Health Minister James Reilly wants a tobacco-free Ireland by 2025

Skid X

Enjoy it while you can

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/minister-seeks-tobaccofree-ireland-29448384.html

Health Minister James Reilly has declared war on smoking, saying he wants a tobacco-free Ireland by 2025.

"It's the only product I know that is legally, freely available that will kill you if you use it, according to the manufacturers and so on," Dr Reilly said. "It's a fight that we cannot turn away from and that we can't afford to lose. It's a battle that will continue until it's won and it will be won."

SEPT 23 1989

They could do it tomorrow if they really wanted to

Synode

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They could do it tomorrow if they really wanted to

There would be chaos. It has to be phased out.

Peregrine

What's with the thread title? Nowhere does it say anything about banning smoking

He revealed that a document had been passed by Government, entitled Tobacco-Free Ireland, which aims to have less than 5% of the population smoking within the next 12 years. Ireland's smoking population is currently 29%

Good. Full support but I think 12 years is a bit ambitious.

Amirani

"It's the only product I know that is legally, freely available that will kill you if you use it, according to the manufacturers and so on,"

He's either a complete spoofer or a complete idiot.

CianRyan

Burn it, burn it all!

Irishcrx

Hahahahahahaha sure they will...sure , they wouldn't dare loose that tax.

Outkast_IRE

It would be like prohibition in the US.
It would cause a lot of everyday law abiding people to start handing their cash over to the underworld in order to get it.

Him coming out with these sort of statements, on the back of the EU banning or trying to ban E-Cigarettes is stupid.

If they had any sense they would do some proper research into E-cigarettes and see are they a viable alternative for people trying to stop smoking etc and incentivise the **** out of people changing over if they seem ok.

CianRyan

NiallSparky wrote: »

He's either a complete spoofer or a complete idiot.

What other products spring to mind?

Czarcasm

Skid X wrote: »

Enjoy it while you can

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/minister-seeks-tobaccofree-ireland-29448384.html

Who does he honestly think he's kidding with that one? :pac:

Gumbi

In fairness. Alcohol does a lot, LOT more damage than cigs. If people wanna smoke in their own let em shmoke. Christ, ****ing nanny state.

Ilik Urgee

With all this progression towards free choice in other areas of society, would it be too much to let people themselves decide if they want to smoke or not?

Uriel.

As a non-smoker, I can't say I'd have a problem with it as such.
But is it really a realistic goal.

How will they replace the tax revenue? It'll be a double whammy - loss of revenue plus additional expenditure to combat the illegal trade. I suspect the long-term would probably show reduced costs in healthcare expenses, but that might take an enture generation. How is the funding gap filled in the mean time.

plus some of the healthcare cost reductions would be offset against people living longer so more money paid out on state pensions and associated benefits.

The smoking ban has been a brilliant success, if you ask me, and if they dealt harshly with people who dispose of their butts in an inconsiderate way, then I am not sure what else we can expect that is realistic.

Daidy2011

......and watch the tax rate go up to 65%+ to cover the loss in excise duties they get from tobacco products........

Laudable objective (and I am a smoker) - don't ever see it happening.

Czarcasm

CianRyan wrote: »

What other products spring to mind?

Alcohol.

CianRyan

Gumbi wrote: »

In fairness. Alcohol does a lot, LOT more damage than cigs. If people wanna smoke in their own let em shmoke. Christ, ****ing nanny state.

Alcohol abuse does a lot of damage, drinking responsibly isn't comparable with tobacco.
Tabacco is a very serious drug, it's just been legal for so long that banning it sounds ridiculous. If it were only discovered today there is no way it would make it to the shelves.

CianRyan

Czarcasm wrote: »

Alcohol.

See above.

jd007

Sure lets just ban everything. Fuckin muppets

EyeSight

i am not a smoker and i disagree with it. Ban on porn, ban on smoking what's next?

Amirani

CianRyan wrote: »

Alcohol abuse does a lot of damage, drinking responsibly isn't comparable with tobacco.
Tabacco is a very serious drug, it's just been legal for so long that banning it sounds ridiculous. If it were only discovered today there is no way it would make it to the shelves.

Same with alcohol.

the_syco

People will just continue to smoke the dodgy Chinese smokes.

Peregrine

jd007 wrote: »

Sure lets just ban everything. Fuckin muppets

EyeSight wrote: »

i am not a smoker and i disagree with it. Ban on porn, ban on smoking what's next?

the_syco wrote: »

People will just continue to smoke the dodgy Chinese smokes.

They're not banning smoking. They're aiming to reduce the number of smokers to 5%.

SEPT 23 1989

Synode wrote: »

There would be chaos. It has to be phased out.

Remove all cigarettes from shops and make them only available from chemists on prescription

i am a smoker

everdead.ie

Daidy2011 wrote: »

......and watch the tax rate go up to 65%+ to cover the loss in excise duties they get from tobacco products........

Laudable objective (and I am a smoker) - don't ever see it happening.

Smoking related illness' cost more than the revenue generated I thought?

wp_rathead

Prohibition NEVER works

EDIT: just read it, doesn't say anything about banning smoking?

CianRyan

NiallSparky wrote: »

Same with alcohol.

No, alcohol has health benefits when the user is responsible and doesn't binge, where as having even 1 cigarette is bad for you.

the_syco

If he bans porn and smokes, people will be dropping dead from stress related illness left, right and centre!

Rented Mule

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Remove all cigarettes from shops and make them only available from chemists on prescription

i am a smoker

There will be truckloads of 'chemists' setting up shop all over the country.

mikom

Health Minister James Reilly has declared war on smoking, saying he wants a tobacco-free Ireland by 2025.

"It's the only product I know that is legally, freely available that will kill you if you use it, according to the manufacturers and so on," Dr Reilly said. "It's a fight that we cannot turn away from and that we can't afford to lose. It's a battle that will continue until it's won and it will be won."

Did he say this with a lump of burger sauce stuck to the side of his beard?

WinnyThePoo

CianRyan wrote: »

No, alcohol has health benefits when the user is responsible and doesn't binge, where as having even 1 cigarette is bad for you.

Bull.

Skid X

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

What's with the thread title? Nowhere does it say anything about banning smoking

It's in the Independent Headline, also in this Newstalk story

https://www.newstalk.ie/Reilly-wants-a-smoke-free-Ireland-by-2025

dr.bollocko

Skid X wrote: »

It's in the Independent Headline, also in this Newstalk story

https://www.newstalk.ie/Reilly-wants-a-smoke-free-Ireland-by-2025

I've edited to a more accurate representation of what the articles say. Meh. No biggy really.

Czarcasm

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

They're not banning smoking. They're aiming to reduce the number of smokers to 5%.

Thanks for that Nimrod.

Really getting tired of these sensationalist Daily Mail type OPs selectively edited to take information out of context and whip up a frenzy!

Wabbit Ears

everdead.ie wrote: »

Smoking related illness' cost more than the revenue generated I thought?

Yea, This whole argument that they would never lose the revenue is only looking at it from a single angle. We do spend an absolute fortune on tabacco related illness which is probably not as quantifiable as the tax intake its probably not that much of a loss to the coffers.

Skid X

I have no time for smoking, but a complete ban is a step too far.

If you want to smoke in your own house, it should be your choice.

Leroy42

But if they make it illegal, are the majority of people really going to break the law? Sure there will bethe diehards as with other drugs, but over time having to deal with dodgy characters to get the product, having to then go somewhere away from the crowd to smoke it and then sneak back without people noticing.

There is a big difference at the moment in that cigarettes are legal and so people don't bat an eyelid, but can you imagine firing up a joint at your workplace? How about taking some heroin? No, because the company wouldn't accept it. It would be the same for cigs if they are banned.

So yes there would still be illegal trade, but it would reduce fairly quickly and in the main most people would just quit.

CianRyan

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Bull.

1 glass of red wine a night can significantly reduce the risk of heart disease and beer (the wonder drink), when used (again) responsibly can reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer while helping with brain health, your kidneys and it's packed with nutrition.

So, what you mean by "bull" is, "I haven't a clue what I'm talking about and I like smoking so I'm going to make a **** attempt at shooting this guy down".

Brilliant, thanks.

Amirani

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

They're not banning smoking. They're aiming to reduce the number of smokers to 5%.

Dunno why you're quoting me there, I never claimed they were.

Peregrine

Skid X wrote: »

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

What's with the thread title? Nowhere does it say anything about banning smoking

It's in the Independent Headline, also in this Newstalk story

https://www.newstalk.ie/Reilly-wants-a-smoke-free-Ireland-by-2025

Minister seeks tobacco-free Ireland

Reilly wants a 'smoke free' Ireland by 2025

Minister plans to extend existing smoking ban

The 'smoking ban' is a ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants etc. and he wants to extend it to other public places. Hardly the same as banning smoking.

wretcheddomain

Getting sort of annoying to have fools going around saying 'Can we not have a nanny state, it's OUR choice blah blah blah'. Well, obviously you've forgotten about:

- Second hand smoke - coupled with the damage and distress it causes non-smokers.

- The cost you lot are costing the state with yer lung illnesses, cancer etc.

And let's not forget their favourite argument, 'The Argument from Alcohol'. When all else fails, use alcohol as an argument, right?

Basically, you lot go around stating 'Well, alcohol does MORE damage!', yeah, but how many people get 'addicted' to alcohol (alcoholism) and how many people get liver damage from 'second-hand drinking'? Even if you accept the premise, it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't tackle the smoking epidemic.

And the 'Argument from Sugary Sh**' - even if this were true, it doesn't mean that the government shouldn't make an effort to tackle each and every cause on its own merits and demerits, such as smoking.

Finally, I want to reiterate that I hate second hand smoking, I hate seeing cigarette butts f***ed across the road without a care, I hate seeing young people being influenced by people like you to take up the addiction. This is a good measure and any attempt to derail it is quite frankly pathetic.

Peregrine

NiallSparky wrote: »

Dunno why you're quoting me there, I never claimed they were.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post. Fixed.

PhlegmyMoses

Pretty sure Reilly currently smokes or recently smoked. Nothing like an evangelical ex-smoker with a bit of power.

Skid X

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

The Independent changed their headline since I posted the OP

It originally said the Government wanted to ban smoking by 2025

Peregrine

Skid X wrote: »

The Independent changed their headline since I posted the OP

It originally said the Government wanted to ban smoking by 2025

Ah the Independent..

Sorry about that one then


Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with aiming to reduce the number of smokers in the country from 29% (almost a third of the population :eek:). But I'm not sure about being able to bring that down to 5% in 12 years though.

Yakult

Ban cigarettes, legalize cannabis and very happy days!

Skid X

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Ah the Independent..

Sorry about that one then


Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with aiming to reduce the number of smokers in the country from 29% (almost a third of the population :eek:). But I'm not sure about being able to bring that down to 5% in 12 years though.

No worries, I can see why you thought I was sensationalising the story. I thought I was losing the plot until I figured out the Independent had amended their page.

Yes, It's going to be very hard to bring the percentage down to anything like 5%. I agree with the intent, but it's hard to see how they could achieve it.

OneArt

I wouldn't agree with a ban on tobacco, but if it happens... Oh well.

But don't you DARE touch e-cigarettes.

Boskowski

CianRyan wrote: »

What other products spring to mind?

Alcohol?

CianRyan

Boskowski wrote: »

Alcohol?

Wow, you don't like reading past the first page, do you?

wretcheddomain

OneArt wrote: »

e-cigarettes.

Are these like cigarettes you send through email?

Tony EH

Gumbi wrote: »

In fairness. Alcohol does a lot, LOT more damage than cigs. If people wanna smoke in their own let em shmoke. Christ, ****ing nanny state.

Alcohol doesn't automatically make you an addict.

The vast, vast majority of people can enjoy drinking and do not get an addiction and in many cases a long, lingering, miserable, death sentence.