FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > King Charles Smoke Ban
King Charles Smoke Ban
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Hi
I am interested in hearing views as to the intended bill which will mean that children who were born on or after 2009 will never be able to legally purchase a cigarette (even after they reach adult age)
I have my views which I am willing to share but first interested in hearing other points of view |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It’s a government policy, nowt to do with King Chuck.
I don’t give a shit about it as it does not affect me.
Smoking does a lot of harm, but then do so diesel engines. And stress.
Perhaps they should also ban those? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"If you scroll down we already have a thread running on this"
Thanks! I did a forum search with the word “smoke” and nothing relevant came up !
Will do a manual search and read the replies |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a bold move and brave, sometimes it takes someone to make a stand to create change.
How many people need to die from diseases caused by smoking before people agree that enough is enough.
If the ban saves one life it's worth it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’d say it’s a smart move. Health wise it’s a no brainer. Individual choice I’m a fan of, but health services and societal impact is the other side of the coin. Not as popular as alcohol and so is a possible scheme that can be delivered. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It’s a government policy, nowt to do with King Chuck.
I don’t give a shit about it as it does not affect me.
Smoking does a lot of harm, but then do so diesel engines. And stress.
Perhaps they should also ban those?"
Yea I get your point. It is something of a strange division between crown and government and something perhaps suited for separate debate.
I am interested in your point about the other sources of ‘evils’
Are you in favour of strict regimentation so that all the ‘evils’ are taken away or is it that you consider adults should not have government questioning and curtailing the wisdom of their decisions? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
What are people’s thoughts as to this being a ban only for a certain category of society?
By that I mean someone born in or before 2008 is ok to get ciggies up to death and someone in or after 2009 is not able to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I’d say it’s a smart move. Health wise it’s a no brainer. Individual choice I’m a fan of, but health services and societal impact is the other side of the coin. Not as popular as alcohol and so is a possible scheme that can be delivered. "
What are your views to taking away all rights as to products that are harmful? For example sugar ?
Are you willing to expand upon your views as to popularity of (what I have taken to refer to as) “societal evils” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I really hate the smell of smoke and am a bit allergic to it, so I’m quite happy to see it being edged out.
As for other stuff, the govt paid us all do get diesels (scrappage) then discovered it was horrendous and unsuitable for cities. They’re a bunch of morons and I don’t trust them to do anything properly.
My question would be, where are they getting a profit from with this? Because they’ll be getting a kickback somewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sounds bizarre x"
I find myself conflicted about the plans
On the one hand I would love to see an absolute ban for the entire society. On the other hand I worry about the impact this would have in a democratic society.
I personally think it is wrong to create a situation where it is fine for a particular segment of society and wrong for another.
On balance I would feel more comfortable with a complete ban and erosion of our rights to make bad decisions for ourselves than a split set of standards for society |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you scroll down we already have a thread running on this
Can’t find it ! Maybe it was created by someone who blocked us ?? "
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/1531820
It's not the most obvious thread title |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I really hate the smell of smoke and am a bit allergic to it, so I’m quite happy to see it being edged out.
As for other stuff, the govt paid us all do get diesels (scrappage) then discovered it was horrendous and unsuitable for cities. They’re a bunch of morons and I don’t trust them to do anything properly.
My question would be, where are they getting a profit from with this? Because they’ll be getting a kickback somewhere. "
Let’s think about the financial benefit. I am struggling to see one. The only benefit I can see is if there has been a costing as to how much is spent by the NHS on smoking relating illnesses and whether the position will be better eradicating that (and losing the associated sales tax on ciggies). But even that would be a societal benefit rather than a personal benefit for associated contacts to policy makers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"If you scroll down we already have a thread running on this
Can’t find it ! Maybe it was created by someone who blocked us ??
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/1531820
It's not the most obvious thread title"
Thank you !!!!!’ Running all the way !!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hi
I am interested in hearing views as to the intended bill which will mean that children who were born on or after 2009 will never be able to legally purchase a cigarette (even after they reach adult age)
I have my views which I am willing to share but first interested in hearing other points of view"
Good idea.. If we can also ban them from fast food, alcohol, and sugary drinks too just imagine all the lives being saved and less demand on our sainted nhs.
They won't live longer but will just seem it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar. "
This is one of my major feelings of discomfort. Where would this stop and is it a sign that we are moving away from democracy
And are we happily marching into a dictatorship?
Our liberties were greatly impacted with lockdown and for the most part society was delighted with the curtailment
It now seems that there is great support for this serious curtailment of liberty for a particular section of society
Are we marching willingly into a situation where we embrace the government having too great a say in how we live our lives ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Terrible idea ! I like idiots who keep my tax bill down by slowly killing themselves !  "
Aside the fact it is cigarettes which are targeted - are you comfortable with the move as a general principle. That the government would make something prohibited for one section of society and not the other? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"All for it and it works - this law was applied in other countries years ago and it is doing the trick"
Do you think it should be more extensive and be a complete ban for all members of society ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm all in favour of getting people to stop smoking but this law seems unenforceable. Are we really saying that shopkeepers in thirty years time are supposed ask for age verification to check whether somebody is 48 and not 47? Are the police going to investigate?
It sounds a bit gimmicky to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s a government policy, nowt to do with King Chuck.
I don’t give a shit about it as it does not affect me.
Smoking does a lot of harm, but then do so diesel engines. And stress.
Perhaps they should also ban those?"
I reckon diesel engines will be in museums before cigarettes will |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonightMan
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
I think it is a good idea, did you know there is more than 7,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke and that at least 250 are known to be harmful, there is no wonder why it comes with a health warning too  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar. "
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it is a good idea, did you know there is more than 7,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke and that at least 250 are known to be harmful, there is no wonder why it comes with a health warning too "
6250 that are beneficial though, that’s not bad! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As an ex smoker, current vaper, I think it's the only half decent idea the tories have managed in the last 13 years. But what about the loss of tax income in the long run, will this be opening the door for cannabis been legalised and taxed to make up for the short fall? Also isn't it about time alcohol saw the same under the microscope treatment as cigs as well, it's the biggest gate way drug in the country, it kills more people than all the hard drugs combined or does it generate too much tax income for that ever to be considered? Not to mention the way people feel about it, which is strange since it is in essence a class A drug by all definitions, (one which I don't want to give up btw either) and we know how people react to those drugs so why isn't the reaction the same to alcohol? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back? "
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal? "
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I really am conflicted by this policy
I’m a non smoker and personally would love to see a complete societal ban. However that doesn’t fit well with my libertarian philosophy and as such I have to pick where my greater comfort rests.
On balance I oppose the ban because it is in such conflict to liberty that I cannot agree (no matter how much I want to)
Where would it end? Too much obesity - no fast food/sugar. Too much liver disease- no alcohol. Too many STDs - criminalise sex outside of marriage. Too many negative consequences to gambling - criminalise gambling
The importance of having the ability (as adults) to make their one choices cannot be understated
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking? "
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?"
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As for other stuff, the govt paid us all do get diesels (scrappage) then discovered it was horrendous and unsuitable for cities. They’re a bunch of morons and I don’t trust them to do anything properly. "
As an aside: the original diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil. Diesels can run on a vast range of stuff and Rudolf Diesel originally hoped they would run on vegetable oil. There is no reason why diesels can’t be one of the most environmentally beneficially engines if we want them to be - we just prefer to burn petroleum based things in them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine "
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub? "
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Great idea but people die now due to Alcohol abuse and far more people will die due to obesity ( both brought on by addictions to substances) and so banning smoking is great and just means it will create yet another black market for tobbaco products the last time we were " Convinced" by our so called leaders to declare "War" on a plant based drug ?? it didn't really turn out as expected did it and didn't even work ?? and what about the latest reasearch done on highly proccessed food being highly addictive but our supermarket shelves are stuffed with them and most food experts don't even want them to be classed as "Food" anymore ???  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's 2023. Who still smokes ... smokers are literally a dying breed. Less and less young people smoke. I doubt there will be demand anyway... Great move. I remember when they banned it in pubs and everyone was up in arms. Turned out to be a great move.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different "
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" Great idea but people die now due to Alcohol abuse and far more people will die due to obesity ( both brought on by addictions to substances) and so banning smoking is great and just means it will create yet another black market for tobbaco products the last time we were " Convinced" by our so called leaders to declare "War" on a plant based drug ?? it didn't really turn out as expected did it and didn't even work ?? and what about the latest reasearch done on highly proccessed food being highly addictive but our supermarket shelves are stuffed with them and most food experts don't even want them to be classed as "Food" anymore ??? "
I agree that there are other “societal evils”. I have a major bug bear over processed food but I still think people should have liberty to consume them
It is such a difficult topic to consider. When the ban is considered in isolation it is easy to declare it a good move. When we remove the compartmentalised analysis it is dangerous for a libertarian society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d say it’s a smart move. Health wise it’s a no brainer. Individual choice I’m a fan of, but health services and societal impact is the other side of the coin. Not as popular as alcohol and so is a possible scheme that can be delivered.
What are your views to taking away all rights as to products that are harmful? For example sugar ?
Are you willing to expand upon your views as to popularity of (what I have taken to refer to as) “societal evils”"
Surely "they" are not taking away any rights, the people effected have never had a right to buy tobacco products.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 2023. Who still smokes ... smokers are literally a dying breed. Less and less young people smoke. I doubt there will be demand anyway... Great move. I remember when they banned it in pubs and everyone was up in arms. Turned out to be a great move.
"
I loved not having my outfits and skin burned from d*unkards on the dance floor !!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens."
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I’d say it’s a smart move. Health wise it’s a no brainer. Individual choice I’m a fan of, but health services and societal impact is the other side of the coin. Not as popular as alcohol and so is a possible scheme that can be delivered.
What are your views to taking away all rights as to products that are harmful? For example sugar ?
Are you willing to expand upon your views as to popularity of (what I have taken to refer to as) “societal evils”
Surely "they" are not taking away any rights, the people effected have never had a right to buy tobacco products.
Cal"
They don’t have an immediate right as at today to purchase but they would have reached an age to do it.
If you remove yourself so that you don’t view the situation from your own prism the dangers are easier to see.
I mean look how outraged people get when the pension age is proposed to be increased. And the private pension trigger date is set to change from 55 to 57
People can rightly hold a legitimate objection to rights they expected to have which are then changed before their date for eligibility arises |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens.
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical "
The underlying basis is the same. It doesn’t have to turn on all the exact same facts. Materially similar basis is sufficient to found hypocrisy - just my view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens.
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical
The underlying basis is the same. It doesn’t have to turn on all the exact same facts. Materially similar basis is sufficient to found hypocrisy - just my view. "
Your view is really bad then. Different things need to be treated differently. You can’t just lump random things together and say it’s hypocritical when they aren’t treated the same
Otherwise I could say it’s hypocritical they are going to ban smoking and not driving, because driving is dangerous too
But obviously that’s not, because they aren’t the same |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d say it’s a smart move. Health wise it’s a no brainer. Individual choice I’m a fan of, but health services and societal impact is the other side of the coin. Not as popular as alcohol and so is a possible scheme that can be delivered.
What are your views to taking away all rights as to products that are harmful? For example sugar ?
Are you willing to expand upon your views as to popularity of (what I have taken to refer to as) “societal evils”
Surely "they" are not taking away any rights, the people effected have never had a right to buy tobacco products.
Cal
They don’t have an immediate right as at today to purchase but they would have reached an age to do it.
If you remove yourself so that you don’t view the situation from your own prism the dangers are easier to see.
I mean look how outraged people get when the pension age is proposed to be increased. And the private pension trigger date is set to change from 55 to 57
People can rightly hold a legitimate objection to rights they expected to have which are then changed before their date for eligibility arises "
Realistically, NOBODY is currently aged 17 and waiting for their birthday so they can start smoking. A large percentage of smokers start before they leave school and a huge chunk more at college. The percentage of people who wait to start smoking as an adult is tiny.
Also, there are no laws which prevent anyone from smoking. The laws only control the sale and purchase of tobacco products... not smoking. They can grow their own, or ask someone else to buy it.
Personally, I would love to see a complete ban on l smoking & vaping, but that will never happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens.
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical
The underlying basis is the same. It doesn’t have to turn on all the exact same facts. Materially similar basis is sufficient to found hypocrisy - just my view.
Your view is really bad then. Different things need to be treated differently. You can’t just lump random things together and say it’s hypocritical when they aren’t treated the same
Otherwise I could say it’s hypocritical they are going to ban smoking and not driving, because driving is dangerous too
But obviously that’s not, because they aren’t the same "
It sounds to me that you are trying really hard to treat impingement upon liberty so as to preserve the things you want to do without restriction but the things you aren’t interested in you are happy to be restricted because it doesn’t affect you
I really don’t know how I can engage with you when you are determined to be blinded and view the issues in a compartmentalised methodology to suit your own purpose
Have a super day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I’d say it’s a smart move. Health wise it’s a no brainer. Individual choice I’m a fan of, but health services and societal impact is the other side of the coin. Not as popular as alcohol and so is a possible scheme that can be delivered.
What are your views to taking away all rights as to products that are harmful? For example sugar ?
Are you willing to expand upon your views as to popularity of (what I have taken to refer to as) “societal evils”
Surely "they" are not taking away any rights, the people effected have never had a right to buy tobacco products.
Cal
They don’t have an immediate right as at today to purchase but they would have reached an age to do it.
If you remove yourself so that you don’t view the situation from your own prism the dangers are easier to see.
I mean look how outraged people get when the pension age is proposed to be increased. And the private pension trigger date is set to change from 55 to 57
People can rightly hold a legitimate objection to rights they expected to have which are then changed before their date for eligibility arises
Realistically, NOBODY is currently aged 17 and waiting for their birthday so they can start smoking. A large percentage of smokers start before they leave school and a huge chunk more at college. The percentage of people who wait to start smoking as an adult is tiny.
Also, there are no laws which prevent anyone from smoking. The laws only control the sale and purchase of tobacco products... not smoking. They can grow their own, or ask someone else to buy it.
Personally, I would love to see a complete ban on l smoking & vaping, but that will never happen. "
I agree but I was meeting your point so I’m at a loss as to this expansion.
Am I to assume that you would be in favour of a ban on alcohol because you can make your own ?
I would love to see the same ban but, as mentioned earlier, that conflicts with my libertarian philosophy and I can’t reconcile it so have to fall in opposition to the plans (including my personal desire for a total ban) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens.
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical
The underlying basis is the same. It doesn’t have to turn on all the exact same facts. Materially similar basis is sufficient to found hypocrisy - just my view.
Your view is really bad then. Different things need to be treated differently. You can’t just lump random things together and say it’s hypocritical when they aren’t treated the same
Otherwise I could say it’s hypocritical they are going to ban smoking and not driving, because driving is dangerous too
But obviously that’s not, because they aren’t the same
It sounds to me that you are trying really hard to treat impingement upon liberty so as to preserve the things you want to do without restriction but the things you aren’t interested in you are happy to be restricted because it doesn’t affect you
I really don’t know how I can engage with you when you are determined to be blinded and view the issues in a compartmentalised methodology to suit your own purpose
Have a super day "
Sounds to me like you tried to use a word you don’t fully understand and fell flat on your face and now want to quietly back out of it.
Which is fair enough, I’d probably do the same |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/1531820
Thread that was mentioned above
Prohibition solves no problem, if theres a need desire for something money to be made someone will supply it, look at America and their alcohol prohibition
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens.
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical
The underlying basis is the same. It doesn’t have to turn on all the exact same facts. Materially similar basis is sufficient to found hypocrisy - just my view.
Your view is really bad then. Different things need to be treated differently. You can’t just lump random things together and say it’s hypocritical when they aren’t treated the same
Otherwise I could say it’s hypocritical they are going to ban smoking and not driving, because driving is dangerous too
But obviously that’s not, because they aren’t the same
It sounds to me that you are trying really hard to treat impingement upon liberty so as to preserve the things you want to do without restriction but the things you aren’t interested in you are happy to be restricted because it doesn’t affect you
I really don’t know how I can engage with you when you are determined to be blinded and view the issues in a compartmentalised methodology to suit your own purpose
Have a super day "
So, do you think that they should have left the legal age of consent at 10 like it was in 1576, or that there was no need to introduce a minimum age for owning a gun (never mind banning them)?
What about the mandatory driving test, seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, etc... each of these could be seen as an erosion of civil liberties, or alternatively as progress.
Ultimately, there is no positive side to smoking.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Probably just increase smuggling of dodgy cigarettes and tobacco.
I gave up smoking at 17 but there's only so much that can be done to deter people.
It's still a very popular thing in other countries amongst young people and other age groups unfortunately |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hi
I am interested in hearing views as to the intended bill which will mean that children who were born on or after 2009 will never be able to legally purchase a cigarette (even after they reach adult age)
I have my views which I am willing to share but first interested in hearing other points of view"
will it lead to like being in America in the roaring twenties and the alcohol ban and we have hidden smoke easies in the basements of corner shops,,,   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens.
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical
The underlying basis is the same. It doesn’t have to turn on all the exact same facts. Materially similar basis is sufficient to found hypocrisy - just my view.
Your view is really bad then. Different things need to be treated differently. You can’t just lump random things together and say it’s hypocritical when they aren’t treated the same
Otherwise I could say it’s hypocritical they are going to ban smoking and not driving, because driving is dangerous too
But obviously that’s not, because they aren’t the same
It sounds to me that you are trying really hard to treat impingement upon liberty so as to preserve the things you want to do without restriction but the things you aren’t interested in you are happy to be restricted because it doesn’t affect you
I really don’t know how I can engage with you when you are determined to be blinded and view the issues in a compartmentalised methodology to suit your own purpose
Have a super day
Sounds to me like you tried to use a word you don’t fully understand and fell flat on your face and now want to quietly back out of it.
Which is fair enough, I’d probably do the same "
Lols not even
I’m just embarrassed for you by this point and was trying to be respectful about it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
Well there’s already a huge list of things that are banned or illegal without a prescription
Why is something that causes cancer the straws that broke your back?
Processed food causes cancer. Is it also your position that should also be banned/made illegal?
Processed food can be healthy in the right context when it’s not over consumed and it’s not physically addictive like cigarettes
What’s the healthy level of smoking?
I disagree. It is addictive and is harmful.
However my point is less about that and more about a person’s autonomy to make decisions without government questioning the wisdom of those decisions. Once that starts, where does it stop?
So your point falls flat on its face when faced with even a little scrutiny
You’re still free to grown your own tobacco, it’s not becoming illegal, they just won’t be selling it. Your bodily autonomy is fine
I did not realise that the restriction was just on selling it. Well in that situation isn’t the whole bill a nonsense?
And you would presumably be fine with the same restriction on alcohol being sold in shops because it can be made at home in a bathtub?
I think alcohol and smoking can’t be compared because they are completely different
They aren’t. They both have potentiality for (societal and bodily) harm and besides - with the same policy bodily autonomy is preserved - grow/brew your own.
It is inconsistent to have an issue with one and not the other and perhaps hypocritical
I’m a non smoker and I love to drink. This isn’t about how I would be affected personally and entirely about the dangers of government unreasonably dictating lives of the citizens.
How can it be hypocritical if they aren’t the same?
Surely different things require different treatment? That’s not hypocritical
The underlying basis is the same. It doesn’t have to turn on all the exact same facts. Materially similar basis is sufficient to found hypocrisy - just my view.
Your view is really bad then. Different things need to be treated differently. You can’t just lump random things together and say it’s hypocritical when they aren’t treated the same
Otherwise I could say it’s hypocritical they are going to ban smoking and not driving, because driving is dangerous too
But obviously that’s not, because they aren’t the same
It sounds to me that you are trying really hard to treat impingement upon liberty so as to preserve the things you want to do without restriction but the things you aren’t interested in you are happy to be restricted because it doesn’t affect you
I really don’t know how I can engage with you when you are determined to be blinded and view the issues in a compartmentalised methodology to suit your own purpose
Have a super day
So, do you think that they should have left the legal age of consent at 10 like it was in 1576, or that there was no need to introduce a minimum age for owning a gun (never mind banning them)?
What about the mandatory driving test, seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, etc... each of these could be seen as an erosion of civil liberties, or alternatively as progress.
Ultimately, there is no positive side to smoking.
Cal"
I am in favour of age restrictions changing.
I am in favour of seatbelts as they impose an obligation to protect others (not just oneself)
Having entry requirements doesn’t infringe my libertarian philosophy so I have no issue with driving tests etc
Motorcycle helmets - actually on that one I think people should be allowed to make their own unwise decisions about that (as a driver)
Ultimately it is not about whether there is a positive side to smoking or not. It falls squarely upon whether the government should be curtailing that freedom to make unwise decisions
Re guns. Same as with this. I don’t like guns would be delighted with bans but so consider it an impingement on liberty where ownership is already permitted.
Finally - if we look at things solely on what is good/bad for us we could end up in a position where there are lots of restrictions and potentially even the imposition of what is good for us. No matter what we want for ourselves
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want."
You can’t say that 100% of the people smoking will die from smoking related causes. Also some people genuinely enjoy smoking. My parents being among them. I have never smoked. Don’t like the smell or anything about it. But I can see that for some people there are other positives and benefits that they themselves value. That is none of my business to discredit anyone who takes pleasure from something which is not my poison
Therefore we are on a sliding scale and those other matters can sit along side it
If you are comfortable with a ban with one product with the potentiality for harm you have to be comfortable with a ban on all - otherwise aren’t we guilty of telling people how to live their lives ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want.
You can’t say that 100% of the people smoking will die from smoking related causes. Also some people genuinely enjoy smoking. My parents being among them. I have never smoked. Don’t like the smell or anything about it. But I can see that for some people there are other positives and benefits that they themselves value. That is none of my business to discredit anyone who takes pleasure from something which is not my poison
Therefore we are on a sliding scale and those other matters can sit along side it
If you are comfortable with a ban with one product with the potentiality for harm you have to be comfortable with a ban on all - otherwise aren’t we guilty of telling people how to live their lives ?
"
I don’t think you understand that one harmful product isn’t the same as another harmful product, so I don’t think we can really discuss it without that basic understanding |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
On motorcycle helmets I’m the same view as I am with for example the government imposing condom wearing
However much I would love both as an outcome the route to getting there is not worth the price
and before anyone says it isn’t the same. When aids was a death sentence there was no criminalisation or government policy on condom wearing. Both were risky with a chance of death.
When a product is not illegal people should have the absolute right to consume what they want despite the wisdom of it
I would LOVE for someone, anyone, to come up with a credible argument which doesn’t mean that liberty is not being eroded by this policy because I want to support it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want.
You can’t say that 100% of the people smoking will die from smoking related causes. Also some people genuinely enjoy smoking. My parents being among them. I have never smoked. Don’t like the smell or anything about it. But I can see that for some people there are other positives and benefits that they themselves value. That is none of my business to discredit anyone who takes pleasure from something which is not my poison
Therefore we are on a sliding scale and those other matters can sit along side it
If you are comfortable with a ban with one product with the potentiality for harm you have to be comfortable with a ban on all - otherwise aren’t we guilty of telling people how to live their lives ?
I don’t think you understand that one harmful product isn’t the same as another harmful product, so I don’t think we can really discuss it without that basic understanding "
Then make the substance illegal. Then I wouldn’t have an issue. That is the only way I think I can be persuaded in favour of this. Without that it is nothing more than telling people how to live their lives and that is a dangerous slide
The suicide rates for alcoholics is remarkable. Compare that to suicides from cigarettes.
No ground will be gained from looking unfavourably to people who “sin differently” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want.
You can’t say that 100% of the people smoking will die from smoking related causes. Also some people genuinely enjoy smoking. My parents being among them. I have never smoked. Don’t like the smell or anything about it. But I can see that for some people there are other positives and benefits that they themselves value. That is none of my business to discredit anyone who takes pleasure from something which is not my poison
Therefore we are on a sliding scale and those other matters can sit along side it
If you are comfortable with a ban with one product with the potentiality for harm you have to be comfortable with a ban on all - otherwise aren’t we guilty of telling people how to live their lives ?
I don’t think you understand that one harmful product isn’t the same as another harmful product, so I don’t think we can really discuss it without that basic understanding
Then make the substance illegal. Then I wouldn’t have an issue. That is the only way I think I can be persuaded in favour of this. Without that it is nothing more than telling people how to live their lives and that is a dangerous slide
The suicide rates for alcoholics is remarkable. Compare that to suicides from cigarettes.
No ground will be gained from looking unfavourably to people who “sin differently”"
So your against your freedom being taken away, but your ok with them making it illegal?
I think you dunno where you stand. Best figure that out first |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want.
You can’t say that 100% of the people smoking will die from smoking related causes. Also some people genuinely enjoy smoking. My parents being among them. I have never smoked. Don’t like the smell or anything about it. But I can see that for some people there are other positives and benefits that they themselves value. That is none of my business to discredit anyone who takes pleasure from something which is not my poison
Therefore we are on a sliding scale and those other matters can sit along side it
If you are comfortable with a ban with one product with the potentiality for harm you have to be comfortable with a ban on all - otherwise aren’t we guilty of telling people how to live their lives ?
I don’t think you understand that one harmful product isn’t the same as another harmful product, so I don’t think we can really discuss it without that basic understanding
Then make the substance illegal. Then I wouldn’t have an issue. That is the only way I think I can be persuaded in favour of this. Without that it is nothing more than telling people how to live their lives and that is a dangerous slide
The suicide rates for alcoholics is remarkable. Compare that to suicides from cigarettes.
No ground will be gained from looking unfavourably to people who “sin differently”
So your against your freedom being taken away, but your ok with them making it illegal?
I think you dunno where you stand. Best figure that out first "
I am meeting your point that we should be looking at one harmful thing to another. It isn’t my point.
I am throwing light on to that to say what are we actually dealing with here? It is obviously not so harmful that it should be made illegal otherwise it would be
So that we are left with is the poor wisdom of a choice to consume a product with known potentiality for bad outcomes
If something is really that badI am in favour of substances being made illegal as part of the progress. Just like I was in favour of the anti sickness drug being prescribed to pregnant women being removed from dispensation when it resulted in gestational deformity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sound like the uk is turning into a Dictatorship to me. Adults should be allowed to do as they please. What's next a ban on alcohol and junk food and sugar.
This is one of my major feelings of discomfort. Where would this stop and is it a sign that we are moving away from democracy
And are we happily marching into a dictatorship?
Our liberties were greatly impacted with lockdown and for the most part society was delighted with the curtailment
It now seems that there is great support for this serious curtailment of liberty for a particular section of society
Are we marching willingly into a situation where we embrace the government having too great a say in how we live our lives ? "
It's a fair question. Trouble is because of the "freedom" all the fast food/sweet/alcohol etc industry have to create demand despite knowing overindulgence is bad for us... They go to the path of least resistance... The kids... Cos who wants to do harm to kids...? Therefore it is a token to health.... There are many other areas to address but they will focus on the kids bit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm all in favour of getting people to stop smoking but this law seems unenforceable. Are we really saying that shopkeepers in thirty years time are supposed ask for age verification to check whether somebody is 48 and not 47? Are the police going to investigate?
It sounds a bit gimmicky to me."
Shops arent the issue.. Online purchases are. It's not enforceable |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
For what it is worth - from a personal point of view (leaving aside liberty for a moment)
I am in favour of all products with a potentiality for harm being removed from public availability. That all fits with the “protection from self” that is sought to be introduced with the bill
Bringing in the liberty point now - it can’t be done without impinging. That is something I value immensely and can’t support any of the actions I would LOVE to see implemented from a personal point of view because the cost of it is too great |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I'm all in favour of getting people to stop smoking but this law seems unenforceable. Are we really saying that shopkeepers in thirty years time are supposed ask for age verification to check whether somebody is 48 and not 47? Are the police going to investigate?
It sounds a bit gimmicky to me.
Shops arent the issue.. Online purchases are. It's not enforceable "
Thank you for this! I clearly need to read more into the proposals !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s a government policy, nowt to do with King Chuck.
I don’t give a shit about it as it does not affect me.
Smoking does a lot of harm, but then do so diesel engines. And stress.
Perhaps they should also ban those?
I reckon diesel engines will be in museums before cigarettes will"
I'm waiting for the day someone in gov wakes up and goes. Where has all my duty gone? We have to fill the shortfall .. What shall we tax next. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Great idea but people die now due to Alcohol abuse and far more people will die due to obesity ( both brought on by addictions to substances) and so banning smoking is great and just means it will create yet another black market for tobbaco products the last time we were " Convinced" by our so called leaders to declare "War" on a plant based drug ?? it didn't really turn out as expected did it and didn't even work ?? and what about the latest reasearch done on highly proccessed food being highly addictive but our supermarket shelves are stuffed with them and most food experts don't even want them to be classed as "Food" anymore ??? "
Bingo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want.
You can’t say that 100% of the people smoking will die from smoking related causes. Also some people genuinely enjoy smoking. My parents being among them. I have never smoked. Don’t like the smell or anything about it. But I can see that for some people there are other positives and benefits that they themselves value. That is none of my business to discredit anyone who takes pleasure from something which is not my poison
Therefore we are on a sliding scale and those other matters can sit along side it
If you are comfortable with a ban with one product with the potentiality for harm you have to be comfortable with a ban on all - otherwise aren’t we guilty of telling people how to live their lives ?
I don’t think you understand that one harmful product isn’t the same as another harmful product, so I don’t think we can really discuss it without that basic understanding
Then make the substance illegal. Then I wouldn’t have an issue. That is the only way I think I can be persuaded in favour of this. Without that it is nothing more than telling people how to live their lives and that is a dangerous slide
The suicide rates for alcoholics is remarkable. Compare that to suicides from cigarettes.
No ground will be gained from looking unfavourably to people who “sin differently”
So your against your freedom being taken away, but your ok with them making it illegal?
I think you dunno where you stand. Best figure that out first
I am meeting your point that we should be looking at one harmful thing to another. It isn’t my point.
I am throwing light on to that to say what are we actually dealing with here? It is obviously not so harmful that it should be made illegal otherwise it would be
So that we are left with is the poor wisdom of a choice to consume a product with known potentiality for bad outcomes
If something is really that badI am in favour of substances being made illegal as part of the progress. Just like I was in favour of the anti sickness drug being prescribed to pregnant women being removed from dispensation when it resulted in gestational deformity."
They won’t make it illegal for a number of reasons, most likely the fact that it’s not harmful enough, and mainly that you’re going to have an entire age group where it’s still legal, how do you effectively police making it illegal but still legal? You can’t really
As said 10 times now, you can still grow and smoke it yourself. No one is going to prison or having their freedom taken away |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s a government policy, nowt to do with King Chuck.
I don’t give a shit about it as it does not affect me.
Smoking does a lot of harm, but then do so diesel engines. And stress.
Perhaps they should also ban those?"
1997 the first smoke ban, its been 26 years. Banning diesel engines is happening too, will also take years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So just a different viewpoint, that of the tax payer.
According to the charity ASH (which is an anti-smoking charity) the latest figures released in 2022 show the cost to the NHS and social care based on community assistance due to smoking related Ill health came in at 3.6 Billion. The tax rake in the same period was 10 Billion. This didn't include tax and national insurance from those employed in the tobacco trade.
The big scary cost to the public is made up of an estimate of 'lost productivity'. This comes in at 13.2 Billion a year and is based on sick time taken by smokers. It's a little mis-leading as it doesn't take into account that none-smokers take time off sick too, it assumes without smoking sick days would be zero.
As a smoker who wished they had never started I stand at the point of encouraging the younger generation never to start, I don't however agree with limiting peoples personal choice, whether it smoking, drinking, eating processed foods or the multitude of other lifestyle choices that reduce people's life expectancy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So just a different viewpoint, that of the tax payer.
According to the charity ASH (which is an anti-smoking charity) the latest figures released in 2022 show the cost to the NHS and social care based on community assistance due to smoking related Ill health came in at 3.6 Billion. The tax rake in the same period was 10 Billion. This didn't include tax and national insurance from those employed in the tobacco trade.
The big scary cost to the public is made up of an estimate of 'lost productivity'. This comes in at 13.2 Billion a year and is based on sick time taken by smokers. It's a little mis-leading as it doesn't take into account that none-smokers take time off sick too, it assumes without smoking sick days would be zero.
As a smoker who wished they had never started I stand at the point of encouraging the younger generation never to start, I don't however agree with limiting peoples personal choice, whether it smoking, drinking, eating processed foods or the multitude of other lifestyle choices that reduce people's life expectancy. "
Don’t forget that if people live longer from less smoking, pensions start to add up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is common trait used by people against the ban
“Well if you don’t kind a tobacco ban, you won’t mind an alcohol ban? Sugar ban? Fast food ban?”
It’s a brain dead take because it ignores the fact that there’s literally zero safe level of smoking. It’s entirely negative.
Alcohol sugar and fast food all have a bunch of benefits socially, culturally and they have safe limits of consumption. They can’t be compared to smoking
I understand wanting to do what you want with your body, but this isn’t a ban on tobacco, just selling it in shops. Grown your own
You’re still free to do what you want.
You can’t say that 100% of the people smoking will die from smoking related causes. Also some people genuinely enjoy smoking. My parents being among them. I have never smoked. Don’t like the smell or anything about it. But I can see that for some people there are other positives and benefits that they themselves value. That is none of my business to discredit anyone who takes pleasure from something which is not my poison
Therefore we are on a sliding scale and those other matters can sit along side it
If you are comfortable with a ban with one product with the potentiality for harm you have to be comfortable with a ban on all - otherwise aren’t we guilty of telling people how to live their lives ?
I don’t think you understand that one harmful product isn’t the same as another harmful product, so I don’t think we can really discuss it without that basic understanding
Then make the substance illegal. Then I wouldn’t have an issue. That is the only way I think I can be persuaded in favour of this. Without that it is nothing more than telling people how to live their lives and that is a dangerous slide
The suicide rates for alcoholics is remarkable. Compare that to suicides from cigarettes.
No ground will be gained from looking unfavourably to people who “sin differently”
So your against your freedom being taken away, but your ok with them making it illegal?
I think you dunno where you stand. Best figure that out first
I am meeting your point that we should be looking at one harmful thing to another. It isn’t my point.
I am throwing light on to that to say what are we actually dealing with here? It is obviously not so harmful that it should be made illegal otherwise it would be
So that we are left with is the poor wisdom of a choice to consume a product with known potentiality for bad outcomes
If something is really that badI am in favour of substances being made illegal as part of the progress. Just like I was in favour of the anti sickness drug being prescribed to pregnant women being removed from dispensation when it resulted in gestational deformity.
They won’t make it illegal for a number of reasons, most likely the fact that it’s not harmful enough, and mainly that you’re going to have an entire age group where it’s still legal, how do you effectively police making it illegal but still legal? You can’t really
As said 10 times now, you can still grow and smoke it yourself. No one is going to prison or having their freedom taken away "
I too have grown tired of saying nearly as many times now - remove alcohol from sale and brew your own in a bath tub since it is so acceptable
To avoid further repetition I rely on my other points to the remaining points |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"So just a different viewpoint, that of the tax payer.
According to the charity ASH (which is an anti-smoking charity) the latest figures released in 2022 show the cost to the NHS and social care based on community assistance due to smoking related Ill health came in at 3.6 Billion. The tax rake in the same period was 10 Billion. This didn't include tax and national insurance from those employed in the tobacco trade.
The big scary cost to the public is made up of an estimate of 'lost productivity'. This comes in at 13.2 Billion a year and is based on sick time taken by smokers. It's a little mis-leading as it doesn't take into account that none-smokers take time off sick too, it assumes without smoking sick days would be zero.
As a smoker who wished they had never started I stand at the point of encouraging the younger generation never to start, I don't however agree with limiting peoples personal choice, whether it smoking, drinking, eating processed foods or the multitude of other lifestyle choices that reduce people's life expectancy. "
I agree with you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I am in favour of age restrictions changing.
I am in favour of seatbelts as they impose an obligation to protect others (not just oneself)
Having entry requirements doesn’t infringe my libertarian philosophy so I have no issue with driving tests etc
Motorcycle helmets - actually on that one I think people should be allowed to make their own unwise decisions about that (as a driver)
Ultimately it is not about whether there is a positive side to smoking or not. It falls squarely upon whether the government should be curtailing that freedom to make unwise decisions
Re guns. Same as with this. I don’t like guns would be delighted with bans but so consider it an impingement on liberty where ownership is already permitted.
Finally - if we look at things solely on what is good/bad for us we could end up in a position where there are lots of restrictions and potentially even the imposition of what is good for us. No matter what we want for ourselves
"
But all they are doing is changing the age restrictions...
Plus, it's long been a proven fact that smoking us damaging to the health of others too, not just those who partake... As someone who works in education, I am regularly surrounded by children who stink of their parents' cigarettes.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide.."
One might argue then that if people choose to smoke, knowing it’s myriad health risks, then maybe they shouldn’t have free access to the nhs to treat said health problems brought on by smoking  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide..
One might argue then that if people choose to smoke, knowing it’s myriad health risks, then maybe they shouldn’t have free access to the nhs to treat said health problems brought on by smoking "
Fair point, why should the NHS and the people that pay for it via taxes foot the bill for people bad choices ?
Of course. We could extend that to all sorts. Obese? No doctor. Drug addict? No assistance. Pregnant? No abortion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
I am in favour of age restrictions changing.
I am in favour of seatbelts as they impose an obligation to protect others (not just oneself)
Having entry requirements doesn’t infringe my libertarian philosophy so I have no issue with driving tests etc
Motorcycle helmets - actually on that one I think people should be allowed to make their own unwise decisions about that (as a driver)
Ultimately it is not about whether there is a positive side to smoking or not. It falls squarely upon whether the government should be curtailing that freedom to make unwise decisions
Re guns. Same as with this. I don’t like guns would be delighted with bans but so consider it an impingement on liberty where ownership is already permitted.
Finally - if we look at things solely on what is good/bad for us we could end up in a position where there are lots of restrictions and potentially even the imposition of what is good for us. No matter what we want for ourselves
But all they are doing is changing the age restrictions...
Plus, it's long been a proven fact that smoking us damaging to the health of others too, not just those who partake... As someone who works in education, I am regularly surrounded by children who stink of their parents' cigarettes.
Cal"
That isn’t my understanding: re changing age. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide.."
I agree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide..
One might argue then that if people choose to smoke, knowing it’s myriad health risks, then maybe they shouldn’t have free access to the nhs to treat said health problems brought on by smoking
Fair point, why should the NHS and the people that pay for it via taxes foot the bill for people bad choices ?
Of course. We could extend that to all sorts. Obese? No doctor. Drug addict? No assistance. Pregnant? No abortion "
I agree with both points above! It is a sticky wicket !!
It would extend to all “bad” indulgences.
Just to be controversial (if I haven’t already) also refusing health care to the unvaccinated with vaccine preventable illnesses |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oyRoy06Man
over a year ago
leighton buzzard |
It may not be the best solution ... but at least someone is trying to think outside the box and come up with something.
Yes free choice is nice; but smoking related illnesses are a massive drain on medical resources |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I am in favour of age restrictions changing.
I am in favour of seatbelts as they impose an obligation to protect others (not just oneself)
Having entry requirements doesn’t infringe my libertarian philosophy so I have no issue with driving tests etc
Motorcycle helmets - actually on that one I think people should be allowed to make their own unwise decisions about that (as a driver)
Ultimately it is not about whether there is a positive side to smoking or not. It falls squarely upon whether the government should be curtailing that freedom to make unwise decisions
Re guns. Same as with this. I don’t like guns would be delighted with bans but so consider it an impingement on liberty where ownership is already permitted.
Finally - if we look at things solely on what is good/bad for us we could end up in a position where there are lots of restrictions and potentially even the imposition of what is good for us. No matter what we want for ourselves
But all they are doing is changing the age restrictions...
Plus, it's long been a proven fact that smoking us damaging to the health of others too, not just those who partake... As someone who works in education, I am regularly surrounded by children who stink of their parents' cigarettes.
Cal
-----
That isn’t my understanding: re changing age. "
The minimum age will increase by one year, annually.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We're not the first country to implement the idea.
My understanding (as a non smoker) is its worked out well in other countries. "
Other countries that haven't allowed their young folks to have got to the stage where no-one is allowed to say NO to them.
And the enablers who have caused it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide..
One might argue then that if people choose to smoke, knowing it’s myriad health risks, then maybe they shouldn’t have free access to the nhs to treat said health problems brought on by smoking "
But with that argument where would it stop,as the same could be said for alcoholic's, drug users, obesity etc etc?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
I am in favour of age restrictions changing.
I am in favour of seatbelts as they impose an obligation to protect others (not just oneself)
Having entry requirements doesn’t infringe my libertarian philosophy so I have no issue with driving tests etc
Motorcycle helmets - actually on that one I think people should be allowed to make their own unwise decisions about that (as a driver)
Ultimately it is not about whether there is a positive side to smoking or not. It falls squarely upon whether the government should be curtailing that freedom to make unwise decisions
Re guns. Same as with this. I don’t like guns would be delighted with bans but so consider it an impingement on liberty where ownership is already permitted.
Finally - if we look at things solely on what is good/bad for us we could end up in a position where there are lots of restrictions and potentially even the imposition of what is good for us. No matter what we want for ourselves
But all they are doing is changing the age restrictions...
Plus, it's long been a proven fact that smoking us damaging to the health of others too, not just those who partake... As someone who works in education, I am regularly surrounded by children who stink of their parents' cigarettes.
Cal
-----
That isn’t my understanding: re changing age.
The minimum age will increase by one year, annually.
Cal"
I have now read it. That isn’t how it works. The full wording is
“The law will stop children turning 14 this year or younger from ever legally being sold tobacco products. In effect, raising the smoking age by a year each year until it applies to the whole population”
The cause and effect is not to raise the smoking age for new entrants to the smoking market (for want of a better description” but rather it is the age of the last eligible entrants to the smoking market who will be getting older each year and will be the ever moving bench mark because there are no new entrants |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The young ones will just buy them illegally, hence helping out criminals and the dodgy folk who never pay over tax. Yeah, great idea!
I concur "
Not all of them, I'll wager 90% wouldn't deal with dodgy criminals, especially if they don't already smoke. Most rapid starting age is 14, in 5 years time I can't see anyone as a new teenager casually trying a cigarette from some dodgy career criminals and the ones that do will be a hefty minority. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide..
One might argue then that if people choose to smoke, knowing it’s myriad health risks, then maybe they shouldn’t have free access to the nhs to treat said health problems brought on by smoking
But with that argument where would it stop,as the same could be said for alcoholic's, drug users, obesity etc etc?
"
Yep it could!!! It is a tricky one! I confess I don’t know where I sit on this one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm sure their parents will buy them for their kid's.
While they are at it ban vapes as well!"
The prohibition didn't work in the 20's,and it doesn't work in the middle east despite the consequences, and this is no different. All they are going to do is push it underground..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm sure their parents will buy them for their kid's.
While they are at it ban vapes as well!
The prohibition didn't work in the 20's,and it doesn't work in the middle east despite the consequences, and this is no different. All they are going to do is push it underground..
"
Well smoking isn't glamorised like it used to be, smoking in TV shows and films is very low key now and Tabacco advertising is non existent, club's pub's and bars don't allow it so realistically it's probably influenced by parents and older siblings,as I said they'll just get them to purchase it for them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm sure their parents will buy them for their kid's.
While they are at it ban vapes as well!
The prohibition didn't work in the 20's,and it doesn't work in the middle east despite the consequences, and this is no different. All they are going to do is push it underground..
Well smoking isn't glamorised like it used to be, smoking in TV shows and films is very low key now and Tabacco advertising is non existent, club's pub's and bars don't allow it so realistically it's probably influenced by parents and older siblings,as I said they'll just get them to purchase it for them.
"
This. ^ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What ever the benefits non smoking may have this is another prime example of the nanny state.
Alcohol costs more lives than tobacco per year I'm lead to believe, and then there's all the other negatives associated with it other than the medical costs, domestic abuse, anti social behaviour etc etc ,yet I can't see them banning Alcohol just yet..
If someone wants to smoke it's their 'personal choice' and not for the State to decide..
One might argue then that if people choose to smoke, knowing it’s myriad health risks, then maybe they shouldn’t have free access to the nhs to treat said health problems brought on by smoking "
Nah...tax the tobacco companies the cost of the NHS health care from their products, same with the alcohol companies while they are at it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
