Under the Counter Cigarettes - Bad for consumers in its present form

Azari

Jules22 wrote: »

Now this is taking things too far.

So are you saying that we SHOULDN'T take responsibility for our own decisions?

Or only those in Government are allowed to tell us what to do in our every day lives, as we have lost the ability to decide for ourselves.

Beggars belief if its the latter!!

The point I was trying to make is that it's not black and white. There is no magical marker that delineates reasonable regulation for excessive nannying.

Someone who just uses: "we should take responsibility for our own actions" as a universal knee jerk response to any suggestion of regulation is not seeing the whole picture.

Derivative

Azari wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that it's not black and white. There is no magical marker that delineates reasonable regulation for excessive nannying.

Someone who just uses: "we should take responsibility for our own actions" as a universal knee jerk response to any suggestion of regulation is not seeing the whole picture.

Yes, of course, but again I think it is jumping into a strawman to use drink driving in comparison.

Smoking nowadays really doesn't affect anyone but the smoker. We outlawed smoking not only in workplaces but in all enclosed public spaces.

So we're down to people smoking in front of you as you walk the street (very easily avoidable), and people smoking in private. The only group that can't avoid passive smoking is now children that have no say in whether or not others smoke in the house.

The NHS cost problem is solved by virtue of the tax levy on tobacco products. I haven't looked into whether or not it completely covers costs, but if it doesn't, then a tax rise neatly takes care of the 'problem'.

By contrast, drink driving has the potential to affect anyone else on the road - not only other drivers but pedestrians.

Drug use is a difficult one because there are far more complex effects to think about than simply drug users committing crime. The underground industry is responsible for financing a large amount of organized crime already. It has been suggested that perhaps legalising softer drugs would result in cutting the funding to gangs. Not so simple after all.

Azari

Derivative wrote: »

Yes, of course, but again I think it is jumping into a strawman to use drink driving in comparison.

The point of mentioning drink-driving is that there is a continuum from absurdities such as drastically restricting children's playground games at one end to, for example, said drink driving at the other.

Smoking is on that continuum. A fair proportion of people who smoke will have their lifespan significantly reduced and the quality of that life, particularly at the end, seriously diminished.

That needs to be taken into account in determining what is reasonable to try and encourage people to stop smoking.

Not so simple after all.

Exactly.

anatomical

EycplUK wrote: »

And what about all the people who are harmed by passive smoking?

Where are people getting harmed by passive smoking now please ? Not in Pubs , clubs and workplaces so where ?
Are you seriousley trying to tell us that people smoking outside is going to give you " Passive smoking disease`s " ?
More chance of getting poisioned by car and truck fumes !

No I am not saying that people smoking outside is going to poison and kill off everyone. I am saying that people who smoke in houses and cars, any closed environment, are risking the health of everyone there. Whether that is their children, their partner or their friends.You can't expect me to believe that everyone who smokes does not do it in their own house and only smokes outside.

Derivative

Azari wrote: »

Smoking is on that continuum. A fair proportion of people who smoke will have their lifespan significantly reduced and the quality of that life, particularly at the end, seriously diminished.

That needs to be taken into account in determining what is reasonable to try and encourage people to stop smoking.

Yes, but that is an entirely personal choice made by the individual.

We don't have an issue with drink driving because the person in question might crash and injure themselves, it's the damage caused to others that matters.

We're at about 15% of UK adults smoking nowadays, probably less as I type this. Measures taken now are squeezing blood out of a stone, damage caused by obesity and unhealthy lifestyles (lack of exercise, etc) is far more important IMO.

Derivative

anatomical wrote: »

No I am not saying that people smoking outside is going to poison and kill off everyone. I am saying that people who smoke in houses and cars, any closed environment, are risking the health of everyone there. Whether that is their children, their partner or their friends.You can't expect me to believe that everyone who smokes does not do it in their own house and only smokes outside.

The only people there that are actually at risk are children. And as stated before, parents that choose to smoke around their kids are probably bad parents in many ways, smoking would be the least of my concerns.
Anyone else makes an informed decision to socialize with smokers.

It's like banning motorcycles because partners may be "forced" to ride pillion. People choose their destiny

The_BAMFster

Derivative wrote: »

Smoking nowadays really doesn't affect anyone but the smoker. We outlawed smoking not only in workplaces but in all enclosed public spaces.

So we're down to people smoking in front of you as you walk the street (very easily avoidable), and people smoking in private. The only group that can't avoid passive smoking is now children that have no say in whether or not others smoke in the house.

Apologies for editing your text, but I have to disagree with the first part I've highlighted.

My mother died as a result of developing a cancer directly attributed to smoking. My family were greatly affected by the outcome of her choices.

Second part, I wholly agree with. That is simply down to the irresponsible attitude of the adult smoker.

Derivative

The_BAMFster wrote: »

Apologies for editing your text, but I have to disagree with the first part I've highlighted.

My mother died as a result of developing a cancer directly attributed to smoking. My family were greatly affected by the outcome of her choices.

Second part, I wholly agree with. That is simply down to the irresponsible attitude of the adult smoker.

My nan died as a result of emphysema brought on by smoking. Her death affected the family greatly - but in an emotional sense.

Of course for those supporting families it's not just about smoking outside the house - you have a duty to support your children and ensuring your own health is part of that duty.

I'd rather not stray the thread too far into parental responsibility so I'll stop there.

My main point is that it is important to remember that we're not all parents, and those that are may not have dependent children. For everyone else, it's a matter of controlling your own destiny. We all have our vices, life would be no fun without them.

popadom

I wonder how long before they do this for booze/unhealthy snacks/anything deemed unsuitable .

Derivative

popadom wrote: »

I wonder how long before they do this for booze/unhealthy snacks/anything deemed unsuitable .

This is what I am worried about.

The world would be a very boring place if all packaging were bland colours besides that of basics like pasta, potatoes, and fresh fruit and veg.

Not to mention rather annoying if all the treats were hidden under a counter.