cinema. It was a blasphemous disrespectful lampoon on the story of the Four Gospels and watching it might put our mortal souls in danger.

When I was a mature adult it was unconstitutional in this country for people who had made a mistake in their marriage to be given the opportunity to try again. It was against church teaching and to live in a state of sin with a member of the opposite sex might put our mortal souls in danger.

And as for living in a state of sin with somebody of the same sex......

Only legal to kiss your boyfriend, if you yourself are a boy, since 1993. IE within the lifetime of most posters here.

We have sent all these busybody prigs packing and now we have the next generation of "I'll tell you what's good for you" busybody finger wagging inadequates who want to invade the personal space of your own fecking car to tell you what you can and can't do that is none of their bleeding business!!!:mad:

Well OK bead worriers. You want to feel morally superior to the smokers of this world, cloistered in their own cars where their smoke can't touch you, then OK. But to demand that our meagre tax revenues be wasted by the Guards harrassing them for it? No way.

As the Good Book says: Take the mote out of your own eye or I'll jam it in forcefully for you.

Here endeth the lesson.

Yours
Lifelong non smoker

senordingdong

Snickers Man wrote: »

the smokers of this world, cloistered in their own cars where their smoke can't touch you, then OK. But to demand that our meagre tax revenues be wasted by the Guards harrassing them for it? No way.

Are you against child protection?

Would you prefer these 'parents' be permitted to destroy their own childrens health for the protection of 'their personal space in their cars'?

Anan1

Snickers Man wrote: »

We have sent all these busybody prigs packing and now we have the next generation of "I'll tell you what's good for you" busybody finger wagging inadequates who want to invade the personal space of your own fecking car to tell you what you can and can't do that is none of their bleeding business!!!:mad:

It is the child's business, and it's the state's business to protect children. I do agree with your general point, just not where it affects others.

jeni

i fully agree with it, it really annoys me when i see kids in the back and mammy and daddy pulling away in the front, i smoke myself and ive never lit up infront of my lil one

username123

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Let's be honest, it takes a certain amount of stupidity for someone to start smoking when they know exactly what harm it's doing them.

How life smart are most 12/13/14/15 year olds? Because thats usually when it begins. And everyone thinks that they wont get hooked. There are a myriad of reasons why people try it out, usually by the time they decide theyve had enough theyre hooked. Again, its nothing to do with stupidity. Intelligence is not a factor.

MetzgerMeister

username123 wrote: »

How life smart are most 12/13/14/15 year olds? Because thats usually when it begins. And everyone thinks that they wont get hooked. There are a myriad of reasons why people try it out, usually by the time they decide theyve had enough theyre hooked. Again, its nothing to do with stupidity. Intelligence is not a factor.

I say that as a smoker who started at 15

the culture of deference

username123 wrote: »

Smoking is an addiction. Stupidity has absolutely nothing to do with it..

If you are pregnant you will know how much damage smoking does.

Smoking While Pregnant

If you smoke when you are pregnant the combination of carbon monoxide and nicotine in cigarettes makes it harder for your baby to get the oxygen and nourishment it needs. Smoking places stress on the baby's heart and affects the development of its lungs.


Pregnant smokers have a greater risk of miscarriage, may have a difficult birth and risk having a low weight baby, which will be more vulnerable to infection and other health problems. The baby of a smoker is more likely to die at or shortly after birth.


If you quit before becoming pregnant or in the first few months, your baby's birthweight will be the same as if you had been a non-smoker. Also, you reduce the risk of premature birth and other pregnancy complications.
What Happens To My Baby When I Smoke?

The umbilical cord is your baby's lifeline. Blood flow through this cord provides your baby with oxygen and the food it needs to grow. Every puff you take on a cigarette has an immediate effect on your baby. Carbon monoxide replaces some of the oxygen in your blood, reducing the amount of oxygen received by your baby through the umbilical cord.


The nicotine in cigarettes increases your heart rate and your baby's heart rate. It also causes your blood vessels to narrow, reducing the flow of blood through the umbilical cord. This makes it harder for your baby to get the oxygen and nourishment it needs.


To prepare for breathing after birth, your unborn baby will be practising by exercising some of its chest muscles. Nicotine reduces these breathing movements.


Cigarette smoke also contains many other harmful poisons, which pass through your lungs and into your bloodstream, which your baby shares.
Smoking during pregnancy by a mother is a major cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or 'cot death'). It also has the following effects:

• Increases the risk of miscarriage
• Increases the risk of complications during the birth
• Increases the likelihood of having a low-weight baby who is more vulnerable to infection and other health problems
• Increases the chances of the baby dying at or shortly after birth.

username123 wrote: »

How life smart are most 12/13/14/15 year olds? Because thats usually when it begins. And everyone thinks that they wont get hooked. There are a myriad of reasons why people try it out, usually by the time they decide theyve had enough theyre hooked. Again, its nothing to do with stupidity. Intelligence is not a factor.

It's dependent on peer pressure.

• 7,000 people die from smoking related disease in Ireland every year
• 90% of Lung cancers are caused by smoking
• 50% of all smokers will die from smoking related diseases
• Smokers have an increased risk of cancers, heart disease, strokes, low birth weight and many other diseases
• Standing in the path of a smoker or their cigarette or being in a room in which there are smokers means being exposed to at least 50 agents known to cause cancer and other chemicals that increase blood pressure, damage the lungs and cause abnormal kidney function.
• Smokers lose an average of 10-15 years from their life expectancy

Del2005

senordingdong wrote: »

Snickers Man wrote: »

the smokers of this world, cloistered in their own cars where their smoke can't touch you, then OK. But to demand that our meagre tax revenues be wasted by the Guards harrassing them for it? No way.

Are you against child protection?

Would you prefer these 'parents' be permitted to destroy their own childrens health for the protection of 'their personal space in their cars'?

Just because it's against the law it won't stop people who smoke around children from smoking around children.


There's enough proof that it's dangerous, to a fatal degree. So if someone is willing to give their children cancer do you really think a small fine will change their minds?

username123

the culture of deference wrote: »

If you are pregnant you will know how much damage smoking does.

So what? Youre still dealing with an addiction, not an rational decision making process. Its not relevant to intelligent levels. Intelligent people do irrational things all the time.

I very much doubt there is anyone in civilised modern society who doesnt know the dangers and damage of smoking. Its a filthy disgusting habit.

Yet people still smoke. And banning it in cars that contain children wont stop smoking, wont protect children, and wont increase road safety because it cant be enforced.

Its still a move I support - but it makes little practical sense.