Smoking ban to start on March 29

monument

Originally posted by Ajnag
Monument Ill take your solution If you wrap your self in cotton wool.

It was a question to...

"ALSO FOR THE LAST TIME! I DONT WANT YOU TO BREATH MY SMOKE!"

RainyDay

Hi Ajnag - No, alcohol isn't banned in the workplace as such (unless you work for IBM), but alcohol doesn't do direct harm to others in the workplace. 2nd hand cigarette smoke does do direct harm to others in the workplace, hence the ban.

Unless you have experience of both large and small businesses, then you really can't comment with any certainty about the relative importance of customers to either size of business. I don't see any reason why an individual customer would be proportionally more valuable to a small business than to a larger business.

Staff cannot guarantee to remain out of a smoking area. The chancers of smokers actually cleaning up after themselves are negligible, based on the number of cigarette butts I pass on the paths each day. And what's going to happen when a smoker decides to light up a little ganja in the smoking area - do you expect the bouncer to mime the smoker out of the pub? It's just a non-runner to have an area of a pub from which staff are effectively excluded.

Hi Klaz

This is what gets me. Non-Smokers seem to believe that smokers are out to get them.

Nearly, but not quite. As a non-smoker, I find that most smokers are so selfishly devoted to their weed that they have no consideration for non-smokers. Like the young lady (& the staff) in the deli last week who insisted on lighting up in a non-smoking area just because she does it every morning - Like the 'gauntlet' of smokers who formed a guard of honour on the main steps of Holles St hospital during my wife's recent sojurn there, make sure that I couldn't enter the hospital (and my newborn baby couldn't exit) without getting a lungful of carcinogens - Like my work colleagues who just can't wait to get into the smoking area of the car park to light up, so my car had a distinct whiff of smoke on my return. If smokers had showed a modicom of consideration for non-smokers over the years, then there would be little public appetite for the ban. But they didn't - hence the ban.

Ajnag

So rainy day your saying that larger business find that one customer makes a difference, well If this was the case, Nike would have stoped using sweatshops a long time ago.A small business has 200 customers one costumer represents .5 percent of their business, a large company has 2 million customers One customer represents far less, argue with it as you will.

Do staff not get injured from drink? I know some bouncers who will argue otherwise, and its their job to maintain order, not endure the unpredictable affects of drink dont even argue otherwise(remember its illegal to be drunk is it not).Are bar staff not attacked from those under the affects of drink? Alcohol dose do direct harm to those in the workplace, Just because the statistics arnt at hand to show how many have been injured by their inebriated or hungover collegues dosnt mean it dosnt happen.So shouldnt alcohol also be banned in the workplace, by the same logic that smoking will be?

Also as I said, If smokers dont respect what their given, then they will lose it, and as for the ganja part, well cant the bouncer call the cops? or will they be renaged from there duty seeing as there a "smoker" present?That given I dont agree with the ban on weed either.

Oscar bravo nice, to call me on that one, However I do think that I would be able to join my friends for one or 2 in a non-smoking pub, before moving on the smoking pub to continue my drinking in comfort, nice to have a choice tho innt.As I say, if youve been so put out all along why didnt you move to give your self the choice.Its not as if non-smoking pubs have been banned up until now, or is it?

Originally posted by Ajnag

Do staff not get injured from drink?

They may do, but it's very rare and you can be assured that there would usually be a law suit in the off-ing as a direct consequence.
Now currently can I sue a fellow pub patron for the detramental effects of second hand smoke?

And if so how strong are my chances of suceeding in that, versus my chances of sucess in a case against either a drunk patron who has injured me if I'm a bouncer or the pub owner ?

It's getting very lame when you introduce an argument against drinking( ie that you could get injured by it ) in a debate on being allowed to smoke whilst drinking, given that the background to this is that drinking when not to regular excess in a pub is a harmless social event.

Drinking in a smokey environment for a non smoker certainly is not.

Ajnag

But the point remains Earthman that Drinks hurts many non-drinkers in various ways, and cost this country millions in loss's to the exchecquer.Fact is that drink would be next on the "to ban List" were it not for the fact that our politicians are so fond of it themselves, and that our current health minister is a pious non-smoker as opposed to a pious non drinker.Also If smoking is to go, then whats next on the public good/health list?

Obesity cant be baned, it is however linked also to alcohol.
After that i dunno, but alcohol aint far down the list that for sure, and tho tobbaco isnt being banned outright, It follows that alcohol should be banned in the workplace and all public places to start with.It starts here, and the non smokers here are not willing to comprimise because they are getting their way out right, but where dose it end? Take extreme points of view and refuse to compromise, and see where the tide takes you.

"A pig in a cage on anti-biotics" - Radiohead.(sry dumb quote but all I could think of.)

rubadub

Originally posted by Ajnag
But the point remains Earthman that Drinks hurts many non-drinkers in various ways, and cost this country millions in loss's to the exchecquer.

it also supplys millions just like good old cigarettes

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121592

caffeine for kids will probably be next on the banning list before alcohol.
and what happened to the fat tax?

If smokers had showed a modicom of consideration for non-smokers over the years, then there would be little public appetite for the ban.

I have always shown some courtesy when smoking towards non-smokers. Not because i am smoking, but because i learn to be polite to people on the street, in pubs etc. I don't fart in peoples faces, and i don't piss in front of people. Just as i don't blow smoke in peoples faces. I'd generally ask at a table dominated by non-smokers if they minded my smoking. If they minded, i didn't. Simple.

I refer you to the comparison made earlier with racial segregation. Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it should continue in the future.

Oh i agree. But i wasn't justifying smoking. I was mentioning that smokers believe they have the right to smoke. Just as they had that right in the past.

Nope, but it's hardly surprising if non-smokers get frustrated that smokers make no effort to avoid poisoning others.

But thats the thing. I don't know any smokers that go out of their way to target non-smokers. Hell, i don't know any smokers that ignore non-smokers. So i can't quite understand this mentality that says that smokers have no regard for non-smokers feelings/rights etc.

I'm going to take that as sarcasm - correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, you effectively condoned the dropping of a lit cigarette in a public place. You'll have to forgive me if that doesn't prompt me to have too much sympathy for your perspective.

Oh it was sarcasm. If i step on litter from MacDonalds do i raise my fist and scream my anger against the person that dropped it or MacDonalds themselves? The issue of a cig being sucked into the car, was a rediculous issue (in association with this thread) in my eyes.

We've noticed.

And we've gotten too tired of noticing.

RainyDay

Hi Ajnag

Originally posted by Ajnag
So rainy day your saying that larger business find that one customer makes a difference, well If this was the case, Nike would have stoped using sweatshops a long time ago.A small business has 200 customers one costumer represents .5 percent of their business, a large company has 2 million customers One customer represents far less, argue with it as you will.

I'm really starting to wonder if you reading my responses. Did you notice the bolded word 'proportionally' in my post above. If you need me to spell this out to you, a small business has 200 customers and revenue of 2000 euro, so the revenue per head is 10 euro. A large company has 2 million customers and revenue of 20 million, so the revenue per head is 10 euro. So the individual customer represents the same value to the business.

Originally posted by Ajnag
Do staff not get injured from drink? I know some bouncers who will argue otherwise, and its their job to maintain order, not endure the unpredictable affects of drink dont even argue otherwise(remember its illegal to be drunk is it not).Are bar staff not attacked from those under the affects of drink? Alcohol dose do direct harm to those in the workplace, Just because the statistics arnt at hand to show how many have been injured by their inebriated or hungover collegues dosnt mean it dosnt happen.So shouldnt alcohol also be banned in the workplace, by the same logic that smoking will be?

Yes, staff may get injured from drink and there is legislation in place to cover this. It is currently illegal to punch a bouncer. It is currently illegal to drive while drunk. And it will shortly be illegal to smoke in the workplace. The specific action of taking the specific drink in the workplace does not cause direct harm to others.

And even if I accepted that drinking in the workplace causes direct harm to others, why is that relevant to this debate? If you want to argue for drinking to be banned, fire ahead. But why do we have to address both issues simultaenously? We're addressing the harm caused by smoking now.

Originally posted by Ajnag
Also as I said, If smokers dont respect what their given, then they will lose it, and as for the ganja part, well cant the bouncer call the cops? or will they be renaged from there duty seeing as there a "smoker" present?That given I dont agree with the ban on weed either.

The majority of smokers have clearly demonstrated their lack of respect for the needs of non-smokers. Klaz is clearly the exception to the rule - but even the act of asking 'do you mind if I smoke' puts pressure on non-smokers. I can clearly remember the look of surprise/shock/horror when I answered 'Yes, I do mind' on one occasion. It is just not workable to have an area in the pub from which staff are excluded.

bonkey

Originally posted by Ajnag
And as Ive suggested the ban is discriminatory in its self.

And I agree. However, I believe it is an improvement on the current situation, and for that reason alone is worth implementing.

but choice is what Im arguing for here.

And thats where the whole "protection in the workplace" comes into play which says that your choice is not a valid one.

And yes, I know there are other workplaces that don't have protection, but thats no excuse to add another one to the list....no more than the fact that religious persecution is ok in some countries means it should be tolerated in Ireland too.

but switching to an other extreme isnt exactly a progression towards solution.

Is it not? Why is it not an improvement over the current situation? Are there not fewer people being discriminated against? Are there not more people being given the protection in the workplace that the law demands they should have? Exactly how is this not a better solution, other than the fact that you now happen to be one of the sufferers instead of one of those making others suffer?

And, not only that, is it not better to have the vociferous minority crying loudly for their change rather than - as you have pointed out - the silent majority suffering unjustly. Surely that is the best way to get instigate further change?

Good examples, just not relevent.

There are no shortage of other examples. The simple truth is that because something is not objected to vociferously does not automatically make it right.

Your calling me a hypocrite for coming to a politics board to critisise and argue a debate, but for not forcing the same issues on my friends? Your a mod ffs!

Go back and look at what I wrote again. See those question marks??? They indicate that I'm not calling you anything. I'm asking you whether or not you think what you assumed I called you is the case. If not, then I'd ask you to explain why.

politics is my intrest, and that in no way obligates me to push it on my friends, in fact if I did, I mightnt have many friends at all.

Apply the same logic to non-smokers and their objections - the silence that you can't seem to understand. Funny thing is that most non-smokers who object to smoke are only too happy to admit to it when or if asked....just like you'd be only too happy to discuss politics with your mates if the subject came up.

Also non smokers are free to say and do as they want.

Yes, and non-smoking campaigns have - to my memory - been running almost continually since the 70's. I'm not old enough to remember back further. I remember ads asking smokers to be considerate to non-smokers. I recall one particular one which involved someone setting up one of those tiny little fans to blow the smoke back into the smokers face.....but such ads mostly disappeared in the 80s, when the notion of non-smoking areas arrived in pubs, despite most non-smokers admitting that the segregation was a joke because the areas did not have seperate air supplies.

I've seen the non-smokers asking for improvements in their lot for decades, sometimes more loudly than others.

People get fed up of hearing the same thing....why else do you think that we no longer see as many ads for appeals for famine victims? Do you think its because there are less people starving now than 10 years ago?

Its called "exposure fatigue"....it gets to the point where continuing to ask loudly is counter-productive.

But to say that non-smokers haven't been looking for miprovements is a joke. They just haven't been asking their friends to stop smoking in front of them (see your own reasons for not forcing a political discussion on your mates), and they simply have no right to insist that someone stops doing something in a public place which is legal.

So what you had instead was relatively quiet lobby groups working hard for a long, long time to try and improve the lot of the non-smoker.

You might as well say that no-one in Ireland actually wants abortion to be legalised any more because its agitators aren't making t headline news every second day like they do every so often. I guarantee that if you called a referendum on that in the morning, you'd suddenly find that an awful lot of previously silent people had an awful lot to say. They just don't spend every day saying it because - again - its counter-productive.

I say if non-smokers have felt as strongly as they claim to now that they are having their way, then they would have let their smoking friends know in vociferous terms along time ago, and would also have ensured the provision and sucess of non smoking pubs.

Whether or not they feel strongly about it isn't the question.

Let me put it this way. Ask most tax-payers if they would support a decrease in income tax and what do you think they will say? Now, tell them that they shouldn't get it because they're not agitating loudly enough for it, regardless of whether or not the nation can afford it.

I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me that they're not likely to accept that logic.....but you're asking me to in this case.

So you talk to me about discrimination and then say that its fine for one form of social exclusion to replace another.Solid logic there....

No, I'm saying that a lesser discrimination is preferable to a larger one. I'm saying that a lesser discrimination coupled with an improvement in working conditions for people who were previously excluded from having such protection (i.e. discriminated against) is a good thing.

The newly proposed situation is favoured by the majority, is less discriminatory, and - to borrow a catch-phrase from elsewhere - makes the polluter pay.

It's not an ideal solution, but you're damned right its solid logic to say its a better one than the current situation.

No I didnt spare a thought for this 2 years ago, simply for the fact that non-smokers hadnt emphasied their grievences and Im not psyhic. Am I somehow guilty for this?

Yes, quite simply, you are, unless you're telling me that until 2 years ago (or whenever this proposed law brought it all to a head) you weren't even aware that people didn't like pubs reeking of smoke.

hmm maybe segregation might have a better starting point

See previous comments about this being where the protection to the worker comes into play.

Smoker will not have the same freedom come this ban.

Correct.

Just like marijuana smokers lost every freedom they had when the drug was outlawed. Same as cocaine users when that was outlawed.

The public was not agitating for those to be banned outright, but they were anyway.

Limiting freedoms is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing. You have to show that the freedom is something worthwhile first.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by RainyDay
The chancers of smokers actually cleaning up after themselves are negligible, based on the number of cigarette butts I pass on the paths each day.

Actually, I think thats somewhat unfair.

Over here, almost every single bus-stop has an ashtray at it. You kno wwhat the end result is? Virtually no ciggie butts at bus-stops. About half the bins have ash-trays in the top. End result - you only see serious amounts of butts where there isn't an ash-tray bin in sight.

Smokers generally do not want to throw butts into bins where they may cause fires. They do not want to stub the butt out on the ground then have to pick it up and get their hands filthy in order to keep the town clean...which I don't think is too unreasonable. And if they just stubbed them out on the side of bins, nto only would it not eliminate the chances of fire...but you'd find that ppl would complain about the unslightly mess it makes of the outside of the bins as much as they do about the dumping of butts on the pavement.

Saying that they should carry their own portable ashtrays is as practical as saying everyone should carry their own rubbish with them so we can do away with public bins entirely. It just doesn't work.

Smokers will be as tidy as anyone else, given the facility to do so. I doubt many smoking rooms in large companies have floors littered with butts. (I know I've never seen one in such a condition) Why? Because ashtrays are supplied.

jc

rubadub

Originally posted by bonkey

Saying that they should carry their own portable ashtrays is as practical as saying everyone should carry their own rubbish with them so we can do away with public bins entirely. It just doesn't work.

i personally do carry empty wrappers or cans until i find a bin. there are surprisingly few bins in dublin compared to the "tidy towns" in the country which have EMPTY bins every 20m. you can squeeze the head off a cigarette and carry the butt in your hand. smokers refusing to put it in a portable ashtray in their pocket further shows why people want the ban in place, they stink something rotten.

Originally posted by bonkey

Smokers will be as tidy as anyone else, given the facility to do so. I doubt many smoking rooms in large companies have floors littered with butts. (I know I've never seen one in such a condition) Why? Because ashtrays are supplied.

another reason is people will get in trouble for littering their workplace, they should do on the streets too but as usual the laws are not enforced.

many people do not consider butts to be litter which is a common conception, people amazed at being caught on camera and fined for throwing butts from cars.

i was in new york recently. people still smoked in some bars, usually later in the night the barman went around asking if people minded

ixoy

Originally posted by bonkey
Smokers will be as tidy as anyone else, given the facility to do so. I doubt many smoking rooms in large companies have floors littered with butts. (I know I've never seen one in such a condition) Why? Because ashtrays are supplied.

I dunno. Regularly, while waiting for the train, I see many ignorant smokers flick their cigarette butts onto the train lines rather than stub them out in the bin provided mere feet away. Be interesting to wonder how many butts there are on the train lines of Ireland...

RainyDay

Originally posted by bonkey
Actually, I think thats somewhat unfair.

Over here, almost every single bus-stop has an ashtray at it. You kno wwhat the end result is? Virtually no ciggie butts at bus-stops. About half the bins have ash-trays in the top. End result - you only see serious amounts of butts where there isn't an ash-tray bin in sight.

Smokers generally do not want to throw butts into bins where they may cause fires. They do not want to stub the butt out on the ground then have to pick it up and get their hands filthy in order to keep the town clean...which I don't think is too unreasonable. And if they just stubbed them out on the side of bins, nto only would it not eliminate the chances of fire...but you'd find that ppl would complain about the unslightly mess it makes of the outside of the bins as much as they do about the dumping of butts on the pavement.

Saying that they should carry their own portable ashtrays is as practical as saying everyone should carry their own rubbish with them so we can do away with public bins entirely. It just doesn't work.

Of course it would be nice if there were more ashtrays/bins, but smokers can't put the blame on anyone else. By similar logic, I could justify my decision to take a leak in your garden at 11.30 pm by the lack of public toilet facilities between the pub & my house. But would that make you happy?

Expecting someone else to come up with a solution to your littering is fairly typical of the selfishness of smokers. It is your litter, so it is your responsibility.

Originally posted by bonkey
Smokers will be as tidy as anyone else, given the facility to do so. I doubt many smoking rooms in large companies have floors littered with butts. (I know I've never seen one in such a condition) Why? Because ashtrays are supplied.

This is not my experience. I see drivers every day tossing their butts out the window of cars/vans (each of which comes with a built-in ashtray). And of course there are those charming men & women who choose to empty their overflowing ashtray at the traffic lights. Yeuuuch. Even in my company with a nominated smoking area, the smokers will choose to take their fag breaks in other locations, i.e. standing outside open office windows and littering their butts all around.

Expecting someone else to come up with a solution to your littering is fairly typical of the selfishness of smokers. It is your litter, so it is your responsibility.

Oh i agree, but fag butts are no different to someone dropping chewing gum, newspapers or any other litter. The same applies to everyone. The problem is that smokers are targeted for this littering in this post, because of the thread topic. I occasionally drop butts on the ground, however if theres a bin in sight, i'll drop it in there. And if i drop a butt on the street, i expect to be hit for the same fine as if i dropped my house's rubbish there. No exceptions. For non-smokers or smokers.

Even in my company with a nominated smoking area, the smokers will choose to take their fag breaks in other locations, i.e. standing outside open office windows and littering their butts all around.

Most smokers will prefer to smoke outside to smoke in a boxed room, set miles away from everything. I know i did, when i worked for Esat. I avoided the smoking room like the plague. Just because we smoke doesn't mean we want to be surrounded by smoke & smokers. The amount of butts on the ground just shows the lack of bins, and the lack of enforcement for littering laws.

bonkey

Originally posted by RainyDay
By similar logic, I could justify my decision to take a leak in your garden at 11.30 pm by the lack of public toilet facilities between the pub & my house.

No, you couldn't, no more than I could use the lack of bins as an excuse to avoid paying a fine for littering were I to drop a cigarette butt in public and get stopped for it.

What I am saying is that smokers are inclined to litter no more than anyone else, but unlike the vast majority of ordinary litter, they are not provided with any facility to dispose cleanly.

As pointed out, look at the number of bins provided in winners of Tidy Towns. Do you think its entirely co-incidental that the easier it is made to dispose of your rubbish in public, the less litter there is?

Smokers have had a lifetime (or their smoking lifetime) of not having anywhere to put their butts. On the rare occasion where there is somewhere, its hardly surprising that they don't break the habit of a lifetime.

Go to a country where they have had ciggie-bins for years, and you will find a vast decrease in the number of cigarette butts.

Expecting someone else to come up with a solution to your littering is fairly typical of the selfishness of smokers. It is your litter, so it is your responsibility.

So thats why every single town council in the country puts bins in their towns.....its because the rubbish isn't their problem at all!!!!

That doesn't make sense. Surely that can't be right?

If a smoker's rubbish is the smokers problem, why isn't everyone else's rubbish their problem as well? What makes you think its ok to discriminate against smokers?

Incidentally, I notice that the recent government incentives to fight excessive rubbish targetted three main problems - bank statements, chewing gum, and fast-food containers.

Have you spotted whats missing from that list thats relevant to the topic at hand. Why would that be. Could it be because it doesn't rank in the top 3 littering problems???

Would this in turn not also call into question the assertion that smokers are in any way special in their littering habits??? And if not, why not?

Let me guess...its all those smokers going to the bank, throwing their receipt on the floor with a butt, heading off for a carryout, which they dump the carton of along with some more butts, and then they have some gum which they later stick to the pavement when they're about to have another ciggie.

Damn those filty smokers...they're just such littering bastids. Everyone else is fine. They all put their bank statements, gum and carryout cartons away cleanly...but those fsckng smokers..........

Somehow, I don't think so.

jc

RainyDay

Hi Klaz/Bonkey - I really think you are missing the point. Yes - everyone's rubbish is their own responsibility, and the same does apply to chewing gum, fast foot, ATM receipts as well as cigarette butts. You may have missed the national debate this year about bin charges which apply the same principle. The reason why I'm harping on about cigarette butts is because this thread is about smoking. And also because according to this 2002 Dept Environment survey, cigarette related litter accounted for 67% of all litter found. [read the Google cached version]

I'm also dissapointed in the attitude which seems to be 'It's OK to litter my butts if there is no bin around and I don't get caught'. It's not OK, just because you don't get caught. It is still a pretty sh1tty thing to do, leaving litter that will take about 10 years to biodegrade just because you fail to make any arrangements and expect the local authority to have a bin within reach every time you finish a fag.

sanvean

Originally posted by RainyDay
I'm also dissapointed in the attitude which seems to be 'It's OK to litter my butts if there is no bin around and I don't get caught'. It's not OK, just because you don't get caught. It is still a pretty sh1tty thing to do, leaving litter that will take about 10 years to biodegrade just because you fail to make any arrangements and expect the local authority to have a bin within reach every time you finish a fag.

whether you make arrangments or not, it'll still take 10 years (probably alot more) to biodegrade.

your argument isn't logical however. if there are ample opportunities to dispose of litter, and the problem remains the same, then that would be acceptable. as it is, there is a problem with regard to a means of properly and safely disposing of cigarette butts. if there were no bins provided by dublin county council (?) then I wouldn't really complain about the litter. I'd complain about the lack of bins, and then the litter.

ixoy

How do smokers feel about the portable ashtrays that were being distributed? Surely this is a solution? I mean it's not as if, when you finish the cigarette, you go "Oh look! I didn't forsee any rubbish being left over!" You KNOW there will be litter to dispose of and surely, being conscientious, would use something like a portable ashtray to help you out. Again it's the balance between enjoying a liberty and having a civil/ethical responsibility, the centre - as always - of the smoking debate.

Hi Klaz/Bonkey

Heya RainyDay

The reason why I'm harping on about cigarette butts is because this thread is about smoking.

Actually i understand that. I mentioned it above, but despite this thread being abt smoking, there is too much emphasis that smokers are the cause of littering. I know plenty of social-smokers that would consider themselves to be non-smokers that are just as bad. Maybe 9 nights of the year they light up, whereas the rest of the year, they're the same as you. Does the lighting of a cig, make you less litter-minded? Hardly.

Littering is a problem for all of us. How many of you would consider dumping an apple butt on the ground when finished? (actually consider is the wrong word since nobody actually decides whether to litter or not. They just do it, instinctively. No thought process (at least for me anyway). As fr the apple, its very biodegradable, however tell that to the person who steps in it.

I'm also dissapointed in the attitude which seems to be 'It's OK to litter my butts if there is no bin around and I don't get caught'. It's not OK, just because you don't get caught.

Just how environmently friendly are you? Do you avoid the use of batteries, or avoid using any forms of plastic? Do you only use items/food that biodegrades after 2 years? Hardly. Cig butts are no exception to our lifestyles. The materials used in our lives, are for the most part not environmently friendly.

How do smokers feel about the portable ashtrays that were being distributed?

Where were these being disributed? Cause i've never seen or heard of these. Would i consider using one if given one? Probably. Depends how practible it was.

Again it's the balance between enjoying a liberty and having a civil/ethical responsibility, the centre - as always - of the smoking debate.

Hmmm... I dunno how to answer this one. I've never been against non-smokers rights. I just believe that a blanket ban isn't the answer. Now thats its happening, i'm accepting of it, but before i was very against it. I'll get back to this thread when i have a detailed thought session abt this thread.

bonkey

Originally posted by RainyDay
I'm also dissapointed in the attitude which seems to be 'It's OK to litter my butts if there is no bin around and I don't get caught'.

Dunno where you got that attitude from. What I said was that smokers are not supplied with facilities to dispose of their litter. Whenever we see any other lack of litter-disposal facilities, we see an increase in littering. In "Tidy Towns", where we have more bins, we see less litter.

This is not a co-incidence. People - not just smokers, but many people in general - will litter when not supplied with adequate facilities to do otherwise. Some people (again, not just smokers) will litter regardless of whether they're leaning against a bin or standing a mile from it.

The only point I was making is that smokers are - as individuals - no worse than any other group, except that they are relatively unique in not being supplied with appropriate bins.

leaving litter that will take about 10 years to biodegrade

Its going to take that amount of time to biodegrade regardless of whether you litter or not. The only difference is that in once case, it spends an amount of time visually defacing the street it was dumped on, and in the the other case it doesn't. I would prefer the latter, but that will never happen while bins are not supplied.

So lets not get sidetracked with straw-men arguments. The time-to-degrade is irrelevant here.

just because you fail to make any arrangements and expect the local authority to have a bin within reach every time you finish a fag.

I'm not expecting anything of the sort. I'm stating what I perceive as the reality of why there are so many cigarette butts around the place. I'm saying that smokers are no worse than others, and that if you had an equal lack of binnage for "regular" rubbish you would very rapidly see that.

When people want cleaner streets from regular rubbish, they seek to improve the bin facilities. When they want to see the same concerning butts, they complain about smokers. That is what I'm highlighting. Nothing more, nothing less.

jc

ixoy

Seriously though - what happened to that portable ashtray iniative awhile back? It was announced to help curb smoking in wake of the ban - cheap portable ashtrays available, supplied by the government. The advertising seemed to be minimal though, and mentioned in a few newspaper articles. Surely it's an interesting solution to the problem - could smokers justify littering if there was a portable ashtray available? It's not like cigarette butts consume the same volume as the average piece of litter so butt litter is not always a comparative argument with general litter.

Surely it's an interesting solution to the problem - could smokers justify littering if there was a portable ashtray available?

I dunno, where the advertising was done for this, but i've never heard of it. I'm living in Cork, which seems to have a very good bin coverage, so i rarely have problems finding a place to drop litter/butts. Dublin is somewhat worse, although its been a while since i was last up there. Any other town? I've never seen bins catered for Butts in Athlone (Birth Place) and for the most part, most towns have a lack of bins for any litter, nevermind butts.

A portable ashtry sounds nice, but lets face it. Most smokers wouldn't be interested in carrying around their Cig Litter. Butts stink. The majority of smokers will admit to that, and wouldn't be too interested in carrying around something like that. More bins on the streets though, thats something i would support wholeheartedly.

ixoy

Dublin CERTAINLY needs better bins. It's appalling. The bins that exist are often overflowing with rubbish, rendering them useless. With regards to the portable ashtray, surely smokers could carry the few butts they have in it and empty it at the nearest empty bin?

With regards to the portable ashtray, surely smokers could carry the few butts they have in it and empty it at the nearest empty bin?

It depends what tform the ashtrays come in. In the past i've carried used butts in a cig box, rather than drop them on the ground. The problem with that though, is that the smell of the butts permiates the material around it, and ends up covering the carrier. Being a smoker we're used to having the aura/smell of being a smoker around us, however, a number of butts tends to give off a much deeper smell, that i myself hate. Perhaps other smokers would be willing to use them, but from what i can imagine abt portable ashtrays (especially ones produced by our wonderful government), they wouldn't be capable of much.

Dublin CERTAINLY needs better bins.

Everywhere does. The funny thing is, that after living in abt 5 different towns, and three cities in Ireland, its Cork that has the best kept streets. They enforce the ban on littering, and that helps bigtime. Perhaps the same enforcement nationwide would be a good thing. 500 euro on the spot fine, will scare most people into being careful (although this doesn't help when theres no place to put the litter) I think also it helps that most Cork people are proud of their county/city (which in turn helps keep the area tidy) whereas in Dublin/Galway/etc the majority don't really care.

ixoy

I think you're right about the attitude of the citizens forming a part of the problem - there's a thinking that "well it's dirty already, so what difference will my litter make?" It's particularly vile on a weekend night. I don't think I've littered once though.
I think punitive damages are a good measure but the problem, as always, is the poorly-managed bodies who look after such things. They've certainly not got enough litter wardens (I recall it's a mere handful) and even if they spot someone they have little chance of enforcing their fine (people can lie about their name and address). It'd be real nice to have people's attitudes change, but I can't see it happening without recourse to cash payments.

Linoge

Originally posted by klaz
The problem with that though, is that the smell of the butts permiates the material around it, and ends up covering the carrier. Being a smoker we're used to having the aura/smell of being a smoker around us, however, a number of butts tends to give off a much deeper smell, that i myself hate.

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.

Tough titty as far as I'm concerned

And non-smokers complain that smokers don't listen, when we get this attitude? lol

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.

Smokers always carry the smell of their own smoke around with them. Obviously you've never smoked anything.

As far as littering goes, there are no excuses.

I agree. I daresay evryone here agrees. The point is that littering is equal. Smokers are no more likely to litter than non-smokers.

even if they spot someone they have little chance of enforcing their fine (people can lie about their name and address).

On the spot fine consists of payment there and then. Otherwise you're lead to the Gardai Station, to have your details taken. Its kinda hard to lie when you're matched to official records.

Linoge

Originally posted by klaz
And non-smokers complain that smokers don't listen, when we get this attitude? lol

It wasn't an attitude, I went on to explain why it was tough in the next few lines which you didn't even read properly.

Originally posted by klaz
Smokers always carry the smell of their own smoke around with them. Obviously you've never smoked anything.

My point being that now they have to carry around a smell that they dont like (ie. the deeper smell), just like non-smokers do (ie. the smell of smoke).

Originally posted by klaz
The point is that littering is equal. Smokers are no more likely to litter than non-smokers.

Yes, "no more likely" but when they do litter it is to the tune of 20 cigarette butts along side with whatever else they would litter.

Klaz. Please read then reread this post. I hate having to spell out everything and reply just to be understood. It would be much easier if you took your time reading and don't just jump into something to give a reply. The next time you point out something that is "obvious" make sure you know what your talking about.

It wasn't an attitude, I went on to explain why it was tough in the next few lines which you didn't even read properly.

Linoge, I actually did read what u had to say. You mentioned your jacket as an example. I understand. I really do. I've thrown out certain jackets due to cig burns in the past. So i do sympathise.

My point being that now they have to carry around a smell that they dont like (ie. the deeper smell), just like non-smokers do (ie. the smell of smoke).

Actually i mentioned that I don't like that smell. Perhaps other smokers don't notice it. I dunno. But, Linoge, All smokers are aware of the smell of cig smoke. We live with it all the time. So its not just non-smokers that notice it in a pub or in a cafe.

Yes, "no more likely" but when they do litter it is to the tune of 20 cigarette butts along side with whatever else they would litter.

I have never dumped 20 cigs in a bin or on the ground. The thought of smoking 20 cigs in less than an hr makes me shudder. Your example is too extreme. The most i would smoke waiting for a bus is 3 cigs. Know why? Even though i've been smoking for 15 years, cigs still rip the back of my throat if i smoke too much in a row. So dropping 20 in a row in the same area is unrealistic.

I hate having to spell out everything and reply just to be understood.

I think we all can agree with you there. I thought i had understood and replied accordingly. My apologies that i hadn't.

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

Wait a sec. A non-smoker is going to tell me abt smoking? You have got to be joking right? After 15 years (roughly) i daresay i know more abt smoking and its consequences first hand than you do.... RAWR!!

Linoge

Originally posted by klaz
Linoge, I actually did read what u had to say. You mentioned your jacket as an example. I understand. I really do. I've thrown out certain jackets due to cig burns in the past. So i do sympathise.
Actually i mentioned that I don't like that smell. Perhaps other smokers don't notice it. I dunno. But, Linoge, All smokers are aware of the smell of cig smoke. We live with it all the time. So its not just non-smokers that notice it in a pub or in a cafe.
I have never dumped 20 cigs in a bin or on the ground. The thought of smoking 20 cigs in less than an hr makes me shudder. Your example is too extreme. The most i would smoke waiting for a bus is 3 cigs. Know why? Even though i've been smoking for 15 years, cigs still rip the back of my throat if i smoke too much in a row. So dropping 20 in a row in the same area is unrealistic.
I think we all can agree with you there. I thought i had understood and replied accordingly. My apologies that i hadn't.
Wait a sec. A non-smoker is going to tell me abt smoking? You have got to be joking right? After 15 years (roughly) i daresay i know more abt smoking and its consequences first hand than you do.... RAWR!!

OK, your not seeing what I said about deeper smoke. This is the third time its in bold. I dont even know why I'm arguing this with you when it was you who made the point about the ashtrays.
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.

I agree that my 20 cig butts is too extreme an example. 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.

As for your last point, which reaks of "attitude".
1) How do you know I don't smoke? Most smokers oppose the ban and would agree with me.
2) What facts (such as lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, smell, sore eyes) are exclusively available to smokers?
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.