Minister O'Reilly promotes road-rage charter

Snickers Man

Is there no end to the health minister's dumb comments? Have a listen to what he said on the one o'clock news today about his proposed legislation to ban people smoking in cars with children in them.


And as that is from the RTE Player and will expire in a few days, here's a transcript.

"I have absolutely no doubt that the Gardai will be able to enforce this but they won't have to themselves because it will be peer pressure from other drivers who will look across and see a kid in a car and an adult smoking. They're not going to tolerate that."

O really, O'Reilly? You're suggesting that drivers, instead of concentrating on the road should be monitoring the behaviour of other drivers? And furthermore should "not tolerate" some of the behaviours they may observe?

What should be their response? Jump out of the car and wrestle the cigarette out of the offender's mouth? Or just content themselves with finger wagging and headlamp flashing? Should they perhaps notify the police of the misdeed? To do which they might very probably have to break the far more sensible law on using a mobile phone while driving?

The minister has no business provoking road rage, which would be a very likely scenario to unfold if a legion of self-righteous finger waggers are given carte blanche to show their 'intolerance' of what people do in the privacy of their own shagging cars.

The man's a fool.

PS I'm a non smoker.

Ihatecuddles

I hate seeing people smoke with children in the car. Saw it yesterday, child strapped in carseat, mother puffing away while the baby is left to inhale it all.

I always wonder why they give me filthy looks, then I realise I've been staring in disgust!

StinkyMunkey

Only scum bags smoke while their childern are in the car, making it illegal will not stop it. The type who do it, dont have tax or insurance anyway.

I think a lot of these people are actually dettached from reality, who dream up these type of laws. Guards struggle with the resources they have at the moment.

Scotty P

The real question here is: what did the young Dictaphone toting journalist see to the right of the Minister that frightened her so!

No Pants

Snickers Man wrote: »

Should they perhaps notify the police of the misdeed? To do which they might very probably have to break the far more sensible law on using a mobile phone while driving?

Calling the guards from your mobile is legal I believe.

upstairs for coffee

So now the state gets to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own car.

matt.finn

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Only scum bags smoke while their childern are in the car, making it illegal will not stop it. The type who do it, dont have tax or insurance anyway.

:eek:

Bit of a generalisation no?

I agree that it should be illegal btw.

Hermy

Some drivers still haven't grasped the importance of seat belts/ baby chairs for their children in a car and now we expect they're gonna be embarrassed into not smoking in their cars. Yeah right!

Guy:Incognito

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

So now the state gets to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own car.

No, it gets to dictate how you harm your children.

Smoke away all you like on your own.

b_mac

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

So now the state gets to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own car.

Cant see a 1 year old child telling his/her disgusting mother to put the cigarrete out.

krudler

They should ban children, they ruin everything for the rest of us

Turtyturd

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

So now the state gets to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own car.

If you're ignorant /stupid enough to smoke in the car with your kids in it they should probably make most of your decisions for you.

No Pants

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

privacy

A strange term to use for something in which everyone can see you from all directions and had an ID stuck on the front and back.

Lenin Skynard

I wonder if I start throwing disapproving glances at Reilly's stomach, will he stop eating so many pies? I doubt it.

Guy:Incognito

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

I wonder if I start throwing disapproving glances at Reilly's stomach, will he stop eating so many pies? I doubt it.

If him eating pies gives the rest of the people in the room cancer then you fire away.

EyeSight

it's a stupid nanny state law. Why stop here? Why not have a law for pregnant people smoking/drinking?

Most people know it's stupid to do these things and don't do it. We don't need a law for it. Small things like this should not be on our list of priorities in this country

StinkyMunkey

matt.finn wrote: »

:eek:

Bit of a generalisation no?

I agree that it should be illegal btw.

I dont care what back round your from, smoking with your child in the car makes you a scum bag by default.

Guy:Incognito

EyeSight wrote: »

Most people know it's stupid to do these things and don't do it. We don't need a law for it. Small things like this should not be on our list of priorities in this country

Just like a lot of laws, they don't affect most people. It's the other idiots that the law is for. If your a member of the group that don't do it anyway then what difference does it make if its against the law?

Lenin Skynard

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just like a lot of laws, they don't affect most people. It's the other idiots that the law is for. If your a member of the group that don't do it anyway then what difference does it make if its against the law?

If you're a member of the group that does do it, what difference does it make if it's against the law? The kind of asshole that smokes with a child in the car isn't going to stop because of an unenforceable law.

Davidth88

Jesus .... if I had a penny for the amount of times I see kids jumping around the back seat without belts/ car seats I would be a rich man.

They should enforce the rules they have before they make new ones

( I am a non smoker and hate the idea of smoking in a car with kids )

Snickers Man

mauzo! wrote: »

I hate seeing people smoke with children in the car. Saw it yesterday, child strapped in carseat, mother puffing away while the baby is left to inhale it all.

I always wonder why they give me filthy looks, then I realise I've been staring in disgust!

Serves you right for harassment. Keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.

Satriale

More in his line to watch the road, and not be crashing Fr Teds car...

893bet

Snickers Man wrote: »

O really, O'Reilly? You're suggesting that drivers, instead of concentrating on the road should be monitoring the behaviour of other drivers? And furthermore should "not tolerate" some of the behaviours they may observe?

What should be their response? Jump out of the car and wrestle the cigarette out of the offender's mouth? Or just content themselves with finger wagging and headlamp flashing? Should they perhaps notify the police of the misdeed? To do which they might very probably have to break the far more sensible law on using a mobile phone while driving?

The minister has no business provoking road rage, which would be a very likely scenario to unfold if a legion of self-righteous finger waggers are given carte blanche to show their 'intolerance' of what people do in the privacy of their own shagging cars.

The man's a fool.

PS I'm a non smoker.

No you are suggesting all the above. Which is a fair extrapolation from what he said.

He mentioned "peer pressure" not road rage. A tad different.


Be honest. You just wanted a rant.

upstairs for coffee

Turtyturd wrote: »

If you're ignorant /stupid enough to smoke in the car with your kids in it they should probably make most of your decisions for you.

Suppose you would be in favour of the Government dictating what parents can and cannot cook their children in the evenings too.

RoboRat

I have a mate who's father smoked all the time when he was a kid in the car, the guy has never smoked in his life but is suffering from lung cancer and has spent his entire life with chronic respiratory illnesses. He is thankfully in remission but its completely down to his father that he will probably will die from this horrible illness.

People who smoke in cars with their kids should be jailed.

mikemac1

A lot of the women I see smoking in their car with children in the back will have the breast cancer ribbon on the back of the car

That must make it ok so

RoboRat

A lot of the women I see smoking in their car with children in the back will have the breast cancer ribbon on the back of the car

Just like a lot of cosmetic companies who 'support' breast cancer awareness are also using ingredients that cause breast cancer.

Actions speak louder than stickers in this case.

Ihatecuddles

Snickers Man wrote: »

Serves you right for harassment. Keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.

Where did I say I was driving? I don't even know how to drive!!!

Snickers Man

893bet wrote: »

No you are suggesting all the above. Which is a fair extrapolation from what he said.

He mentioned "peer pressure" not road rage. A tad different.


Be honest. You just wanted a rant.

Kind of the purpose of this forum, don't ya think?

But seriously. What sort of "peer pressure" does he expect? Toot Toot? Wag. Wag? Or just the "dirty look" through the windscreen already favoured by mauzo1 above?

Do you really think that's going to achieve anything other than annoying the ****e out of people. Which is not what you want to do to drivers.

No Pants

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Suppose you would be in favour of the Government dictating what parents can and cannot cook their children in the evenings too.

It depends. Are we talking about cooking food with poison in it? I think that's the comparison that you're looking for.

EyeSight

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just like a lot of laws, they don't affect most people. It's the other idiots that the law is for. If your a member of the group that don't do it anyway then what difference does it make if its against the law?

it's a waste of time. The government ignore so many issues, especially regarding health. Yet this is a priority?
The guards waste enough time on "cracking down" on road offences. I don't agree with speeding or drink driving, but i would be happier to see the same amount of effort cracking down on junkies, drug dealing and anti social behaviour

No Pants

EyeSight wrote: »

Yet this is a priority?

Who said this was a priority? This has been on the back burner for years.

Turtyturd

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Suppose you would be in favour of the Government dictating what parents can and cannot cook their children in the evenings too.

If the parents forced kids to eat the cancer causing food they were too selfish to give up then yes...yes I would.

darkpagandeath

Toxic car fumes are just as bad should we ban parents from exposing children to these fumes by banning children from cars ? The same finger wagers are the types that sit outside a primary school on the pavement with the engine on waiting for their child to come out. Guess pumping out fumes is ok. And on the food end of it yes fatty/sugary food is just as bad should we make laws about children's weight. And fine parents who's children are fat ?

D1stant

EyeSight wrote: »

it's a stupid nanny state law. Why stop here? Why not have a law for pregnant people smoking/drinking?

Most people know it's stupid to do these things and don't do it. We don't need a law for it. Small things like this should not be on our list of priorities in this country

Exactly. This is all just bullsh1t by O Reilly trying to get some kudos. Completely unenforceable law. Red tape on stupidity does not work.

EyeSight

No Pants wrote: »

Who said this was a priority? This has been on the back burner for years.

if its on the table to be a law soon then that's a priority. It may have been a low priority in the past but it seems to be high now.

Cookie_Monster

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Toxic car fumes are just as bad should we ban parents from exposing children to these fumes by banning children from cars ?

or just ban diesel cars since the are much much worse than petrol...

Snickers Man

D1stant wrote: »

This is all just bullsh1t by O Reilly trying to get some kudos. Completely unenforceable law. Red tape on stupidity does not work.

Of course it's an unenforceable law. Which is exactly why he wants the Tut Tut brigade to scrutinise all other cars while they're stopped at lights to make sure they are adhering to up to the minute pieties.

Brings out the very worst in the very worst of people.

darkpagandeath

Snickers Man wrote: »

Of course it's an unenforceable law. Which is exactly why he wants the Tut Tut brigade to scrutinise all other cars while they're stopped at lights to make sure they are adhering to up to the minute pieties.

Brings out the very worst in the very worst of people.

Yeah mob rule always works out well....

Ihatecuddles

Snickers Man wrote: »

Of course it's an unenforceable law. Which is exactly why he wants the Tut Tut brigade to scrutinise all other cars while they're stopped at lights to make sure they are adhering to up to the minute pieties.

Brings out the very worst in the very worst of people.

Sometimes when someone is so careless and thick you can't help but gawk at them.

RainyDay

While I generally concur with the point about enforcing current laws before bringing in new ones, it is worth pointing out that the workplace smoking ban was largely peer-policed. Yes, there was a small group of Environmental Health Officers who could bring prosecutions, but the number of prosecutions was tiny. This ban changed smoking culture and indeed socialising culture in this country, with little or no enforcement.

It could possibly work...

darkpagandeath

RainyDay wrote: »

While I generally concur with the point about enforcing current laws before bringing in new ones, it is worth pointing out that the workplace smoking ban was largely peer-policed. Yes, there was a small group of Environmental Health Officers who could bring prosecutions, but the number of prosecutions was tiny. This ban changed smoking culture and indeed socialising culture in this country, with little or no enforcement.

It could possibly work...

That's because smokers no matter how much they are portrayed as monsters follow the law like everyone else. I'm more on about people doing the whole taking the law into their own hands if this comes in and trying to be a vigilantly. Could end up with some over zealous anti smoker sees a car seat in a car ahead seeing someone smoking in the car. Going up to the car either shouting or trying to pull the smoker out the car. when all along there was no child in the car seat.

Pumpkinseeds

It's a bit strong to say that parents who smoke while their kids are in the car are either scumbags or monsters. Most of us, over the age of 30, whose parents smoked did it without a second thought and most of us are still here.

I know we're all aware of how bad it is and I don't condone it, but seriously, I think that there will be some serious assaults if people take it upon themselves to approach someone to criticise them about smoking while the child is in the car.

Maybe they can set up a system where neighbours can spy on smoking parents who smoke in the house, like a commies under the bed situation. There could be a hotline you phone to report Biddy and Joe from next door for smoking in the house while the kids are indoors.

You have to love the State, I've 3 'sorry you're the victim of a crime' letters gathering dust here, but Minister Shatter is more concerned about people smoking while thier kids are in the car. Sounds about right.

I haven't smoked for 7 years.

Stavros Murphy

People feeding their kids sweets -ohhhh. Now there's another for the nannies. Diabetes. Someone think of the kids. Only bad, stupid, illegal scumbaggy people let their kids eat sweets. And swimming - people drown ffs, ban it now. Only silly parents would let their kids go into somwhere they could drown. Or running - any idea how many kids trip and hurt themselves?? It should be licenced immediately.

Does the flow of rules ever end? Will we all have to cycle around in stab-vests(hi-vis obviously) on rubber roads in case someone dies? This country gets dopier, more Ray Darcyfied by the day. Does this gobdaw really think people who smoke with kids in the cars will give two fcuks? What about in their sitting rooms? Install CCTV there, just in case?

RainyDay

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That's because smokers no matter how much they are portrayed as monsters follow the law like everyone else. I'm more on about people doing the whole taking the law into their own hands if this comes in and trying to be a vigilantly. Could end up with some over zealous anti smoker sees a car seat in a car ahead seeing someone smoking in the car. Going up to the car either shouting or trying to pull the smoker out the car. when all along there was no child in the car seat.

Don't see the big difference between current smoking ban and new ban - we don't generally see people being vigilantes now under the current ban, so why would people go all wild under the new law, but not the current law.

darkpagandeath

RainyDay wrote: »

Don't see the big difference between current smoking ban and new ban - we don't generally see people being vigilantes now under the current ban, so why would people go all wild under the new law, but not the current law.

Because that was to do with a public place/place of work. Your car is not a public place. People will get touchy about it. Will only end in tears. And Smokers enforced the ban themselves by going to the designated areas.

And yes I am a Smoker and no I would not smoke in the house or car with children about. I have self control, Some people don't and I can only imagine what will happen when some busy body points this out to some skanger in a car. Or other way round.

RainyDay

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Because that was to do with a public place/place of work. Your car is not a public place. People will get touchy about it. Will only end in tears. And Smokers enforced the ban themselves by going to the designated areas.

And yes I am a Smoker and no I would not smoke in the house or car with children about. I have self control, Some people don't and I can only imagine what will happen when some busy body points this out to some skanger in a car. Or other way round.

I remember the very impassioned debates from smokers 10 years ago about how sacrosanct the pub was, and how central it was to the rural community, and how they were never going to allow the ban to be imposed. But common sense prevailed then, and will most likely prevail on this issue.

Snickers Man

RainyDay wrote: »

While I generally concur with the point about enforcing current laws before bringing in new ones, it is worth pointing out that the workplace smoking ban was largely peer-policed. Yes, there was a small group of Environmental Health Officers who could bring prosecutions, but the number of prosecutions was tiny. This ban changed smoking culture and indeed socialising culture in this country, with little or no enforcement.

It could possibly work...

One way of looking at that is to acknowledge that the ban only works because of the willing co-operation of smokers. They say "Fair enough. People don't want to breathe our smoke; we'll go outside for a puff."

It's the benign co-operation of the smokers; not the implied latent threat of the non-smokers that makes the current ban operate successfully.

In fact, if smokers wanted to get tough about this they could mount a fairly successful civil disobedience campaign. I'd love to see it, even as a non smoker.

So saying a nation-wide group of smokers said we're going to demand that any proposed legislation to prevent us smoking in our own homes and cars is dropped. If it isn't, we will deliberately infringe the current smoking ban on a concerted planned basis.

Imagine. You're on a Bus Eireann coach pulling out of Busaras heading to, I don't know, say Limerick. As the bus enters the port tunnel a polite person stands up and says:

"Excuse me ladies and gentlemen. We apologise for any inconvenience but there are six of us here who object to government intrusion into our personal spaces and as such we are deliberately going to break the law by lighting up cigarettes on this coach. It is part of a concerted campaign of civil disobedience engaged in by smokers to defeat this proposed legislation.

"We fully realise that this will irritate and annoy many of you and you will be entitled to insist that the coach driver stop the bus and have us removed. But we won't go. So he'll have to call the police. And you will have to wait by the roadside until the police arrive.

"I should also tell you that similar protests are taking place as we speak on buses and trains throughout the country so the police are going to be a tad overstretched dealing with all the cases. Maybe they will come to this coach first; maybe not. In either case I deeply regret if any of you are in a hurry.

"You may attempt to take the law into your own hands. We would caution you that we are all carrying video recording equipment and any assault by any of you on any of us will be reported to the police. Even if they do not push criminal charges we will insist on their gathering the necessary information for us to press civil cases for damages. They are obliged to follow up such requests ie taking your names and addresses so that summonses may be issued.

"Or you could just suck up the smoke as it were and continue on your way nostalgic for the days when smokers did what they were told and obeyed the consensus. Let me assure you that we want a return to those days of respectful co-existence and that this is not an attempt to have smoking bans in public places overturned.

"But we think the proposed ban is a step too far and we are determined to fight it. Thank you for your patience."

Worked for Gandhi.

RainyDay

Snickers Man wrote: »

One way of looking at that is to acknowledge that the ban only works because of the willing co-operation of smokers. They say "Fair enough. People don't want to breathe our smoke; we'll go outside for a puff."

It's the benign co-operation of the smokers; not the implied latent threat of the non-smokers that makes the current ban operate successfully.

In fact, if smokers wanted to get tough about this they could mount a fairly successful civil disobedience campaign. I'd love to see it, even as a non smoker.

So saying a nation-wide group of smokers said we're going to demand that any proposed legislation to prevent us smoking in our own homes and cars is dropped. If it isn't, we will deliberately infringe the current smoking ban on a concerted planned basis.

Imagine. You're on a Bus Eireann coach pulling out of Busaras heading to, I don't know, say Limerick. As the bus enters the port tunnel a polite person stands up and says:

"Excuse me ladies and gentlemen. We apologise for any inconvenience but there are six of us here who object to government intrusion into our personal spaces and as such we are deliberately going to break the law by lighting up cigarettes on this coach. It is part of a concerted campaign of civil disobedience engaged in by smokers to defeat this proposed legislation.

"We fully realise that this will irritate and annoy many of you and you will be entitled to insist that the coach driver stop the bus and have us removed. But we won't go. So he'll have to call the police. And you will have to wait by the roadside until the police arrive.

"I should also tell you that similar protests are taking place as we speak on buses and trains throughout the country so the police are going to be a tad overstretched dealing with all the cases. Maybe they will come to this coach first; maybe not. In either case I deeply regret if any of you are in a hurry.

"You may attempt to take the law into your own hands. We would caution you that we are all carrying video recording equipment and any assault by any of you on any of us will be reported to the police. Even if they do not push criminal charges we will insist on their gathering the necessary information for us to press civil cases for damages. They are obliged to follow up such requests ie taking your names and addresses so that summonses may be issued.

"Or you could just suck up the smoke as it were and continue on your way nostalgic for the days when smokers did what they were told and obeyed the consensus. Let me assure you that we want a return to those days of respectful co-existence and that this is not an attempt to have smoking bans in public places overturned.

"But we think the proposed ban is a step too far and we are determined to fight it. Thank you for your patience."

Worked for Gandhi.

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of macho stuff we heard before the original workplace smoking ban, about how the tough guys were going to ignore the ban. Remember what happened to the tough guys in the Galway pub;
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1004/55144-smoking/

But regardless, you plan is fairly flawed. In the scenario you outline, I don't think any Court would prosecute anybody who just takes your smokes off you. Or better still, just uses a bottle of water to extinguish each cigarette.

Or the Bus Eireann driver just stops off at the nearest Garda Station on the route and gets you taken off.

If you fancy your chances, give it a shot, but I honestly can't see it working. And don't have Ghandi spinning in his grave by associating him with folk who want to breath carcinogenic fumes over bus passengers or children.

Snickers Man

RainyDay wrote: »

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of macho stuff we heard before the original workplace smoking ban, about how the tough guys were going to ignore the ban. Remember what happened to the tough guys in the Galway pub;
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1004/55144-smoking/

What's macho about the, admittedly hypothetical, scenario I described? What I suggested was a peaceful, determined concerted campaign of civil disobedience. Nowhere did I say the disobedient smokers should retaliate to physical attempts to remove their cigarettes or behave in a threatening manner at all. This is not the "Come take it!" attitude of American gun nuts to any attempt to limit the current freedom they have to tote any sort of gun more or less anywhere.

Rather it is an attempt to showcase the basis of co-existence in a free society, namely the consent of the governed to be governed. As long as people agree that laws are just and fair, they will obey them, even if they don't particularly like them.

Now such a campaign as I described, which is polite, apologetic but nonetheless determined, is difficult to co-ordinate. It requires participants to accept that they are breaking the law and that there will be consequences. I'm not sure what the penalty for smoking on a train is but I imagine a fine of a few hundred euro is possible. If people really wanted to get militant about it they might refuse to pay those fines and force the authorities to put them in jail. If there is enough room.

That is the whole point of civil disobedience: to make enforcement of an unjust or unnecessary law more trouble than it is worth.

The sort of swaggering macho Galway man to which you make reference in your link would be no use to such a campaign. Their point of view is the egotistical "This law doesn't apply to me; I'll ignore it" which only reinforces the moral position of the law. But a group of determined people saying "This law applies to everyone equally and we would rather it applied to nobody, therefore we will take action to attempt to force its repeal" is a different matter altogether.

RainyDay wrote: »

But regardless, you plan is fairly flawed. In the scenario you outline, I don't think any Court would prosecute anybody who just takes your smokes off you. Or better still, just uses a bottle of water to extinguish each cigarette.

Or the Bus Eireann driver just stops off at the nearest Garda Station on the route and gets you taken off.

Provoking others into illegality to match your own, making enforcement of the law more trouble than having it in the first place. This is what civil disobedience is all about. And has always been about.

RainyDay wrote: »

If you fancy your chances, give it a shot, but I honestly can't see it working.

I am not at all convinced that smokers in Ireland have the necessary determination to mount such a concerted campaign. I repeat: it is absolutely NOT about some boorish oaf saying "Feck youse. I'm lighting up". It's about a group of people, and necessarily quite a large group, working to a set goal, temporarily flouting a law, which they will later go back to obeying, to have another one rescinded.

Maybe many smokers welcome this as another piece of crude social engineering in furtherance of a goal that they already have: namely quitting smoking and do not, by extension, object to it. Perhaps that has figured in the government's calculations.

Then again, people like their actions to be their own ideas. And NOBODY likes finger waggers, who Minister O'Reilly in his great wisdom has identified as the key agents of enforcement of this proposed ban. The simple delight many people, including non smokers like myself, would take in wagging two fingers back at such people might yet be proven to be significant.

Sometimes you can push just a little too far.

RainyDay wrote: »

And don't have Ghandi spinning in his grave by associating him with folk who want to breath carcinogenic fumes over bus passengers or children.

Tactical equivalence, not moral equivalence.

RainyDay

Snickers Man wrote: »

What's macho about the, admittedly hypothetical, scenario I described? What I suggested was a peaceful, determined concerted campaign of civil disobedience. Nowhere did I say the disobedient smokers should retaliate to physical attempts to remove their cigarettes or behave in a threatening manner at all. This is not the "Come take it!" attitude of American gun nuts to any attempt to limit the current freedom they have to tote any sort of gun more or less anywhere.

Rather it is an attempt to showcase the basis of co-existence in a free society, namely the consent of the governed to be governed. As long as people agree that laws are just and fair, they will obey them, even if they don't particularly like them.

Now such a campaign as I described, which is polite, apologetic but nonetheless determined, is difficult to co-ordinate. It requires participants to accept that they are breaking the law and that there will be consequences. I'm not sure what the penalty for smoking on a train is but I imagine a fine of a few hundred euro is possible. If people really wanted to get militant about it they might refuse to pay those fines and force the authorities to put them in jail. If there is enough room.

That is the whole point of civil disobedience: to make enforcement of an unjust or unnecessary law more trouble than it is worth.

The sort of swaggering macho Galway man to which you make reference in your link would be no use to such a campaign. Their point of view is the egotistical "This law doesn't apply to me; I'll ignore it" which only reinforces the moral position of the law. But a group of determined people saying "This law applies to everyone equally and we would rather it applied to nobody, therefore we will take action to attempt to force its repeal" is a different matter altogether.



Provoking others into illegality to match your own, making enforcement of the law more trouble than having it in the first place. This is what civil disobedience is all about. And has always been about.



I am not at all convinced that smokers in Ireland have the necessary determination to mount such a concerted campaign. I repeat: it is absolutely NOT about some boorish oaf saying "Feck youse. I'm lighting up". It's about a group of people, and necessarily quite a large group, working to a set goal, temporarily flouting a law, which they will later go back to obeying, to have another one rescinded.

Maybe many smokers welcome this as another piece of crude social engineering in furtherance of a goal that they already have: namely quitting smoking and do not, by extension, object to it. Perhaps that has figured in the government's calculations.

Then again, people like their actions to be their own ideas. And NOBODY likes finger waggers, who Minister O'Reilly in his great wisdom has identified as the key agents of enforcement of this proposed ban. The simple delight many people, including non smokers like myself, would take in wagging two fingers back at such people might yet be proven to be significant.

Sometimes you can push just a little too far.





Tactical equivalence, not moral equivalence.

Best of luck with it so. Just watch out for the bloke with the 2-litre bottle of water who pours it over your cigarettes.