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

Waterford to ban swearing/smoking in parks

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    To think that there's people out there that could do a thing like this...
    Wheelchair accessible van stolen from St. Patrick's Hospital
    Gardai in Waterford are looking for information regarding the theft of a wheelchair accessible van from St. Patrick's Hospital.

    http://www.wlrfm.com/news/local/36540-wheelchair-accessible-van-stolen-from-st-patricks-hospital.html


  • Options
    #63
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,949 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    To think that there's people out there that could do a thing like this...

    you d be surprised what daft things people do on this planet


  • Options
    #64
    Digital Society
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭Digital Society


    Gas Jockey wrote: »
    I took the time to email the councillors in my local area. Of those, Pat Fitzgerald got back to me with a reply. Here is the conversation;

    Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,

    I am confused by the decision to ban e-cigarettes from being used in open spaces. There would appear to be little risk to other persons from their use in this manner and venue. Can you explain your logic underpinning your decision?

    Yours etc.


    I thank you for your email outlining your concern on the ban on smoking cigarettes & e-cigarettes in the 'Open Spaces By-Laws'. Just to let you know how the decision making system regarding By-Laws. There are five separate Strategic Policy Committees (SPC's) Environment, Transport / Roads, Economic Development, Planning, Housing... The environmental SPC would have been the committee that would have drafted the By- Laws for open spaces... The draft by-laws would then go on public display for a period, during this period the public are allowed make submissions. The submissions are then considered by the committee and if deemed appropriate they are incorporated into the final draft.

    The final draft then goes before the full council of 32 Councillors for ratification. The Open Space By-Laws were ratified by the last meeting of council... I will now tell my reason for supporting the adoption of the said By- Laws. As I was not on the SPC committee that drafted the document, I would take the advice of the SPC very seriously. I don't know anything for certain of the safety / danger of e-cigarettes or how they affect the long term health of those in close proximity to the smoker. There is also the issue of setting bad example to children which is another concern of mine. I decided to 'err on the side of caution' I supported the by -laws that recommend the ban on what I would consider to be a narcotic / drug addiction / dirty habit.

    However, if you can produce evidence to the contrary and convince me the e-cigarettes are indeed as harmless as you suggest, I would consider reversing my decision.


    Thanks for getting back.
    Regardless of the unknown and mostly theoretical risks potentially associated with second hand exposure to e-cigarette vapour, it's clear that any risk would be significantly lower than exposure to cigarette smoke. As such, the potential health benefits which might come from embracing e-cigarettes as a tobacco replacement measure are hugely significant, both for the smoker themselves and for society.
    Unfortunately, the hysteria surrounding the topic at the moment is preventing any rational discussion of this, as increasing numbers of places introduce arbitrary bans. I fear that this negative discussion will ruin what might otherwise be a useful health measure, without any real estate evidence of harm.
    Smokers will smoke anyway until they decide to stop (as we both have), so encouraging and promoting a healthier alternative is a sensible and pragmatic measure. I personally would ally this with significant excise increases on tobacco to encourage the change to tobacco free products.
    I was encouraged to hear you mention drug addiction, as I suspect that this also plays a (mostly hidden) part in the discussion. This is a bigger discussion, and threatens to cloud the issue. Smokers are already addicted, so this is a less important issue in the short term. Certainly, proper regulation of the devices is essential to help reassure people that children would be less likely to get access to the devices (although it is impossible to prevent this and should not stop progressive action.
    There is a lot to debate about this, but I'm writing this on my phone so it's not as easy as might be on a keyboard, so this is a good place to park it for now.
    Take care.

    Can you provide a citation for this part please? Interested to know how you came to this conclusion.


  • Options
    #65
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Digital Society wrote: »
    Can you provide a citation for this part please? Interested to know how you came to this conclusion.

    In Britain, the anti-smoking group Ash, the British Heart Foundation, the Royal College of Physicians and Cancer Research UK are all in favour of e-ciggies.


  • Options
    #66
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Finnbar01 wrote: »
    In Britain, the anti-smoking group Ash, the British Heart Foundation, the Royal College of Physicians and Cancer Research UK are all in favour of e-ciggies.
    As a way of quitting smoking. That doesn't mean we have to encourage it in our public places; if a child sees someone puffing something, how do they know what it is? And what about the people whose job it is to police a no-smoking ban? How can they tell the difference at a distance?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #68
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Patww79 wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You can't know. And it would be impossible to ban liquids. But drinking is not like smoking, smoking is evil. Surely anything you can do to make it easier to make it hard to smoke, and if it means discriminating against people pretending to smoke, so be it. Vaping is fashionable, and therefore dangerous, because it could lead young people to smoking, so why not make it difficult?

    In my workplace, smoking and vaping are banned. It is my job, among other people, to police this. It would be a nightmare to try to figure out what someone was smoking, and it would create distrust and resentment amongst the people being checked. Just because it's difficult to check what people are drinking doesn't mean you don't bother to try to stop people smoking.


  • Options
    #69
    jonski
    Registered Users Posts: 6,390 ✭✭✭jonski


    katydid wrote: »
    Vaping is fashionable, and therefore dangerous, because it could lead young people to smoking,

    I'm sure the next question is supposed to be ...
    Digital Society wrote: »
    Can you provide a citation for this part please? Interested to know how you came to this conclusion.


  • Options
    #70
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    katydid wrote: »
    You can't know. And it would be impossible to ban liquids. But drinking is not like smoking, smoking is evil. Surely anything you can do to make it easier to make it hard to smoke, and if it means discriminating against people pretending to smoke, so be it. Vaping is fashionable, and therefore dangerous, because it could lead young people to smoking, so why not make it difficult?

    In my workplace, smoking and vaping are banned. It is my job, among other people, to police this. It would be a nightmare to try to figure out what someone was smoking, and it would create distrust and resentment amongst the people being checked. Just because it's difficult to check what people are drinking doesn't mean you don't bother to try to stop people smoking.

    I'm curious
    While I understand smoking is illegal in the workplace ,has anyone checked the legal standing of VAPING in the work place ,is there actual laws to stop people or is it just a company policy ye are enforcing and could it be open to a challenge if someone wanted to take it that far.
    Also (TALKING ABOUT VAPING)
    This policing ,What actual powers have you ,what are the penalties ,can you actually enforce them or would you face employment issues..
    Are we talking about both indoors and outdoors?


    .


    .


  • Options
    #71
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,949 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ROCKMAN wrote: »
    I'm curious
    While I understand smoking is illegal in the workplace ,has anyone checked the legal standing of VAPING in the work place ,is there actual laws to stop people or is it just a company policy ye are enforcing and could it be open to a challenge if someone wanted to take it that far.
    Also (TALKING ABOUT VAPING)
    This policing ,What actual powers have you ,what are the penalties ,can you actually enforce them or would you face employment issues..
    Are we talking about both indoors and outdoors?

    id have to agree to a point. companies seem to think they can bring in all sorts of mad rules but theres nothing stopping people from effectively breaking these rules. its mad how compliant irish people are at times. never been a smoker myself but this smoking stuff is kinna getting out of hand. i think steve hughes sums it up very well(5.45mins but watch the whole thing, you might learn something and have a laugh!):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs

    even though i understand where the anti smokers are coming from, we have to find some common ground


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    Digital Society wrote: »
    Can you provide a citation for this part please? Interested to know how you came to this conclusion.

    vox.com/2015/6/26/8832337/e-cigarette-health-fda-smoking-safety


  • Options
    #73
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    Digital Society wrote: »
    Can you provide a citation for this part please? Interested to know how you came to this conclusion.

    vox.com/2015/6/26/8832337/e-cigarette-health-fda-smoking-safety

    There are other sources, but this is the best summary I've found. Apologies for the lack of a hyperlink, but i haven't learned how to to that yet.


  • Options
    #74
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The swearing bit could possibly be unconstitutional due to freedom of speech provisions ... could be an expensive waste of tax payer's money if they're taken to court over it.


  • Options
    #75
    beyondbelief67
    Registered Users Posts: 550 ✭✭✭beyondbelief67


    The thing that would concern me far more than any smoking, swearing or any of this new rule would be the syringes and needles in the park, this one was just a few feet from the area where the train was damaged.
    So not far from little children.
    I contacted the council and was told they are aware of this sort of thing being left in the area from time to time and do try to send someone down weekly !
    But due to it being a large area and not being everyday sometimes things get missed.


  • Options
    #76
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    beyondbelief67 wrote: »
    The thing that would concern me far more than any smoking, swearing or any of this new rule would be the syringes and needles in the park, this one was just a few feet from the area where the train was damaged.
    So not far from little children.
    I contacted the council and was told they are aware of this sort of thing being left in the area from time to time and do try to send someone down weekly !
    But due to it being a large area and not being everyday sometimes things get missed.


    And that is the reason I wont bring my daughter to that park. I know it happens in lots of places but it is supposedly a serious issue down there. I bring her out to Fenor park or even the playground in Kilmacow. Its a bit out of the way but id rather drive a bit of a distance than have her pick up one of those. Its such a pity the scum ruin these open spaces for everyone else.


  • Options
    #77
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The swearing bit could possibly be unconstitutional due to freedom of speech provisions ... could be an expensive waste of tax payer's money if they're taken to court over it.

    already in consitution and using certain lanaguage is prosecutable


  • Options
    #78
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The swearing bit could possibly be unconstitutional due to freedom of speech provisions ... could be an expensive waste of tax payer's money if they're taken to court over it.

    Freedom of speech? Err... Sure.
    You realise that there's a blasphemy law on the books right?

    A law that many strict Islamic country's cheered Ireland for.


  • Options
    #79
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Freedom of speech? Err... Sure.
    You realise that there's a blasphemy law on the books right?

    A law that many strict Islamic country's cheered Ireland for.

    I keep forgetting that we're so backwards.


  • Options
    #80
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    The Problem with the park is supervision.There's been a real lack of it.I know donkey years ago there was a park ranger,but that idea doesn't seem to stupid these days.The amount of anti social phenomenon going on there is immense,drug dealing,vandalism, drinking etc.Supervise the place and we won't have to bring in these unenforceable draconian laws!


  • Options
    #81
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    Cabaal wrote:
    Freedom of speech? Err... Sure. You realise that there's a blasphemy law on the books right?


    Has anybody ever been prosecuted with the blasphemy law?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    Has anybody ever been prosecuted with the blasphemy law?

    The bar for prosecution is so high it's practically impossible.


  • Options
    #83
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,949 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    im just wondering, are people aware some of the problems and possible solutions mentioned above are due to austerity measures. just a thought. very sad to see the damage in the park and the possibility it is becoming a dangerous place for families. always loved going there as a child and still do. its a fantastic amenity.


  • Options
    #84
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    Has anybody ever been prosecuted with the blasphemy law?

    Not to my knowledge, but threatening to go after people using the law has worked in silencing the media.

    It's an awful backward bit of legislation


  • Options
    #85
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    obezyana wrote: »
    And that is the reason I wont bring my daughter to that park. I know it happens in lots of places but it is supposedly a serious issue down there. I bring her out to Fenor park or even the playground in Kilmacow. Its a bit out of the way but id rather drive a bit of a distance than have her pick up one of those. Its such a pity the scum ruin these open spaces for everyone else.

    1000% Agree
    Fenor Park is a fantastic spot and well worth checking out if you have not been there before
    Also make sure you checkout the sculpture beside the church ,It really is a great piece of art ,outstanding talent on show.


    .


  • Options
    #86
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    Cabaal wrote: »
    The park was actually damaged,
    https://www.facebook.com/wlrfmwaterford/posts/1015631305144263

    Sorry can't find a link

    But seemly this damage wasn't done by the "usual suspects " but by students of a nearby school and seemly their Debs as been called off as a result/punishment .

    Not sure I agree that punishing everyone because of the actions of a few scums bags is the right way to go.

    .


  • Options
    #87
    deisemum
    Registered Users Posts: 5,581 ✭✭✭deisemum


    The pupils should organise their Debs themselves which is now the norm in most schools. I don't agree with the Debs being cancelled because of the actions of the minority. The acting principal should have punished the offenders not the whole year.


  • Options
    #88
    lertsnim
    Registered Users Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭lertsnim


    katydid wrote: »
    You can't know. And it would be impossible to ban liquids. But drinking is not like smoking, smoking is evil. Surely anything you can do to make it easier to make it hard to smoke, and if it means discriminating against people pretending to smoke, so be it. Vaping is fashionable, and therefore dangerous, because it could lead young people to smoking, so why not make it difficult?

    Ridiculous. If you want your children to not smoke when they are older then educate them about it. Banning everything so a child won't see someone "pretending" to smoke will make no difference at all. That's a real bury your head in the sand approach and if it actually worked there would be no illegal drugs but in the real world that's not the case.


  • Options
    #89
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    lertsnim wrote: »
    Ridiculous. If you want your children to not smoke when they are older then educate them about it. Banning everything so a child won't see someone "pretending" to smoke will make no difference at all. That's a real bury your head in the sand approach and if it actually worked there would be no illegal drugs but in the real world that's not the case.

    Agree. As regards smoking being "evil", well...


  • Options
    #90
    beyondbelief67
    Registered Users Posts: 550 ✭✭✭beyondbelief67


    ROCKMAN wrote: »
    Sorry can't find a link

    But seemly this damage wasn't done by the "usual suspects " but by students of a nearby school and seemly their Debs as been called off as a result/punishment .

    Not sure I agree that punishing everyone because of the actions of a few scums bags is the right way to go.

    .
    That was different damage done, this was the train in the small children's section that was badly damaged last week, you should still be able to find it on wlrfm.
    The damage the students did was nothing compared to this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    deisemum wrote: »
    The pupils should organise their Debs themselves which is now the norm in most schools. I don't agree with the Debs being cancelled because of the actions of the minority. The acting principal should have punished the offenders not the whole year.

    Think the hotels will not deal with just students without the schools being involved .
    .


Advertisement