UK bans sale of cigarettes to future generations.

[GoodEnuff]

Oh, Look! There's my soap box!

From what I have seen in regular cannibus users, yes, ban it. It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
They can ban gambling, too. It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
Control what people can purchase with SNAP. It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
No abortions. I'm too old to get pregnant. Won't affect me.
I'm hetero. I don't care about the flags. Won't affect me.
No kids in schools. Pray all you want. Won't affect me.
I don't break laws. Won't affect me.
Ban sugary foods/drinks? It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
If the next ban is alcohol, it's for their own good and won't affect me other than making the roads safer. Hmmm...

Ban cigarettes? That's It! Where's my gun? Or is that banned, too?

 

[MarciKS]

when it affects them then all bets are off. suddenly it becomes an outrage.

 

[StarSong]

@GoodEnuff, your tongue-in-cheek post brings Martin Niemöller's famous poem to mind:
English translation:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I kept quiet; I wasn't a communist.

When they came for the trade unionists, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a trade unionist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a social democrat.

When they locked up the Jews, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to protest.

 

[Sunkist]

@GoodEnuff, your tongue-in-cheek post brings Martin Niemöller's famous poem to mind:
English translation:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I kept quiet; I wasn't a communist.

When they came for the trade unionists, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a trade unionist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a social democrat.

When they locked up the Jews, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to protest.

I've always liked that.. it's a good perspective.
We're not only responsible for ourselves, we're responsible for 'the other guy,' too.

 

[Rich]

It probably will. Texas is actively working on updating their restrictions. In the meanwhile, here are some restrictions we already have on the books:

We have some of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws, allowing no exceptions for rape or incest, and local ordinances in some counties restrict travel for out-of-state abortions. The morning after pill is under current review.

We have major restrictions on LGBTQ rights. Displaying rainbow colored placards (etc.) on sidewalks or to the side of public streets was banned as a traffic "distraction."

Recently enacted legislation requires posting the 10 commandments in public schools and a new proposal would make the reading of biblical texts a requirement for all grade 1-12 students.

So Texas is looking out for us more than many other jurisdictions are looking out for theirs.

MACKTEXAS, you call this "Texas looking out for us more than many other jurisdictions are looking out for theirs." It strikes me as odd that in spite of the fact that the catholic church ran a pedophile ring for decades, and may well still be doing so, you characterize posting the 10 commandments and reading the bible in school as "looking out for us. Seems like the opposite to me.
Simultaneously you mention major restrictions on the LGBTQ rights. I'm not certain about most people but I'd leave a child with an LGBTQ member way before I'd leave one with a catholic priest. This isn't really "looking out" from my point of view, it looks like straight up discrimination and indoctrination. Moreover, LGBTQ folks have been around from the beginning, I'm quite convinced that this cannot be eliminated through legislation and, or punishment. It might as well be normalized instead of trying to ostracize these folks.
As for "abortion laws, allowing no exceptions for rape or incest, and local ordinances in some counties restrict travel for out-of-state abortions. This just seems draconian, that a 12 year old girl might be forced to birth to child if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape, by a relative or a stranger. If I'm not mistaken, early version of these laws forbid abortion under any circumstances. I recall reading about a case of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy and the doctors were not willing to perform an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies are nearly universally fatal to the fetus, and often to the mother as well, left untreated. I guess this what we get when old men make laws about women's reproductive rights.
I'm not arguing with you, simply posting a different point of view.

 

[Sunkist]

Looking out for you? If I recall correctly the catholic church ran

MACKTEXAS, you call this "Texas looking out for us more than many other jurisdictions are looking out for theirs." It strikes me as odd that in spite of the fact that the catholic church ran a pedophile ring for decades, and may well still be doing so, you characterize posting the 10 commandments and reading the bible in school as "looking out for us. Seems like the opposite to me.
Simultaneously you mention major restrictions on the LGBTQ rights. I'm not certain about most people but I'd leave a child with an LGBTQ member way before I'd leave one with a catholic priest. This isn't really "looking out" from my point of view, it looks like straight up discrimination and indoctrination. Moreover, LGBTQ folks have been around from the beginning, I'm quite convinced that this cannot be eliminated through legislation and, or punishment. It might as well be normalized instead of trying to ostracize these folks.
As for "abortion laws, allowing no exceptions for rape or incest, and local ordinances in some counties restrict travel for out-of-state abortions. This just seems draconian, that a 12 year old girl might be forced to birth to child if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape, by a relative or a stranger. If I'm not mistaken, early version of these laws forbid abortion under any circumstances. I recall reading about a case of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy and the doctors were not willing to perform an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies are nearly universally fatal to the fetus, and often to the mother as well, left untreated. I guess this what we get when old men make laws about women's reproductive rights.
I'm not arguing with you, simply posting a different point of view.

I agree- I'm not on-board with some of their approaches.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

Looking out for you? If I recall correctly the catholic church ran

MACKTEXAS, you call this "Texas looking out for us more than many other jurisdictions are looking out for theirs." It strikes me as odd that in spite of the fact that the catholic church ran a pedophile ring for decades, and may well still be doing so, you characterize posting the 10 commandments and reading the bible in school as "looking out for us. Seems like the opposite to me.
Simultaneously you mention major restrictions on the LGBTQ rights. I'm not certain about most people but I'd leave a child with an LGBTQ member way before I'd leave one with a catholic priest. This isn't really "looking out" from my point of view, it looks like straight up discrimination and indoctrination. Moreover, LGBTQ folks have been around from the beginning, I'm quite convinced that this cannot be eliminated through legislation and, or punishment. It might as well be normalized instead of trying to ostracize these folks.
As for "abortion laws, allowing no exceptions for rape or incest, and local ordinances in some counties restrict travel for out-of-state abortions. This just seems draconian, that a 12 year old girl might be forced to birth to child if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape, by a relative or a stranger. If I'm not mistaken, early version of these laws forbid abortion under any circumstances. I recall reading about a case of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy and the doctors were not willing to perform an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies are nearly universally fatal to the fetus, and often to the mother as well, left untreated. I guess this what we get when old men make laws about women's reproductive rights.
I'm not arguing with you, simply posting a different point of view.

Rich, You and I are on the same page. The last line of my post (the one you replied to) should not be taken at face value, in light of my historical posts in this thread which make it clear I do not feel they are "looking out for us." They (our lawmakers) would see it that way. I do not.

I agree- I'm not on-board with some of their approaches.

Neither am I.

 

[Trish]

It probably will. Texas is actively working on updating their restrictions. In the meanwhile, here are some restrictions we already have on the books:

We have some of the strongest cannabis laws, and new laws taking effect in 2026 further ban smokable THC products. CBD regulations are currently under review and tightening is expected.

Most forms of gambling, including casino games and sports betting, are prohibited. [Most Texas residents simply travel to casinos in Louisiana or Oklahoma.]

Effective April 1, 2026, SNAP recipients in Texas are banned from using benefits to purchase candy and sweetened drinks.

We have some of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws, allowing no exceptions for rape or incest, and local ordinances in some counties restrict travel for out-of-state abortions. The morning after pill is under current review.

We have major restrictions on LGBTQ rights. Displaying rainbow colored placards (etc.) on sidewalks or to the side of public streets was banned as a traffic "distraction."

Recently enacted legislation requires posting the 10 commandments in public schools and a new proposal would make the reading of biblical texts a requirement for all grade 1-12 students.

Law enforcement can seize private property based on a "preponderanceof evidence" without a criminal conviction, placing the burden of proof on the owner to reclaim it. [Never mind the "outdated"adage: "you're innocent until proven guilty."]

So Texas is looking out for us more than many other jurisdictions are looking out for theirs.

My post was solely in regard to the UK smoking ban. My hope is that younger generations will not suffer from smoking related cancers and diseases which have afflicted older generations.

Looking at your list, I don't see anything on there that I would vote for and, I am not entirely sure why you posted it as a response to my post?

 

[MarciKS]

So are the cigarette makers in the UK the same ones we have in the US? If not...how are they not gonna fight that tooth and nail because of the possible financial losses they would suffer? Smokes are such big money.

 

[Rich]

Sometimes it's a trade off. Affordability, dollars and cost of living mean a lot these days.

I was going to say the same thing, many from California are moving to Texas as it's their best hope to be able to afford a house.

 

[Rich]

Rich, You and I are on the same page. The last line of my post (the one you replied to) should not be taken at face value, in light of my historical posts in this thread which make it clear I do not feel they are "looking out for us." They (our lawmakers) would see it that way. I do not.

I didn't detect the cynicism in that last line but I'm pleased to see you're on the right (actually left) side of this one.

 

[Rich]

A quick addition to the smoking ban discussion: I’m old enough to remember when airplanes had designated smoking sections. The setup was almost comical, rows 20 through the back were “smoking,” while row 21 forward was “non‑smoking.” If you were sitting in row 21 trying to breathe, the distinction didn’t do you much good.

 

[VaughanJB]

Oh, Look! There's my soap box!

From what I have seen in regular cannibus users, yes, ban it. It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
They can ban gambling, too. It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
Control what people can purchase with SNAP. It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
No abortions. I'm too old to get pregnant. Won't affect me.
I'm hetero. I don't care about the flags. Won't affect me.
No kids in schools. Pray all you want. Won't affect me.
I don't break laws. Won't affect me.
Ban sugary foods/drinks? It's for their own good. Won't affect me.
If the next ban is alcohol, it's for their own good and won't affect me other than making the roads safer. Hmmm...

Ban cigarettes? That's It! Where's my gun? Or is that banned, too?

Excellent post, thank you.

 

[VaughanJB]

So are the cigarette makers in the UK the same ones we have in the US? If not...how are they not gonna fight that tooth and nail because of the possible financial losses they would suffer? Smokes are such big money.

It would be a mistake to think that the slow gradual decline of smoking rights isn't partly a product of money in politics. They knew smoking was killing people long before we were even told, let alone new laws were brought in.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

My post was solely in regard to the UK smoking ban. My hope is that younger generations will not suffer from smoking related cancers and diseases which have afflicted older generations.

Looking at your list, I don't see anything on there that I would vote for and, I am not entirely sure why you posted it as a response to my post?

First of all, I value your opinions and no offense was intended. The thread has expanded beyond the UK smoking ban, so at this point, I wouldn't be able to know that any member was solely replying to only one specific ban.

Nevertheless, my apologies in replying to you personally rather than making my post a stand alone.

I hope cancer will one day be eradicated, whatever the cause(s) may be, while at the same time, I don't believe personal freedoms should be limited in the manner described in the list I posted, many of which you indicated you would not vote for. Often, banning one personal freedom leads to banning others, and that is happening a lot where I live.

 

[DaveA]

I’ve always been baffled why people worry more about my vices than their own.

In some cases it's all about courtesy. If I come walking by your home and see you sprawled on the front lawn with a bottle in your hand, and a couple of others scattered about, I feel (you being a lady), duty bound to pick you up and sit you down in a nearby lawn chair. If you have a male friend (jn the same condition) I'll let him lie .

 

[MarciKS]

if i'm ever out drinkin on my front lawn and you try to pick me up i'd smack you with the bottle. lol!

i just feel like people need to worry about their own stuff and mind their own business and leave others to it. uness their interfering with their life or sleep.

 

[VaughanJB]

if i'm ever out drinkin on my front lawn and you try to pick me up i'd smack you with the bottle. lol!

i just feel like people need to worry about their own stuff and mind their own business and leave others to it. uness their interfering with their life or sleep.

I get it. And don't get it.

If you know that drinking poison will feel great for six weeks, but kill you in eight, is it okay if we simply say "well, you know it'll kill you, so rock on"? Or, as a society, do we say - nah, that's dumb, no-one should be profiteering from that.

Let's go extreme. Street drugs kill over 100,000 people every year in the US. Should we outlaw street drugs, or should we say, "hey, we all know street drugs will kill you, do what you want"? If we shouldn't intervene with laws, is there no limits at all? For example, how can one be anti-abortion in such a case? If we should, where's the line between what should, and should not, be banned?

 

[Sunkist]

A quick addition to the smoking ban discussion: I’m old enough to remember when airplanes had designated smoking sections. The setup was almost comical, rows 20 through the back were “smoking,” while row 21 forward was “non‑smoking.” If you were sitting in row 21 trying to breathe, the distinction didn’t do you much good.

Same here.. and Greyhound buses, too. I wasn't a smoker back then, but other people's smoke didn't bother me.

 

[Trish]

First of all, I value your opinions and no offense was intended. The thread has expanded beyond the UK smoking ban, so at this point, I wouldn't be able to know that any member was solely replying to only one specific ban.

Nevertheless, my apologies in replying to you personally rather than making my post a stand alone.

I hope cancer will one day be eradicated, whatever the cause(s) may be, while at the same time, I don't believe personal freedoms should be limited in the manner described in the list I posted, many of which you indicated you would not vote for. Often, banning one personal freedom leads to banning others, and that is happening a lot where I live.

No worries @MACKTEXAS I didn't think your response was offensive, I just wasn't sure of the point being made.

 

[Trish]

A quick addition to the smoking ban discussion: I’m old enough to remember when airplanes had designated smoking sections. The setup was almost comical, rows 20 through the back were “smoking,” while row 21 forward was “non‑smoking.” If you were sitting in row 21 trying to breathe, the distinction didn’t do you much good.

On double-decker buses in the UK, people were allowed to smoke at the rear of the upper deck, I think they even had ashtrays on the back of the upper deck, rear seats.

 

[Jules]

A quick addition to the smoking ban discussion: I’m old enough to remember when airplanes had designated smoking sections. The setup was almost comical, rows 20 through the back were “smoking,” while row 21 forward was “non‑smoking.” If you were sitting in row 21 trying to breathe, the distinction didn’t do you much good.

I sat in row 21 and it was a long flight.

 

[MarciKS]

I get it. And don't get it.

If you know that drinking poison will feel great for six weeks, but kill you in eight, is it okay if we simply say "well, you know it'll kill you, so rock on"? Or, as a society, do we say - nah, that's dumb, no-one should be profiteering from that.

Let's go extreme. Street drugs kill over 100,000 people every year in the US. Should we outlaw street drugs, or should we say, "hey, we all know street drugs will kill you, do what you want"? If we shouldn't intervene with laws, is there no limits at all? For example, how can one be anti-abortion in such a case? If we should, where's the line between what should, and should not, be banned?

Honestly, it's not gonna matter because people always find a way around it. The more stuff they ban the harder the criminals or whoever will work to find alternatives.

And if we start there, how long til they start deciding everything for us and pretty soon we're a communist country.

Do you want other people deciding how you live your life and taking away all your freedoms just because they can?