Smoking ban

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Red Czechs?

 

 

 

Commies!

[MustardTiger]

Good news! Cigarette Juice!

[guest123]

23 hours 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.

 

 

That ain't very liberal 

 

Stupid law, unenforceable and where does it stop? give us an alcohol allowance or sugar allowance?

[foxile5]

1 hour ago, guest123 said:

That ain't very liberal 

 

Stupid law, unenforceable and where does it stop? give us an alcohol allowance or sugar allowance?

You're already sugar taxed. The real piss boiler in all of that? They put up the sugar free drinks to align with the sugar taxed drinks in most places. Taxed for sugar. Taxed for not.

[guest123]

12 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

You're already sugar taxed. The real piss boiler in all of that? They put up the sugar free drinks to align with the sugar taxed drinks in most places. Taxed for sugar. Taxed for not.

I didn't say tax, I said allowance.

[LiberalFox]

Bring back rationing! 

Edited 18 April by LiberalFox

[Parafox]

18 hours ago, Daggers said:

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

 

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to undermine anything you said in your OP. I was suggesting that nicotine is dangerous based on what I'd read and on anecdotal evidence, which I admit isn't a reliable source of "facts". 

 

Having subsequently looked at links online I found those that I posted which seemed to support my contention that nicotine had wider ranging health risks than simply addiction.

 

However, I have read the link you posted and I agree that the proof is there in the research that nicotine is "not dissimilar to caffeine addiction".

 

It refers to other health risks without being specific. I do wonder then, why those links I posted suggest that nicotine is a potential cause of arterial sclerosis and high blood pressure which are contributary factors in strokes and heart heart attacks.

 

I'm not trying to be clever. And as far as I was concerned, I wasn't making "unsupported presumptions" as you suggested. I took time to look into the wider range of illnesses that could be attributed to nicotine. I concede that the source of nicotine was previously and primarily through cigarette smoking and that the process of combustion resulted in harmful chemicals being given off.

 

I have looked further today and our very own BHF says this, which pretty much refutes what I found yesterday:

 

Nicotine, while highly addictive, is not a significant health hazard for people without heart conditions. It does not cause acute cardiac events or coronary heart disease, and is not carcinogenic. But nicotine is a problem for people with heart disease.

 

Thanks for your knowledgeable responses. Hope you slept well. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 18 April by Parafox

[FLAN]

Won’t this ban just create a huge black market?

[grobyfox1990]

7 hours ago, FLAN said:

Won’t this ban just create a huge black market?

Hopefully. Be some good money to be made. And that is the British way 

[fox_up_north]

I think the comparisons to 1920s Prohibition are unjustified.

 

The Temperance Movement of the time didn't reflect the whole of the US. Some of it pit Protestant/ Puritan values in the south against more Catholic influences in the North East. There was no real national consensus on alcohol and the Volstead Act had mixed success.

 

Where states remained largely dry, they were culturally more inclined to do so. Some states bad prohibition statutes on the books, in some form, for years after 1930. 

 

This attempted ban is part of a long, broader cultural trend against smoking. Rates are very, very low but I would say that I don't think the ban itself will change things.

 

As others have said, better to tax it and just keep it as a social pariah. Education is always better than restriction. 

[ozleicester]

On 18/04/2024 at 14:59, Babylon said:

Ban them from NHS care and say they need a separate insurance policy to cover any future care. Soon have loads quitting. 

As long as we ban meat eaters from it due to Bowel cancer and alcohol drinkers from it, and people who live in cities.. etc..etc

[guest123]

9 hours ago, FLAN said:

Won’t this ban just create a huge black market?

It won't create one, it will grow the huge one already here

[guest123]

24 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

As long as we ban meat eaters from it due to Bowel cancer and alcohol drinkers from it, and people who live in cities.. etc..etc

exactly my point earlier, once we start something like this, where does it end?