|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 17:11:51 GMT
You have the right to do whatever you like, as long as it isn't illegal. There isn't an automatic right to strike because a worker has traded their freedom to stay at home/ go fishing/ yell moronic repetitive chants whilst burning lots of wood in an oil drum etc. etc., for a salary. As I said earlier, if you want to invent rights and non-rights then you are going to superficially win the argument, but without convincing anyone else. I say that there are no rights nor freedoms, we are all doing exactly what we are instructed to do by the white mice, we just don't realise it yet.
Laws restrict our freedoms. Also known as rights. If it isn't illegal, you can do it. The default position is that you can do it. It's your right. |
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 17, 2024 17:23:53 GMT
I'm still unconvinced that the idea can work, or that it's an area government should be spending time and money on, as commendable as the idea of creating a smoking free generation sounds.
We shall see how it pans out.
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 17, 2024 17:28:36 GMT
I'm sure it will be as effective as a puff of smoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 17:37:38 GMT
As I said earlier, if you want to invent rights and non-rights then you are going to superficially win the argument, but without convincing anyone else. I say that there are no rights nor freedoms, we are all doing exactly what we are instructed to do by the white mice, we just don't realise it yet.
Laws restrict our freedoms. Also known as rights. If it isn't illegal, you can do it. The default position is that you can do it. It's your right. Well OK then, you can smoke if you like. Until the law makes it illegal, then you can't smoke. This seems quite simple and doesn't require a great analysis of one's "'uman rights" (which of course don't actually exist other than in the minds of some people). Although one can bang on and whine about how unfair it is, the fact is that smoking is for selfish idiots who don't have the foresight to realise what they are doing to themselves (and others), and once they do they are too adicted and weak-willed to do anything about it. So I am delighted that it will be illegal for young people to smoke, since those who want to smoke clearly don't have the common sense to make sound judgements.
|
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 17, 2024 17:40:14 GMT
See what you did there fi 😉 For years we were told education, seriously restricting advertising, obscuring point of sale displays, NHS interventions, and driving smokers outdoor would solve the issue but it seems to be well entrenched even amongst teenagers. I have to say on a selfish front I think public spaces are infinitely more pleasant without smoke, but smoking still seems to be something 'the cool kids' do, and I don't think criminalising it will work any better. Rog |
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 17:47:14 GMT
Laws restrict our freedoms. Also known as rights. If it isn't illegal, you can do it. The default position is that you can do it. It's your right. Well OK then, you can smoke if you like. Until the law makes it illegal, then you can't smoke. This seems quite simple and doesn't require a great analysis of one's "'uman rights" (which of course don't actually exist other than in the minds of some people). Although one can bang on and whine about how unfair it is, the fact is that smoking is for selfish idiots who don't have the foresight to realise what they are doing to themselves (and others), and once they do they are too adicted and weak-willed to do anything about it. So I am delighted that it will be illegal for young people to smoke, since those who want to smoke clearly don't have the common sense to make sound judgements.
All that may be so, but it remains that any such plan would fall foul of anti aegism legislation. I don't smoke myself but wouldn't support such a plan. I believe it's the right of adults to make their own choices in life. Be that alcohol, tobacco, climbing mountains in dangerous conditions, spending 8 hours a day stuffing their faces with chocolate etc. etc. Government has a role here. It can advise of the dangers. Most particularly, when people are young. Banning aduts form doing things though is government over reach. Tobacco now. What next? Remember, we live in 'progressive' times. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 17, 2024 17:47:55 GMT
I don't think it will be workable. If some people are allowed to buy cigarettes and some aren't, the people who are will simply sell them to the people who aren't, adding some type of mark-up. And essentially, if people want to smoke, and this is likely to be injurious to their health, then as long as the tobacco tax they pay equals or exceeds the costs of treating their illnesses and their smoking is done away from non-smokers, then this should be their right.
If we ban anything done for pleasure which is likely be be injurious then what next? I read once that riding a horse is 20 times more dangerous than riding a motorcycle. Should we stop folk riding horses?
|
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 17, 2024 17:52:46 GMT
See what you did there fi 😉 For years we were told education, seriously restricting advertising, obscuring point of sale displays, NHS interventions, and driving smokers outdoor would solve the issue but it seems to be well entrenched even amongst teenagers. I have to say on a selfish front I think public spaces are infinitely more pleasant without smoke, but smoking still seems to be something 'the cool kids' do, and I don't think criminalising it will work any better. Rog Being cool isn't allways and never was the only reason to smoke, many start it to try to ease symptoms of anxiety etc (have a smoke it will relax you) - the dopamine effect. Not saying it is a good thing to do just explaining one of the reasons people smoke. |
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 17, 2024 18:02:32 GMT
See what you did there fi 😉 For years we were told education, seriously restricting advertising, obscuring point of sale displays, NHS interventions, and driving smokers outdoor would solve the issue but it seems to be well entrenched even amongst teenagers. I have to say on a selfish front I think public spaces are infinitely more pleasant without smoke, but smoking still seems to be something 'the cool kids' do, and I don't think criminalising it will work any better. Rog Last I heard the percentage of smokers is below 16%. 0% is desirable but unachievable. Banning something just increases desire. And as for civil rights...Ross Allbricht was a libertarian idealist. I wonder if he still is. |
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 17, 2024 18:10:50 GMT
I wouldn't have thought young kids smoked to relax them or deal with anxiety, but then again I'm old.
When I was 11 and going into my teens, playing sports was my major vice so I never considered smoking.
I did smoke heavily from 19 years upto 29 and wanting to buy a house, which is when we stopped and used the money on a mortgage.
But school mates less obsessed with sport smoked to impress girls and demonstrate their maturity, and the girls were always more mature than the boys anyway so they smoked to show how cool and fashionable they were 😁
My neice of 23 years vapes, I think as a social thing ... what her mates and work colleagues do and she works in hospital.
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 18:24:28 GMT
Well OK then, you can smoke if you like. Until the law makes it illegal, then you can't smoke. This seems quite simple and doesn't require a great analysis of one's "'uman rights" (which of course don't actually exist other than in the minds of some people). Although one can bang on and whine about how unfair it is, the fact is that smoking is for selfish idiots who don't have the foresight to realise what they are doing to themselves (and others), and once they do they are too adicted and weak-willed to do anything about it. So I am delighted that it will be illegal for young people to smoke, since those who want to smoke clearly don't have the common sense to make sound judgements.
All that may be so, but it remains that any such plan would fall foul of anti aegism legislation. I don't smoke myself but wouldn't support such a plan. I believe it's the right of adults to make their own choices in life. Be that alcohol, tobacco, climbing mountains in dangerous conditions, spending 8 hours a day stuffing their faces with chocolate etc. etc. Government has a role here. It can advise of the dangers. Most particularly, when people are young. Banning aduts form doing things though is government over reach. Tobacco now. What next? Remember, we live in 'progressive' times. Re. Your first sentence, you are mistaken and I have already pointed out many issues where age is taken as the only driver. Clearly it is ageism but ageism is allowed in law. If you think it is the right of adults to make choices then you are living in the wrong country. There are loads of choices that adults are not allowed to make, for example taking street drugs, driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a car without wearing seatbelts, and many many more. You are accustomed to those laws so you don’t notice them. But banning people from smoking is no different in principle, it’s just that it hasn’t happened yet. |
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 17, 2024 18:26:16 GMT
Nobody noticed that this is a blatant attempt by the Tories to take Labour heartland ground.
History will show us that the Tories are traditionally pro smoking and anti alcohol whereas the Labour are anti smoking and pro alcohol.
It is subtle but quite likely to be effective as a way to gain swing voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 17, 2024 18:30:48 GMT
All that may be so, but it remains that any such plan would fall foul of anti aegism legislation. I don't smoke myself but wouldn't support such a plan. I believe it's the right of adults to make their own choices in life. Be that alcohol, tobacco, climbing mountains in dangerous conditions, spending 8 hours a day stuffing their faces with chocolate etc. etc. Government has a role here. It can advise of the dangers. Most particularly, when people are young. Banning aduts form doing things though is government over reach. Tobacco now. What next? Remember, we live in 'progressive' times. Re. Your first sentence, you are mistaken and I have already pointed out many issues where age is taken as the only driver. Clearly it is ageism but ageism is allowed in law. If you think it is the right of adults to make choices then you are living in the wrong country. There are loads of choices that adults are not allowed to make, for example taking street drugs, driving a motorcycle without a helmet, a car without wearing seatbelts, and many many more. You are accustomed to those laws so you don’t notice them. But banning people from smoking is no different in principle, it’s just that it hasn’t happened yet. I don't know if gliding is statistically risky. If so, perhaps it will be next on the list. Then, people like yourself (but not yourself, obviously), would speak in similar tones to yourself, in support of a ban. And then, you'd struggle to put up much of a fight because the previous time, you were all for it. |
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 17, 2024 18:31:21 GMT
That's very true Telemachus but all those illegal activities still go on. Legislation may have reduced the level, as the majority of us 'do as we are told' but the law hasn't stopped the acts. I cannot see it stopping those born post 2009 smoking if they choose, and actually fear it may have the opposite affect. Rog |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 17, 2024 18:39:06 GMT
That's very true Telemachus but all those illegal activities still go on. Legislation may have reduced the level, as the majority of us 'do as we are told' but the law hasn't stopped the acts. I cannot see it stopping those born post 2009 smoking if they choose, and actually fear it may have the opposite affect. Rog No im sure it won’t stop it. But it will reduce it significantly, that is a valid aim. Laws do change society’s values, look at drink driving. In the 70s it was normal and cool, I certainly did plenty of it even though Barbra Castle’s breathalyser was in action by then. But these days it is by and large socially unacceptable. It still happens of course, but much less than it used to. |
|
