UK smoking ban for those born after 2009
Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Maybe not at 15 but by 17 a third have used cannabis and 10% have tried hard drugs
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2021/feb/10-teenage...
....and in future where cigarette supply is in the hands of the drug dealers those numbers are going to rocket.https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2021/feb/10-teenage...
They really are idiots.
Boringvolvodriver said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Terminator X said:
Wait for instructions, don't leave the house.
TX.
It's not though is it.TX.
Honestly not being allowed to buy cigarettes isn't a bad thing just because some weirdos want to make out people who are OK with it are hand wringers or that next thing we'll be smothering babies (nothing odd about that particular little leap).
The proposal is a fudge as it will not stop some children smoking in the same way as the current law doesn’t.
To my mind, the better solution would be to increase the tax payable so that ultimately it becomes unviable to smoke.
smn159 said:
Well it looks like it's going through so I guess that we'll just have to wait and see whether this means that the whole population will be confined to their homes and injected with DNA altering drugs, sport is banned and non perfect babies are murdered at birth...
You forgot about people getting fined for flying Union Jacks.Dave200 said:
Peak whataboutism. Just because I don't want adults to smoke means that I'm happy for them to be stabbed. You actually couldn't make that up. Excellent trolling.
Why would you care about that? Do you care as much about obesity, heart disease? Typical lazy retort from a dummy.
carlo996 said:
Dave200 said:
Peak whataboutism. Just because I don't want adults to smoke means that I'm happy for them to be stabbed. You actually couldn't make that up. Excellent trolling.
Why would you care about that? Do you care as much about obesity, heart disease? Typical lazy retort from a dummy.
Hill92 said:
There are many cases exactly like this.
Married Men's Allowance was removed for anyone not born after 6 April 1935.
Anyone born in the British Islands before 1 January 1983 was automatically a British citizen regardless of nationality of their parents. Individuals born since then only receive citizenship at birth if at least one of their parents is a British citizen or holds settled status.
Parliament has the power to do this.
Many cases, 90 and 40 year old examples given...Married Men's Allowance was removed for anyone not born after 6 April 1935.
Anyone born in the British Islands before 1 January 1983 was automatically a British citizen regardless of nationality of their parents. Individuals born since then only receive citizenship at birth if at least one of their parents is a British citizen or holds settled status.
Parliament has the power to do this.
bodhi said:
Dave200 said:
Just because I don't want adults to smoke means that I'm happy for them to be stabbed, or die of obesity or heart disease. Brilliant. You might be my new favourite troll.
If they're adults what concern should it be of yours if they smoke or not? C S Lewis said:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
There is a pattern to these things.First, something is pointed out as being dangerous. Second, someone will claim that they are responsible for ensuring that danger is minimised. Third, that same someone will argue that the very responsibility which they assumed, and that no-one entrusted them with, gives them the authority to monitor, regulate, and finally to prohibit this dangerous thing.
And these people need to be stopped, because as Mr Lewis wrote, they are never satisfied. There will always be more dangers to avert, more risks to mitigate. It's what they do, and for many, what and who they are.
handpaper said:
C S Lewis said:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
There is a pattern to these things.First, something is pointed out as being dangerous. Second, someone will claim that they are responsible for ensuring that danger is minimised. Third, that same someone will argue that the very responsibility which they assumed, and that no-one entrusted them with, gives them the authority to monitor, regulate, and finally to prohibit this dangerous thing.
And these people need to be stopped, because as Mr Lewis wrote, they are never satisfied. There will always be more dangers to avert, more risks to mitigate. It's what they do, and for many, what and who they are.
Electro1980 said:
Do you feel the same about drugs, or are you like Truss and Johnson? Smoking “don’t tell adults what to do”. Cannabis “it’s bad!!!!!!! BAN IT AND BAN IT MORE!!!”
Lol, if you knew me you'd know what a silly question that is 
I've dabbled in most of them and regularly enjoy some herbal refreshment...However more seriously I'd legalise most of them so we can tax them and enforce some sort of quality control, so if people do want to dabble they aren't also dabbling in whatever rat poison the people making them have hanging around.
I'd ask some experts to find a way to control access to cocaine and the opioids, and making synthetic stuff like monkey dust would result in life on prison, but otherwise I'd legalise, let people know the risks then let them crack on.
handpaper said:
C S Lewis said:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
There is a pattern to these things.First, something is pointed out as being dangerous. Second, someone will claim that they are responsible for ensuring that danger is minimised. Third, that same someone will argue that the very responsibility which they assumed, and that no-one entrusted them with, gives them the authority to monitor, regulate, and finally to prohibit this dangerous thing.
And these people need to be stopped, because as Mr Lewis wrote, they are never satisfied. There will always be more dangers to avert, more risks to mitigate. It's what they do, and for many, what and who they are.
carlo996 said:
bodhi said:
If they're adults what concern should it be of yours if they smoke or not?
Good luck getting an answer;) t some times and some people will still get those cancers even if they don't smoke. Having had my mother die through alcoholism at the age of 53 and living through being looked after by an alcoholic as a young child (my earliest memory of anything is putting fairy liquid into the can of special brew that was hidden under the kitchen sink as i associated it with my mother not being nice, at around 4 years old) i really should want to see alcohol banned. Add in the massive amount of alcohol related violence in the UK and the effect it has on ordinary peoples enjoyment, Police and the emergency services, packed A+E depts every single weekend and it's a no brainer. Unfortunately i am not into banning things and respect the right of the individual to make their own life choices and accept that sometimes that means not only a negative impact on them, but possibly me and others that haven't made the same choices.
This legislation is poorly thought out, though it could open up a few new business opportunities for some, as in free packet of fags with your twenty quid cup of coffee at the local coffee shop for those 18 and above.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff