UK bans sale of cigarettes to future generations.
- Thread starter Aunt Bea
- Start date
Messy
Senior Member
My brother didn't mind that I tried to help him, but he wanted to stop himself. It helped me. If someone doesn't want to stop then it's indeed better to not say anything.
MarciKS
Dust Bunny Whisperer
Smokers know that cigarettes aren't good for them. Some people feel the need to tell them this like they are clueless. They choose to do it just like someone chooses to drink or eat too much or eat things that are unhealthy. Nobody needs to be schooled in the facts about how these things are bad for you. And generally if they wanna quit they will do it on their own. It's their life. It's good that you see that though.
I honestly can't say why I smoked. I just did. Maybe it was because it was something to do. I don't miss it now. Wish I had never started. But it was my choice. It wouldn't have mattered if someone told me how bad they were. I can read and see the warnings on the package.
Did your brother manage to stop?
Messy
Senior Member
He stopped but he started again. He started when he was 16 though. That's way harder. I only really smoked 2 years and then I got addicted to nicotin chewing gum. Got rid of that with nicotin patches. Wish I had done that 10 years earlier. It only annoyed me when people who had never smoked and had no idea, would say: Just stop. Thanks mate. Really helpful.
Oldeagle66
Senior Member
AgreedI’ve always been baffled why people worry more about my vices than their own.
Oldeagle66
Senior Member
Although I don't smoke and don't care who does, This law is wrong, they shouldn't be able to completely ban people from smoking. Other people there smoke so evidently it's not illegal. That is really over reach.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Tobacco companies specifically formulate their product to be addictive. It is estimated that smoking costs the NHS £2.5bn per year in smoking related illnesses. Having had a family member die from smoking related emphysema, I can attest to it being a truly horrendous death. Given this, I don't see any reason why society shouldn't legislate against the habit. Public health is a just concern for governments, imo.
As I mentioned earlier, this proposal is an evolution of current laws. It essentially puts a date on the board from when smoking tobacco can be totally outlawed.
It's always easier for non-smokers to be okay with such a change than it is for a smoker though.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
A ban of smoking isn't a ban on addiction, it's a ban on tobacco products. It has nothing whatsoever to do with alcohol, or other addictive substances people indulge in. I can't get my head around an argument that might suggest you can't ban tobacco smoking because people drink alcohol.
Banning alcohol is a non-starter. You can make you own alcohol extremely easily, and with very few ingredients. In theory, I guess you can grow your own tobacco, and no-one will be able to stop that (I've never known anyone to do it though). Besides, any tobacco you grow yourself won't be the same as commercial tobacco, since all the additives would be absent.
I've heard this said many times over the years and believe likely it's trure. So maybe the solution isn't totally banning smoking but placing guidelines on the potency and additives of cigarettes. Or would that simply make people smoke more to get the same nicotine fix?
Everyone in my family were smokers but me, and I will say unapologetically I loathe the habit. My dad spent the last few years of his life drowning in his own phlegm, emphysema is a slow and ugly death. I realize people are going to smoke regardless of the consequences, but maybe if tobacco products weren't so strong and adfictive people wouldn't trade their lives for a few drags.
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
You're the one who pointed out the addiction in your post #83, here:
_________________________________________
So the key, according to your own logic, is to prohibit tobacco companies from making cigarettes addictive (as if they weren't already)
True, prohibition didn't work.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I'm not a smoker, but recall there used to be "light" brands, and "heavy" brands of cigarettes. The related to the amount of nicotine included.
Also remember, tobacco companies are heavily invested in vapes. They own some of the larger brands, for example. As smoker numbers have declined, so prices have risen. Tobacco companies are still making a profit. Smoking has actually increased a little in Africa and Asia. It tends to follow as economic trail - the poorer the people, the more smokers.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I did. But that had nothing to do with ALL addictions, it was specific. Context matters.
prohibit tobacco companies from making cigarettes addictive (as if they weren't already)
You can't (easily) make cigarettes non-addictive. Nicotine is in the tobacco itself, regardless of additives. I guess you could have a process that removed the nicotine - but I suspect people wouldn't bother if they weren't addicted. Nicotine is considered to be far more addictive than alcohol. In fact, I think it's generally thought to be in the same category as Heroin and Cocaine.
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
But you posted: "Tobacco companies specifically formulate their product to be addictive." Since everyone already knows that nicotine is the key product, or the very essence of cigarettes, when you post that tobacco companies "specifically formulate" their product to be addictive, that is an obvious reference to additives or a manufacturing process. Yes, context matters. That's why context was taken into consideration, then - and now.
__________________________________________
How can you make (any) alcohol non-addictive? Hard liquor can be purchased in different strengths ("proofs") but all of those strengths can be addictive. When a person takes their first drink, they have no way of knowing how that may shape their future.
___________________________________________________________
Statistics support that. So the lesser of the two evils (alcohol) is okay then - since fewer get hooked? Let's tell that to those who lost family members in car crashes caused by alcoholics who had multiple offenses over the years, but let's not expect those statistics to matter to them.
RambleTamble
Senior Member
- Location
- U.S.
Society as a whole pays the price when people smoke, so it's not just an individual choice. We pay the price with the smell, the litter, and the dangers of second hand smoke. We pay the price with healthcare costs. When a large number of people develop cancer, we all pay higher insurance rates -- not just the smokers. And if the smoker with cancer doesn't have insurance, we pay the entire cost of their treatment.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I am no longer understanding what your point is.
Sorry, it's likely my own stupidity. It happens! I was discussing TOBACCO.It's a red herring. You seem to think that if there is tobacco legislation, there must be/should be alcohol legislation. Well, there is a lot of legislation around how can, and cannot, drink alcohol. If you want to campaign against alcohol, please do. But it's separate from tobacco legislation. They're not related. Alcohol use, in this case, seems to be an excuse......
No, it's just that the topic is different. This is not legislation against addiction, or substances that can addictive. If it were, we'd be banning Facebook. It's about tobacco. You brought up alcohol. That's a different discussion. I don't understand an argument that we shouldn't ban tobacco because people drink alcohol.
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
How convenient for you.
___________________________________________________
No, I'm just trying to understand why one addictive vice is singled out and not another. It didn't have to be alcohol. I could have mentioned sugar, which releases opiods and dopamine, creating addictive potential, evidenced by the the ever growing girth of Americans. In case you haven't noticed, some states already have enacted legislation aimed at restricting sugar through higher taxes. But to get into all that might confuse you.
_________________________________________________
Yes, it's clear that you don't understand, so we will just leave it at that and move on.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Sunny Southern California ♥
Interesting thread. I smoked from ages 17-29. Quit 7 months before trying to get pregnant and never looked back.
Had I not quit then, I wouldn't have smoked much longer anyway, because smokers started to become ostracized (in California, at least) by the mid 1980s. Places where smoking was permitted became fewer, smaller and more remote.
Increasingly restrictive laws was partly responsible, but many bars and restaurants instituted their own rules ahead of laws. Well-publicized, large payday second-hand smoke lawsuits by employees and family members of deceased employees were big motivators for business owners to put up No Smoking signs.
Not one person (teens included) in my immediate or extended social circle smokes cigarettes or vapes. Two smoke cigars a couple of times a year, and they go outside together to do so. Needless to say, they skip the indulgence during unpleasant weather.
Smoking in one's own home has become nearly unthinkable, lighting up in someone else's will get you quickly shown to the door. Probably permanently.
Anti-smoking laws, social patterns and high prices have effectively reduced the number of US smokers. Banning tobacco (including vapes) sales to people born after a certain year would further cut the number of smokers.
Will some find their way around the laws? Of course, but the idea of a wide net is is to catch the majority of fish, not every single one. As is often true, insistence on perfection is the enemy of good enough.
I'm generally a live and let live person, but the deck is stacked against us when it comes to super-addictive tobacco, so laws must level the playing field. Same as seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and other required safety equipment laws.
Human bodies aren't designed to smoke, any more than they're meant to hurtle around at 65 mph, so we need all the protection we can get, including extending it those who don't believe they need it.
Had I not quit then, I wouldn't have smoked much longer anyway, because smokers started to become ostracized (in California, at least) by the mid 1980s. Places where smoking was permitted became fewer, smaller and more remote.
Increasingly restrictive laws was partly responsible, but many bars and restaurants instituted their own rules ahead of laws. Well-publicized, large payday second-hand smoke lawsuits by employees and family members of deceased employees were big motivators for business owners to put up No Smoking signs.
Not one person (teens included) in my immediate or extended social circle smokes cigarettes or vapes. Two smoke cigars a couple of times a year, and they go outside together to do so. Needless to say, they skip the indulgence during unpleasant weather.
Smoking in one's own home has become nearly unthinkable, lighting up in someone else's will get you quickly shown to the door. Probably permanently.
Anti-smoking laws, social patterns and high prices have effectively reduced the number of US smokers. Banning tobacco (including vapes) sales to people born after a certain year would further cut the number of smokers.
Will some find their way around the laws? Of course, but the idea of a wide net is is to catch the majority of fish, not every single one. As is often true, insistence on perfection is the enemy of good enough.
I'm generally a live and let live person, but the deck is stacked against us when it comes to super-addictive tobacco, so laws must level the playing field. Same as seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and other required safety equipment laws.
Human bodies aren't designed to smoke, any more than they're meant to hurtle around at 65 mph, so we need all the protection we can get, including extending it those who don't believe they need it.
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
I didn't know we were designed to drink alcohol either, StarSong, but when I expressed as much, I was met with criticism and reminded to stay on topic.
However, I have to mention that we lost some children in Texas due to measles because of parents who:
* "it" being the measles vaccine. It's interesting that the same government who would take away an individual's right to smoke would turn around and give the parents of children the right to refuse the measles vaccine (long required by law) to their chilren (the ones who need it).
Women have also lost the right to choose because it appears the law "doesn't believe they need it."
Yes, let's leave it up to the government to watch out for us.