(Idea) - Doctors vote for ban on UK cigarette sales to those born after 2000

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by justMe7, Jun 24, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    It's an interesting concept and I can understand their position. There is an extremely high percentage of people who smoke, especially young kids. It's worrying. So I can understand where their heart is.

    However, the idea that we can effectively neuter our culture and people of their freedom and ability to make a choice is more concerning. It's again, a horrible destructively numb blurry method that only fortifies these methods as being superior in the range of possibilities. Effectively it is saying that society is too weak to inform and connect with people, especially teenagers/young adults. It also suggests that it is not possible to educate individuals of our society so they can mature as free thinkers who are aware and can actively look after themselves.

    It's aggressive, and authoritative in you needing to be looked after. Which is entirely incorrect. We have this issue today, it's something we need to evolve out of. Where we cannot, are the areas we need to effectively connect with in order to nurture the issue so people feel comfortable enough to look after their lives. Maybe so that people care more about their futures and are not so stuck in the moment or short term. It's a social issue, and you don't permanently blanket people from a choice like this. It does a disservice to those individuals, and puts them "Under the wing of the government" which is a fucking stupid thing to do. Ps. If someone chooses to smoke, and they know the issues... that's their choice. It's your body, it's your life, it's your choice. The main issues are the pressures, be it social circles to society pulls, or stress reliefe. All bi-products of something else primarily.

    I agree it's a deadly serious issue, but I am shocked by the approach. JMO. It's an interesting read in anycase.
  2. Perfect Melancholy

    Perfect Melancholy SF Friend

    Cancer research uk the leading cancer charity has had to devote much needed research funds into campaigning for plain packaging a victory they only just own after backing down due to lobbying from the big firms. Now I smoked when I was 12 started properly at 15 still smoke, and have asthma and ongoing medical issues.

    Lung cancer which smoking can be directly linked to has the highest death rate, only 8% diagnosed May survive five years or more. The treatment is aggressive and in most instances invasive surgery is needed.

    Energies better focused on civil freedoms like applying a living wage to those on the lowest income in the uk, just my opinion

    So while I know you talk about freedom and I respect that fully, I am all for this. Why in 2014 people can do something (including myself) which causes untold damage legally is beyond me.
  3. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Because you can...
    Better ban suicide? I hear that's devastating. Or perhaps car driving, because of the accidents that happen? Yes it's challenging and a drain on society, but compromising our freedom is not acceptable, even when it hinders "overall" productivity and progression. If you ignore that, you might aswell get a guide book to life that someone else writes up.

    "smoking is bad for you, hence it is illegal".

    Freedom is vital. If you justify taking that away, you steal and interfere in peoples lives. It is happening all the time, and this is a push to get it more mainstream. I am truly sorry to say this, as I fundamentally agree in a difference of opinion. But you are so very wrong. In my opinion of course. But I will never agree with taking away someones freedom, especially in an method like this. We need to refine information and the reality of smoke to people, not outright take their choice away from people. And place them in the "Ban bracket". You really want to be a party of being the generation that helped create the "Ban generation of 2000"?
  4. Perfect Melancholy

    Perfect Melancholy SF Friend

  5. youRprecious!

    youRprecious! Antiquities Friend

    interesting debate - both sides contain worthy considerations. If those born after 2000 are determined to smoke, for whatever reason, they will find a way somehow - but societies who legally allow damaging substances to be readily available with no constraints cannot expect to be considered as caring. No one would say it is a freedom we have to go out and engineer a car wreck or a shooting spree - and it is impossible to legislate against such. But we care about them hugely as human beings,.... why can't care be shown for the health/betterment of the young in a way that legislation can provide?
  6. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Guest

    Unfortunately, freedom is largely an illusion anyway. If the state doesn't constrain behavior, then some other factor will. The libertarian view doesn't acknowledge that the world is filled with bosses. If government declines to be the boss, then most people find themselves kowtowing to private honchos of some kind or another.

    I agree that limits on government power are needed. And if a smoking ban is to be enforced in the way the USA pursued its century-long "war on drugs," then I would say keep cigarettes legal. However, as Perfect Melancholy says, lung cancer = death, basically. Tobacco would never get FDA approval if it were a new consumer product. It's only been "grandfathered" in. And I think tobacco is on its way out, very gradually.

    For the addicted, Nicotine will probably be available in non-tobacco forms like the gum and the "e-cigarette." But I can see a day when either cigarettes aren't on store shelves, or else you won't be able to smoke them anywhere at all even if you can buy them. I think a ban is reasonable, if it is phased in over time. There are a lot of farmers, tobacco plant workers, retailers, and investors who would be affected, besides the smokers. But if given five years notice that the game is changing, they will have time to adjust.
  7. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Perhaps then you guys should look into who you are and what you are. And I hope you realize no one owns you, and we do not own others. We work together, that is how it is supposed to work. Despite our corruptions, our lies, our justificational distortions, we are free. If you do not realize this, then I wish you the best on your journey. If you accept you are underneath someone, then I long for the day you feel and know freedom for whatever you are. If you don't care, that's fine. But before you start spreading your opinions about how other people should live their lives, I expect you to respect the freedom that is the aspect to who we all are. If you do not, you will be challenged. However futile it is on a forum, you do not have the right to dictate life to another. Even if we do it continuously. This is the flaw of our cultures and nature.

    They need to think of better ways of connecting and letting people breathe so they give two shits about who they are. People tend to care about their lives when they feel free and can touch and shape their futures. People tend to not give a shit when they are confined and oppressed. Smoking is in part largely associated to ignorance and a lack of care when it comes to caring about your own body.
    People tend to care less about themselves when their dreams are halted, and they are increasingly drawn to things in the moment, just to feel "alive" or to fill a void.
    That's a good site. The major problem now is translating information to people in a method that they can relate and connect with. People have much more "worrying" in the moment issues which feed the dissociative mentality towards the effect(s) of smoking. it's about choice... So much is about choice when it comes to how you interact with life.
  8. youRprecious!

    youRprecious! Antiquities Friend

    I would say that EVERYTHING is about choice - even in prisons (of various sorts) - we can always choose our attitude.
  9. Cicada 3301

    Cicada 3301 Staff Member Safety & Support SF Supporter

    Discriminates against anyone born after year 2000. Would create a huge black market for cigarette sales to those born after 2000 and while its a respectable idea in theory, it will not work well in practice
  10. sweetles

    sweetles Well-Known Member

    I live in the US, where the legal age to use or purchase tobacco products has been 18 for decades. I do believe this has somewhat kept teenage smoking under control, as it is just more of a hassle, and also you have a couple of generations now of people accustomed to this law. But i think what has had an even larger impact on teen smoking is pop culture sending strong messages that smoking is not"cool." Between the highly successful truth.org campaign, young celebrities speaking out against smoking, and smoking being banned in most restaurants and even many bars and nightclubs, it has a produced a culture where smoking is viewed as an addiction and not a cool trend. People will protest against public smoking here the way they will demand vegan options at the local high school. It is trendy to be anti-smoking. Its shallow but it works, and i wonder if such an approach could be attempted in the UK?
  11. NYJmpMaster

    NYJmpMaster Have a question? Message Me Staff Member Forum Owner ADMIN

    I actually do not believe it will create a huge black market fo rcigarettes simply because the "enjoyment level" of smoking is very much unlike drugs - in fact most hate it the first few imes they try it so certainly would be no reason to continue to try to purchase and smoke illegally when you need to smoke relatively regularly over a period of time for an addiction and th e"good feeling" associated is simply the assuaging of the addiction.

    So far as being a freedom - many hundreds of things are illegal - like drugs as an example- and speeding - and wearing seat belts - and texting and driving etc etc etc These things do effect far more than the individual as they increase insurance rates or national costs on everybody so your freedom is outweighed by the fact that it has a negative impact on others that choose differently.

    The ONLY reason cigarettes are not illegal (in the US) is because the tobacco lobby owns enough of congress and both the federal and state governments depend on the billions in sin taxes from tobacco to keep running. No other company in the world would survive the lawsuits that would come about from a product that has side effects or normal use as directed that read like those on tobacco. There is not a medicine on the market that has nearly as bad a side effects - to include death- as a typical result of use as directed and it would never in a billion years be approved for use. If it were than the lawsuits would not be dismissed by the courts, the companies would be out of business.

    It is typical government double speak- where they claim want to eliminate but in fact are the biggest proponents as it reduces years of retirement payouts while increasing tax coffers by billions. In New York State there is over $5 of tax on EVERY PACK sold now. They cannot afford to give that money away - so they leave it legal even though the use is disproportionately lower income and people collecting social services payments. It is , much like the lotteries and scratch offs (also played disproportionately by extremely low incomes) a way devised by government to tax those least able to pay ... A pack a day cigarette habit , a $2 in scratch off tickets a day collects the same amount of tax in a year from somebody earning $1000/ month as a person making 40,000 a year with mortgage deduction pays....

    (by the way , as some here know - I am not an anti - smoker, I do in fact smoke half the time- this month I am in fact smoking- so I am not on a crusade - simple looking at why it is legal at all when really common sense says it should not be)
  12. Cicada 3301

    Cicada 3301 Staff Member Safety & Support SF Supporter

    Hi sweetles,

    In the UK the legal age for tobacco and alcohol products is 18. I agree that it has kept teenage smoking somewhat under control, plus there was a law passed in 2007 i believe, where its now illegal to smoke in public restaurants, bars, nightclubs, etc. It seems to have helped put the message across that smoking is not really cool anymore and there has been increased support through pharmacies, hospitals, and gp's, ads, and now e-cigarettes. I think it is working pretty well as the number of smokers in the UK has dropped under 20% now, but still a long way to go. There is also a law being proposed to standardise the packaging of all cigarettes, which i doubt will be passed but still a good move in the right direction.
  13. Cicada 3301

    Cicada 3301 Staff Member Safety & Support SF Supporter

    I agree that it is part to blame on government and the tobacco companies in the UK too. I think one of the bigger issues is how many people this effects every year. What is even worse is that it costs approx 5 billion a year to the NHS but the amount received from taxing the cigarettes comes in at around 10 billion. I too smoke, but i still find it somewhat surprising that cigarettes are still on the market when the risks associated with it are incredibly high.
  14. DrownedFishOnFire

    DrownedFishOnFire Quieta non movere

    Sweetles has a good point here in the US, less people are smoking those days. My coworkers used to smoke but now lesser numbers are smoking now. Bans have been in effect in my state for a couple of years no smoking within 15 ft of door or window of public place or face fine if cop catches you. It's a huge hassle for smokers to smoke in peace anywhere in public but in their car or home.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.