Waterford to ban swearing/smoking in parks

Gas Jockey

katydid wrote: »

Not really. Alcohol isn't harmful per se. Overindulgence is.

Same with anything. All things are harmful in sufficient quantities, even oxygen.The trick is to work out what is considered a tolerable level, not necessarily a safe level.

katydid

Gas Jockey wrote: »

Same with anything. All things are harmful in sufficient quantities, even oxygen.The trick is to work out what is considered a tolerable level, not necessarily a safe level.

Nope, tobacco is just harmful. Full stop. There is no tolerable or safe level

Gas Jockey

katydid wrote: »

Nope, tobacco is just harmful. Full stop. There is no tolerable or safe level

1 cigarette a year? Even plutonium has a "non toxic" level.

Gas Jockey

katydid wrote: »

Nope, tobacco is just harmful. Full stop. There is no tolerable or safe level

"The tipping point" by Malcolm Gladwell has a good chapter on cigarettes. Well worth a read, and notj ust for that part.

jonski

katydid wrote:

Nope, tobacco is just harmful. Full stop. There is no tolerable or safe level

A neighbour of ours smoked since he was 14 ( or so he said ) , lived to be 105 . Tbf , that is a beside the point anecdote , I was never here to argue in favour of smoking , my problem is with the ban on e-cigs .

lostboy75

katydid wrote: »

smoking is evil.

that one statement means as far as i am concerned you lose all arguments.
"smoking is Idiotic" i can agree with. but Evil! please get a grip.

Gas Jockey

for sure. no one is suggesting that people should take up smoking, just that if you dom, and if you are not harming anyone else, crack on. your funeral, after all. If you have made that decision, however, it's litle business of mine and I'm not going to douse them with water if I see them smoking, shreiking "It's for the children!" as I do so.

Gas Jockey

(Really need to improve my typing!)

ROCKMAN

katydid wrote: »

Lots of things have been in our society for decades. It doesn't mean they are good or acceptable. In fact, smoking has been part of our society for centuries, not decades. When it was first invented, they thought it was a cure for lung disease! We and science have moved on a bit since then.

I've asked several times how it's different from shooting up heroin. No answer. They are both drugs, both have no benefits and lots of dangers. Should we allow shooting up in public because the park is a recreation area?[/QUOTE]

1. One is legal .... the other is not (ok these new laws change than slightly the location may not be anymore but not the act is still legal.)
2. Not many smokers I know will beat/rob for a fix.

Asking should we allow shooting up in public is just a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer.

.

Gas Jockey

ROCKMAN wrote: »

katydid wrote: »

Lots of things have been in our society for decades. It doesn't mean they are good or acceptable. In fact, smoking has been part of our society for centuries, not decades. When it was first invented, they thought it was a cure for lung disease! We and science have moved on a bit since then.

I've asked several times how it's different from shooting up heroin. No answer. They are both drugs, both have no benefits and lots of dangers. Should we allow shooting up in public because the park is a recreation area?[/QUOTE]

1. One is legal .... the other is not (ok these new laws change than slightly the location may not be anymore but not the act is still legal.)
2. Not many smokers I know will beat/rob for a fix.

Asking should we allow shooting up in public is just a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer.

.

I alluded earlier to patients with diabetes injectingthemselves with insulin in public. I did this to illustrate that the notion ofinjecting oneself is already acceptable, given an appropriate context.

The difference (IMHO) is that society has determined that injecting heroinhas unacceptable effects for society, namely transmission of blood bornediseases. This has other unintended consequences, such as users injecting in private,and so not receiving acute care in the event of harmful adverse effects.Unfortunately, the prevailing atmosphere makes it difficult to have rational discussionsabout helping people in these circumstances, as happened a few months ago whenthe pragmatic idea of having supervised injection rooms was put forward bythose with an interest in reducing the public health harms associated withclandestine injection. The other probable reason is that people don't like seeing others "drunk" in public, and heroin users often are.

If injecting heroin was as safe and discrete as injecting insulin, and were not as obviously stoned (for want of a better word), why wouldI care?

katydid

ROCKMAN wrote: »

katydid wrote: »

Lots of things have been in our society for decades. It doesn't mean they are good or acceptable. In fact, smoking has been part of our society for centuries, not decades. When it was first invented, they thought it was a cure for lung disease! We and science have moved on a bit since then.

I've asked several times how it's different from shooting up heroin. No answer. They are both drugs, both have no benefits and lots of dangers. Should we allow shooting up in public because the park is a recreation area?[/QUOTE]

1. One is legal .... the other is not (ok these new laws change than slightly the location may not be anymore but not the act is still legal.)
2. Not many smokers I know will beat/rob for a fix.

Asking should we allow shooting up in public is just a dumb question and doesn't deserve an answer.

.

Both are taking harmful poisons into the body. One through the lungs, the other through the veins. It's perfectly reasonable to ask why one is acceptable to do in public while the other isn't.

Your attempts at answers are what are dumb. Legality has nothing to do with right or wrong, and the fact that smokers won't rob or beat people up to get cigarettes doesn't change the fact that they are taking poison into their bodies.

Gas Jockey

katydid wrote: »

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Both are taking harmful poisons into the body. One through the lungs, the other through the veins. It's perfectly reasonable to ask why one is acceptable to do in public while the other isn't.

Your attempts at answers are what are dumb. Legality has nothing to do with right or wrong, and the fact that smokers won't rob or beat people up to get cigarettes doesn't change the fact that they are taking poison into their bodies.

You're right, it;s fairly arbitrary; then again, most drug law is.
Take Portugal, who decriminalised all drugs over a decade ago, and have not seen any increase in use or deaths in that time.

We're on a bit of a tangent here, BTW.

jonski

Gas Jockey wrote: »

katydid wrote: »

You're right, it;s fairly arbitrary; then again, most drug law is.
Take Portugal, who decriminalised all drugs over a decade ago, and have not seen any increase in use or deaths in that time.

We're on a bit of a tangent here, BTW.

I only read an article about this recently where the journalist was making the point that they were now able to spend the money they were using in law enforcement to help addicts , instead of criminalising them .

Gas Jockey

This video from the Economist explains the decriminalisation strategy.

"What happened when Portugal decriminalised drugs? "

(https://)youtu.be/Y7LKfLxVtzE

Gas Jockey

sorry, didn't think i could post links.

https://youtu.be/Y7LKfLxVtzE

Gas Jockey

To summarise my points;
1) children are more influenced by parents and peers rather than strangeers, so htheres' no point in banning smoking in public spaces unless you ban it in the home.
2) banning smoking is unlikely to have any effect, based on the fact that bans on illegal drugs had had no effect, and has only caused harm.
3) Harm reduction, in he form of decriminalisation (or evel legalisation) and safer alternatives (such as e-cigarettes) is far more effective in dealing with any drug situation.

katydid

Gas Jockey wrote: »

To summarise my points;
1) children are more influenced by parents and peers rather than strangeers, so htheres' no point in banning smoking in public spaces unless you ban it in the home.
2) banning smoking is unlikely to have any effect, based on the fact that bans on illegal drugs had had no effect, and has only caused harm.
3) Harm reduction, in he form of decriminalisation (or evel legalisation) and safer alternatives (such as e-cigarettes) is far more effective in dealing with any drug situation.

1. Children are influenced by many people. We can't ban everything, but we can ban things that are possible to ban.
2. I'm not suggesting banning smoking. That wouldn't work. But I think that publicly funded buildings and facilities should not allow it; a park is a publicly funded facility
3.Harm reduction is of course more effective. All the more reason why smoking should not be encouraged

Gas Jockey

katydid wrote: »

1. Children are influenced by many people. We can't ban everything, but we can ban things that are possible to ban.
2. I'm not suggesting banning smoking. That wouldn't work. But I think that publicly funded buildings and facilities should not allow it; a park is a publicly funded facility
3.Harm reduction is of course more effective. All the more reason why smoking should not be encouraged

Alright, let's try one last time.
You can't protect kids by banning everything which might be harmful (even the sight of such things), but educating them about the harms and providing help if they do run into trouble.
Public open spaces should be spaces for the public to enjoy themselves in any they want that doesn't harm others, much as one might do in their back garden. As it currently stands having a picnic with a gas barbecue, a bottle of wine and a guitar is going to get you fined, which is ludicrous.

Gas Jockey

I suspect we're not going to agree on this, despite the references I've provided.

Wanderer78

all drugs should be legalised. we re only wasting time and money otherwise

jonski

Wanderer78 wrote: »

all drugs should be legalised. we re only wasting time and money otherwise

No no no , you have it all wrong , more things should be banned to save people having responsibility for themselves and also to save them from being responsible parents .

Wanderer78

jonski wrote: »

No no no , you have it all wrong , more things should be banned to save people having responsibility for themselves and also to save them from being responsible parents .

hahaha excellent

lostboy75

jonski wrote: »

No no no , you have it all wrong , more things should be banned to save people having responsibility for themselves and also to save them from being responsible parents .

that actually is more then excellent, it hits the nail on the head! people expecting the "government" to decide what is right. that could not be further from what is actually right. people need to take responsibility, and realize you cant legislate danger from life, life is inherently dangerous. you do what you can to minimize it. but that is not the governments job!
they keep making laws that they think people need. most right minded people should not require laws to know what is right and what is wrong. if its not self evident to you then your not going to care whether your breaking a law or not.
saying that a person who could be fifth yards from you and is smoking a cigarette is affect you! come on there not! and if your playing the "will someone please think of the children" card, how can you possibly smother your child enough to keep them safe?
there are numerous idiotic law we have introduced in this country. another simple one, our knife laws, its illegal to carry one of the most basis tools of humanity in this country legally. why? the people that you need to be worried about carrying a knife, don't care its illegal.
the Garda, if they need it, have more than enough power as it is to deal with any anti social elements without introducing law that just effect the 95% of the country that is not out to bother anyone else.

Wanderer78

lostboy75 wrote: »

that actually is more then excellent, it hits the nail on the head! people expecting the "government" to decide what is right. that could not be further from what is actually right. people need to take responsibility, and realize you cant legislate danger from life, life is inherently dangerous. you do what you can to minimize it. but that is not the governments job!
they keep making laws that they think people need. most right minded people should not require laws to know what is right and what is wrong. if its not self evident to you then your not going to care whether your breaking a law or not.
saying that a person who could be fifth yards from you and is smoking a cigarette is affect you! come on there not! and if your playing the "will someone please think of the children" card, how can you possibly smother your child enough to keep them safe?
there are numerous idiotic law we have introduced in this country. another simple one, our knife laws, its illegal to carry one of the most basis tools of humanity in this country legally. why? the people that you need to be worried about carrying a knife, don't care its illegal.
the Garda, if they need it, have more than enough power as it is to deal with any anti social elements without introducing law that just effect the 95% of the country that is not out to bother anyone else.

better hide the machete then while out walking

lertsnim

katydid wrote: »

So it's ok for parents to get drunk in front of their kids and say that they are showing them that it's better to get high on alcohol than on heroin?

Ridiculous again. How did you come to that conclusion?

katydid wrote: »

Not really. Alcohol isn't harmful per se. Overindulgence is.

So alcohol is OK. Presumably because you like a glass of wine. It is funny how a child seeing someone drink alcohol is ok (so long as it is in moderation, what difference that makes to an impressionable child is beyond me) but vaping is evil. The double standards on show are breathtaking.

katydid

lertsnim wrote: »

Ridiculous again. How did you come to that conclusion?



So alcohol is OK. Presumably because you like a glass of wine. It is funny how a child seeing someone drink alcohol is ok (so long as it is in moderation, what difference that makes to an impressionable child is beyond me) but vaping is evil. The double standards on show are breathtaking.

It's not a conclusion, it's a hypothesis. Showing how ridiculous it is to suggest that because something isn't as bad as something else, it's ok to do it.

Alcohol IS ok. As I said, it's not harmful in itself, unlike smoking

lertsnim

katydid wrote: »

Alcohol IS ok. As I said, it's not harmful in itself, unlike smoking

You can't have it both ways. Alcohol can be extremely harmful when not taken correctly. Shout about moderation all you want but that goes against what you were saying about leaving an impression on a child. It doesn't matter if you have 2 drinks or 8 drinks, they still see you drink.

It is hypocritical for you to damn vaping and smoking yet condone the consumption of alcohol, which has destroyed peoples lives.

But hey, if it is something you like to partake in then leave it alone. Laughable.

The vitriol you display for smoking is only ever heard from some ex smokers. You wouldn't be one by any chance.

Wanderer78

this thread is making me want to take up smoking. sounds like im missing something.

katydid

lertsnim wrote: »

You can't have it both ways. Alcohol can be extremely harmful when not taken correctly. Shout about moderation all you want but that goes against what you were saying about leaving an impression on a child. It doesn't matter if you have 2 drinks or 8 drinks, they still see you drink.

It is hypocritical for you to damn vaping and smoking yet condone the consumption of alcohol, which has destroyed peoples lives.

But hey, if it is something you like to partake in then leave it alone. Laughable.

The vitriol you display for smoking is only ever heard from some ex smokers. You wouldn't be one by any chance.

I'll say it for a third time; alcohol is not harmful in itself. Only when you take too much. Smoking is harmful, full stop.

I don't condemn vaping as a means of quitting smoking, but I don't agree with it as an alternative to smoking. Vaping is being portrayed as cool, with fancy pipes and flavours. Impressionable children, seeing someone vaping, and being told it's harmless, could start with vaping and end up smoking.

robtri

katydid wrote: »

I'll say it for a third time; alcohol is not harmful in itself. Only when you take too much. Smoking is harmful, full stop.

I don't condemn vaping as a means of quitting smoking, but I don't agree with it as an alternative to smoking. Vaping is being portrayed as cool, with fancy pipes and flavours. Impressionable children, seeing someone vaping, and being told it's harmless, could start with vaping and end up smoking.

???? makes no sense sorry
alcohol is in itself is harmless??
so is vaping really....

kids see adults drinking alcohol and being told it is in itself harmless could start drinking......
??