Also In The News - part 3

[Lionator]

13 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

So i have never smoked. Not even once. not even as a teenager. I cant stand it personally..

 

 

 

But i do question a governments right to tell you whether you can smoke or not. 

Do you think it should be legal for people to use cocaine or not? Or MDMA? (Not with standing the fact that it’s not policies)

[Lionator]

The only real reason smoking is being banned is that the balance has tipped where the consequential costs of smoking outweigh what the tobacco industry can contribute to the economy. 

[Dunge]

The fascinating thing to me about the ban or don’t ban debate for smoking is how many people seem to be taking the opposite view to what I’d put them on for drugs. ie A lot of people who would want cannabis and potentially more legalised and regulated seem to be the side of banning cigarettes, and vice-versa.

[MPH]

32 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Especially when that banning has a date of birth attached to it, so that their mates currently in industry aren't impacted by it.  Maybe i am being naive, but i am not aware of anything having a date of birth limit attached to it. Obviously an age limit makes sense, but once someone born in 2009 becomes an adult then they should be free to do whatever someone born in 1980 is free to do (or even someone born in 2008!). 

 

Funny, because whilst smoking is a personal choice, owning a filthy massive Diesel car can negatively impact mine and my families health which was no choice of mine. But mention ULEZ might actually be a good thing and you get called a Nazi. 

 

 

so i'm assuming that the reason this is all coming about is not actually that the government has a personal interest in an individuals health and well being but is more to do with a  concern that smoking related diseases  bring about a financial strain on the NHS.

 

But again, if the government are happy to take a national insurance contribution from you with no questions asked, i dont see how they can justify asking questions about your personal health choices..

[MPH]

32 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Do you think it should be legal for people to use cocaine or not? Or MDMA? (Not with standing the fact that it’s not policies)

 

Are you really putting smoking and cocaine in the same boat?

 

 

 

good grief..

[Finnegan]

57 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Do you think it should be legal for people to use cocaine or not? Or MDMA? (Not with standing the fact that it’s not policies)

 

I'm pretty much of the opinion that if it occurs in nature and people want to cultivate it, prepare it and use it for their own private consumption then the government probably has better things to do than tell them not to do it. 

 

Whether that's tobacco, marijuana, mushrooms, etc.

 

I'd extend that to the coca or poppy plant, personally given you're not going to find anyone out there in their own home or garden able to mass cultivate and prepare the volumes of either necessary to make  dangerous or profitable quantities of cocaine or opioids. 

 

Synthetic chemical drugs is obviously a different question entirely. 

 

Edited 17 April by Finnegan

[Greg2607]

53 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Smoking is neither cool nor sophisticated. It makes your breath, skin and clothes smell and costs lots of money. It bad for your health and is linked to things like lung and heart disease. Helping people have better habits like not eating so much junk food or getting exercise is what governments should be doing to help create a more productive citizens.

Same could be said for alcohol.  It can lead to Liver Cancer, Throat Cancer, makes you smell like a brewery the day after and poisons you to the point that you feel physically sick.  More than that it also impairs judgement and effects your motor abilities so that you can't walk straight or drive a car. It's also very expensive these days.  People become addicted to it and it impairs their ability to be a normal functioning part of society.  I'm relatively sure no-one has ever assaulted someone off the back of smoking too many cigarettes. 

 

 

 

[String fellow]

Cigarettes, from a different perspective.... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XewVicFzRxw

 

Edited 17 April by String fellow

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

 

So i have never smoked. Not even once. not even as a teenager. I cant stand it personally..

 

 

 

But i do question a governments right to tell you whether you can smoke or not. 

They aren’t telling you, your non-presence in the UK notwithstanding, they’re telling people far stupider than you - and there’s a fvckton of them. 
 

Smoking is more entrenched in socially deprived communities and those suffering from other forms of disadvantagement. Communities highly resistant to change and education. 
 

You aren’t having your right to smoke removed, your children’s children are having their right to buy preprepared and processed tobacco products removed. 
 

I don’t see the issue with this at all - beyond it being done in a cackhanded fashion. Should’ve raised the age of sale to 21 for 3-5 years then outright ban on tobacco sales. Plenty of time for people to ween off or quit. 

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, Daggers said:

They aren’t telling you, your non-presence in the UK notwithstanding, they’re telling people far stupider than you - and there’s a fvckton of them. 
 

Smoking is more entrenched in socially deprived communities and those suffering from other forms of disadvantagement. Communities highly resistant to change and education. 
 

You aren’t having your right to smoke removed, your children’s children are having their right to buy preprepared and processed tobacco products removed. 
 

I don’t see the issue with this at all - beyond it being done in a cackhanded fashion. Should’ve raised the age of sale to 21 for 3-5 years then outright ban on tobacco sales. Plenty of time for people to ween off or quit. 

 

I totally get what you are saying…  put you can’t take national insurance contributions from people for years and then later down the line  withhold care from people when they need it.

 

 

i mean, let’s be honest… this is what it’s all about. The financial strain on the NHS… if they make smoking illegal they can then  claim they have a legal right to explain why they withhold care for smoking related illnesses.

[Lionator]

50 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

Are you really putting smoking and cocaine in the same boat?

 

 

 

good grief..

my bad, tobacco is far worse than cocaine 😬😉

 

in all seriousness though, this is why it’s all a bit weird, like if you’re a true libertarian you’d surely want both tobacco and cocaine to be legal? And likewise if you’re big on harm reduction you’d ban both. But like @Dunge has suggested, it’s a bit of a mish-mash which to me indicates not a lot of political strategy from anyone really. 

[Daggers]

5 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

I totally get what you are saying…  put you can’t take national insurance contributions from people for years and then later down the line  withhold care from people when they need it.

 

 

i mean, let’s be honest… this is what it’s all about. The financial strain on the NHS… if they make smoking illegal they can then  claim they have a legal right to explain why they withhold care for smoking related illnesses.

I bless I’m seriously missing something - where is the removal of access to NhS services?

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

my bad, tobacco is far worse than cocaine 😬😉

 

in all seriousness though, this is why it’s all a bit weird, like if you’re a true libertarian you’d surely want both tobacco and cocaine to be legal? And likewise if you’re big on harm reduction you’d ban both. But like @Dunge has suggested, it’s a bit of a mish-mash which to me indicates not a lot of political strategy from anyone really. 

 

My concerns with cocaine are not so much someone’s personal choice ( even if I do consider it ‘ wrong’ myself), it’s the evidence that proves cocaine use , in general, can be linked with crime and criminal tendencies and violent behavior.

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I bless I’m seriously missing something - where is the removal of access to NhS services?

 

I believe this is what it will be linked to further down the line . a legal way to justify the withholding of care for smoking related illnesses.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese

 

Edited 17 April by MPH

[Daggers]

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

I believe this is what it will be linked to further down the line . a legal way to justify the withholding of care for smoking related illnesses.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese

 

Well, an old article in the Grauniad isn’t the basis for an objection to current policy. 
 

1. It’s bollocks. 

2. It can’t be implemented. 
 

Prove I’m a smoker and not the victim of secondhand smoke. 
 

You can’t. No one can. You can take CO readings but that still doesn’t prove anything. In fact, it’s cheaper to deliver treatment than to conduct testing to deny treatment. Plus, it’s not even on any party’s radar and fag sales will then be banned on a rolling basis. 
 

 

[bovril]

1 hour ago, foxy boxing said:

Smoking is neither cool nor sophisticated. It makes your breath, skin and clothes smell and costs lots of money. It bad for your health and is linked to things like lung and heart disease. Helping people have better habits like not eating so much junk food or getting exercise is what governments should be doing to help create a more productive citizens.

So does beer and all the disgusting takeaways that now dominate British high streets. At least smoking keeps you thin, God knows the Brits could do with losing weight.

 

The government should absolutely not be telling people what they can and can't enjoy in their private lives but unfortunately this is what I've come to expect from a country where people would rather simply ban stuff they don't like rather improving things by paying more tax or building stuff in their neighbourhoods. The puritan streak runs deep.

 

Also smoking is cool, in fact a cigarette and coffee is probably the pinnacle of world civilization. I don't want to deny my children one of the great joys in life - a morning cigarette on the terrace of ones country estate. 

Edited 17 April by bovril

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Well, an old article in the Grauniad isn’t the basis for an objection to current policy. 
 

1. It’s bollocks. 

2. It can’t be implemented. 
 

Prove I’m a smoker and not the victim of secondhand smoke. 
 

You can’t. No one can. You can take CO readings but that still doesn’t prove anything. In fact, it’s cheaper to deliver treatment than to conduct testing to deny treatment. Plus, it’s not even on any party’s radar and fag sales will then be banned on a rolling basis. 
 

 

it at least shows the opinions of some Doctors and a swell of opinion can bring about policy change.

 

 

and you are right as of right now it can’t be  implemented. And that’s because smoking is not illegal so no ban would stand up in court.

[Finnegan]

20 minutes ago, bovril said:

I don't want to deny my children one of the great joys in life - a morning cigarette on the terrace of ones country estate. 

 

[leatherhead32]

14 minutes ago, bovril said:

So does beer and all the disgusting takeaways that now dominate British high streets. At least smoking keeps you thin, God knows the Brits could do with losing weight.

 

The government should absolutely not be telling people what they can and can't enjoy in their private lives but unfortunately this is what I've come to expect from a country where people would rather simply ban stuff they don't like rather improving things by paying more tax or building stuff in their neighbourhoods. The puritan streak runs deep.

 

Also smoking is cool, in fact a cigarette and coffee is probably the pinnacle of world civilization. I don't want to deny my children one of the great joys in life - a morning cigarette on the terrace of ones country estate. 

best gaffa i ever had was mel brooks lookalike callled malc  , he sadly died soon after retirement and did smoke a lot , but he was in good shape and when he smoked he looked so relaxed i wanted to start , he enjoyed it but never looked desperate for one so on the back of that id say yeah you make great points and if anyone claims cheesecake gateaux and oven chips,  3 of my guilty pleasures are better than smoking  i very much doubt it and my waist would agree.  

[Scotch]

I was listening to Radio 2 in the car earlier and they were talking about the stag-do in Leeds were they all dressed up in Kurt Zouma kits and playfully kicked the groom, dressed as a cat, outside an animal welfare centre. 

 

The over-reaction to it was absolutely insane. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leatherhead32 said:

best gaffa i ever had was mel brooks lookalike callled malc  , he sadly died soon after retirement and did smoke a lot , but he was in good shape and when he smoked he looked so relaxed i wanted to start , he enjoyed it but never looked desperate for one so on the back of that id say yeah you make great points and if anyone claims cheesecake gateaux and oven chips,  3 of my guilty pleasures are better than smoking  i very much doubt it and my waist would agree.  

Mmmmm, cheesecake gateaux...

[Parafox]

5 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

I'm pretty much of the opinion that if it occurs in nature and people want to cultivate it, prepare it and use it for their own private consumption then the government probably has better things to do than tell them not to do it. 

 

Whether that's tobacco, marijuana, mushrooms, etc.

 

I'd extend that to the coca or poppy plant, personally given you're not going to find anyone out there in their own home or garden able to mass cultivate and prepare the volumes of either necessary to make  dangerous or profitable quantities of cocaine or opioids. 

 

Synthetic chemical drugs is obviously a different question entirely. 

 

 

Does that include the funding of treatment for addiction, illnesses caused by the "personal" use of naturally occurring addictive, mood/mind altering substances?

[Parafox]

5 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

so i'm assuming that the reason this is all coming about is not actually that the government has a personal interest in an individuals health and well being but is more to do with a  concern that smoking related diseases  bring about a financial strain on the NHS.

 

But again, if the government are happy to take a national insurance contribution from you with no questions asked, i dont see how they can justify asking questions about your personal health choices..

 

Paragraph one. Yes and has been for maybe 25 years. Is that a decent reason to regulate smoking more stringently? I'd say so.

 

Do you then think that the NI contribution is ringfenced for the health and wellbeing of our population? I'd say not. In the same way as road tax isn't spent on roads.

[Otis]

59 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Paragraph one. Yes and has been for maybe 25 years. Is that a decent reason to regulate smoking more stringently? I'd say so.

 

Do you then think that the NI contribution is ringfenced for the health and wellbeing of our population? I'd say not. In the same way as road tax isn't spent on roads.

What's that then?

 

I get your point, I'd imagine smokers are actually positive to the economy given the amount of tax paid and that they generally die earlier resulting in less pension years paid.

[Finnegan]

2 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

Does that include the funding of treatment for addiction, illnesses caused by the "personal" use of naturally occurring addictive, mood/mind altering substances?

 

Yes absolutely. 

 

I'm not sure how sarcastic to be because I'm not sure if you're asking genuinely or if it's a loaded question because you're trying to be clever. 

 

I'll assume the best and answer sincerely - billions of people around the world enjoy alcohol, gambling, junk food, computer games, sex and myriad substances responsibly without suffering with addiction. 

 

Addiction and compulsion comes in many forms and to many forms of stimulation and I will always happily see my taxes go to help vulnerable and ill people who are going to find themselves seeking out and accessing the sources of their addiction regardless of whether they're criminal or not. 

 

And hell, if you decriminalise and regulate more substances then the corporate taxes from the sale of those substances can probably be added to my own taxes to additionally find the education and support of users so less people do find themselves spiralling in to dangerous addictions.