.. well said that man. I don't smoke, and never will.
But for Labour to obsessively and nastily carpet bomb one particular segment of society or to allow one man's sentiment to hold sway over another simply for vindictive and ideologically based reasoning (hunting ban?). I despise this g'ment more for stuff like this, than I do its relentless lying, spin, corruption and incompetence.
Here, here. And as for British airports, what on Earth was wrong with those cubicles they used to have, surrounded by air purifiers? It would have been possible to provide masks for the cleaners, thus avoiding any non-smoker from getting so much as a wiff. Seems better to me than making a large proportion of the travelling public even more edgy and irritable....
Location: The laughing stock of the rest of the world!
Age: 59
Posts: 157
Don't do this, don't that! Nanny state or what? If you had the chance, walk in to the house of commons bar, you will find our nannies drinking like fishes (duty free) and smoking...Do what I say, not what I do...
Last edited by Lightning6 : 20th September 2009 at 08:25.
He accused former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his successor Gordon Brown of interfering in his life and said: "I loathe them for it."
Smokers intefered with our lives for long enough, forcing us to take part in the filthy dangerous addiction by proxy. I'm sorry he misses been able to pollute his favourite cafe and the his fellow patrons but tough. Most people, mostly non smokers loathe smelling like an ashtray because certain people think 'their' rights supersede those of others.
This isn't a 'nanny state' or a civil rights issue, this was the only way to stop a minority spoiling a meal or a night out for the rest of us.
No sympathy for the man. Quit smoking and save your health and your money.
Would you suggest too, that people preserve their health by not joining up and being sent to Afghanistan.. where incidentally, our troops are fighting for the rights of women to smoke in bars.
The point he is making, is that he wants a dedicated smokers room. Would you object to even that? In the wider more intrusive context, what he does with his health, is surely, up to him?
I would put extra tax onto fags to fund smoker's medical healthcare. If someone wants to smoke, fine - but they must expect to pay for the consequences. The NHS is not a bottomless pit which pays out for self inflicted injuries.
Location: The laughing stock of the rest of the world!
Age: 59
Posts: 157
Quote:
Quit smoking and save your health and your money.
I quite agree, I'm not a smoker, but I object to politicians dictating to what I should or not do when they are guilty of the same offence.
I think you are missing my point...Why dictate to people health issues when you are not prepared to accept them yourself? It's the hypocrisy that bugs me.
Last edited by Lightning6 : 20th September 2009 at 09:06.
The elephant in the room is that tobacco is not a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and using it is legal.
Tobacco is universally available from millions of large and small retailers.
UK Tax revenue from tobacco products in 2006/7 was 10 billion pounds (8.1bn excise and 1.9bn VAT).
You cannot simultaneously both permit and forbid something.
If the Government really feel that strongly about the matter then they should have the courage of their convictions and ban the import of tobacco products into the UK and reclassify it as at least a Class C controlled substance.
Location: A civilised little County..with a bit of eccentricity to boot
Posts: 433
" I do wonder though, if on the other hand, we are all being turned into a nation of 'outraged!' people."
To judge from the rhetorical polemics one peruses, one can only muse that, in the case of some UK citizens, this has clearly been achieved with little or no effort on the part of the Gov't.
Then doesn't that make the impact of its relentless intrusions into our private lives even more damning, and not less? Unless of course, you think that what it is doing to whittle away freedom of choice and how we choose to live, is ok.
If you (or the govt) take the issue that as smoking is harmful and thus it should not be allowed at all in public then the government should then consider all pollution by the same degree and ban that. So - no vehicle pollution, no industrial pollution etc.
However - making these things zero pollution would be cost prohibitive. So the governments have picked on smoking to placate the health nazis whilst at the same time still being able to take the taxation dollars.
Second hand smoking may be irritating but the evidence that is 'causes' lung cancer is patchy at best.
As someone who occasionally smokes I would prefer to have certain areas of bars and clubs - or certain licensing to allow some bars and clubs to allow smoking.
If they can not allow this then I would suggest that all governments should ban all pollution forthwith and if they can not ban all pollution forthwith then they should give us beneficial tax cuts so we can increase our health insurance and such. Major polluters should be heavily taxed to cover healthcare etc until they achieve zero emissions.
Lung cancer (and lung disease in general) is most likely based on cumulative effects of not only tobacco smoke but genetic factors, other pollution including industrial, vehicle, environmental. It is pointless to effectively outlaw one form of pollution but not the others, it is unethical to happily take tax dollars from one form of pollution but not others.
The ban on smoking and the increasing tax is leading to more cigarette smuggling and so increasing organised crime and creating a trend to people buying cheap booze and staying in or finding places where they can smoke - outside the law.
This isn't good but the very vocal anti-smoking lobby has made sure that this will happen.
However when the governments in search of avoiding expenditure or creating more stealth tax target the next 'lifestyle' choice there will be few people ready to defend an individuals rights for an adult to pursue adult habits in an adult environment.
Location: The laughing stock of the rest of the world!
Age: 59
Posts: 157
Well said LT...If I have friends at home, they are quite welcome to smoke, if I say make yourself at home I mean it, mind you they normally choose to smoke outside out of courtesy...What next? ban alcohol from bars? Just as unhealthy...But nice.
I think the most important point is that we should all work to see that younger generations do not become addicted.
One of my kids is fighting to beat the problem. He handed his friend and neighbor $1,000 cash the other day. He'd lost a bet...a very expensive smoke. I really beat myself up about not monitoring him more carefully. His schools failure to stop the pupils from smoking was total. Nobody cared. Having started early, he is 300% more likely to die of cancer than someone that starts at 21.
It became the norm generations ago, and was self-fueling. The only way to protect children is to remove the images that trigger the initial problem. Yes, it's hard for smokers, but so vitally important.
It used to be that a cigar was more important to me than the meal. Going to Spain several times a week enabled me to get the best Cuban cigars for pennies. Giving up was very, very hard, but it had to be done.
I felt sorry for some folk in an American airport a while back. They'd been herded into a glass cube...it was thick with smoke and they were on display. Not one of them looked happy. They got their own back...the cube had no lid. Bizarre how daft some people are. I wonder what that glass room cost - lots I would think, the glass looked half inch thick. Probably run out of money and couldn't afford a lid.
he is 300% more likely to die of cancer than someone that starts at 21.
He's still 100% going to die whether he smokes or not. I'm in favour or a little extra longevity - IF it comes with a better quality of life. But I've noted watching relatives age & die and myself no longer running around like a spring lamb that you can not avoid death and age related illness of all types are an expensive bitch.
Governments don't have enough money to care for the populations they have now - living longer will need yet more tax or more savings to provide for ageing populations requiring more healthcare to cater for the many age related illnesses.
Savings that recently have disappeared in the credit crunch incidentally.
It is typical of the double standards of most governments that they continue to 'allow' smoking and tax it more and more heavily to make up for the lost revenue of lower consumption, whilst 'banning' it to appease the non smoking brigade. "You cannot simultaneously both permit and forbid something." ... but they have done so and of course it's unsustainable.
Only one government to my knowledge has taken the courageous and in my view correct step of banning the import and use of tobacco products totally, and that's Bhutan, which for various reasons is on my list of places to visit in the near future.
I'm an anti-smoking fascist, always have been, it's a detestable and filthy habit, harmful to the consumer and to everyone exposed to it. Arguments that cars and trucks and 'planes pollute are facile, since they are 'necessary' evils, although admittedly the degree of necessity is variable and debatable. Smoking is in no way a necessity, unless you are an addict. I find it odd that my smoking friends (all of two) say they could give up tomorrow if they wanted to, but they say they don't want to, even though they know, and one has had a graphic vision, of the harm it's doing to her. The other is totally flat broke to the extent that she doesn't eat properly but she still smokes 40 cigarettes a day. That's an addict.
"And as for British airports, what on Earth was wrong with those cubicles they used to have, surrounded by air purifiers? "
What was wrong with them was that they imposed an expense on everybody which was for the dubious benefit of the few who used them. And why should the cleaners have to go in and clean up the filthy residue of smokers?
On a lighter note, I used to have a sign in my office :
Quote:
I probably enjoy sex more than you enjoy smoking. As I don't screw in your office, please don't smoke in mine
That does sound as if you're half advocating smoking as a means of saving money...
In a vain attempt to save eight pages of pointless debate & eventual thread lock, especially in light of the fact that we do this debate at least twice a year...what it boils down to is whether or not you believe that:
a) It is a far sighted policy for the public good
b) It is unnaceptable compulsion on the part of the government.
It may be worth considereing that the NHS is provided for the public good and that the government has the remit to compel us to behave in certain ways in all aspects of our life; schooling, fighting in time of war etc. It's about where the line is drawn.
Smoking is in no way a necessity, unless you are an addict.
Isn't offsetting pleasure against necessity advocating a rather miserable existence? Isn't that like arguing that we should all value the price of something, but not the value? Using smoking as an excuse to further erode rights and freedoms is merely a smokescreen (yes, of course we want to lower NHS costs and improve a child's chance of growing up with grandparents).. why can't smokers gather together in a smoking room?
Freedom of Choice seems to be going by the wayside and although I detest smoking, I detest even more, the sight of, in 21st Century Britain, law abiding smokers huddling around pub doors in the rain and looking wretched and like criminals because they have been cast off for engaging in something lawful. This damned g'ment has put enough workers out on the streets, surely, without starting on other citizens as well.
I am always bemused when this subject comes up. Smokers rights have not changed, you can still buy and smoke as many cigarettes as you like.
The only thing that has changed is that now you are now not allowed to smoke in a public place and deliberately subject all those around you to the toxic and nauseous by products of your addiction.
I, for one am not quite sure how or why that is a bad thing
Linear Mode
