Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Age of cigarettes and knives going up to 18

1356

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    its not illegal to smoke under 16 atm, its just illegal to buy or buy for a 16 year old


    why treat tabacco like other drugs and make it illegal, if anything it will make things worse

    How would it make things worse, if it were more difficult to obtain cigarettes, less people would smoke, the health of the nation improves it is qute obvious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    How would it make things worse, if it were more difficult to obtain cigarettes, less people would smoke, the health of the nation improves it is qute obvious.


    if telling people how dangerous smoking is, has virtually no impact, you think a change of law will do it

    and remember the biggest cause of death is being born ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can't remember where I saw it but I think it has been documented that the public smoking ban in ireland has noticeably reduced the number of smokers.

    It really is rather obvious that making something more difficult to do will reduce the number of people who do it.......

    What makes you so sure that telling people how dangerous it is has no impact by the way? I thought that smoking had become far less popular in the last couple of decades, has better health information not contributed to this?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Toadborg wrote:
    The age to but cigarettes should be raised by 1 year every year

    This would put an end to smoking (apart from those who would do it illegally of course), thouh it would take some time..........

    Good idea! I'd be behind that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    I can't remember where I saw it but I think it has been documented that the public smoking ban in ireland has noticeably reduced the number of smokers.

    It really is rather obvious that making something more difficult to do will reduce the number of people who do it.......

    What makes you so sure that telling people how dangerous it is has no impact by the way? I thought that smoking had become far less popular in the last couple of decades, has better health information not contributed to this?


    surely someone can smoke in their houses? non?

    i agree about affecting other people, so not allowing it in enclosed spaces, but not an all out ban, thats just stupid
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The city where I live band smoking in buildings (except for personal residences) a few years ago. You can still smoke in public, just not in restiraunts and bars. It's been nice to not deal with smokers when you're eating. I think it even helped to bring down the number of people who smoke as well although I don't know that for sure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    surely someone can smoke in their houses? non?

    i agree about affecting other people, so not allowing it in enclosed spaces, but not an all out ban, thats just stupid

    Well actually I would say there is a case for an all out ban given stuff like this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1114132.stm

    But I agree that it would be unworkable in practise........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The day smoking is banned outright I will take up the habit.

    There cannot be any objection to smoking in open areas. Whatsoever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The day smoking is banned outright I will take up the habit.

    There cannot be any objection to smoking in open areas. Whatsoever.

    You speak too soon............

    http://www.tobacco.org/news/229707.html

    (Was in Metro today but their website is crap so got it from here)

    Even when you smoke outdoors the crap from the cigarette clings to your clothes etc and can be contaminating later. hence children whose parents smoked outside of the house still had far higher levels of some toxins in their bodies than non-smokers children and it could be linked to increases in Asthma cases.

    Smoking is stupid and dangerous and society would be better if no-one smoked, it is simple.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In that case parents should not be allowed to

    - own cars, motorbikes or vans

    - live in cities and large towns

    seeing as their children will be exposed to contamination and pollution too.

    Let's keep a sense of balance and proportion to things. Whereas there might be a genuine case for smoking in the same room (or even the same house as children) being in some degree harmful, there is no excuse whatsoever for demanding people should not smoke in open air, children or not children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The first point is obviously ridiculous.

    Did you read the link? It can be dangerous, so if there is a case (at least moral) for not smoking in the same room as children then why not elsewhere if it can still be dangerous?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just about everything in life can be dangerous. How much of a risk is this in real terms though?

    Because if you are suggesting any risk is unacceptable then you must also demand that all children grow up in small countryside hamlets where no motor vehicles are allowed in or through. You cannot have one without the other.

    Believe me, CO2 emissions and pollution in towns and cities are infinitely more harmful than whichever lingering substances smokers might have embedded in their clothes and bring home.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No I am saying that a risk inflicted by something that is completely pointless and can easily be avoided should be removed.

    Any comparison to car fumes etc is ridiculous because ars etc are useful, of course you can make arguments about people driving too much etc but it doesn't compare to smoking which is completely pointless, selfish and socially damaging......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cars might be needed... by few- let's be clear about that.

    But living in cities and large towns is not a necesity at all. If we are to take the position that any risk to children however small is unacceptable then it's not unreasonable to demand that anyone who raises children should move out to the countryside.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Please don't be so silly.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    First of all to the apparently thorny issue of second hand smoke and kids;

    - Parents should not smoke, its simple really, not only are you potentially harming them, but you are also making it WAY more likely they will smoke.


    As for banning it or raising the age, I sometimes wonder if anyone has learnt any lessons from 30 years of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Banning it will only make it more harmful and raising the age range will only give more business to the smugglers.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Aladdin wrote:
    Cars might be needed... by few- let's be clear about that.

    Seriously. Thats wrong. By MOST of Britain, lets be fair. Our public transport is too inadiquate to compensate for most car journeys. It really is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That might be true of some rural areas... but certainly not of cities and major towns.

    Nobody (with a few special cases and exceptions) really needs a car to commute into and through a big town or a city. They might not want to take 2 or 3 buses, they might not want to cycle, they might not want to use a crowded train carriage, but they certainly nothing is preventing them from doing it.

    Although that's verging a bit into a public transport discussion rather than protecting children's health one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is entirely irrelevant.

    The only relevant questions are?

    Is smoking harmful? Yes

    Is there any use to it that counters this harm? No

    Thus it is purely a danger to public health and should be actively discouraged by society and the government in particular. The degree of discouragement may be debated but there is little doubt that it should be quite severe in my mind......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I actually agree that it should be discouraged Toadboarg. I don't believe it should be banned though. I also don't believe in certain partial bans, such as banning it anywhere outdoors (there are one or two places in Canada or the US, can't remember where, where you cannot even smoke outdoors).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your totalitarian views Toadborg are really quite disgusting. Smoking; like abortion, use of alcohol and many other things is an individual choice. A ban on smoking would be a deep intrusion on the liberty of millions of people. And a compulsory smoking ban in enclosed spaces is an invasive infringement of the liberty of pub and restaurant owners to run their business as they see fit. Anybody that favours outside smoking bans meanwhile is truly pathetic. (Unwanted noise pollution is surely far more irritating to users of a park or beach anyway than a little cigarette smoke). Anti-smoking totalitarians really need to get a life.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For once I agree with dis.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your totalitarian views Toadborg are really quite disgusting. Smoking; like abortion, use of alcohol and many other things is an individual choice. A ban on smoking would be a deep intrusion on the liberty of millions of people. And a compulsory smoking ban in enclosed spaces is an invasive infringement of the liberty of pub and restaurant owners to run their business as they see fit. Anybody that favours outside smoking bans meanwhile is truly pathetic. (Unwanted noise pollution is surely far more irritating to users of a park or beach anyway than a little cigarette smoke). Anti-smoking totalitarians really need to get a life.

    Don't give me this bullshit, we have had these threads before and i don't really want to start a whole one again.

    Safe to say that knowing your views that we should have tough controls on immigration your outrage at 'removing peoples liberties' sounds like hypocritical wank.............
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Don't give me this bullshit, we have had these threads before and i don't really want to start a whole one again.

    Safe to say that knowing your views that we should have tough controls on immigration your outrage at 'removing peoples liberties' sounds like hypocritical wank.............

    I oppose unlimited immigration because it is infrastructurally unsustainable. I think a constraint on liberties necessary for the preservation of a continued (controlled) immigration system is also a constraint vital to avoid fostering discontent and a decline in living standards among the existing population. That's a far lesser attack upon individual's liberties than telling everybody here and everybody who wants to come here that they can't smoke fullstop. If somebody wishes to risk their health through use of tobacco (or indeed, drug use) it's none of the government's business. You could technically argue that it is given the existence of the NHS which treats smokers and drug-users, but to that it can be answered that smokers contribute far more to the treasury than they cost to the NHS. (And a good argument can be made for legalising and taxing drugs so drug addicts fund their treatment, although that's another debate). Anyway you've started a completely pointless discussion. Outlawing smoking would create the biggest blackmarket overnight, make illegal tobacco smugglers near instant millionaires and prove completely unenforceable. And because of that, and the gigantic amount of money smokers and tobacco companies based here are worth economically it's just never going to happen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's also a waste of time on health grounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's also a waste of time on health grounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Forcing indoor public places to provide smoke-free accomodation is entirely right.

    Outright bans, even for places which can provide separated accomodation, is wrong.

    I'm all for banning smoking in pubs if they cannot provide smoking rooms, but if they provide separate smoking rooms then that is the end of the matter as far as I care.

    Outside bans are wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At first I didn't like the idea of a smoking ban in pubs but I think it's great. You smoke less and when you're outside you get to talk to lots of strangers, and you can chat up ladies better when you're in niteclubs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    At first I didn't like the idea of a smoking ban in pubs but I think it's great. You smoke less and when you're outside you get to talk to lots of strangers, and you can chat up ladies better when you're in niteclubs.

    At school it would be quite sociable too, to stand outside and have a smoke. But in the winter, it's hell.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Forcing indoor public places to provide smoke-free accomodation is entirely right.

    Outright bans, even for places which can provide separated accomodation, is wrong.

    I'm all for banning smoking in pubs if they cannot provide smoking rooms, but if they provide separate smoking rooms then that is the end of the matter as far as I care.

    Outside bans are wrong.

    I think such a compromise would suit just about everybody, :) far more so than the outright ban that's going to be introduced.
Sign In or Register to comment.