View Full Version : Smoking Ban
Declan_Michael
29/03/2004, 3:25 PM
Stroke of genius by the government. Hope UK & Europe follows this lead :)
tetsujin1979
29/03/2004, 3:36 PM
Think it was mentioned in the Indepdendent at the weekend the British government was looking into the idea, but were afraid of a backlash from the tobacco companies
Dricky
29/03/2004, 3:54 PM
Think it was mentioned in the Indepdendent at the weekend the British government was looking into the idea, but were afraid of a backlash from the tobacco companies
They don't believe it over here, Ireland has the second strongest non smoking lays in the world , some kingdom in Nepal bans tobacco.
brendy_éire
29/03/2004, 4:08 PM
Driving through Bridgend in Donegal deday, seen 2 oul women standing outside a pub smoking their fags. Ah yes, it's here. :D
Think it was mentioned in the Indepdendent at the weekend the British government was looking into the idea, but were afraid of a backlash from the tobacco companies
We made it as a country now then.
:eek:
p.s. could be the making of Mickey Martins political career.
Footie_Fan
29/03/2004, 6:46 PM
While I agree with the smoking ban, I read today that he is going to increase the tax on drink. Since it's already so highly taxed (must be the highest in Europe) he should have coped on that taxing it even more isn't going to stop people drinking but just stop kids getting their money for their football, swimming etc from their parents. More tax on drink will drive Fianna Fail out for sure.
10 cans of good lager in Ireland - €20+
10 cans of good lager in Germany - €6
Somethings a bit wrong there me thinks.
This smoking ban is one of the most positive things that this government has done. It showed genuine fore thought and bravery. A further tax increase will only serve to cancel out all the goodwill received after the ban.
Footie_Fan
29/03/2004, 7:07 PM
I got a crate (24 cans) in Austria for €8. Skol it was called, the local stuff and it tasted the exact same as Bud. That would be the guts of €50 here.
the scout
29/03/2004, 8:37 PM
i thinks its brilliant that you can go home from work now not wreaking of cigarette odours.and your lungs not involuntarily polluted with the stuff.well done mickey
A further tax increase will only serve to cancel out all the goodwill received after the ban.
But if people quit smoking, the loss of revenue has to be raised somewhere
Great political move by Martin, I have to give him that. Minister for Health, and he manages to get everybody thinking how great he is when the health service is in a disgraceful state. I knew it was bad, but recent experience (and cost of going private due to the ridiculous waiting list time for something that it is extremely important to catch as early as possible), has shown what an astute move it is. Not for the plaudits for the ban, but for the shift in emphasis away from all the rest of his responsibilties.
FF OUT NOW!
tiktok
30/03/2004, 9:15 AM
while I agree that it's created a bit of a blind spot with regard to other problems wihtin the health service (e.g. the child who passed away before an operation could be performed due to a lack of staff just last week) I do think that the smoking ban and the points system for that matter are both very positive actions that the current government have taken.
I actually wrote Bertie a letter to point that out, Gods only knows when he'll get it ;)
the points system for that matter are both very positive actions that the current government have taken.
The points system is good in theory. Unfortunately it's just a money making racket. How many speed cheques do you see on the country roads where the majority of road deaths take place when compared to them being on motorway bridges where sod all accidents happen? IMO the money spent on the points system, and the computer system to implement it (if it ever happens, and it must be way out of date by now) would've been better spent increasing the number of driving tester's, to get the people who are on provisional licences off the road (by way of implementing the law). It's ridiculous that someone who fails their test, can drive themselves home.
How many speed cheques do you see
is that a pun, or just ban spelling? :D
Schumi
30/03/2004, 3:20 PM
is that a pun, or just ban spelling? :DHow about that? :D
[QUOTE=Macy]The points system is good in theory. Unfortunately it's just a money making racket. How many speed cheques do you see on the country roads where the majority of road deaths take place when compared to them being on motorway bridges where sod all accidents happen? [\QUOTE]
It only took them 6-7 years minimum to implement "The Penalty Points" as FF have been promising at least since 1997. They still not "pooterised" & only a couple of offences can get you points so far. :rolleyes:
Some idiotic in tipp was first to get banned for 12 points last week for 6 separate offences. IMO he clearly too stupid to drive if caught like that & should be abnned for life.
Must be working in accounts - just a spelling mistake that slipped by my radar...
A face
30/03/2004, 3:24 PM
he manages to get everybody thinking how great he is when the health service is in a disgraceful state. ............. the shift in emphasis away from all the rest of his responsibilties. FF OUT NOW!
I have to agree here ..... He bit the bullet one this one but is that all he is going to do .... We wont see the effects of the ban fully for another 20-40 years time. The heallth system was in tatters a few months ago and the ban have glossed over all of that .... but the problems still remain if the haven't got worse. He can bet your bottom dollar they haven't improved because he wouldn't have missed the chance to tell us all how great he is if he had resolved any major problems.
FF OUT NOW .... for their own sake, it might be the kick in the rear they need to get back on track or at least in the right direction. The country is a mess.
But if people quit smoking, the loss of revenue has to be raised somewhere
err.... i think you'll find they more than make up the revenue in having to deal less with the side effects of passive smoking.
also the saving of 150 bar-workers lives each year is something to be applauded too.
err.... i think you'll find they more than make up the revenue in having to deal less with the side effects of passive smoking.
also the saving of 150 bar-workers lives each year is something to be applauded too.
But even if the (btw unproven) benefits of people not passive smoking will be years down the line. If everyone gave up tomorrow then the countries finances would be fúcked. Hence why they don't ban it outright, or make them €20 a pack.
btw I'm pushing for a ban on enclosed car parks, any road tunnels, car ferries - any enclosed places where people are forced to breath other peoples car fumes. Infact, it's state sponsored with the NCT test centres...
How about that? :D
oops! egg in the general face area :o
John83
30/03/2004, 4:02 PM
But even if the (btw unproven) benefits of people not passive smoking will be years down the line.There is no known source of lung cancer other than smoking. No smoking = no lung cancer.
btw I'm pushing for a ban on enclosed car parks, any road tunnels, car ferries - any enclosed places where people are forced to breath other peoples car fumes. Infact, it's state sponsored with the NCT test centres...I've tried to encourage people to cycle to work before, with limited (ie. no) success. Sextuple the tax on petrol, I say. That'll sort the temporary deficit from people giving up smoking.
I think the smoking ban is great - I've been looking forward to the 29th March for quite some time. Its something that, as a country, we should be proud of.
We need brave politicians, well done MM (I don't take the point that its a scheme to divert attention from other parts of Health, even if that has happenned)
I think he should wise up and lay off taxing drink so much. the smoking ban was a great idea, but the people who are out getting smashed and pasting each other up and down the street will drink regardless- its the poor fools who like a few pints that will suffer as usual. The smoking ban is IMO the only positive thing this government has done since it was elected.
FF OUT
John83
30/03/2004, 4:28 PM
The smoking ban is IMO the only positive thing this government has done since it was elected.
FF OUTAbout right, yes. I certainly won't be voting for them.
Just so there's no confusion, I wasn't praising FF, just MM - lots of the party were against the smoking ban. Also, MM has said nothing yet about raising the tax on alcohol - that's all media speculation - all he has said is that he want to tackle binge drinking.
I'm having problems deciding who to vote for in June; there's no party (except maybe PDs) that's crying out.
John83
30/03/2004, 4:41 PM
I'm having problems deciding who to vote for in June; there's no party (except maybe PDs) that's crying out.I know the feeling, and I don't want to vote for mini-FF.
Get "them" to spare you? There will be no them. There'll be an "I" and I promise I'll think about it :D :D :D
As for people doing anything to have a crack- not quite true. I think its more a case of people who are fundemntally opposed to the cowboys who are running our country having the good grace to give credit where its due.
There's another 8 years of FF in power ahead, though the PDs may well be replaced by (ideally) the Greens (likely) Labour or (depending on figures) Sinn Fein.
Sinn Fein? To go into coalition with murderers is dusgusting. Maybe before going into coalition with them you might ask them to stop all criminal activity?
Maybe before going into coalition with them you might ask them to stop all criminal activity?
Corruption is a criminal activity. FF don't exactly have the moral high ground................
Your cowboys are this country's elected representatives. That doesn' put them above criticism, but what's the betting they get back in? The hardships of modern democracy!!
They are the elected representatives, they are cowboys and they will get re-elected. and it sickens me
Corruption is a criminal activity. FF don't exactly have the moral high ground................
There is a difference in my book between corruption and murder. I dont want murderers running my country. I dont like FF either but the thought of being ruled over by an organisation that has brought death,injury and pyhsical handicap to other irishmen is a though thats not worth thinking about.
I think its a very thin line.
death,injury and pyhsical handicap
have been caused by the IRA, no doubt, but if FF had been looking after the health services and not their own vested interests then we might have a better health service and less of the above.
IMO politicians should represent the people, and while FF represent dodgy dealings and general gombeenery SF represents a sector of Irish society which believes that kneecapping drug dealers is ok, among other things. And i have no doubt that a considerable minority of people DO think that.
You could go to the other extreme and dmeand that all politicians be of impeccable character and never do anything wrong- but a) they'd be hard to find; and b) they wouldn't represent the people
In 1985 Amnesty International declared that Nelson Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence and declassified him as a political prisoner. The ANC used terrorism throughout their struggle.
Are they fit, or good enough, to rule South Africa?
I think you're spot on. once its clear there's been a change of heart, you have to give someone a second chance. IMO without Gerry Adams we'd still have people being killed every day in the 6 counties. this country has a lot to thank him for.
I think its great.
I'd nearly vote for M. Martin, IF
A. I was in his constituency
and
B. He wasn't such a slimey boll*x ! :D
(btw, Conor, you go through a few "knots... to have a crack" yourself! )
A face
30/03/2004, 6:16 PM
There's another 8 years of FF in power ahead
What did we all do to deserve this ??
Was it something from a past life ??
The Gods are against us !!
Mercy, Mercy !!
In 1985 Amnesty International declared that Nelson Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence and declassified him as a political prisoner. The ANC used terrorism throughout their struggle.
Are they fit, or good enough, to rule South Africa?
It was sanctions that ended aparthaid along with international pressure. Violence got them nowhere
quote eanna
SF represents a sector of Irish society which believes that kneecapping drug dealers is ok, among other things
SF has also been involved with drug dealing and running as well.
The majority of people in SA supported the ANC; the majority of the people in Ireland did not support the Provos
It may be justified if there is no democratic way. No one i doubt would argue that the resistance groups in say norway or france etc had a right to fight nazi occupation.
Eannna was on about giving SF a second chance. Let them give up their arms and cease all activity before we give them a chance. violence very rarely leads one any where other than more violence.
As a memeber of a party in a democratically elected governemnt im surprised at you conor
not everone elected is a saint.
Liam Lawlor, Nixon and though they were never given a majority the nazis gained a fair few few votes in their time.
The far right controls one of the austrian provinces at the moment.
Have to laugh at the anti-FF line though...'the ban is good BUT, if anyone should take that as praise of FF, please note my attitude regarding car fuel emissions/tax on drink etc. etc.' The knots people go through to have a crack.
So the health service has improved how since FF came to power, or for that matter since Martin took office? I suppose McCreevy will be happy that they didn't even spend all their allocation last year.... The smoking ban may or may not be a good thing - but would you agree that Martin comes out smelling of roses (rather than smoke?) from his tenure because of this, dispite his continued failure to make any progress in the basic health service?
Car emission are far more of a health hazard than cigarette smoke - I don't see enclosed workshops/garages being banned, but then it wouldn't make the headlines would it? btw Extractor fans apparently do work for car fumes, but not cigarette smoke. :rolleyes:
also the saving of 150 bar-workers lives each year is something to be applauded too.
Came across this on another MB (so apologies for no link!)...
Passive smoking
SINCE 1975 a new weapon has been added to the anti-smokers' armoury. This is the notion, repeated ad nauseum, that smokers are harming non-smokers through environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). In November 2002 the British Medical Association made the extraordinary claim that 'there is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke' and in January 2003 a coalition of anti-smoking charities claimed that 12 million British workers (half the workforce) are worried about passive smoking, despite the fact that only three million (according to anti-smoking sources) are estimated to experience tobacco smoke at work. What the hell is going on?!
What is ETS?
ETS is often confused with mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke. ETS is the final stage of tobacco smoke dispersion when it becomes highly diluted in the surrounding air. Although assumed to possess the same properties as mainstream and sidestream smoke, this remains unproven.
Mainstream smoke is that which the smoker consumes when smoking, and where nicotine is in its particulate phase. Sidestream smoke is a combination of exhaled smoke and that released from the end of a burning cigarette. At this stage nicotine is moving from the particulate phase into its gas or vapour phase. Both possess different physical properties, and it is therefore wrong to assume that they are identical to ETS, although studies on ETS have a tendency to do this.
Are non-smokers at risk from ETS?
This is what everyone wants to know. The truth is that the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on the issue. Interviewed on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs (23 February 2001), Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: 'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.'
Professor Doll's comments may surprise some people but not those who have analysed the argument about passive smoking in detail. In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.
Likewise, in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.
If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.
Case against passive smoking rests on an absurdity
Writing in the Daily Telegraph (24 March 1998), medical editor Dr James Le Fanu replied to claims that he had misled readers about the WHO study by pointing out that the case against passive smoking rests on an absurdity (ie 'that it allegedly causes a type of cancer in non-smokers, adenocarcinoma, known not to be related to smoking'). Referring to an editorial on ETS in The Lancet that identified 'a special risk with adenocarcinoma in contrast to the squamous cancers of the airways seen most often in active smokers', Le Fanu wrote, 'Passive smoking cannot conceivably cause lung cancer.'
A further critique of WHO's ETS study, which appeared in the Economist (15 March 1998), pointed out that, 'It is dangerous to become involved in campaigns that are not solidly based on scientific evidence' and added: 'Although passive smoking is unpleasant and irritating for non-smokers, that alone cannot justify banning it in public places.'
A year later, in July 1999, in its draft Approved Code of Practice on Smoking at Work, the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Commission declared that, 'Proving beyond reasonable doubt that passive smoking ... was a risk to health is likely to be very difficult, given the state of the scientific evidence.' Interestingly, the UK Government has yet to implement the ACoP, which may have something to do with the lack of conclusive evidence about passive smoking and ill health.
Greater London Assembly report
Worse was to follow for anti-smoking campaigners. In April 2002, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was supplied by organisations including ASH, Cancer Research UK and FOREST, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend ANY further restrictions on smoking in public places, stating very clearly that it is not easy to prove a link between passive smoking and lung cancer.
As joint author of the report, Angie Bray put on record her opposition to a total ban on smoking in public places in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (5 July 2003). According to Bray, 'The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.'
British Medical Journal report
Most recently of all, an explosive new study that seriously questions the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health was published by the British Medical Journal (16 May 2003). According to the study, one of the largest of its kind, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the
American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. Particular focus was on the 35,561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.
The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.
No clear connection
Perhaps admitting defeat on the link between ETS and lung cancer, the anti-smokers now argue that passive smoking is responsible for a whole range of other problems, including the rising number of asthmatics. Incredibly, smoking is being held responsible for the increased prevalence of a range of illnesses over a period when the prevalence of smoking has dramatically declined and the places where people smoke have been increasingly restricted.
The simple fact is that in terms of establishing a clear causal connection between exposure to ETS and illness in non-smokers, the anti-smoking industry has continually failed to prove its case.
Neddless to say. none of the above has deterred the anti-smoking lobby. Indeed, the British Medical Association, aided and abetted by ASH, is now claiming (November 2002) that 'There is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke"
It doesn't really matter if passive smoking causing cancer. A bar is a workplace just like an office or any other.
Bar staff have a right to work in a smoke free environment just like I have a right to not work next a smoker.
I wonder will there be compo claims from prison officers, nursing home workers etc.. in future cos they cancer...?
that tobacco companies are regularly diseminating "dodgy" facts about passive smoking.
Funny how getting rid of englands smogs caused an end to a load of respiratory diseases and deaths.
Course, that was all a coincidence.
You see the same about greenhouses gases ......
I accept that it isn't necessarily an unbiased source, however all the other sources aren't unbiased either. Conclusions by the long term studies can't be written off either. You can't argue with the fact that respiratory problems are increasing, at the same time as the number of smokers falling and the number of places that people can smoke is also falling. The reason we are told is that it's due to passive smoking - it just doesn't make sense...
Patch, this has been taken down and noted.
Never mind the 'IF'. Context shmontext... ;)
Ahh but Conor, to use a phrase well known down in your part of the country,
nearly never bulled a cow ......... :D
quote eanna
SF has also been involved with drug dealing and running as well.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but politicians are there to represent the population. If nudist sheep-slaughterers want to go and form a party, let them. I'm saying that we should differentiate between allowing illegal activity and allowing those who represent its authors their right to run for the Dáil. If people deal drugs, kneecap people or whatever else they should be prosecuted for it. But there's a big difference between doing something and knowing someone who does it, or even agreeing with it. Michael McDowell has been off on his high horse about what Sinn Féin have been up to- if he has proof of Sinn Féin politicians involved in illegal activity let him order prosecutions. If he can't prove it its his problem. If a Sinn Féin official had accused FF or Lawlor or Pee Flynn of being corrupt 10 or 15 years ago, they'd probably have been landed with a lawsuit. You can't have accusations like that being bandied about, because the truth will be the loser.
I don't want to see murderers or thugs or criminals in government anywhere (hence, my dislike of GW Bush) but if somebody has not been found guilty of a crime, they deserve the right to be presumed innocent. Its one of the most basic rights our society is based on.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.