Smoking Ban

[Jon]

"Encouraged" with a mobile phone and possibly the threat of "ramming it up his rectum"?

Not unless Rob has a time portal, similar to The Doc's Delorean.

Haha, reminds me of an incident about 20 years ago...some cocky little **** was smoking in McDonalds in Brum, upstairs where it was no smoking.

I had my sprogs with me and was not amused .

I "encouraged" him to leave and he did

:winkold:

Actually, I think they probably did exist in 1990, but were immensely huge?

In fact, one of those huge mobile's from the late 80's - that would have been a good implement for shoving up the offending arse.

Good thoughts. :nod:

[tonyh29]

On 15/12/2010 at 04:18, The_Rev said:

I think (actually, I hope) that smoking will be such a minority activity in 10-20 years that discussions like this will be moot. It's a filthy habit, and the more socially unacceptable it is, the better. I cant see the kids of today starting smoking in anywhere near the same numbers as kids in the 70s, 80s, 90s or even 00s did and when they are adults this wont even be an issue.

nearly 13 years later and this could become a reality 

 

The smoking thing had already been leaked so I was watching the BAT share price during the speech , it dropped around 1 %   , today its risen 1.3%  .. doesn't seem to be huge panic amongst the stock market at least 

I suspect the reason for the slow ban is so that the govt don't lose a massive tax revenue overnight and also to give the industry time to find new ways to kill people  , but regardless of the logistics of enforcing a 1 year age increase policy ( and without turning it into a bolitics thread if we can please  )   , how do people feel about the ban itself  ?

 

[BOF]

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

nearly 13 years later and this could become a reality

The smoking thing had already been leaked so I was watching the BAT share price during the speech , it dropped around 1 %   , today its risen 1.3%  .. doesn't seem to be huge panic amongst the stock market at least 

I suspect the reason for the slow ban is so that the govt don't lose a massive tax revenue overnight and also to give the industry time to find new ways to kill people  , but regardless of the logistics of enforcing a 1 year age increase policy ( and without turning it into a bolitics thread if we can please  )   , how do people feel about the ban itself  ?

The ban, in the way it's being implemented, is discrimination, because it's allowing a behaviour - the purchase of a product - for one part of the population and not allowing it for another. Even when that age group become adults. That is inherently unfair and wrong. If you want to ban something then ban it. Don't be selective.

As for the cost thing. Then leave the buying of cigarettes alone until you figure something out in that regard.

And it's difficult not to at least bring politics into it, when it's literally your government doing it. The manner in which it's being implemented is very relevant when giving one's thoughts on the ban.

[meregreen]

Anybody think the motivation for this is to improve public health…..me neither. 

[Stevo985]

Going into a bar abroad where they don't have a smoking ban is really unpleasant now.

Even though it was commonplace before, and even being someone who smokes when they're drinking on a fairly regular basis, being inside where loads of other people are smoking is just horrible.

I went to Vegas a couple of years back and was smoking in the casino bar. Other people were smoking, and I was smoking, but I hated it.

 

 

On the subject of an ultimate ban on smoking, I think it's probably inevitable. The way the perception of smoking has transformed over the past 15 years is remarkable, so I don't think a ban would have the backlash it previously would. HOW it's implemented is another question

[VILLAMARV]

Prohibition never works.

I assume it's an utterly meningless soundbite and that vaping your highly addictive nicotine would be fine is it? (I genuinely haven't read the details)

I linked a Lancet series of papers on CDOH (Commercial Determinants of Health) a while back, i'll see if i can find it again. It would be interesting to me if we moved towards a 'cost' analysis based on research by health statisticians instead of just health economists. The world of health data and policy making is becoming increasingly muddied. Perhaps an established framework based on research fuelling decision making would serve us better than politicians looking for data that backs up their policy decisions. Just my 2p.

There is a saying that is hard to ignore though about there only being so many bodies you can pull out of the river before you have to wonder who is pushing them in upstream. Prevention is usually cheaper than the cure. I'm all in on that in theory.

 

[VILLAMARV]

If anyone has a spare few hours

Quote

Commercial actors can contribute positively to health and society, and many do, providing essential products and services. However, a substantial group of commercial actors are escalating avoidable levels of ill health, planetary damage, and inequity—the commercial determinants of health. While policy solutions are available, they are not currently being implemented, and the costs of harm caused by some products and practices are coming at a great cost to individuals and society.

A new Lancet Series on the commercial determinants of health provides recommendations and frameworks to foster a better understanding of the diversity of the commercial world, potential pathways to health harms or benefits, and the need for regulatory action and investment in enterprises that advance health, wellbeing, equity, and society

https://www.thelancet.com/series/commercial-determinants-health

 

[Demitri_C]

Im all for it. But its nit gonna happen. Dont agree with the post abovw its discrimination at all. Whats thw point of smoking? Kills you and costs you money 

Im in cyprus and went to the new casino in limassol and its no smoking but everyone smokes it there as they dont cate do what they want.  I had to leave as the smoke was horrible 

The main problem is its veey hard to quit due to its addictive nature. But most people do quit when they have a health scare so shows it can be done

[Anthony]

Ugh, smoking. Is it the most utterly pointless waste of human endeavour ever? I reckon it's up there. Offers no benefit whatsoever to humanity or the planet. I would love to see it disappear.

But a ban won't work.

Keep taxing it. Increase public awareness around how utterly **** shit it is.

Useful things they could do:

1. Make all cigarette paper a disgusting brown colour. Going forward ensure that all films/TV/media shown in this country show cigarettes as brown, not white. Easy enough to do digitally. The tobacco companies know that the best marketing is seeing someone with a pristine white tube hanging out of their mouth.
2. Put nicotine containing vapes in the same legal category as cigarettes. Must be over 16 to buy vapes, restrict sale and advertising the same way we restrict advertising for tobacco.
3. Police powers to confiscate the above products from anyone under 16.
4. Police powers to confiscate/seize any non conforming products at any point, including the national borders.
5. Raise the age to 18.

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Dont agree with the post abovw its discrimination at all.

People are being treated differently based on a generalised trait. What would you call it Dem?

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

People are being treated differently based on a generalised trait. What would you call it Dem?

Saving lives

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

People are being treated differently based on a generalised trait. What would you call it Dem?

dizcrimvinatian  ?

[Brumerican]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Saving lives

Unless you live amongst Highlanders this is impossible .

You can prolong them I guess but who the hell wants to do that . 

[BOF]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

People are being treated differently based on a generalised trait. What would you call it Dem?

I learned long enough ago not to even bother  

[Demitri_C]

22 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

Unless you live amongst Highlanders this is impossible .

You can prolong them I guess but who the hell wants to do that . 

Whats impossible saving lives by cutting down on the amount of smokers or the way in which they plan to do this?

[Brumerican]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Whats impossible saving lives by cutting down on the amount of smokers or the way in which they plan to do this?

You can't save lives is my point .

You are definitely going to die whether you smoke or not . If you ban everything that kills then is it even a life of freedom ?

[Davkaus]

7 hours ago, BOF said:

The ban, in the way it's being implemented, is discrimination, because it's allowing a behaviour - the purchase of a product - for one part of the population and not allowing it for another. Even when that age group become adults. That is inherently unfair and wrong. If you want to ban something then ban it. Don't be selective.

As for the cost thing. Then leave the buying of cigarettes alone until you figure something out in that regard.

And it's difficult not to at least bring politics into it, when it's literally your government doing it. The manner in which it's being implemented is very relevant when giving one's thoughts on the ban.

Agree completely, posted similar in one of the bolitics threads. I think a complete ban is probably unworkable, but in principle I wouldn't mind it. I also wouldn't mind a blanket raising of the age up to 21 for example. I wouldn't even mind heavily restricting the sale such that supermarkets etc can't sell them, and they become a massive ballache to purchase. 

But a steadily creeping age, such that some people will never be able to legally buy them, meaning a 45 year old might still be getting IDed and denied something while a 46 year old can buy them? Nah, that's not right. It's a crap product, and an awful habit, but creating this two-tier system of liberties, "we're alright to have them, but you young ones shouldn't bother, we'll save you from yourselves" is just wrong. 

[trekka]

14 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

You can't save lives is my point .

You are definitely going to die whether you smoke or not . If you ban everything that kills then is it even a life of freedom ?

I would argue that reducing the ability to smoke (or removing it completely) may well "save" many lives.  The Cambridge Dictionary states life as "the period between birth and death, or the experience or state of being alive".   If my Mom didn't start smoking would she had suffered lung cancer that may have taken her prematurely? If my Dad hadn't started smoking would he suffer the progressive effects of COPD that at some point might well kill him, not to mention his kidney cancer (that we think and hope is currently under control)?

Thankfully both are still alive (screw you cancer, and screw you cancer sticks). 

Edited October 5, 2023 by trekka

[Brumerican]

1 minute ago, trekka said:

I would argue that reducing the ability to smoke (or removing it completely) may well "save" many lives. 

It will probably prolong them absolutely but I just wanted to nip the "saves lives" notion in the bud.  You can live as clean as you like but you will die 

( I believe infinity is quite a long time so I imagine we will all be back playing new roles anyway)

[Demitri_C]

44 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

You can't save lives is my point .

You are definitely going to die whether you smoke or not . If you ban everything that kills then is it even a life of freedom ?

So do you not agree that a non smoker would generally live longer than a smoker would? Yes we are all going to die but the probability of living longer and healthier with less health issues is if you are a non smoker