Smoking

[Reiser99]

For me it is an interesting question on freedom of choice and government regulation. If people are fully informed of the risks, why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why doesn't the government then regulate red meat and ban sugar etc...?

Personally, I would ban smoking as I hate it, but I understand some people still want to smoke. Therefore, my compromise would be to allow smoking, but that smoking related illnesses have to be treated privately and not on the NHS.

 

[General Melchett]

For me it is an interesting question on freedom of choice and government regulation. If people are fully informed of the risks, why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why doesn't the government then regulate red meat and ban sugar etc...?

Personally, I would ban smoking as I hate it, but I understand some people still want to smoke. Therefore, my compromise would be to allow smoking, but that smoking related illnesses have to be treated privately and not on the NHS.

I agree with all of that but I would guess the main stumbling block with excluding a smoking related illness from NHS treatment is that it sets a precedent where smokers could then argue that the same should apply to any self inflicted illness or even injury. Alcoholism, drug abuse, sports injury etc.

Like most things there's a lot of political sensitivity and the Tories won't want smokers thinking they're the anti-smoker party which is probably why they're targeting young people who can't even vote yet which is the least damaging politically.

FTR, I hate the smell of cigarette smoke and it really annoys me when someone lights up at a bus shelter or right outside a public doorway/entrance/exit knowing full well that others will have to walk through their smoke. Try saying something and you will probably get told to F off.

 

[ncurd]

but that smoking related illnesses have to be treated privately and not on the NHS.

Way way way too slippery a slope for that one. Ban skin cancer treatments for those who sunbathe too much? What about weight related illnesses?

Having been through the trauma of a family member dying through alcohol related illness and the fact we already deny them even being on the transplant list if they haven't shown reform. I simply can't get on board on any restriction to medical care. Just as FYI that family member didn't have the chance to reform as they died shortly after the first time they presented with liver failure but the fact we had to watch them die over 2 months with no hope of a transplant still hurts like hell.


Also against a smoking ban in general it makes medical sense but criminalizing it just creates a criminal unregulated product which has worked wonders on other drugs in stamping them out.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Personally, I would ban smoking as I hate it, but I understand some people still want to smoke. Therefore, my compromise would be to allow smoking, but that smoking related illnesses have to be treated privately and not on the NHS.

By the same standard if someone breaks an ankle because he is too fat and he doesn't exercise, or not enough, then his ankle-related problems should be treated privately. Or if someone has eyesight issues because he spends too much time staring at a screen.

Everyone could do something more to be healthier or to prevent an illness/medical procedure from happening.
If you are going to punish someone for the consequences of his choices it sounds reasonable to punish everyone for their choices, too.
Slippery slope.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Jesus ncurd, you stole my words and somehow managed to post em earlier. Damn you.

I simply can't get on board on any restriction to medical care.

Broadly speaking I agree with that. I can think of a couple of scenarios where I would limit it thou. If someone comes with a broken leg i'd like him to be treated. If a professional skateboarder comes for the 24th time with a broken bone i'd try to find a way to make him accountable for his expenses. Partially. Just for incentives' sake. The idea of 'free' healthcare is not for people to exploit it as if it were a loophole.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think phasing out smoking like NZ are is a good way to do it. If you are going to do it. I wouldn't care either way really.

There's lower risk ways to use nicotine if you wish, zyns for example, they're also less unsightly and virtually undetectable if someone is using them really. So in that sense I can see sense in it. Hate seeing a fag but on the ground.

 

[big ginger 8]

For me it is an interesting question on freedom of choice and government regulation. If people are fully informed of the risks, why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke? Why doesn't the government then regulate red meat and ban sugar etc...?

Personally, I would ban smoking as I hate it, but I understand some people still want to smoke. Therefore, my compromise would be to allow smoking, but that smoking related illnesses have to be treated privately and not on the NHS.

The difference with smoking is the danger of secondhand smoke. That's where it really loses the personal freedom arguments for me. It's more like banning drink driving than red meat.

 

[ncurd]

The difference with smoking is the danger of secondhand smoke. That's where it really loses the personal freedom arguments for me. It's more like banning drink driving than red meat

But smoking indoors in a public space is banned and has been for ages.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Does anyone miss stinking like an ashtray after coming out of a pub/restaurant? Not to mention the unknown cumulative effects of breathing in all that smoke.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I think phasing out smoking like NZ are is a good way to do it. If you are going to do it. I wouldn't care either way really.

They have repealed it already actually

 

[General Melchett]

Does anyone miss stinking like an ashtray after coming out of a pub/restaurant? Not to mention the unknown cumulative effects of breathing in all that smoke.

Most of us on here are lucky we just had that to contend with. At one time smoking on planes, trains, buses and in offices was rife. Was a struggle to escape from it.

 

[big ginger 8]

But smoking indoors in a public space is banned and has been for ages.

I think that's more in line with what I said than against it?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

They have repealed it already actually

Oh interesting.

I'd be interested to see a breakdown of what the bigger public cost is between banning something like weed, cocaine, mdma, tobacco etc… and fighting black market crime plus hospital fees vs legalising them and having increased hospital fees (presumably). Obviously an impossible task with cocaine and tobacco.

Generally on the side of legalising and regulating these. Loved the approach to weed in Vancouver whilst I was there. Although I've spoken to multiple doctors who say that it's the worst drug for hospitals on account of the very small percentage of users who experience psychosis.

 

[ncurd]

I think that's more in line with what I said than against it?

My point was the argument against personal freedom is there are already mitigations in law that prevent banning.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Most of us on here are lucky we just had that to contend with. At one time smoking on planes, trains, buses and in offices was rife. Was a struggle to escape from it.

Am old enough to remember it on planes. They segregated parts of the plane on a flight from Florida and we got stuck behind 3 smokers who lit up as soon as they were allowed to. Spent half the flight pinching my nose.

Going back to Japan next month and they allow smoking in certain areas only now.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Does anyone miss stinking like an ashtray after coming out of a pub/restaurant?

I dont, but i find it ridiculous that if some people do, and if there is someone who would like to provide that willingly and freely, he is now unable to do so.

What I find amazing is that it's not that people were saying 'Hey, listen, I don't like the smoke and I would like a smoke-free rest/bar/pub/club'. No, that was not it. They didn't want anyone else to have that. The difference between those two things might seem subtle but it is quite big.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I dont, but i find it ridiculous that if some people do, and if there is someone who would like to provide that willingly and freely, he is now unable to do so.

Eh? Who misses it ? Apart from smokers? Who infect themselves with their smoking anyway.

What I find amazing is that it's not that people were saying 'Hey, listen, I don't like the smoke and I would like a smoke-free rest/bar/pub/club'. No, that was not it. They didn't want anyone else to have that. The difference between those two things might seem subtle but it is quite big.

So you're advocating for a smoking only pubs and non-smoking pubs so we can have a equality/choice because non-smokers are somehow denying the freedom of smokers to smoke in a pub? There was also the issue of non smoking bar staff having to inhale secondary smoke whilst they worked and had no choice in the matter.

Separately, Some would argue that it has helped kill off the pub trade here in the UK - it might have done but I think that's more to do with the taxes on alcohol and supermarkets allowing to undercut them.

 

[Al Bangor]

Most of us on here are lucky we just had that to contend with. At one time smoking on planes, trains, buses and in offices was rife. Was a struggle to escape from it.

I grew up in those days (60's & 70's) and it was hell for me because I have a deviated septum and allergies on top of that which made it even worse. It was rough.

 

[McTallshort]

As an ex smoker I don't mind smoking but proper hate Vapes. The fact people think they can do it in pubs and shopping centres really gets my goat.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Eh? Who misses it ? Apart from smokers?

Why 'appart from smokers'?
You are limiting the audience only to those who most likely will agree with your position...
You could also add the people who couldn't are less.

So you're advocating for a smoking only pubs and non-smoking pubs so we can have a equality/choice because non-smokers are somehow denying the freedom of smokers to smoke in a pub?

Yes, I am. Non-smokers are not 'somehow denying'. They are specifically and explicitly doing so. That is why laws/regulations were put in place to prohibit it.

I am advocating for an arrangement between two parties where no human rights were violated (it's not as if one agreed to be the other's slave or something), where both are minimally informed about the subject (hard to argue people will say smoking is good for you these days) and, where both can be expected to behave like adults.

There was also the issue of non smoking bar staff having to inhale secondary smoke whilst they worked and had no choice in the matter.

Let them deal with that like cigar rooms do.

I understand the argument, but I cant help but thinking...
If someone doesn't like fire, we tell them 'hey, maybe becoming a fireman ain't the smartest idea'.
If someone is against firearms, we tell them 'the army might not be for you'.
If someone hates the sea we tell him 'i wouldn't consider becoming a fisherman if I were you'.
But if someone wants to be a waiter at a pub, and doesn't want to deal with cigarettes, even when there would be non-smoking restaurants he could work for, we don't tell them 'listen, just apply to the non-smoking ones'. No. Better to redesign the entire bloody industry so daddy state can control the interactions between consenting adults that harm no third parties outside the arrangement.

And the biggest, the gargantuan incongruence is that you can still hire staff at your house and smoke there as long as you are upfront about it.