Would you like to see cigarettes slowly banned?

global23214124 · 03-11-2020 01:26AM

Strumms wrote: »

It’s very unlikely to be possible.

Technology is the friend of the authority’s now. An X-ray can detect drugs, tobacco and cigarettes with ease. An ion scanner can identify the nature of the contents of a shipment in seconds.. cigarettes, heroin, cocaine, cannabis...

This technology is used in ports and airports worldwide. .01 nanograms of a substance in a shipment be it gelignite, cocaine, tobacco, whatever can be detected through swabbing residues on the outside or inside of packaging and the use of an ion scanner. It would be easy to stop cigarettes..

It's pretty easy to get weed or cocaine in the capital, I'm not sure why cigarettes would be any different?

Strumms · 03-11-2020 01:54AM

global23214124 wrote: »

It's pretty easy to get weed or cocaine in the capital, I'm not sure why cigarettes would be any different?

Truth, but the demand for cigarettes vs the demand for weed in the scenario we are talking about is probably 100 fold...

Weed is shipped in smaller consignments. Easier to conceal. Weed showing on an ex ray machine is just organic material, looks the same as food stuffs. Cigarettes would show up due to having a unique size and shape because of the way they are manufactured... need to be shipped by the pallet load to meet demand and be financially viable... smell will be an issue too. So there is a huge likelihood that the importation will fail more often than not.

ILoveYourVibes · 03-11-2020 05:09AM

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

My proposition would be that cigarettes cannot be sold to anyone born on or after the 1st of January 2003, ie, the next batch of people who will turn 18. Provision of identification will be mandatory for all sales, even if the person appears to be 100 years old in order to remove discretion and ambiguity.

Cigarettes will only be available during set hours like alcohol.

Of course, you'll have black market sales, these can be rooted out by undercover Gardaí posing as potential customers. If caught, you get a mandatory 6 month sentence.

Supplying tobacco to people born after 2003 will be similarly punished. Gradually, as the years go by, less and less people will be alive who will have been born before 2003. Within a few generations we will be tobacco free.

Has this worked with any other drug?

Greyfox · 03-11-2020 09:32AM

mdwexford wrote: »

Lower the price to €5 a pack.

Price over here is a disgrace. Saying this as a non smoker.

Did you not get the memo of always been in favour of raising taxes where it doesn't effect you, everyone else seems to have it.

BurnUp78 · 03-11-2020 09:46AM

spook_cook wrote: »

How much is a pack now-a-days?

I wouldn't mind seeing them banned but honestly don't think it's necessary. They're dying on their arse and good riddance. I think vaping and that is a lot of shte but whatever, doesn't seem as bad a road as the fags. Wasted enough years of my life and money on the things. Yes, I'm a grumpy ex-smoker.

The guts of 20 euro for a packet of rollies.

Smart Bug · 03-11-2020 09:51AM

Basic human impulses work thusly:
1. Something’s ‘bad’
2. Knee-jerk reactions resulting in a ban (with tobacco I guess the last ~100 years out of thousands of tobacco consumption may not be considered by some as knee-jerk)
3. General populace: I now want more of it

If you want to reduce usage of a substance, education is key. Some people are too irredeemably stupid/obstinate to respond. That’s their problem. If we had a well funded, efficient health care system it wouldn’t be a damned problem to treat the exceptions.

mdwexford · 03-11-2020 10:58AM

spook_cook wrote: »

How much is a pack now-a-days?

I wouldn't mind seeing them banned but honestly don't think it's necessary. They're dying on their arse and good riddance. I think vaping and that is a lot of shte but whatever, doesn't seem as bad a road as the fags. Wasted enough years of my life and money on the things. Yes, I'm a grumpy ex-smoker.

Around €14 or so I think.

B.A._Baracus · 03-11-2020 11:00AM

Strumms wrote: »

Nope, smoking costs more than tax revenue offsets.

https://assets.gov.ie/34808/8b5d52eeea4447419f38b447733d02b9.pdf

A person has the right to smoke a cigarette correct.

But i would be for banning the importation, manufacturing and sale of them.

No person or business should have the right to put such a pressure and cost on the health services.

The alcohol comparison is disingenuous. Alcohol is not dangerous or unhealthy if consumed in moderation.

Smoking is unhealthy if you smoke a handful daily or with regularity. Even one or two https://health.clevelandclinic.org/even-smoking-just-one-or-two-cigarettes-a-day-increases-your-risk-of-lung-disease/

Am sorry but you come off as very biased and contradictory.

You say a person has a right to smoke a cigarette. Fair enough. But then state how you would like to see the sale, importation and manufacturing of them banned - that's completely banning them. Taking away a person's right that you said in the previous statement.

What . . . You feel someone can smoke but just take away any means to get them? What's the difference?
What about the logical increase of black market smokes? Especially those Chinese ones which are even more deadly than their official counterparts.

Also that 36 page PDF you linked to is a heavy read. Talks about about the effects of second hand smoke a lot. Tried to find the bit where it says how much tax is earned each year from smokes and the cost of medical card. Could you?

I'm gonna hazard a guess. You hate smoking. Fair enough. But you can't control people. You also have to look over the horizon. If the nation banned smoking it's not like we'd have a nation of non smokers. Other means to obtain would become more popular.

Strumms · 03-11-2020 12:29PM

Smart Bug wrote: »

Basic human impulses work thusly:
1. Something’s ‘bad’
2. Knee-jerk reactions resulting in a ban (with tobacco I guess the last ~100 years out of thousands of tobacco consumption may not be considered by some as knee-jerk)
3. General populace: I now want more of it

If you want to reduce usage of a substance, education is key. Some people are too irredeemably stupid/obstinate to respond. That’s their problem. If we had a well funded, efficient health care system it wouldn’t be a damned problem to treat the exceptions.

Some of the most intelligent people in history have been addicted to xx substance though.

Couldn’t be classified as knee jerk trying to ban cigarettes. They’ve been on sale and manufactured for well over 110 years. With the debate around banning for much of that time.... they’ve had scientists such as James Mold and his team try and design a cancer free cigarette but without success...they’ve tried to design better filters, safer cigarettes, success has been nominal.. less tar, less overall tobacco product...smoking is still killing and placing intolerable burdens on our health system and services both in terms of resources and finances..

Strumms · 03-11-2020 12:54PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I'm gonna hazard a guess. You hate smoking. Fair enough. But you can't control people. You also have to look over the horizon. If the nation banned smoking it's not like we'd have a nation of non smokers. Other means to obtain would become more popular.

You can control people. Legislation does that quite well. Not 100% absolutely, it’s illegal to sell and use drugs, but from 2015 into 2016 the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau has been responsible for seizure of controlled substances with an estimated street value of approximately €167 million. And sentenced users and dealers to xxx years in jail, a deterrent.

We wouldn’t have a nation of non smokers but we’d have a serious reduction in smokers as a result of them being less accessible to the point that in about 7-10 years, or sooner, hospital admissions will be right down for smoking related illnesses.

More people who have been in car crashes, brain injuries linked to assaults and motor vehicle accidents will have access to rehabilitative treatments that they DONT because the bed spaces and doctors will be available to THEM. They get sick in the main not through choice, smokers get sick, through choice.

Yet smokers have millions of public money allocated to them, over 100 million a year, close to 130 million to enable them to recover from THE ****TY choices they made.

When I was needing help, rehabilitation from a physical problem, not of MY making, I was told “ nahh sorry no funding “ but some fûcking prick who has been chewing 30 fags a day for 30 years..” yeah come on man, we’ll sort you out “
It’s seen as acceptable... if as a kid your dad gave you a car, worth 15,000.... you on purpose ‘choose’ to go and drive it into a wall....” hey dad, can you get this fixed for me ? Thanks !” He'd probably drive it into a lake...with you in it.

So people who make conscious decisions and choices to endanger their health costing the state serious cash as in hospital expenses, just ban cigarettes. Yes you loose tax revenue but it’s an overall saving. A safer, healthier nation with health a priority.

cnocbui · 03-11-2020 02:19PM

I could make a better argument for banning alcohol, but I'm not going there because I don't believe prohibition works or is worthwhile. The considerable deficiencies in the Irish medical system are not the fault of smokers.

McGinniesta · 03-11-2020 02:39PM

Anyone who is stupid enough to start smoking deserves to get lung cancer.

Furthermore, the price should not be lowered, it should be doubled. If lotteries are a tax on stupidity then lets add smoking to the list.

03-11-2020 02:53PM

McGinniesta wrote: »

Anyone who is stupid enough to start smoking deserves to get lung cancer.

Furthermore, the price should not be lowered, it should be doubled. If lotteries are a tax on stupidity then lets add smoking to the list.

Your sentiment might be right, but unfortunately increasing prices doesn't deter the majority of existing smokers.
It works on new smokers, and I believe that we are seeing less and less smokers around the country.

You must remember though, there is a world of difference between existing smokers and new smokers. You can't treat the two groups in the same way.

Ireland (and the western world) has seen a big decrease in new smokers, which is great, and will eventually lead to cigarettes being a thing of the past.

People who have not been long term smokers themselves, unfortunately, have no clue in how to stop existing smokers from smoking.

Smoking ban - great concept - had very little impact on the number of smokers
Increase prices - deters new smokers - increases demand for black market cigarettes
Increase age from 16 - 18 - deters new smokers
Banning cigarette advertising - deters new smokers

None of the above approaches have an impact on existing smokers.
There are two options in my opinion, and both should probably be happening hand in hand

1. Continue to focus on what works against new smokers, and eventually the numbers of smokers will be miniscule (never non existent)
2. Help existing smokers with better approaches to becoming a non smoker. I've outlined my thoughts on this previously in this thread, but existing smokers, will not pay much attention to advise from people haven't been smokers themselves. A committee of ex-smokers who have a much better chance of helping people stop

B.A._Baracus · 03-11-2020 04:46PM

McGinniesta wrote: »

Anyone who is stupid enough to start smoking deserves to get lung cancer.

Furthermore, the price should not be lowered, it should be doubled. If lotteries are a tax on stupidity then lets add smoking to the list.

Wishing death on someone isnt a nice thing.
Then again if your son or daughter was to smoke I guess you would be singing a different tune.

B.A._Baracus · 03-11-2020 04:48PM

Strumms wrote: »

You can control people. Legislation does that quite well. Not 100% absolutely, it’s illegal to sell and use drugs, but from 2015 into 2016 the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau has been responsible for seizure of controlled substances with an estimated street value of approximately €167 million. And sentenced users and dealers to xxx years in jail, a deterrent.

We wouldn’t have a nation of non smokers but we’d have a serious reduction in smokers as a result of them being less accessible to the point that in about 7-10 years, or sooner, hospital admissions will be right down for smoking related illnesses.

More people who have been in car crashes, brain injuries linked to assaults and motor vehicle accidents will have access to rehabilitative treatments that they DONT because the bed spaces and doctors will be available to THEM. They get sick in the main not through choice, smokers get sick, through choice.

Yet smokers have millions of public money allocated to them, over 100 million a year, close to 130 million to enable them to recover from THE ****TY choices they made.

When I was needing help, rehabilitation from a physical problem, not of MY making, I was told “ nahh sorry no funding “ but some fûcking prick who has been chewing 30 fags a day for 30 years..” yeah come on man, we’ll sort you out “
It’s seen as acceptable... if as a kid your dad gave you a car, worth 15,000.... you on purpose ‘choose’ to go and drive it into a wall....” hey dad, can you get this fixed for me ? Thanks !” He'd probably drive it into a lake...with you in it.

So people who make conscious decisions and choices to endanger their health costing the state serious cash as in hospital expenses, just ban cigarettes. Yes you loose tax revenue but it’s an overall saving. A safer, healthier nation with health a priority.

I honestly tried to read your post. But at this stage it comes off as you are just waffling.

03-11-2020 04:51PM

Smoking is already been slowly choked to death (lol) with the declining rate of people taking it up - there's no need to cave in the industry's head with a barbed wire baseball bat.

Hamsterchops · 03-11-2020 05:51PM

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Would you like to see cigarettes slowly banned?

Slowly banned ?

Immediately more like. Consign them to the history books now I say.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants · 03-11-2020 05:53PM

Why is an alcohol lobby (vintners) allowed to exist but no tobacco lobby?

Would you like to see cigarettes slowly banned?

Comments