Minister O'Reilly promotes road-rage charter

No Pants · 24-03-2014 07:00PM

EyeSight wrote: »

Yet this is a priority?

Who said this was a priority? This has been on the back burner for years.

Turtyturd · 24-03-2014 07:05PM

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Suppose you would be in favour of the Government dictating what parents can and cannot cook their children in the evenings too.

If the parents forced kids to eat the cancer causing food they were too selfish to give up then yes...yes I would.

darkpagandeath · 24-03-2014 07:33PM

Toxic car fumes are just as bad should we ban parents from exposing children to these fumes by banning children from cars ? The same finger wagers are the types that sit outside a primary school on the pavement with the engine on waiting for their child to come out. Guess pumping out fumes is ok. And on the food end of it yes fatty/sugary food is just as bad should we make laws about children's weight. And fine parents who's children are fat ?

D1stant · 24-03-2014 07:44PM

EyeSight wrote: »

it's a stupid nanny state law. Why stop here? Why not have a law for pregnant people smoking/drinking?

Most people know it's stupid to do these things and don't do it. We don't need a law for it. Small things like this should not be on our list of priorities in this country

Exactly. This is all just bullsh1t by O Reilly trying to get some kudos. Completely unenforceable law. Red tape on stupidity does not work.

EyeSight · 24-03-2014 08:13PM

No Pants wrote: »

Who said this was a priority? This has been on the back burner for years.

if its on the table to be a law soon then that's a priority. It may have been a low priority in the past but it seems to be high now.

Cookie_Monster · 24-03-2014 08:18PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Toxic car fumes are just as bad should we ban parents from exposing children to these fumes by banning children from cars ?

or just ban diesel cars since the are much much worse than petrol...

Snickers Man · 25-03-2014 05:11PM

D1stant wrote: »

This is all just bullsh1t by O Reilly trying to get some kudos. Completely unenforceable law. Red tape on stupidity does not work.

Of course it's an unenforceable law. Which is exactly why he wants the Tut Tut brigade to scrutinise all other cars while they're stopped at lights to make sure they are adhering to up to the minute pieties.

Brings out the very worst in the very worst of people.

darkpagandeath · 25-03-2014 05:14PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

Of course it's an unenforceable law. Which is exactly why he wants the Tut Tut brigade to scrutinise all other cars while they're stopped at lights to make sure they are adhering to up to the minute pieties.

Brings out the very worst in the very worst of people.

Yeah mob rule always works out well....

Ihatecuddles · 25-03-2014 05:14PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

Of course it's an unenforceable law. Which is exactly why he wants the Tut Tut brigade to scrutinise all other cars while they're stopped at lights to make sure they are adhering to up to the minute pieties.

Brings out the very worst in the very worst of people.

Sometimes when someone is so careless and thick you can't help but gawk at them.

RainyDay · 25-03-2014 05:19PM

While I generally concur with the point about enforcing current laws before bringing in new ones, it is worth pointing out that the workplace smoking ban was largely peer-policed. Yes, there was a small group of Environmental Health Officers who could bring prosecutions, but the number of prosecutions was tiny. This ban changed smoking culture and indeed socialising culture in this country, with little or no enforcement.

It could possibly work...

darkpagandeath · 25-03-2014 05:58PM

RainyDay wrote: »

While I generally concur with the point about enforcing current laws before bringing in new ones, it is worth pointing out that the workplace smoking ban was largely peer-policed. Yes, there was a small group of Environmental Health Officers who could bring prosecutions, but the number of prosecutions was tiny. This ban changed smoking culture and indeed socialising culture in this country, with little or no enforcement.

It could possibly work...

That's because smokers no matter how much they are portrayed as monsters follow the law like everyone else. I'm more on about people doing the whole taking the law into their own hands if this comes in and trying to be a vigilantly. Could end up with some over zealous anti smoker sees a car seat in a car ahead seeing someone smoking in the car. Going up to the car either shouting or trying to pull the smoker out the car. when all along there was no child in the car seat.

Pumpkinseeds · 25-03-2014 07:03PM

It's a bit strong to say that parents who smoke while their kids are in the car are either scumbags or monsters. Most of us, over the age of 30, whose parents smoked did it without a second thought and most of us are still here.

I know we're all aware of how bad it is and I don't condone it, but seriously, I think that there will be some serious assaults if people take it upon themselves to approach someone to criticise them about smoking while the child is in the car.

Maybe they can set up a system where neighbours can spy on smoking parents who smoke in the house, like a commies under the bed situation. There could be a hotline you phone to report Biddy and Joe from next door for smoking in the house while the kids are indoors.

You have to love the State, I've 3 'sorry you're the victim of a crime' letters gathering dust here, but Minister Shatter is more concerned about people smoking while thier kids are in the car. Sounds about right.

I haven't smoked for 7 years.

Stavros Murphy · 25-03-2014 07:14PM

People feeding their kids sweets -ohhhh. Now there's another for the nannies. Diabetes. Someone think of the kids. Only bad, stupid, illegal scumbaggy people let their kids eat sweets. And swimming - people drown ffs, ban it now. Only silly parents would let their kids go into somwhere they could drown. Or running - any idea how many kids trip and hurt themselves?? It should be licenced immediately.

Does the flow of rules ever end? Will we all have to cycle around in stab-vests(hi-vis obviously) on rubber roads in case someone dies? This country gets dopier, more Ray Darcyfied by the day. Does this gobdaw really think people who smoke with kids in the cars will give two fcuks? What about in their sitting rooms? Install CCTV there, just in case?

RainyDay · 25-03-2014 09:49PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That's because smokers no matter how much they are portrayed as monsters follow the law like everyone else. I'm more on about people doing the whole taking the law into their own hands if this comes in and trying to be a vigilantly. Could end up with some over zealous anti smoker sees a car seat in a car ahead seeing someone smoking in the car. Going up to the car either shouting or trying to pull the smoker out the car. when all along there was no child in the car seat.

Don't see the big difference between current smoking ban and new ban - we don't generally see people being vigilantes now under the current ban, so why would people go all wild under the new law, but not the current law.

darkpagandeath · 25-03-2014 09:57PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Don't see the big difference between current smoking ban and new ban - we don't generally see people being vigilantes now under the current ban, so why would people go all wild under the new law, but not the current law.

Because that was to do with a public place/place of work. Your car is not a public place. People will get touchy about it. Will only end in tears. And Smokers enforced the ban themselves by going to the designated areas.

And yes I am a Smoker and no I would not smoke in the house or car with children about. I have self control, Some people don't and I can only imagine what will happen when some busy body points this out to some skanger in a car. Or other way round.

RainyDay · 25-03-2014 11:10PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Because that was to do with a public place/place of work. Your car is not a public place. People will get touchy about it. Will only end in tears. And Smokers enforced the ban themselves by going to the designated areas.

And yes I am a Smoker and no I would not smoke in the house or car with children about. I have self control, Some people don't and I can only imagine what will happen when some busy body points this out to some skanger in a car. Or other way round.

I remember the very impassioned debates from smokers 10 years ago about how sacrosanct the pub was, and how central it was to the rural community, and how they were never going to allow the ban to be imposed. But common sense prevailed then, and will most likely prevail on this issue.

Snickers Man · 25-03-2014 11:14PM

RainyDay wrote: »

While I generally concur with the point about enforcing current laws before bringing in new ones, it is worth pointing out that the workplace smoking ban was largely peer-policed. Yes, there was a small group of Environmental Health Officers who could bring prosecutions, but the number of prosecutions was tiny. This ban changed smoking culture and indeed socialising culture in this country, with little or no enforcement.

It could possibly work...

One way of looking at that is to acknowledge that the ban only works because of the willing co-operation of smokers. They say "Fair enough. People don't want to breathe our smoke; we'll go outside for a puff."

It's the benign co-operation of the smokers; not the implied latent threat of the non-smokers that makes the current ban operate successfully.

In fact, if smokers wanted to get tough about this they could mount a fairly successful civil disobedience campaign. I'd love to see it, even as a non smoker.

So saying a nation-wide group of smokers said we're going to demand that any proposed legislation to prevent us smoking in our own homes and cars is dropped. If it isn't, we will deliberately infringe the current smoking ban on a concerted planned basis.

Imagine. You're on a Bus Eireann coach pulling out of Busaras heading to, I don't know, say Limerick. As the bus enters the port tunnel a polite person stands up and says:

"Excuse me ladies and gentlemen. We apologise for any inconvenience but there are six of us here who object to government intrusion into our personal spaces and as such we are deliberately going to break the law by lighting up cigarettes on this coach. It is part of a concerted campaign of civil disobedience engaged in by smokers to defeat this proposed legislation.

"We fully realise that this will irritate and annoy many of you and you will be entitled to insist that the coach driver stop the bus and have us removed. But we won't go. So he'll have to call the police. And you will have to wait by the roadside until the police arrive.

"I should also tell you that similar protests are taking place as we speak on buses and trains throughout the country so the police are going to be a tad overstretched dealing with all the cases. Maybe they will come to this coach first; maybe not. In either case I deeply regret if any of you are in a hurry.

"You may attempt to take the law into your own hands. We would caution you that we are all carrying video recording equipment and any assault by any of you on any of us will be reported to the police. Even if they do not push criminal charges we will insist on their gathering the necessary information for us to press civil cases for damages. They are obliged to follow up such requests ie taking your names and addresses so that summonses may be issued.

"Or you could just suck up the smoke as it were and continue on your way nostalgic for the days when smokers did what they were told and obeyed the consensus. Let me assure you that we want a return to those days of respectful co-existence and that this is not an attempt to have smoking bans in public places overturned.

"But we think the proposed ban is a step too far and we are determined to fight it. Thank you for your patience."

Worked for Gandhi.

RainyDay · 26-03-2014 01:57PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

One way of looking at that is to acknowledge that the ban only works because of the willing co-operation of smokers. They say "Fair enough. People don't want to breathe our smoke; we'll go outside for a puff."

It's the benign co-operation of the smokers; not the implied latent threat of the non-smokers that makes the current ban operate successfully.

In fact, if smokers wanted to get tough about this they could mount a fairly successful civil disobedience campaign. I'd love to see it, even as a non smoker.

So saying a nation-wide group of smokers said we're going to demand that any proposed legislation to prevent us smoking in our own homes and cars is dropped. If it isn't, we will deliberately infringe the current smoking ban on a concerted planned basis.

Imagine. You're on a Bus Eireann coach pulling out of Busaras heading to, I don't know, say Limerick. As the bus enters the port tunnel a polite person stands up and says:

"Excuse me ladies and gentlemen. We apologise for any inconvenience but there are six of us here who object to government intrusion into our personal spaces and as such we are deliberately going to break the law by lighting up cigarettes on this coach. It is part of a concerted campaign of civil disobedience engaged in by smokers to defeat this proposed legislation.

"We fully realise that this will irritate and annoy many of you and you will be entitled to insist that the coach driver stop the bus and have us removed. But we won't go. So he'll have to call the police. And you will have to wait by the roadside until the police arrive.

"I should also tell you that similar protests are taking place as we speak on buses and trains throughout the country so the police are going to be a tad overstretched dealing with all the cases. Maybe they will come to this coach first; maybe not. In either case I deeply regret if any of you are in a hurry.

"You may attempt to take the law into your own hands. We would caution you that we are all carrying video recording equipment and any assault by any of you on any of us will be reported to the police. Even if they do not push criminal charges we will insist on their gathering the necessary information for us to press civil cases for damages. They are obliged to follow up such requests ie taking your names and addresses so that summonses may be issued.

"Or you could just suck up the smoke as it were and continue on your way nostalgic for the days when smokers did what they were told and obeyed the consensus. Let me assure you that we want a return to those days of respectful co-existence and that this is not an attempt to have smoking bans in public places overturned.

"But we think the proposed ban is a step too far and we are determined to fight it. Thank you for your patience."

Worked for Gandhi.

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of macho stuff we heard before the original workplace smoking ban, about how the tough guys were going to ignore the ban. Remember what happened to the tough guys in the Galway pub;
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1004/55144-smoking/

But regardless, you plan is fairly flawed. In the scenario you outline, I don't think any Court would prosecute anybody who just takes your smokes off you. Or better still, just uses a bottle of water to extinguish each cigarette.

Or the Bus Eireann driver just stops off at the nearest Garda Station on the route and gets you taken off.

If you fancy your chances, give it a shot, but I honestly can't see it working. And don't have Ghandi spinning in his grave by associating him with folk who want to breath carcinogenic fumes over bus passengers or children.

Snickers Man · 26-03-2014 03:13PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of macho stuff we heard before the original workplace smoking ban, about how the tough guys were going to ignore the ban. Remember what happened to the tough guys in the Galway pub;
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1004/55144-smoking/

What's macho about the, admittedly hypothetical, scenario I described? What I suggested was a peaceful, determined concerted campaign of civil disobedience. Nowhere did I say the disobedient smokers should retaliate to physical attempts to remove their cigarettes or behave in a threatening manner at all. This is not the "Come take it!" attitude of American gun nuts to any attempt to limit the current freedom they have to tote any sort of gun more or less anywhere.

Rather it is an attempt to showcase the basis of co-existence in a free society, namely the consent of the governed to be governed. As long as people agree that laws are just and fair, they will obey them, even if they don't particularly like them.

Now such a campaign as I described, which is polite, apologetic but nonetheless determined, is difficult to co-ordinate. It requires participants to accept that they are breaking the law and that there will be consequences. I'm not sure what the penalty for smoking on a train is but I imagine a fine of a few hundred euro is possible. If people really wanted to get militant about it they might refuse to pay those fines and force the authorities to put them in jail. If there is enough room.

That is the whole point of civil disobedience: to make enforcement of an unjust or unnecessary law more trouble than it is worth.

The sort of swaggering macho Galway man to which you make reference in your link would be no use to such a campaign. Their point of view is the egotistical "This law doesn't apply to me; I'll ignore it" which only reinforces the moral position of the law. But a group of determined people saying "This law applies to everyone equally and we would rather it applied to nobody, therefore we will take action to attempt to force its repeal" is a different matter altogether.

RainyDay wrote: »

But regardless, you plan is fairly flawed. In the scenario you outline, I don't think any Court would prosecute anybody who just takes your smokes off you. Or better still, just uses a bottle of water to extinguish each cigarette.

Or the Bus Eireann driver just stops off at the nearest Garda Station on the route and gets you taken off.

Provoking others into illegality to match your own, making enforcement of the law more trouble than having it in the first place. This is what civil disobedience is all about. And has always been about.

RainyDay wrote: »

If you fancy your chances, give it a shot, but I honestly can't see it working.

I am not at all convinced that smokers in Ireland have the necessary determination to mount such a concerted campaign. I repeat: it is absolutely NOT about some boorish oaf saying "Feck youse. I'm lighting up". It's about a group of people, and necessarily quite a large group, working to a set goal, temporarily flouting a law, which they will later go back to obeying, to have another one rescinded.

Maybe many smokers welcome this as another piece of crude social engineering in furtherance of a goal that they already have: namely quitting smoking and do not, by extension, object to it. Perhaps that has figured in the government's calculations.

Then again, people like their actions to be their own ideas. And NOBODY likes finger waggers, who Minister O'Reilly in his great wisdom has identified as the key agents of enforcement of this proposed ban. The simple delight many people, including non smokers like myself, would take in wagging two fingers back at such people might yet be proven to be significant.

Sometimes you can push just a little too far.

RainyDay wrote: »

And don't have Ghandi spinning in his grave by associating him with folk who want to breath carcinogenic fumes over bus passengers or children.

Tactical equivalence, not moral equivalence.

RainyDay · 26-03-2014 06:02PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

What's macho about the, admittedly hypothetical, scenario I described? What I suggested was a peaceful, determined concerted campaign of civil disobedience. Nowhere did I say the disobedient smokers should retaliate to physical attempts to remove their cigarettes or behave in a threatening manner at all. This is not the "Come take it!" attitude of American gun nuts to any attempt to limit the current freedom they have to tote any sort of gun more or less anywhere.

Rather it is an attempt to showcase the basis of co-existence in a free society, namely the consent of the governed to be governed. As long as people agree that laws are just and fair, they will obey them, even if they don't particularly like them.

Now such a campaign as I described, which is polite, apologetic but nonetheless determined, is difficult to co-ordinate. It requires participants to accept that they are breaking the law and that there will be consequences. I'm not sure what the penalty for smoking on a train is but I imagine a fine of a few hundred euro is possible. If people really wanted to get militant about it they might refuse to pay those fines and force the authorities to put them in jail. If there is enough room.

That is the whole point of civil disobedience: to make enforcement of an unjust or unnecessary law more trouble than it is worth.

The sort of swaggering macho Galway man to which you make reference in your link would be no use to such a campaign. Their point of view is the egotistical "This law doesn't apply to me; I'll ignore it" which only reinforces the moral position of the law. But a group of determined people saying "This law applies to everyone equally and we would rather it applied to nobody, therefore we will take action to attempt to force its repeal" is a different matter altogether.

Provoking others into illegality to match your own, making enforcement of the law more trouble than having it in the first place. This is what civil disobedience is all about. And has always been about.

I am not at all convinced that smokers in Ireland have the necessary determination to mount such a concerted campaign. I repeat: it is absolutely NOT about some boorish oaf saying "Feck youse. I'm lighting up". It's about a group of people, and necessarily quite a large group, working to a set goal, temporarily flouting a law, which they will later go back to obeying, to have another one rescinded.

Maybe many smokers welcome this as another piece of crude social engineering in furtherance of a goal that they already have: namely quitting smoking and do not, by extension, object to it. Perhaps that has figured in the government's calculations.

Then again, people like their actions to be their own ideas. And NOBODY likes finger waggers, who Minister O'Reilly in his great wisdom has identified as the key agents of enforcement of this proposed ban. The simple delight many people, including non smokers like myself, would take in wagging two fingers back at such people might yet be proven to be significant.

Sometimes you can push just a little too far.

Tactical equivalence, not moral equivalence.

Best of luck with it so. Just watch out for the bloke with the 2-litre bottle of water who pours it over your cigarettes.

Snickers Man · 26-03-2014 07:29PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Best of luck with it so. Just watch out for the bloke with the 2-litre bottle of water who pours it over your cigarettes.

If I''ve already forced you to tote a 2l bottle of water with you any time you take a bus or train, just to be prepared, you've started paying the price of Mr O'Reilly's zealotry.

RainyDay · 26-03-2014 08:39PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

If I''ve already forced you to tote a 2l bottle of water with you any time you take a bus or train, just to be prepared, you've started paying the price of Mr O'Reilly's zealotry.

Not really. I have water with me pretty much all the time anyway

darkpagandeath · 26-03-2014 09:16PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Not really. I have water with me pretty much all the time anyway

Ah so your answer to the problem is Criminal damage. Could ruin the persons phone, mp3, iPod

RainyDay · 27-03-2014 12:00PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ah so your answer to the problem is Criminal damage. Could ruin the persons phone, mp3, iPod

Shoulda thought of that before you lit up a fag on the bus....

Agent Smith · 27-03-2014 01:34PM

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

So now the state gets to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own car.

Well the state has been able to dictate that you should wear a Seatbelt.

Banning smoking in cars outright is nanny state. Banning Smoking in cars with kids, is perfectly reasonable tbh

Santa Cruz · 27-03-2014 01:43PM

Agent Smith wrote: »

Well the state has been able to dictate that you should wear a Seatbelt.

Banning smoking in cars outright is nanny state. Banning Smoking in cars with kids, is perfectly reasonable tbh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

darkpagandeath · 27-03-2014 03:20PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Shoulda thought of that before you lit up a fag on the bus....

So that makes it ok ? Jesus I find it very hard to understand what people can say about smokers and get away with it. And feel superior, If I said anything close to the abuse smokers get about other groups in society I would be taking a break from here. I'm talking general terms here.

RainyDay · 27-03-2014 05:08PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So that makes it ok ? Jesus I find it very hard to understand what people can say about smokers and get away with it.

Just to be clear, I didn't say anything about 'smokers'. My comment was in the context of a specific (if hypothetical) plan by a group of smokers to smoke in a non-smoking area and inflict carcinogenic fumes on a group of bus passengers.

I've nothing against smokers. Some of my best friends are smokers.

But if you think you can turn back the clock and get away with forcing other people to breathe 2nd hand smoke, you're wrong.

Minister O'Reilly promotes road-rage charter

Comments