ASH Ireland has called for a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. Would you support such a ban?

# 987

Posted: 02/10/2009 00:21

I MY SELF SMOKE BUT IF PEOPLE ARNT ALLOWED TO SMOKE IN THEIR OWN CARS AND THE GOVERMENT STOP PEOPLE SMOKING ALLTOGEATHER WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GET THE MASSES OF REVENUE FROM WILL THEY TAX US FOR BREATHING TAKING A PISS OR EVEN HAVING SEX IF WE ALLOW THEM TO CONTROL US EVEN MORE THAN THEY ALLREADY DO WHERE WILL IT END WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OUR FREEDOM AS INDIVUDIALS AND WHAT ABOUT OUR FREEDOM OF SPEACH      DO YOU ALL EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO POST OUR VIEWS ON SITES LIKE THIS .        I DONT THINK SO

# 986

Posted: 14/07/2009 13:50

I knew you would not be able to resist ha ha :) Regards

# 985

Posted: 13/07/2009 20:40

Final Encore!!!  I'm sure we'll cross paths again!! lol ..  Toodleoo!!!!

# 984

Posted: 13/07/2009 09:16

Very good points Lisann (though its a pity they are laced with sarcasm) but yes it is true that MY CAR = MY RIGHT TO SMOKE IN IT and YES there ARE far too many obese people today. Goodbye Ange or will you be back????????

# 983

Posted: 08/07/2009 14:34

Hi lisann, ha ha! I suppose you're right.. I'm out!  No more to say! lol...

# 982

Posted: 08/07/2009 13:50

Hi Ange I do not wish to get into a stupid argument here and the answer to your question is if I had a child in my car I would not smoke, regardless of whose child it was be it my own or someone else's, I would not smoke in front of a child in a confined space. If there was someone else in my car it would depend on the circumstances. For example if it was a colleague or friend and they also smoked then I would smoke. If it was my parents or Grandparent then I would not smoke out of RESPECT for them. If it was someone I was just giving a lift to and doing a favour for then I would try not to but if I really had a craving I would ask them if it is ok and smoke. All of the above would be done with open windows.

The POINT IS that it should be MY CHOICE. If someone decides not to smoke when they have passengers thats fine. If somebody smokes when they have passengers that is fine too (except children of course).

Whether or not I smoke in my own car does not change the fact that the CHOICE to do so should be available to anyone who does own a car.

# 981

Posted: 06/07/2009 17:47

Hi Ange, that would depend on Buzz,afterall its his/her car. if others dont like it then they can walk! [the excercise would do them good in this obese society].take this post in the spirit its written.regards

"an excuse is not the reason for saying why"

# 980

Posted: 03/07/2009 20:30

Buzz,  Point taken!  Just wondering though do you smoke if you have passengers in your car?

# 979

Posted: 03/07/2009 19:50

Buzz, would you smoke if you had passengers in your car?

# 978

Posted: 02/07/2009 14:33

Certainly OTHERS ie non -smokers benefit as they are not subjected to passive smoking but we are talking about smoking in our own PRIVATELY OWNED vehicles, not pubs. If I own a car and I want to smoke in it I will.

# 977

Posted: 02/07/2009 14:32

"the least places these people can smoke the better for them" - these people are still smoking, despite the ban. I was not aware this comment expaned to include non-smokers.

# 976

Posted: 29/06/2009 18:08

The workplace smoking ban in Ireland has reduced air pollution in pubs by 83 per cent and airborne carcinogens by 80 per cent for both patrons and staff since the ban was introduced three years ago.

It can protect workers and others from exposure to the harmful particles, chemicals and gases in secondhand smoke and result in immediate and significant health gain.”

# 975

Posted: 29/06/2009 09:50

Saying the least places people can smoke the better for them is not actually 100% true. Smoking rates have not dropped at all since the workplace ban.

# 974

Posted: 06/06/2009 17:07

Yes I would, The least places people can smoke the better for them and others..

# 973

Posted: 05/06/2009 13:44

Hi ExPat I agree with you to a certain extent. I mean it feels wrong to smoke in front of a child, and I think thats just because I KNOW its bad for me so it has to be abd for them. Then again who is to say that I haven't been affected by propaganda...the whole point is to make you THINK you are making these decisions for yourself when in fact you're not. I ahve to say the anti-smoking ads really annoy me. They actually make me want a cigarette to combat the annoyance...hmm maybe these are actually designed by tobacco companies to stress out the smokers and make then reach for the box of fags.....?!

# 972

Posted: 05/06/2009 12:04

This topic is turning into a slagging match and has now nothing to do with the subject. I am off for a smoke! regards. ps. ASH is not going to me tell what to do. regards

"an excuse is not the reason for saying why"

# 971

Posted: 05/06/2009 11:19

Expat,

It is a well established fact in the medical world that smoking causes the majority of lung cancer plus countless other ill health affects. This is not brain washing, this is medical fact. In addition there are absolutely zero benefits to smoking.

# 970

Posted: 04/06/2009 22:32

Ex-pat,

You said 'for years and years no mother would ever consider blowing smoke in the direction of a child.

What planet were you living on? Whoever brainwashed you made a great job of it.

Whose direction do you think the smoke goes in a car containing children?

What sensible discussions am I not getting involved in? Those where all agree with you. Do you honestly think smoke is good for the human lung?

There is no smoke witofire!

# 969

Posted: 04/06/2009 00:57

Buzz,

You made an interesting comment that even if it was proved that passive smoking was harmless, you would not FEEL right smoking in front of a child.

The whole point of the millions spent on propaganda is to make you FEEL bad about smoking, especially in front of children (who are misused as a form of emotional pressure).

This is brainwashing and it is very effective and very deliberate.

Just consider the fact that for years and years no mother would ever consider blowing smoke in the direction of a child but TV commercials were made to show exactly that with an actress impersonating a mother. Many people saw this as "reality" and felt justified in demonising mothers who smoke. Their emotions were deliberately tampered with.

BTW, just because Wit spouts a lot of rubbish he is is not stupid. He prefers not to get involved in any sensible discussion as he would lose. By just spouting ASH propaganda he can avoid this. He aims for the emotional level not the intellectual and this is, of course, quite deliberate.

# 968

Posted: 02/06/2009 10:09

Yes I am aware of that and may I thank you for judging me by your standards and feeling the need to poitn out the obvious. My point of course (had you read the post properly) was that your post was laced with sarcasm and cynicism. Of COURSE I believe my points to be valid - whats wrong with you?! Are you here for a discussion on a smoking ban or the last word???

# 967

Posted: 29/05/2009 23:16

buzz,

Have you forgotten your previous post so soon? Those were your points!

There is no smoke witofire!

# 966

Posted: 29/05/2009 13:58

Witofire it is not about making ME happy (believe it or not these arguments are simply amusement - my HAPPINESS is determined by more important issues such as health, financial stability, fulfilling work, family, friends) In actual fact, despite your attempt at sarcasm, it would seem that it is the anti smokers who are the most unhappy lot! Regarding your other points if they were not laced with cyncism and sarcasm then they would actually be quite valid. Why persecute ONE group and not another?

# 965

Posted: 28/05/2009 23:26

We must stop persecuting smokers and other addicts! Let smokers huddle at the doorways and do not ask them to move a few yards away to prevent smoke entering premises or to avoid contaminating other citizens.

Make it illegal for SUVs to stop at traffic lights and belch out fumes. Make farmers reduce their dairy stock numbers to avoid damage to the ozone layer. Demolish houses built too close together in the countryside to somehow thus reduce the effects of burning smoky fuel but this type of law must not apply to Dublin as everybody there burns only smokeless fuel. Fit blinkers when approaching smokers so as not to see them. Make buzz happy or you’re a smoking Nazi.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 964

Posted: 28/05/2009 15:51

Joeyjoejoe, Maybe us smokers should wear bells around our necks????

There are far more 'vile' things going on in society nowadays. Grow up.

# 963

Posted: 28/05/2009 14:56

Cheap shot. Yes a lot of smokers DO think about you, and are not concerned with taking away your right to do what you want to do, as you are of theirs. Of course it is easy to pretend that other pollutants do not affect you when in actual fact they do, if you think a little further than just what is before your eyes. The fact remains that smokers are huddled outside because they are not allowed inside (quite rightly too) but they should not have to bend to the very whim and will of every smoking nazi who choses to have a go at them when in fact, they are keeping within the law.

# 962

Posted: 28/05/2009 13:41

To Joeyjojo ,Buzz is only pointing out a fact. are you so blind not to see his/her point. LOL to you. regards

"an excuse is not the reason for saying why"

# 961

Posted: 28/05/2009 12:52

Buzz if you could sort that out for me that would be great thanks!LOL!yeah i do only see the smokers because they are the ones that I am affected by, a lot of them don't think about the non smokers! If they want to smoke that's fine but I shouldn't have to suffer!

# 960

Posted: 26/05/2009 15:44

The only reason people are congregated outside in the FIRST place is because they are not allowed INSIDE. The smoking nazis really irritate me they are NEVER happy perhaps you would like all smokers shipped to the moon to save smelling out your partners hair? I am in support of the smoking ban, but outside is outside and you cannot dictate where smokers are allowed to huddle if they are outdoors. Can I dictate where SUV's belching out fumes can stop in traffic? can I tell the farmer across the road not to place quite so many cows in his field because collectively they are contributing to holes in our ozone through the volumes of methane they produce? What about houses outside of Dublin who do not burn smokeless fuel? Shoudl they be built x miles apart? The problem with smoking nazis is that they ONLY see the smokers. They do not see anyone else.

# 959

Posted: 26/05/2009 13:09

I hate cigarette smoke, it makes me gag! It should be banned except in designated places i.e. not outside the shopping centre where I have to hold my breath until I can make it past all the smokers huddled outside! It's disgusting! My husband recently went into a pub/off licence and had to walk past a group of smokers on his way in and out. When he came home i could smell the smoke off his clothes and hair! It's vile!

# 958

Posted: 26/05/2009 10:40

The ruling bans labels such as low tar, light, ultra light or mild, since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them

Less than 10 cm away from such labels one will also find a label which quite clearly tells them the milligram content of tobacc, tar and nicoteine. For Gods sake what kind of ridiculous claim culture do we have here now? Where will it all end? I think anyone who smokes and then tries to sue is just a blatant hypocrite to be honest, akin to throwing yourself in front of a bus and suing because the bus was deceptively heavy and did more damage than you anticipated. GET REAL PEOPLE. SMOKING CAUSES HARM.

# 957

Posted: 26/05/2009 10:36

There is nothing more annoying than people who smoke and then sue for damages. Anyone who started smoking since the 70's has been fully aware of the dangers posed.

# 956

Posted: 23/05/2009 18:48

lisann,

Agree with everything you said in your posts.....also....regarding the pollution re water that some have mentioned.....what is the explanation for the fact that councils in Galway and it's environs have reduced thousands to 'buying' water even to wash etc.; this has been going on for decades....just ask hoteliers in the region etc etc...!!. If anyone doubts this...investigate !

When we talk of pollution...and it's effects....let´s be accurate and ask the right questions of those who are supposed to protect us!  Lisann....thank you.

# 955

Posted: 23/05/2009 07:40

US tobacco companies lose landmark ruling

Friday, May 22, 2009 - 07:11 PM

A US federal appeals court today agreed with the major elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the nation's top tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking. The US Court of Appeals in Washington upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes, which have been on hold pending appeal. The ruling bans labels such as low tar, light, ultra light or mild, since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them. It also says the companies must publish "corrective statements" in newspapers and on their websites on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 954

Posted: 22/05/2009 12:57

Hi WITOFIRE, as we seem to be diviating from the topic i have really nothing more to say on the subject[i said it all before]. i am doing nothing illegal and i feel i should not be scapegoated by ASH to make me feel like a pariah.i respect your view and i hope you respect mine. regards

"an excuse is not the reason for saying why"

# 953

Posted: 22/05/2009 06:14

Yes I am aware of the scandalous incident of the introduction of toxins into some water supplies in Monaghan and Cavan. I am also aware of the normal introduction of toxins such as chlorine, fluoride, alum and lime in the treatment of water for human consumption. While this important treatment of water is essential to public heath, many people, me included, are not happy with the final product. Some people use bottled water – often more polluted than tap water. I use filter jugs. I would not subject children to bottled or unfiltered tap water - just as I would not subject them to toxic tobacco smoke.

There is no smoke witofire!

# 952

Posted: 21/05/2009 19:07

WITOFIRE, did you see Philip-Boucher Hayes investigation into water supplies re toxins put in them without people knowing about it? thats what I mean by children drinking contaminated water.

"an excuse is not the reason for saying why"

# 951

Posted: 21/05/2009 11:26

Agreed. I dont think I could smoke in front of a child, even in the unlikely event that I was provided with unrefutable evidence that it caused them no harm, I think it just FEELS wrong at this point, goes against the grain. I do still think people should be allowed to smoke in their cars if they wish. People buy their cars and pay tax and insurance, not to mention fuel, so if these cars are their property then people should not be able to commandeer what one does in their own car.

# 950

Posted: 20/05/2009 22:28

lisann,

Of course we should not force children to drink contaminated water. Who does?

There is no smoke witofire!

# 949

Posted: 19/05/2009 15:49

I agree with you WITOFIRE. i dont smoke in front of kids,but using your logic then we should not force them to drink our contaminated water either which contains lots of toxins.but to get back to the topic in hand,i like to have a choice to smoke or not in cars.ASH are looking in the wrong direction to try to cut down cancer related deaths. afterall only 30% of us smoke.regards

"an excuse is not the reason for saying why"

# 948

Posted: 18/05/2009 22:38

Maybe not, lisann, but that is not a reason to subject anyone, especially children, to the dangers.

There is no smoke witofire!