Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

The smoking ban was just the start...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Next - no cigarettes on display.

In a year or so perhaps, no smoking outside?

Labour have wrecked the economy, the pound is becoming worthless - if only smokers didn't have an addiction stopping them from putting the final nail in Britain's economy... :p Praise to the tobacco smugglers though, smokers are treated like shit, the govt doesn't deserve our money.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think a lot of the problems with the economy would be going on even if the conservatives were in power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Save the children . . . . . . for Ritalin and Strattera.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We had no choice over the smoking ban, we do have a choice in who we chose for our government. To be honest I do not have any faith at all in any of the parties.
    I was reading on the dwp website that to pay for the debts that England is in we will all be paying a lot more tax and national insurance to try and get us out of the mess that Labour has put us in. I knew it was a wrong decision to let them get into power but the conservatives were not a lot better but it is beyond me that labour said right at the begining that things will always get better ....where have they managed to do that?

    As for the vat decrease well beer does not go down neither does tobacco. We do not pay tax on food, clothes and books and some others.

    Why are they trying to convince us that a 2.5% decrease will make a lot of difference to our lives and then in a less than a years time we will have to pay three times more tax and national insurance for what? Bailing out the banks?

    As for the tobacco issue ....I bet that all the mp's smoke due to stress?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TV Advertising banned - people still started to smoke.

    Cinema Advertising banned - people still started to smoke.

    Sponsorship Advertising banned - people still started to smoke.

    Cigarette Offers banned - people still started to smoke.

    Advertising Cigarette Prices banned - people still started to smoke.

    Smoking in enclosed spaces banned - people still started to smoke.

    I bet you a £1 to a pinch of shit if you got 1,000 people who smoke none of 'em (or at least very few) are going to say 'I saw a packet of fags in the shop so thought i'd start smoking'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote: »
    TV Advertising banned - people still started to smoke.

    Cinema Advertising banned - people still started to smoke.

    Sponsorship Advertising banned - people still started to smoke.

    Cigarette Offers banned - people still started to smoke.

    Advertising Cigarette Prices banned - people still started to smoke.

    Smoking in enclosed spaces banned - people still started to smoke.

    I bet you a £1 to a pinch of shit if you got 1,000 people who smoke none of 'em (or at least very few) are going to say 'I saw a packet of fags in the shop so thought i'd start smoking'
    I don't smoke. But if cigarettes are eventually banned (and the way things are going, it's not such an improbable scenario) I'm going to fucking start smoking out of general principle. Fuck the cunts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People are so anal.
    I like the smoking ban because I feel I have a right to enjoy my food in a restaurant/get sweaty at a gig without breathing in death. I just hate the smell and it just makes me physically ill. I enjoy being healthy.

    But this is actually retarded. These stupid pictures on the back of cigarette packets are only the benefit for those that don't smoke, so they can feel good about themselves. They ain't stopping no smoker.

    Also...
    I bet loads of MPs smoke. They're just trying to find a fan base.
    And if they don't smoke, I bet they all go out and get horrendously wasted which is just as bad.

    P.S I don't smoke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    With a lot of addictions, drinking, injecting drugs, pills etc. it only affects the person taking them. Wtih smoking however it affects those around. So for those of us who are unwilling to take up the habit, it is a very selfish thing to do around non-smokers.

    Yes, we could move and make a concious effort not to be around smokers, but many of my friends and family smoke. Also this would not do anything, as I was in town the other day and out of nowhere I got a lungfull of tabbacco smoke.:yuck:

    I don't say ban it, since that has all but been proven to be useless (look at prohibition America), but just be thoughtfull about who you smoke around.

    About the government, I say bring back the absolute monarchy! That way there'll be no one saying "Yeah, we'll do this and that if you elect us." and then fail do deliver after they win.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Love the smoking ban, but this is just ridiculous.

    It won't accomplish anything!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I don't smoke. But if cigarettes are eventually banned, I'm going to fucking start smoking out of general principle. Fuck the cunts.
    I take back every criticism that I have ever made of you. That is exactly what I think about this.

    Can anyone explain how hiding cigarettes - pretending they're not really there, in other words - is going to stop people from smoking? From a practical viewpoint, how is it going to work for shops? What are they supposed to do - write down restaurant-style menus featuring the cigarettes that they sell? The whole thing is fucking crazy. We're going back to the speakeasys of the 1920s at this rate.

    Smokers pay an absolutely obscene level in taxes each time they buy the product. They deserve far better treatment from the government, which is more than willing to push up the price of cigarettes at every turn.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    From a practical viewpoint, how is it going to work for shops? What are they supposed to do - write down restaurant-style menus featuring the cigarettes that they sell?
    I suspect that's exactly what they will do. Same as what happens in Holland with the weed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Same as what happens in Holland with the weed.

    Until Amsterdam gets put under the counter.

    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3857275,00.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IWishIWas wrote: »
    But this is actually retarded. These stupid pictures on the back of cigarette packets are only the benefit for those that don't smoke, so they can feel good about themselves. They ain't stopping no smoker.

    Not true - it was the edge I needed to give up
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suspect that's exactly what they will do. Same as what happens in Holland with the weed.
    Coming up in next week's exciting episode of The Brown Years - some New Labour policy wonk says that the lists in question should be hidden away from display to stop kids knowing what kind of cigarettes they can get.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I take back every criticism that I have ever made of you. That is exactly what I think about this.
    I'll buy you a Christmas pint yet ;):D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smokers are just an easy target for the government to make a high profile 'attack' on. They can't sort out the drinking and drug problems and so they try and make it look like they are doing something, by coming out with mindless rules like this one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wonder...what do the government want to give us? It is them once again dictating to us how our lives should be. What ever happened to us being able to have and lead our own lives without dictatorship?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    becks27 wrote: »
    I wonder...what do the government want to give us? It is them once again dictating to us how our lives should be. What ever happened to us being able to have and lead our own lives without dictatorship?

    The only problem is, there are too many stupid people in the country, or at least those without common sense to allow such a state of givt to exist. Which then in turn annoys the people who can control their own lives for the better, and the better of others, because they dont want to be controlled.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Smokers are just an easy target for the government to make a high profile 'attack' on.

    Yup.
    becks27 wrote:
    It is them once again dictating to us how our lives should be. What ever happened to us being able to have and lead our own lives without dictatorship?

    Yup again.

    It stinks of the Government again knowing what's best for us more than we do ourselves, since we're all little children and evidently can't choose for ourselves.

    I was horrified that my favourite brand has now started putting images of smoking-related conditions on the packets. Horrified, not by the images or or that my lung / throat / unborn child could look like that, but by the fact that they don't think we know this already! We've had this shit beaten into us for as long as I can remember. Pictures of a diseased lung on my packet is not, repeat, *not* going to stop me smoking. If I stop, it will be my decision and I will not be co-erced by someone who thinks they know better than me.

    WE GET IT. SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU AND CAUSES ALL SORTS OF NASTY SHIT. BUT SOME PEOPLE STILL CHOOSE TO DO IT - OK? CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE US ALONE FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE AND START PERSECUTING PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY HARMING SOCIETY AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE £10BN MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN TAXES AND WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO EXERCISE THEIR DEMOCRATIC PREROGATIVE WITHOUT FEAR OF PERSECUTION?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yup.



    Yup again.

    It stinks of the Government again knowing what's best for us more than we do ourselves, since we're all little children and evidently can't choose for ourselves.

    I was horrified that my favourite brand has now started putting images of smoking-related conditions on the packets. Horrified, not by the images or or that my lung / throat / unborn child could look like that, but by the fact that they don't think we know this already! We've had this shit beaten into us for as long as I can remember. Pictures of a diseased lung on my packet is not, repeat, *not* going to stop me smoking. If I stop, it will be my decision and I will not be co-erced by someone who thinks they know better than me.

    WE GET IT. SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU AND CAUSES ALL SORTS OF NASTY SHIT. BUT SOME PEOPLE STILL CHOOSE TO DO IT - OK? CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE US ALONE FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE AND START PERSECUTING PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY HARMING SOCIETY AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE £10BN MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN TAXES AND WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO EXERCISE THEIR DEMOCRATIC PREROGATIVE WITHOUT FEAR OF PERSECUTION?

    Hear. Hear!!

    (Just don't do it around me:yuck: )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The word 'cigarette' needs to be removed from the dictionary; the definitions of 'smoking' and 'smoke' which pertain to tobacco could then be removed. After alteration of all historical media which depicted the act of smoking we could have a society which within fifty years wouldn't know what smoking was, let alone harbour a desire to do it.

    :D -
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've never seen solid proof of second hand smoke doing any harm, just lame advertising campaigns, and mad anti-smokers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whilst I don't think that anyone doubts passive smoking does exist, I think the risks are greatly exaggerated to suit the agenda of the anti-smoking fascists who would quite happily see us rot in a ditch rather than light up and derive a few moments of exquisite pleasure from a lovely cig.

    I've personally never seen any conclusive, ratified proof that passive smoking is any more dangerous than walking around in a big city. This always makes me chuckle that people will berate smokers out on the street for smoking within 30 feet of their mewling spawn while quite happy to let said offspring inhale the fumes of countless cars whizzing by. For starters, it's because of people like that that we're forced to be out in the street in the first place...

    Another quite interesting thing is when I typed in 'proof of passive smoking' into Google, 5 of the first page of 10 hits deal with the debate as to whether passive smoking is real or exaggerated. (Screenshot enclosed). Interesting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can easily see how passive smoking can be just as harmful as smoking a cigarette since you are breathing in the same stuff, just not as much of it. It's just not nice for us non-smokers to breathe it in as well. I don't like the taste, it affects my asthma, and once when in an extremely enclosed and unventilated area, it began to make my eyes sting. You can debate until Judgment Day about whether or not it is harmful to yourself or others around you, but it is simply inconsiderate to light up in the presence of someone who doesn't like it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can debate until Judgment Day about whether or not it is harmful to yourself or others around you, but it is simply inconsiderate to light up in the presence of someone who doesn't like it.

    I could use the same argument about cars driving near me spewing their filth into the atmosphere which is doing incomparably more harm to the earth than me smoking a fag. It's only inconsiderate because you don't like it. There are loads of things that irritate me that I would call inconsiderate because they aggrevate me. However, I tolerate it because on the flip-side, I appreciate that there may be things I do that annoy other people.

    Though I respect people's wishes to do whatever they wish in a nominally free society :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am happy for the smoking bad indoors. I think people should stop whining about it and grow up. At the end of the day, it's only a case of getting off their arse to stand outside for three minutes. Not much to ask eh?

    I think banning smoking outside may be a bit OTT. Again, I don't care as I don't smoke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I am happy for the smoking bad indoors. I think people should stop whining about it and grow up. At the end of the day, it's only a case of getting off their arse to stand outside for three minutes. Not much to ask eh?

    I think banning smoking outside may be a bit OTT. Again, I don't care as I don't smoke.

    While I do agree with placing limits on where and when people can smoke inside, neither the small inconvenience to smokers, nor whether you participate in the activity in question, are valid, let alone cogent, arguments for the smoking ban. The inconvenience may be small to smokers, but that doesn't hold any weight when you're arguing the legitimacy of the ban; sitting at the back of the bus is only a mild inconvenience.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the smoking ban was just the start then where are we now ....when we find Gordon Brown talking about making it perfectly legal for a baliff who comes to your house to collect debts ...be it fines bank/credit charges/debts
    whatever ...to be able to pin you to the floor or wall?
    Against your will ...on your own floor or across the back of a chair ...to collect money for the bankers ....is anyone screaming from the rooftops over this?
    Thought not.
    Am I screaming?
    Only on the inside for some strange reason.
    We live in strange times indeed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    (with apologies to BBC News, whose report I've slightly altered for my own amusement...)

    Ban on petrol station displays announced:
    "The open display of fuelling stations is to be banned in England and Wales, the government announced today. They will now have to be hidden underground so that people cannot see them. But plans for an outright ban of fuelling stations have been scrapped - on the grounds it would prove too expensive for the Treasury. Ministers hope the display ban, which is also under consideration in Scotland, will reduce the number of motorists on the road. Northern Ireland is yet to decide whether it would implement such a policy. Critics say the moves do not go far enough to stop motorists from buying fuel."

    Knowing this government, it can't be that far away. Fucking Stalinist cunts.

    Meantime, one slight modification to Namaste's post...
    Namaste wrote: »
    I am happy for the smoking ban indoors. At the end of the day, it's only a case of getting off their arse to stand outside for three minutes. Not much to ask... as I don't smoke.
    ...lets the cat out of the bag. I wonder if you'd be happy to see other groups in society treated in this way. Why don't we ban the obese from eating indoors in public places? Let's force them all to go outside when they've ordered something from a McDonalds and see them stuffing their faces in the pissing rain instead. You'd be the first to support that idea... wouldn't you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »

    Meantime, one slight modification to Namaste's post......lets the cat out of the bag. I wonder if you'd be happy to see other groups in society treated in this way. Why don't we ban the obese from eating indoors in public places? Let's force them all to go outside when they've ordered something from a McDonalds and see them stuffing their faces in the pissing rain instead. You'd be the first to support that idea... wouldn't you?
    That's not a fair comparison though. The sight of obese people eating is not going to damage your health and seriously inconvenience you. At the most it might displease you and make your eating experience less pleasurable... but to be fair you'd have to be a bit of a bastard if the very sight of fat people disturbed you so.

    Having said all of that, there is no reason in the world why they couldn't have simply given bars and restaurants the option of creating segregated smoking areas.

    It is also stupid that govenrments have chosen to ignore new technology regarding air purification. There are table-top machines that suck up surrounding air and are said to remove more than 99.9% of all cigarette smoke. If restaurants and bars were allowed to install them in some of their tables, smokers and non smokers could even share the same room without the latter being inconvenienced or affeced in any way.

    To recap, it was right to ensure non smokers and staff enjoy a smoke-free environment, but it was wrong to impose a blanket ban on all indoor venues without giving the option of creating smoking areas.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    That's not a fair comparison though. The sight of obese people eating is not going to damage your health and seriously inconvenience you. At the most it might displease you and make your eating experience less pleasurable... but to be fair you'd have to be a bit of a bastard if the very sight of fat people disturbed you so.

    Having said all of that, there is no reason in the world why they couldn't have simply given bars and restaurants the option of creating segregated smoking areas.

    It is also stupid that govenrments have chosen to ignore new technology regarding air purification. There are table-top machines that suck up surrounding air and are said to remove more than 99.9% of all cigarette smoke. If restaurants and bars were allowed to install them in some of their tables, smokers and non smokers could even share the same room without the latter being inconvenienced or affeced in any way.

    To recap, it was right to ensure non smokers and staff enjoy a smoke-free environment, but it was wrong to impose a blanket ban on all indoor venues without giving the option of creating smoking areas.

    Or indeed, allow private premises to do whatever the fuck they want. Before the ban, there were plenty of restaurants, cafes and bars that had segregated areas / bans. Private premises should be allowed to do what the hell they want to. I'd almost go as far as to say that you don't have the God-given right to go to pubs / clubs / cafes and so if you'd like to, you should put up with little inconveniences but I know the hippie brigade will jump down my throat :)
Sign In or Register to comment.