Ban smoking in public places?

Mike 1972

ICE HOUSE wrote: »

I have to also echo what some people are sayin here. People cant complain about smokers costing the government money in medical bills. They more than make up for it in tax on ciggarets and especially here in Ireland

I suppose you have the figures to back this up ?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Jeanne Calment!!!

She started smoking at 21 and gave up smoking at 117 and continued on living until she hit 122.

:rolleyes: FAIL ! :rolleyes:

Horse_box

Can't believe how many people are voting yes in that poll!

I don't smoke but if people want to smoke in a public place, they are more than entitled to so

I hate with a passion this holier-than-thou attitude a lot of non smokers adopt. Find something more significant to give out about!

gavitron22

gavitron22 wrote: »

that's really stupid. i'm in china at the moment, and people can smoke anywhere, and do, in lifts, even in hospitals. and on the whole health side, thank god people die from smoking, it's about the only thing killing people off enough, next world war will be because of overpopullation, because of lack of mortality rates in the young and longer life expectancy, just look at the problems facing japan at the moment. i know it's a kinda cynical way to look at it, but it's true. and people are getting healthy and stuff, smoking is nearly the one thing people do that is for themselves illogical but better for the race.

again, sorry for being cynical, just reading a book about your man

Overpopulation will sort itself out. Your plan is far too elaborate for anyone to give a sh!t.

VinnyTGM

There's no way the Government would ban smoking in public places, revenue from ciggy sales would fall a lot, what do they get from a 20 pack, ~6 euro?

mickomania

Improbable wrote: »

Banning them at enclosed public areas/work etc makes sense. Banning them outdoors is completely overkill.

Agree with you there. Its fine as it is.

I was in Poland there for the weekend and got a reminder of what it was like when smoking was allowed in pubs. It semi ruins the night and definitely adds to the hangover.

mcmoustache

owenc wrote: »

Yes, i can't stick the smell of it and then my clothes get wrecked and i have to wash them and its especially annoying when you've only bought new clothes that are EXPENSIVE! Plus if we keep banning things eventually the smoking numbers will go down.

Maybe you should quit.

Improbable

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I suppose you have the figures to back this up ?

:rolleyes: FAIL ! :rolleyes:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9321534

Mike 1972

Improbable wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9321534

UK revenue from tobacco taxes = £10 billion/year
Healthcare costs from smoking (including passive) related illness = £14 billion/year
(Source: ASH)
Enforcement costs, Losses due to smoking related fires, Street cleaning costs, Lost productivity, etc not included

mcmoustache

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I suppose you have the figures to back this up ?

Here and here.

There have been plenty of studies to show this. That's why increases in excise are always incremental. The government and exchequer don't really want people to stop.

Improbable

Mike 1972 wrote: »

UK revenue from tobacco taxes = £10 billion/year
Healthcare costs from smoking (including passive) related illness = £14 billion/year
(Source: ASH)
Enforcement costs, Losses due to smoking related fires, Street cleaning costs, Lost productivity, etc not included

I would expect that opinion from an anti smoking organisation. The point of the paper that I posted is that in the short term, it may reduce healthcare costs, in the long term, people who live longer cost more in healthcare than smokers who obviously tend to die younger.

Mike 1972

mcmoustache wrote: »

Here and here.

Where ?

One doesnt answer the question the other is a link to a forum full of random unsourced speculation

And links to figures fron New England (Lower taxes/largely private healthcare) are not particularly relevant either

Improbable wrote: »

people who live longer cost more in healthcare than smokers who obviously tend to die younger.

Source ?

Improbable

Mike, this is another, albeit older, study:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120147014/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Mike 1972

Improbable wrote: »

Mike, this is another, albeit older, study:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120147014/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Cant open the page for some reason (firefox/cookie issue)

Improbable

Its a paper from the New Zealand and Australian Journal of Public Health which estimated that for the average smoker over a lifetime, the average cost in healthcare fell around $200 while the benefit received by the government was over 3x that at $620. Admittedly, I have not read the papers in full or looked for contradictory material in other papers which I shall do soon. But it certainly doesnt seem impossible that this might be the case.

Mike 1972

Are comparisons with Australia or New England really valid though given that they may have very different rates of duty, levels of public healthcare coverage and cost structures in their health service ?

At least with UK v's Ireland there is some degree of similarity

Improbable

I've checked that ASH website.

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf

I couldn't find the 14 billion pound cost anywhere.

Zombienosh

I'm gonna sit outside ops house smoking, jacking off and snorting cocaine with midget hookers.

then ill return here in time to vote yes.

Mike 1972

Improbable wrote: »

I've checked that ASH website..

It was mentioned on The Today Programme (BBC Radio 4) this week

They quoted an ASH press release

Improbable

The only figure i can seem to find is the £2.7 billion for treatment of smoking related illnesses with £8.2 billion earned from tobacco duties. And this is from an anti-smoking organisation...

positron

Okay, I see the trend in voting. While not scientific, among the boards users, majority is happy with things as it is - I am sure this includes almost all smokers, and some non-smokers who are very tolerant, or just don't see sense in restricting this any further.

And, phew, I have seen ONE good argument against the idea - that idea about the duty from smoking being higher than the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.

If this is true, that is a good argument indeed, and stands in the way of ONE of my original points. However, it doesn't fully overturn it, as knowingly benefiting from other's bad actions (and kinda promoting those actions) is definitely not very ethical.

Based on the votes, looks like the idea is probably a bit too early of it's time - but I do feel strongly that this will be done at some stage sooner or later. And Ireland won't be the first country to do this - Smoking in public is already banned in a number of South American nations, India etc (although enforcement may not that vigorous).

michael222

music.babe75 wrote: »

Banning smoking in all public spaces would be stupid.

However, I'm a smoker and hate the way people huddle at the doors to pubs etc - its not fair on non-smokers going in and out - I always make sure I stand away from the door.

What does annoy me is say in Pearse Station in Dublin, the smokers only have a small bit of platform down at the end to smoke, now when non-smokers come down to stand beside you and then give out about the smoke its like, you have the whole rest of the platform to stand!!!!!

Likewise when nonsmokers are in beer gardens and give out about the smoke and say they can't sit out there - GO INSIDE - its smoke free!!!! We have to be outside hail rain or snow - you only want to come out on the one day the sun shines!!!!

Agree im a smoker as well and whats joys are left for us, I can understand the smoking ban indoors but outside in Public places, sure thats what we live for and taking this away would take our freedom.

Michael

Improbable

positron wrote: »

As a non-smoker I dislike the smell and the sight of people puffing away at bus shelters, railway stations etc, at times with no consideration for people around them

I dislike the smell and sight of people who allow children to be around in public. This part of your point says nothing about health or anything else, just your personal preference so I'll take it in that light. Feel free to replace children with any other personal preference of your choice.

positron wrote: »

and then there's the litter - I read somewhere that more than half of all litter in our cities and towns are cigarette butts!

http://www.litter.ie/images/charts/July2010-graph.gif

So I suppose we should also ban eating in public...

positron wrote: »

And the most important benefit from any step to discourage smoking is it's effect on nations health - healthier, more productive people and less cancer, stroke cases to hospitals around the country - which is more money saved.

Based on the above it sounds like a win-win for everyone, except of course the initial discomfort to smokers, and probably tobacco industry might take another small hit (small as people will continue to smoke at their homes or whatever).

The main point of that last part seems to be the monetary issue which has already been answered.

caseyann

Then they should just ban cigarettes all together from been sold.

I dislike drunks falling around the street and in pubs and the smell of drink.So ban Drink

michael222

caseyann wrote: »

Then they should just ban cigarettes all together from been sold.

I dislike drunks falling around the street and in pubs and the smell of drink.So ban Drink

Hello,

Yes and while your at it why not ban driving as well, and just about anything else that has some effect on your fellow man, and we all live at home and never come out at all.

Drink i dont do anyway but people have to live, and thats just one vice.

Michael

Improbable

I think caseyann wasn't entirely serious.

At least I hope not... Can't take away my drink!

michael222

Improbable wrote: »

I think caseyann wasn't entirely serious.

At least I hope not... Can't take away my drink!

Yes thats true.

I did drink and was one of the best in The UK, when i was working away from home. I was in the 50 pound club, thats what we spent every night 50 pound 10 years ago.

Now think how much you would get with that amount.

Now i cant even touch the stuff.

Michael

Hrududu

I'm a non smoker and I love the fact that I don't come home from the pub stinking of smoke. But banning it in public places would be too much. WTF are they supposed to smoke?

Prof.Badass

positron wrote: »

Okay, I see the trend in voting. While not scientific, among the boards users, majority is happy with things as it is - I am sure this includes almost all smokers, and some non-smokers who are very tolerant, or just don't see sense in restricting this any further.

And, phew, I have seen ONE good argument against the idea - that idea about the duty from smoking being higher than the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.

Eh, personal freedom?

Oh yeah, this is After hours :rolleyes: :

positron wrote: »

As a non-smoker I dislike the smell and the sight of people puffing away at bus shelters

I'm sure we'll beat the population into submission someday...... HEIL POSITRON!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

El Weirdo wrote: »

I dislike the sight of fat people. Can we make sure that they stay in their homes?

What a ill thought of analagy... since when are fat people a hinderence to your health?

I would like to see it banned in public places, nothing worse than having a smoker sit beside you and lighting up, smoke in your face, it's disgusting. IF you are going to spark up, have the common courtesy and the brainpower to smoke away from people. It's not the smoking outside that's the problem, it's the smoking close to other people that seems to annoy people. Litter is also another reason why it should be banned.

Designated smoking areas would be an idea.

gavitron22

"since when are fat people a hinderence to your health?"
no but it's a hinderance to their health, which costs money and stuff, which is a lot of what the negative view of smoking from this thread is about, so it's not actually that bad of an example, in fact if you look at how many people are overwieght probably much more than those smoke, and these will have a lot of the same sicknesses normally associated with smokers, so, seriously ban fat people?

also, you could then ban sweets and things like that, cos the fat people wouldn't be there to eat them and the rappers wouldn't be there to cause litter, so that would be both tackled, why not do that? :rolleyes: