# 2493

Posted: 04/07/2010 22:30

NO, NO,NO. The smoking ban must never be overturned. One of the best pieces of legislation brought in by our beleaguered government. Micheál Martin has probably saved countless lives!!! In fact, tobacco and alcohol are two of the most widely available and destructive drugs in our country. 

# 2492

Posted: 24/06/2010 11:06

Dear Declan: A "blog" is defined as an "online diary". Buzz

# 2491

Posted: 24/06/2010 10:46

Declan, you clearly don't know what a blog is. Maybe you should find out, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

# 2490

Posted: 24/06/2010 07:45

I came across this gem today. It sums it up for me:

They smoke for 60-70 years, then they show up, 'I had no idea it was bad for me!' Come on. You're breathing in fire. What did you think you were doing, training for the circus? Even if they didn't put a label on the pack, you would know it's bad for you, wouldn't you? They don't need to put a warning label on a hammer for me to know if I smack myself in the face, it's gonna hurt.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 2489

Posted: 23/06/2010 15:58

Dear Jamie-messages on board are 'blogs'.

# 2488

Posted: 23/06/2010 11:03

Dear Declan, This is a message board, not a blog. Jamie

# 2487

Posted: 23/06/2010 10:52

Aw goodbye Declan, and I really hope it IS goodbye! BTW I wasn't checking your grammar I was asking for clarification on a sentence that made NO sense. Your willingness to take my request for clarification as a personal afront rather than simply PROVIDE clarification...well it says it all really doesn't it. Thank you.

# 2486

Posted: 22/06/2010 16:28

Dear Buzz, (comma) I feel at this time that no matter what is said to you, (comma) you will chooses to read what you want to rather than take into account the whole piece, (comma) as for checking my spelling and grammar I will take this on board when I know who is making the comments. (full stop) So here we end, (comma) you not having a name but time to blog all day, (comma)me having a name (my real one) (in brackets) and too (note the correct spelling of too) busy. So you feel free to spend all your quality time blogging I will carry on with my life. Yours in healthDeclan

# 2485

Posted: 22/06/2010 11:13

"Dear Buzz It seems you are easily insulted"

No, I am not. Though thank you for your assessment.

"the biggest insult is not having your name on your blogs"

Now it is YOU who is being easily insulted. You actually take offence because I decide not to post under my real name? How think skinned you must be Declan!  And I suppose all the "anonymous" posters should be careful not to insult you either!

"The biggest insult is that fell that it belongs to no-one so I can freely poison it."

What does this even mena? Can you try to be a little more coherent please, it really is rather annoying when other posters have to pick apart your flimsy post and try to deduce what you MEANT to say...

"It sounds like a comment from somone who thinks freedom abdicates personal responsibility, so feel free to pollute and don't worry about your responsibilities to others who are breathing 'your' air"

I never said it was MY air, i simply reminded you that 1. you cannot do ANYTHING to stop me from smoking in it (and you kow what will kill you, I dont even smoke anymore lol) and 2. there are OTHERS who pollute the air too but you dont pick on them - I am still waiting to hear why?

"It is a sad reflection when you feel others who comment are personal"

No, not "others who comment" - I have had plenty of enjoyable and stimulating discussions with some lovely people on here...just not you, because you DO insult people.

"the biggest insult is not using your names on your blogs."

Again....you think I am easily isulted and yet you take offence because I dont give you my full name? Of what relevance is that to my posts? Woudl you liek my address and phone number too??

# 2484

Posted: 21/06/2010 19:29

Does anyone really think there is the remotest chance that this successful legislation will be overturned? Imagine the outcry from health-concious workers all over this country! Of the 715 who voted on this panel approximately two-thirds are in favour of this ban remaining in place. Only a few of us hangers-on are still dragging the debate on and on. It's a dead duck! Let's get on to something else.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 2483

Posted: 21/06/2010 15:50

Dear Buzz It seems you are easily insulted, the biggest insult is not having your name on your blogs, unless of course 'buzz' is your real name. The biggest insult is that fell that it belongs to no-one so I can freely poison it. It is not that it belongs to no-one it belongs to anyone. It sounds like a comment from somone who thinks freedom abdicates personal responsibility, so feel free to pollute and don't worry about your responsibilities to others who are breathing 'your' air. It is a sad reflection when you feel others who comment are personal and insulting the biggest insult is not using your names on your blogs.

# 2482

Posted: 21/06/2010 10:06

Poor pedantic BUZZ keep playing on words and forget the message,

Aw and poor declan feels the need to resort to personal insults whe someone disagrees with him. You really should learn to take responsibility for what you say in your posts, and ensure that they are correct...because calling someone "pedantic" when they challenge you is a cop out.

"that you are free but in having your freedom dose not give you the right to impose you habits on other free human beings. "

The fact remains that I DO have the right to smoke in the open air.

"air as you said belongs to no-one in saying this does  anyone the right  to poison it for others who use the free air."

Well yes we do!

"You are happy to have the freedom without the responsibility that goes with it."

Yes of course! As are many people, not JUST smopkers, but then smokers are an easier target than SUV owners aren't they????

Good health

I do actually, thanks!

# 2481

Posted: 19/06/2010 15:11

No way, we put up with it for too long and why should people who don't smoke be made sit in a room with someone who does and exposed to second hand smoking? They did the right thing bringing in the ban

# 2480

Posted: 18/06/2010 08:59

Poor pedantic BUZZ keep playing on words and forget the message, that you are free but in having your freedom dose not give you the right to impose you habits on other free human beings. The air as you said belongs to no-one in saying this does  anyone the right  to poison it for others who use the free air. You are happy to have the freedom without the responsibility that goes with it.

Good health

# 2479

Posted: 15/06/2010 15:47

"Feel free to smoke, you are a free human being but do not feel your freedom gives you the right to poison the air for everyone else"

So what are you saying - people can smoke but they cant? What constitutes YOUR air and MY air and OUR air and THEIR air??? This may surprise you but when it comes to air, especially the air outside, there is no direct ownership therefore you have no right to dictate whether people smoke in it or not.

One could also say: "feel free to fart, you are a cow, but do not feel your cowness gives you the right to posion ther air for everyone else"

or

"Feel free to belch out carbon emissions, you are an SUV, but do not feel the your SUVness gives you the right to poison the air for everyone else"

Perhaps smokers should stay indoors, cows should be kept in barns and SUVs left in garages. Wouldn't the world be so fun if it were run by the anti everything nanny brigade?

# 2478

Posted: 15/06/2010 12:15

Expat, I don't know where in Ireland that you live, but in all my experince in Ireland there is nobody currently debating the Lisobon treaty. Also there is no ground swell to change the 2004 smoking ban that has virtually 100% compliance through self-policing by society itself. I note you abandonment of your challenge to the well-established socio-economic link with lung cancer. This coupled with the tobacco companies targeting of third world countries would seem to indicate it is the tobacco companies who are the manipilators here, cynically abusing lack of knowledge to sell their wares on the unsuspecting.

# 2477

Posted: 15/06/2010 11:24

Well done you have fallen into the trap of broad sweeping generalisation, I do and have gone into pubs, I still go into pubs, I was a non-smoker long before the 'Celtic Tiger Generation' I have reared 6 children when we did not have a celtic tiger, drinking is  part of Irish culture, communions confirmations christenings all head towars the pub. Strangely my childrens celebrations of growth etc were not celebrated in a pub. As adults we are entitled to drink and I do socalise on a regular basis in pubs with friens and family.

What we should not have to put up with is those who think they have a god given right to poison themselves and others around them. Feel free to smoke, you are a free human being but do not feel your freedom gives you the right to poison the air for everone else. Good health

# 2476

Posted: 14/06/2010 17:18

James, Your merry-go-round tactics are well known. Try harder. Smoking itself has nothing to do with the ban. The ban was about passive smoking which has NOT been shown to have any ill effects. The deaths from passive smoking are just from models (computer programs). In real life, no one can find any of these victims. The whole thing is about social engineering or "people control" through fear. It was a good experiment (for the manipulators) and fear was once again used to get the Lisbon treaty through on it's unlawful second try. In the end, manipulating the general public always turns out badly.

# 2475

Posted: 09/06/2010 16:16

John, as a smoker your logic no doubt gives you some comfort at night. Yet if you are correct, why are there no groups of medical experts anywhere in the world that say things like “off you go and smoke away to your hearts content and don’t be worrying about heart disease or lung cancer”. Is the entire medical establishment in on the conspiracy theory? The NCRI is responsible for collecting the data on cancer in Ireland not as you say the CSO. All cancers are reported directly to the NCRI not the CSO. The CSO would of course help with the broader population data such as age/sex breakdown and DED populations. So according to you the entire medical world, plus our NCRI & the CSO in conjunction with their equivalents across the entire western world are all in some massive conspiracy theory. Could you enlighten us as to who you think is coordinating this world-wide conspiracy against smokers? And finally why would they go to this effort?

# 2474

Posted: 09/06/2010 14:17

James, At the risk of boring you (because I have explained this before numerous times), all of the medical risks you associate with smoking such as cancers, strokes and heart attacks, are caused by many factors, some or all of which come together to create the problem. This is known as "multifactoral" ie; having many causes. Conversely, "monofactoral means having only one cause. There is not a single medical condition that has smoking as it's sole cause. Now, before you go claiming the smoking must be the major cause, I am reliably informed that it is impossible to prove this. Contributing factors such as life style, exercise, diet, hereditary complications and that old chestnut 'stress', are all listed as contributing factors. So in the absence of hard facts, what you get are platitudes such as "we estimate" or "it is our belief" or my favourite "in my professional opinion". In other words, open to bias and not based on hard facts, however much you want to believe it. At your suggestion, I had a look at the National Cancer Registry of Ireland website and it all looked pretty impressive until I searched for the hard data. The most complex, time consuming and fundamental exercise of course, would be gathering the facts and figures on cancers in Ireland. It turns out that this is accredited to "The Central Statistics Office". John.

# 2473

Posted: 09/06/2010 10:25

Expat, In my message 2459 to YOU, I highlighted the well-established link between lung cancer and socio-economic status. In my message 2465 (to John, but which you can clearly read) I supported this by a direct quote from NCRI. In your message 2470 you say�To equate lower social group to smoker to lung cancer is moronic.� Therefore by logic you are attacking the NCRI. Again I ask what is your basis for this attack? (Apart that is from the fact that you don�t like their findings) Expat, apart from a few die-hards who do not want to face reality there is no battle going on. It is a lost cause, there is nothing to win because there is no battle going on.The ban has been in place since 2004. There has been a general election and local election since and the issue of smoking ban in virtually non-existant. Otherwise any political party worth its salt would latch onto the cause of a million voters and get in with a landslide victory. As Roy Keane might say �Get over it�. I noticed the way you again side-step the truth that the ban is being policed by society itself. If all million smokers felt as strongly as you do, you could smoke anywhere you felt like it, if you had the support of society, and no law on earth could stop you. That is why there is virtually 100% compliance.

# 2472

Posted: 08/06/2010 22:23

James,

My use of the terms "childish" and "moronic" referred to statements from your good self and not to the NCRI, as you are perfectly aware. Your post 2465 was in answer to John, my reference was to our previous discussion as you are also perfectly aware. You are reduced, once again, to moving the goalposts.

I am quite happy that you can go to a pub where there is no smoking, that is your choice. My choice is to go to a pub where smoking is allowed. All we need are smoking and non-smoking pubs and we are both happy. Simple. I would not want to interfere with your choices but I also want my choices to be respected.

This is what it is really about James, and why, in the long run, you can never win.

# 2471

Posted: 08/06/2010 10:25

So Expat, you are now reduced to calling the National Cancer Registry of Ireland “childish” & “moronic”. Could you justify this attack on the NCRI. The only reason I quoted the NCRI was to show that the trend was in Ireland, but as I said in my message 2465 there are literally countless examples of international research that has established the link between socio-economic status and lung cancer, long before any recession. The virtually 100% that I referred to was compliance with the ban. This is true both based on the published facts and also anecdotal experience. My point there is that if a million smokers were really as unhappy with the ban as you clearly are no law on earth could stop them smoking; the fact is that it is society itself that is policing the ban. By the way I enjoy a pint and a laugh and company in the pub as much as the next person. I now enjoy this even more in the current smoke-free environment without having the wake up in the morning to the stench of stale smoke. None of my smoking friends seem to have a problem with it either. Maybe the description of childish and moronic could be better applied to a clearly intelligent person who fights for the right to partake in a habit that has zero benefits, with serious health risks and which costs a fortune.

# 2470

Posted: 07/06/2010 13:38

Ann, Wit doesn't like you calling an Anti "an Anti". This is Wit's logic. James, Finished slinking (although we call it woking over here). I didn't reply to your Malthusian comment concerning the lower social groups as it was too childish and I expect more than that from you. For example, the statistics are over two years old and Ireland has now around 14% unemployment which has changed the different groups' size and constitution. To equate lower social group to smoker to lung cancer is moronic. Why haven't you considered quality of housing, nutrition, level of healthcare etc. etc. before coming up with this crap. I'm touched to see that you have raised to percentage of people in favour of the ban from 95% (in your older posts) to almost 100%. I am still searching for the 95% but didn't have much success. Maybe finding 100% will be easier although I suspect that they must be all up in Dublin. I can't find them in the west at all. John, James loves getting you on a merry-go-round and moving the goal posts along the way. Note how this all started off with passive smoking but as everyone knows that this is a scientific crock, it has moved onto smoking, or more precisely, the smoker. Smokers tend to be individualists which is hated by any ASH loving Anti. Smokers have also been known to have had a good time with a pint and good company. Anti's just hate people having a good time or even laughing. They're very sad people.

# 2469

Posted: 06/06/2010 12:32

Declan, if you are not a smoker or a drinker what's your problem?

You are just typical of all anti smokers, and the new breed of dogooders and health freaks that have morfed into existence in the last decade of the so called 'celtic tiger' myth of false money and the 'worried well'.

This Govt with the compliance of EU propaganda of Ireland being 'world leaders' for bringing in a smoking ban, caused the loss of thousands of jobs with pub closures.  Because its a well known fact that the majority of non smokers do not go to pubs as much as smokers.  You being a typical example.

And now, not satisfied with throwing us smokers out into the gutter in weather you wouldnt put an animal, your moaning about smokers blocking up the doorways of pubs you dont even drink in!

I would suggest Declan that you, and the 'worried well' like yourself, get a life, and leave us smokers and ordinary decent people alone and let us live our life in peace, like we do to you.

# 2468

Posted: 04/06/2010 23:08

ann,  Your ploy is to call those who disagree with you "antis" when we are pro-smoking ban and therefore pro-health.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 2467

Posted: 04/06/2010 16:58

Those of us who don't smoke, who do our best to not put 'pressure' on the Health Services by our lifestyles and for once in the majority. I am not a smoker or drinker but enjoy socialising with friends and am wondering how many laws those who block the entrances and exits from pubs and restaurants are breaking by using them as smoking 'rooms'.

Before anyone thinks I am on my soap box let me also say why are the Health Services & Government not doing more to one of the biggest killers and possibly the most painful deaths. I have seen number of my friends and family die from smoking related illnesses, not pretty for those who died or those who had to watch it. The government 'ha' need to take seriously the cost both financial and emotional on smoking and it's cost to the Heath Services.

Smoking should be banned from all public places

# 2466

Posted: 04/06/2010 09:07

You are misinterpreting my post Witofire. 

I am well aware that its a ploy used by Antis like you to pretend you agree with smokers like me.  Please refrain, it just doesent work.

If you want to know my thoughts on this draconian/unfair/undemocratic smoking ban read John's post again, He says it all.

On a different thread, what is going on with this format, have margins been abandoned for some reason, by the time you pan across the page to read a sentence a person would forget what they have read.

Maybe its the cutbacks!!

# 2465

Posted: 03/06/2010 22:08

John, There is a well established link with socio-economic deprevation and lung cancer. There are literally countless publicatios to that effect. As just one example recently the National cancer Registry of Ireland (NCRI) produced an atlas of cancer in Ireland. In the lung cancer section it says "Lung cancer incidence in men was strongly associated with the deprivation index of their area of residence. The risk in areas of highest deprivation was more than 70% higher than in the least deprived. As with men, the deprivation index of the area o f residence was strongly associated with lung cancer risk in women. There was a clear linear trend of increasing risk with increasing deprivation. Incidence in most deprived areas was more than 50% higher than that in the least deprived areas" Is the NCRI part of your conspiracy theory. They are 100% Gov funded to study cancer in Ireland; why would they lie?

The law has has been in place since 2004 and there is no indication that it is going to be changed. This is merely a figment of your imagination just like your unscientific denial that there is a link from social-economic status and lung cancer. If a third of the population really wanted to disregard this law, no amount of policing could stop it €3k fine or not. The simple fact is that society itself is policing it.

# 2464

Posted: 03/06/2010 18:55

Dearly loved family members are lost  due to  lung cancer and to smoking induced bronchial failure and some of those never smoked but lived with people who did. One does not have to smoke the cigarette to inhale the smoke. (The old excuse He/she smokes but he/she doesn't inhale !!).

Cancer or lung failure can result in slow painful death , apart from time off work sick and hospital costs and the wallet damage in the credit crunch.

Perhaps we could have bars for smokers only, if we could find the healthy bar staff to serve them and then charge them a premium for smoking related medical care. There probably is a market for such a buisness -  entrepeneurs?

Smokers don't have a right to cause harm to the health of others, most especially the vulnerable children who only too often are their own.

Pubs are no longer a health hazard if one doesnt overdo it. They are now good social outlets lets keep them that way and leave things as they are.

# 2463

Posted: 03/06/2010 17:20

JamesH, Good to see you alive and well. As to Expat slinking off, I think you should consider his opposition to the ban (and mine also) as a sign that this nonsense is not bedded in and may soon be modified to reflect the opinion of one third of the society you live in. As to your contention that smoking is the blight of the "lower socio-economic groups, you could only get such an idea from ASH, as there is little research (good or bad) into this. At it's simplest, we smokers are not polled at point of purchase about what rung on the socio-economic order we inhabit. In fact, you would have to view smokers in general as some sort of sub-human species to think that such a poll should even be allowed. I also dispute your contention that some imaginary trend exits to suggest that lung cancer is in any way prevalent in the afore mentioned "lower socio-economic groups". As a matter of fact (confirmed by several HSE offices), nobody even asks lung cancer sufferers in this country whether they smoke or not and no reliable figures are available from the HSE as a result, never mind what socio-economic group the patient may emanate from. As to your foolishness about compliance to the ban itself, think of the fines associated with it. Can you imagine something you engaged in freely and legally, suddenly having a three thousand euro fine slapped on it. This is not compliance but bullying and non-smokers like you are shamelessly cheerleading it. Perhaps when something you enjoy is bullied out of existence by your own Government, you might begin to understand the resentment and opposition felt by one million of your fellow citizens at this unjust ban introduced by vested interests that I would never be allowed to mention on a site such as this. John.

# 2462

Posted: 03/06/2010 14:55

I agree with Ann that the smoking ban in the workplace should be modified so that non-smokers should never have to be subjected to tobacco fumes on their way into buildings. Many institutions have modified the rules to ban smokers from congregating near entrances to their premises. Other than that, smokers in general have taken willingly to the ban and seem to have no problems. We will always have a few disgruntled people.

This is really a dead duck! The smoking ban will nevert be overturned!!!

There is no smoke witofire!

# 2461

Posted: 03/06/2010 10:36

My experience (as a smoker) is that pubs do indeed have comfortable smoking areas.  In fact, I can count on one hand the amount of pubs that don't have a smoking area.  I really don't understand the opposition to this ban.

# 2460

Posted: 03/06/2010 10:16

Asking Irish Health to do an impartial health survey on an issue like smoking, is like asking a game keeper to have a pint with the local poacher.

For example,  the question should have been, "Should the smoking ban be modified"  

As what all smokers, and non smokers who may be in their company want, is just a comfortable smoking area.

# 2459

Posted: 31/05/2010 14:59

Ah so Expat, this is where you have slinked off to in order to avoid awkward questions. You never did address my points that smoking is primarily in the lower socio-economic groups and that tobacco companies are targeting third world countries. Does this not indicate cigarette companies are cynically exploiting a lack of knowledge? Also there is a clear trend of lung cancer in the lower-socio-economic groups. Why would anyone want to overturn a law that has such universal support that it has virtually 100% compliance with society itself providing the policing. Why would any intelligent adult (like yourself) fight so hard to partake in an activity with zero benefits, serious health risks and costs a fortune.

# 2458

Posted: 31/05/2010 13:57

Definitely!

# 2457

Posted: 31/05/2010 12:06

Defenitely not.

# 2456

Posted: 30/07/2009 23:54

Ann, don't get too upset by some posting here. I believe we have a few posting here, like I have found here in the U.S. The ACS, AMA etc. pay Fake Persuaders to push against anyone who are against Smoking Bans. They can get very nasty but never have anything of substance. Even the E-cigarettes are being jumped on because they will cut into profits of the Pharmaceuticals. It's all Political and has never been a Grassroots movement. They recruit people who will follow orders, especially if the pay is good. The links will explain some things. I see no real reason why there should be a difference here and Ireland.

Economic Losses Due To Smoking Bans In California And Other States

http://www.naturalnews.com/026573_medical_research_drugs_cancer.html

Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the Internet.

# 2455

Posted: 30/07/2009 15:43

The way ann moans about the pub closures one might think it was a bad thing! Her ilk probably moaned when the opium dens of old closed too.

Those who take every handout from the Government are often the first to deride any law to promote public health.

virgilk, whatch out for the black helicopters!!!

There is no smoke witofire!

# 2454

Posted: 30/07/2009 14:18

In order for someone to be declared non-compis mentis there has to be a definite medical hoistory, clear and irrefutable medical evidence and it has to be agreed by three independant consultant psychiatists and declared by court order. Thge bogeymen feared by the conspiracy theorists don't emerge from the shadows and declare clinically insane as the notion strikes them.

The U.N Agenda 21 the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests, as adopted by 178 Governments. Where is the problemn with that? In fact, where is even the relevance of that to the swine flu??

I have not problem Ann, with an informative opinion on the swine flu. But the type of witless rants which come from conspiracy theorist websites, is niether informative not sensible.

The degree to which the smoking ban casued particular pubs to close is a matter of opinion.