Should smoking be banned in parks, etc.?

Procrastastudy

miec wrote: »

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.

They should - but at least the ones who drink too much aren't, necessarily, physically harming their child.

Zombrex

miec wrote: »

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.

While I agree that social workers are stretched thin at the moment, your analogy doesn't hold up. The issue with smoking around children is second hand smoke, not the effect the smoke has on the parent but the effect it has on the child. The equivalent would be giving your 5 year old a shot of whisky every time you had a glass. And that is something that the social workers would be interested in.

JailBreaker

I think it should be illigle to smoke full stop
I hate walking down the street and having ppl smoking outside the doors of pubs or shops
puts me off going anywhere
They should really put the price upto about €20 or €30 a packet

paddyandy

Smoking is an horrendous addiction for some of us .Eventually they should ban it but maybe not just yet .People should learn to hold Cigarettes carefully when walking on the streets especially with small children around .Working class women are the worst offenders here in Dublin .

partyatmygaff

Banning smoking is the wrong way to go about things. As others have said it will just open up the black market without having a huge effect on people's attitudes to smoking. In fact, it may even have the opposite effect.

The most effective way to greatly reduce the amount of smokers in Ireland would be to make it completely and utterly unfashionable to smoke. In other words, a change in society's opinion of smoking. Combining a ban on smoking in public places with huge fines for smoking in said places and even bigger fines for littering will diminish the "normality" of seeing people smoke. If people view smoking as an expensive fringe activity with big health and financial disadvantages with little to no advantages the number of smokers will decrease accordingly.

gerryo777

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Banning smoking is the wrong way to go about things. As others have said it will just open up the black market without having a huge effect on people's attitudes to smoking. In fact, it may even have the opposite effect.

The most effective way to greatly reduce the amount of smokers in Ireland would be to make it completely and utterly unfashionable to smoke. In other words, a change in society's opinion of smoking. Combining a ban on smoking in public places with huge fines for smoking in said places and even bigger fines for littering will diminish the "normality" of seeing people smoke. If people view smoking as an expensive fringe activity with big health and financial disadvantages with little to no advantages the number of smokers will decrease accordingly.

Do you think we should do the same with alcohol then?
Should we make it unfashionable to drink too?

Smoking kills, drinking kills, although I've yet to see people starting fights, ruining families, losing their job, crashing their car etc. etc, because they were having a fag!

Education is the only way to reduce the amount of people doing things to their body's that aren't good for them.

partyatmygaff

gerryo777 wrote: »

Do you think we should do the same with alcohol then?
Should we make it unfashionable to drink too?

Smoking kills, drinking kills, although I've yet to see people starting fights, ruining families, losing their job, crashing their car etc. etc, because they were having a fag!

Education is the only way to reduce the amount of people doing things to their body's that aren't good for them.

I was going to mention that as well but wanted to avoid de-railing the thread.

Procrastastudy

An outright ban isn't the answer - but like all drug addicts smokers can't always control themselves, however. Hence the need for clear rules where common sense would otherwise prevail.

Alcohol should probably be banned in parks and on beaches also - if it isn't already.

Personally I don't see an issue with people smoking in Parks - I have more of an issue with confined spaces where you can't move away. Bus / Luas stops, outside work places.

As has been said by others - the litter laws should also be better enforced - if thats not possible €2 euro on the cost of a packet of fags to aid in clean up. Again this shouldn't be limited to smokers - chewing gum should have a similar tariff.

I wouldn't be allowed to stand next to a person and spray chemicals on them - neither should a smoker - whether there is evidence that it damages health or not.

Catsmokinpot

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.

I am actually amazed that you said this and then asked for proof about smoking being good for you, I would like to see proof that smokers are inconsiderate, I bet you can't provide me with any.

The fact is, you're the one who's being inconsiderate, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that second hand smoke outdoors is harmful; the idea that kids will stop smoking doesn't make sense. Kids will smoke anyway regardless of the law and especially if they try a cigarette and see no short-term bad effects from it, any fool can see this, so you just want to ban it because you don't like smoke, I don't like Justin Bieber but you don't see me wanting it banned from radios out in public just because I find it offensive.

Nobody bans cheese burgers because fat people eat them. Obesity is fast becoming the leading cause of death in most developed nations and i don't see you crying out to ban cheeseburgers; the truth is, you don't care about other people, you only care about yourself, smoking outside does about the same harm to others as an obese person eating cheeseburgers.

GarIT wrote: »

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

As someone who has studied science past leaving cert level, When something doesn't make sense to me I choose not to believe it.

I know a few smoking mothers and none of them would smoke out the window if they could see the smoke blowing back indoors; just because 90% of smoke is invisible doesn't mean that the other 10% of smoke (although obviously heavier) doesn't obey the same laws of physics and blow back in the window with the rest, In fact none of them even smoke in the same room as their children.

A litre of fuel produces about 2.3 Kilo's of CO2 not to mention highly carcinogenic benzene which is used as a lead replacement admittedly most of it is burnt off in the engine or removed by catcons some of it's released into the environment, it would take a fair few packets of cigarettes to do the same damage.

How is everyone so sure that second hand smoke is the problem? how did they gather this evidence? how was this data compiled? what statistical analysis was done to show this? I keep hearing about scientific consensus but what consensus? I can give you articles in which independent studies suggest that the danger is overstated as the original statistical analysis was biased,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/637758.stm

The Warwick team has re-analysed the 37 trials, taking account of the fact that the data is likely to be biased.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, they conclude that the increased risk of lung cancer from passive smoking is more likely to be around 15% as opposed to 24%.

They therefore suggest that previous levels of risk should be interpreted with caution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1556118/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html

In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-181039/Passive-smoking-doesnt-kill.html

I can give you other articles that say it's dangerous but I'm sure you've seen them, I agree with the smoking ban in public (indoor) areas and it's a preventative measure I am willing to take because I care not because it is illegal, it also stops everyone stinking of smoke on a night out which is yet another bonus.

Stopping people from smoking in public places will not stop kids wanting to smoke. if anything it probably makes them want to smoke that bit more, kids always want to do what's not allowed.

GarIT wrote: »

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.

No you're right, smoke doesn't disappear, it smells for a long time afterwards, they're called scent molecules, smell a smoker who has been outside and well away from a doorway, they will smell of smoke, not because the smoke is hovering around menacingly a la NHS advert but because scent molecules in the residue of smoke sticks to you do which cause the smell.

Just because something smells unpleasant does not mean it's dangerous, if that was the case farting should be banned everywhere stat.

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.

I would love to see your evidence that suggests that banning smoking outdoors in public areas does anything other than encroach on peoples freedom.

Procrastastudy

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

I am actually amazed that you said this and then asked for proof about smoking being good for you, I would like to see proof that smokers are inconsiderate, I bet you can't provide me with any.

Short answer you.

Long answer - you becuase you dont understand that people don't want smoke blown around them even if there is no proof its harmful. Farting near someone isn't harmful - its still unpleasant.

charlemont

Just blow up the whole planet altogether, That way nobody can smoke, drink, do drugs or anything else that the "nosy interfering brigade" get hot and bothered about.

Procrastastudy

Drink and do as many drugs as you want as far as I'm concerned - just don't affect me while doing it!

The Corinthian

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Long answer - you becuase you dont understand that people don't want smoke blown around them even if there is no proof its harmful. Farting near someone isn't harmful - its still unpleasant.

That is an inadequate reason to prohibit something. There are plenty of things that I find unpleasant, but it is both impractical and ethically repugnant to prohibit them on that basis alone.

Ted_YNWA

This is completely ludacrious , Should we ban eating a burger or having a can of coke in public as well, as this is bad for your health as well.

If this is brought in where will the smoke go from these "special designated places" .. will it not be released into the atmosphere too but at a much greater density ??

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is an inadequate reason to prohibit something. There are plenty of things that I find unpleasant, but it is both impractical and ethically repugnant to prohibit them on that basis alone.

Its repugnant to force people to inhale chemicals they don't want to out of, what boils down to, a drug addiction. But fair enough it should go to a vote. Let the majority decide.

Fromthetrees

If we're banning stuff can we start with diesel cars?

I hate the idea of banning stuff but understand if it effects other peoples health than banning certain things seems alright, smoking in a public park is not going to increase the chances of anyone getting cancer but me, it's a plain ridiculous idea.


http://digitaljournal.com/article/326563

opinion guy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at hand, although I've been tempted to dig one up, or the underlying statistics to extrapolate it, for years. It was originally presented in an economics lecture I attended when I was in college by one of the more colourful and eccentric lecturers in UCD (I'm sure some can guess which).

Nonetheless, I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate:

• Demographically smoking is more prevalent in low income and unemployed areas - not difficult to show this.
• Smoking will decrease the average lifespan of an individual - not difficult to show this.
• People from low income and unemployed areas are a greater burden on the state (social welfare, lower tax income, state pensions, etc) than those in more affluent demographics - not difficult to show this.
• Revenue from duty on tobacco - not difficult to show this.
• Cost of treating smoking related illness - not difficult to show this.

Collate the above, extrapolate social welfare and pension costs if smoking related deaths were eliminated and smokers lived to ripe old ages plus loss of duty revenue, versus treatment costs and I'd wager that you're better off letting people smoke financially.

It's a pretty utilitarian and amoral viewpoint, but not entirely meant seriously, of course.

You are making an extremely facetious argument here Corinthian.

Until you actually run the numbers you don't know how it would come out. If you did there wouldn't be any point in running the numebrs in the first place.

So I'll tell you what - if you want to make this argument and be taken seriously, go off and run the numbers and then present us your findings (with workings so we can scrutinise your methods)

The Corinthian

opinion guy wrote: »

So I'll tell you what - if you want to make this argument and be taken seriously, go off and run the numbers and then present us your findings (with workings so we can scrutinise your methods)

So you want me to effectively spend a few hundred hours of research on this, to prove the hypothesis beyond doubt, otherwise you won't accept anything I've said? We can dismiss any medical rational for an outdoor ban in this thread then, by the same logic. Indeed, few threads would be able to stand here if that level of proof was required.

You'll note I did supply evidence, which while certainly not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, is still evidence which has yet to be rebutted.

So, I'll tell you what - if you want to rebut that evidence, then I'll presume you're debating the issue, rather than trying to impose insane criteria before it is even discussed, as a means of avoiding such debate.

opinion guy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at hand, although I've been tempted to dig one up, or the underlying statistics to extrapolate it, for years. It was originally presented in an economics lecture I attended when I was in college by one of the more colourful and eccentric lecturers in UCD (I'm sure some can guess which).

Nonetheless, I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate:

• Demographically smoking is more prevalent in low income and unemployed areas - not difficult to show this.
• Smoking will decrease the average lifespan of an individual - not difficult to show this.
• People from low income and unemployed areas are a greater burden on the state (social welfare, lower tax income, state pensions, etc) than those in more affluent demographics - not difficult to show this.
• Revenue from duty on tobacco - not difficult to show this.
• Cost of treating smoking related illness - not difficult to show this.

Collate the above, extrapolate social welfare and pension costs if smoking related deaths were eliminated and smokers lived to ripe old ages plus loss of duty revenue, versus treatment costs and I'd wager that you're better off letting people smoke financially.

It's a pretty utilitarian and amoral viewpoint, but not entirely meant seriously, of course.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you want me to effectively spend a few hundred hours of research on this, to prove the hypothesis beyond doubt, otherwise you won't accept anything I've said? We can dismiss any medical rational for an outdoor ban in this thread then, by the same logic. Indeed, few threads would be able to stand here if that level of proof was required.

You'll note I did supply evidence, which while certainly not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination, is still evidence which has yet to be rebutted.

So, I'll tell you what - if you want to rebut that evidence, then I'll presume you're debating the issue, rather than trying to impose insane criteria before it is even discussed, as a means of avoiding such debate.

What insane criteria ?
You're predetermining the result of the analysis without having done4 it.

To call a spade a spade - you are just making **** up to back your view point and aggressively challenging anyone who dare disagree.

Now you might do well to note at this point, I haven't declared an opinion either way on an outdoor ban - so for all you know I agree with your opinion on this.

But you're contention that smoking saves the govenment money is waht I am calling you out on. You say you have posted evidence to back this - what evidence. A story about how an economics prof once talked about it is not evidence. Its an anecdote. In the first post I've quoted - you said it would be 'not difficult to show this' over and over and over. Now you are sayin it would be hundreds of hours of research (for the record - it wouldn't).

You are making outrageous claims with no evidence and flipflopping as suits you.

In essence - put up, or shut up.

The Corinthian

opinion guy wrote: »

To call a spade a spade - you are just making **** up to back your view point and aggressively challenging anyone who dare disagree.

Actually, I dropped the argument several pages ago letting the other person have the last word on it because I frankly wasn't too bothered on it. You're the one who'd decided to pull it up again after two months.

Now you might do well to note at this point, I haven't declared an opinion either way on an outdoor ban - so for all you know I agree with your opinion on this.

The whole smokers save the government money theory is completely OT from having an outdoor smoking ban and I've said as much, so what your opinion on the latter is, is irrelevant.

But you're contention that smoking saves the govenment money is waht I am calling you out on. You say you have posted evidence to back this - what evidence. A story about how an economics prof once talked about it is not evidence. Its an anecdote. In the first post I've quoted - you said it would be 'not difficult to show this' over and over and over. Now you are sayin it would be hundreds of hours of research (for the record - it wouldn't).

Why did you not read my other posts? For example in this one I specifically cited data supplied by the poster opposing my contention and along with data introduced by me demonstrated what I was discussing. I further went onto citing an article reporting that cigarette companies use this rather cynical logic to convince governments of the savings.

Of course, to more definitively prove this hypothesis, I would need to either find a study supporting it or conduct my own study (presumably by collecting compatible data to calculate from). And as I've already said, I'm not so bothered on this as to spend that amount of time researching this.

You are making outrageous claims with no evidence and flipflopping as suits you.

In essence - put up, or shut up.

And as I pointed out, I did shut up; you're the one who decided to dredge it up after two months.

However, I also did put up, as per the post I've cited above. If you wish to rebut that, then by all means. Otherwise I suggest you follow your own advice.

opinion guy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I dropped the argument several pages ago letting the other person have the last word on it because I frankly wasn't too bothered on it. You're the one who'd decided to pull it up again after two months.

I didn't read it as you dropping it I read it as him dropping arguing with the brick wall. Yes you gto me though -this was 2 months ago I didn't realise that. Is that somehow important ?

The whole smokers save the government money theory is completely OT from having an outdoor smoking ban and I've said as much, so what your opinion on the latter is, is irrelevant.

Why did you bring it up in the first place so ?

Why did you not read my other posts? For example in this one I specifically cited data supplied by the poster opposing my contention and along with data introduced by me demonstrated what I was discussing. I further went onto citing an article reporting that cigarette companies use this rather cynical logic to convince governments of the savings.

I did read your posts. As difficult as it is to read long mutli-quote posts (like this one )
You specififed data from a different year.

Actually chuck misquoted his figure as did you misquote yours.

From chucks link table 4.5 total cost of smokingt,health care, sick days etc in 2006 = 946.5 million
From your link figure 1 total tax take from cigarettes in 2006 approx = 1.1 billion.

So you can see there isn't wasn't much in it in 2006. (FYI - you quoted the figure for duty from cigarettes + alcohol + fuel)

The duty was narrowly covering the cost of treating resp disease with about 150million to spare.

Since that time the duty intake from cigarettes has barely risen - again according to your link about 1.2billion in 2009.
I can't find more uptodate health costs. That 2006 Inhale publication has not been updated since it would seem.

But we all know the cost of healthcare has steadily risen since then. I'd wager its at least equalled the rise in cigarette tax take and probably then some. So no, I don't believe that now, the duty outweighs the costs.


Of course, to more definitively prove this hypothesis, I would need to either find a study supporting it or conduct my own study (presumably by collecting compatible data to calculate from). And as I've already said, I'm not so bothered on this as to spend that amount of time researching this.

And as I pointed out, I did shut up; you're the one who decided to dredge it up after two months.

However, I also did put up, as per the post I've cited above. If you wish to rebut that, then by all means. Otherwise I suggest you follow your own advice.[/QUOTE]

The Corinthian

opinion guy wrote: »

I didn't read it as you dropping it I read it as him dropping arguing with the brick wall. Yes you gto me though -this was 2 months ago I didn't realise that. Is that somehow important ?

If he had been the one dropping the argument, my response would have been the last one in the discussion. I let him have the last word, as I shall with you now, and the argument came to an end until you read the first two or three pages of this thread and weighed in.

Why did you bring it up in the first place so ?

Because the 'cost argument' is often trotted out by people without ever being questioned. I fully admit that when I interjected, it was effectively OT and largely based upon anecdotal evidence. However, my purpose was to question whether we should simply take as fact something that there is no questioning of and is not actually proven, AFAIK.

Honestly, if I'd known how upset some people are by my daring to suggest it, I wouldn't have bothered, as it's not exactly something that's been widely, or at least openly, studied (I suspect for political reasons) and so it would be a nightmare for anyone trying to argue my point. And I'm simply not bothered to spend that amount of time on it.

So no, I don't believe that now, the duty outweighs the costs.

I never contended that it is simply a question of duty outweighing cost. Duty certainly offsets the medical costs, but to fully study the cost, one would have to look at the opportunity cost to society of smokers living to ripe old ages if they didn't smoke.

It's a very cynical and utilitarian approach to the problem, but then again so is quoting cost as a reason to ban smoking - and whether it is more or less expensive for a society to ban smoking or not, the cost really should not be the reason, because if it is, it may turn out that it was cheaper to let smokers die younger.