UK smoking ban for those born after 2009
Discussion
otolith said:
Hill92 said:
otolith said:
I wonder if this will survive challenge on equalities and human rights arguments once it actually has the effect of arbitrarily restricting the rights of one group of adults on the basis of age.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of laws with restrictions based on age or date of birth over and beyond age 18 child/adult distinction, including minimum wage, pensions and citizenship to name a few major examples. Courts have upheld Parliament's right to make such laws, e.g. rejecting the arguments of Women Against State Pension Inequality."Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."
Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.
Hill92 said:
There is no absolute right to smoke in this country. The High Court held in 2008 (and EWCA upheld on appeal) that:
"Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."
Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.
Is that perhaps the right to smoke anywhere one pleases, brought on the back of a restriction on smoking in one particular place? Would you think that would equally allow a ban on, say, black people smoking, or women smoking?"Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."
Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.
jules_s said:
Ridgemont said:
Dave200 said:
BoRED S2upid said:
CheesecakeRunner said:
Of course not.
But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
Are you sure of that? How do you know how many people take cocaine? You can’t track sales like with fags. Cocaine use is rife across the country at all ages and goes largely unpunished. But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
My partner works in the local: there are chaps there who snort just to come down the local. Absolutely bonkers. But it is everywhere.
Just back then we smoked and drank way too much too.
otolith said:
Hill92 said:
There is no absolute right to smoke in this country. The High Court held in 2008 (and EWCA upheld on appeal) that:
"Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."
Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.
Is that perhaps the right to smoke anywhere one pleases, brought on the back of a restriction on smoking in one particular place? Would you think that would equally allow a ban on, say, black people smoking, or women smoking?"Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."
Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.
A PH example of lawful age discrimination is the law requiring that a driver supervising a learner driver must be over 21 (as well as having held a full driving licence for at least two years).
Hill92 said:
Unlike race or sex discrimination, age discrimination is permitted when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
A PH example of lawful age discrimination is the law requiring that a driver supervising a learner driver must be over 21 (as well as having held a full driving licence for at least two years).
Or indeed the current law on under 18s buying tobacco. But a 29 and 30 year old? And the 29 year old won’t get the right when they’re 30? I don’t believe there is a precedent which quite fits this. A PH example of lawful age discrimination is the law requiring that a driver supervising a learner driver must be over 21 (as well as having held a full driving licence for at least two years).
In any case, the point was that the quoted judgement is not a precedent for discrimination.
Not-The-Messiah said:
wc98 said:
CheesecakeRunner said:
Of course not.
But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
I would bet a substantial amount of money that is not the case among people under 40. The level of cocaine use in this country, particularly in young professionals, is crazy high. But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
Regarding cocaine use, i doubt there is a pub in any major city or town that it couldn't be picked up on a swab test and as for "surveys" regarding it's use i suspect there are plenty people that wouldn't answer truthfully for a variety of reasons.
carlo996 said:
Dave200 said:
Absolutely. And if they want to take crack in their own homes then let them get on with it. You lot are absolutely hilarious. The constant impotent rage must be exhausting.
Not as hilarious as someone making a point, and not being able to convey why :rofl; Dave200 said:
carlo996 said:
Dave200 said:
Absolutely. And if they want to take crack in their own homes then let them get on with it. You lot are absolutely hilarious. The constant impotent rage must be exhausting.
Not as hilarious as someone making a point, and not being able to convey why :rofl; carlo996 said:
Dave200 said:
carlo996 said:
Dave200 said:
Absolutely. And if they want to take crack in their own homes then let them get on with it. You lot are absolutely hilarious. The constant impotent rage must be exhausting.
Not as hilarious as someone making a point, and not being able to convey why :rofl; Ridgemont said:
Dave200 said:
BoRED S2upid said:
CheesecakeRunner said:
Of course not.
But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
Are you sure of that? How do you know how many people take cocaine? You can’t track sales like with fags. Cocaine use is rife across the country at all ages and goes largely unpunished. But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
My partner works in the local: there are chaps there who snort just to come down the local. Absolutely bonkers. But it is everywhere.
BoRED S2upid said:
Ridgemont said:
Dave200 said:
BoRED S2upid said:
CheesecakeRunner said:
Of course not.
But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
Are you sure of that? How do you know how many people take cocaine? You can’t track sales like with fags. Cocaine use is rife across the country at all ages and goes largely unpunished. But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.
My partner works in the local: there are chaps there who snort just to come down the local. Absolutely bonkers. But it is everywhere.
All I see are people playing ping pong with different specifics, figures, subjective anecdotes etc.
The real discussion is around the principle.
Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.
If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?
The real discussion is around the principle.
Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.
If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?
Dagnir said:
<edited for brevity>
Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.
If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?
Good question (my bold). The principle seems to be "We politicians know best"; not every politician of course. But this appears to include Laura Farris MP, who told LBC that the proposed policy was "very sensible" and that she wasn't "particularly interested in arguments about freedom".Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.
If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?
Well, thanks for that, Laura Farris. What other freedoms are you not particularly interested in, I wonder? Coming from a government minister her comment is rather disturbing in my opinion.
Terminator X said:
I see that the LA's can keep the proceeds of the fines. It will be the new "parking ticket" racket eg new staff members employed to hand out fines to 30yr old smokers gotta fill those empty coffers somehow.
TX.
Which raises the hilarious thought that if your LA fine collector stops you in the street for smoking and demands £60 can you simply say "This is a joint." and carry on smoking without censure.TX.
Hants PHer said:
Dagnir said:
<edited for brevity>
Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.
If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?
Good question (my bold). The principle seems to be "We politicians know best"; not every politician of course. But this appears to include Laura Farris MP, who told LBC that the proposed policy was "very sensible" and that she wasn't "particularly interested in arguments about freedom".Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.
If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?
Well, thanks for that, Laura Farris. What other freedoms are you not particularly interested in, I wonder? Coming from a government minister her comment is rather disturbing in my opinion.
Oddly enough some of her voters are very much interested in said arguments.
Another addition to the very long list of chickens that will turn the sky dark when they come home to roost in November.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Terminator X said:
I see that the LA's can keep the proceeds of the fines. It will be the new "parking ticket" racket eg new staff members employed to hand out fines to 30yr old smokers gotta fill those empty coffers somehow.
TX.
Which raises the hilarious thought that if your LA fine collector stops you in the street for smoking and demands £60 can you simply say "This is a joint." and carry on smoking without censure.TX.
A joint tho? Please carry on sir, and have a nice day.
Having said that I did notice last time we went to our favourite brewery in Carpinteria (Island Brewery down by the railway if anyone knows it), I went to the smoking area where there were about 10 of us, and I was very conscious of the fact I was the only one with a cigarette.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff