nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should smoking be banned completely ?

Hollister11

I hate smoking. I always have, and all ways will. My grandad died of lung cancer in 1994, I was born in 96 so i never met him. He smoked everyday from the age of 12 to when he died aged 66.

When I was 14 all my mates used to smoke in school, I couldn't stand the smell of them so I stopped hanging out with these lads. Even now when I'm in town, I hate standing behind some one who lights up, the smell makes me sick.

The one thing I look forward to in the budget every year is the price of cigarettes going up. I hope this encourages people to stop buying them, or it makes them stop because they cant afford it.

So, should it be banned completely ?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

A_Sober_Paddy

I would love to see it banned totally in public...nothing worse that walking into a shopping centre and having to walk through second hand smoke at the door...

Same goes for cafe, bars on the street

Sam Kade

end of the road wrote: »

grand, where is the money coming from both to replace lost revenue and enforce the ban? over all, it would be billions lost

So you believe that ex smokers will bank the money they save, somehow I doubt it.

SeanW

RayM wrote: »

Oh, and as for smokers' rights - fuck your 'right' to make your loved ones watch you die a horrible, avoidable, lingering death.

So you want the government to fight a "War on Selfishness" ...

Good luck with that.

[Deleted User]

Don't know about making them illegal, people would still smoke them. And no tax profits.

I do wished cigarettes did not exist. Hate them. Both my parents smoke and so does my OH. I wonder in 20 years time will it still be "cool" for teenagers to take up smoking. Hopefully not!

Hande hoche!

Lia_lia wrote: »

Don't know about making them illegal, people would still smoke them. And no tax profits.

I do wished cigarettes did not exist. Hate them. Both my parents smoke and so does my OH. I wonder in 20 years time will it still be "cool" for teenagers to take up smoking. Hopefully not!

No the kids will be vaping instead.

RayM

kylith wrote: »

So we're back to alcohol; the addict's family there will lose them to a drug with no benefits. And what about scuba diving, or base jumping? Those carry a high risk of death with no benefits, so are we banning them as well?

I've heard all these flimsy arguments before. There is no comparison. The vast majority of drinkers aren't addicted. Is there an argument for banning a product that most people can consume safely and in moderate amounts? Cigarettes, on the other hand, are inherently addictive, which limits the element of choice involved.

SeanW wrote:

So you want the government to fight a "War on Selfishness" ...

Good luck with that.

No, I want the government to gradually phase out an industry that kills around 7,000 Irish people per year.

Chris_Bradley

Whether the government should or shouldn't they'll always find a way to say it's bad for you and could kill you yet never convict their cash-cow to the death sentence.

I'd personally like to see them gone as many of my family have died from them.

kylith

RayM wrote: »

I've heard all these flimsy arguments before. There is no comparison. The vast majority of drinkers aren't addicted. Is there an argument for banning a product that most people can consume safely and in moderate amounts? Cigarettes, on the other hand, are inherently addictive, which limits the element of choice involved.

I don't believe that alcohol is a flimsy argument. Not all smokers die young, and many give up smoking. Whereas an alcohol addiction can not only contribute to the death of the addict it often leads to the loss of their job, the spending of every penny they have on alcohol, violence, road deaths, abusive behaviour; all things which are not the case with cigarettes. No-one has ever, as far as I know, left their children starve so they could buy cigarettes. No-one has smoked a cigarette and then gotten into a car and killed someone because of cigarette-impaired judgement. And, worst of all, a borderline alcohol addiction often seems all-but mandated in this country - not drinking is, to some people, seen as weird, aberrant behaviour.

[Deleted User]

I'm all for banning alcohol. But only because prohibition seemed like great fun. Speakeasies! Beer barons. I want to be the new Al Capone.

I'm an asthmatic non-smoker, but I'd never ban it. However something that does make me frustrated is seeing people smoking around young kids, especially their parents.

Sam Kade

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

Ahh yea. Ban it. Let the gangs and black market thrive.

Yet if you ask any smoker would they smoke smuggled cigarettes they'll say that they could have anything in them ignoring legal cigs with 4k chemicals in them.

end of the road

Sam Kade wrote: »

So you believe that ex smokers will bank the money they save, somehow I doubt it.

what money will be saved? remember, your replacing the lost revenue, and spending money on enforcement. the current revenue more then covers treatment for smokers. why should we piss more money down the drain for more failure

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

I've heard all these flimsy arguments before. There is no comparison. The vast majority of drinkers aren't addicted. Is there an argument for banning a product that most people can consume safely and in moderate amounts? Cigarettes, on the other hand, are inherently addictive, which limits the element of choice involved.

No, I want the government to gradually phase out an industry that kills around 7,000 Irish people per year.

well, we can't afford it. its not cost effective. it would be damaging to the economy

RayM

kylith wrote: »

I don't believe that alcohol is a flimsy argument. Not all smokers die young, and many give up smoking. Whereas an alcohol addiction can not only contribute to the death of the addict it often leads to the loss of their job, the spending of every penny they have on alcohol, violence, road deaths, abusive behaviour; all things which are not the case with cigarettes. No-one has ever, as far as I know, left their children starve so they could buy cigarettes. No-one has smoked a cigarette and then gotten into a car and killed someone because of cigarette-impaired judgement. And, worst of all, a borderline alcohol addiction often seems all-but mandated in this country - not drinking is, to some people, seen as weird, aberrant behaviour.

I don't drink, so I wouldn't shed any tears if alcoholic drinks disappeared off the face of the earth, but the vast majority of people who drink aren't addicted, don't neglect their children, don't commit violent acts or drive when under the influence, etc. As bad as the alcohol industry is, at least their business model isn't reliant upon getting every single user chemically addicted to their products before they're old enough to make an educated decision.

end of the road wrote: »

well, we can't afford it. its not cost effective. it would be damaging to the economy

That's a non-argument. The money spent on cigarettes wouldn't just disappear from the economy.

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

That's a non-argument.

no it isn't. its a true argument.

RayM wrote: »

The money spent on cigarettes wouldn't just disappear from the economy.

eventually it would.

RayM

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't. its a true argument.

eventually it would.

In what specific way would this happen?

Huntergonzo

Fact of the matter is all drugs should be legal, what someone decides to put into their own body is nobody else's ****in business quite frankly, as long as they're not harming other people of course, that's a given. Harming other people is a separate crime and should always be illegal.

If you ban cigarettes, you simply create a black market, that's a fact, it's also a fact that drugs aren't hard to find, so there's no reason to think that tobacco would be either.

Proper education is always the best way forward.

MadDog76

osarusan wrote: »

If the government is going to be picking up the pieces (rehab, prison, etc) then I think the government should have have power to regulate it.

If these vices were legal then prisons would be less burdened ........... the revenue acquired from legalising these vices would more than cover rehab.

MadDog76

RayM wrote: »

No, it's actually a completely valid point, and one borne out of experience. The addict's 'right' to consume a drug that has absolutely no benefits, aside from sating an addiction, should always be less important than their family's right not to lose them prematurely to a wholly avoidable illness.

That's between an individual and their family .......... it's none of the Government's business ......... or yours for that matter.

We can't base legislature on what Johnny's Mammy wants Johnny to do or not do.

MadDog76

Sam Kade wrote: »

the poster that I quoted, that's who.

He/She didn't mention smoking in the home at all actually.

osarusan

MadDog76 wrote: »

If these vices were legal then prisons would be less burdened ........... the revenue acquired from legalising these vices would more than cover rehab.

That's one (speculative) way of looking at it - but it doesn't really address my point, which is that the argument that it is 'a personal choice, and should have nothing to do with the government' ignores the fact that (in Ireland at least) the government will be the one dealing with the consequences of that personal choice, so it does have something to do with the government really.

MadDog76

Sam Kade wrote: »

How many started smoking and regretted it later on? If they had someone to prevent them from smoking in the first place they would be very thankful to them.

The same could be said of drugs and alcohol ......... being illegal/legal makes no difference in relation to prevention.

MadDog76

Sam Kade wrote: »

So you believe that ex smokers will bank the money they save, somehow I doubt it.

You believe that all smokers will become ex-smokers because it's now illegal?

You think those smokers who do become ex-smokers will donate their newly saved money to the "War on Smoking"?

Liamario

You can't ban it for existing smokers, but you could ban it for future ones...

MadDog76

RayM wrote: »

That's a non-argument. The money spent on cigarettes wouldn't just disappear from the economy.

You're right, the money spent on cigarettes wouldn't disappear ......... it's go to Organised Crime instead ......... great idea! :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

wakka12 wrote: »

if I ever had a child and caught them smoking they'd be getting a right talking to and a good clip around the ear.

Cept some people want to ban that, too!

MadDog76

osarusan wrote: »

That's one (speculative) way of looking at it - but it doesn't really address my point, which is that the argument that it is 'a personal choice, and should have nothing to do with the government' ignores the fact that (in Ireland at least) the government will be the one dealing with the consequences of that personal choice, so it does have something to do with the government really.

The Government is answerable to the People (or it should be) .......... the People of Ireland will be asking a lot of questions if smoking was banned.

"Why can't I make my own decision?"

"Why are our prisons so over-crowded?"

"Why are Cigarette Dealers so wealthy?"

"Why are the Guards under so much pressure?"

"Why is our economy worse off than ever?"

"Why are our elected Politicians corrupt?"

"When are you going to end this stupid ban and all the problems it brought with it??!!"

osarusan

MadDog76 wrote: »

The Government is answerable to the People (or it should be) .......... the People of Ireland will be asking a lot of questions if smoking was banned.

None of that has anything to do with my point.

MadDog76

osarusan wrote: »

None of that has anything to do with my point.

Of course it does ....... your point is, if the Government has to deal with the effects of smoking and/or the fall-out from a smoking ban then it should have the right to independently regulate it on our behalf ......... whereas it is in fact us, the people, who really have to deal with smoking both as individuals and in relation to our loved ones therefore the choice should not be dictated to us by the Government.

RayM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You're right, the money spent on cigarettes wouldn't disappear ......... it's go to Organised Crime instead ......... great idea! :rolleyes:

Most smokers want to give up. It's hard to imagine many people being prepared to become criminals for the sake of a very conspicuous habit that they want to kick anyway (and one which can so easily be supplanted by other methods of nicotine ingestion).

MadDog76 wrote: »

The Government is answerable to the People (or it should be) .......... the People of Ireland will be asking a lot of questions if smoking was banned.

"Why can't I make my own decision?"

"Why are our prisons so over-crowded?"

"Why are Cigarette Dealers so wealthy?"

"Why are the Guards under so much pressure?"

"Why is our economy worse off than ever?"

"Why are our elected Politicians corrupt?"

"When are you going to end this stupid ban and all the problems it brought with it??!!"

"Remember when people used to get Lung Cancer?"

rubadub

Liamario wrote: »

You can't ban it for existing smokers, but you could ban it for future ones...

Why not? they banned magic mushrooms pretty much overnight. Screwing over loads of sellers and users. Same with loads of actually addictive drugs too.

BUt I suppose mammy and the local garda do not openly admit to abusing those drugs.