Should smoking be banned in parks, etc.?

zenno

GarIT wrote: »

Obviously you haven't seen the add about smoking, if you research how smoke travels you will see that if you are anywhere within 10 meters of a smoker you are inhaling smoke. Probably not much of it but you shouldn't have to be near any at all.

I wish people like you would just give people that enjoy a smoke a break there are enough problems to deal with these days without being attacked every bloody day by people like you.

I'm going to believe what an advert says ? yeah, right.

GarIT

zenno wrote: »

I wish people like you would just give people that enjoy a smoke a break there are enough problems to deal with these days without being attacked every bloody day by people like you.

I'm going to believe what an advert says ? yeah, right.

Why should I have to inhale their life shortening fumes everyday? Yeah, lets all give smokers a break, they are such nice considerate people that would never do this to a child. A smoker doesn't consider anyone else so I would never consider what they want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eUOjSTZMIE&feature=relmfu Smokers are such nice considerate people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhfNQp1-dL0

What reason do you have not to believe an ad? Why would the NHS mis-represent information that is well known in the scientific world. Pay enough attention in Junior Cert science and you would know that this is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI9gMnk5imU

Smoke doesn't disappear once you cant see it, it lingers around for a long time. How do you think you can smell someone after they have been smoking? You can't just smell things smells are caused by tiny particles being inhaled. You can smell smoke without actually inhaling it. I think there should be smoking areas far away from the public and that nobody should be allowed smoke outside of there.

zenno

GarIT wrote: »

Why should I have to inhale their life shortening fumes everyday? Yeah, lets all give smokers a break, they are such nice considerate people that would never do this to a child. A smoker doesn't consider anyone else so I would never consider what they want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eUOjSTZMIE&feature=relmfu Smokers are such nice considerate people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhfNQp1-dL0

What reason do you have not to believe an ad? Why would the NHS mis-represent information that is well known in the scientific world. Pay enough attention in Junior Cert science and you would know that this is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI9gMnk5imU

Smoke doesn't disappear once you cant see it, it lingers around for a long time. How do you think you can smell someone after they have been smoking? You can't just smell things smells are caused by tiny particles being inhaled. You can smell smoke without actually inhaling it. I think there should be smoking areas far away from the public and that nobody should be allowed smoke outside of there.

Yes you seem to know every smoker in ireland and have judged them all already, so nothing further interesting here.

EchoO

As a smoker I wasn't overly happy about the pub ban, but could accept the rational behind it. The reasons given for this latest proposal are just spurious. It smacks of a Health Minister who came into office making huge promises, who is now trying to deflect attention away from the fact he has to date achieved very few of them. I see another community/water charge-type fiasco coming on.

GarIT

zenno wrote: »

Yes you seem to know every smoker in ireland and have judged them all already, so nothing further interesting here.

You really have no defence. If you think smoking is ok, provide evidence to show that. It harms the people around you even if they just walk bay and that is a fact.

Denerick

Would people just get a life.

I like smoking. If it gets to the stage that I cannot smoke in public, outdoor spaces I'll simply stop paying my income tax. This would be a step too far and a violation of my human rights. A preposterous policy that is both unworkable and patently absurd.

On a personal note, Minister Reilly is overweight. I propose we ban the public consumption of burgers and chocolate bars so that children don't follow the ministers terrible example.

Denerick

GarIT wrote: »

You really have no defence. If you think smoking is ok, provide evidence to show that. It harms the people around you even if they just walk bay and that is a fact.

Who is saying that smoking is OK? The effects of second hand smoke in a public area like a park are so minimal that it would be a miracle if someone were to develop health problems as a result of it. The car fumes in the adjacent road are doing much more to harm your health than the second hand smoke of someone ten feet away from you. If you're serious about public health, you'll support a policy to completely ban cars from built up areas. The smog and pollution is causing bronchitis in thousands of children.

I'm willing to bet that you drive and hence don't support such a policy.

SHOCKER.

Denerick

GarIT wrote: »

Obviously you haven't seen the add about smoking, if you research how smoke travels you will see that if you are anywhere within 10 meters of a smoker you are inhaling smoke. Probably not much of it but you shouldn't have to be near any at all.

This is scaremongering and hysteria of the worst kind. Live in a mountain cave if you want to be away from the pollution and health risks involved with urban living.

looksee

This really isn't about whether smoke in an open space is going to pollute anyone, its about making smoking unacceptable and not normal.

Now of course, if you are a smoker you are not going to agree that this is necessary or desirable. That's ok, no one expects you to agree, and all the economic/tax arguments are just diversions, and largely irrelevant.

Many of the rest of us do think that smoking should be made sufficiently antisocial and abnormal that children will not take it up. This could take a long time as many of their parents happily smoke in front of them with no apparent ill effects. The children will be dedicated smokers before their parents start to succumb to the effects of smoke.

However these kinds of initiatives will eventually make the point, its a bit like planting an acorn, you are not going to see a tree for a long long time, but if you don't plant the acorn its certain that no-one will ever see the tree.

GarIT

Denerick wrote: »

Would people just get a life.

I like smoking. If it gets to the stage that I cannot smoke in public, outdoor spaces I'll simply stop paying my income tax. This would be a step too far and a violation of my human rights. A preposterous policy that is both unworkable and patently absurd.

On a personal note, Minister Reilly is overweight. I propose we ban the public consumption of burgers and chocolate bars so that children don't follow the ministers terrible example.

In my opinion you smoking anywhere within 10 meters of my should be illegal. The general public should have the choice of whether to inhale smoke or not.

No matter how fat someone gets it won't affect me but if they smoke beside me it will.

Denerick wrote: »

Who is saying that smoking is OK? The effects of second hand smoke in a public area like a park are so minimal that it would be a miracle if someone were to develop health problems as a result of it. The car fumes in the adjacent road are doing much more to harm your health than the second hand smoke of someone ten feet away from you. If you're serious about public health, you'll support a policy to completely ban cars from built up areas. The smog and pollution is causing bronchitis in thousands of children.

I'm willing to bet that you drive and hence don't support such a policy.

SHOCKER.

No I don't drive and I would try to stop cars as well as fossil fuels being used in general if I thought it was possible to do but I'm not going to waste my time working on something that won't have any chance of happening in a long time.

Denerick wrote: »

This is scaremongering and hysteria of the worst kind. Live in a mountain cave if you want to be away from the pollution and health risks involved with urban living.

How do you know this? Any proof? Anything I have read suggest that smoking has a lot of health risks involved with it especially with passive smoking and children.

looksee wrote: »

This really isn't about whether smoke in an open space is going to pollute anyone, its about making smoking unacceptable and not normal.

Now of course, if you are a smoker you are not going to agree that this is necessary or desirable. That's ok, no one expects you to agree, and all the economic/tax arguments are just diversions, and largely irrelevant.

Many of the rest of us do think that smoking should be made sufficiently antisocial and abnormal that children will not take it up. This could take a long time as many of their parents happily smoke in front of them with no apparent ill effects. The children will be dedicated smokers before their parents start to succumb to the effects of smoke.

However these kinds of initiatives will eventually make the point, its a bit like planting an acorn, you are not going to see a tree for a long long time, but if you don't plant the acorn its certain that no-one will ever see the tree.

For me it is, the only real problem with smoking is that people do it around me. I don't think smoking should be banned at all. I have no problem with other people smoking once its not near me. I think pubs and pubs should still have smoking areas, people should still be allowed smoke in their homes and there should also be public smoking areas. Once I have the choice to avoid where people may be smoking, I don't care what they do to themselves.

EchoO

looksee wrote: »

This really isn't about whether smoke in an open space is going to pollute anyone, its about making smoking unacceptable and not normal.

Now of course, if you are a smoker you are not going to agree that this is necessary or desirable. That's ok, no one expects you to agree, and all the economic/tax arguments are just diversions, and largely irrelevant.

Many of the rest of us do think that smoking should be made sufficiently antisocial and abnormal that children will not take it up. This could take a long time as many of their parents happily smoke in front of them with no apparent ill effects. The children will be dedicated smokers before their parents start to succumb to the effects of smoke.

However these kinds of initiatives will eventually make the point, its a bit like planting an acorn, you are not going to see a tree for a long long time, but if you don't plant the acorn its certain that no-one will ever see the tree.

It is going on 8 years since the smoking ban was introduced. There are more people smoking in the country now than there was in 2004. That's despite getting rid of packs of ten, a ban on displays or advertising of cigarettes and cigarettes costing more in Ireland than they do in any other country in the world.

Is there any evidence this "de-normalising" process actually works. Or, as I suspect, is it something that sounds good in theory but in practice has no effect at all.

looksee

EchoO wrote: »

It is going on 8 years since the smoking ban was introduced. There are more people smoking in the country now than there was in 2004. That's despite getting rid of packs of ten, a ban on displays or advertising of cigarettes and cigarettes costing more in Ireland than they do in any other country in the world.

Is there any evidence this "de-normalising" process actually works. Or, as I suspect, is it something that sounds good in theory but in practice has no effect at all.

Don't know where you are getting your facts from but this seems to suggest differently http://www.otc.ie/research.asp

The overall prevalence of cigarette smoking in Ireland at June 2010 was 23.6% (Chart 1). There has been a decline in prevalence of 3.8% since June 2008

.

Tigerbaby

i smoke and I cycle too ( balance and all that).. I propose banning any car that encroaches within 10 metres of me due to the extreme danger to my person posed by said death on wheels. Plus the damage caused to my already tired lungs by that infernal combustion engine.

also, I propose a whopping 300% tax on womens ( or mens !) high heel shoes. The cost to the taxpayer (me) for treatment of back, leg and foot injury accumulated over a lifetime of wearing said footwear is not something I feel I should have to suffer.

all say aye !!

Denerick

looksee wrote: »

This really isn't about whether smoke in an open space is going to pollute anyone, its about making smoking unacceptable and not normal.

Now of course, if you are a smoker you are not going to agree that this is necessary or desirable. That's ok, no one expects you to agree, and all the economic/tax arguments are just diversions, and largely irrelevant.

Many of the rest of us do think that smoking should be made sufficiently antisocial and abnormal that children will not take it up. This could take a long time as many of their parents happily smoke in front of them with no apparent ill effects. The children will be dedicated smokers before their parents start to succumb to the effects of smoke.

However these kinds of initiatives will eventually make the point, its a bit like planting an acorn, you are not going to see a tree for a long long time, but if you don't plant the acorn its certain that no-one will ever see the tree.

Alcohol, fast food, and television all set bad examples to children.

The worst kind of tyranny is paternalism. This kind of micro management of people's lives is unseemly and unsettling.

Denerick

GarIT wrote: »

In my opinion you smoking anywhere within 10 meters of my should be illegal. The general public should have the choice of whether to inhale smoke or not.

No matter how fat someone gets it won't affect me but if they smoke beside me it will.

Thats fair enough - to an extent. If I'm around someone and I know they can't tolerate the smell of smoke I'll generally move away from them. On a personal note I would probably choose not to associate with someone that touchy and prudish, but thats another issue.

How do you know this? Any proof? Anything I have read suggest that smoking has a lot of health risks involved with it especially with passive smoking and children.

Well d'uh. There isn't a smoker alive who won't agree with the statement that 'smoking is bad for you'. This is a matter of personal freedom.

For me it is, the only real problem with smoking is that people do it around me. I don't think smoking should be banned at all. I have no problem with other people smoking once its not near me. I think pubs and pubs should still have smoking areas, people should still be allowed smoke in their homes and there should also be public smoking areas. Once I have the choice to avoid where people may be smoking, I don't care what they do to themselves.

You've forced smokers out of offices, planes, nightclubs, bars... This is all perfectly legitimate. I'll be damned if you ever force me out of open air spaces in public parks. The issue isn't about second hand smoke (Its in the open air and people are usually too far away from each other to lead to any damaging second hand smoke) its about 'protecting the children' (IE 'Won't somebody please think of the children?') Its the sort of nanny state busybodyism that is progressively making our lives more gray and dominated by the state.

EchoO

looksee wrote: »

Don't know where you are getting your facts from

.

From the former Minister of state of Health and Children, Aine Brady, during the debate on the Public Health Tobacco Amendent Bill December 2010.

"Despite the significant tobacco control measures put in place to date and the widespread knowledge of the harm caused by tobacco consumption, smoking prevalence in Ireland remains high. The most recent SLÁN survey estimates 29% of the population smokes."

The then Fine Gael’s health spokesman, Dr James Reilly observed during the debate that there’s now two percent more smokers in Ireland(since 2004).

Ellis Dee

I believe banning smoking on beaches and in parks is going a bit too far (I'm a non-smoker myself), but Ireland should introduce tough anti-litter laws à la Singapore, where throwing a butt on the pavement can get you a fine of around €60.:)

By all means let people smoke in open spaces, but if they just throw their butts all over the place, it should cost them. Naturally, there should also be ashtrays and litter bins everywhere just in case smokers are not considerate enough to use those handy little metal boxes for keeping their butts and ashes in.




Naturally, the same or bigger fines would apply to other kinds of litter. And the system would be at least self-financing - at least until people copped themselves on and stopped turning the country into a pig sty.

GarIT

I think cars are a bad example as most of them have catalytic converters and they don't do much harm to people at all, the main damage they do is to the environment. I also don't support that. And I have said before that I would support a ban on all cars without catalytic converters. A better example would be fossil fuel power plants and home heating systems. Neither of these are good for people and should be kept as far away from people as possible and we need to work towards doing away with both of those.

The major difference between them and smoking is that they serve a purpose, The three examples provide heat, electricity, and transport. Smoking provides nothing other than a buzz or whatever people get from it.

My proposal should be to ban smoking in public places except in specific areas. I heard before that somewhere has a ban on smoking within 10 meters of doorways and I think that's a good idea, so people can't smoke at the front of a pub and make is so people have to walk by them. I would however think it would be acceptable for them to smoke out the back where people have a choice to go to or not.

Another solution is to make smoking fully legal anywhere but then make it an arrestable offence to not move away or put out the smoke if you are asked to by anyone else.

I am fully pro choice on anything, once I believe that it won't affect other people. I would never try to ban smoking completely. I would look to accommodate them in any way possible. I have even suggested before that we allow some pubs to gain specific licences that allow people to smoke inside, but they must put up warnings outside to warn possible patrons.

Zombrex

miec wrote: »

Having read the above I have to say that this is taking things too far. I can understand the desire to ban smoking cars where children are but banning smoking in parks and beaches is taking it too far. I personally don't smoke but I believe people should be allowed to smoke in open air spaces, they need to have somewhere to smoke and it would be extremely draconian if these measures were implemented. Besides if the government are serious about the scourge of smoking then they should ban them all together.

The Minister seems to be confusing two issues, the health effects of smoking in enclosed areas and the effect observing smoking has on children.

While the second is important I really don't think banning smoking in parks is going to do anything. Children take up smoking because either their parents or their peers take it up. They don't take it up because they see random people in parks smoking. It would seem a rather pointless exercise to ban smoking in parks.

GarIT

Zombrex wrote: »

The Minister seems to be confusing two issues, the health effects of smoking in enclosed areas and the effect observing smoking has on children.

While the second is important I really don't think banning smoking in parks is going to do anything. Children take up smoking because either their parents or their peers take it up. They don't take it up because they see random people in parks smoking. It would seem a rather pointless exercise to ban smoking in parks.

Smoking does have a negative affect on the people around the smoker even in open air places.

the_syco

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Smoking causes untold of sickness.
If it was invented today it would not be allowed.

Can we ban fat people whilst we're at it? Or is being fat allowed as it's a way of life, but people smoking is not a way of life?

Stop the import of smokes, and you'll find that there isn't enough money to pay customs to stop people from importing them.

GarIT

the_syco wrote: »

Can we ban fat people whilst we're at it? Or is being fat allowed as it's a way of life, but people smoking is not a way of life?

Stop the import of smokes, and you'll find that there isn't enough money to pay customs to stop people from importing them.

Being fat doesn't harm anyone but yourself, when will people understand this?

paddyandy

As an ex-smoker myself i think that's taking it too far .Some people will go crazy without a few drags .

Zombrex

GarIT wrote: »

Smoking does have a negative affect on the people around the smoker even in open air places.

Much less so than in enclosed areas though, and the health effects does not seem to be why he wishes to ban smoking in parks. I mean there are a lot of places in the open that the effect of second hand smoke would be worse than in a park.

Zombrex

the_syco wrote: »

Can we ban fat people whilst we're at it? Or is being fat allowed as it's a way of life, but people smoking is not a way of life?

It is illegal for a fat person (or any person for that matter) for force feed another person food. So yes, we have already banned the food equivalent to smoking.

celticcrash

We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on park benches,
We shall fight them from our 2.5L diesels.

Procrastastudy

LOL Celtic

The situation is it's very difficult on beaches to enforce the litter issues and people are in close proximity to each other. The other places it should be banned in bus stops for the same reason of proximity. Parks is a bit ridiculous though.

The issue with fat people is unless I they sit on you they are not damaging your health. It's a different story with smoking.

On people who smoke around their children - I personally think deserve a visit from a social worker.

Wibbs

GarIT wrote: »

Being fat doesn't harm anyone but yourself, when will people understand this?

Neither does so called second hand smoke in the open air. There is zero actual scientific evidence for it. Some of the stuff the anti smoking crowd come out with is classic. EG non smokers around smokers get more affected by the smoke coming off the lit end of a cigarette. You couldn't make it up. With this subject the ranting often takes precedence over science and common sense.

Take lung cancer and smoking. Smoking is a major causative factor in the disease and the single biggest preventable one. However, of lifetime smokers well under 20% of them will actually get it, 80+% won't. These are primary smokers remember with their direct intake of huge doses of potential carcinogens. People exposed to second hand smoke in situations like bus stops or outside pubs are at a vanishingly smaller level of exposure with a concomitant vanishingly small risk involved. IE to all intents and purposes none. In a park? C'mon, seriously. The micro particulates given off by diesels pose a significantly greater risk(living on a major road increases the risk of lung cancer in non smokers). Whatever about the social engineering aspects of not exposing kids to the smoking culture which is fine, the health angle is utter bullshít. Unless we want to throw science out with it.

make it an arrestable offence to not move away or put out the smoke if you are asked to by anyone else.

"Anyone else"? Do you mean agents of the government or any whiny handringer Joe Public who happens to pass by? If the latter, good Christ. We've enough killjoys around without actively recruiting them and giving them a sense of power.

lounakin

I would like to point out that it doesn't have to be harmful to be a problem. I'm an ex-smoker but never really smoked much anyway.
I don't think non-smokers should have to be subjected to random clouds of exhaled nicotine in the name of freedom. Because it doesn't smell nice and bothers many people, regardless of health issues, smokers should make sure they never subject anyone to their addiction.
Walking to work in the morning has become an ordeal for me as every business on the way has a person smoking outside the door at 7:50 or someone walking in front of me leaving a long trail of smoke. It makes me ill to smell it and I really don't think I deserve it.
The other day I was waiting for a friend outside St Stephen's G. centre and struggled to find a spot where I wouldn't be inhaling the smoke for the 10 minutes I was there. I didn't find one. Now... smokers are not bothered by the lack of smoke around them, why do we have to go out of our way to avoid them? They should be going out of our way.
It's not that smoking outside should be banned, but smokers should be way more considerate! Smoking is an addiction to most people, why oh why should we all suffer the consequence?

miec

On people who smoke around their children - I personally think deserve a visit from a social worker.

Give over will you, if that is the case then they should also come around to parents who drink too much, etc. They are stretched enough as it is.