Crumbs, I agree with dazh.
When this subject comes up the thing that amazes me most is just how f****** judgemental people are about others use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.
I mostly see people receptive to the idea of future generations of addicts being denied to tobacco companies.
When this subject comes up the thing that amazes me most is just how f****** judgemental people are about others use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.
Got any examples from this thread or you just yelling at clouds?
but the leave the rest of us to make our own decisions about how we live our lives
As alluded to above, smokers aren't the free-thinking rebels just "going their own way" you seem to think they are, they're weak-minded, easily manipulated people preyed on by huge multinationals who want to kill them for profit. And you think this is a good thing??! 😂
I think the ID issue will become a non issue. As smokers die out and fewer (illegally) start the number of customers for fags will reduce and a tipping point will be reached where retailers decide the hassle of stocking them isn't worth the income. Supply will reduce and fags will become even less visible hastening their decline.
Personally I think vapes should also be included in the rolling ban.
And yes this smoking ban policy is the most lunatic, unworkable, ill-thought out policy since Theresa May came up with the dementia tax
i mean it seems quite simple to me. Am I missing something?
fixed odds betting machines next anyone?
Were those petty tyrants in the SNP involved in this? It smacks of being one of their nutjob policies. Where does this lead up to, 'MAID' in my pretty cynical opinion.
Vote freedom!
It is supported across all four nations, by all parties.
Got any examples from this thread or you just yelling at clouds?
"they’re weak-minded, easily manipulated people"
See above, and many comments like it. Every smoker I've ever met (including myself) chose to begin smoking of their own accord, then continued because they liked it. Many have also given up (including myself), again because they chose to for a variety of reasons (none of them included being victims of evil multinational companies). A small minority (mostly from my parent's generation) are addicts and can't stop and need help. Same goes for alcohol etc. This view of smokers/drinkers/drug users as mindless drones being exploited by malign influences is a fantasy borne of superiority and self-justification. Has it occured to you guys that maybe people just like consuming these things because they derive some benefit from it?
or so you think. [I]Everyone[/I] believes they're immune to advertising, etc, but if that were the case then companies would not spend such huge amounts of money on it! They have spent fortunes convincing young people that smoking is "cool", and it absolutely has paid off many many times over for them.chose to begin smoking of their own accord
Every smoker I’ve ever met (including myself) chose to begin smoking of their own accord, then continued because they liked it.
How old were you when you started?
And how old were the majority of smokers you know when they started?
Would you say they were fully formed adults with the maturity to make the decision to start something with addictive qualities, an addictive quality that was most likely going to follow them around for the rest of their lives?
or so you think. Everyone believes they’re immune to advertising, etc
So what if they are? We're all motivated by outside influences in everything we do, but we still ultimately have agency (and responsibility) to make our own decisions. Just because you're congratulating yourself at being able to resist some of these influences doesn't give you the right to impose your opinion on others who can make their own decisions.
You're the one "congratulating yourself" about your singular resolve and having a handle on a substance that others sadly can't escape the grip of and wish they'd never taken up.
You’re the one “congratulating yourself”
No I'm suggesting that the majority of smokers smoke out of choice rather than because they're victims of tobacco companies. Those who are addicted and want/need help to stop should of course get it. It's their choice though, just as taking it up was. It shouldn't really be anyone else's business.
This is all getting too personal and unnecessary. Sorry for joining in.
A change of angle...
In the debate, one Conservative MP spoke against the bill saying that we should be turning young people into "warriors" and that this bill goes against that. Sounded quite bonkers to me... I'll look for a clip...
EDIT: Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley... dodgy local press website has the quotes and video here.
Just because you’re congratulating yourself at being able to resist some of these influences doesn’t give you the right to impose your opinion on others who can make their own decisions.
The only people who are going to be affected by the law are currently 14-15 years old. Can we at least agree that they are not really ready to decide whether to start smoking or not?
It could be this law has absolutely no effect on the numbers who start smoking. I'm struggling to see what the risks of trying are though. There is plenty of time to observe the effects and roll back if any unforeseen things are happening.
Even if you just wanted to increase the starting age from 18 to 21 this seems like the most sensible way of doing it, rather than suddenly making a bunch of 19 and 20 year old addicts unable to buy cigarettes legally.
The only people who are going to be affected by the law are currently 14-15 years old. Can we at least agree that they are not really ready to decide whether to start smoking or not?
Of course we can. But there's no reason to continue preventing them from smoking when they reach adulthood. Banning adults from doing stuff they like doesn't work, it's as simple as that and we have more than enough evidence of that fact.
Banning adults from doing stuff they like doesn’t work,
Most adults who start smoking don't like it and don't continue. If the tobacco companies don't get kids to take it up before they are 20 they have pretty much lost that customer forever.
Not true for alcohol, mushrooms, MDMA, etc. You can take those up pretty much anytime in your life because they are actually quite good drugs.
I don't see anything wrong with exploring ways of reducing the number of children who take up smoking. This isn't a blanket ban and it's being introduced in the most sensible way possible.
And if, after 3 years, we have seen a massive increase in the black market for cigarettes then the law can be looked at again.
Like I said, it seems like it's worth trying and there are very few risks involved. As far as I can see it's nothing to get worked up about.
"others sadly can’t escape the grip of and wish they’d never taken up."
Is that your view @kelvin or is it from elsewhere? BITD you could certainly be given nicotine chewing gum via the NHS to help with stopping, does anyone know if that's still the case?
dazh is right in that "it shouldn't be anyone else's business" and it does concern me that (most) folk on here have such an intolerant attitude. Why? Because you stopped smoking? Does it give you rights?
What an enlightening thread!
No I’m suggesting that the majority of smokers smoke out of choice rather than because they’re victims of tobacco companies. Those who are addicted and want/need help to stop should of course get it. It’s their choice though, just as taking it up was. It shouldn’t really be anyone else’s business.
A recent survey suggested 53% of all smokers try to quit per annum and 75% relapse in 6 months. Not victims of tobacco companies per se but the addictive nature of the product they sell.
PS I’m a ex smoker (saved over £73k on cigarettes since giving up) and support the right for people to make choices.
I don’t see anything wrong with exploring ways of reducing the number of children who take up smoking.
Me neither, but we already have ways of doing that. I wouldn't for instance object to raising the minimum age to 21 and would (probably) support a blanket ban on flavoured vapes etc.
This isn’t a blanket ban and it’s being introduced in the most sensible way possible.
It is if you're under 14 as you won't legally be allowed to smoke. This is why it'll never work, what are they going to do, issue smoking licences? Great, lets spend even more money on bureacracy when public services are crumbling. 🙄
This is why it’ll never work, what are they going to do, issue smoking licences?
No, they are going to ID people. Same as they do now.
Again, not sure what the issue is. If you are in favour of raising the age to 21 anyway then you are getting what you want in the most sensible way possible (although vapes should also be included, I agree).
Why not wait until 2030 when the current crop turn 21 and we have a better idea of what the effects are before declaring the whole thing a disaster?
I suspect that the Conservatives have chosen this method because it's cheap above all else.
What an enlightening thread!
indeed, its brought out the weirdest alliances you wouldnt expect...
If you don’t want to smoke, drink, take drugs and eat shit food then very well done, but the leave the rest of us to make our own decisions about how we live our lives.
Given that the likelihood of obesity is 4 times greater in the most deprived compared to the least deprived areas & that smoking shows similar ratios, do you really believe that people are completely free to choose these things. Are poor people just spectacularly bad at making a judgement about what is good for them? If so do we just leave them to it. Sounds a particularly Tory viewpoint to me. Is there something you aren't telling us daz?
I didn't expect this thread to be quite the hand grenade it's become! This amused me though...
I watched Peaky Blinders and really wanted a roll up.
Me and Mrs Bloke seldom drink spirits, but we adopted a tradition of always having a whisky whenever we watched Peaky Blinders.
Are poor people just spectacularly bad at making a judgement about what is good for them? If so do we just leave them to it.
It's this sort of patronising snobbish bollocks that I'm talking about. Poor people are perfectly capable of making the same decisions you make. The difference is that they might not have the means to consume the nice stuff you do or have a nice fulfilling middle class life which doesn't tempt them to seek a bit of escapism in the form of a cig, a few pints or a crack pipe. If you're so concerned about the health and welfare of poor people how about we make them less poor rather than passing judgement on their personal consumption preferences.
No, they are going to ID people. Same as they do now
Because that works so well at the moment and there is no underage smoking or shops that sell them to underage kids with impunity. Who is going to have the time or resources to actually enforce this new version of the law any better than the current arrangement which doesnt work.
It’s this sort of patronising snobbish bollocks that I’m talking about.
OK. We’ll just let the poor alone to be exploited by drug dealers & tobacco companies.
Conversely I am supportive of the legalisation of cannabis, so that’s seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in my thinking.
You don’t need to smoke cannabis to consume it. You can either vaporize the herb, without the addition of any other chemicals, eat it in the form of sweets(it seems very irresponsible to me to make chocolate and gummy bears out of cannabis) or take it in a liquid.
anything to try to stop children smoking is a good idea in my lofty opinion
I suspect that the Conservatives have chosen this method because it’s cheap above all else.
I suspect you are right... the conservatives see this for what it is, an easy/free win for them as the numbers of tobacco smokers are on the decline for many reasons, price of tobacco, health concerns and it not beeing seen as fasionable or cool any more I suspect being the main drivers, with this ban being almost anecdotal.
It does allow the goverment to say 'look how good we are! the numbers of smokers are falling due to our tough stance on protecting public health!!!!!!.'
They are falling anyway but it just gives them an easy way to claim some sort of win. It's no more complicated than that, IMO.
We’ll just let the poor alone to be exploited by drug dealers & tobacco companies.
Yeah lets not address the root problem but instead tell them they can't do some stuff because it's not in their own interests. What other risky stuff are you going to ban them from doing? Mountain biking? Driving? Crossing the road? Perhaps they need chaperones to make sure they're living their lives properly and safely?
PS. If you seriously think people take drugs and smoke solely because of the influence of advertising or shady 'drug pushers' then you should probably get out a bit more.
