New Smoking Ban - Public Places & Beaches

Stiffler2 · 25-04-2012 12:20PM

I'm leaving tomorrow for North Korea, it's become too strict in Ireland.

jaffacakesyum · 25-04-2012 12:23PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Intermittent short periods of passive smoking in an outdoor area are, as 44leto said, negligible.

And have you any facts to back up that it is negligible? I'd respect smokers a lot more if they accepted the fact and said 'listen, I know this is bad for my health and for those around me' and just tried not to smoke around others. I know of only one smoker who is like this.

A quick google revealed:

The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States

Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000-300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500-15,000 hospitalizations, annually

May seem negligible to you, but I'm sorry, people inflicting this on innocent people p1sses me off.

Peetrik · 25-04-2012 12:24PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Passive smoking CAN give you cancer.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

It's INCREDIBLY ignorant to thing that second hand smoking does no damage.

So do trans fats. So unless you only eat raw vegan foods then its INCREDIBLY ignorant (Lacking knowledge or awareness in general) of you to slate smoking but continue to eat foods that cause cancer.

In fairness if you ban smoking because of potential health risks then you have to ban alcohol and mc donalds for the same reason.

I dont smoke myself but I am very much against any laws that 'protect us from ourselves'.
There is a lot of information on the negative effects smoking has on health, if someone wants to smoke anyway then they should be free to do so.

SEPT 23 1989 · 25-04-2012 12:25PM

When they have finished with the smokers they will go after the fatties

readyletsgo · 25-04-2012 12:25PM

This is just a silly law to pass, it will never work. How would they police the whole country outdoors all day every day?
I am a smoker, it stinks its bad for me I know this, any idiot can tell you that. I dont mind smoking outside instead of indoors in a pub, no prob with that. But its OUTSIDE in the AIR, its not like us smokers are filling up the outdoors with smoke, it disappears ffs. Its just silly.

I highly doubt the govt. will do an all out ban on smoking at the end of the day also.
A pack of smokes cost €9.50 or so. The govt. makes around €6 in tax, most people by a pack a day, that min €42 in tax per week from each smoker. Its one of the biggest draws for money for them, why would they try and loose that?
Cancers is also going to get you in one way or another too, of course smoking doesnt help but jaysus its not the only cause of cancers!

Hopefully I will give up soon but these silly new laws are just, ugh, stupid!

Pace2008 · 25-04-2012 12:26PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

There are something like 250 known carcinogens in one cigarette, with thousands of other chemicals that may also be possibly dais why maging. What makes you think that second hand smoke isn't damaging to the people around you?

In an outdoor area? I dunno, like, diffusion? Think of the difference between being exposed to toxic car fumes on an open street, and hooking up a hose to an exhaust pipe and pulling it through your window.

Exposure to second-hand smoke smoke in a confined area is a risk factor in the development of cancer. I s support the indoor smoking ban for this reason. Some people may find the smell of smoke in an open area to be unpleasant*, which why I stand away from the crowd at a bus stop, and I don't light up in queues for ATM's, but it is not known to be an actual risk to your health.

*Though curiously I have found that the people who seem to be put out by a brief waft of smoke frequently are the kinds who are not the most easygoing and seem to be put out by everything in general

Snowie · 25-04-2012 12:26PM

let me get this straight there going to ban smoking in public places....

My local garda sations open for an hour once a day...

who's going to police nosey grannies ?

jaffacakesyum · 25-04-2012 12:27PM

Peetrik wrote: »

So do trans fats. So unless you only eat raw vegan foods then its INCREDIBLY ignorant (Lacking knowledge or awareness in general) of you to slate smoking but continue to eat foods that cause cancer.

In fairness if you ban smoking because of potential health risks then you have to ban alcohol and mc donalds for the same reason.

I dont smoke myself but I am very much against any laws that 'protect us from ourselves'.
There is a lot of information on the negative effects smoking has on health, if someone wants to smoke anyway then they should be free to do so.

I know full well what can give you cancer. I'd advise everyone to look at the American Institute of Cancer Research's documents if they'd like advice on diet and physical activity levels that are recommended to help prevent cancer.

The difference between diet and smoking is that diet is self inflicted. If you eat a lot of red meat or trans fats you're inflicting any potential health problems on yourself, not on others. That's what annoys me. If people could inject cigarettes then by all means go ahead, I just think smoking is ignorant, rude and disrespectful to the people around them.

Maudi · 25-04-2012 12:27PM

Seachmall wrote: »

demanufactured wrote: »

I would support this...smoking is ****ing stupid in this day and age......stick your nose in an ashtray....thats what you smell like.

I apologise if I don't smell as you'd like, but unless we've found ourselves in a relationship with each other in the last 10 minutes then your senses are of no concern to me.

all this fat troll is doing is making a smokescreen for the peasants to bicker about while him and kenny continue to rob the country..and its working beautifully...read postings above of simpering idiots...

44leto · 25-04-2012 12:28PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

And have you any facts to back up that it is negligible? I'd respect smokers a lot more if they accepted the fact and said 'listen, I know this is bad for my health and for those around me' and just tried not to smoke around others. I know of only one smoker who is like this.

A quick google revealed:

May seem negligible to you, but I'm sorry, people inflicting this on innocent people p1sses me off.

The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States

Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000-300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500-15,000 hospitalizations, annually

Is that figure derived from indoors or outdoors????

People are allowed smoke in their homes and that is were that figure is derived.

So yes outdoor second hand smoke is dangerous but negligible when it comes to other outdoor pollutants, so I stand by my post.

Bruthal · 25-04-2012 12:28PM

Peetrik wrote: »

So do trans fats. So unless you only eat raw vegan foods then its INCREDIBLY ignorant (Lacking knowledge or awareness in general) of you to slate smoking but continue to eat foods that cause cancer.

In fairness if you ban smoking because of potential health risks then you have to ban alcohol and mc donalds for the same reason.

I dont smoke myself but I am very much against any laws that 'protect us from ourselves'.
There is a lot of information on the negative effects smoking has on health, if someone wants to smoke anyway then they should be free to do so.

People around you eating mc donalds or drinking alcohol do not cause you to ingest any of it. Its completely within your control to do so or not.

jaffacakesyum · 25-04-2012 12:30PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

In an outdoor area? I dunno, like, diffusion? Think of the difference between being exposed to toxic car fumes on an open street, and hooking up a hose to an exhaust pipe and pulling it through your window.

Exposure to second-hand smoke smoke in a confined area is a risk factor in the development of cancer. I s support the indoor smoking ban for this reason. Some people may find the smell of smoke in an open area to be unpleasant*, which why I stand away from the crowd at a bus stop, and I don't light up in queues for ATM's, but it is not known to be an actual risk to your health.

*Though curiously I have found that the people who seem to be put out by a brief waft of smoke frequently are the kinds who are not the most easygoing and seem to be put out by everything in general

There is diffusion when you smoke outdoors, no doubt about it. But what people aren't getting is that, I'm not talking about one person suffering second hand smoke from waiting at a bus for 5 minutes and that's it. I'm saying, this person may have to get the bus 2 or 3 times + a day every day, 5-7 days a week. Coupled with that, you have exposure in other public places, parks, beaches, etc. Coupled even further with that, you may have close friends or family that smoke so as well as outdoor second hand smoke you're exposed to it indoors.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that just because it's outdoors doesn't mean it's not bad for your health. Over 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible so just because most of the visible smoke isn't directly blown in somebodys face while waiting for the bus, doesn't mean it's not harmful.

44leto · 25-04-2012 12:33PM

_sparkie_ wrote: »

even if it does come in there is no way to enforce it. here in hong kong you are not allowed to smoke in a good few public places like walkways, on the water front and in parks but there is just no way to stop people from doing it. you would need wardens on every street or non-smoking spot 24 hours, its just not possible.

Maybe as it is not possible to totally enforce the drinking and driving laws, people still do it with little chance of been caught. But you make it socially unacceptable then everyone enforces it. That is what happened with the original smoking ban.

Nobody wants to be seen flouting the law, so public smokers become social pariahs.

That I think is the aim. PS I am a smoker.

Bannasidhe · 25-04-2012 12:36PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

People around you eating mc donalds or drinking alcohol do not cause you to ingest any of it. Its completely within your control to do so or not.

People around me who have saturated themselves in perfumes and aftershave etc etc cause me a severe allergic reaction. Can we ban those too?

25-04-2012 12:37PM

If they are banning smoking from public places like beaches and parks for cosmetic reasons, then they should ban fast food, fat people, drunk people, etc from these places and they should employ thousands of wardens across the country to police the ban. Its pointless implementing something that is not enforced.
Fat smokers should then be kept under house arrest in case they are seen by impressionable children.

Rabies · 25-04-2012 12:38PM

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Knob head wants to introduce a new smoking ban which extends to public places and beaches.

WTF is this $h1t. I f00king hate this country these days, this is not the country I grew up in, it's just full of complete tards these days.

Source :

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0424/pro-smoking-group-hits-out-at-reilly-ban-plans.html
<snip>

I stopped reading after the first few lines. The highlighted bits are enough.

If its not starting off like an intelligent conversation or something at least a teenager could handle, then the rest is prob tripe.

Without reading the article, my opinion is smokers need to pay a little more attention to their environment. No need to out right ban it. But to be fair, there can be a crazy amount of cigg butts left on the beaches.

frank9901 · 25-04-2012 12:38PM

i was not aware of this new york outdoor smoking ban

Nicotine lovers in New York are limited even further as to where they are allowed to light up as another smoking ban is introduced.

New York State is creating smoke-free areas outdoors at New York state parks and historic sites, including around playgrounds, beaches and pools.

Announcing the ban this week, state officials said it was done to make the six state parks consistent with their city-run counterparts, where smoking is already outlawed.
The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation says the smoke-free zones will be around recreation areas, including beaches and picnic shelters. The agency operates 178 parks and 35 historic sites.
People are already prohibited from smoking in famous outdoor areas including Manhattan's Central Park, the car-free part of Times Square and Coney Island's broadwalk - with anybody who violates the law being fined $250.

Parks officials say that the new ban will protect children and others from the dangers of secondhand smoke and reduce litter from discarded cigarettes.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130175/Smoking-ban-extended-New-Yorks-state-parks-beaches.html#ixzz1t3F2ok00

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130175/Smoking-ban-extended-New-Yorks-state-parks-beaches.html#ixzz1t3EwMUJq

DarkJager · 25-04-2012 12:38PM

They are called "public" areas for a reason -anybody can use them. This idea of banning smoking in parks is getting dangerously close to majoritarian tyranny than being any form of democracy (the views of the majority trump the views of a minority). What baffles me is that people inhale toxic fumes everyday that are generated by traffic but now feel the need to complain about people smoking outdoors? This country can be a horrible ****ing joke some times. Self appointed moral guardians are scum.

Seachmall · 25-04-2012 12:39PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

And have you any facts to back up that it is negligible?

After up to, and over, 39 years of repeated and prolonged exposure to second hand smoking in enclosed areas there is no detectable risk after cessation of exposure [PDF].

How much damage do you think 5 minutes of passive smoking in the open air will do?

I'd respect smokers a lot more if they accepted the fact and said 'listen, I know this is bad for my health and for those around me' and just tried not to smoke around others. I know of only one smoker who is like this.

And I'd respect your criticisms more if they were based on science.

A quick google revealed:

May seem negligible to you, but I'm sorry, people inflicting this on innocent people p1sses me off.

While interesting, it's not relevant.

Stiffler2 · 25-04-2012 12:40PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

And have you any facts to back up that it is negligible? I'd respect smokers a lot more if they accepted the fact and said 'listen, I know this is bad for my health and for those around me' and just tried not to smoke around others. I know of only one smoker who is like this.

A quick google revealed:

May seem negligible to you, but I'm sorry, people inflicting this on innocent people p1sses me off.

Your argument makes no sense, where is this scientifical data you speak of? I don't want a pasted quote from google, I want the actual scientific data and the scientists who made this up put in front of us here to make their argument.

The reason your argument makes no sense is why stop their, why not ban anything or everything that is deemed passive and bad to other users health ?

For example, I am allurgic to peanuts yet you can buy them in the shop and eat them in front of me in public, I think we should ban peanuts.

For example, Let's ban nuclear energy because of what happened in Chernobyl & Japan because it affected civilans health.

Let's ban diamonds because innocent people are dying in Africa from blood diamonds.

Let's ban mobile phones because they might give you brain radiation.

Let's ban fat foods because of fatties.

Let's ban xbox, Ps3 and wii's because of Andrers Brevik

I could do this all day but reallistically I think non-smokers need to wake up and smell the foul air that is coming from their arses or maybe they would prefer to live in a world where you can't make your own decisions because of the law.

The smoking ban inside I did not like but simply have to put up with it.
Smoking ban in public places is ridiculous

_sparkie_ · 25-04-2012 12:42PM

44leto wrote: »

Maybe as it is not possible to totally enforce the drinking and driving laws, people still do it with little chance of been caught. But you make it socially unacceptable then everyone enforces it. That is what happened with the original smoking ban.

Nobody wants to be seen flouting the law, so public smokers become social pariahs.

That I think is the aim. PS I am a smoker.

good point, i never thought of that but would it really work? think of it like drinking in public in ireland, its illegal but i dont think people would ever think 'oh no, what will everyone think of me if they see me with a can on the street?'.

if the law did come in and i saw someone smoking on the street i wouldnt be offended and give them dirty looks. maybe in 20 years when people are not used to seeing people smoke in public then they might have a different reaction.

jaffacakesyum · 25-04-2012 12:42PM

44leto wrote: »

Is that figure derived from indoors or outdoors????

People are allowed smoke in their homes and that is were that figure is derived.

So yes outdoor second hand smoke is dangerous but negligible when it comes to other outdoor pollutants, so I stand by my post.

I couldn't tell you if it was derived from indoors or outdoors to be honest. Regardless, second hand is second hand smoke. It doesn't magically become healthy as soon as your outdoors. What it does do, is dissipate so it is LESS dangerous for you outdoors. Still dangerous nonetheless, and I seriously doubt people who claim otherwise actually believe that. I think they're just trying to make themselves feel better.

Anyway, unfortunately I have to go, but I'll leave you with a few more studies

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070502181454.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118154619.htm

http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/outdoor-tobacco-smoke

Wossack · 25-04-2012 12:44PM

thought this was about littering tbh - particularly how they specify 'public places and beaches'

but no.. the actual reasoning why this is being pushed sounds pretty ridiculous - passive smoking, and impressionable children? ah here...

(am a non smoker)

rgmmg · 25-04-2012 12:45PM

Ban cars then. Or, at least, non-commercial vehicles from urban centers.The pollutants I inhale from cycling to work in in Dublin are as bad as a few daily cigs. Load of codswollop.

prinz · 25-04-2012 12:50PM

I hope they include bus stops/shelters, that is one place I always find some tosser lighting up when shoulder to should with others. Anyone down wind is leaving breathing in that crap or moving away.

seamus · 25-04-2012 12:52PM

Rabies wrote: »

Without reading the article, my opinion is smokers need to pay a little more attention to their environment. No need to out right ban it. But to be fair, there can be a crazy amount of cigg butts left on the beaches.

This, pretty much.

Littering among smokers is so common as to be practically universal as far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to have a place where smokers are without there being cigarette butts everywhere.

For some reason in the smoking fraternity it's acceptable, if not "cool" to flick your butt away and expect the butt fairy to come along and deal with it. Look around the outside of any pub, especially where a bin is provided for cigarette butts, and the place is littered.

That would be my primary concern. Yes, passive smoking causes cancer, but in a public place the exposure is relatively small, and the non-smoker always has the option to move away from the smoke (unlike in a pub, for example).

Provide a smoking area in parks and beaches for people to have their smoke, incorporating on-the-spot fines for people who smoke outside that area, and €1500 fines for people who don't dispose of their butts properly (anywhere).

As for the smoking in cars thing, I'm torn. Mainly because the kind of moron who currently smokes with their child in the car, isn't going to pay a blind bit of attention to any law. The only people who'd obey the law are the people who have the good sense not to smoke with their kids in the car.

crapmanjoe · 25-04-2012 12:53PM

FatherLen wrote: »

it will never happen. policing it would be impossible.

They have it in place in New York since last summer and it works fine.

Something like this just doesn't need much enforcement. Most people will just generally follow the law.

Makes walking parks a more pleasant experIence

44leto · 25-04-2012 12:53PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I couldn't tell you if it was derived from indoors or outdoors to be honest. Regardless, second hand is second hand smoke. It doesn't magically become healthy as soon as your outdoors. What it does do, is dissipate so it is LESS dangerous for you outdoors. Still dangerous nonetheless, and I seriously doubt people who claim otherwise actually believe that. I think they're just trying to make themselves feel better.

Anyway, unfortunately I have to go, but I'll leave you with a few more studies

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070502181454.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118154619.htm

http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/outdoor-tobacco-smoke

Well it becomes healthier, a lot more so. In a room it is more condensed, but outdoor second hand smoke is the least of your worries, car exhaust and industrial pollutants are more dangerous and a lot more denser.

For example you could survive in a cigarette smoky pub, we did for years, but with a similar density of a car exhaust polluting a pub, people would die, there and then.

Seachmall · 25-04-2012 12:57PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I couldn't tell you if it was derived from indoors or outdoors to be honest. Regardless, second hand is second hand smoke. It doesn't magically become healthy as soon as your outdoors. What it does do, is dissipate so it is LESS dangerous for you outdoors. Still dangerous nonetheless, and I seriously doubt people who claim otherwise actually believe that. I think they're just trying to make themselves feel better.

Care to post a source that supports your arguments though?

My source suggests that even after prolonged periods of heavy smoking in enclosed areas the risks drop to minute during a varying period after the exposure dissapers. So your claims that standing beside me for minutes at a bus stop will result in you being more likely to develop cancer seem quite unlikely.

Your sources state that even outdoors the second-hand smoking is comparable to secondhand smoking indoors when standing close to the smoker. This does nothing for your argument that my presence alone is enough to give you cancer.

Brendog · 25-04-2012 01:01PM

I don't smoke and still think this is ridiculous.

If you're in a large open area then you aren't harming anyone with your second hand smoke.
You can't ban it on the basis of some people who stand near smokers and complain.
If you don't want second hand smoke don't stand near someone who is smoking.

AAHHH DDDUUUURRRRR

New Smoking Ban - Public Places & Beaches

Comments