Smoking at DART stations

SeanW · 24-04-2005 4:02am

I don't smoke. You probably do. That is your choice. However when you smoke in a confined space where I am, I have to breath in high concentrations of poisonous substances. Plus I have to wash all my clothes as they completely reak of YOUR TOBACCO SMOKE. If the smoking-ban were revoked, and I were in a bar, could I get all the smokers to pay my increased healthcare costs and dry-cleaning/washing bills?

No, because its question-begging.

The only question-begging is why you want to force the general public to risk their health because you like to smoke and "don't buy" into mainstream science?

And th air is full of such things from all the cars etc. What about all the crap in the food chain? The list is endless.

Lame. Those things would be there anyway and they are all issues in and of themselves. Besides none are as unpleastent or unhealthy as large concentrations of cigarette smoke. Besides car fumes are outdoors. If we're taking your ridiulous example of air pollutants from cars, then surely if you should be allowed to smoke in a bar, I should be allowed to bring my car into the pub and rev up the engine

Or - if I bottled all the crap in tobacco smoke and put into a spray can, would you object to me spraying the can in your face? Into your mouth? All over your clothes? I imagine you would have a BIG objection to that. "Oh, but the air is full of bad stuff" ...

SeanW · 24-04-2005 4:15am

Here's a list of the crap that's in cigarette smoke:

http://www.safeguards.org/pages/t_contains.asp

If you want to smoke that stuff, that is your call - its your life, your health to use or abuse as you choose. However, I shouldn't have to stay out of all indoor public places simply to avoid it.

There is a multitude of evidence to prove that smoking, and indeed passive smoking is bad. If you don't buy into it, that's your business. Just don't expect anyone to take your stance seriously.

murphaph · 24-04-2005 8:45am

Anyway, moving on (cos the perenial smoker's rights v everyone elses will never be settled), I hate to see IE staff in particular all smoking on the platforms. Sets a very bad example. Munich recently banned smoking on the platforms of all stations on the S-Bahn. It was not a popular move!

Eriugena · 24-04-2005 9:22am

SeanW wrote:

I don't smoke. You probably do. That is your choice. However when you smoke in a confined space where I am, I have to breath in high concentrations of poisonous substances. Plus I have to wash all my clothes as they completely reak of YOUR TOBACCO SMOKE. If the smoking-ban were revoked, and I were in a bar, could I get all the smokers to pay my increased healthcare costs and dry-cleaning/washing bills?

That's part of the traditional pub atmosphere. Cigarettes go with pint drinking. If you don't like it don't go to pubs. Instead, the self-righteous have destroyed pubs in their quest to feel high and mighty and vindicated. If it is not this its some other issue.

The only question-begging is why you want to force the general public to risk their health because you like to smoke and "don't buy" into mainstream science?

Sorry, that's not true. There are also studies which show no passive smoking. I would bet that "passive" smoking was orginally invented by some smart American lawyer.

Lame. Those things would be there anyway and they are all issues in and of themselves.

No, those things are there because people put them there. More specifically, corporations put them there. The food chain has not become polluted on its own. The ozone hole did not get there on its own, and the polar ice caps will melt because of the emissions that seem to bother you less than a bit of smoke in a pub. These things are far more serious than a bit of smoke on your jacket. But then its easier to hit on smokers especially when the law has been changed to facilitate this. I was gratified to notice that hospitals reported a sharp spike in people being admitted to hospital with broken noses when they introdced the ban, i.e. to self-righteous triumphalists making comments to those outside.

Besides none are as unpleastent or unhealthy as large concentrations of cigarette smoke. Besides car fumes are outdoors. If we're taking your ridiulous example of air pollutants from cars, then surely if you should be allowed to smoke in a bar, I should be allowed to bring my car into the pub and rev up the engine

I like your analogy because it exposes the falsity of your argument immediately. If you revved your car in a pub everyone within would be dead inside ten minutes.

SeanW · 24-04-2005 4:55pm

I like your analogy because it exposes the falsity of your argument immediately. If you revved your car in a pub everyone within would be dead inside ten minutes.

You're the one who compared cigarette smoke to car emissions. Not me. It was of course just a fluff - "there's bad stuff out there anyway" - was your argument, but it was totally irrelevant. YES CAR FUMES ARE OUTDOORS, SMOKE IS INDOORS. This discredits your fluff immediately. IT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT

If you don't like it don't go to pubs.

Ireland has a pub culture. It is not acceptable to tell 75% of the population "just don't go to the pub." Also, is it acceptable to tell bar-workers unions (who supported the ban) "your members are a bunch of crybabies - just suck it in." Of course not But it's not just pubs. You call into question the whole problem of second hand smoke. That means if you had your way, smokers could smoke anywhere. That means myself - and the vast majority of people in Ireland who do not smoke, would have to stay away from bars, offices, and public transport, like trains and DART stations which was the original topic of this thread. So should 75% of the population be reduced to hermits because you like to smoke everywhere?

As for all the "no-ban" campaigns and alarmist nonsense against bans, most of it is tobacco industry propoganda.like this interview for example.

Not co-incedentally, 70% of the population have reported improvements in their pub experiences since the ban was introduced. The Dept. Of Health did a follow up survey and made some staggering findings. Read them here.

82% support the Smoke-Free at Work measure;
90% agreed that going smoke-free is of benefit to workers;
82% agreed that it benefits everyone in public places;
95% agreed that the legislation is a positive health measure.

So thankfully, you are in a small minority. The health and comfort of the country has improved and will continue to improve substantially, because this government actually showed some moral fortitude and didn't whore itself to the tobacco lobby as so many governments have done. BRAVO MINISTER MARTIN.

Also see here,

The government said people who work in smoky pubs are as much as 30% more likely to get heart disease, while tobacco-related illnesses are blamed for 7,000 deaths per year.

That is substantial, and if you want us to take you seriously you need something substantial to refute it, and "I don't buy it" doesn't count.

I was gratified to notice that hospitals reported a sharp spike in people being admitted to hospital with broken noses when they introdced the ban, i.e. to self-righteous triumphalists making comments to those outside.

So you admit that you support random acts of violence against people who disagree with you? Final nail in the coffin of your ridiculous argument.

Please lets get back to the topic. Maybe you should bring this debate to the "skeptics" forum ...

NewDubliner · 24-04-2005 5:13pm

SeanW wrote:

Please lets get back to the topic. Maybe you should bring this debate to the "skeptics" forum ...

Do you think it could happen that by permitting smoking on its premeises, IE risks being sued by smoking commuters who fall ill as a result of being allowed to smoke?

Victor · 24-04-2005 6:54pm

Eriugena wrote:

Exceptions means smoking/non-smoking parts of pubs etc.

Smoking parts of pubs is the equivalent of pissing areas in swimming pools.

DublinWriter · 24-04-2005 7:16pm

murphaph wrote:

I'll take it you've never watched anyone die of cancer.

I have, and guess what? I'll let you into a little secret, non-smokers AND non-drinkers die of cancer everyday.

To be honest, I hope this doesn't turn into a smoking/non-smoking debate.

There's a wider issue here. We Irish are becoming more English than the English themselves, a petty, tetchy little nation of rule lovers. Churlish to the point of anality.

Listen Bud, if the government really cared about the nation's health do you think that they'd let 350+ people lie on trollys in A&E departments around the country as was the case last week? Do you think that they'd let a 90 year old spend two days sitting on a chair *waiting* for a trolley?

Scratch beneath the surface and you'll find out that everything done politically so far in this country since Sean Lemass has been for the politcial embetterment of individual politians so far.

Open your eyes and take a look around you and you'll see that there are far, far worse problems than second-hand smoke in this country of ours.

Personally, I'm not potlical insofar that I don't support any particular party.

However, I don't think there's a lamp-post high enough on Kildare St. to string most of the current lot from.

Just remember this little factoid nugget - Spain is currently tops the EU chart for life-expectancy. Spain is also highest in the EU chart of smokers per capita.

Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!

murphaph · 24-04-2005 10:05pm

DublinWriter wrote:

Just remember this little factoid nugget - Spain is currently tops the EU chart for life-expectancy. Spain is also highest in the EU chart of smokers per capita.

Classic "my old man smoked 400 cigarretes a day and it did him no harm" kind of sh!te. You are clearly implying that you believe smoking does not increase the risk of cancer. It does. Whether or not your fact is true does not effect this reality. Other factors will have positive effects on life expectancy (not eating deep fried mars bars etc. will help the spaniards live longer).

You won't find any argument here about there being many other issues we also need to tackle in this country. As for us becoming more english than the english.....well to be honest mate, I hate the "ah sure'in it'll be grand if ye ignore rule x" bollo**s that we espouse here. It's bending rules that has urban sprawl all over this city. Sure it'll be grand to build all these houses. Rules and the rule of law are very important in modern mature SOCIETIES. In tribal times they weren't.

RainyDay · 30-04-2005 11:20pm

The original poster should contact Office of Tobacco Control for advice on the legal situation regarding train stations. He should also give consideration to contacting the MD/Chairman/Health & Safety manager of CIE/Iarnrod Eireann to get them moving.

Eriugena wrote:

The law is a tyrnnical one, brought in at the behest of nanny-statists, without any real discussion and with no exceptions.

The 'no discussion" arguement is factually incorrect. The HSA did an extensive public consultation programme, with online submissions and public meetings. Remember the big brouhaha about the publicans in Sligo (IIRC) being ejected from the meeting. This programme was extensively advertised. Did you bother your arse going to one of the meetings? I guess not.

Eriugena wrote:

I don;t buy this "passive smoking" thing. You can find studies to prove anything if you need them. .

Of course, you can choose not to 'buy' it if you wish, but you are ignoring swathes of medical evidence. The HSA commissioned a study from leading public health experts who were non-aligned on smoking issues in 2002/2003. The study reviewed all available data and concluded there was a genuine, serious risk from passive smoking. The data is there - it may not suit your opinion, but that doesn't change the data.

Eriugena wrote:

What about all the crap in the food chain? .

Unless you go forcing your food down other people's throats, this is not relevant. You can still choose to continue to smoke, you are just restricted from inflicting the effects of your addiction on other people.

Eriugena wrote:

That's part of the traditional pub atmosphere. Cigarettes go with pint drinking. If you don't like it don't go to pubs. Instead, the self-righteous have destroyed pubs in their quest to feel high and mighty and vindicated. If it is not this its some other issue.

Ludicrous - Why should the 75% majority of non-smokers suffer to accomodate a small minority (and that's without even thinking about the many smokers who are in favour of the ban). If you don't like the ban, you don't go to pubs. This is the same oul guff we got 20-30 years ago when drink-driving became socially unacceptable. It was foolish then, and it is foolish now.

Eriugena wrote:

Sorry, that's not true. There are also studies which show no passive smoking. I would bet that "passive" smoking was orginally invented by some smart American lawyer.

Please show your sources? Show us just one study published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal carried out by medics who have not recieved funding from tobacco companies which shows no danger from passive smoking?

Eriugena wrote:

I was gratified to notice that hospitals reported a sharp spike in people being admitted to hospital with broken noses when they introdced the ban, i.e. to self-righteous triumphalists making comments to those outside.

Please show your source for this myth also?

If smoking ever comes back into pubs, I'm going to take up the habit of bringing my urine in a little squeegy bottle to the smoking pubs and spray it round. After all, it is my god-given right to spray my waste products into your hair, your clothes, your eyes, your mouth - right?

It's about time we had some serious enforcement on the littering problem too? Did you realise it takes 12-15 years for a butt to biodegrade? 15 years of litter - just because many, many smokers can't be bothered to carry a little container that keeps their rubbish to themselves.

Chalk · 30-04-2005 11:27pm

Secondhand smoke

In the last newsletter, I mentioned that Penn and Teller were challenged at James Randi's Amazing Meeting 2 last January regarding their Bull****! episode that claimed the studies on secondhand smoke were bogus. I said I'd look into it. I did and P & T are right. Almost everybody who claims that the scientific evidence supports the claim that passive smoking causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year cite a single source: our own Environmental Protection Agency's 1993 report.

The EPA's data show no significant link between passive smoke and lung cancer. Even after lowering the standard from p=0.05 to p=0.1 (i.e., from a one in twenty to a one in ten chance of a spurious correlation), they were still able to get a relative risk of only 1.19. According to John Brignell, "risk ratios of greater than 3 are normally considered significant. One might even stretch a point and go down to 2, but never lower" (Sorry Wrong Number, p. 129). Yet, the EPA has not backed off. Neither has the World Health Organization, which published a study in 1998 that concluded: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and lung cancer risk." The WHO study also noted that there was only "weak evidence" for a risk of lung cancer from spousal or workplace ETS. Yet WHO put out a press release that contradicts their own conclusions.

There have been other studies on secondhand smoke but the evidence goes against the EPA, which likes the work of Elizabeth Fontham, whose data has been questioned for treating ex-smokers as non-smokers. If there is a causal connection between passive smoke and lung cancer, it is a very small contributing factor.

Penn & Teller had somebody do the math. There is a 25% higher risk of dying of lung cancer from being regularly exposed to passive smoke. For those regularly exposed to ETS, the death rate from lung cancer is 1 in 80,000. For those not exposed, it is 1 in 100,000. Looked at another way: For every million people exposed to ETS, there will be 12.5 deaths from lung cancer; for every million people not exposed to ETS, there will be 10 deaths due to lung cancer. This is statistically of no significance. [See episode 5 of their excellent DVD: Bull****! ]

the epa have removed the document from the site but you can buy it from them :rolleyes:,
ill try to find a copy for you

RainyDay · 30-04-2005 11:34pm

OK - now find the loophole in the Irish HSA report?

Chalk · 30-04-2005 11:43pm

havent read it.
do you have a link?

/edit
just to add your using a fairly loose definition of loophole there,
id consider it a finding of the study that ets doent cause damage rather than it being a particular reading,
ie the epa lowered there thresholds of significance and ets as a cause of cancer still didnt make it.

//double edit,
found the hsa doc,
60 pages and im a bit drunk,
ill have a read soon and see what it says.

hawkmoon269 · 30-04-2005 11:52pm

Rainyday, if you have genuinely researched this issue you would be aware that long term exposure to cigarrette smoke increases the risk of contracting lung cancer in a non-smoker by around 40%. HOWEVER, the risk of contracting lung cancer for a non-smoker is still low as a comparatively large % of a low risk, still equates to a relatively low risk.

As a smoker I am happy to comply with the smoking ban in pubs, which I was and still am in favour of, but the idea that someone's health is seriously adversely affected by standing next to someone smoking on a railway platform for 10 minutes just isn't going to wash, I'm afraid.

As regards ciggie butts, do you honestly think that they represent a serious environmental problem, or are you just using this as another excuse to bash smokers?

Chalk · 30-04-2005 11:53pm

a quick scan reveals that to be 60 pages of quotes from other healt organisations.
generally including quotes from the above mentioned studies and organisations who have based there views on the 93 epa review.

is there any particular page you would like me to read?

Chalk · 30-04-2005 11:57pm

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Rainyday, if you have genuinely researched this issue you would be aware that long term exposure to cigarrette smoke increases the risk of contracting lung cancer in a non-smoker by around 40%. HOWEVER, the risk of contracting lung cancer for a non-smoker is still low as a comparatively large % of a low risk, still equates to a relatively low risk.

As a smoker I am happy to comply with the smoking ban in pubs, which I was and still am in favour of, but the idea that someone's health is seriously adversely affected by standing next to someone smoking on a railway platform for 10 minutes just isn't going to wash, I'm afraid.

As regards ciggie butts, do you honestly think that they represent a serious environmental problem, or are you just using this as another excuse to bash smokers?

exact figure is 25%
1:80000 non smokers with no ets exposure getr lung cancer
1:100000 non smkers with ets exposure get lung cancer.

that means an extra 2.5 people per million
10-15 people in ireland per year.......
no smoking because 10-15 people die from ets.

/edit for comparison
acceptable level in eu for road deaths per year is 116 per milllion
were at 121 afaik

hawkmoon269 · 30-04-2005 11:59pm

Chalk wrote:

exact figure is 25%
1:80000 non smokers with no ets exposure getr lung cancer
1:100000 non smkers with ets exposure get lung cancer.

that means an extra 2.5 people per million
10-15 people in ireland per year.......
no smoking because 10-15 people die from ets.

I have definitely seen a figure of 35-40% quoted. My understanding is, this applies to long term exposure - e.g. non-smoker living with a smoker, who smokes in the house, over an extended period of time.

Basic point as regards it being a relatively low risk, I agree with you.

Chalk · 01-05-2005 12:02am

well then theyre making up figures tbh,
official stats are the 25%
or an increas from 10 per million to 12.5 per million

statiscally insignificant

hawkmoon269 · 01-05-2005 12:10am

murphaph wrote:

Excellent point NewDub. In a public building, open or otherwise it's a potential fire hazard. it's not worth the risk to allow smoking on any platforms.

Yes, of course it is. An evil smoker could carelessly discard a lit cigarette onto the CONCRETE platform, thereby setting fire to the entire platform. Such is the way of smokers, they are inherently evil people who should be locked up.

Very good point, I can't believe it never occured to me.

RainyDay · 01-05-2005 9:36am

hawkmoon269 wrote:

As a smoker I am happy to comply with the smoking ban in pubs, which I was and still am in favour of, but the idea that someone's health is seriously adversely affected by standing next to someone smoking on a railway platform for 10 minutes just isn't going to wash, I'm afraid.

I never stated there was a serious health risk in such circumstances. But isn't it just amazingly uncivilised to think that one person is going to inhale the waste products of another person. If I popped down to Pearse St station and started spraying myself from a squeegy bottle of my own urine, and just happened to get some of it on your hair, your eyes, your clothes etc, would you reckon 'Oh well - that's his right - I'll just suck it up'? When we tell our grandchildren that we used to end up inhaling smoke from other people, they will recoil in horror as we would when we think about emptying sewage out the window into the streets.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

As regards ciggie butts, do you honestly think that they represent a serious environmental problem, or are you just using this as another excuse to bash smokers?

It is litter - Can I make it any plainer? And it is a huge, huge volume of litter as smokers seem to think that anti-littering legislation doesn't apply to them. When are smokers going to start cleaning up after themselves.

Chalk wrote:

a quick scan reveals that to be 60 pages of quotes from other healt organisations.
generally including quotes from the above mentioned studies and organisations who have based there views on the 93 epa review.

is there any particular page you would like me to read?

Now you know you're not going to get away with vague allegations like that. Please identify any specific studies which you believe are substantially dependant on the 93 EPA review (Not that I'm totally sold on the idea of medical advice from Penn & Teller, mind you). But no, there is no particular page that I'd like you to read, because you can't pick & choose the bits that suit you. The study exists as a whole - the conclusion was based on a review of all the available data at that time and its relevance to the Irish situation.

The conclusion is still valid.

Alun · 01-05-2005 2:23pm

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Yes, of course it is. An evil smoker could carelessly discard a lit cigarette onto the CONCRETE platform, thereby setting fire to the entire platform. Such is the way of smokers, they are inherently evil people who should be locked up.

Very good point, I can't believe it never occured to me.

Most people seem to throw their used, still glowing, cigarette butts onto the tracks where, if you cared to look, there is an accumulation of other litter present, thrown there by other equally ignorant, uncivilised people. Litter + glowing cigarette butt = Fire.

And, to echo what other have said IT'S LITTER, DAMMIT!!!

murphaph · 01-05-2005 2:42pm

Alun wrote:

And, to echo what other have said IT'S LITTER, DAMMIT!!!

Exactly. Some smokers seem to think stepping on a butt is fine. It's not-it's disgusting litter that should be contained and disposed of properly, not discarded on platforms. As for the ban in pubs-cigarrete smoke smells disgusting on you. Why should the majority of people tolerate being coated in filthy smelling smoke. This is before the health risks (and there are risks-we should simply err on the side of caution and not allow passive smoking).

hawkmoon269 · 02-05-2005 4:43am

RainyDay wrote:

I never stated there was a serious health risk in such circumstances. But isn't it just amazingly uncivilised to think that one person is going to inhale the waste products of another person. If I popped down to Pearse St station and started spraying myself from a squeegy bottle of my own urine, and just happened to get some of it on your hair, your eyes, your clothes etc, would you reckon 'Oh well - that's his right - I'll just suck it up'? When we tell our grandchildren that we used to end up inhaling smoke from other people, they will recoil in horror as we would when we think about emptying sewage out the window into the streets.

It is litter - Can I make it any plainer? And it is a huge, huge volume of litter as smokers seem to think that anti-littering legislation doesn't apply to them. When are smokers going to start cleaning up after themselves.

Wow, I half-thought you might manage to come up with some valid points to argue against the points that I made, but no.

Based on your statements above, I'm afraid I would have to view you as an anti-smoking zealot or fanatic. I really feel you should try to find more important issues to engage with in terms of the commuting/transport forum, instead of just spouting fanaticism. Incidentally, many non-smokers I know actually like the smell of my cigar smoke.

I doubt if they would like to inhale the stench your urine, particularly when it's so full of hatred, prejudice and bile.

hawkmoon269 · 02-05-2005 4:46am

murphaph wrote:

Exactly. Some smokers seem to think stepping on a butt is fine. It's not-it's disgusting litter that should be contained and disposed of properly, not discarded on platforms. As for the ban in pubs-cigarrete smoke smells disgusting on you. Why should the majority of people tolerate being coated in filthy smelling smoke. This is before the health risks (and there are risks-we should simply err on the side of caution and not allow passive smoking).

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

Incidentally, Churchill and Roosevelt were both smokers.

Hilter was a fanatical anti-smoker.

So, remind me again, who won the war?

John R · 02-05-2005 6:33am

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

The old faithful last stand of an unwinnable arguement "we live in a free country therefore I should be allowed do whatever the fcuk I like". It is a pile of bull. There are any number of things that it is not acceptable to do in public that you are free to do in private, many of them are not nearly as unpleasant as breathing in tobacco smoke.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Incidentally, Churchill and Roosevelt were both smokers.

Hilter was a fanatical anti-smoker.

So, remind me again, who won the war?

I am unsure if I should first highlight the lunacy of suggesting that smoking is a good thing because one historical figure smoked while another didn't and your inference that somehow smoking has some relevance to the events surronding them.

On the other hand I can' help but be astounded that you seemingly suggest that Hitler is only a negative role model because he lost the war.

John R · 02-05-2005 7:08am

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Wow, I half-thought you might manage to come up with some valid points to argue against the points that I made, but no.

Based on your statements above, I'm afraid I would have to view you as an anti-smoking zealot or fanatic.

And you are a deluded drug addict who cannot accept that your addiction creates an unpleasant, dirty and unhealthy environment for all those around you who were not so stupid as to get themselves addicted to a toxic useless product that would most likely shorten their lives.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I really feel you should try to find more important issues to engage with in terms of the commuting/transport forum, instead of just spouting fanaticism. Incidentally, many non-smokers I know actually like the smell of my cigar smoke.

How about you post considerably more than a half-dozen posts on this board before you tell others what they should be posting, or better still don't do it at all.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I doubt if they would like to inhale the stench your urine, particularly when it's so full of hatred, prejudice and bile.

Obviously sir you are a connoisseur of urine and the different flavours contained therein. Perhaps you should write a book on the topic.

RainyDay · 02-05-2005 8:59am

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Based on your statements above, I'm afraid I would have to view you as an anti-smoking zealot or fanatic. I really feel you should try to find more important issues to engage with in terms of the commuting/transport forum, instead of just spouting fanaticism. Incidentally, many non-smokers I know actually like the smell of my cigar smoke.

Actually, I do quite like the smell of cigar or pipe smoke myself, that I don't see the relevance here. It's a pity that you're now evading engaging in actualy debate and attempting to drag the thread down to personal slagging, but I'm not going to fall for your troll. If/when you want to have a genuine debate on the impact of 2nd hand tobacco smoke on non-smokers, please feel free to repost.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I doubt if they would like to inhale the stench your urine, particularly when it's so full of hatred, prejudice and bile.

Mmmmm - interesting. But you expect me to inhale the stench of their 2nd hand tobacco smoke?

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

Please don't expect anyone to take your talk of 'free democracy' or 'facists' seriously. The surveys to mark the 1st anniversary of the ban showed that it has overwhelming support from the public and for bar workers. The few cranks that ran in the 2004 local/euro elections on an anti-smoking-ban platform performed abysmally in the polls. Funny how you don't seem too concerned about democratic rights of bar staff to clean air?

murphaph · 02-05-2005 7:32pm

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

Whatever.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Incidentally, Churchill and Roosevelt were both smokers.

Hilter was a fanatical anti-smoker.

So, remind me again, who won the war?

The Allied Forces, comprising mainly of The Soviet Union, The United States and The United Kingdom. There were others. Not sure what this has to do with your 'argument' though.

hawkmoon269 · 02-05-2005 9:59pm

John R wrote:

How about you post considerably more than a half-dozen posts on this board before you tell others what they should be posting, or better still don't do it at all.

I have a strong interest in transport issues and policy, and the fact that I have only contributed a small number of posts (so far) on this particular forum does not mean that I am not well informed on transport issues.

hawkmoon269 · 02-05-2005 10:03pm

RainyDay wrote:

Actually, I do quite like the smell of cigar or pipe smoke myself, that I don't see the relevance here. It's a pity that you're now evading engaging in actualy debate and attempting to drag the thread down to personal slagging, but I'm not going to fall for your troll. If/when you want to have a genuine debate on the impact of 2nd hand tobacco smoke on non-smokers, please feel free to repost.

Mmmmm - interesting. But you expect me to inhale the stench of their 2nd hand tobacco smoke?

Please don't expect anyone to take your talk of 'free democracy' or 'facists' seriously. The surveys to mark the 1st anniversary of the ban showed that it has overwhelming support from the public and for bar workers. The few cranks that ran in the 2004 local/euro elections on an anti-smoking-ban platform performed abysmally in the polls. Funny how you don't seem too concerned about democratic rights of bar staff to clean air?

As I already said on this thread, and am happy to repeat, I am a smoker who supported the ban initially, and still supports it, so I don't see the point or relevance of accusing me of not being concerned about the "democratic rights of bar staff to clean air". I smoke only where it is legal to do so, and obey the law of the land.

In terms of the trolling comment, I found your urine analogy rather bizarre and inappropriate, so I responded in kind. I wasn't the one that brought the urine analogy into the thread, you did!

I am more than happy to have a rational debate on the dangers of passive smoking. Myself and another poster posted stats above, which you have yet to contradict.

Having said that anyone who really thinks smoking in DART stations is a key transport or commuting issue in Dublin needs their head examined in my view!

In fairness to the original poster, he/she asked a legitimate question, which has now been answered (smoking in stations is ILLEGAL and I support any moves to prosecute people who do smoke in stations, incidentally, while smoking on open air platforms is LEGAL, much as it probably disappoints some of the zealots!).

Interesting that this thread is turning out so lengthy, while threads on far more important transport issues attract limited responses. Some people have strange priorities, in my view! Anyway to avoid the risk of being a called hypocrite, I will now practise what I preach and won't be making any more posts on this particular thread as the original poster's question has been answered!

Smoking at DART stations

Comments