New Ciggs rule (yes, another)

FranknFurter · 10-07-2006 01:06AM

Then its those companies, and their retailers that should be help accountable by the government.
Does not mean the consumer should suffer.

b

seamus · 10-07-2006 01:27AM

FranknFurter wrote:

Then its those companies, and their retailers that should be help accountable by the government.
Does not mean the consumer should suffer.

How is the consumer suffering? The price of cigarettes won't change. If you have to scrape pennies together to buy cigarettes, then perhaps you should examine the wisdom of spending your money on something with zero benefit (aside from a brief anti-depressing effect).

अधिनायक · 10-07-2006 01:28AM

Why not ban 20s and only allow cartons of 200? That way you'd need 65 quid every 10 days and you'd have to be really committed to go through with it. If you gave up, you couldn't sneak back on like I always do.

If you were a committed smoker, it wouldn't cost you any more and would save trips to the newsagent.

Chakar · 10-07-2006 01:40AM

That wouldn't be feasible though maybe a bigger pack like 40 cigs or something.By the way thats a unusual username.

FranknFurter · 10-07-2006 01:43AM

seamus wrote:

How is the consumer suffering? The price of cigarettes won't change. If you have to scrape pennies together to buy cigarettes, then perhaps you should examine the wisdom of spending your money on something with zero benefit (aside from a brief anti-depressing effect).

Think I will be the one to decide if it has "zero benefit" to me thanks seamus.

b

Terry · 10-07-2006 03:45AM

Day-wanna-wonga wrote:

Yes. And stupid, because you have to make twice as many trips to the shop to smoke the same amount, and you also end up paying more.

quite obviously a troll and it wouldn't surprise me if you were someone who had been banned before.

do you regularly call people knackers?
let's just say, someone is in front of you in the queue in the local newsagents. they buy 10 smokes. would you call them a knacker to their face?
no, i didn't think so.
you are here trolling and just looking for a stupid arguement.
grow the fu(k up.

Ronan|Raven · 10-07-2006 08:43AM

They dont sell 10's in New Zealand either and society seems to struggle on!

Pal · 10-07-2006 08:54AM

FranknFurter wrote:

If I choose to smoke myself to death (as Im sure somone will say), in my own home or outside, that is my decision.

Absolute rubbish. If you are killing yourself through an addiction then your Government has a duty of care and an obligation to intervene.

esskay · 10-07-2006 09:06AM

Nick_oliveri wrote:

75% tax - is this true?

Tis nearly the same with petrol, for every yoyo you spend on juice 67c is tax. Proper Bo i tell thee!!!!!

Tar.Aldarion · 10-07-2006 09:09AM

Tar.D.Allen wrote:

To be quite honest it has been a policy in some local shops for some time. And the reason being that young kids tend to buy packs of tens.

I smoke upto and some times over 40 a day and I would love to see them taken off the face of the earth.

It is against personal freedom? So fuking what. Jumping from high buildings is not allowed par se so why should constantly ingesting a poison substance be allowed. I'd say ban the sale of the things from within the country. Too late for a few of us but generations to come might apprecaite it. Hell if people really want to smoke they can inport them. Ok so there might be economic implications but then maybe we would'nt be so fuking stupid to allow our goverment officials to pour millions down the drain year after year. Stupid election mechines!!!!!!

Go on the Tar dots!

Meh, I echo Gordon and Seamus.
No 10's? Boo hoo, I can't buy hash in any packs. Meh.

Gordon · 10-07-2006 09:28AM

FranknFurter wrote:

Then its those companies, and their retailers that should be help accountable by the government.
Does not mean the consumer should suffer.

b

I'm not sure of the exact taxes and laws but they probably are. And if they aren't then they will pass on the burden to you the consumer. Either way, you will always lose out. That's simple capitalism imo.

FranknFurter · 10-07-2006 09:59AM

Pal wrote:

Absolute rubbish. If you are killing yourself through an addiction then your Government has a duty of care and an obligation to intervene.

Fraid not, tobacco is (still) a legal product, and as long as that is the case, it is my choice to use it, whether society or the government likes it or not, as long as its done within the law geddit? ie: not in a building where it affects others.
By your logic, you could say the same about thousands of other things people dont approve of.

If an capable individual makes an informed and choice to use a legal substance, then its a legal choice. Government has no "obligation" to intervene" in somone doing somthing legal.

However, they can "recommend" all they like, and restrict the use of tobacco in public venues and buildings, and they do, fine, I have no problem with that.
But what I choose to do legally in my own home, is my choice.

Gordon wrote:

I'm not sure of the exact taxes and laws but they probably are. And if they aren't then they will pass on the burden to you the consumer. Either way, you will always lose out. That's simple capitalism imo.

Unfortunately thats true. Still dosent make it right.

b

Gordon · 10-07-2006 10:02AM

FranknFurter wrote:

However, they can "recommend" all they like, and restrict the use of tobacco in public venues and buildings, and they do, fine, I have no problem with that.

Glad you agree that they can restrict the sale of it too then. I think we've converted a smoker.

Day-wanna-wonga · 10-07-2006 10:05AM

julep wrote:

let's just say, someone is in front of you in the queue in the local newsagents. they buy 10 smokes. would you call them a knacker to their face?
no, i didn't think so.

Of course I wouldn't. What a stupid & irrelevant notion. This is a discussion board where everyone is expressing their opinions, and discussion is expected.

FranknFurter · 10-07-2006 10:08AM

Gordon wrote:

Glad you agree that they cant restrict the sale of it too then. I think we've converted a smoker.

Did'nt say they could'nt restrict the sale of it, I said they can restrict the way a legal product is used as long as its still used within the law, which is very different to it being used as recommended, they may say I can buy beer, but they cannot say how much of it I can drink, recommending is fine.

They can put an age limit on the sale of it of course, as they do with alcohol, but once that is satisfied then unless the user breaks the law, they can use it as they wish as long as they dont break the law in doing so.

Restricting the form in which it is sold, is akin to saying "You can only buy one bottle of vodka if you buy two bottles of vodka".

My issue isnt about what they can and can't do, my issue is about how they do it.

b

ps- this smoker will never be "converted", I may give up when I decide I want to, I did for 6 months last year but I dont want to for now.

Tar.Aldarion · 10-07-2006 10:13AM

You also can not buy two items containing paracetamol at one time. Would you have that scrapped?

PiE · 10-07-2006 10:14AM

Other countries may not sell 10's, but other countries also don't charge exorbitant prices for the 20's.

FranknFurter · 10-07-2006 10:22AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You also can not buy two items containing paracetamol at one time. Would you have that scrapped?

Actually yes, I would, however I would not disagree with an age limit being put on the purchasing of paracetamol, or big huge (as on ciggs) black and white warnings plastered on the box.
(Also, you can buy paracetamol in two packs of 12, OR one pack of 24 in any chemist).

I am neither stupid nor insane, I have no issue that prevents me from knowing what is good for me and what is bad for me. And as long as its a legal product, and as long as you are informed about the product, I do not need a limit on what I purchase.

I had a nanny when I was a kid, I outgrew her long ago, I do not need the government to force another one on me.

And now, as I make my exhausted way to bed, (yes, again I've been up all night again lol), I take with me the knowledge that there are a lot of Irish people who want decisions made for them as opposed to being given the credit to be responsible for themselves.

Dragan · 10-07-2006 11:18AM

I just find it funny that our Gov talks about implementing a law against the sale of the mega large bars of chocolate, as part of our fight against the overweight and the obese....as if they buy more they eat more.....yet it's cool to have people smoke more!!! :rolleyes:

seamus · 10-07-2006 11:19AM

FranknFurter wrote:

Think I will be the one to decide if it has "zero benefit" to me thanks seamus.

Unless you are God made flesh, then you can't make changes to science.

FillSpectre · 10-07-2006 12:51PM

Is this actually a new law? I thought it was the same smoking law that was stalled for progress. Aren't the machines used to sell in shops part of the same law too?

Pal · 10-07-2006 01:35PM

FranknFurter wrote:

I take with me the knowledge that there are a lot of Irish people who want decisions made for them as opposed to being given the credit to be responsible for themselves.

You smoke because you are addicted to nicotine.

You do not choose to smoke.

You are deluding yourself and nobody else.

goodnight.

Archeron · 10-07-2006 01:45PM

Pal wrote:

You smoke because you are addicted to nicotine.

You do not choose to smoke.

You are deluding yourself and nobody else.

goodnight.

I smoked for 14 years because I chose to smoke and I enjoyed it. One day I got peed off with smoking and its bad effects, and I chose not to smoke anymore, and I stopped. IMO, it is choice. You can choose to overcome the addiction if you really want to.

Dragan · 10-07-2006 01:55PM

Pal wrote:

You smoke because you are addicted to nicotine.

You do not choose to smoke.

You are deluding yourself and nobody else.

goodnight.

Actually, I disagree.

Your not addicted to nicotine the first time you have a cigarette. Your are choosing to buy them and smoke them.

I was a very heavy smoker for a very long time but then I gave it up. It was easy, no withdrawls, no crazy temper tantrums of fights with the girlfriend at the time.

I just stopped. I made the choice to no longer smoke.

I understand that it is hard for someone who has never smoked to understand the concept of choosing to smoke and it is nice to bundle it into the "addiction catogory".

I would ask you do you drink, how often and why.

If the answers are "yes" , "at least once a fortnight" and "because I like it" then I would ask you, are you an alchoholic?

Of course, not, your not addicted to alchohol, you are just choosing to have a drink.

Or do we just demonise smoking as it more obvious impact on health when done casually?

Pal · 10-07-2006 02:07PM

Archeron wrote:

I smoked for 14 years because I chose to smoke and I enjoyed it .

You may have chosen to have to smoke for 14 years but highly implausible. You only think you enjoyed it. That's the trick about smoking. Once you figure out how you are being fooled, it is straightforward enough to stop. The perceived pleasure of relieving the withdrawal created by the previous smoke is illusory. Enjoyment doesn't come into it.

Archeron wrote:

One day I got peed off with smoking and its bad effects, and I chose not to smoke anymore, and I stopped. IMO, it is choice. You can choose to overcome the addiction if you really want to.

Very wise.

Red Alert · 10-07-2006 02:16PM

the public health service wouldn't be in such a mess if it wasn't for the smokers who are getting chronically and seriously ill at younger ages.

my tax is paying for this, therefore anything to discourage and coerce people to stop is good.

L31mr0d · 10-07-2006 02:18PM

Pal wrote:

You smoke because you are addicted to nicotine.

You do not choose to smoke.

You are deluding yourself and nobody else.

goodnight.

I'm against smoking, but I did smoke for a while, everything from Cigars, hash, cigarettes... the odd banana skin

But one day I got bored of it, it wasn't new anymore, but more mundane. I didn't like that foods I used to love now tasted bland, and I couldn't run to save my life. So I just quit, haven't smoked since. I'd say i'm more addicted to caffeine or foods with MSG (mmm BigMacs) then I ever was to nicotine. Although I'd say this was because I never would smoke more that 5 a day so I don't think my body ever really got addicted.

I don't ever think smoking should be completely banned (i'm all for pipe smokers who smoke once a month or people who light up a cigar to celebrate a success, even people who chew tobacco, god knows we inhale much more noxious free radicals just walking down the street) It's all about moderation

EDIT: My main problem is with people who chain smoke or who smoke 20 cigarettes or more a day. If you knew one of your mates was drinking 20 pints every day, you'd get him help for his "addiction", the same goes for cigarettes. Just as the government has an obligation to deal with alcoholics it has a duty to deal with people who actually get addicted to nicotine. What they are trying to do is prevention rather than cure, they accept they can't convert present smokers, but at least they can try to sour the milk for new ones trying to start. They know if they can get people through there teens without smoking they are more likely to never take it up. I wouldn't say this is the last change they are going to implement.

Pal · 10-07-2006 02:27PM

Red Alert wrote:

the public health service wouldn't be in such a mess if it wasn't for the smokers who are getting chronically and seriously ill at younger ages.

my tax is paying for this, therefore anything to discourage and coerce people to stop is good.

A blanket ban on tobacco sales in ROI would be a great idea.

We would all be paying more tax however, not just the smokers.

Dragan · 10-07-2006 02:28PM

Red Alert wrote:

the public health service wouldn't be in such a mess if it wasn't for the smokers who are getting chronically and seriously ill at younger ages.

my tax is paying for this, therefore anything to discourage and coerce people to stop is good.

Actually, the health service is in a mess due to a multitude of reasons....how much money do you think is sucked into A+E's as a result of people having a "few beers and a laugh" over the weekend, and chronic mis management, and various other things?

The argument of "my tax money is used on this" can be used by anyone. I am a young single person, i have no kids, i do not drive, i take good care of myself. I have not been in hospital of my own volition since i was 16. Any time i have been in since has been because of an assault.

As such, i pay my taxes and off they go and what do i see out of it??? Lots of stuff.

If you don't like what your taxes are going on then leave the country? Seems far to me.

Pal wrote:

A blanket ban on tobacco sales in ROI would be a great idea.

We would all be paying more tax however, not just the smokers.

Indeed.... because the government would need to replace the vast ammounts of tax money it brings in each year through the sale of cigs.

I don't think someone could reasonably put forth and argument for this that couldn't also be applied to a dozen other things, such as booze, fast food etc.

अधिनायक · 10-07-2006 02:31PM

Red Alert wrote:

the public health service wouldn't be in such a mess if it wasn't for the smokers who are getting chronically and seriously ill at younger ages.

my tax is paying for this, therefore anything to discourage and coerce people to stop is good.

No, smokers die early and save the state money in pension payments, nursing home care etc. They are dying for their country.

New Ciggs rule (yes, another)

Comments