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
Ban smoking in public places?
Options
Comments
-
michael222 wrote: »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
And you use your sarcasm and i use mine
0 -
gavitron22 wrote: »"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:
I have better idea
0 -
-
-
And you use your sarcasm and i use mine
Ok
This is not against you, this is just what i feel at the time. You know no matter what we say here is not going to cahnge jack, and people do have the freedom to say waht they want and thats good, but smoking has and will be around for a long time. So why change it
Michael0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Okay, I see the trend in voting.
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).
Good God:eek: Did you read this before you posted it? So we are to use the majority opinion on a SOCIAL question to curb the rights of a minority from doing something that is entirely legal. And to back up your "FORWARD" thinking idea you revere countries in South America (those paragons of free thinking liberalism) and India (who have the audacity to have a space program while sizable parts of it's population live on the verge of malnutrition) for taking this oppressive action first???????????
0 -
Wade in the Sea wrote: »Good God:eek: Did you read this before you posted it? So we are to use the majority opinion on a SOCIAL question to curb the rights of a minority from doing something that is entirely legal. And to back up your "FORWARD" thinking idea you revere countries in South American (those paragons of free thinking liberalism) and India (who have the audacity to have a space program while sizable parts of it's population live on the verge of malnutrition)
I don't know what he's going on about in relation to South America, but in reference to India he is probably getting confused about the "smoke-free" city of Chandigarh. It is only smoke-free in the sense that our entire country is smoke-free, ie, enclosed places like bars and restaurants. And it's not even being enforced. Why he leapt to the conclusion that this meant no smoking on the street I have no idea, especially considering that in the rest of India you can walk around smoking a fag in the bank or tax office.0 -
-
-
-
gavitron22 wrote: »"since when are fat people a hinderence to your health?"
no but it's a hinderance to their health,
So? Their habbits, condition etc etc does not effect me, so why should I give a damn?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,
It's an extremely bad example as it does not relate to the situation one bit.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?
That's something they have to deal with, but you being fat doesn't effect my health, does it?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:
Another rediculous analagy. Why would you ban sweets? It's not about what it does to the smoker, fat person, it's about what it does to people who do not smoke and their rights. Smoke all you want, be filthy, get cancer, stink, have horrid staind teath, I honestly don't care, but at the very least, have some common courtesy and allow me breath the air minus your exhaled smoke.michael222 wrote: »Yes this would be a good idea as well "Designated smoking areas" and while your there all smokers should where black and only come out at night time as well, that would be a good idea.
Designated smoking areas has logical reasoning, your attempt at scarcasim fails.Smoking is and will be here for a very long time, happened before our time and was ok then so whats changed here. I will tell you people have so much to say these days on the phone internet etc etc, so in the past people just put up with things like smoking.
Michael
Again, this kind of logic is confusing. "just put up with it"... pathetic argument. I couldn't give a damn if you smoke or not, just do it elsewhere and not hinder other people. I guess we should just put up with the practice of the HSE, government policies etc etc, you know, it's been happening for a long time, we should just "put up with it"...Wade in the Sea wrote: »Yes your rights do not supersede others just because you think they do!
How about the fundamental right to breath fresh air? I think that is a right belonging to everybody.michael222 wrote: »Ok
This is not against you, this is just what i feel at the time. You know no matter what we say here is not going to cahnge jack, and people do have the freedom to say waht they want and thats good, but smoking has and will be around for a long time. So why change it
Michael
Where is the logic in this post? Why change anything if that's the case...??? Thing is, most people have been educated as to what smoking can do to your body, the dangers of smoking etc etc.gavitron22 wrote: »would banning it not be sorta unconstitutional? personal freedoms and all? i mean if people can smoke joints and prostitutes (ye, smoke prostitues), not here i know but under the lisbon treaty we're all under the one thing right? so surely a total ban would have to be in some way unconstitutional...?
Unconstitutional? How about non smokers rights to breath air that does not contain your smoke? People CAN'T smoke joints, it's illegal. Smoking prostitutes? WTF is that? Smoke in your own home by all means. Oh and then there's the selfish parents who smoke around young children, now that's just ignorant.Ok, let's give this a shot:
- Demanding that people cannot smoke outside on public property because the concept displeases you slightly is tyrannical. I find it odd that I need to explain to you that removing people's rights based on your own whim is a "bad thing".
I see you like to change what people say. Do you work for the Sun or the Daily Mail? "Slightly" lol... "Tyrannical"... lol. The rights of the smoker.... boo hoo, what about the rights of everybody else?- The fact that forcing people to stop smoking would be good for them is irrelevant. One could make the exact same argument in relation to: Alcohol, fatty foods, sugary foods, non-public transport, inactive lifestyles, poor relationship choices etc. By your logic you should be allowed to force everyone to go to the gym and have a healthy diet with no indulgence foods.
More sensationalist crap... The suggestion is to ban smoking in public areas, not an outright ban. Some suggested it, but that is not what the thread is about. It's a fair suggestion, but no to the smoker as they don't give a shít about the person next to them, do they?- If litter is a problem then we should properly enforce anti-littering laws. People throwing butts on the ground causes litter, not people smoking cigarettes.
You will find that if people don't smoke in a public place, the litter problem will not be a problemI think you're getting very confused. Many countries have banned smoking in enclosed public spaces. Beyond a couple very specific examples (not within X meters of a door, within a bus shelter etc), no one anywhere has issued unilateral prohibition of smoking in public spaces.
So basically your entire proposal is an ill thought out piece of fascist nonesense. It's not that we're "not ready", is that your argument is bloody awful.
Ill thought? Facist? Nonsense? These words do not strenghten your argument one bit. Just to prove you wrong
Wiki link
It causes more problems than what is suggested in this thread. Certain areas of the world would suffer from bush and forest fires. Killing people and burning down homes, but don't let that get in your way of your "right" to smoke outside. Don't let the lives of others effect your lifestyle choice...
California smoking ban proposal
I hope they get this.0 -
Advertisement
-
Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »So? Their habbits, condition etc etc does not effect me, so why should I give a damn?
It's an extremely bad example as it does not relate to the situation one bit.
That's something they have to deal with, but you being fat doesn't effect my health, does it?
Another rediculous analagy. Why would you ban sweets? It's not about what it does to the smoker, fat person, it's about what it does to people who do not smoke and their rights. Smoke all you want, be filthy, get cancer, stink, have horrid staind teath, I honestly don't care, but at the very least, have some common courtesy and allow me breath the air minus your exhaled smoke.
Designated smoking areas has logical reasoning, your attempt at scarcasim fails.
Again, this kind of logic is confusing. "just put up with it"... pathetic argument. I couldn't give a damn if you smoke or not, just do it elsewhere and not hinder other people. I guess we should just put up with the practice of the HSE, government policies etc etc, you know, it's been happening for a long time, we should just "put up with it"...
How about the fundamental right to breath fresh air? I think that is a right belonging to everybody.
Where is the logic in this post? Why change anything if that's the case...??? Thing is, most people have been educated as to what smoking can do to your body, the dangers of smoking etc etc.
Unconstitutional? How about non smokers rights to breath air that does not contain your smoke? People CAN'T smoke joints, it's illegal. Smoking prostitutes? WTF is that? Smoke in your own home by all means. Oh and then there's the selfish parents who smoke around young children, now that's just ignorant.
I see you like to change what people say. Do you work for the Sun or the Daily Mail? "Slightly" lol... "Tyrannical"... lol. The rights of the smoker.... boo hoo, what about the rights of everybody else?
More sensationalist crap... The suggestion is to ban smoking in public areas, not an outright ban. Some suggested it, but that is not what the thread is about. It's a fair suggestion, but no to the smoker as they don't give a shít about the person next to them, do they?
You will find that if people don't smoke in a public place, the litter problem will not be a problem
Ill thought? Facist? Nonsense? These words do not strenghten your argument one bit. Just to prove you wrong
Wiki link
It causes more problems than what is suggested in this thread. Certain areas of the world would suffer from bush and forest fires. Killing people and burning down homes, but don't let that get in your way of your "right" to smoke outside. Don't let the lives of others effect your lifestyle choice...
California smoking ban proposal
I hope they get this.
Last time i saw you was in a smoking area, smoking one of my fags.
Did you quit , congrats !0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »
That's something they have to deal with, but you being fat doesn't effect my health, does it?
It might if they fell on you!
Smoke all you want, be filthy, get cancer, stink, have horrid staind teath, I honestly don't care,
bit harsh?
......but at the very least, have some common courtesy and allow me breath the air minus your exhaled smoke. What about farts? How do you feel about breathing my farts?
Designated smoking areas has logical reasoning. Yes they do. It's called the open air, where it rains and it's cold, and now you would like those cleansed too?
How about the fundamental right to breath fresh air? I think that is a right belonging to everybody. It is and nobody is taking that away from you, unlike you who wants smokers rights infringed to suit your social convenience.
You will find that if people don't smoke in a public place, the litter problem will not be a problem. You could shoot them. This would solve the problem too.
California smoking ban proposal: LOL!
:P0 -
Israel Elegant Comb wrote: »I see you like to change what people say. Do you work for the Sun or the Daily Mail? "Slightly" lol... "Tyrannical"... lol. The rights of the smoker.... boo hoo, what about the rights of everybody else?
Oh, right, ye olde "boo hoo" argument. That's reasonable. I didn't misquote anyone. Everybody else has their rights, smokers are banned from smoking in enclosed spaces where secondhand smoke is an issue. We're talking about outside where it is not an issue. You can lol lol all you like but it doesn't actually support anything you're saying.More sensationalist crap... The suggestion is to ban smoking in public areas, not an outright ban. Some suggested it, but that is not what the thread is about. It's a fair suggestion, but no to the smoker as they don't give a shít about the person next to them, do they?
We're talking about outside here. Take two steps out of the direction the wind is blowing and suddenly you have nothing to get hysterical about.You will find that if people don't smoke in a public place, the litter problem will not be a problem
So would banning all packaging for anything, locking everyone inside their homes or just exterminating the human race. The point being, the fact that it would achieve the desire "less litter" doesn't neccessarily mean it's a reasonable proposition.Ill thought? Facist? Nonsense? These words do not strenghten your argument one bit. Just to prove you wrong
I suppose I should just put *wink* *wink* *wink* in my post, that's a much better way to make an argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement