Smoking Ban

[Brumerican]

9 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

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

I only disagree on the word "save" being used instead of "extended."

"Saving lives" is a needlesly charged phrase and ultimately a pointless lie.    " Living a healthier/longer  life " has far less shock value I guess. 

[tomav84]

the UK took c.£10bn in tax revenue last financial year from tobacco. what will they tax to replace that income with? only about a quarter of that is saved from the NHS due to the elimination of tobacco related hospital admissions and deaths

they're also targeting the wrong group. it's not like it was 20 years ago. anyone who knows any teenagers will tell you that smoking simply isn't cool anymore...vapes are the thing now. kids aren't behind the bushes or in the bike sheds with a B&H in their mouth like they were when i were a lad (my poor mum got that dreaded phone call from the school cause i got busted!)

oh and good old rishi nicking a labour idea...i guess he has someone to blame if this falls flat on its face

[Demitri_C]

7 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

I only disagree on the word "save" being used instead of "extended."

"Saving lives" is a needlesly charged phrase and ultimately a pointless lie.    " Living a healthier/longer  life " has far less shock value I guess. 

Secondary smoking kills people too so i disagree with you on this one Brumerican and feel the wording saving lives is justified

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Demitri_C

[bickster]

4 hours ago, Anthony said:

• 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.
• Police powers to confiscate the above products from anyone under 16.
• Police powers to confiscate/seize any non conforming products at any point, including the national borders.
• Raise the age to 18.

Legal age is already 18 and has been since 2007, you are Rishi Sunak I claim my £5  

You also can’t be serious in getting the police involved in policing tobacco, that an insane waste of public money and public servants time. They already have flimsy enough reasons to stop and search.

[Demitri_C]

5 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

the UK took c.£10bn in tax revenue last financial year from tobacco. what will they tax to replace that income with? only about a quarter of that is saved from the NHS due to the elimination of tobacco related hospital admissions and deaths

they're also targeting the wrong group. it's not like it was 20 years ago. anyone who knows any teenagers will tell you that smoking simply isn't cool anymore...vapes are the thing now. kids aren't behind the bushes or in the bike sheds with a B&H in their mouth like they were when i were a lad (my poor mum got that dreaded phone call from the school cause i got busted!)

oh and good old rishi nicking a labour idea...i guess he has someone to blame if this falls flat on its face

This is a very good and key point and why i think it will never happen.  They will lose so much money on tax.

This is why i dont understand why they dont tax "weed smokers" might as well make money off them but make those with medical conditions exempt 

[tomav84]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

This is a very good and key point and why i think it will never happen.  They will lose so much money on tax.

This is why i dont understand why they dont tax "weed smokers" might as well make money off them but make those with medical conditions exempt 

think any potential ship has well and truely sailed on that one with this announcement as the british typically mix it with tobacco. its legalisation works in the US because they don't do that

[Brumerican]

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Secondary smoking kills people too so i disagree with you on this one Brumerican and feel the wording saving lives is justified

 

People who die from secondary smoke were going to die regardless. (A lot of people are killed by other drivers every single day so should we ban cars ?)

Their lives are unsaveable .  The only life variables that can be altered are quality and length . You can't SAVE a life as it is intrinsically joined to death.

You can shorten it , lengthen it , improve or worsen the quality of it but you can't save the logically unsaveable.

My only issue really is with the manipulative wording. It's deliberately provocative and simply impossible. 

 

[Demitri_C]

47 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

People who die from secondary smoke were going to die regardless. (A lot of people are killed by other drivers every single day so should we ban cars ?)

Their lives are unsaveable .  The only life variables that can be altered are quality and length . You can't SAVE a life as it is intrinsically joined to death.

You can shorten it , lengthen it , improve or worsen the quality of it but you can't save the logically unsaveable.

My only issue really is with the manipulative wording. It's deliberately provocative and simply impossible. 

 

I literally dont understand your example with  cars? Cars can kill people with a variety of factors, drink driving, tiredness reckless driving etc. Smoking however causes so many health issues and thats a personal choice. There is literally zero benefits of smoking.

Smoking kills fact. I mean unless you can persuade me that thwir are actual benefits of smoking?

Also its not "manipulating" its just stating well known facts. Smoking kills even the boxes tell you that

[Brumerican]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

I literally dont understand

Oh I can tell. It doesn't matter,  just enjoy the 2nd half.

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, Brumerican said:

Oh I can tell. It doesn't matter,  just enjoy the 2nd half.

Yeah lets carry on after

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

 There is literally zero benefits of smoking.

I suspect a lot of smokers would disagree, and cite how it relaxes them, and how they enjoy the social element of smoking. Not exactly compelling benefits to outweigh the downsides, but very few things have absolutely no benefits, if you look hard enough  

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Cars can kill people with a variety of factors, drink driving, tiredness reckless driving etc

Also, just because I think it's funny to reopen the ULEZ box, via air pollution, especially people who drive shitty old diesels  

[luckyeddie]

The problem is that people will look for an alternative to cigarettes to get the positives of smoking, and if no healthier alternative is available then all it does is push people towards illegal substances. Personally (as a non smoker) I think it is wrong to stop people over the age of 18 from smoking, the way forward is to stop the cigarette companies from adding multiple chemicals to the cigarettes which make them more addictive. If cigarettes were purely tobacco, then they would be easier to quit.

[chrisp65]

Could it be rolled out across other things?

A rolling minimum age for buying petrol? Eating meat? Using Facebook? Having a penis in a women’s prison?

It could be the answer to lots of problems.

[LondonLax]

10 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

This is a very good and key point and why i think it will never happen.  They will lose so much money on tax.

This is why i dont understand why they dont tax "weed smokers" might as well make money off them but make those with medical conditions exempt 

They are going lose most of that tax revenue anyway. Even without this policy the vast majority of the youth generation it impacts will never smoke. This just knocks off the last few stragglers who might have otherwise taken it up. 

[snowychap]

19 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.

Absolutely spot on.

[Demitri_C]

8 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I suspect a lot of smokers would disagree, and cite how it relaxes them, and how they enjoy the social element of smoking. Not exactly compelling benefits to outweigh the downsides, but very few things have absolutely no benefits, if you look hard enough  

Whats makes smoking more social? If you dont smoke it doesnt hinder you being about to socialise  you just do as you were without the cigarettes?

Relaxes them? Id you want to relax do yoga or meditation. Those are not benefits in my opinion. 

8 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Also, just because I think it's funny to reopen the ULEZ box, via air pollution, especially people who drive shitty old diesels  

Ha you know i was gonna mention this bit decided not as would bw off topic =D

[Seat68]

Not only does smoking make you look cooler and attractive to women, I was a lot happier when I smoked. So 3 benefits right there. 

[Demitri_C]

6 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Not only does smoking make you look cooler and attractive to women, I was a lot happier when I smoked. So 3 benefits right there. 

How does it make you look cooler

More attractive to women too

Edited October 6, 2023 by Demitri_C

[tinker]

If they can justify banning cigarettes then they can do the same with alcohol, which is just as destructive to society (if not more so) and shortens many peoples lives. Tobacco will still be available it will just be another branch of a drug dealers operation.

Banning things isn't the way forward, regulate and tax the lot,  drugs as well. 

Sunak is just spouting shite to try and remain relevant,  he's a moron leading other morons.