abillybob Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Smoking is a habit and not an addiction. It's both and that's why it's so hard to stop. Nicotine is an addictive substance.
machin05 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 As long as it's around you will always get new people who will start smoking when young, it's another drug. We know herorin, ecstasy, cannabis is bad but people still consume them!! To be honest I think they should make all toxic drugs illegal. I can't see them ever making the likes of Nicotine or Alcohol illegal because the Government earns too much money from it all. That'd just turn us into a nation of criminals. 1
MrPstv Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Pretty sure scientists and health experts have spent 30+ years educating people... Weirdly, the tobacco lobby has spent that entire time fighting the idea that passive smoking is bad for people. Do you disagree with the science over passive smoking and the damage it does to children? There's quite a lot of evidence now... Er NO. Or is it the removal of the freedom to poison children in cars that is making you annoyed?Er NO Or are we back to the nonsensical "its unenforceable" argument. You decide... Ban SMOKING.. ban cigarettes... job done! Oh no can't do that? Why?
abillybob Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You decide... Ban SMOKING.. ban cigarettes... job done! Oh no can't do that? Why? Because of this... That'd just turn us into a nation of criminals.
MrPstv Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 That'd just turn us into a nation of criminals. I agree with your statement!!
E_G_R2 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You decide... Ban SMOKING.. ban cigarettes... job done! Oh no can't do that? Why? Look up prohabition and its effects in the US
sparkeh Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You decide... You are denying the existence of evidence as to the effect of secondhand smoke on children? Here is some of the education you called for earlier Secondhand Smoke: the impact on children
abillybob Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 More like because of this: [ATTACH=CONFIG]29192[/ATTACH] I agree here: To be honest I think they should make all toxic drugs illegal. I can't see them ever making the likes of Nicotine or Alcohol illegal because the Government earns too much money from it all.
Sdrawkcab Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 To be honest I think they should make all toxic drugs illegal. I can't see them ever making the likes of Nicotine or Alcohol illegal because the Government earns too much money from it all. Prohibition does not work at all. People still want to get high. If you ban tobacco, people will just get it off the black market. If they think there is a demand for something (and in the case of drugs, there always is) "Organizations" (gangs) will step in to fulfill that demand. Read up on alcohol prohibition in america and you can see how unsuccessful it is. It's also not really fair to call drugs "toxic" when there are only three drugs more dangerous than alcohol: Heroin, Crack and Crystal Meth. The only way we are ever going to fix this is with regulation, education and understanding.
MrPstv Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You are denying the existence of evidence as to the effect of secondhand smoke on children? Here is some of the education you called for earlier Secondhand Smoke: the impact on children Nope, i am not denying the evidence. Assume/presume call it what you will... Choice is freedom?
sparkeh Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Choice is freedom? To you, which is more important? a) The freedom of someone to smoke in a car? b) A child's freedom from (proven) dangerous chemicals and the associated health problems?
witch Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 The law is good because it makes it visibly and legally unacceptable to smoke in a car with children Of course there are always going to be idiots who do it - but those of us who can remember the seatbelt law coming in (and my mother was against it from a personal freedom point of view) will remember that quite quickly it became standard practice to put your seatbelt on and now most people just do it. Ditto using a mobile phone when driving - again, there will always be people who do it but driving instructors and the highway code etc make sure new drivers know the law and everyone else starts thinking more carefully about it. 1
MrPstv Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 To you, which is more important? a) The freedom of someone to smoke in a car? b) A child's freedom from (proven) dangerous chemicals and the associated health problems? Multiple choice! i choose b) obviously!
jinnantonnixx Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) When it comes to competing 'freedoms' (as listed above), it is the job of government to legislate such that freedom from harm by the actions of others should trump a freedom to do something demonstrably injurious. It doesn't always do this, and it doesn't always get it right, but even slow minds can see that smoking in a car is harmful to children. By the way, what's 'second-hand' about the smoke that comes out the end of a cigarette? Looks pretty first-hand to me. Edited February 13, 2015 by jinnantonnixx
CAM Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 First hand smoke is drawn directly from the cigarette and into the mouth. Second hand smoke is both exhaled smoke and unfiltered smoke coming out the end of the cigarette. If anything, the smoke coming out the end is potentially more dangerous as it hasn't been drawn through a filter. Or so campaigners claim (they are both toxic substances anyway).
pcstru Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 When it comes to competing 'freedoms' (as listed above), it is the job of government to legislate such that freedom from harm should trump a freedom to do something demonstrably injurious. I would disagree, in that that needs to be put as "freedom of harm from others". You should have the freedom to harm yourself and engage in activities which carry significant risk of self harm. There is also a question of how you quantify 'harm'. So with illegal drugs we have potential harm to (say) children being bought up by parents who are addicts but we also have significant social 'harm' in the direct and associated crime that prohibition tends to bring and social 'harm' also in having to support huge prison populations of convicted drugs users. The balancing of freedoms is ... difficult.
abillybob Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 If anything, the smoke coming out the end is potentially more dangerous as it hasn't been drawn through a filter. Or so campaigners claim (they are both toxic substances anyway). So is standing next to a bonfire.... Just sayin'
elsiegee40 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) I would disagree, in that that needs to be put as "freedom of harm from others". You should have the freedom to harm yourself and engage in activities which carry significant risk of self harm. Devil's advocate: Even if that self harm imposes, or is likely to impose, significant costs on others, including the NHS? Edited February 13, 2015 by elsiegee40
CAM Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 And having burned lineside vegetation in a previous job, you generally don't stand downwind of bonfires.
jinnantonnixx Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) I would disagree, in that that needs to be put as "freedom of harm from others". . That's actually what I meant. I've edited the post. Edited February 13, 2015 by jinnantonnixx
pcstru Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Devil's advocate: Even if that self harm imposes, or is likely to impose, significant costs on others, including the NHS? I think that is part of the difficulty - how much do we tolerate (say) extremes sports; base jumping, rugby, ironing. I'd say generally yes because it is important that people individually have scope to fulfil their desire to do those things. There can be social benefits too; jobs, education, tourism. But that is my value judgement and it is fairly arbitrary.
witch Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I think that is part of the difficulty - how much do we tolerate (say) extremes sports; base jumping, rugby, ironing. I'd say generally yes because it is important that people individually have scope to fulfil their desire to do those things. There can be social benefits too; jobs, education, tourism. But that is my value judgement and it is fairly arbitrary. I agree although having to have your own insurance when doing this sort of thing - much like you do when abroad - would help.
CAM Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I think that is part of the difficulty - how much do we tolerate (say) extremes sports; base jumping, rugby, ironing. I'd say generally yes because it is important that people individually have scope to fulfil their desire to do those things. There can be social benefits too; jobs, education, tourism. But that is my value judgement and it is fairly arbitrary. The key difference between smoking and rugby is I don't walk into a pub or other public place and get hit full on by a flying French quarterback.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now