Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
Is it yet another nanny state proposal - or the best that any government can do to protect its citizens from harm? Much like control of class A/B and prescription drugs.
For those who would argue - it's nanny state - I would counter with - my right not to be harmed by your actions. Let's face it, you could argue that murder is illegal and call that nanny state because the state won't let you do it.
Your thoughts?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'The proposed bill on smoking has not been approved by parliament yet, but will appear in front of MPs in the Commons on 16 April. The legislation is expected to pass, as the plan has the support of the Labour Party, but Mr Sunak could still face a rebellion from the right wing of his own backbenchers.' ___________________ I have never smoked, my husband gave up 20 years ago. I support the proposal. We have known since the 20s that smoking caused ill health. Since the late 50's the direct connection with smoking and death was generally agreed upon by the medical profession. It affects you, your family and those around you. 'Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS £2.5 billion every year, equivalent to 2% of the health service's budget. @ 1 Mar 2021' Not to mention the addition to global warming with all those heated exterior smoking decks.
Is it yet another nanny state proposal - or the best that any government can do to protect its citizens from harm? Much like control of class A/B and prescription drugs.
For those who would argue - it's nanny state - I would counter with - my right not to be harmed by your actions. Let's face it, you could argue that murder is illegal and call that nanny state because the state won't let you do it.
Your thoughts?
"Vaping should also be included (if it isn't - I haven't read the details as it doesn't affect anyone I know). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any statistics on impact of sugars and processed foods which are contributing to 37% population overweight and 26% obese. Cost estimated at £98bn annually which includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society. " I agree, it needs debating too, but as this legislation is before the House on the 16th that is what I wanted this thread to be about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? " So it's not that bad? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?" obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things" As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?" Tobacco duty tax receipts standing iro £9.8 billion a year, four times the reported cost to the nhs If it’s bad, ban it, and find the tax elsewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'? Tobacco duty tax receipts standing iro £9.8 billion a year, four times the reported cost to the nhs If it’s bad, ban it, and find the tax elsewhere. " Exactly what the Proposed Legislation is doing.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The crux of the matter is really about primacy, meaning what is most important ? . Allowing personal freedoms, even if they impact on the individual or others, or protecting the individual (and others) by restricting said freedoms. What takes primacy here ? . Any of the negatives you can level at smoking, you can also level at alcohol. If anything you could level more charges against alcohol than tobacco. . Why is there no ban for alcohol then ?. Because you cannot apply one, without the other. That's called hypocrisy and double-standards. . Personally, as a libertarian, I'd prefer both to have a suitable tax element which pays for the cost of treatment where needed. . Mountaineering. That's dangerous. People get stuck. Fall down. Break legs. But that's their choice. I want them to have that freedom to enjoy their hobby. And I am happy to pay my share of tax to keep the NHS running to help them if needed. . Because the minute I say, "I don't want to pay for these people to indulge in their hobby, they have every right to judge me for mine and refuse to pay for my hobbies too. . Is that where we wish to go as a society ? " Smoking isn't mountaineering or having one too many doughnuts, it only exists to generate profits for tobacco companies while deliberately DELIBERATELY trying to kill it's consumers. In 50 years time people will look back and wonder why in hell it was ever allowed or tolerated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The crux of the matter is really about primacy, meaning what is most important ? . Allowing personal freedoms, even if they impact on the individual or others, or protecting the individual (and others) by restricting said freedoms. What takes primacy here ? . Any of the negatives you can level at smoking, you can also level at alcohol. If anything you could level more charges against alcohol than tobacco. . Why is there no ban for alcohol then ?. Because you cannot apply one, without the other. That's called hypocrisy and double-standards. . Personally, as a libertarian, I'd prefer both to have a suitable tax element which pays for the cost of treatment where needed. . Mountaineering. That's dangerous. People get stuck. Fall down. Break legs. But that's their choice. I want them to have that freedom to enjoy their hobby. And I am happy to pay my share of tax to keep the NHS running to help them if needed. . Because the minute I say, "I don't want to pay for these people to indulge in their hobby, they have every right to judge me for mine and refuse to pay for my hobbies too. . Is that where we wish to go as a society ? " 76,800 people didn't die mountaineering last year, or the year before that, or the year before that, or actually EVER to date in the UK. There is no comparison whatsoever in the idea that one illustrates the other as a fair comparison !!! Also. Proper training and education can teach would be mountaineers to be safer mountaineers. You CANNOT teach a smoker of carcinogenic products to be a safer smoker.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assume this is about slowly increasing the age at which you can but tobacco products? How about after a certain point in the future the NHS refuses medical treatment required as a result of a lifestyle choice (to smoke). You want to smoke then don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your medical treatment. Best take out private medical insurance! But good luck with affording the premiums for smokers." Do you know how much smokers contribute to the taxman? When I was around 18, I worked in a Petrol station where cigarettes were sold and I seem to remember a pack of 20 costing around £2.50 I believe these days they're around £12 - £13 - much of which is due to tax hikes over the years as smokers have often been the targets of tax hikes - along with drivers and drinkers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The crux of the matter is really about primacy, meaning what is most important ? . Allowing personal freedoms, even if they impact on the individual or others, or protecting the individual (and others) by restricting said freedoms. What takes primacy here ? . Any of the negatives you can level at smoking, you can also level at alcohol. If anything you could level more charges against alcohol than tobacco. . Why is there no ban for alcohol then ?. Because you cannot apply one, without the other. That's called hypocrisy and double-standards. . Personally, as a libertarian, I'd prefer both to have a suitable tax element which pays for the cost of treatment where needed. . Mountaineering. That's dangerous. People get stuck. Fall down. Break legs. But that's their choice. I want them to have that freedom to enjoy their hobby. And I am happy to pay my share of tax to keep the NHS running to help them if needed. . Because the minute I say, "I don't want to pay for these people to indulge in their hobby, they have every right to judge me for mine and refuse to pay for my hobbies too. . Is that where we wish to go as a society ? Smoking isn't mountaineering or having one too many doughnuts, it only exists to generate profits for tobacco companies while deliberately DELIBERATELY trying to kill it's consumers. In 50 years time people will look back and wonder why in hell it was ever allowed or tolerated" What do you mean deliberately trying to kill people? It's something which gives people a high along with some risky side effects. Same with alcohol. Mountaineering is also a risky activity. There are numerous day to day activities which increase the risk in one's lives. Do we want to ban them all just because the treatment is paid for by tax payers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assume this is about slowly increasing the age at which you can but tobacco products? How about after a certain point in the future the NHS refuses medical treatment required as a result of a lifestyle choice (to smoke). You want to smoke then don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your medical treatment. Best take out private medical insurance! But good luck with affording the premiums for smokers. Do you know how much smokers contribute to the taxman? When I was around 18, I worked in a Petrol station where cigarettes were sold and I seem to remember a pack of 20 costing around £2.50 I believe these days they're around £12 - £13 - much of which is due to tax hikes over the years as smokers have often been the targets of tax hikes - along with drivers and drinkers. " I do and that is one reason it has taken so long for the UK Govt to take action against smoking because the Treasury receives more in tax from tobacco sales than they have to pay out for NHS treatment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assume this is about slowly increasing the age at which you can but tobacco products? How about after a certain point in the future the NHS refuses medical treatment required as a result of a lifestyle choice (to smoke). You want to smoke then don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your medical treatment. Best take out private medical insurance! But good luck with affording the premiums for smokers." It would certainly take pressure off the NHS. It would open the door for refusing treatment for similar reasons. Drug users. People who drink too much. People who chose to eat too many cakes. People who decided to play sports and similar activities. People who drive cars and ride bikes. People who chose to have multiple sex partners. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?" if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres obviously always going to be two sides Those that smoke and those that don't. " Does there have to be though? Its not suggesting stopping those that smoke already. Its only suggesting making it illegal for future generations to start. So where is the threat to current smokers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres obviously always going to be two sides Those that smoke and those that don't. Does there have to be though? Its not suggesting stopping those that smoke already. Its only suggesting making it illegal for future generations to start. So where is the threat to current smokers? " There isnt one, it seems to be a matter of "principle" or "freedom" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres obviously always going to be two sides Those that smoke and those that don't. Does there have to be though? Its not suggesting stopping those that smoke already. Its only suggesting making it illegal for future generations to start. So where is the threat to current smokers? There isnt one, it seems to be a matter of "principle" or "freedom"" Then surely the 2 sides are those that believe in the principal of the law vs those that believe in the freedoms and nothing to do with smokers vs non smokers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No man is an island. Smoking has an impact on everyone. And if the state is providing the medical back up, its reasonable (in principal) for it to legislate. We need some sensible principals. I see no reason why smoking is being phased out, and some drugs are illegal, when alcohol is acceptable. Sugar and diet is an odd one as we need food, whereas smoking is a choice from day 1. " We don't need sugar - tax the fucker  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The crux of the matter is really about primacy, meaning what is most important ? . Allowing personal freedoms, even if they impact on the individual or others, or protecting the individual (and others) by restricting said freedoms. What takes primacy here ? . Any of the negatives you can level at smoking, you can also level at alcohol. If anything you could level more charges against alcohol than tobacco. . Why is there no ban for alcohol then ?. Because you cannot apply one, without the other. That's called hypocrisy and double-standards. . Personally, as a libertarian, I'd prefer both to have a suitable tax element which pays for the cost of treatment where needed. . Mountaineering. That's dangerous. People get stuck. Fall down. Break legs. But that's their choice. I want them to have that freedom to enjoy their hobby. And I am happy to pay my share of tax to keep the NHS running to help them if needed. . Because the minute I say, "I don't want to pay for these people to indulge in their hobby, they have every right to judge me for mine and refuse to pay for my hobbies too. . Is that where we wish to go as a society ? Smoking isn't mountaineering or having one too many doughnuts, it only exists to generate profits for tobacco companies while deliberately DELIBERATELY trying to kill it's consumers. In 50 years time people will look back and wonder why in hell it was ever allowed or tolerated What do you mean deliberately trying to kill people? It's something which gives people a high along with some risky side effects. Same with alcohol. Mountaineering is also a risky activity. There are numerous day to day activities which increase the risk in one's lives. Do we want to ban them all just because the treatment is paid for by tax payers?" Smoking gives a high? Really? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It also tends to be the less well off that smoke, many spend a huge chunk of their benefits on tobacco. Somebody said you can train mountaineers not to fall, well you can also teach people not to smoke. Quitting smoking is easy, there's loads of nicotine replacement products available and many are actually free on prescription but people need to be convinced. The stick is one method but as an ex smoker there's nothing worse than being told by some condescending prick that you need to give up. Maybe there needs to be more of a carrot ? But not NHS driven or financed. And don't even get me started on the scourge of disposable vapes, these things are a menace to society. Vapes need to be banned before cigarettes as they actually encourage youngsters that probably would never have smoked cigarettes." Is there anything wrong in asking someone if they want help giving up smoking? I have probably had more patients decline than accept but it's still worth asking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assume this is about slowly increasing the age at which you can but tobacco products? How about after a certain point in the future the NHS refuses medical treatment required as a result of a lifestyle choice (to smoke). You want to smoke then don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your medical treatment. Best take out private medical insurance! But good luck with affording the premiums for smokers." Years ago I was working with a bloke whose doctor did just that, he was told to stop smoking and he will get treatment. The bloke said he had broncial asthema or something like that, due to smoking from an early age. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do wish there was a bit more granularity around the proposed bill. Tobacco...yes...bad. . Nicotine IN tobacco...bad because of the tobacco . Nicotine IN AND OF ITSELF ? Addictive, yes. Causes Lung Cancer and other nasties IN AND OF ITSELF...Nope. . Nicotine on its OWN is no more harmful than Caffeine. . The RSPH (Royal Society For Public Health) are calling for a public consultation and understanding of Nicotine, because their research indicates that 90% of the public believe nicotine is harmful, and it's not. That's a shockingly outrageous number. . If anything caffeine is more harmful. . Caffeine elevates blood pressure for a much longer period that nicotine. I believe 2 cigarettes (3.4 mg nicotine0 elevates BP by 10/8 mm Hg for 15 mins. 200ml of caffeine elevates BP by up to 10.7 HG for 1-2 hours. . If we are "going after" stimulants, then caffeine is the elephant in the room." I didn't even have to click on your profile to know that your a smoker lol I used to make all the same excuses before I managed to quit. In modern cigarettes there's very little actual tobacco leaf and more stalk, and the number of "additives" to make them more addictive is incredible up to 600 additives are allowed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicotine on its OWN is no more harmful than Caffeine." Giving up caffeine is considerably easier than nicotine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs" I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope" They already do refuse some treatments to smokers and they already do refuse some treatment to overweight. My friend was refused knee surgery until she lost a significant amount of weight. She did need to mind you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicotine on its OWN is no more harmful than Caffeine. Giving up caffeine is considerably easier than nicotine." I quit smoking and my wife can't quit coffee so no, it's not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope" Obesity is a factor in clinical judgements anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicotine on its OWN is no more harmful than Caffeine. Giving up caffeine is considerably easier than nicotine. I quit smoking and my wife can't quit coffee so no, it's not " ^ Scientific  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope" Eating isn't a choice, smoking is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope" I take it you're happy to be denied it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope Eating isn't a choice, smoking is." over eating is a choice, and tell a smoker who is addicted that smoking is a choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope Eating isn't a choice, smoking is. over eating is a choice, and tell a smoker who is addicted that smoking is a choice. " Two thirds of UK adults are overweight or obese. That includes me, you maybe? Not everyone who is overweight/obese is so through over eating. How are you going to differentiate between the over eaters and non over eaters? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope Eating isn't a choice, smoking is. over eating is a choice, and tell a smoker who is addicted that smoking is a choice. Two thirds of UK adults are overweight or obese. That includes me, you maybe? Not everyone who is overweight/obese is so through over eating. How are you going to differentiate between the over eaters and non over eaters? " Surely a person can only be overweight or obese because they consume more calories than their body burns? There may be many reasons for this, some medical, some not. It doesn't matter whether you need 1000 or 5000 calories a day, eat more than you need and you will gain weight. Eat less and you won't. Appreciate that weight is a coarse measure as muscle weighs more than fat but that doesn't apply to most of the people I see in Leigh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope I take it you're happy to be denied it?" I'm just saying that surely denying anyone treatment fundamentaly goes against the principles of the NHS - a service to which we all contribute | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope Eating isn't a choice, smoking is. over eating is a choice, and tell a smoker who is addicted that smoking is a choice. Two thirds of UK adults are overweight or obese. That includes me, you maybe? Not everyone who is overweight/obese is so through over eating. How are you going to differentiate between the over eaters and non over eaters? Surely a person can only be overweight or obese because they consume more calories than their body burns? There may be many reasons for this, some medical, some not. It doesn't matter whether you need 1000 or 5000 calories a day, eat more than you need and you will gain weight. Eat less and you won't. Appreciate that weight is a coarse measure as muscle weighs more than fat but that doesn't apply to most of the people I see in Leigh "Exactly! You can't defy basic science. If somebody was to put on weight (fat) with low calorie intake you'd have stumbled across some free biological energy source. It just isn't possible. I do accept the rate of +/- weight change may have genetic factors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope Eating isn't a choice, smoking is. over eating is a choice, and tell a smoker who is addicted that smoking is a choice. Two thirds of UK adults are overweight or obese. That includes me, you maybe? Not everyone who is overweight/obese is so through over eating. How are you going to differentiate between the over eaters and non over eaters? Surely a person can only be overweight or obese because they consume more calories than their body burns? There may be many reasons for this, some medical, some not. It doesn't matter whether you need 1000 or 5000 calories a day, eat more than you need and you will gain weight. Eat less and you won't. Appreciate that weight is a coarse measure as muscle weighs more than fat but that doesn't apply to most of the people I see in Leigh "You can undereat and put weight on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can undereat and put weight on. " Interested to learn more. Assuming we're not talking short term/liquid weight variations... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If its that bad ???? ???? So it's not that bad?obviously not if it was such a danger to health they wouldnt let it be sold, i meen smack and c. Oke are illegall and tjey cause less deaths so why wont they outlaw smoking if its more dangerous than those things As the poster above said, it's a legacy addiction. It has to be dealt with over time. 76,800 deaths last year from smoking and related illness. How bad does it have to get before you would consider it to be 'bad'?if people wana smoke then they should be allowed to and as for refusing treatment to smokers you sound exactly like the sort of people who were calling for those who refused the covid jab to be denied treatment, as someone else has pointed out the tax take from tobacco is a lot more than it costs the nhs I couldn't help noticing that there's currently a thread running about obesity and the cost to the NHS. If someone were to propose denying healthcare to smokers, should we do the same for overweight people too? It's a slippery slope Eating isn't a choice, smoking is. over eating is a choice, and tell a smoker who is addicted that smoking is a choice. Two thirds of UK adults are overweight or obese. That includes me, you maybe? Not everyone who is overweight/obese is so through over eating. How are you going to differentiate between the over eaters and non over eaters? Surely a person can only be overweight or obese because they consume more calories than their body burns? There may be many reasons for this, some medical, some not. It doesn't matter whether you need 1000 or 5000 calories a day, eat more than you need and you will gain weight. Eat less and you won't. Appreciate that weight is a coarse measure as muscle weighs more than fat but that doesn't apply to most of the people I see in Leigh
You can undereat and put weight on.
"I can buy that as a short term phenomenon as a person's metabolism adjusts to dietary intake. But it's counter intuitive to suppose prolonged calorie deficit will result in weight gain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are they going to get the lost tax revenue from? In future you'll get a 22 year who can smoke, and a 21 who can't... hmm while you at the shops get me 20 regal. Can the NHS refuse to treat runners and cyclist for knee and hip replacements? Playing devils advocate " Fair point. But on an issue of public health, the government have a duty to act. Smoking has a huge impact on individual health and by extension the NHS. There is also the dilemma of passive smoking, although less these days thanks to earlier public health legislation. It's a question of degree and getting the balance right. It's time to do something imo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are they going to get the lost tax revenue from?" Very easy indeed. Raise the tax level on alcohol to make up for the lost tax from tobacco. That is the most fair and equitable solution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are they going to get the lost tax revenue from? " Money not spent on tobacco won't just vanish it will still be spent and recycled elsewhere in the economy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waits for a lawyer to sue for age discrimination..." Surely that cannot happen before the child becomes 18? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I for one support the ban of smoking because its a digusting habit, dont like the smell of smoking and the damage it causes to people health wise" Vaping is the same. Another ticking time bomb. Most vapes smell much worse than tobacco, particularly the sickly sweet ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where are they going to get the lost tax revenue from? In future you'll get a 22 year who can smoke, and a 21 who can't... hmm while you at the shops get me 20 regal. Can the NHS refuse to treat runners and cyclist for knee and hip replacements? Playing devils advocate " Yes, you will get the 22 ,21 scenario but eventually no one will be able to regardless of age; the purpose of the act is to phase it out totally. On your second point someone running or cycling is taking part in an healthy exercise and any issues are an unfortunate by product. Smoking in any instance is a unhealthy and therefore the two activities basic objectives are not the same. I guess most would rather treat someone who has been trying to keep themselves fit for 20-30yrs than someone smoking 20 cigarettes per day over the same period. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waits for a lawyer to sue for age discrimination..." Well thats daft since tobacco is already an age restricted product. They are just increasing the existing restriction by a year, each year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waits for a lawyer to sue for age discrimination..." So. How many 17-year-olds have sued the government for age discrimination because a pub refused to serve them alcohol or shops who are already refusing to serve tobacco to those underage. Or driving a car or or or . . . None. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who's going to enforce this practically unenforceable law ? Will the police stop every smoker who looks kinda young and interrogate where they buy their cigarettes? Will it be mandatory to produce ID to buy cigarettes regardless of age like buying liquor in a bar in the US A fortune will be made by buying 100% legal cigarettes and selling them on for a profit even if it was enforced. Most smokers I know started before they were legally old enough to buy them anyway" The effect of this will be at its lowest as the law begins, over the next 15 - 25 years the 30 - 40 year olds who have families will be used to not buying cigarettes and their children will more than likely never see cigarettes on sale, as manufacturers stop making them / importing them due to minimum returns on the market size. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waits for a lawyer to sue for age discrimination... So. How many 17-year-olds have sued the government for age discrimination because a pub refused to serve them alcohol or shops who are already refusing to serve tobacco to those underage. Or driving a car or or or . . . None. " You can drink alcohol in a pub at 17 .. Only have to Google it, plus worked in pubs for years
I can actually see a test case in the future, as its like most government legislation ill thought out
Imagine 10 years time, 2 people separated by few months in age, both have families, house, even served ... one can smoke, whilst the other can.
Might go and order a pipe off amazon for the fun of it now lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waits for a lawyer to sue for age discrimination... So. How many 17-year-olds have sued the government for age discrimination because a pub refused to serve them alcohol or shops who are already refusing to serve tobacco to those underage. Or driving a car or or or . . . None. You can drink alcohol in a pub at 17 .. Only have to Google it, plus worked in pubs for years
I can actually see a test case in the future, as its like most government legislation ill thought out
Imagine 10 years time, 2 people separated by few months in age, both have families, house, even served ... one can smoke, whilst the other can.
Might go and order a pipe off amazon for the fun of it now lol"Only with and adult and cannot buy alcohol. As for the age between two people. I have sat next to young people who can't yet drive legally on their own because the Law doesn't yet let them. I have been in a cinema foyer and seen that people under the age of 18 can't see and 18 movie. I see nothing ridiculous in that. I have seen a shop refuse and under 18 to buy a knife. I see nothing ridiculous in that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Waits for a lawyer to sue for age discrimination... So. How many 17-year-olds have sued the government for age discrimination because a pub refused to serve them alcohol or shops who are already refusing to serve tobacco to those underage. Or driving a car or or or . . . None. You can drink alcohol in a pub at 17 .. Only have to Google it, plus worked in pubs for years
I can actually see a test case in the future, as its like most government legislation ill thought out
Imagine 10 years time, 2 people separated by few months in age, both have families, house, even served ... one can smoke, whilst the other can.
Might go and order a pipe off amazon for the fun of it now lol"The law prevents people from buying cigarettes, not smoking. The change is subtle but hopefully effective enough to change habits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think all this diversionary comparisons of this to that is kinda purposefully missing the point, or obfuscating it to try to make the point null . . . and the point is that . . . 80,000 people DIE every single year from smoking and smoking related deaths. If there are others areas of high death rates from a particular social behaviour, then that perhaps needs dealing with too. 80,000 people DIE every single year from smoking and smoking related deaths. Think about that!" Surely it's their choice to do so? From what I understand the mps who voted against or abstain did so for freedom reasons not medical... what next alcohol? I don't smoke, but don't want the state telling me I can't smoke | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think all this diversionary comparisons of this to that is kinda purposefully missing the point, or obfuscating it to try to make the point null . . . and the point is that . . . 80,000 people DIE every single year from smoking and smoking related deaths. If there are others areas of high death rates from a particular social behaviour, then that perhaps needs dealing with too. 80,000 people DIE every single year from smoking and smoking related deaths. Think about that!"
We can definitely do more than 1 thing at a time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe other people would like the freedom not to have to passively smoke. I don't want the state telling me I have to drive at 70 or less... but it seems sensible they do." And if the state said your not allowed to drive as you might have an accident? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And if the state said your not allowed to drive as you might have an accident?" If a law was passed that we weren't allow to drive people (law abiding) wouldn't drive. I've tried to give a sensible answer to a not so sensible hypothetical question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe other people would like the freedom not to have to passively smoke. I don't want the state telling me I have to drive at 70 or less... but it seems sensible they do. And if the state said your not allowed to drive as you might have an accident?" Thay do say that to under 17s | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tax on tobacco products is around 11 billion so we'll all have to make up the difference. " Indeed and it should be put on alcohol From a UK Parliament Public Accounts Committee webpage (2023) ** Harmful drinking appears to be increasing. The upward trend in alcohol-related death and hospital admissions accelerated in the pandemic. The costs of this to drinkers, their families and society are significant. Alcohol costs the NHS an estimated £3.5 billion per year in England and costs an estimated £21 billion per year to society.? ** Alcohol is next.?? . It doesn't bother me, as I drink very little alcohol (1-2 units a month), but I would rather not see others lose their rights to drink either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe other people would like the freedom not to have to passively smoke. I don't want the state telling me I have to drive at 70 or less... but it seems sensible they do. And if the state said your not allowed to drive as you might have an accident?" I'd suggest they'd have a better argument if they said I'm not allowed to drive because I may kill somebody else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who's going to enforce this practically unenforceable law ? Will the police stop every smoker who looks kinda young and interrogate where they buy their cigarettes? Will it be mandatory to produce ID to buy cigarettes regardless of age like buying liquor in a bar in the US A fortune will be made by buying 100% legal cigarettes and selling them on for a profit even if it was enforced. Most smokers I know started before they were legally old enough to buy them anyway" I agree if they measure in the short term it will look like it hasn’t worked. Someone 18 might buy them for their friend or sibling that is slightly younger. Particularly people who have already started young. Over time though that will reduce and eventually stop . In 10 years time do we expect 18 year olds to be seeking out someone 28 or over to ask them to buy cigarettes for them? As time goes on the gap gets bigger, the likelihood of ever starting gets lower | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tax on tobacco products is around 11 billion so we'll all have to make up the difference. " And if yiu looking at the cost if the 80,000 don't die that's posably 80,000 more claiming pensions that we will all have to make up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
