Smoking ban to start on March 29

10 cig butts a day is more reasonable. BTW, I never said that all the butts would be in the one place. Littering a little everywhere is just as bad.

Okies. Misunderstanding again. on my part. I thought you were blaming all the butts at a bus stop or such, on one person waiting.

I smoke roughly 20 a day. Thats during the week. abt 14 of them would be smoked at home, and placed in an ashtray. 8 maybe 9 would be smoked during the day. Probably all of them would be smoked during breaks, at which point they're stubbed and put in the bin. On the off chance i have a meeting in the city, perhaps one or two cigs would be dropped in street bins. With maybe one being dropped on the street, when i'm not thinking.

So out of 21 cigs during the week i would maybe drop one cig on the street. And when i do that, irrespective of whether i'm thinking or not, i would agree that i should be fined on the spot.

The weekend? I smoke slightly less dependent whether i go out or not. If not, i'm at home, so littering is not an issue. If i go out, i spend most of the time in one pub, so thats where my cigs go.

1) How do you know I don't smoke? Most smokers oppose the ban and would agree with me.

Because you've mentioned that you don't smoke.

2) What facts (such as lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, smell, sore eyes) are exclusively available to smokers?

Oh i agree, they're not exclusive. But the degree that the person expierences them is what we're talkin abt. Below i mention abt the smell.

As for sore eyes, non-smokers would be more suspectible, but to be honest i get sore eyes from the smell of whiskey and other hard spirits.

Lung cancer, & heart disease can be caused by smoking, but they're not exclusive to smoking, and there have been hundreds of case studies/lab experiments that prove and then disprove that passive smoking actually causes cancer. Do you know one that is completely certain?

Asthma? Can that be caused by smoking? interesting. i didn't know that.

3) You think you know more about smoking than me yet you smoke and I don't. IMO I have made the educated choice by not smoking and you have made the uneducated one.

No. You said:

The next time you point out something that is "obvious" make sure you know what your talking about.

You took the stand that you knew more abt smoking because you were a non-smoker. I disagreed, because i have lived the life of a smoker. You on the other hand have experienced the life of a non-smoker. You haven't experienced the flem in the mornings, the social stigma of being a smoker, the smell of your clothes, the taste in your mouth, skin, breath, hair (with the exception of when you socialise).

So if your saying that carrying around the ashtrays will be no worse than the smoke you "carry around everyday" thats great! However, you have no right to complain about the smell of the ashtrays when you inflict the smell of smoke on others.

No. I said that for me i find the idea of carrying an ashtray full of butts with me would be distasteful, since it would generate a deeper smell than normal smoking. which it does. Smell an ashtray. Its smells way stronger than the smoke when you walk into room with one person smoking.

And you have no right to tell me my rights. I leave that to the Law.

sanvean

Originally posted by Linoge
Tough titty as far as I'm concerned. So smokers will have a deeper smell of smoke. How do you think non-smokers feel in a pub? I dont wear my jacket to the pub anymore because of the lingering smell of smoke that stays in it. This time the smokers will be carrying around their own disgusting smell, not a smell caused by someone else so I dont know how they can complain.

As far as littering goes, there are no excuses. Ignorance could be swapped for the word habit in most cases. IMO dropping 20 cigarette butts a day would be alot more than than your average litter bug.

i'd agree with your last point. but the first one doesn't make sense. surely smokers should be given proper bins in order to dispose of their rubish, rather than having to carry it around in little ashtrays? this would be like forcing people to carry around their rubbish for lack of bins. just provide more bins. simple as that.

RainyDay

I give up. It's becoming clear that smokers believe it is someone else's job to stop smokers from littering. Must be difficult to get clear thinking through those tar-addled brains.

rasper

Even though I enjoy nothing more than a smoke with a pint, I pretty much welcome it.
Not to fond of the way it’s just rammed down or throat whether we like it or not. Slaps too much of the nanny state that we’re becoming.
On saying that spent a while in California which is anti-smoker madness, and it
Works well there meaning your clothes don't reek, and you'll feel the differencein the air.
Smoker or not.
When I returned here then I realised exactly how polluted the pubs are. We'll get used to it(clean air) and our friends(publicans)will somehow accommodate us when it hits their pockets

Cork

I think that the ban will work. What is the joy of going into a smoke filled pub.

Who has the right to puff smoke into my face of the faces of pub workers?

We seem to be the first in the EU introducing the ban - It is all about protecting ourselves from the documented dangers of passive smoke.

sanvean

Originally posted by RainyDay
I give up. It's becoming clear that smokers believe it is someone else's job to stop smokers from littering. Must be difficult to get clear thinking through those tar-addled brains.

you're missing the point (it would seem that non tar addled brains are bad at comprehension too). it's not that smokers shouldn't litter, rather that they should have the same access to disposal that the general population have for (non-smoking) litter. to break it down for easy comprehension, however:

*the general population can dispose of their rubbish in rubbish bins. they do not have to carry around their rubbish with them for the day.
*the same basic principle should be offered to smokers.

do you understand?

ixoy

Originally posted by sanvean
*the general population can dispose of their rubbish in rubbish bins. they do not have to carry around their rubbish with them for the day.
*the same basic principle should be offered to smokers.

do you understand?

Should it? Given that cigarette butts are more likely to end up on the ground than any other form of litter, why should the onus be on the government taxe to ease a smoker's burden? ESPECIALLY when there're solutions like the portable ashtray available. Any smoker who thinks they should be allowed litter so they don't have to carry around a portable ashtray for a bit would appear to have a serious attitude problem. I always carry my litter to the nearest bin - why shouldn't smokers be made to do so, even if it's to empty their portable ashtrays? Or should we have bins every metre for them?

It's becoming clear that smokers believe it is someone else's job to stop smokers from littering.

No i don't agree with that. Sure, there are some people out there that do believe that other people should clean up after them. They could be smokers, or non-smokers its irrevilent. At the end of the day, smokers are the same as everyone else, we live our lives as we want them to be. Myself and my friends, tidy up after ourselves, and our cleanliness is on par with most people. However, on the streets on this country, there needs to be targets for the litter we have. This is irrespective of whether its cig butts, cans of coke, apples, chewing gum etc. Surely you would agree with that?

Must be difficult to get clear thinking through those tar-addled brains.

My brain works just as well as yours. Its my heart-rate and lung capacity thats less efficient.

Even though I enjoy nothing more than a smoke with a pint, I pretty much welcome it. Not to fond of the way it’s just rammed down or throat whether we like it or not. Slaps too much of the nanny state that we’re becoming.

I daresay most smokers feel the same way as you. In some ways its almost a relief that it gives us the motivation to stop. Still, being forced into something is never the nicest feeling.

Who has the right to puff smoke into my face of the faces of pub workers?

Cork, i smoke cause i'm addicted and that i enjoy the things. Not to run around blowing smoke in anyones face. If that was the reason i'd find much cheaper ways of doing it.

why should the onus be on the government taxe to ease a smoker's burden?

It may have excaped your notice that smokers pay just as much of this country's taxes as you. If anyone said that comment in reference to public transport, or drink disorders, it would be shot down in an instant.

ESPECIALLY when there're solutions like the portable ashtray available.

HAVE you actually seen any? cause i haven't. In fact i asked a few friends yesterday after reading abt them, and anot one could recall anything like that being around. Strange that.

I always carry my litter to the nearest bin - why shouldn't smokers be made to do so, even if it's to empty their portable ashtrays? Or should we have bins every metre for them?

I'm quite capable of not smoking every metre, and i'm also quite capable of carrying my own litter to a bin. But it helps to know that there are the bloody things around. But judging by the amount of McDonalds Take-Away litter left after a Saturday night, its not just a Smokers problem.....

bonkey

Originally posted by RainyDay
I give up. It's becoming clear that smokers believe it is someone else's job to stop smokers from littering. Must be difficult to get clear thinking through those tar-addled brains.

Get off your cross. Someone else needs the wood.

Look, I will try and explain this slowly and simply because you are obviously failing to see the logic :

1) There are bins provided for the easy and safe disposal of non-smoking litter.
2) There are not bins provided for the easy and safe disposal of smoking-based litter (i.e. butts).

With me so far?

Lets move on....

3) A certain percentage of all people wil llitter.
4) This percentage varies depending on how easy it is to dispose of your rubbish cleanly, as evidenced by the observation that the better bin-service a town provides, the less litter there tends to be.

My tar-addled brain isn't providing too daft a notion yet for you? No? Lets continue. Next ones an easy one.

6) Whenever it is previously that non-smokers rubbish needed to be dealt with, the solution was to put more bins in place.

Which leads us to :

7) Therefore it is beyond being blindingly obvious that when you don't provide for one specific type of litter to be safely disposed of, that this specific type of litter will predominate in the non-disposed-of materials you examine.

Supplying bins for smokers is called a practical solution. Its also arguably called being non-disciminatory.

You want to deal with this problem by smokers? Then the first and most obvious step is to deal with it the same way the same problem caused by non-smokers was dealt with.

Apparently, though, you seem to think that this is unreasonable. Thats your perogative.

Tell you what. You continue being outraged at smokers and how dirty the place is, and I'll continue arging that we take practical steps towards a cleaner living environment.

You can sit there in your ivory tower of righteousness and cigarette butts littering the place all round, and I'll stay here in my foreign country where they've implemented what I'm suggesting the Irish do also, and where cigarette litter is a far, far lesser occurrence.

Better still, why don't you live up to your convictions and campaign to have all bins removed? Think of the money we'd save as a nation, and hey - its not like we should be trying to take care of other people's litter either, right? Treat them all like the smokers.

Your logic says it won't make the world much dirtier, and its not the way to cope with teh problem anyway, so lets stop wasting money on it, right?

jc

ColonelGadaffi

Smoking tobacco leads to cancer

attica2k

i know that it is probally for the best for health reasons and all.....but the fact the the goverment are taking away our choice to smoke is absord....today we live in a democracy where we should have the choice to smoke in a pub if we want along as it is permitted by the owner.........the govement are taking away our freedom of choice

Sparks

Originally posted by attica2k
the govement are taking away our freedom of choice

While I've no love for their way of doing things, or them themselves, I can't help but point out that when I want to choose to buy an olympic air pistol or an olympic .22 pistol, my lack of freedom to choose is rarely lamented....

bonkey

Originally posted by attica2k
i know that it is probally for the best for health reasons and all.....but the fact the the goverment are taking away our choice to smoke is absord....today we live in a democracy where we should have the choice to smoke in a pub if we want along as it is permitted by the owner.........the govement are taking away our freedom of choice

Yeah. I should have the freedom to shoot people who annoy me. By making that illegal, and even by limiting my access to firearms, the government is taking away my freedom too.

Same argument.

jc

Sparks

JC, if you're going to take the mickey....

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
JC, if you're going to take the mickey....

I'm not taking the mickey at all. At least, definitely not of your .22 example. I'm taking it to a further extreme to illustrate what is probably the same point.

I have mentioned previously that losing a right is not in and of itself a bad thing - you need to show that the right is worth preserving first.

If posters are going to continue putting forward the "but you can't infringe on my rights" argument, with absolutely no explanation of why this right is a right in the first place, and a right that is worth preserving at that, then I don't see why I shouldn't use the exact same logic to present a similar argument.

Yes, its easy to look at mine and say "you're taking the p1ss", but my attitude is that it was in reply to a post which was equally extracting the urine in terms of its content and the argument it presented.

jc

Sparks

Ah, no - I meant were you taking the mickey out of my example

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Ah, no - I meant were you taking the mickey out of my example

No, no. I just happened to be writing it at the same time...

jc

Smoking tobacco leads to cancer

thank you for that insightful comment. I'm sure the smokers posting here didn't know that.

Yeah. I should have the freedom to shoot people who annoy me. By making that illegal, and even by limiting my access to firearms, the government is taking away my freedom too.

I'm not going to say that i have the right to smoke. I don't. I don't have the right to have icecream on hot days. I can buy them but if nobody wants to sell i can't say that i have the right to them. I understand that, & thus i don't mind as much.

But what most smokers are annoyed about is that our choice has been taken away from us. This smoking ban was dumped on us, and i daresay i'm not alone in being a wee bit annoyed. I've been smoking for a long time and each year i've paid dearly for my habit. After all that to have your choice taken away, got me big time for a while.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
After all that to have your choice taken away, got me big time for a while.

In 1972, for pretty much the first time in the entire history of the Republic, the Free State, and everything that came before them, restrictions were placed on what firearms you could own - and not light ones. The majority of firearms were illegally confiscated. Pistols and all rifles with calibres over .223 were banned. As a result, not only historical heirlooms and hunting rifles, but target shooting gear was banned.

Now, that was done illegally. And without reasonable cause. So if you think smokers are getting a bad deal, you might want to talk to target shooters first.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by klaz
But what most smokers are annoyed about is that our choice has been taken away from us.

At the risk of getting repetitive, your choice to smoke is not being taken away: just your choice to smoke in some of the situations where it adversely affects others. I think Sparks has a somewhat more valid cause for annoyance.

PHB

But what most smokers are annoyed about is that our choice has been taken away from us. This smoking ban was dumped on us, and i daresay i'm not alone in being a wee bit annoyed. I've been smoking for a long time and each year i've paid dearly for my habit. After all that to have your choice taken away, got me big time for a while.

Yep, your choice was taken away from you, so what? We take away the choice of people to buy guns because its bad for society.
Just because you can see a direct corelation between guns and badness and with smoking its indirect doesn't mean that the correlation isn't there.

Its bad for me when you smoke beside me. Thus when I'm working anywhere, and I've no choice but to work in that particular spot, due to the nature of my job, you are hurting me.
Thus smoking in public places, where people are working, should be banned.

You're choice is completely being taken away from you, and tough **** quite frankly, because while you might want to kill yourself slowly, and I completely support your right to do this, I do not want to kill myself slowly.

pat kenny

Feck cancer I just read on the back of a box of fags a few weeks ago that somking causes impotence.
:eek:

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
I understand that, & thus i don't mind as much.

Its those who don't seem to understand it who that post was aimed at.

But what most smokers are annoyed about is that our choice has been taken away from us.

Yes, but I have yet to see one solid argument that explains why this is a bad thing.

The closest I've seen goes along the lines of "well, if non-smokers don't want our smoke, they can choose to leave the area". Granted, its a bit better worded than that, but it always reminds me of that old Harp add, where the Vikings storm into the pub, looking mean and menacing, and some of the villagers run away in fear.

The Vikings could, I guess, argue that they had every right to be in the pub, and its not their fault if the villagers chose to leave because they didn't like the vikings. The villagers could always choose a different pub, right?

While the situation in the ad didn't turn out like that, the point I'm making is that when keeping your choice means that you get to force others (not all others, just some) either to suffer because of it or choose to leave a public place that they have as much right to be in as you.....then I have to again question why you losing this choice is a bad thing.

I've been smoking for a long time and each year i've paid dearly for my habit. After all that to have your choice taken away, got me big time for a while.

I can understand that perfectly. I'm sure the next time Im home (probably late April) I will be the one bemoaning that I can't have a smoke with my pint, but that still doesn't mean that it is wrong that this has come in.

Here's one more thought on the subject....not aimed at any poster(s) in particular...

Many of the people insisting that this is a bad law because of how it affects them will also insist that our immigration policy be changed to deal with the numbers of people they consider to be abusing the system.

In that situation, they won't spare a thought for the thousands of people already in Ireland who have enjoyed the rights and privileges the current legal system entitles them to. Or, if they do, the thought will be "well, you shouldn't have had them in the first place, so don't come crying to me if you had the right to live here yesterday, but today we're packing you off to paupersville, SomeOtherCountry."

They won't spare a thought for these people whilst they are calling loudly for new legislation to bend them over and shaft them up the ass.....but they will scream bloody murder when a far less significant version of the same thing happens with them on the receiving end.

I guess at the end of the day, for me, what it boils down to is simple. For too long, smokers have been unsynpathetic and uncaring towards others freedoms.
There's usually politely-worded excuses for it, but what it boils down to is the fact that the vast majority of smokers take the opinion of "I should assume you're ok until you complain enough" rather than "I should see if you have an objection before I start". And there's no end of smokers who will get righteously indignant at the couple on the next table loudly making "disgusting habit" remarks.

Now, smokers are being made to suffer without having been first consulted, and when they complain loudly and self-rigtheously are being treated with the same disdain as many smokers treat the non-smoker who actually has the balls to ask for some consideration.

Many smokers don't even bother complaining about the new law because they have already decided their complaints are falling on deaf ears....another habit I've noticed is common amongst non-smokers.

Funnily, these people are adamant that its unfair for someone to be put in this position, and that this makes the law-change wrong. And whats really funny is that they all don't realise that this is exactly the position the non-smokers were in before the law change came about.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by PHB
Yep, your choice was taken away from you, so what? We take away the choice of people to buy guns because its bad for society.

Okay, two things.
1) There was no problem in society at that point that was being caused by legally held firearms. The problem came from illegally held firearms, held by citizens of another state, no less.
2) Our choice was illegally taken away, without any kind of consultation, with no genuine reason given, with no appeal allowed, with no legal framework supporting the confiscation.

Just because you can see a direct corelation between guns and badness and with smoking its indirect doesn't mean that the correlation isn't there.

There isn't a direct correllation between guns and badness thanks, but I suggest we take that to another thread if you want to get into it.

Its bad for me when you smoke beside me. Thus when I'm working anywhere, and I've no choice but to work in that particular spot, due to the nature of my job, you are hurting me.
Thus smoking in public places, where people are working, should be banned.

Personally, I've no problem with that.

ColonelGadaffi

Smoking tobacco is economically unviable. Passive smoking leads to cancer.

PHB

*Silly me misunderstanding what Sparks said*

oscarBravo

<brainfart deleted>

Sparks

Originally posted by PHB
Thats great, but I do. And its a big big big big problem for me, and for lots and lots of other non-smokers. Thus the government should step in and protect the people that have a problem with it

Hmmm. Methinks you didn't understand that I was agreeing with the ban...

bonkey

Originally posted by ColonelGadaffi
Smoking tobacco leads to cancer

and

Smoking tobacco is economically unviable. Passive smoking leads to cancer.

Thats nice. Now either take part in the discussion, stay out of it, or be made stay out of it.

Posting inane drivel like this is the fastest way to the third option, and you won't be given another warning.

jc

Funnily, these people are adamant that its unfair for someone to be put in this position, and that this makes the law-change wrong. And whats really funny is that they all don't realise that this is exactly the position the non-smokers were in before the law change came about.

True enough.

Oddly enough for the first discussion on boards in abt a year, i've been convinced otherwise to my previous stance. :eek: