Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ban smoking in public places?

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    Improbable wrote: »
    Iamxavier, I would agree with you to a certain extent. You do have the right to breath as much fresh air as you want

    I know you're against the proposal, but I as for the "fresh air" argument - as far as health is concerned, when we are outside we are all sharing our air with car exhaust, which is more poisonous and unpleasant than cigarette smoke, and is actually destroying the planet - yet those of us who drive have no issue introducing it to the air.

    Iamxavier, back up your claim that outdoor smoking is harmful to other people - and incidentally, petrol vehicles are not essential for transport, as we are beginning to see. I have read the UGA study, but it is extremely poor and there is no actual toxicology in it.


  • Options
    #153
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    positron wrote: »
    About banning in public places - here's a list of bans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans

    See France in particular!

    About India in particular: http://abhisays.com/india/smoking-ban-at-public-places-in-india.html

    All of these bans are for enclosed public places. Like cafes, restaurants, offices etc. It so bizarre you should specify France because in that very article it specifically mentions that even within the ban they are allowed to have designated smoking areas in restaurants and that most people are ignoring the ban because of low enforcement. If you really want an example, take a look at Hong Kong which has banned smoking in some public parks. Probably the closest to what you're looking for. Certainly not France or India.


  • Options
    #154
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    I don't think the smell of what oyu had for lunch or somebodies perfume will linger on your clothes. Onions and Garlic are also benificial... so that argument is not a great one to be honest. Would you like to be subject to the smell of second hand smoke while waiting on a bus or train or other? Do you think it's nice?

    You've clearly never been around someone who really likes to eat onions and garlic...
    As to the beneficial issue, the poster of that comment said himself that he didnt care about the health effects of smoke, just that he didnt like the smell. That's what I was responding to.

    The fact of the matter is that you simply cannot enforce this rule. Never going to happen. I've already said that I admit there are good points but the people who take it seriously that something like this might be put into effect have lost touch with reality. Anyway, this argument just seems to be going around in circles now so I'll leave it there, having made the points that I want to make.


  • Options
    #155
    michael222
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭michael222


    Hello

    Those who want smoking to stop please wake up.

    The government is NOT going to stop anything, why because they need the money. That what everything boils down to, and always will. So please, the idea is correct, but the action will never happen.

    And if you beleive this, then you are only fooling yourself.

    Ask yourself this question, at the last general election when the present government won, ask all those would voted FF back in again. I think not, because of the lost revenue, and the state of the country is in now.

    This whole country is based around money, health comes next in line.

    Thanks

    Michael


  • Options
    #156
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    michael222 wrote: »
    Some good point's there in that post.

    We are so behind the rest of the world in some ways, amd in other ways so far ahead.

    But the real issue is this its us Irish, thats the problem here.

    The best thing that we are good at is knocking down other Irish, and beleive or it we are the best in the world at it, this is nothing new, its been going on for a long time. Some people will even go out there way just to take appart fellow Irish people.

    We hate to see people get on, have a good time, voice point's etc, does that make any sense to anybody here??.

    Yes im a smoker and i will go out of my way to keep smoke away from non smokers, and if there is a issue i will always make the changes.

    And yes no every one is like me, we all have our own ways. I would love to stop smoking and move on, but i cant, and i know that smoking is killing me from the inside, and i know, this could effect non smokers.

    Every one who smoke's, should the next time look around light up and watch people faces turn, i have seen this so many times thats why i look, before i start.

    Thanks

    Michael

    Fair play to ya, but there's many many ignorant people out there that couldn't give a flying fcuk about the person next to him/her.
    Improbable wrote: »
    You've clearly never been around someone who really likes to eat onions and garlic...
    As to the beneficial issue, the poster of that comment said himself that he didnt care about the health effects of smoke, just that he didnt like the smell. That's what I was responding to.

    I have, I myself love garlic. I eat more than I should probably :P
    The fact of the matter is that you simply cannot enforce this rule. Never going to happen. I've already said that I admit there are good points but the people who take it seriously that something like this might be put into effect have lost touch with reality. Anyway, this argument just seems to be going around in circles now so I'll leave it there, having made the points that I want to make.

    Why can it not be enforced? People said that about a lot of laws that were introduced here. I said it myself a few times. I was wrong.

    Also, what's with the insults? You disagree with somebody? That doesn't mean they have lost touch with reality. That's an extremely weak argument. It's used too much. "well if you think like that then you have mental issues" etc etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    Improbable wrote: »
    The fact of the matter is that you simply cannot enforce this rule. Never going to happen. I've already said that I admit there are good points but the people who take it seriously that something like this might be put into effect have lost touch with reality. Anyway, this argument just seems to be going around in circles now so I'll leave it there, having made the points that I want to make.


    To play devil's advocate, there is a ban on smoking at outdoor tram stops in the Czech Republic, and I have seen it enforced once. However, it is flouted 9 times out of 10, even by the transport police.


  • Options
    #158
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »
    Why can it not be enforced? People said that about a lot of laws that were introduced here. I said it myself a few times. I was wrong.

    It is unenforceable because there is no-one to enforce it. The indoor smoking bans are enforced by workplace owners under the threat of fines by the Office of Tobacco Control. Outdoors, you would need a smoking enforcer at every bus stop. This is why the tram-stop ban in the Czech Republic is seen as a joke. In Bournemouth Hospital, they were unable to enforce a ban over a single hospital campus.


  • Options
    #159
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »
    I fail to see how chocolate bars directly effect the health of those who do not eat them. Maybe you can point that out to me?

    Jesus, we were talking about litter. Do try to keep up dear.


  • Options
    #160
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    generalmiaow wrote: »
    I know you're against the proposal, but I as for the "fresh air" argument - as far as health is concerned, when we are outside we are all sharing our air with car exhaust, which is more poisonous and unpleasant than cigarette smoke, and is actually destroying the planet - yet those of us who drive have no issue introducing it to the air.

    Iamxavier, back up your claim that outdoor smoking is harmful to other people - and incidentally, petrol vehicles are not essential for transport, as we are beginning to see. I have read the UGA study, but it is extremely poor and there is no actual toxicology in it.

    I think the onus is on the people who initially made the claims that there is no harm to others in smoking outdoors.

    I'd like to see you transport a 40 foot container on your bike. Combustion engines are very essential in todays world. We do not have the infrastructure to support other means of transport just yet. Electricity still needs a raw material which is mainly fossile fuels. Some day there will be a replacement, and that will be great.


  • Options
    #161
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Zillah wrote: »
    Jesus, we were talking about litter. Do try to keep up dear.

    Litter is only one of the several issues, i'm talking about the effects it has on other people. You focus too much on one issue, do try keep up ;)
    generalmiaow wrote: »
    It is unenforceable because there is no-one to enforce it. The indoor smoking bans are enforced by workplace owners under the threat of fines by the Office of Tobacco Control. Outdoors, you would need a smoking enforcer at every bus stop. This is why the tram-stop ban in the Czech Republic is seen as a joke. In Bournemouth Hospital, they were unable to enforce a ban over a single hospital campus.

    Well if it didn't work in another country, why would it work here? :rolleyes:
    They obviously done something wrong if they can't even enforce it in one building. They're doing it wrong.

    Where do you think the drug squad, traffic corps, or any other enforcement agency came from? Were there litter wardens before there were rules against littering? Same for traffic wardens.

    You create a group to enforce the rules. Is there a traffic warden at every parking spot? A traffic corp police person on every road? Is there a litter warden on every street? Mind you we could do with more of those. You don't need a "smoking enforcer" at every bus stop...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »
    I think the onus is on the people who initially made the claims that there is no harm to others in smoking outdoors.

    I'd like to see you transport a 40 foot container on your bike. Combustion engines are very essential in todays world. We do not have the infrastructure to support other means of transport just yet. Electricity still needs a raw material which is mainly fossile fuels. Some day there will be a replacement, and that will be great.

    Thanks for responding, Israel Elegant Comb, but - above, someone posted a reasonable explanation as to why it doesn't cause harm (Boyle's law, by the way, is the reason), and you responded with "wrong". If you want to restrict someone's freedom, you need to provide proof that they are infringing on you in a demonstrable way. There's no reason to believe outdoor smoking causes harm, the only extensive study only showed elevated cotinine levels after 6 hours of constant exposure to smokers - not demonstrable harm.

    The belief that standing at a bus stop with a smoker is harmful is commonly regarded as outlandish, hence why it was not banned in 2004 along with workplace smoking.

    tl;dr - you can't prove a negative

    My point about vehicles, even though it was flawed, is that even though there's an alternative to driving to the shops 100 yards away, it's not illegal to use your car, causing harm.


  • Options
    #163
    magicface1
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭magicface1


    I said yes to this. But would like to know why do people smoke?


  • Options
    #164
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »

    Well if it didn't work in another country, why would it work here? :rolleyes:
    They obviously done something wrong if they can't even enforce it in one building. They're doing it wrong.

    Where do you think the drug squad, traffic corps, or any other enforcement agency came from? Were there litter wardens before there were rules against littering? Same for traffic wardens.

    You create a group to enforce the rules. Is there a traffic warden at every parking spot? A traffic corp police person on every road? Is there a litter warden on every street? Mind you we could do with more of those. You don't need a "smoking enforcer" at every bus stop...

    You asked why it wouldn't be enforceable, I gave an example of two places that it isn't enforced, and in one case had to be rolled back. It's better than just imagining it would work in Ireland without any better evidence.

    On the second point, litter laws (which are more comparable to this than traffic laws, owing to the traffic consensus being a matter of a shared consciousness of the rules of the road/personal safety, and otherwise broken constantly) aren't enforced anywhere but the city centre. The reason the streets aren't covered in litter isn't because people are afraid of being arrested, it's because of common courtesy. Perhaps we could agree that, as in Japan, people should raise consciousness of being courteous about smoking without the threat of fines and imprisonment?


  • Options
    #165
    michael222
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭michael222


    magicface1 wrote: »
    I said yes to this. But would like to know why do people smoke?

    Good Question.

    Its because when we are small we copy those around us. Its part of our DNA make up.

    This happens accross the animal kingdom as well to follow is part of life.

    So when a baby or young person look's at adults and watches them smoke, this comes appart of them as well.

    Some others just take it up because of pressure from there mates etc etc

    Michael


  • Options
    #166
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Clearly reasonable debate is not working. I shall try fight fire with fire:
    Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »
    Litter is only one of the several issues, i'm talking about the effects it has on other people. You focus too much on one issue, do try keep up ;)

    ;):rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #167
    magicface1
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭magicface1


    Ah cool thanks for the answer always wondered why anyone would smoke. I have never smoked my bro, mam and dad smoke but it has never crossed my mind.


  • Options
    #168
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    magicface1 wrote: »
    I said yes to this. But would like to know why do people smoke?

    Advertising in the old days, nowadays peer pressure and then dependency. Some people smoke to self-medicate against the side effects of medication, (such as anti-psychotics) because of the effect of nicotine on the brain. It feels good for the first while, then becomes a need.


  • Options
    #169
    michael222
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭michael222


    magicface1 wrote: »
    Ah cool thanks for the answer always wondered why anyone would smoke. I have never smoked my bro, mam and dad smoke but it has never crossed my mind.

    Then your lucky, and dont start.

    Well done

    Michael


  • Options
    #170
    Wade in the Sea
    Registered Users Posts: 276 ✭✭Wade in the Sea


    Zillah wrote: »
    Clearly reasonable debate is not working. I shall try fight fire with fire:



    ;):rolleyes::rolleyes:


    No point as far as I can see. He/she doesn't listen to anyone but him/herself. It's all about what's he/she wants and the rest of can fcek right off? :)


  • Options
    #171
    michael222
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭michael222


    Zillah wrote: »
    Clearly reasonable debate is not working. I shall try fight fire with fire:



    ;):rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Hello

    I think you fight fire with water, unless some thing has chaged.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Is that the best you can do........?:rolleyes: Or do you have anything to back up your asertion that someone smoking in the open air is a threat to health. As I said, such an assertion could only be made by the uneducated or the hysterical. Someone like you, perhaps.
    Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »
    People can spend their money on what they wish. The money does not belong to the "hard working people". There are 450K people on social welfare in Ireland today. Do you begrudge them a few pints?

    Only as much as you begrudge a smoker having a smoke in the open air. But perhaps when you get yourself a job, and are doing something of some value, people might take you somewhat seriously. But probably not, I would guess.


  • Options
    #173
    Wade in the Sea
    Registered Users Posts: 276 ✭✭Wade in the Sea


    michael222 wrote: »
    Hello

    I think you fight fire with water, unless some thing has chaged.

    Hummmm not sure Red Adair would have gotten far with that sort of thinking?

    :)


  • Options
    #174
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    positron wrote: »

    And, phew, I have seen ONE good argument against the idea - that idea about the duty from smoking being higher than the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.

    The one good argument isn't economic, it's the fact that to ban smoking in public represents a degredation of individual freedom. To do so with the aim of "helping" smokers, adds a healthy dollop of condescension to it. If you feel you have the right to limit the freedoms of those who are acting in a manner that really doesn't affect you, then it's only a matter of time before you find yourself subjected to the same kind of puritanical nonsense.


  • Options
    #175
    generalmiaow
    Registered Users Posts: 865 ✭✭✭generalmiaow


    pUtge.gif


  • Options
    #176
    michael222
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭michael222


    drkpower wrote: »
    Is that the best you can do........?:rolleyes: Or do you have anything to back up your asertion that someone smoking in the open air is a threat to health. As I said, such an assertion could only be made by the uneducated or the hysterical. Someone like you, perhaps.



    Only as much as you begrudge a smoker having a smoke in the open air. But perhaps when you get yourself a job, and are doing something of some value, people might take you somewhat seriously. But probably not, I would guess.

    Hello

    The last comment is in bad taste there,
    I dont even know you and i can even see thats out of order.

    People right or wrong have a chance to air there points and people will comment back, but picking on some one because they dont have a job, well your out of my good books.

    Thanks

    Michael

    PS This is what i was talking about today Irish ready in the wings to take you down no matter what the cost is, and are we good at it, prime example here

    Humans at there worst I beleive


  • Options
    #177
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    generalmiaow wrote: »
    Thanks for responding, Iamxavier, but - above, someone posted a reasonable explanation as to why it doesn't cause harm (Boyle's law, by the way, is the reason), and you responded with "wrong".

    I honestly did not see any reasons or links only; "smoking outside does not cause harm".

    What's boyles law?
    If you want to restrict someone's freedom, you need to provide proof that they are infringing on you in a demonstrable way.

    Does it not infringe? Does it not cause problems? You will find that nobody, including smokers, enjoy taking a gulp of air from another persons exhaled breath which is smoke.
    There's no reason to believe outdoor smoking causes harm, the only extensive study only showed elevated cotinine levels after 6 hours of constant exposure to smokers - not demonstrable harm.

    Got a link? I have, will show you later in the post ;)

    What is with this "smoke doesn't effect you outside", is there some sort of magical barrier surrounding you outside? Why do people believe this?
    The belief that standing at a bus stop with a smoker is harmful is commonly regarded as outlandish, hence why it was not banned in 2004 along with workplace smoking.

    You know that laws don't normally make outright bans on things, they are gradual. This is mainly because people do not like change, when change is gradual people accept it more. Was it proposed in 2004?
    tl;dr - you can't prove a negative

    You, nor anybody else here, cannot disprove what I have said. :) Lots of "smoke rage" going on in this thread though.
    My point about vehicles, even though it was flawed, is that even though there's an alternative to driving to the shops 100 yards away, it's not illegal to use your car, causing harm.

    The alternative is not even nearly as feasible. Driving to the shop 100 yards away in most cases = stupid and/or lazy. Again, the infrastructure is not in place to see an alternative to what we have. You don't speak of an essential use of combustion vehicles. If we didn't have them, we would not be where we are today. It's something some take for granted. How would you get simple things like toilet paper, food, your TV, PC, phone, where would you live. For these reasons, vehicles are essential to modern living. There is no alternative. Smoking is not essential, there is an alternative.
    generalmiaow wrote: »
    You asked why it wouldn't be enforceable, I gave an example of two places that it isn't enforced, and in one case had to be rolled back. It's better than just imagining it would work in Ireland without any better evidence.

    It's quite difficult to compare two nations on most things. Just because it is not enforceable in one country, does not mean it should not be tried here. They obviously made a complete balls of it if they can't even enforce it in one building, you know?
    On the second point, litter laws (which are more comparable to this than traffic laws, owing to the traffic consensus being a matter of a shared consciousness of the rules of the road/personal safety, and otherwise broken constantly) aren't enforced anywhere but the city centre. The reason the streets aren't covered in litter isn't because people are afraid of being arrested, it's because of common courtesy. Perhaps we could agree that, as in Japan, people should raise consciousness of being courteous about smoking without the threat of fines and imprisonment?

    Without the fines and the imprisonment, do you think people would do as they do now? Will a fine have any effect? I know not to park in certain areas as I will get fined. I don't litter because it's disgusting, but subconciously I am aware that I might get a fine too. Smoking is banned in Tokyo on some streets. That's outside ;) They also have designated smoking areas. Classic, something I mentioned earlier and was laughed at. If you want to compare countries, then I give you Japan :P Follow how they implement it, enforce it and carry out punishments and away ya go.

    Japanese smoking room
    michael222 wrote: »
    Good Question.

    Its because when we are small we copy those around us. Its part of our DNA make up.

    This happens accross the animal kingdom as well to follow is part of life.

    So when a baby or young person look's at adults and watches them smoke, this comes appart of them as well.

    Some others just take it up because of pressure from there mates etc etc

    Michael

    Even more reason to ban smoking in public areas. Younger people will not be exposed to it as much as they are now. Lowering the chance of them picking up the habbit, which is great.

    http://ash.org/outdoors.pdf

    Check it out. I'm sure some of ye will find something wrong with it...


  • Options
    #178
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Einhard wrote: »
    The one good argument isn't economic, it's the fact that to ban smoking in public represents a degredation of individual freedom. To do so with the aim of "helping" smokers, adds a healthy dollop of condescension to it. If you feel you have the right to limit the freedoms of those who are acting in a manner that really doesn't affect you, then it's only a matter of time before you find yourself subjected to the same kind of puritanical nonsense.

    Plenty of people have been summonsed to court for being drunk in a public place. I mean, what about their freedom? Surely it should be ok to be drunk in public? Again, we focus on the smokers' rights and not the rights of the non smoker. What about the non smokers? Should they not have the freedom to be free from second hand smoke in public places? People should be able to wait at a bus stop without being hindered by smoke.

    Smoking does hinder other people. That's the thing.


  • Options
    #179
    michael222
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭michael222


    Even more reason to ban smoking in public areas. Younger people will not be exposed to it as much as they are now. Lowering the chance of them picking up the habbit, which is great.

    http://ash.org/outdoors.pdf

    Check it out. I'm sure some of ye will find something wrong with it...[/QUOTE]

    Yes i do agree with that, but smoking has and will be around for a long time, its in us to do such thing's. What about parents who smoke at the home in front of there kids, you would need to go to every one and ban them as well, or better change 3000 years of human culture, because smoking has been around for a long time.

    And please dont be putting down the comments you make, you have a valid point here, thats why + and - always come together at some point in time, to trash out the rights and wrongs.

    But what i dont agree is others putting people down, thats not right, we all should try to resolve all issues and talk to each other in all ways.

    Thanks

    Michael


  • Options
    #180
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Yes i do agree with that, but smoking has and will be around for a long time, its in us to do such thing's. What about parents who smoke at the home in front of there kids, you would need to go to every one and ban them as well, or better change 3000 years of human culture, because smoking has been around for a long time.

    And please dont be putting down the comments you make, you have a valid point here, thats why + and - always come together at some point in time, to trash out the rights and wrongs.

    But what i dont agree is others putting people down, thats not right, we all should try to resolve all issues and talk to each other in all ways.

    Thanks

    Michael

    Well the suggestion is for a ban in public areas so smoking in your home would be fine, in the eyes of the law lets say. I 100% disagree with subjecting children to an atmosphere filled with smoke. I never like that idea, but I think that is something that would be difficult to implement. A ban on smoking around young children. Would it be something for social services maybe? I don't know.

    I know smoking has been around for thousands of years, if not more, but that should not be the reason why we cannot change now. You know?

    Plenty of things were the norm thousands of years ago, which have changed in the last 100, or less even.

    I don't know what you mean by the following:

    "And please dont be putting down the comments you make, you have a valid point here, thats why + and - always come together at some point in time, to trash out the rights and wrongs. "


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Indubitable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Indubitable


    I don't like getting smoke in my face from the rare inconsiderate smoker but I can live with it. The left wing side of me resents the idea anyway.


Advertisement