Smoking Tobacco Products Ban in Ireland?

donutheadhomer

Should smoking tobacco products be banned in Ireland on the grounds that it causes harm to others/self and the health risks are too high to allow the habit to continue.
I know the government make a shedload of money in tobacco tax but is it worth it.

kneemos

I would have welcomed the idea when I used to smoke.I reackon most would now as well despite the cries of civil liberties and nanny state.

donutheadhomer

kneemos wrote: »

I would have welcomed the idea when I used to smoke.I reackon most would now as well despite the cries of civil liberties and nanny state.

indeed - there are lots of ways the state seeks to protect its citizens - should the population be protected from smoking?

Links234

No because prohibition doesn't work.

Think existing smokers would just give up like that? I'd say many would turn to illegal sources to feed their habit, thus fueling more crime. Same reason the whole 'war on drugs' is bull**** and doesn't work. Same reason why prohibition in the states didn't work.

Let people smoke if they want to, and I say that as someone who really despises cigarette smoke

PizzamanIRL

Where health is involved, all the government cares about is money.

So don't get your hopes up.

FatRat

No. I love an aul fag or two when I can hardly walk on a night out. I'd hate to see that luxury being taken away from me.

BNMC

FatRat wrote: »

No. I love an aul fag or two when I can hardly walk on a night out. I'd hate to see that luxury being taken away from me.

Must. Resist. Urge.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

donutheadhomer wrote: »

indeed - there are lots of ways the state seeks to protect its citizens - should the population be protected from smoking?

Yes protect us from ourselves, please! Ban tobacco, ban alcohol, ban driving over 49kmh, ban rock climbing, pot holing, swimming , running in the playground, the use of all power tools, indeed anything that carries a risk. Please!

whupdedo

They should increase the price up to 15 euro and at least it would go some way to covering the health care costs associated with smoking related health issues

The Pheasant2

donutheadhomer wrote: »

indeed - there are lots of ways the state seeks to protect its citizens - should the population be protected from smoking?

Don't smoke myself but there's not a chance I'd be in favour of this - can't stand the government interfering with people's private lives

Howard Juneau

Has James Reilly not already said he wants a ban on tobacco products by 2030/35?

The Pheasant2

whupdedo wrote: »

They should increase the price up to 15 euro and at least it would go some way to covering the health care costs associated with smoking related health issues

Yeh that wouldn't drive people to funding illegal smuggling at all

Wibbs

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Has James Reilly not already said he wants a ban on tobacco products by 2030/35?

A ban on cake products might suit him and others more.

kev1.3s

Links234 wrote: »

No because prohibition doesn't work.

Think existing smokers would just give up like that? I'd say many would turn to illegal sources to feed their habit, thus fueling more crime. Same reason the whole 'war on drugs' is bull**** and doesn't work. Same reason why prohibition in the states didn't work.

Let people smoke if they want to, and I say that as someone who really despises cigarette smoke

Agree! And I'm an ex-smoker who despises them now but banning them will only increase criminal activity whilst flooding the black market with god knows what which would potentially be more harmful to the users health, all the while probably putting more pressure on the health system that is not getting any funding from the duty on the fags! That is of course if they do get any of that. I know there is a lot of ifs and butts but I'd much rather people abuseing substances that are controlled than products sold by dealers.

0ph0rce0

Do people in After Hours that do always be in After Hours not read any previous threads and just start the same thread over and over, Well maybe a new title to spice it up a bit....































Fags Are Deadly, We Should Ban You OP

kneemos

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Do people in After Hours that do always be in After Hours not read any previous threads and just start the same thread over and over, Well maybe a new title to spice it up a bit....































Fags Are Deadly, We Should Ban You OP

If threads weren't repeated this place would close down.

FatRat

BNMC wrote: »

Must. Resist. Urge.

I do try and resist to be honest but only because girls find it very unatractive.

RayM

It would be impractical to ban them overnight, but the government should set a date for an all-out ban. Give existing smokers a couple of years to quit before criminalising manufacture, sale and possession of all tobacco products. It wouldn't be an easy habit to hide, so I think most smokers would probably sooner quit than risk becoming criminals.

P_1

RayM wrote: »

It would be impractical to ban them overnight, but the government should set a date for an all-out ban. Give existing smokers a couple of years to quit before criminalising manufacture, sale and possession of all tobacco products. It wouldn't be an easy habit to hide, so I think most smokers would probably sooner quit than risk becoming criminals.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

kneemos

I'd see it as an incentive and an aid to quitting rather than interference by the state.

J_E

Banning anything that's popular and what people want will just cause it to enter a black market. Look at the likes of cannabis. I'm not a fan of smoking but I'd rather see a better effort made in prevention than banning.

RayM wrote: »

Yeah, really. Most smokers actually want to quit anyway. How many normal, law-abiding people would risk becoming criminals for a habit that they know is probably killing them slowly and definitely making them poorer?

This won't stop someone who's addicted to smoking, they'll simply seek a different outlet. Knowing Irish law, it will probably be lax and rarely upheld in private places. "How many normal, law-abiding people" How many normal, law-abiding people admit to smoking a joint?

RayM

P_1 wrote: »

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Yeah, really. Most smokers actually want to quit anyway. How many normal, law-abiding people would risk becoming criminals for a habit that they know is probably killing them slowly and definitely making them poorer?

P_1

RayM wrote: »

Yeah, really. Most smokers actually want to quit anyway. How many normal, law-abiding people would risk becoming criminals for a habit that they know is probably killing them slowly and definitely making them poorer?

Dunno, perhaps you might be willing to do a quick straw poll in your nearest pub?

batman88

I know this might sound stupid but what about an age card type card that you can apply for within a three year period and cigarettes can only be sold to people with these cards after the three years. Will stop new people starting and kill the tobacco industry altogether.

CJhaughey

RayM wrote: »

Yeah, really. Most smokers actually want to quit anyway. How many normal, law-abiding people would risk becoming criminals for a habit that they know is probably killing them slowly and definitely making them poorer?

Judging by the Australian example, Plenty

Peregrine

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Has James Reilly not already said he wants a ban on tobacco products by 2030/35?

No. He said he wants to reduce the number of smokers significantly. He didn't say anything about banning it.

Banning cigarettes won't reduce the number of smokers, not much anyway. Most smokers would turn to the black market and as long as there's demand, there will always be people to meet that demand. So we'll lose a load of money in taxes and the people who smoke the products could be smoking even worse things and this would increase the number of patients with smoking related diseases.

Not a good idea imo, and I say this as a non smoker.

Links234

It's social attitudes that will reduce smoking, not outright bans.

P_1

Links234 wrote: »

It's social attitudes that will reduce smoking, not outright bans.

True, people rarely tend to respond well to top down edicts but good old fashioned peer pressure tends to work quite well (which would be kinda ironic wrt smoking)

darkpagandeath

Why are people so consumed with wanting the government to run their daily lives ? lets just get it all over and done with .... ban smoking, sugar, alcohol, fatty foods, restrict transport to 45 kph, no adults without children in areas with children in them, ban porn, ban any negative media, 1 hour of TV internet per day, ban violent video games, ban violent films. Nice list is it not ... worst thing is some people would love this. Actually lets just go back to times where we all were happy to pay our wages in rent to our boss and work 14 hours a day as your being productive then...

[-0-]

I don't smoke, never have, never will. Smoking tobacco has caused cancer in several of my family members and they died from it. Despite this, I don't wish to see it banned. People are big enough, and bold enough, to be allowed do what they like. They're not kids. If they want to kill themselves it's their prerogative. It's none of the government's business either.

RayM

CJhaughey wrote: »

Judging by the Australian example, Plenty

From that article:

The KPMG report was commissioned by big players in the legal tobacco industry.

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

From that article:

The KPMG report was commissioned by big players in the legal tobacco industry.

Bet you would believe an article written by an anti smoking group saying passive smoking can kill you in one whiff though...

thecatspjs

100% of non-smokers die

Howard Juneau

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

No. He said he wants to reduce the number of smokers significantly. He didn't say anything about banning it.

Banning cigarettes won't reduce the number of smokers, not much anyway. Most smokers would turn to the black market and as long as there's demand, there will always be people to meet that demand. So we'll lose a load of money in taxes and the people who smoke the products could be smoking even worse things and this would increase the number of patients with smoking related diseases.

Not a good idea imo, and I say this as a non smoker.

Tobacco free Ireland by 2025 said the article

darkpagandeath

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Tobacco free Ireland by 2025 said the article

Just like we have an Illegal drug free Ireland ?

Howard Juneau

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Just like we have an Illegal drug free Ireland ?

Couldnt give a fck, just repeating what was quoted in the paper ,

RayM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Bet you would believe an article written by an anti smoking group saying passive smoking can kill you in one whiff though...

To be honest, I would sooner trust an anti-smoking group (whose agenda is simple - save people's lives) than the tobacco industry (whose agenda is equally simple - get people addicted to highly carcinogenic substances before they're legally old enough to make an informed choice).

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

To be honest, I would sooner trust an anti-smoking group (whose agenda is simple - save people's lives) than the tobacco industry (whose agenda is equally simple - get people addicted to highly carcinogenic substances before they're legally old enough to make an informed choice).

Lets ban car companies selling their product on TV then too....

And that's a very naive attitude to have it's not about saving lives with most of them groups it's about enforcing their view onto other's just like them hard-core animal rights crowds..

kneemos

Ban cigarettes and subsidise E cigarettes for six months.

My name is URL

I voted yes and I'm a smoker. It'd be interesting to see what the affects of a ban were if nothing else. It'd be doomed to fail from the get-go however. I doubt that even a sizeable minority of doctors would be in favour of a complete ban.

RayM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Lets ban car companies selling there product on TV then too....

And that's a very naive attitude to have it's not about saving lives with most of them groups it's about enforcing their view onto other's just like them hard-core animal rights crowds..

So organisations like the Irish Cancer Society are just enforcing their own view onto others for the sheer hell of it? You'd sooner trust reports commissioned by the tobacco industry than by an organisation like the Irish Cancer Society? Seriously?

darkpagandeath

RayM wrote: »

So organisations like the Irish Cancer Society are just enforcing their own view onto others for the sheer hell of it? You'd sooner trust reports commissioned by the tobacco industry than by an organisation like the Irish Cancer Society? Seriously?

You're missing the part out where I said most ...

whats the point

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You're missing the part out where I said most ...

The bit in that article about passive smoking, just seems like extreme scaremongering to me.

MadsL

Links234 wrote: »

No because prohibition doesn't work.

Think existing smokers would just give up like that? I'd say many would turn to illegal sources to feed their habit, thus fueling more crime. Same reason the whole 'war on drugs' is bull**** and doesn't work. Same reason why prohibition in the states didn't work.

Let people smoke if they want to, and I say that as someone who really despises cigarette smoke

P_1 wrote: »

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Except that most prohibitions ban the active ingrediant that addicts are addicted to, no-one is proposing banning nicotine, just the lethal delivery system. There are numerous ways to ingest nicotine that would still be legal.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Bet you would believe an article written by an anti smoking group saying passive smoking can kill you in one whiff though...

A severe athsma attack can and does kill people. That can be set off by a whiff of cigarette smoke. So passive smoking CAN kill you in one whiff.

darkpagandeath

MadsL wrote: »

Except that most prohibitions ban the active ingrediant that addicts are addicted to, no-one is proposing banning nicotine, just the lethal delivery system. There are numerous ways to ingest nicotine that would still be legal.



A severe athsma attack can and does kill people. That can be set off by a whiff of cigarette smoke. So passive smoking CAN kill you in one whiff.

Here we go again .....

MadsL

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Here we go again .....

Am I factually wrong?

Nemeses

Do you want to tackle obesity whilst your at it OP?

darkpagandeath

MadsL wrote: »

Am I factually wrong?

If I had a severe illness/condition I would have to take a risk assessment of living my life or locking my self away. Yes I would expect people to be courteous if they were aware of my condition. But it would be my condition to manage not society's. And it is well known that asthma can be set off by a huge list of things but I’m not going down that road again....

My name is URL

MadsL wrote: »

Except that most prohibitions ban the active ingrediant that addicts are addicted to, no-one is proposing banning nicotine, just the lethal delivery system. There are numerous ways to ingest nicotine that would still be legal.



A severe athsma attack can and does kill people. That can be set off by a whiff of cigarette smoke. So passive smoking CAN kill you in one whiff.

This all the more humorous considering your views on gun control laws.

MadsL

My name is URL wrote: »

This all the more humorous considering your views on gun control laws.

Bullets are not vapourised and tend to go mostly where you intend them to go, unlike cig smoke.

Completely off-topic and ad hominum too.

Days 298

And we are off.....