Health Minister James Reilly wants a tobacco-free Ireland by 2025

everdead.ie wrote: »

Smoking related illness' cost more than the revenue generated I thought?

Yea, This whole argument that they would never lose the revenue is only looking at it from a single angle. We do spend an absolute fortune on tabacco related illness which is probably not as quantifiable as the tax intake its probably not that much of a loss to the coffers.

But if they make it illegal, are the majority of people really going to break the law? Sure there will bethe diehards as with other drugs, but over time having to deal with dodgy characters to get the product, having to then go somewhere away from the crowd to smoke it and then sneak back without people noticing.

There is a big difference at the moment in that cigarettes are legal and so people don't bat an eyelid, but can you imagine firing up a joint at your workplace? How about taking some heroin? No, because the company wouldn't accept it. It would be the same for cigs if they are banned.

So yes there would still be illegal trade, but it would reduce fairly quickly and in the main most people would just quit.

Getting sort of annoying to have fools going around saying 'Can we not have a nanny state, it's OUR choice blah blah blah'. Well, obviously you've forgotten about:

- Second hand smoke - coupled with the damage and distress it causes non-smokers.

- The cost you lot are costing the state with yer lung illnesses, cancer etc.

And let's not forget their favourite argument, 'The Argument from Alcohol'. When all else fails, use alcohol as an argument, right?

Basically, you lot go around stating 'Well, alcohol does MORE damage!', yeah, but how many people get 'addicted' to alcohol (alcoholism) and how many people get liver damage from 'second-hand drinking'? Even if you accept the premise, it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't tackle the smoking epidemic.

And the 'Argument from Sugary Sh**' - even if this were true, it doesn't mean that the government shouldn't make an effort to tackle each and every cause on its own merits and demerits, such as smoking.

Finally, I want to reiterate that I hate second hand smoking, I hate seeing cigarette butts f***ed across the road without a care, I hate seeing young people being influenced by people like you to take up the addiction. This is a good measure and any attempt to derail it is quite frankly pathetic.

Pretty sure Reilly currently smokes or recently smoked. Nothing like an evangelical ex-smoker with a bit of power.

OneArt wrote: »

e-cigarettes.

Are these like cigarettes you send through email?

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Getting sort of annoying to have fools going around saying 'Can we not have a nanny state, it's OUR choice blah blah blah'. Well, obviously you've forgotten about:

- Second hand smoke - coupled with the damage and distress it causes non-smokers.

- The cost you lot are costing the state with yer lung illnesses, cancer etc.

And let's not forget their favourite argument, 'The Argument from Alcohol'. When all else fails, use alcohol as an argument, right?

Basically, you lot go around stating 'Well, alcohol does MORE damage!', yeah, but how many people get 'addicted' to alcohol (alcoholism) and how many people get liver damage from 'second-hand drinking'? Even if you accept the premise, it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't tackle the smoking epidemic.

And the 'Argument from Sugary Sh**' - even if this were true, it doesn't mean that the government shouldn't make an effort to tackle each and every cause on its own merits and demerits, such as smoking.

Finally, I want to reiterate that I hate second hand smoking, I hate seeing cigarette butts f***ed across the road without a care, I hate seeing young people being influenced by people like you to take up the addiction. This is a good measure and any attempt to derail it is quite frankly pathetic.

Ban combustion engines whilst you are at it

Gumbi wrote: »

In fairness. Alcohol does a lot, LOT more damage than cigs. If people wanna smoke in their own let em shmoke. Christ, ****ing nanny state.

Troll post? A quick google search shows a lorry load of statistics that say smoking causes many times more deaths than alcohol.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if they make it illegal, are the majority of people really going to break the law? Sure there will bethe diehards as with other drugs, but over time having to deal with dodgy characters to get the product, having to then go somewhere away from the crowd to smoke it and then sneak back without people noticing.

There is a big difference at the moment in that cigarettes are legal and so people don't bat an eyelid, but can you imagine firing up a joint at your workplace? How about taking some heroin? No, because the company wouldn't accept it. It would be the same for cigs if they are banned.

So yes there would still be illegal trade, but it would reduce fairly quickly and in the main most people would just quit.

Unless there's a worldwide ban, it just isn't going to work. There's already a huge illegal market for cigarettes in this country. A Nationwide ban on them will just see the illegal market rocket in the current generation.

Smokers are addicts and they are simply irrational (just like any other addict) when it comes to their particular addiction. They will go through any hoop to get their fix, including the illegal route.

Frankly I'd love to see the bloody things destroyed completely and the whole industry squashed into the ground. I have already lost too many family members to it.

who the fug wrote: »

Ban combustion engines whilst you are at it

When was the last time you saw a mass of people enter a shop any purchase a combustion engine because they were addicted to it?