UK bans sale of cigarettes to future generations.

[VaughanJB]

I won’t argue that smoking is the strongest example of government overreach into personal behavior. Still, the broader pattern feels hard to ignore, especially with the recent pressure on First Amendment. People are losing jobs over jokes, and in some cases even facing charges for repeating well known phrases online. That kind of reaction makes a lot of people uneasy about where the boundaries are shifting.

As for the second point you raised, it increasingly feels as though the government’s priorities are drifting away from the concerns of ordinary people. Just to pick a few examples: I don’t remember anyone clamoring to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” Meanwhile, we’re carrying a $40 trillion national debt, yet the East Wing was torn down to make room for a $400 million ballroom, the Kennedy center was renamed, and it looks like were getting an Arch in Washington. Add in another conflict in the Middle East, or talk of acquiring Greenland, Cuba, or Venezuela, and it becomes harder to believe these ideas are coming from the public’s wish list.

I could go on, but the overall impression is that the government and the people are no longer reading from the same page, and in some cases, not even the same book.

American politics has jumped the shark. Completely. It's a madhouse.

UK politics is about to jump the shark with the Reform Party gaining ground. It will lead to us going down a similar road where our leaders no longer feel any affiliation with those who didn't vote for them. All that matters is winning. This causes huge disenfranchising, anger, and frustration.

Neither of our countries are in a good place. It's getting dire. As such, I agree with heightened concerns. I would speak more, and give specific examples that ought to have caused huge uproar, but it would likely cross the line as to political commentary on this site.

You final paragraph? I agree most of the way. We've dumbed everything down, from our candidates to our policies. It extends, sadly, to voters. No-one follows up. No-one gets held to account. No-one cares. It's sad, but I don't see good things on the horizon.

 

[VaughanJB]

if they're gonna ban cigarettes they should ban booze too then.

Sorry, that's a red herring.

The laws and regulations controlling smoking are specific. They are not a ban on things that are bad for you. They are not a ban on addictive substances. If alcohol is to be banned, then it's its own thing. There is no, "if you ban one then you ban the other".

For the record, there are extensive laws about Alcohol already in place. There are pricing regulations that price beverages based on alcohol content. There are lists of things you can't do after drinking. There are rules about where alcohol can be sold, and so on. You may not think it goes far enough, and that's fair. But it's not like there is no controls over alcohol.

Let me give you a scenario (and another red herring), they banned smoking, so they should ban alcohol. Alcohol kills people, injures families, causes health issues. We should also ban guns. Guns kill people, damage families, and cause injury. See? You can't lump everything in together.

 

[Della]

I was under the Impression that nicotine patches were offered for free in the military, if the user followed the rules.
I was one of the few that didn’t smoke, so I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the rules for non smoking aids, including cessation patches.

Yes, they were free for us but they always reminded us that it was costing the military a lot of money.

Here were the rules: attend a class in the evening where we had to listen to a Major who was checking his volunteer box by telling us each week how we were all lazy it was just a habit not an addiction, then go off on a long boring monologue about himself. To attend it I had to ride into the base with my husband at 6am sit around the entire day then go to his evening class. Torture for someone in withdrawal.

We all agreed that it was the hardest part about quitting smoking -- but we couldn't get the patches without attending his class. He claimed 100 percent success but he only counted the people who were still not smoking and coming to the class at the end of the three months. Five out of 30.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

"Whether it is alcohol, drugs, or tobacco, banning products does not lead to improved public health. Still, history is fraught with examples of attempts to do so, all of which have failed. When governments have attempted to institute such prohibitions, the outcomes have often been worse than the risks associated with the banned products themselves."

SOURCE OF ABOVE: RSTREET.ORG

 

[RambleTamble]

American politics has jumped the shark. Completely. It's a madhouse.

UK politics is about to jump the shark with the Reform Party gaining ground. It will lead to us going down a similar road where our leaders no longer feel any affiliation with those who didn't vote for them. All that matters is winning. This causes huge disenfranchising, anger, and frustration.

Neither of our countries are in a good place. It's getting dire. As such, I agree with heightened concerns. I would speak more, and give specific examples that ought to have caused huge uproar, but it would likely cross the line as to political commentary on this site.

You final paragraph? I agree most of the way. We've dumbed everything down, from our candidates to our policies. It extends, sadly, to voters. No-one follows up. No-one gets held to account. No-one cares. It's sad, but I don't see good things on the horizon.

That's why banning alcohol at this time would be a very bad thing.

 

[gruntlabor]

'It has always baffled me' why some people prefer safety over freedom.

 

[StarSong]

'It has always baffled me' why some people prefer safety over freedom.

Why? Because seatbelt and child safety seat laws reduce the number of fatal automobile accidents. Same with motorcycle helmet laws.

People aren't being protected from themselves with tobacco restrictions, they're being protected from big tobacco corporations who've made cigarettes increasingly addictive and lied repeatedly about smoking's horrific health consequences.

I don't know any former smoker who regretted quitting, or if still smoking, desperately wanted to do so.
All wished they'd never started.

 

[gruntlabor]

Why? Because seatbelt and child safety seat laws reduce the number of fatal automobile accidents. Same with motorcycle helmet laws.

I'm not speaking of children or the helpless. Of course they need to be protected by law.
But as to the rest of us, those who value freedom so little do not deserve it, my opinion.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

All 50 states have specific laws regulating both car seat use and other safety issues such as swimming pools. Some families have swimming pools, choosing to balance the joy of summer recreation against significant safety responsibilities. Other families would not have swimming pools at all, considering them too great a safety hazard to justify the risk.

But car seats and child safety regulations (such as swimming pools) are governed by different sets of laws and risks.

Also, firearms have specific second amendment protections that do not apply to tobacco, alcohol, or addictive substances.

All that said, the weight of the analogy is different for each.

 

[Rich]

It's sad, but I don't see good things on the horizon.

This, perhaps, is the saddest part of all: we are witnessing the slow disintegration of nations that once stood as examples of stability and promise. In one sense, I’m grateful to be in the winter of my life; with any luck, I may be spared from seeing the final unraveling of a country that once aspired to greatness. Yet at the same time, I worry deeply for my grandchildren, who may inherit a world where a decent life feels less like an expectation and more like a fading dream.

A quick note before you continue: the clip below contains strong language and a few rough edges. It’s from the 2012 series The Newsroom, and despite being more than a decade old, its message feels even more relevant today than it did then.

 

[VaughanJB]

That's why banning alcohol at this time would be a very bad thing.

Yeah, I'm going to drink until I forget if/when they win the election.

"Whether it is alcohol, drugs, or tobacco, banning products does not lead to improved public health. Still, history is fraught with examples of attempts to do so, all of which have failed. When governments have attempted to institute such prohibitions, the outcomes have often been worse than the risks associated with the banned products themselves."

SOURCE OF ABOVE: RSTREET.ORG

View attachment 501898

Phew, for a moment there I thought the quote was from an organization with an agenda.

'It has always baffled me' why some people prefer safety over freedom.

Maybe because the freedom to slowly kill yourself in a horrendous way is not looked on as any kind of benefit? If there is a smoking ban, I'm sure people can find other ways to pull smoke into their lungs and gradually diminish lung capacity. Ain't nothing says freedom like paying corporates to kill yourself.

But then, the assertion that people prefer safety instead of freedom isn't actually true. That's a generalization. You take each case as it comes and merits. This seems to be the only sensible way to operate. Otherwise, do we go back to feudalism? Personally, I don't understand why some people see every little thing as a personal attack, or limitation on their liberty. Perhaps you were planning on starting to smoke, and are afraid you've waited too long to start?

 

[gruntlabor]

...
But then, the assertion that people prefer safety instead of freedom isn't actually true. That's a generalization. You take each case as it comes and merits. This seems to be the only sensible way to operate. Otherwise, do we go back to feudalism? Personally, I don't understand why some people see every little thing as a personal attack, or limitation on their liberty. Perhaps you were planning on starting to smoke, and are afraid you've waited too long to start?

Have another law on the books then. It will make you safer.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

Have another law on the books then. It will make you safer.

I've always admired your precision in conveying your message.

 

[Rich]

Maybe because the freedom to slowly kill yourself in a horrendous way is not looked on as any kind of benefit? If there is a smoking ban, I'm sure people can find other ways to pull smoke into their lungs and gradually diminish lung capacity. Ain't nothing says freedom like paying corporates to kill yourself.

But then, the assertion that people prefer safety instead of freedom isn't actually true. That's a generalization. You take each case as it comes and merits. This seems to be the only sensible way to operate. Otherwise, do we go back to feudalism? Personally, I don't understand why some people see every little thing as a personal attack, or limitation on their liberty. Perhaps you were planning on starting to smoke, and are afraid you've waited too long to start?

I think we’ve lost sight of a simple, uncomfortable truth: many addictions begin as a form of pleasure. As I’ve mentioned before, I was a smoker some fifty years ago, and, there’s no point pretending otherwise, it was an enjoyable addiction. Very few people pour their first drink with the goal of becoming an alcoholic, or try heroin with the ambition of becoming an addict. Most people reach for these substances as a brief escape from the grind of ordinary life: the job they have to drag themselves to tomorrow, the boss who makes every day miserable, the paycheck that never quite stretches far enough.It’s only when that small moment of relief hardens into dependency that they realize they’ve traded one burden for another, far heavier one.
That’s an entirely separate tragedy from the people who fall into addiction through no pursuit of pleasure at all, those who are prescribed powerful painkillers after an injury or illness and discover, too late, that the cure has become its own affliction. Drugs like Oxycontin don’t just dull the original pain; they create a new one, more insistent and more destructive.
If you’ve read about the Sackler family, the owners of Purdue Pharma, the story becomes even darker. They recognized the addictive power of OxyContin and treated it not as a danger to be managed, but as a marketing opportunity to be exploited (much like tobacco companies and nicotine). It’s a grim chapter in modern American life. In 2025, the Sacklers agreed to a $7.4 billion settlement and were barred from selling opioids in the United States going forward.

 

[VaughanJB]

Have another law on the books then. It will make you safer.

Oh, in that case, bring it on.

I'm not overly keen on laws that make myself, or others, less safe.

I think we’ve lost sight of a simple, uncomfortable truth: many addictions begin as a form of pleasure.

Escapism. Confidence building. Peer pressure. There are many reasons why someone might try a particular thing. Sometimes, addiction is the result. It's not unlike say, gambling. I know someone who has, in my estimation, a bit of a gambling problem. Me? I don't gamble. And it's not because of some moral stance, it's simply because I don't find it fun or interesting. But there are a lot of people with a real problem.

What do we do? We restrict where gambling can take place. In the US, it is controlled at the State level, so in Nevada you can gamble, in Utah, not. There are laws specific to online gambling as opposed to casino operations, etc. It's how we manage our society.

There will always be those who think we should each operate without restrictions in any regard. Personally, I think that's completely untenable, since without any restrictions, who would respect anyone else, any belongings, any type of ownership?

The thing is, none of us get the governance we want or would prefer. That's because we live around other people, and they have their own needs and opinions. Governments aren't legislating against Bob, they're balancing the greater good. And yes, that gets corrupted, because sadly our process has become corrupted. Some people are anti-abortion and the law was changed outlawing it in most circumstances, others think it's purely the choice of the mother. We don't all have to like the outcome of legislation. But we have a consensus of sorts (or a process to determine consensus).

It's interesting to me to see half-baked ideas thrown out there. Complete freedom is one of them. How would that work, exactly? How would anything be adjudicated? Where is the line? How would we, as an example, maintain food standards without laws restricting things? If one person, smoking up a storm, insists on sitting with 100 non-smokers, what would should the outcome be? Would it be the 100 people having to suck up all that smoke, or would the 1 guy stop? Where does one person freedom beat out the freedom of another?

See, there are people who seem to think that if people want to take heroin and crack, then they should be allowed to. Hey, freedom and all that. And if someone wants to gradually strangle themselves, sucking up both smoke and resources of the state, then more power to them, I guess..........

 

[VaughanJB]

If you’ve read about the Sackler family, the owners of Purdue Pharma, the story becomes even darker. They recognized the addictive power of OxyContin and treated it not as a danger to be managed, but as a marketing opportunity to be exploited (much like tobacco companies and nicotine). It’s a grim chapter in modern American life. In 2025, the Sacklers agreed to a $7.4 billion settlement and were barred from selling opioids in the United States going forward.

Hey, apparently people should be free to addict themselves to Oxycontin and create great wealth for the Sackler family, if that's what they want. Or, in the case of the addicted, if that's what they're driven to do.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

They recognized the addictive power of OxyContin and treated it not as a danger to be managed, but as a marketing opportunity to be exploited

If a post mentions alcohol, there is one member here who contends that alcohol is a "red herring" in relation to the debate on tobacco (see post 202) but when that same member himself introduced Oxycontin to the thread (see post 106) he doesn't see that as a "red herring". He needs to familiarize himself with the meaning of "red herring," and use it correctly and consistently.

Examples of a "red herring" in this thread are car seats, child safety regulations, and firearms, which are governed by different sets of laws and follow a different analogy, per my post #209.

Phew, for a moment there I thought the quote was from an organization with an agenda.

Well, I could have pointed readers to links from the ACLU who have published several articles against banning cigarettes (particularly menthol flavored) - but, oops - they have an agenda, which is dedicated to defending individual civil rights and liberties through litigation, lobbying, and education. I support their work wholeheartedly.