Smoking at DART stations

Alun

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Yes, of course it is. An evil smoker could carelessly discard a lit cigarette onto the CONCRETE platform, thereby setting fire to the entire platform. Such is the way of smokers, they are inherently evil people who should be locked up.

Very good point, I can't believe it never occured to me.

Most people seem to throw their used, still glowing, cigarette butts onto the tracks where, if you cared to look, there is an accumulation of other litter present, thrown there by other equally ignorant, uncivilised people. Litter + glowing cigarette butt = Fire.

And, to echo what other have said IT'S LITTER, DAMMIT!!!

murphaph

Alun wrote:

And, to echo what other have said IT'S LITTER, DAMMIT!!!

Exactly. Some smokers seem to think stepping on a butt is fine. It's not-it's disgusting litter that should be contained and disposed of properly, not discarded on platforms. As for the ban in pubs-cigarrete smoke smells disgusting on you. Why should the majority of people tolerate being coated in filthy smelling smoke. This is before the health risks (and there are risks-we should simply err on the side of caution and not allow passive smoking).

hawkmoon269

RainyDay wrote:

I never stated there was a serious health risk in such circumstances. But isn't it just amazingly uncivilised to think that one person is going to inhale the waste products of another person. If I popped down to Pearse St station and started spraying myself from a squeegy bottle of my own urine, and just happened to get some of it on your hair, your eyes, your clothes etc, would you reckon 'Oh well - that's his right - I'll just suck it up'? When we tell our grandchildren that we used to end up inhaling smoke from other people, they will recoil in horror as we would when we think about emptying sewage out the window into the streets.

It is litter - Can I make it any plainer? And it is a huge, huge volume of litter as smokers seem to think that anti-littering legislation doesn't apply to them. When are smokers going to start cleaning up after themselves.

Wow, I half-thought you might manage to come up with some valid points to argue against the points that I made, but no.

Based on your statements above, I'm afraid I would have to view you as an anti-smoking zealot or fanatic. I really feel you should try to find more important issues to engage with in terms of the commuting/transport forum, instead of just spouting fanaticism. Incidentally, many non-smokers I know actually like the smell of my cigar smoke.

I doubt if they would like to inhale the stench your urine, particularly when it's so full of hatred, prejudice and bile.

hawkmoon269

murphaph wrote:

Exactly. Some smokers seem to think stepping on a butt is fine. It's not-it's disgusting litter that should be contained and disposed of properly, not discarded on platforms. As for the ban in pubs-cigarrete smoke smells disgusting on you. Why should the majority of people tolerate being coated in filthy smelling smoke. This is before the health risks (and there are risks-we should simply err on the side of caution and not allow passive smoking).

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

Incidentally, Churchill and Roosevelt were both smokers.

Hilter was a fanatical anti-smoker.

So, remind me again, who won the war?

John R

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

The old faithful last stand of an unwinnable arguement "we live in a free country therefore I should be allowed do whatever the fcuk I like". It is a pile of bull. There are any number of things that it is not acceptable to do in public that you are free to do in private, many of them are not nearly as unpleasant as breathing in tobacco smoke.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Incidentally, Churchill and Roosevelt were both smokers.

Hilter was a fanatical anti-smoker.

So, remind me again, who won the war?

I am unsure if I should first highlight the lunacy of suggesting that smoking is a good thing because one historical figure smoked while another didn't and your inference that somehow smoking has some relevance to the events surronding them.

On the other hand I can' help but be astounded that you seemingly suggest that Hitler is only a negative role model because he lost the war.

John R

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Wow, I half-thought you might manage to come up with some valid points to argue against the points that I made, but no.

Based on your statements above, I'm afraid I would have to view you as an anti-smoking zealot or fanatic.

And you are a deluded drug addict who cannot accept that your addiction creates an unpleasant, dirty and unhealthy environment for all those around you who were not so stupid as to get themselves addicted to a toxic useless product that would most likely shorten their lives.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I really feel you should try to find more important issues to engage with in terms of the commuting/transport forum, instead of just spouting fanaticism. Incidentally, many non-smokers I know actually like the smell of my cigar smoke.

How about you post considerably more than a half-dozen posts on this board before you tell others what they should be posting, or better still don't do it at all.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I doubt if they would like to inhale the stench your urine, particularly when it's so full of hatred, prejudice and bile.

Obviously sir you are a connoisseur of urine and the different flavours contained therein. Perhaps you should write a book on the topic.

RainyDay

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Based on your statements above, I'm afraid I would have to view you as an anti-smoking zealot or fanatic. I really feel you should try to find more important issues to engage with in terms of the commuting/transport forum, instead of just spouting fanaticism. Incidentally, many non-smokers I know actually like the smell of my cigar smoke.

Actually, I do quite like the smell of cigar or pipe smoke myself, that I don't see the relevance here. It's a pity that you're now evading engaging in actualy debate and attempting to drag the thread down to personal slagging, but I'm not going to fall for your troll. If/when you want to have a genuine debate on the impact of 2nd hand tobacco smoke on non-smokers, please feel free to repost.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I doubt if they would like to inhale the stench your urine, particularly when it's so full of hatred, prejudice and bile.

Mmmmm - interesting. But you expect me to inhale the stench of their 2nd hand tobacco smoke?

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

Please don't expect anyone to take your talk of 'free democracy' or 'facists' seriously. The surveys to mark the 1st anniversary of the ban showed that it has overwhelming support from the public and for bar workers. The few cranks that ran in the 2004 local/euro elections on an anti-smoking-ban platform performed abysmally in the polls. Funny how you don't seem too concerned about democratic rights of bar staff to clean air?

murphaph

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

Whatever.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Incidentally, Churchill and Roosevelt were both smokers.

Hilter was a fanatical anti-smoker.

So, remind me again, who won the war?

The Allied Forces, comprising mainly of The Soviet Union, The United States and The United Kingdom. There were others. Not sure what this has to do with your 'argument' though.

hawkmoon269

John R wrote:

How about you post considerably more than a half-dozen posts on this board before you tell others what they should be posting, or better still don't do it at all.

I have a strong interest in transport issues and policy, and the fact that I have only contributed a small number of posts (so far) on this particular forum does not mean that I am not well informed on transport issues.

hawkmoon269

RainyDay wrote:

Actually, I do quite like the smell of cigar or pipe smoke myself, that I don't see the relevance here. It's a pity that you're now evading engaging in actualy debate and attempting to drag the thread down to personal slagging, but I'm not going to fall for your troll. If/when you want to have a genuine debate on the impact of 2nd hand tobacco smoke on non-smokers, please feel free to repost.

Mmmmm - interesting. But you expect me to inhale the stench of their 2nd hand tobacco smoke?

Please don't expect anyone to take your talk of 'free democracy' or 'facists' seriously. The surveys to mark the 1st anniversary of the ban showed that it has overwhelming support from the public and for bar workers. The few cranks that ran in the 2004 local/euro elections on an anti-smoking-ban platform performed abysmally in the polls. Funny how you don't seem too concerned about democratic rights of bar staff to clean air?

As I already said on this thread, and am happy to repeat, I am a smoker who supported the ban initially, and still supports it, so I don't see the point or relevance of accusing me of not being concerned about the "democratic rights of bar staff to clean air". I smoke only where it is legal to do so, and obey the law of the land.

In terms of the trolling comment, I found your urine analogy rather bizarre and inappropriate, so I responded in kind. I wasn't the one that brought the urine analogy into the thread, you did!

I am more than happy to have a rational debate on the dangers of passive smoking. Myself and another poster posted stats above, which you have yet to contradict.

Having said that anyone who really thinks smoking in DART stations is a key transport or commuting issue in Dublin needs their head examined in my view!

In fairness to the original poster, he/she asked a legitimate question, which has now been answered (smoking in stations is ILLEGAL and I support any moves to prosecute people who do smoke in stations, incidentally, while smoking on open air platforms is LEGAL, much as it probably disappoints some of the zealots!).

Interesting that this thread is turning out so lengthy, while threads on far more important transport issues attract limited responses. Some people have strange priorities, in my view! Anyway to avoid the risk of being a called hypocrite, I will now practise what I preach and won't be making any more posts on this particular thread as the original poster's question has been answered!

Victor

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I doubt if they would like to inhale the stench your urine, particularly when it's so full of hatred, prejudice and bile.

I'm not 100% sure but you can only get bile in faeces, not urine.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I wasn't the one that brought the urine analogy into the thread, you did!

No, I did.

DublinWriter

Since the smoking ban, I've found the following to be true:

- European country with the highest life expectancy? Spain. European country with highest number of smokers per capita? Spain.

- If the Government really cared about the Nation's heath then we wouldn't have had 300+ people in Trollies in A&E units as was the case last week.

- Non-smokers will have to plug the €500million tax shortfall in Customs & Excise duties in the fiscal year 2004

- Smokers die younger and are less of a drain on the pensions system (the arguement about smokers costing the heathcare system more is mute, non-smokers develop health problems in later life too, and believe it or not, are not immortal)

- The national average for people dying in nighttime housefires started by a lighted cigarette is up by 18 in 2004 (source: National Safety Council)

- We are becoming very tetchy and rule-orientated as a nation

- Unhappy people will always seek to share their misery

- Intolerance kills more people than tolerance

- Arguing with a health nazi is pointless, stressfull and bad for your health

RainyDay

DublinWriter wrote:

- European country with the highest life expectancy? Spain.

Wrong. Spain is 11th in European life expectancy rankings

DublinWriter wrote:

- European country with highest number of smokers per capita? Spain.

Wrong - Spain doesn't make the Top 15 list of daily smokers by country

Unless of course you have more up to date data you'd like to show?

DublinWriter wrote:

- Non-smokers will have to plug the €500million tax shortfall in Customs & Excise duties in the fiscal year 2004

- Smokers die younger and are less of a drain on the pensions system (the arguement about smokers costing the heathcare system more is mute, non-smokers develop health problems in later life too, and believe it or not, are not immortal)

Wrong. The shortfall in excise taxes will be more than outweighed by the savings in health care expenditure in the long term.

DublinWriter wrote:

- We are becoming very tetchy and rule-orientated as a nation

- Unhappy people will always seek to share their misery

- Intolerance kills more people than tolerance

Bull. Pure Bull.

DublinWriter

RainyDay wrote:

Bull. Pure Bull.

True, France was the country I meant. I was booking a Spainish holiday on line this morning, so I think I can be forgiven!

The stats you mentioned make my case - France is the 8th highest for life expectancy out of 47 countries listed and 3rd highest on the table of for smokers per capita.

Curiously, both Italy and Spain aren't on your smoking stats. They surely must be in the top 10 somewhere? I can't believe Sweden has more smokers than either country, and Sweden is in 4th place for life expectancy out of the 47 countries?!?

As for the savings in heathcare in the long term, are you on drugs?!?

All of us, whether smoker or not, will (hopefully!) get old and will require the same intensive levels of healthcare in the last years of our lives.

If anything non-smokers cost the state more in healthcare and pensions. Think about it!

Alun

There are, of course, many more factors that influence life expectancy than whether you smoke or not. For instance, the Spanish, Italians and mediterranean types in general have a much healthier diet than we do ... it's the Olive Oil and fish in their diet that do this, so whilst maybe more of them die from smoking related illnesses, fewer will die from heart attacks. Swings and roundabouts.

Victor

DublinWriter wrote:

True, France was the country I meant. I was booking a Spainish holiday on line this morning, so I think I can be forgiven!

Or maybe you are merely parroting something said on Politics recently?

If anything non-smokers cost the state more in healthcare and pensions. Think about it!

Perhaps, but the non-smokers also contribute more.

murphaph

DublinWriter wrote:

We are becoming very tetchy and rule-orientated as a nation

What kind of rules are you talking about?

SeanW

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Because we live in a free democracy, last time I checked, and not a fascist state.

Incidentally, Churchill and Roosevelt were both smokers.

Hilter was a fanatical anti-smoker.

So, remind me again, who won the war?

Hitler ... Interesting how you should bring that up because the person who started this debate on this thread (Eriguena) I looked over his/her post history and most of it is Jew bashing and Holocaust Denial in the skeptics forum. Maybe you should take this debate over there too.

RainyDay

DublinWriter wrote:

True, France was the country I meant. I was booking a Spainish holiday on line this morning, so I think I can be forgiven!

The stats you mentioned make my case - France is the 8th highest for life expectancy out of 47 countries listed and 3rd highest on the table of for smokers per capita.

Curiously, both Italy and Spain aren't on your smoking stats. They surely must be in the top 10 somewhere? I can't believe Sweden has more smokers than either country, and Sweden is in 4th place for life expectancy out of the 47 countries?!?

Ok then - I fully and absolutely believe that you were really thinking about France when you posted this morning (even though France doesn't have the highest life expectancy in Europe and doesn't have the highest number of smokers in Europe). It all makes sense now.

DublinWriter wrote:

As for the savings in heathcare in the long term, are you on drugs?!?

All of us, whether smoker or not, will (hopefully!) get old and will require the same intensive levels of healthcare in the last years of our lives.

If anything non-smokers cost the state more in healthcare and pensions. Think about it!

You are ignoring the huge costs of treating cancers in the relatively young, the loss of productivity due to additonal illnesses, the loss of productivity due to early death. Just like your spurious Spanish arguement, you don't get to make up facts round here. If you believe smokers save the state money, please refer to a reputable paper or publication to support your view.

DublinWriter

RainyDay wrote:

You are ignoring the huge costs of treating cancers in the relatively young, the loss of productivity due to additonal illnesses, the loss of productivity due to early death. Just like your spurious Spanish arguement, you don't get to make up facts round here. If you believe smokers save the state money, please refer to a reputable paper or publication to support your view.

Ditto.

RainyDay

DublinWriter wrote:

Ditto.

So after being caught making up facts about Spain, you expect me to go googling again to disprove your rubbish about smokers saving the economy money? I really don't know why I bother - but I do. Here's the figures showing that smokers are a net cost to the economy, and even their early deaths won't save money for the rest of us. Let's just ignore the ethics of the tobacco manufacturers claiming that early death is a benefit for the moment. They conveniently ignored the fact that funds spent on cigarettes today would (for the most part), be switched to be spent on other items which would (for the most part) be taxed and would result in increased tax take on other items. Funny how that key point just slipped their mind, ain't it.