Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
HARASSMENT AND ABUSE experienced by women on the internet has intensified during the pandemic, experts have said, as more of their work, education and social lives migrated online.
“One of the biggest things coming through is how much it has become a chilling factor or deterrent to going forward in positions [of employment, politics etc], and that’s very much the case for young women,” Orla O’Connor, director of the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI) told The Journal.
“It’s almost being cited straight away by young women as a reason they’re not going forward for a leadership position.”
Recent research pointed to higher levels of abuse towards local female politicians in Ireland in 2020 and 2021 compared to their male counterparts and there is evidence globally that the issue has escalated in other areas such as the workplace.
A UK survey in January last year revealed that workplace sexual harassment had moved increasingly online during the pandemic. Nearly one in two women who had experienced sexual harassment at work reported some to all of it was online.
This compares to just 5% of workplace sexual harassment victims in a UK government survey in 2019 who said the harassment had taken place online or through work-related messaging. The workplace (20%) was the most common setting for this kind of harassment pre-Covid, following by socialising with colleagues (13%) or visiting a client or customer (9%).
23% of women who experienced sexual harassment reported an increase or escalation while working from home since the start of first lockdown in 2020, last year’s survey found.
Women in politics
Recent research carried out by Dr Ian Richardson, a data scientists and tally expert, found that female councillors in Ireland received eight times as many abusive tweets per follower than their male colleagues.
He looked at the volume of toxic replies and quote tweets the online content by councillors received between September 2020 and September 2021. Nine of the ten tweets with the highest number of toxic replies were from the accounts of female councillors.
Fine Gael councillor Clodagh Higgins topped the list with a tweet that received 543 toxic replies. Former Lord Mayor of Dublin Hazel Chu appears on the top-ten list four times, while Social Democrats councillor Eliza O’Donovan features twice – she received 27 toxic replies to this tweet:
To make it very clear, I unequivocally and completely support and agree with this statement from @LmkFeminist today 💚 https://t.co/obliysN06R
— Cllr Elisa O'Donovan (@elisaodonovan) October 1, 2020
Richardson found that the situation changed when it came to national politicians: among the tweets he analysed over a 12-month period, there was near parity on the relative level of abuse received by both male and female TDs.
However, female senators received three times as many abusive tweets per follower compared to male senators. While men from government parties were significantly more likely to receive abusive tweets than men from other parties, there was no significant difference between the level of abuse women received across political parties.
Speaking to The Journal, Richardson said the findings highlight a barrier to women entering politics.
“The abuse doesn’t happen in isolation of the actual account user. Because it can be publicly seen on the platform, you could make the argument that women see this happening and then don’t want to be involved in politics – it’s a pull away from using the platform,” he said.
He pointed out that Twitter and other social media platforms are tools for communicating with voters.
“Local government is the traditional path to the Dáil and if they’re pulling back from using these platforms, it could hamper their ability to get elected to the Dáil.”
It was on Facebook, rather than Twitter, that independent councillor for Dún Laoghaire- Rathdown Deirdre Donnelly had an experience that significantly impacted on both her work and home life.
“It was back in 2019. Late one night I got a message from a person through Facebook messenger saying ‘MILF’,” she told The Journal.
“It started like that and went on asking personal questions and things like that – really inappropriate questions. I just ignored it.”
“The next day in my capacity as councillor I was at an event and there were crowds of people at it,” Donnelly said.
I put a photo of the event up on my Facebook page and right afterwards he started again. It seemed to be whenever I put something on Facebook it would start and then I wasn’t sure was he there at some of the events.
“It went on. He asked if I wanted to see some porn, he sent something pornographic, asking ‘do you like that?’ and I ignored it all, but it got worse and worse, it was extremely explicit.”
Donnelly said she blocked the person sending her the messages, but she was concerned that his behaviour could escalate because she was ignoring him.
She said she began to fear for her safety, not just at public events but in her own home.
Donnelly pointed out that independent candidates have their home addresses on their posters and she wondered whether this person was local and knew where she lived.
Was he going to turn up at the house? My husband travels to the UK a good bit for work so I’d ask him to get a taxi to the airport and leave the car in the driveway because I didn’t want it to be obvious he wasn’t there. I’d get panicky if the doorbell went at night and I wasn’t expecting someone. I’d put the chain on the door and we upgraded the lighting around the house. It was quite worrying.
These messages began a year after Donnelly reported an incident at a hotel in which she says a man at a social event sexually harassed her, before following her up to her room.
Donnelly spoke publicly about the incident on RTÉ’s Liveline last year, telling the show that the man “kept rubbing himself up against me” in a bar until she shouted at him to leave her alone. Soon afterwards she decided to go to her hotel room, she said, and the man followed her.
She said when she got out of the lift she ran down the corridor to get away from him.
Donnelly reported the incident to gardaí and said she was told 22 months later that the man would not be prosecuted.
“After I spoke to Liveline I got some really horrible stuff from people who clearly didn’t understand the background at all,” she said. “One person commented on the way I spoke, saying it was such poor delivery full of ‘ems’ that a prosecutor would never believe me anyway.”
She said her experience of reporting this incident discouraged her from reporting the online harassment in 2019 to gardaí.
“I just didn’t have a huge amount of trust in the justice system,” she said.
Donnelly said knowing she would face this type of online abuse would have discouraged her from entering into political life.
“I wasn’t prepared for any of this, to be honest,” she said. “I can live with criticism over my views on certain things or the way I vote, but I didn’t think I’d be subjected to this kind of thing at all.”
Self-censoring
Abuse and harassment online has a significant impact on victims, but there is also a more subtle and constant negativity women describe encountering online.
An Ipsos MORI poll commissioned by Amnesty International in 2018 found 23% of women across eight countries said they had experienced online abuse or harassment. Almost 60% of those who experienced abuse or harassment online had received it from complete strangers.
Amnesty’s report pointed out that Twitter can be a powerful tool for women to make connections and express themselves, but for many it is a platform where “violence and abuse against them flourishes, often with little accountability”.
“The violence and abuse many women experience on Twitter has a detrimental effect on their right to express themselves equally, freely and without fear, the report stated.
Instead of strengthening women’s voices, the violence and abuse many women experience on the platform leads women to self-censor what they post, limit their interactions, and even drives women off Twitter completely.
More than three quarters (76%) of women across the eight countries who had experienced abuse or harassment on social media said they had made some changes to the way they use social media platforms as a result.
Kate*, a writer who spoke to The Journal, recently decided to significantly reduce her presence on Twitter.
She said this decision was not made due to a recent threatening or abusive experience on the platform, but because of a build-up of constant more subtle negativity and criticism she faced when she shared her views on seemingly trivial topics like television shows.
“I’ve used Twitter for maybe ten or 11 years and I’ve never really had any strategy with it, if I have a thought I just go with it,” she said.
I’ve made friends on Twitter and got to know people that way and there was a group of people I wanted to talk to, but it seems like – maybe it’s down to the algorithm – that it’s opened up a lot more in recent years. Now your tweets seem to be seen more by people who don’t even follow you and wouldn’t normally have seen them.
Though Kate said many of the responses she received are not necessarily gendered, there are some particular topics that attracted negative attention predominantly from male users of the site.
“Once I tweeted about a panel show a lot of men like, joking that it seemed it had taken a few seasons for them to realise they could have more than one woman on. I got a lot of replies from men giving out to me for tweeting about it and saying ‘it’s like this because…’.
That felt very much like ‘hey don’t ever talk about this man thing’ and I’ve seen that with comments about films, TV and music as well. I can tweet about beauty products – and I’ve done that a lot – and nobody would ever say anything about about me or accuse me of saying something stupid.
“I also tweeted about something bad that happened to me last year and I was shook after it so I shared it,” she said.
There were men in the replies telling me I should have stopped and told the man not to do that – it was advice I wasn’t asking for. Someone recently advised me to get my neighbours to look out for me because I said I didn’t feel safe walking when it was dark in the new area I moved to so that was more unasked-for advice. I’m a grown woman, I know how to live in the world.
Kate said she is disappointed that she does not feel as comfortable using the platform anymore, as she has made friends there over the years, but now it is “nice not worrying about opening the app and seeing 20 notifications, wondering what’s waiting for me.”
‘An extra space where women face violence’
Speaking to The Journal, Kathryn Travers, UN specialist in ending violence against women said the move of social lives, work and schooling online has changed our relationship with the internet.
“With that has come a bigger spotlight on the problems that are associated, including online sexual harassment and other forms of violence against women and girls,” she said.
In the immediate weeks and months following the start of the pandemic, there were huge increases in rates of reported violence against women generally. So I think that it’s happening online [too], it’s just an extra space where women are facing increased rates of violence and that’s for a number of reasons, like lockdown measures that keep women locked in with their abusers, for example.
She said it may be the case that people are “taking out their frustrations” with the personal impacts of the pandemic on strangers they encounter online.
“And of course now it’s much more prolonged. We’re in this state of heightened anxiety and uncertainty and with that comes heightened levels of violence. I once heard someone say that women’s rights are kind of like the canary in the mine, it’s the first thing to be hit.”
Travers said the sudden surge in reliance on the internet and, for many people, internet usage, also led to new forms of online harassment.
“During the pandemic, what we really saw was an innovation like Zoom bombings [intrusion into a video-call] for example – that wasn’t really a thing before the pandemic.
As we innovate with technologies and our new ways of being online, we’re finding a correlation with an innovation of different ways of being violent online towards women. Often we think about technologies being able to be a solution for so many things and I think a lot of people have that reflex, but without thinking critically also about how to put safeguards in place to make sure that people can be safe online.
Data compiled by The Economist’s Intelligence Unit estimated that internet usage amongst women globally had increased by 50-70% during the Covid-19 pandemic, noting that this was increasing their exposure to threats.
There is no comparative research available to determine increased levels of this activity in Ireland, but pre-Covid data was already showing high levels of reported online harassment.
In a survey published in 2020 by NGO Plan International, 67% of girls and young women polled in Ireland said they had experienced online harassment. This compared to the 58% at a global level who reported these experiences online.
In Ireland, the average age this abuse started was between 13 and 14, but the global report found harassment was starting for girls from as young as eight-years-old.
Most girls in Ireland listed the following abusive experiences as happening frequently or very frequently:
Orla O’Connor, director of the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI), said online harassment and abuse has been one of the most prominent issues coming through in discussions with members during the pandemic.
She said it has become a “chilling factor” for women who are considering pursing leadership positions in community, business and political spheres.
“For politicians it is now becoming such a big part of their decision-making process, what they’ll have to deal with and bring on themselves and their families,” she told The Journal.
She said particular topics during the pandemic seemed to trigger more significant levels of online abuse, such as discussions about vaccination and maternity restrictions.
Conversations online about women working in the sex trade also draw this kind of negative behaviour, she said, and some women are “nervous about engaging in a conversation because of concerns about a backlash”.
O’Connor herself receives online abuse when she speaks on certain issues, she said.
“At the moment, in particular there is a lot of strong stuff on trans issues – the Women’s Council and myself are trans-inclusive and there is a lot of anti-trans sentiment online,” she said.
But there is always a level of this when it comes to feminism and women’s equality. In some ways I have sort of got used to it – we do a lot in the council around protection of staff, but it is harmful. It’s not okay that we got used to it.
Reporting abuse and legislation
Almost one third of the women in the Amnesty International poll who use Facebook stated that the company’s response to dealing with abuse or harassment online was inadequate.
Facebook did not respond to a query from The Journal about its monitoring and management of gendered harassment and abuse.
Almost 30% of women polled who are Twitter users stated the company’s response to abuse or harassment was inadequate. In response to a query from The Journal, a Twitter spokesperson said that while the company is continuing to expand on and invest in approaches to tackling abuse on the service “we recognise that there’s more to be done”.
“Right now, 65% of the abusive content we action is surfaced proactively for human review, instead of relying on reports from people using Twitter,” they said.
Abuse and harassment disproportionately affect women and underrepresented communities online, and has no place on our service. It hurts those who are targeted and is detrimental to the health of the conversation and the role Twitter plays in the expression and exchange of ideas where people — no matter their views or perspectives — can be heard. We continue to examine our own policy approaches and ways we can enforce our rules at speed and scale.
Twitter will run a health education campaign in Ireland in the coming weeks to raise awareness on tools to report potentially harmful content. The company is also exploring new ways for users to filter out unwanted speech in their replies, stopping specific words, targeted name-calling or emojis.
Action from social media companies to tackle this kind of behaviour is welcomed by advocates, but they say this will have little impact without major societal changes driven by government policies.
On average, half of all women polled by Amnesty stated the current laws to deal with online abuse or harassment were inadequate.
The European Parliament recently voted for new rules to tackle illegal online content, to ensure platforms are held accountable for their algorithms and better content moderation practices.
The parliament said the draft law – the Digital Services Act (DSA) – aims to create a safer digital space for users.
“Including provisions on risk assessments, risk mitigation measures, independent audits and so-called “recommender systems” (algorithms that determine what users see) in the DSA would also help to tackle harmful content (which might not be illegal) and the spread of disinformation,” the parliament said.
The parliament also in December voted to adopt a legislative initiative report on tackling gender-based violence online and urged the Commission to specifically criminalise gender-based cyberviolence.
A list of actions that the legislation should address included:
The Irish government recently published the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill, which will, legislation that will establish a new regulator to enforce rule and ensure accountability in the sector.
A new Media Commission will include an Online Safety Commissioner who will be tasked with minimising the availability of defined categories of harmful online content.
The commission will enforce not just this legislation but also additional forthcoming laws, including the rolling package of regulation coming from Europe over the next decade.
An expert group is also due to assess recommendations from an Oireachtas committee for an individual State complaints mechanism for harmful online content.
In response to a query from The Journal, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media said online safety codes set out by the new commission will ensure that designated online services take appropriate measures to reduce the availability of illegal content on their service.
“Such illegal content includes, for example, relevant offences under Coco’s Law, or the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020. It also includes illegal threatening online content or content which is deemed to be harassment under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997,” the department said.
“Outside of illegal content, and among others, online safety codes may also include measures that a regulated online service must take to reduce the availability of online content by which a person bullies or humiliates another person. Importantly, this category of content will be subject to a risk test set out in the legislation.”
This work is co-funded by Journal Media and a grant programme from the European Parliament. Any opinions or conclusions expressed in this work is the author’s own. The European Parliament has no involvement in nor responsibility for the editorial content published by the project. For more information, see here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It is not meant to work it is just a way of gathering money.
it has been proven that the amount of money raised from taxation of cigarettes goes nowhere near covering the medical costs of smoking in our hospitals. We would be far better off financially with a huge decrease in smokers and the consequent reduction in tax. The one in two people who die from smoking are an incredible financiak drain on our health system. As a result I believe thst your comment that “it is not meant to work, that it’s just a way of gathering money” to be totally incorrect
What’s your source for this proof?
You’re completely wrong anyway
The medical costs of smoking are about 6 per cent of the value of the tobacco taxation. Smokers are absurdy overtaxed in the western world:
2 things wil come from this, 1. The person wil try quit or, 2. Buy the cigarettes on the black market.
That’s my thoughts also. So glad I’m a non smoker.
Been using the black market for the last 2 years and will continue to do so now that the trade will go up a gear. God bless them all.
I don’t think it does. I come from a household were both parents smoke and neither my brothers or I smoke. I think its hitting elderly people who have smoked all their lives and just can’t seem to give them up. its not fair on those people to constantly target them every budget day. why not increase the cost of junk food and fizzy drinks? in the long run they will cause as much of a strain on the HSE with diabetes, heart disease etc?
Let’s just be clear about one thing: smoking does NOT cause a strain on the HSE; quite the opposite in fact. We all have to die of something, and we smokers typically die comparatively quickly of heart attacks or cancer, without going through long chronic illnesses which affect the elderly (e.g. Alzheimer’s).
Coupled with that, we smokers typically die in our 60s, just when our productivity declines and we have stopped earning income tax and started drawing our pensions.
With the extortionate tax take on every pack, smokers contribute massively to the economy, while minimising the drain on public resources in later life.
I like to think of us as the most patriotic kinds of modern-day heroes.
and to add to that, many of us smokers have vhi so we are paying twice (or three times) for the health service. one through General taxation then through our insurance and thirdly through tobacco duties
Interesting argument Jim have you any peer reviewed study to back this up? It doesn’t sound very true but interesting none the less. I would say however there is lots to live for beyond mid sixties and a massive contribution to the economy and society still possible.
Jim, you’re an idiot. Let me say that again. You’re an idiot. Smokers don’t have some sort of special quick death, they die as slowly and painfully (and more expensively) as non smokers.
Not every smoker will be lucky enough to die suddenly of a massive heart attack in their 40s (as you appear to want/believe). Many more will have heart attacks, be patched up, develop heart failure, and live a restricted life, unable to work, on multiple medicines.
Not every smoker will get lung cancer (also a horrible way to die. Most will get bronchitis or emphysema, be short of breath, unable to play with grandchildren, rely on inhalers and oxygen therapy.
Then there’s people like you Jim, who develop strokes and brain damage as a result of smoking. They mightn’t die suddenly, but live out 10 or 15 years with an arm paralysed, or in a nursing home, unable to care for themselves. Smoking causes dementia.
And I will only just mention the legs being amputated, the increased risk of all cancers, including breast cancer, bowel cancer, throat cancer. None of these will kill you quickly. With advances in medicine you might survive, just after months of surgery, chemo and radiotherapy.
the assumption is that because smokers die younger they can have an overall reduced costs to the health system across their full life.
The tax take from tobacco is just covering the costs of dealing with smoking illness. It is not the government taking from from smokers it is ensuring that smokers don’t push the costs of dealing with their ill health onto society.
The government have been taking in roughly 2 billion in tax from tobacco and spending 2 billion on dealing with smoking related illness.
There is also a case that because smokers die young they deprive society of their productive capacity and, while covering the costs, are primary consumers of health care services.
And many smokers often live to a ripe old age and die of natural causes and many health freaks also die of so called smoking related diseases.
@Catriona That’s moronic. Tax fizzy drinks and junk food. Who is that going to hit the most ???? The poor. Great idea that.
It would be fine if smokers died promptly. Unfortunately they tend to be creaking doors. Costing the state a fortune…
Raise it all you want on fags but leave my wine alone….
Funny thing is that alcohol consumption costs more to the government in relation to health care. So why are they fixated on cigarettes?
Very good researched article.
I don’t think anyone cares what James Riley thinks or proposes. The man has already proved himself to be a spectacular fcuk up.
“lovely fags”. Ya raise the price,think I give a fck. Black market all the way baby. And you can bring in all the laws you want,whats next,it’s only legal to smoke in your bedroom with the curtains pulled and the pillow on top of your head.
I gave up smoking 8 years ago, not because of the price, I just wanted to live a longer healthier life, so far so good. Best decision I ever made.
Good man john.. Off them 2 years now also..
Very good, John Mulligan. There is however no scientific evidence that people extend their life expectancy after smoking cessation. You may live a healthier life but not a longer life, according to the controlled trials:
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/lifestyle-improvements-dont-work/
all raising the tax on fags does if make people illegal fags.. you want to see tax from fags raise drop the price
when I started smoking they were 90p for a pack of 10. Now they’re €10 a pack of20 and I still smoked. Only when my daughter arrived last year did I quit.
arrived from where
F J D, when a man and woman are very much in love, they cuddle together sometimes, and sometimes a baby gets made inside the woman’s belly and then she become a mammy. Hope this cleared it up for you!
Mind. Blown.
When you’ve had to watch both your parents slowly die of emphysema from smoking all their adult lives it puts you right off tobacco. I’d love to get through to people that they might as well throw a tenner in the fire and inhale the smoke. It’s a horrible, dirty addiction. Truly the native Americans revenge on the White man
The increases in price have made it extremely difficult for young people to start smoking and the rate of smoking in under 25′s has plummeted… It strikes me as if those numbers would have made plenty of sense above.
I quit just over a year ago, not because of the price, but I’ve saved over 3k in the meantime that used to go on smokes… Best decision I ever made.
Not true Ciaran. Roll ups and black market tobacco are readily affordable considering also the addictive nature. The numbers of school children taking up smoking are still very high.
I think the ‘marketing’ psychology aspects are likely to have (are having) much greater impact. Plain packaging and moving tobacco sales to pharmacies (only) would make a much bigger reduction than the tax.
As a former Smoker no matter how much they put on a pack of cigarettes people will continue to buy them. People who smoke will give them up when they are ready not when the government keep hiking them up in price. But what makes me laugh about this story is that in one part of it, it states that IRELAND is a high income Country obviously who ever wrote this is either in a good paying job or has not notice how high the tax is on everything in this country.
We are a high income country I tell you. Coming from working in south Sudan last week I can confirm it. We are also a highly unequal country. The decisions of successive troika party governments over the last decade have exacerbated it.
Tell us all about the Sudan Kev.
Taxing something cos its bad for never worked . If people want to smoke they’ll smoke weither it’s cheap or not
Smuggler’s dream
Does FG/LAB know anything other than TAX?
I think it’s grossly unfair how much preferential treatment smokers get. In this social justice society I’m surprised to see the warriors are not clamoring for equality for the drunks and the obese. Why should smokers get a special tax? Alcoholic and obese lives matter too. Equality for all!
It’s all smoke and mirrors !
The government dont want people to stop smoking infact they rely on the people to keep it up. They choose something they people have an addiction to an keep adding they cut onto it claiming it will make people stop although anyone with half a brain will notice thats not how addictions work. The government know this well and rely on those with addictions who cant give it up and keep upping the price on them, same with alcohol and even with the proposed tax on sugary drinks. If the government was really concerned about people giving up smoking they would provide much more education into smoking and the effects for young children in schools or something better than giving a doctor 55 euro to be given some leaflet that is somehow magically break my addiction.
As a small country we should be the first country in the world to ban cigs.
Its brings in 2 bill but that’s what it costs to treat smokers for a variety of illnesses.
Sure we would have some smuggling but over time the customers would reduce and it would reduce drastically the teen customer.
Other countries would follow.
Also the majority of smokers would probably thank us for it.
Let get it done set a date and do it.
If you want to ban smoking Bill Clear, you would need to start lobbying your local FG TDs and MEPs who are supporting the provisions of TTIP in the EU parliament. If this treaty is passed, then banning smoking would allow every tobacco company in the US to sue our arses off in perpetuity. How much will that cost?
Ah yes, Prohibition, that ALWAYS works doesn’t it? It’s remarkable how some people can’t earn from the past or the present.
*learn, obviously.
Ah yeah that’ll work. Anyway I’m going back to bed. Those yokes I had didn’t mix well with the massive spliff I had before I went to bed. If I can’t sleep I’ll snort a line or two before the match coybig!
Just raise the age allowed buy them by 1 year every year, and in 40 years they will be completely gone.
Give gardai powers to spot check age cards for people smoking on the street etc. If they are serious about becoming a smoke free society then do something radical with zero tolerance
There’s a lot more important things the Gardai need to get their act together over besides smoking.
Can I sue vehicle manufacturers and their filthy deadly diesel and petrol engines and fossil fuel providers both of which are extremely more toxic than cigarette smoke?.
Lad, do you really need the failures of Prohibition explained to you? That’s a stupid idea that will lead to an even more unsafe product being sold by criminal enterprises.
You can hike it up as much as you like. The black market is booming. So the more that the government put on the cigarette’s the less likely people are going to buy them from a shop. Why haven’t they put the price up on alcohol? Oh yeah because they all drink themselves, open bar at the Dail. From a non smokers view, what’s the point, if people want to smoke they are going to do so no matter what the price is and especially if they can buy them at half price from the black market. If the government really wanted to help stop people smoking at bus stop’s, the entrance into a building. As someone that has severe lung problem’s and will likely need a transplant in the near future I hate having to stand at the bus stop with my oxygen on my back only to have people both in front and behind me smoking. So ban place’s rather than putting the price up.
Every single year for the week running up the budget there are scare stories about the price of a pack cigarettes being increased to €10, €12, €15 etc.
Then when budget day arrives, 5-10c gets added on and everyone is thinking “we got away nicely with that”.
Every single year.
They should put a fiver on a pack of 20. Absolutely disgusting habit, always try to stay well clear of smokers. The stink off them turns my stomach
Increasing the price of tobacco is sure to increase the incentive of smokers to quit. Banning smoking in pubs was a fantastic idea and a spectacular success. The vast majority of addicts would like to quit and would appreciate any assistance in doing so.
I just made a cup tea and there’s no fcking sugar.
Is nearly imagine the tax intake on fags must be down as the tax increases just fuels the black market cigs
I’m not a smoker myself but anyone I know who is gets the cheap ones I think they are €5 a packet
As an ex smoker who finally kicked the habit my view is that an increase in price might reduce consumption in the very short term. Smokers are addicted to smoking just like other drug users and will pay the price demanded or buy smuggled tobacco products.
I don’t smoke so I think they should put any increase in excise duty on cigarette exclusive and leave diesel and alcohol alone
If you didn’t drive, would you be all for raising the price of diesel?
Exactly. As long as it doesn’t effect me I don’t care.
For the first time ever I am considering purchasing from criminals. I can’t be the only one.
Never worry about the price in the shop. Al ways buy my tobacco on the black market.
There’s always a way to avoid the extortionate government rip off on smoking.
The poor man’s friend.
If it was to increase all the money collected should go straight to health care..and not into the government pocket
yes
No
If the government was serious about getting people to stop smoking they would be made so expensive that people simply couldn’t afford them, they would also need to have stiff penalties for smugglers. but the government makes too much money in taxes to go down that route.
tax the fancy alcohol that only the elite drink.
I think it’s a complete waste of time. .I also cannot understand why the only pleasure left to some people cannot be left alone. people the world over make the decision to smoke or not. and it only seems to be a vendetta on irish people .
It’s a vendetta on the people all over Europe, not just the Irish. And the master puppet is the pharmaceutical giants:
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/anti-smoking-experts-paid-by-big-pharma/
It was health worries that persuaded me ultimately to give up smoking but the price of them definitely helps to keep me off them…I am using the money I would have spent on cigarettes to save for a first holiday in years!!
The most disgusting habit! Increase them by more than 50 cent I say!! The higher the better. Cancer sticks!
No, it just makes them buy the dried poo bulking agent type of Chinese illegal cig then…
What’s this deficit levied against?
The cost of treating tobacco related illnesses?
I quit smoking almost 2 years ago. I now use a vapouriser. Saving a fortune and still get to enjoy nicotine and far better health. Vaping is the reason smoking rates are currently dropping. If you’re a smoker, ignore the scare stories from Pharma and tobacco companies and clueless “public health” commentators and give vaping a try. Incredible health and financial gains.
Impose a specific health levy on each packet of cigarettes.
Take strong enforcement against illegal cigarette smokers.
Nope it doesn’t deter me, I want off of them but the price isn’t the reason.
Another way to discourage young people from smoking might be to inform them of the unethical way the tobacco industry works? An informed appeal to people’s sense of intelligence against an industry that promotes ill health and addiction might work better than the ‘just say no’ campaign?
Same argument applies to the use of illegal drugs. What smart young person would want to benefit criminals and terrorists once they are aware of who benefits most from that trade, I think?
Me and my other half are off the fags just over a great now.. the main reason is because they were too expensive! if they were priced like mainland European countries I am pretty sure we would still be smoking
because it is an addictive drug a price increase will only impact on a small number of smokers.
the money raised is just about covering the costs to the health system of dealing with smoking related illness so the tax on cigarettes shouldn’t even be looked at as a deterrent.
It’s a way of making sure that smokers don’t push the cost of dealing with their life choices on the rest of society.
The best way to reduce smoking is social norms i.e. how it is no longer normal to smoke in busses, cinemas, pubs.
The first group to attack smoking and smokers in this way were the nazis.Their leader Hitler was the first European leader to go off on a gallop after a group of people and single them out for extermination. If a country can’t be smoker friendly then they should consider that we defeated Hitler and the Nazis and the day a smoker allows a Nazi to enforce their ludricious law they will feel they can take more. Get smoker friendly or leave our country Nazis!
Maybe Dan is unaware of ‘ Policy Recommendations for Tobacco Taxation in the European Union- Integrated Research Findings from the PPACTE project’ – http://www.tri.ie
Smokers stink. It should be banned everywhere.
Does it put people off?
Smoker rates in the late 80s were almost 40%. They are now less than 20%. Cancer, emphysema are known side effects since the 60s.
Different people react differently but it absolutely helps reduce the number of people taking up smoking.
An “margadh dubh” abu!
How come people can’t figure out that VAT increasing from 21% to 23% is not a 2% increase?
It is an increase of 9% in the tax take.
As follows:
If you have 21 litres of water and add 2 litres of water to make a total of 23 litres of water, what percentage increase in water was added?
Then govt tell you VAT receipts are up 9% and make believe in a phantom recovery.
have your say