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
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    beyondbelief67 wrote: »
    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.


    Thanks for the correction .

    .


  • Options
    #93
    deisemum
    Registered Users Posts: 5,581 ✭✭✭deisemum


    ROCKMAN wrote: »
    Think the hotels will not deal with just students without the schools being involved .
    .

    Most schools don't get involved in the organising anymore so it's left to the students and parents to organise it. Those then organising it have to do so off school grounds.


  • Options
    #94
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    Interestingly, Dlrcoco tried to introduce a similar smoking ban in their parks in May 2011, but were told "no can do" by their own lawyers.
    From the minutes;
    dlrcoco.ie/meetings/2011/CountyCouncil/May11.pdf

    "The Law Agent has advised that in adopting Bye-laws for the Prevention of Smoking in Certain Areas “the legal problem for the Council is that the Oireachtas has deemed it appropriate to vest the power to the Minister for Health to introduce restrictions, including the introduction of what has become known as the “smoking ban”, which is the prohibition on smoking of tobacco products in places that are set out in Section 47 of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002, as amended, and it is arguable that those powers include the type of place these draft Bye-laws are intended to address.
    I have previously advised the Council when Oireachtas legislation has specifically devolved the power to regulate activities to a Minister, then I do not consider it appropriate or within the powers and functions of a local authority to regulate the same activities by way of Bye-laws even if the Minister has not exercised his powers in that regard.”


  • Options
    #95
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    ROCKMAN wrote: »
    Think the hotels will not deal with just students without the schools being involved .
    .

    The hotels will deal with anyone who has the money to pay for it. Most of these students are over eighteen, they are adults and perfectly capable of organising their own parties.


  • Options
    #96
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    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.
    So it's ok for parents to get drunk in front of their kids and say that they are showing them that it's better to get high on alcohol than on heroin?

    Most people who vape say they are doing it to give up cigarettes. Surely they would be happy to see any measures that wobld mean kids would not be exposed to smoking of any kind in public?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Gas Jockey wrote: »
    Agree. As regards smoking being "evil", well...
    You don't think poisoning your lungs with a cocktail of chemicals and smoke isn't evil? Really?


  • Options
    #98
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    katydid wrote: »
    You don't think poisoning your lungs with a cocktail of chemicals and smoke isn't evil? Really?

    Yes, really. Wrapping any self directed action in self righteous moralism does nothing but expose oneself to ridicule. Evil could be used if someone was deliberately, maliciously and repeatedly exposing someone to obviously harmful levels of smoke, who was not in a position to remove themselves from the situation. I'm thinking here of those who would smoke in cars without adequate ventilation while carrying children, despite knowing the harms. I'm deliberately leaving out parents of previous generations, as the risks weren't as clear then as now.
    But otherwise, no, neither smoking nor smokers are evil.
    As regards removing the sight of someone smoking in a park, children are influenced more by those closest to them (parents, peers, older siblings) rather than strangers sitting in a park.


  • Options
    #99
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,872 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    katydid wrote: »
    evil? Really?

    hmmm, id probably call isis evil and smoking as just damn bad for your health. just saying


  • Options
    #100
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    hmmm, id probably call isis evil and smoking as just damn bad for your health. just saying

    I'm not saying the people who smoke are evil. But the act is evil. It just has been accepted by society because the fact that it was a poison was not recognised for years.

    Just sayin...


  • Options
    #101
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Gas Jockey wrote: »
    Yes, really. Wrapping any self directed action in self righteous moralism does nothing but expose oneself to ridicule. Evil could be used if someone was deliberately, maliciously and repeatedly exposing someone to obviously harmful levels of smoke, who was not in a position to remove themselves from the situation. I'm thinking here of those who would smoke in cars without adequate ventilation while carrying children, despite knowing the harms. I'm deliberately leaving out parents of previous generations, as the risks weren't as clear then as now.
    But otherwise, no, neither smoking nor smokers are evil.
    As regards removing the sight of someone smoking in a park, children are influenced more by those closest to them (parents, peers, older siblings) rather than strangers sitting in a park.
    Would you say the same if a stranger in a park were shooting up heroin?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,872 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    katydid wrote: »
    I'm not saying the people who smoke are evil. But the act is evil. It just has been accepted by society because the fact that it was a poison was not recognised for years.

    Just sayin...

    hahaha excellent. now back to watching isis videos


  • Options
    #103
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,872 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    katydid wrote: »
    Would you say the same if a stranger in a park were shooting up heroin?

    i think id be more worried about their mental well being than anything


  • Options
    #104
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    i think id be more worried about their mental well being than anything

    That's not an answer to my question :pac:


  • Options
    #105
    7upfree
    Registered Users Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭7upfree


    katydid wrote: »
    You don't think poisoning your lungs with a cocktail of chemicals and smoke isn't evil? Really?

    Well, it's a personal choice (and I am a non-smoker). Not evil. Just silly.

    But remember - it's an addiction. And not an easy one to detach yourself from.

    I disagree with banning it in the Park. Another stupid, nanny state idea.


  • Options
    #106
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    7upfree wrote: »
    Well, it's a personal choice (and I am a non-smoker). Not evil. Just silly.

    But remember - it's an addiction. And not an easy one to detach yourself from.

    I disagree with banning it in the Park. Another stupid, nanny state idea.

    It's silly to smoke. But smoking is a nasty, evil habit. I'm delighted to see it becoming anti-social; the more unacceptable it becomes to smoke in front of other people, the better, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

    Of course it's an addiction. That doesn't justify publicly owned places facilitating any addiction.


  • Options
    #107
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,872 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    katydid wrote: »
    Of course it's an addiction. That doesn't justify publicly owned places facilitating any addiction.

    hmmm you're making me think now. what do people think we should do with all the drug addicts and their partaking of their addictions in public?


  • Options
    #108
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    hmmm you're making me think now. what do people think we should do with all the drug addicts and their partaking of their addictions in public?

    Help them. Provide them with safe places to wean themselves off their addictions.


  • Options
    #109
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,872 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    katydid wrote: »
    Help them. Provide them with safe places to wean themselves off their addictions.

    i dont think this is happening though. was temporarily living in dublin for a while. disturbing to see the amount of heroin addicts wandering around the city lost. waterford going similar way. sad to see


  • Options
    #110
    ZeroThreat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,181 ✭✭✭ZeroThreat


    debok wrote: »
    This is getting ridiculous. Country is turning into something out of one of those futuristic films where the government makes all the decisions. No swearing is the best iv ever heard.

    This (poor) film was the first that came to mind. :D



  • Options
    #111
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,872 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ZeroThreat wrote: »
    This (poor) film was the first that came to mind. :D

    hahaha legend. love that film. mdk! gonna have to watch it now


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    7upfree
    Registered Users Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭7upfree


    katydid wrote: »
    It's silly to smoke. But smoking is a nasty, evil habit. I'm delighted to see it becoming anti-social; the more unacceptable it becomes to smoke in front of other people, the better, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

    Of course it's an addiction. That doesn't justify publicly owned places facilitating any addiction.

    Cannot agree. Smoking has been part of society for decades. The Park is a public recreation area. smoking does not inhibit this in any shape or form.

    If someone wants to have a cigarette on their lunch break (and maybe needs one) I don't see the harm.

    As I said - our nanny State mentality at its worst.


  • Options
    #113
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    7upfree wrote: »
    Cannot agree. Smoking has been part of society for decades. The Park is a public recreation area. smoking does not inhibit this in any shape or form.

    If someone wants to have a cigarette on their lunch break (and maybe needs one) I don't see the harm.

    As I said - our nanny State mentality at its worst.
    Lots of things have been in our society for decades. It doesn't mean they are good or acceptable. In fact, smoking has been part of our society for centuries, not decades. When it was first invented, they thought it was a cure for lung disease! We and science have moved on a bit since then.

    I've asked several times how it's different from shooting up heroin. No answer. They are both drugs, both have no benefits and lots of dangers. Should we allow shooting up in public because the park is a recreation area?


  • Options
    #114
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #115
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    katydid wrote: »
    It's silly to smoke. But smoking is a nasty, evil habit. I'm delighted to see it becoming anti-social; the more unacceptable it becomes to smoke in front of other people, the better, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

    Of course it's an addiction. That doesn't justify publicly owned places facilitating any addiction.

    It isn't really the State's concern whethr people are addicted to something or not. It is their concern if that addiction begins to interfere with the health or wellbeing of others, wither directly or indirectly (through increased healh spending and diversion of resources). tHese two situations can be mitigated by imposing reasonable restrictions on the use of such substancecs so that direct harms are reduced, such as the ban on smoking in enclosed spaces (although I do think that spaces having apropriate ventilation could have been excluded from the provisions of the legislation), and sensible taxation to offset the health expenditure associated with the use of the products.

    I originally entered this discussion because of the inclusion of e-cigarettes in the ban, which struck me as being completetely nonsensical, given the obvious differences between these and standard tobacco products. Nudging people in the direction of safer alternatives is far more sensible, practical and pragmatic than hectoring people about their choices. That being said, as there are no obvious direct harms associated with people smoking in open spaces, i have no objections to them doing so, and certainly would not support a ban.


  • Options
    #116
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Patww79 wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    If they were invented now, they probably would be! Too many financial interests at stake...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #117
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    katydid wrote: »
    Would you say the same if a stranger in a park were shooting up heroin?

    I'm pretty sure heroin addicts would far prefer not to be sticking pointy bits of metal into themselves. Perhaps when better, more tolerable routes of administration become available users will stop doing this.

    Much like insulin-dependent diabetics.


  • Options
    #118
    jonski
    Registered Users Posts: 6,389 ✭✭✭jonski


    katydid wrote:
    If they were invented now, they probably would be! Too many financial interests at stake...


    The same could be said for alcohol .


  • Options
    #119
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    jonski wrote: »
    The same could be said for alcohol .

    Indeed. if only we could turn back time to a poin where people didn;t take any substances to alter their perception of reality (wistful gaze).

    Anyone want to venture a guess about how far back we'd need to go?


  • Options
    #120
    Gas Jockey
    Registered Users Posts: 44 ✭Gas Jockey


    jonski wrote: »
    The same could be said for alcohol .

    Indeed. if only we could turn back time to a point where people didn't take any substances to alter their perception of reality (wistful gaze).

    Anyone want to venture a guess about how far back we'd need to go?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    jonski wrote: »
    The same could be said for alcohol .
    Not really. Alcohol isn't harmful per se. Overindulgence is.


Advertisement