Donate SIGN UP

Full Smoking Ban?

Avatar Image
sp1814 | 12:33 Sat 11th Dec 2021 | News
150 Answers
Should the UK follow New Zealand's lead and work towards a full smoking ban?

I think it's a very brave move, and personally I'd be all for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/new-zealand-to-ban-smoking-for-next-generation-in-bid-to-outlaw-habit-by-2025
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 150rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Avatar Image
naomi: "Conversely, TTT, I knew a lady who smoked all her life and died age 84. In her later years she became housebound and smoking was her only real pleasure. Would I have taken that away from her? No, I wouldn't. " - of course not, I know it can actually be more dangerous to stop after a lifetime of smoking. That's the beauty of the NZ system. existing smokers can...
12:56 Sun 12th Dec 2021
It's hard enough for shop assistants to check if someone is 18.

The New Zealand system means that they would have to check against a constantly moving target.
there will always be an illicit supply but that should not stop us introducing a system like the NZ one.
//New Zealand to ban smoking for next generation in bid to outlaw habit by 2025//

bid?
Either they are going to ban it or not...which is it?
Yes
i smoke and like it, sounds odd i know..but as sp says standing outside pub is not pleasant in this weather, nice in summer...
"We don't have the freedom to chose whether or not to wear seat belts"
yes we do. you can either leave it off or put it on. If the poice catch you,that's a different matter
about 25 years ago when i was in america we had a car that automatically put the seat belt on you when you started the engine but i havent seen any cars over here with that feature
Question Author
bednobs

I’m sure you understand my point.

We also don’t have the freedom to murder, and rape and molest children.

To have the freedom to do something means the ability to take action without fear of prosecution.

Let’s not get hung up on semantics.
Exactly SP. You are not insured either if you don't wear your seatbelt.
LB: " You are not insured either if you don't wear your seatbelt. " of course you are!
Sorry 3T I should have checked first but I'm sure I read it somewhere. Perhaps my insurer has that as a clause in its policies.
But again what sort of moron does not wear a seatbelt ?
This is why the public sometimes have to be protected from themselves
Those who do not can have no complaints when natural selection takes its course
Hopkirk //check against a constantly moving target.
That should not be too difficult, all it means is that the age is increased by one year annually.
This is a tricky one, because it will always raise the notion of personal freedom and responsibility.

It's intriguing that as a culture, we have allowed the growth and massive profits of selling a product that, if used for its intended purpose, could kill you.

I personally don't subscibe to the "I can kill myself if I want to ,,," argument, becuase sometimes, society has to be protected from the stupid things it would do if it was not prevnted from doing so.

My belief is the twin changes we see coming through - the anti-social responses to smoking, coupled with the cost increases, are going to see an undesirable and unhelthy habit die out of its own accord.
Question Author
A-H

We've certainly seen a sea change in attitudes to smoking, but I wonder whether the change could be sped up a little.

I know from my own circle that a lot of people gave up when we were stopped from smoking in offices, bars, clubs and pubs - perhaps making it illegal to sell to people below a given age is the next logical step: from permissive to restrictive to illegal.


When you think of the number of people who could grow up a reduced threat of cancer, heart disease, strokes, lung diseases, diabetes, etc seems like a major win.
I wish nobody smoked. I stopped 30 years ago. Its seems like a very expensive way of giving yourself cancer. Having said that I am 100% against any government banning it, in the same way I am against compulsory vaccinations, it should be a personal choice. Handing such power to a government can lead too easily to fascism & dictatorship as history can demonstrate.

Everything should be done though, to try to prevent the young from starting in the first place.
We don’t have the freedom to murder, rape and molest children? How ridiculous. What sort of an analogy is that?

I don’t agree that smoking should be banned. Whether it be to take part in dangerous sports, stuff their faces until they’re too fat to move, or to drink themselves stupid, people make their choices and they should be free to do so.
StickyBottle, seeing as you like to compare seatbelts to vaccines:

If seatbelts were malfunctioning there would be recalls
If seatbelts were injuring people there would be investigations
and if seatbelts didn't prevent the injuries they are intended to, it would mean they are not working.
naomi - // Whether it be to take part in dangerous sports, stuff their faces until they’re too fat to move, or to drink themselves stupid, people make their choices and they should be free to do so. //

A fair point - but if we are going to sanction the enjoyment of something whose only redeeming factor is addicting people, and costing them money, and placing a burden on our health service, then we would be hypocritical not to apply the same largesse to heroin - which actually creates far less damage in health terms, and has similarly miniscule benefits to either its users, or society at large.

Our problem is perception - nicotine is an 'acceptable' drug, heroin is not, and that is only down to social attitudes.

If we are going to allow on addiciton under the notion of personal freedom, then we surely have to allow the other?
AH, yes, I considered the heroin argument when I wrote that but I don’t believe the difference between that and nicotine is, as you say, just a matter of public perception. Unlike nicotine heroine is seriously mind altering.
Question Author
naomi24

//We don’t have the freedom to murder, rape and molest children? How ridiculous. What sort of an analogy is that?//

It's really very straightforward. Please see the comments prior to what I said. It's about freedom...we aren't free to drive without seatbelts although we *can*. We're not physically prevented from doing so. Same way we're not physically prevented from a whole host of illegal activities, but once we commit them our freedoms can be curtailed.


21 to 40 of 150rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Full Smoking Ban?

Answer Question >>