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

Nichololas · 25-07-2013 05:56PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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

The thing is, right, the thing is, is that you can't expect someone with an addiction to responsibly legislate their own addiction. On the other hand, I also wouldn't trust someone who doesn't smoke to understand and fully comprehend the nuances of - for arguments sake - asking an entire population to give up smoking. So in fact ex-smokers are probably in a unique position to judge it, having been on both sides of the fence.

The fact that a lot of ex-smokers are against smoking is not very surprising. If they were pro-smoking they would either be i) not in fact an ex-smoker or ii) a dickhead (who would tell someone else to smoke when they themselves have given it up?). The other option is of course the neutral 'I won't smoke but I don't care if you do'. I'd wager that deep down, most people (myself included) with this position aren't doing it to uphold some principle of personal responsibility and all that, but from a laissez-faire if you're not assed about your own health then why the **** would I be?

..

Then again, I'm biased because I'm an ex-smoker. Just a little irked because that 'evangelical ex-smokers' line is almost always trotted out by smokers (unsurprisingly).

PhlegmyMoses · 25-07-2013 06:15PM

Nichololas wrote: »

The thing is, right, the thing is, is that you can't expect someone with an addiction to responsibly legislate their own addiction. On the other hand, I also wouldn't trust someone who doesn't smoke to understand and fully comprehend the nuances of - for arguments sake - asking an entire population to give up smoking. So in fact ex-smokers are probably in a unique position to judge it, having been on both sides of the fence.

The fact that a lot of ex-smokers are against smoking is not very surprising. If they were pro-smoking they would either be i) not in fact an ex-smoker or ii) a dickhead (who would tell someone else to smoke when they themselves have given it up?). The other option is of course the neutral 'I won't smoke but I don't care if you do'. I'd wager that deep down, most people (myself included) with this position aren't doing it to uphold some principle of personal responsibility and all that, but from a laissez-faire if you're not assed about your own health then why the **** would I be?

..

Then again, I'm biased because I'm an ex-smoker. Just a little irked because that 'evangelical ex-smokers' line is almost always trotted out by smokers (unsurprisingly).

It was a throwaway comment but the evangelical ex-smoker trope is not without merit, in fairness. We've all met them, you when you were a smoker, and just thought: "Mind your own ****ing business." Sure, Reilly is Minister for health, so this is his business, but any suggestion of making the country smoke free in 10 years is ignoring all of the inherent pitfalls of such a declaration. It's grand to be optimistic but it's so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone who has ever smoked would think that it's feasible. Hence the evangelical non-smoker comment.

Bipolar Joe · 25-07-2013 06:19PM

As regards death-by-alcohol, how many people die because of it? There's no side party that ever gets injured? How about someone hit by a drink driver? How about people who are beaten by a violent drunk? Health benefits my hairy arse, who the fuck drinks to be healthy? I'll bet the percentage doesn't even register. People get drunk because they like drinking, and being drunk is a side effect. So saying that one is better than the other is complete nonsense and side-tracking.

treasa1978 · 25-07-2013 06:20PM

I am a smoker for over 15 years and I would be over the moon delighted if such an event would happen. Ireland should be smoke free big time. If it was unavailable to us, then we would have no choice but to quit. I agree totally in personal freedom of choice but in the area of smoking its a definite no no for me. Make Ireland smoke free, the citizens will be thankful in the end up.

hfallada · 25-07-2013 06:23PM

I know he is the health minister. But the man has an unhealthy obsession with tobacco. I imagine because it's easy to go after smokers( smoking rates are constantly declining).

But yet what has the man done on obesity or the fact a large amount of Irish people are over weight. I haven't heard much from him about. Although obesity is growing rapidly in Ireland and a lot of processed foods are referred to as the next tobacco.

PhlegmyMoses · 25-07-2013 06:23PM

treasa1978 wrote: »

I am a smoker for over 15 years and I would be over the moon delighted if such an event would happen. Ireland should be smoke free big time. If it was unavailable to us, then we would have no choice but to quit. I agree totally in personal freedom of choice but in the area of smoking its a definite no no for me. Make Ireland smoke free, the citizens will be thankful in the end up.

People will just buy their smokes up North or from criminals, as they are already doing now due to price hikes.

There is nowhere that I can smoke that can cause harm to others - I'm all for the current smoking ban as it was totally logical - so the only person I'm harming is me. Let me at it and I'll say nothing about the 10 pints and the kebab you'll have on Saturday night.

Gran Hermano · 25-07-2013 06:27PM

I look forward to seeing how the government handles a decrease in revenue alongside the increased costs for housing/pensions/healthcare for a population with a longer life expectancy. We best be nice to the children of today as they'll be subsidising and paying for a lot of pensioners.

Cienciano · 25-07-2013 06:28PM

An eu ban on smoking would be great. Always funny seeing smokers getting their knickers in a twist over whatever new smoking law is coming in.

gowley · 25-07-2013 06:28PM

he also said hed introduce free health care for everyone. wouldnt give much thought to what any ministers say at the minute. you only have to look at labour leader saying he wouldnt cut child benefit . i remember someone else was not going to give "another red cent" to the bankers. all bullsh$t and bravado. how hes running the health service when he owes millions and is in stubbs gazzete is beyond me.

tommy2bad · 25-07-2013 06:39PM

I suspect this is another distraction tactic, or a silly season story.
Not a hope in hell that the rate of smoking can be drooped to 5% in 10 years. Sweden has the lowest adult rate of smoking and it only now down to about 8%. Their 'miracle' is due to smokers having access to an alternative snus. As it is Rielly wants to restrict the only viable alternative to smoking, ecigs, and without an alternative then the whole idea is doomed to failure.
If otoh he allows ecigs to grow as they have been growing and thus exchanging smokers for vapers then he might be in with a shout.
Gov wont allow it due to revenue losses, pharma companies wont allow it due to lost revenue, no too much money in smoking for this to anything more than an aspiration. Governments pray like that saint "Lord make us good but not yet"

25-07-2013 06:59PM

I smoke but rarely drink.

Ban drink!!!! Or vice versa.

suicide_circus · 25-07-2013 07:04PM

would he consider banning pies?

Boombastic · 25-07-2013 07:05PM

They should ban fat people and beards - look how much devastation they have inflicted on society

tommy2bad · 25-07-2013 07:24PM

Boombastic wrote: »

They should ban fat people and beards - look how much devastation they have inflicted on society

At least dont let them have any power, I mean look at Henry VIII and Robert Baratheon and now James Rielly

Leroy42 · 25-07-2013 07:30PM

Those you are saying that people would simply go up north or whatever are missing a very significant point. At the moment standing outside a pub or whatever, it is impossible to tell if the person smoking bought the cigarettes legally or illegally. If they did eventually make it illegal then the person standing outside the pub smoking would actually be a criminal.

People smoking in cars could be given penalty points.

Think of it this way, how many people now smoke on planes? I'd hazard a guess that its in the point of a percent.

If a guard saw you he would have to fine/arrest you, doesn't matter where you got the cigs from. Sure, people would smoke at home, but what sort of addiction is that when you can only basically have it in your own house.

On for those talking about alcohol, sugar, salt, fat people etc, this thread is about smoking. Nothing to say we shouldn't do something about those as well but it kind of defeats your own arguement when you are argueing that the state should get even more involved

Ruudi_Mentari · 25-07-2013 07:36PM

He looks rough as a badgers arse, and then there's his voice. do you think he is a good advocate for non smokers..

smoking only seems to be preserving my boyish good looks, supple skin and sweet tones.

Leroy42 · 25-07-2013 07:39PM

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

He looks rough as a badgers arse, and then there's his voice. do you think he is a good advocate for non smokers..

smoking only seems to be preserving my boyish good looks, supple skin and sweet tones.

Maybe he was exactly like before he started smoking:eek:

Ruudi_Mentari · 25-07-2013 07:46PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Maybe he was exactly like before he started smoking:eek:

There was no hope for that guy to begin with. Ban the chewing of wasps; immediately

liamygunner29 · 25-07-2013 07:54PM

That ****er has some cheek standing there with a pack of fags smiling like he is Jesus or something.

People who smoke have heard all about how bad it is for the last couple of decades. They still smoke, can they not leave anything up to people anymore? The state of the health service and the govermnet and this lad pumping funds into something every lad and his dog is aware of.

The smoking ban was fine in 2004, Celtic Tiger get a bit of a healthy European buzz going. This is just pointless and embarrassing. It's a simple aul pleasure can they not just piss off and do something useful instead of going at peoples habits.

liamygunner29 · 25-07-2013 07:57PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Those you are saying that people would simply go up north or whatever are missing a very significant point. At the moment standing outside a pub or whatever, it is impossible to tell if the person smoking bought the cigarettes legally or illegally. If they did eventually make it illegal then the person standing outside the pub smoking would actually be a criminal.

People smoking in cars could be given penalty points.

Think of it this way, how many people now smoke on planes? I'd hazard a guess that its in the point of a percent.

If a guard saw you he would have to fine/arrest you, doesn't matter where you got the cigs from. Sure, people would smoke at home, but what sort of addiction is that when you can only basically have it in your own house.

On for those talking about alcohol, sugar, salt, fat people etc, this thread is about smoking. Nothing to say we shouldn't do something about those as well but it kind of defeats your own arguement when you are argueing that the state should get even more involved

As fine as all the other addictions I dabble with in my own home!

Mammanabammana · 25-07-2013 08:05PM

Synode wrote: »

There would be chaos.

There wouldn't. There'd be phone calls to Joe, whining on internet forums, a few protest marches which the government would ignore until they went away and then it would all blow over.

tommy2bad · 25-07-2013 08:05PM

Isn't the issue health? On what grounds can he ban smoking in open spaces? harm to the health of the smoker? because theirs no evidence of any harm to anyone else. Or is he claiming that it's offensives, disliked so ban it?
This denormalization sh1t is social engineering of the worst king. If he feels that people should be protected from themselves then all substances and behaviors that present a danger to the participation should be banned. Showjumping, rugby, using salt where should he draw the line?

NuckingFacker · 25-07-2013 08:16PM

Luckily, politics will be a James Reilly free zone by 2018, so best of luck with that, Jimmy.

tommy2bad · 25-07-2013 08:30PM

Of cource it could be a cunning stunt to increase smoking as the first smoking ban saw a rise of 2% in smoking this should get it all the way back to 60% with the asociated rise in revinue. We might see the elucive celtic tiger through the haze of smoke.
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.ie/2013/05/ireland-eu-leader-in-tobacco-control.html

Tony EH · 25-07-2013 09:35PM

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

As regards death-by-alcohol, how many people die because of it? There's no side party that ever gets injured? How about someone hit by a drink driver? How about people who are beaten by a violent drunk? Health benefits my hairy arse, who the fuck drinks to be healthy? I'll bet the percentage doesn't even register. People get drunk because they like drinking, and being drunk is a side effect. So saying that one is better than the other is complete nonsense and side-tracking.

Of course one is better than the other. Alcohol

>WILL NOT MAKE YOU AN ADDICT AUTOMATICALLY<

Smoking will. It's the very nature of the product.

armchair fusilier · 25-07-2013 09:57PM

This is just an attempt by Reilly to show he is doing something and deflect attention away for the fact that hasn't a hope of fulfilling the election promises of free GP care for all...etc. How about doing something practical like balancing the 400 million euro health budget deficit instead of chasing headlines.

end of the road · 25-07-2013 10:01PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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

god those pesky vehicles emiting that smoke, begarra begosh

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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

smokers pay tax on their cigarettes, so they well cover any supposed extra costs to the state

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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

well whats wrong with that? their both drugs, cigarettes may emit smoke once lit but until we have all electric vehicles and power stations powered by ultra clean fuels then we could consider such a ban, but until then, the second hand smoke argument doesn't stand up in the case of an out door ban.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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.

education on cigarettes and their effects (which is happening) is perfectly fine, if people then choose to take it up, once their over the legal age then its their business.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Finally, I want to reiterate that I hate second hand smoking

electric vehicles and power stations powered by ultra clean fuels and we'l talk

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I hate seeing young people being influenced by people like you to take up the addiction.

bollox, kids these days will no the effects of smoking yet many will take it up in later life because they want to.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

This is a good measure

no it isn't, its pointless, its a waste of money and theirs no argument to support it unlike the indoor smoking ban.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

any attempt to derail it is quite frankly pathetic.

that statement makes you sound pathetic actually.

Duckjob · 25-07-2013 10:05PM

Skid X wrote: »

Enjoy it while you can

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/minister-seeks-tobaccofree-ireland-29448384.html

The fat f*ck should ban food seeing as he's morbidly obese and likely to meet his end thru an obesity related heart attack or stroke.

Minister for health, my hairy hole.

dr.fuzzenstein · 25-07-2013 10:19PM

I posted this as a thread somewhere else. Hearing that fat cnut makes me want to start smoking again.

I listened with great interest how smoking is going to be banned on this great little isle of ours and when I heard the comments from the gubberment I was already peeved.
It's not what's been done, but more how it's done and who is doing it.
I have been off cigarettes for 6 months now and I can say that I'm smoke free, I don't crave them and would normally live out the remainder of my life in bliss and perfect health, in fact the anti smoking lobby promises me I might never even die at all, since only smokers die (wait, what?).
But when I hear that (heavily edited, I meant to say nice guy and outstanding human being) Professor Luke Clancy **** on on the radio I immediately want to drive to the next shop, buy a packet of whatever is worst for me, preferably untipped and light about three of them at the same time and I will keep on chainsmoking until I die, because I would rather (I had to edit this in order not to offend the victims of cancer) than listen to that wankstain drone on in his patronising "you are all three years old and should therefore listen to the grownup in the room" voice.
There should be an anti-smoking lobby whining ban, these sanctimonious bastards preaching down on us as if we where three, when I see their fat,smug faces I want to punch them, I regard these people as lower forms of life than cockroaches, there is nothing more hateful than fat, sanctimonious, self-important, blown up pricks and bitches whinge at us about what is bad for us.
I KNOW what is bad for me, you fat sack of sh*t (not directed at Clancy, but anyone of his ilk), but you must get a few facts into your thick, ignorant skull:
I decide what I do and if that happens to be blowing my brains out with a sausage covered cigar, you can't stop me.
And it is not a contest of who lives the longest, we ALL DIE and anyone who can't accept that fact, tough sh*t, you, me, everybody goes sooner or later. It is about more than that.
And ultimately it is about control, we are incapable morons and therefore the grownups have to decide for us.
When that happens I'll wear a semtex vest.
This is more than the thin end of the thin end of the wedge people!
These people want to control what we eat, how we eat, how we exercise, how much sleep we get, what we watch, what we say, what we do, they want to stop us being offensive and basically eat your cereal, go to work, eat lettuce, shut the fcuk up, get some exercise, be a good little boy, pay your taxes, pay more taxes, pay EVEN more taxes and if you're old and need care, shut up and give us what's left of your money so we can bail out fat cnut bankers.
If anyone reads this and is offended: GOOD! Bullseye! You can email your concerns to myfat@arse.com

Toby Take a Bow · 25-07-2013 10:23PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

This is a good measure and any attempt to derail it is quite frankly pathetic.

Not really pathetic. Lots of people are making very valid points about the realities of the proposal and the possible negative effects that it may actually result in. Important legislation like this has to be thought through.

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

Comments