Smoking ban

[LiberalFox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68825322

 

Thought I'd make a seperate topic for this since it provoked some interesting debate.

 

I support the idea of not selling tobacco products. Whether this is the best way to do it I'm not sure, I feel like it would be better to just ban sales after a period of forewarning with current smokers encouraged to engage with the NHS in order to quit.

 

My overall position on substance abuse is that we should attempt to decriminalise as far as possible and treat the issue as partly a personal and partly a social one.

 

 

[Innovindil]

Legalise weed, ban tobacco. Everyones happy. 

 

Literally this easy to run the country folks. Sign me up. 

[MPH]

10 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68825322

 

Thought I'd make a seperate topic for this since it provoked some interesting debate.

 

I support the idea of not selling tobacco products. Whether this is the best way to do it I'm not sure, I feel like it would be better to just ban sales after a period of forewarning with current smokers encouraged to engage with the NHS in order to quit.

 

My overall position on substance abuse is that we should attempt to decriminalise as far as possible and treat the issue as partly a personal and partly a social one.

 

 

 

my concern with some of the harder substances is the link to domestic violence and crime.

[bovril]

Who you think of when you think of smoking weed - students, dropouts and dodgy men loitering on streets in south London.

 

Who you think of when you think of smoking tobacco - French intellectuals.

 

Rest my case. 

[MPH]

Instead of trying to ban smoking.. would it not be better to introduce regulations that reduce the ... potency? of the cigarettes to make it less damaging? or maybe to have regulations in place that reduce the nicotine levels to make it easier to quite should someone want to?

[Stadt]

It's already taxed heavily and fewer people smoke YoY anyway. It's a typically petty authoritarian Sunakite policy like forcing all A level students to study maths until 18.

 

It's and politics too because nobody is won over by this.

[LiberalFox]

11 minutes ago, MPH said:

Instead of trying to ban smoking.. would it not be better to introduce regulations that reduce the ... potency? of the cigarettes to make it less damaging? or maybe to have regulations in place that reduce the nicotine levels to make it easier to quite should someone want to?

I think there are already a lot of regulations involved around tobacco products. I don't think there's anything you could realistically do to make smoking less damaging that hasn't already been tried. 

 

What we've got is vaping which is a safer way to consume nicotine. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

If Liz Truss is against it, I'm for it!

[bovril]

18 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If Liz Truss is against it, I'm for it!

literally worst thing about this is that I'm agreeing with Liz Truss

[Leicesterpool]

As much as I agree with it, people will just ignore it. Like weed people will find places still to buy it.

 

Best way is just raise the prices further. If honest in the UK I don't think many smoke as much these days, it's more vaping... which I think is just as bad.

[Foxdiamond]

I doubt many people get to 18 and decide to take up smoking. I suspect the vast majority take it up in early teens and fully addicted by 18. Anything that makes it more difficult to take it up ok with me. Fortunately never wanted to smoke and my own peer group thought it was a naff idea to smoke so no pressure there. I'm in late 60s and in the first generation in childhood  when the threat to health caused by tobacco became fully known.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

I think there are already a lot of regulations involved around tobacco products. I don't think there's anything you could realistically do to make smoking less damaging that hasn't already been tried. 

 

What we've got is vaping which is a safer way to consume nicotine. 

 

I think having a law to reduce the amount of nicotine that is ADDED would be a great way to empower those who DO want to quit,  to manage to do so.

[grobyfox1990]

Proper headline grabbing nonsense policy. Price smoking and vaping to oblivion and let the market do its trick - I thought this was a conservative Govt!! This lot are more left-wing than Corbyn

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

Instead of trying to ban smoking.. would it not be better to introduce regulations that reduce the ... potency? of the cigarettes to make it less damaging? or maybe to have regulations in place that reduce the nicotine levels to make it easier to quite should someone want to?

No. Low nic cigarettes completely ignore the fact that individuals self-titrate until X amount of nicotine is in the blood stream. 
 

Ignorant politicians restricted the nic level of eliquid in the Tobacco Products Directive. It’s a completely arbitrary 20mg/ml that ignored evidence and was plucked from the ether. 
 

low nic cigarettes simple result in smokers smoking more, thereby increasing risk from disease. 
 

Nicotine does not cause cancer, the byproducts of combustion cause smoking related illness and death. The solution, therefore, is to eliminate the combustion…which has been done with vapes, snus and heat-not-burn. 

[Parafox]

46 minutes ago, Daggers said:

No. Low nic cigarettes completely ignore the fact that individuals self-titrate until X amount of nicotine is in the blood stream. 
 

Ignorant politicians restricted the nic level of eliquid in the Tobacco Products Directive. It’s a completely arbitrary 20mg/ml that ignored evidence and was plucked from the ether. 
 

low nic cigarettes simple result in smokers smoking more, thereby increasing risk from disease. 
 

Nicotine does not cause cancer, the byproducts of combustion cause smoking related illness and death. The solution, therefore, is to eliminate the combustion…which has been done with vapes, snus and heat-not-burn. 

 

Nicotine is dangerous and highly addictive chemical.  It can cause an increase in blood pressure, heart rate, flow of blood to the heart and a narrowing of the arteries which in turn, may lead to angina and possibly, a stroke or heart attack.. Nicotine may also contribute to the hardening of the arterial walls, (arterial sclerosis),

 

Sclerotic arteries increases the risk of blood clots (thrombi) forming and being carried in the circulation to other organs. Thrombi can block arterial and capillary circulation to the major organs such as the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and lungs as well as causing a DVT, or deep vein thrombosis which can be limb threatening.

 

It's not a "safe" thing. I appreciate you linked nicotine to not directly causing cancer, but there's lots more it does affect, physiologically.

Edited 17 April by Parafox

[jonthefox]

Freedom of choice is at stake here and that is why i'm against it. I honestly believe that if this is a sucess than it will lead to many limitations on daily life . Can you imagine the government issuing a two pint limit?.

[Unabomber]

So old people will be able to buy fags for younger folk anyway? 

[Parafox]

4 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

So old people will be able to buy fags for younger folk anyway? 

 

 

I would demand 25% commission on any purchase. I've got a lifestyle to maintain and the pension doesn't cut it. 

Edited 17 April by Parafox

[Daggers]

57 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Nicotine is dangerous and highly addictive chemical.  It can cause an increase in blood pressure, heart rate, flow of blood to the heart and a narrowing of the arteries which in turn, may lead to angina and possibly, a stroke or heart attack.. Nicotine may also contribute to the hardening of the arterial walls, (arterial sclerosis),

 

Sclerotic arteries increases the risk of blood clots (thrombi) forming and being carried in the circulation to other organs. Thrombi can block arterial and capillary circulation to the major organs such as the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and lungs as well as causing a DVT, or deep vein thrombosis which can be limb threatening.

 

It's not a "safe" thing. I appreciate you linked nicotine to not directly causing cancer, but there's lots more it does affect, physiologically.

I’ve no idea how many research papers you’ve read on the subject, I’ve read a horrible amount. It is absolutely not linked to angina, MIs or strokes. It is not primarily responsible for arterial wall hardening anymore than caffeine. 
 

The rest of your post leads directly on from the unsupportable presumptions that it does. 
 

If you want links I can provide them once I’ve landed back in the UK and had some sleep. 

[grobyfox1990]

30 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

So old people will be able to buy fags for younger folk anyway? 

Exactly, and an efficient pricing market should crop up for those of us born after 2009 to buy fags and charge a decent markup for those born after. That’s conservative 

[grobyfox1990]

37 minutes ago, jonthefox said:

Freedom of choice is at stake here and that is why i'm against it. I honestly believe that if this is a sucess than it will lead to many limitations on daily life . Can you imagine the government issuing a two pint limit?.

These left wing loons will be gone at the next election and a proper centrist like starmer and labour will be in, so I don’t think that’ll happen 

[Parafox]

17 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I’ve no idea how many research papers you’ve read on the subject, I’ve read a horrible amount. It is absolutely not linked to angina, MIs or strokes. It is not primarily responsible for arterial wall hardening anymore than caffeine. 
 

The rest of your post leads directly on from the unsupportable presumptions that it does. 
 

If you want links I can provide them once I’ve landed back in the UK and had some sleep. 

 

I haven't read "papers" but I made my post having looked at the effects of nicotine, albeit online:

 

How Smoking and Nicotine Damage Your Body | American Heart Association

 

Nicotine | Understanding Nicotine & Its Effects on Your Body (drugwatch.com)

 

www.verywellmind.com/nicotine-addiction-101-2825018

 

Clearly you're better informed than me but there is a definite link between nicotine and what I said in my post.

 

I think the links I have posted suggest that my points aren't "unsupportable presumptions".

 

I never claimed it was "primarily" responsible for strokes etc but can a contributary factor. As can be diet, alcohol, lifestyle etc.

 

I'm not that thick.

 

Edited 17 April by Parafox

[Zear0]

More bloody government interference in my daily life for the pathetic reason of keeping us alive.  First they stopped me drink driving, then drug driving and now this?  Freedom of choice utterly down the swanny.

 

Need a goldfish license to go with my gun license next.

Edited 17 April by Zear0

[SystonFox]

I don’t know how one can afford the habit anyway. 
 

£20 for a box nowadays is it? That lasts a day? Sheesh some guys be on dollar bills yall

[Daggers]

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

I haven't read "papers" but I made my post having looked at the effects of nicotine, albeit online:

 

How Smoking and Nicotine Damage Your Body | American Heart Association

 

Nicotine | Understanding Nicotine & Its Effects on Your Body (drugwatch.com)

 

www.verywellmind.com/nicotine-addiction-101-2825018

 

Clearly you're better informed than me but there is a definite link between nicotine and what I said in my post.

 

I think the links I have posted suggest that my points aren't "unsupportable presumptions".

 

I never claimed it was "primarily" responsible for strokes etc but can a contributary factor. As can be diet, alcohol, lifestyle etc.

 

I'm not that thick.

 

Sources from the States such as the AHA are compromised through their funding and the pressure being brought to bear across the country in relation to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. This means that statements put out and much of the USA’s research is completely unreliable - with a number of papers already being pulled by the publishing journals. 
 

There is not “clearly” a link between nicotine and the issues you cited, hence my rebuttal. I’ve just landed and got home so I’ll root out links to actual studies and British commentary tomorrow, should that be required. 
 

In the meantime, this: 

https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/nicotine--no-more-harmful-to-health-than-caffeine-.html

 

I’d caution anyone wishing to venture an opinion on the subject to stick to British journals, public health organisations and independent researchers. 
 

*this is kinda my day job