UK bans sale of cigarettes to future generations.
- Thread starter Aunt Bea
- Start date
PSA - A red herring is a misleading or irrelevant point that shifts focus away from the central question.
I know there's folks on here (I'll not mention names) that get a bit agitated when a thread veers off of the intended subject. I'm not one of those, And in this case, addiction isn’t a detour at all; it’s woven into the subject. These days, very few people would take up smoking in the first place, and a ban on cigarettes might be unnecessary if they weren’t addictive to begin with. Smokers have become something of a pariah class anyway. There are hardly any public places left where they’re allowed to light up, and the cost is outrageous—though I couldn’t tell you how the price of a pack compares to OxyContin, whiskey, or heroin.
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I agree that there are times when it’s appropriate, perhaps even necessary, for the government to legislate behavior. But it’s a dangerous path, one that can slide toward unintended consequences with remarkable speed. Prohibition is the classic example, and the War on Drugs, (launched in 1971 and still grinding on half a century later), only reinforces the lesson. By any reasonable measure, we’re not winning that one. I don’t pretend to have the answer for how to curb harmful behavior, or whether the wiser course is simply to find ways to limit the damage it causes.
gruntlabor
Well-known Member
- Location
- Last Frontier, Age 84
Thank you, MACK.I've always admired your precision in conveying your message.
gruntlabor
Well-known Member
- Location
- Last Frontier, Age 84
I believe you are. If not, why do you coddle and encourage the criminal and the drug addled and the insane?
Wombat
Member
- Location
- Wollongong
Is what he says in that clip true?
Oxycontin is a good drug I am prescribed it, I am not addicted to it but there are restrictions on its use and prescription.
I don't know that the statistics he quotes are 100% accurate, keep in mind that clip is from 2012. However, in my opinion, the main message is absolutely true.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Geez, are you guys still arguing??
I'm trying not to.
It helps if one at least attempts to stay topic. PSA - A red herring is a misleading or irrelevant point that shifts focus away from the central question.
I know there's folks on here (I'll not mention names) that get a bit agitated when a thread veers off of the intended subject. I'm not one of those, And in this case, addiction isn’t a detour at all; it’s woven into the subject. These days, very few people would take up smoking in the first place, and a ban on cigarettes might be unnecessary if they weren’t addictive to begin with. Smokers have become something of a pariah class anyway. There are hardly any public places left where they’re allowed to light up, and the cost is outrageous—though I couldn’t tell you how the price of a pack compares to OxyContin, whiskey, or heroin.
Due to an ongoing campaign of both education and legislation, the UK has drastically reduced the number of smokers. It wasn't something that happened over night, instead a more common sense approach of combing education with new rules and restrictions have been taken. This has been highly effective, and the new rules are just another step on the ladder to the goal of a smoke free society by 2030. A "smoke free" society is defined as being 5% of the populace or less.
These goals and ambitions started in 1962. That was when research was published showing the harm smoking causes. One method employed is taxation, making smoking progressively costly. This policy didn't really come effective until the 1980's. It is estimated that in the 1960's, 51% of adults in the UK were smokers. 70% of men were smokers. Today we have whittled that number down to around 10%.
The UK first began to employ advertising bans in 1971, the very same year the US government (then under Nixon) did the same thing. This policy has had bi-partisan support, and has been carried over from government to government without substantial change. This is largely because it is seen as a public health initiative.
As you state, restrictions have been in place restricting where one can smoke in the past. For example, the ban in smoking in pubs was passed in 2007. It is credited with reducing the number of heart attacks by almost 2.5%. In 2007 1 in 10 pregnant women smoked.
All this to say, the "ban on smoking" is part of a long journey toward the elimination of injury and deaths caused by a known commercial product that profited corporations. A ban is supported by both medical and social groups. I'm not sure how it could be considered in any way draconian when it started in 1960 and is only now getting around to banning the same to banning the sale of tobacco to people born after 2009.
No doubt people will find other addictions, other vices and ways to hurt themselves. Smoking is particularly nasty because of secondhand smoke, which is the cause of many infections and even can cause sudden infant death syndrome.
There is a good paper (but very very long) regarding the US history on tobacco here:
Fifty Years of Change 1964–2014 - The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress - NCBI Bookshelf
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Truly, I have no idea what this is referring to. Still, you can believe of me what you will.
There are very few instances where there are absolutes. For example, whilst banning smoking at pubs in the UK was deemed a step forward for the nations health, it is also noted as one of the causes of pub closures. Pubs in the UK were once not simply places where you went to get alcohol, but were social hubs. It was a place where you met your neighbors, got to know them, and shared experiences. It was a place where younger folk learned how to live with others. All of that, or at least most of it, has been lost.
That said, another cause is the increase in taxation for alcohol, and the rise of business rates etc. The thing is, life is always more complex that it looks at the surface level. That's why we have checks and balances along the way. There is no absolute right and absolute wrong. When it comes to smoking, it is considered to be for the wider good, and that's not simply government rhetoric, it's born out by public sentiment. There does not appear to be a groundswell of people crying in their coffee because they can't get tobacco.