Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
(did I do this right?)
Not banning more things.
make killing folk legal.
and making killing people legal
Alright, you can ban cigarettes. But you have to give us cannabis, mushrooms, acid and DMT.
"80% of people who smoke start as teenagers. It's very rare for people to make an informed decision in adulthood"
makes it sound like if they could make it through their teens without smoking then they never would. don't see how they could know that.
the comment 'It's very rare for people to make an informed decision in adulthood' applies to everything
Can't help but feel like it is wrong to do this though. Gauging on the amount of kids that ask me for cigarettes on the street now less kids are smoking these days.
what if you say that 80% of people started drinking as teenagers, would increasing the age you are allowed to drink to 25 mean hardly anyone would start?
Broadly people can have a healthy(ish) relationship with alcohol. This isn't possible in any way shape or form with tobacco.
I thought one of the biggest drains on the NHS was alcohol-related?
but obesity related illnesses outrank all others when it comes to NHS spending. The rise of diabetes over the last 20 years for instance.
Basically, if it's a long-lasting, chronic health problem... it's going to be straining the NHS. Smoking and drinking both contribute strongly to this. COPD and heart disease caused by one, two or all of these things being especially bad.
I wouldn't wish heart disease on anyone. Sounds like the absolute worst way to go :(
this seems to be a permanent ban for people born after 2000 though
aye, was just pointing out the fallacy in using statistics that way
though thinking about it, some statistics on the impact of raising the buying age might be quite interesting
Stopping teenagers smoking in the first place is the right focus though as essentially you shouldn't be condemned to what is likely going to lead to a horrific death because of decisions you incorrectly made at 14.
I'm willing to be proved wrong, but that sounds like a slight exaggeration to me.
Scale that up for the past century, expand by the fact smoking was far more common for most of that span, then spread internationally, and it would make sense.
"Hundreds of millions" - nah.
Could easily be c.500m over the past century.
It's because the system wants everyone to work a bit longer and stop being a strain on the health system
Gonna be a great feeling knowing we've bought ourselves a few more years in the nursing home isn't it? By force no less!
As its a motion at, what is effectively, a trade union
(excluding the fact that the BMA would begin to lobby for the change)
and the fact that Forest and Cancer Research are seemingly against the policy means that the vote is effectively meaningless.
read "motion at" as "attempt towards"
can;'t imagine the government would pay much attention though, since they probably make $$$$$ from tobacco tax
The government are willing to use literally any evidence to support their agenda and a group of highly trained professionals agreeing with them would be just the ticket to begin the prohibition of tobacco (starting of course with teens, which will be easy to receive media support for). Of course if they came out voting in massive majorities for the legalization of marijuana, it would be ignored at best by the government. Because it doesn't fit the agenda.
Especially at a relatively young age which you know does happen quite a bit with smokers. Law isn't workable but kids and even younger adults should be given every chance of not ending up addicted to nicotine.
This would be eliminating the choice to smoke, not creating a choice not to.
I was mainly arguing against your ludicrous point that cigarette related illnesses should be used as some kind of control of the average age of the populous and that I think smoking should be actively discouraged for younger people.
It's my personal view that I'd rather smoke with the risk of dying younger.
Didn't recommend it for anyone else but it's clear other people agree with me (since all smokers know it's bad for us) and I can't imagine we'll feel much better having our freedom eroded for a few more years pissing ourselves in the hospice.
I used to smoke 30/40 cigarettes a day for about 6 years so I get the normal addict justification/rationalisation about how cancer is better than being old. I'd rather run the risk of being old though than drown slowly in my own lungs at 45 and at great expense to myself, the tax payer and anguish to people around me.
I started smoking at 16, so while that's illegal now anyway, it's good that we're looking at ways of reducing the amount of people hooked on cigarettes.
I completely agree that prohibition doesn't work though and all that'll happen is shit houses will sell cigarettes to kids.
You're completely free to chose to smoke and I completely agree that any adult should be afforded the same liberties as other adults so this law, if it ever became one, would never work.
I also think smoking is pretty shit, we're idiots for having done it in the first place and I'd have appreciated looking back more people trying better ways to stop me starting because at 15 I was an idiot and I made ill-informed choices that I'm still paying for at 28. Which is why I'm glad there has been a larger culture shift over the last few years towards reducing the number of people starting to smoke which this vote is obviously a part of.
In response to your "smokers agree with me (since all smokers know it's bad for us)"
Most studies suggest that 70% of smokers want to quit but are unable. This is normally with older smokers and comes about once the long term health implications start to kick in and people aren't thinking in the abstract about what's going to happen and are instead having it actually happen.
I never suggested ALL smokers agree with me. I realize there are people who know they should quit but don't until it becomes very real to them. They don't for a myriad of reasons and I was simply saying I believe they should carry on be afforded that freedom.
If you think all smokers know it's bad for them you're absolutely deluded. Being told and knowing are two different things and ignores a wide range of influencing factors on people who start smoking.
Anyway this is circular now as you're focused purely on the libertarian right to make any decision you want and I'm talking about it being positive that there's a desire from health professionals and government to discourage young people from smoking and I don't think those points are actually in disagreement.
direct quote mate.
you'd probably also need id cards brought in too
when retailers are gonna have to id everyone to work out if they're 34 or 35
Do they do fags?
Other smokers bought:
electrolarynx ★★★★ ☆
i'm gonna start smoking soon i think. feels like it has become proper vilified, kind of a modern day version of goths wearing really extreme make up or witches. this country is becoming so moralistic
don't tend to join in with those kind of long, *SCANDAL!* type threads, especially when hundreds of posts have already been made
i will say, though, Charles Darwin had several children with his cousin, and i tend to respect his judgement
good stuff mate
to be fair to the anti-incest brigade - all his children did die at a young age, from horrible genetic deformations.
that's the true goth equivalent for smoking
according to a particular conception you've made of 'anti-social' and 'harming others'
conceptions of being anti-social and harming others, tbf tbh.
Not everyone thinks smoking is anti-social, and it's not your concern what I do with my body.
You can't give me liver disease - you can give me cancer.
You can leave a room if someone's smoking in it. Unlike, say, air pollution from industry and vehicles.
I'm also all for controlling/banning pollution from industry and vehicles.
I don't think a small section of pavement or smoking shelter's too much to ask to placate that 20%, it's a large enough proportion of the populace to make particular affordances for. I can't think of a reason why you'd absolutely need to stand right next to someone who's smoking.
If it's not because you think smoking is anti-social, then why?
should be non-smoking. I do think there should be smoking bars for people who want to go to them, though. I can see the problems in that, people taking jobs in those places because they have no other option, but I'd take the greater personal freedom over the health risk any day. Smoking's something humans have done for a long time. Whatever you think of the machinations of the big tobacco manufacturers, it's a drug human beings have a historical relationship with, for many reasons, much like alcohol, or any number of drugs that I'd like to see be completely accessible to those that want them. You might make a healthier society by telling people what they can and can't do, but I don't think you make a happier one. I think it sets a worrying precedent.
I wouldn't call it anti-social as that's a bit of a loaded term, lumping conscious smokers (which I think the vast majority are these days) in the 'undesirables' category. I understand why people might not want to be around it because of the health risk. Let's just keep it at that.
The Human Centipede 2 prohibition
Does that work?
it will never work 100% and will allow for a criminal underground.
but it just means if it goes through they will lobby parliament. Who will find it is unworkable.
but then I realise I'm against prohibition for some drugs so that doesn't really add up. I guess if taxes on smoking covered the cost of smoking related illnesses then I'd be ok with allowing smoking.
I'm fine with it then.
I do like this policy because of thinking what it will be like in 80-100 years time when there'll be a handful of people in the country allowed to smoke. I wonder when legal cigarette manufacture will stop? Who will be the last legal smoker?
yeah people always complain about how much smokers are costing the NHS when the treasury would actually be worse off (financially anyway) without them
not exactly a straight forward thing to measure though, in fairness
it's much more likely that smokers cost the taxpayer more than they contribute via cigarette duties.
as in lost income tax from dying earlier
you are one hardcore capitalist marckee
Like ones where people don't have jaws and stuff
I've not seen any on TV for ages but I don't see much tv but they seem to happen for a bit an then stop but maybe they should be a permanent fixture I don't know
They're fucking rank, and we should be able to eat and watch TV at the same time if we want to.
stop dying then. GODSAKE
is that those things would never happen to you in the UK, and I suspect smokers know it. Those pictures are either old or from places with no free healthcare. Plus when you smoke you don't think you will carry on forever, so losing a jaw doesn't even enter your mind, it is like thinking a single burger will turn you into a giant fatty.
1) at the same time as medical technology allows people to live longer and longer, the retirement age is pushed back further and further. this is as it gives capital a larger base of workers to choose from, thus driving down the minimum wage
2) companies are more likely to employ older people who are more experienced into certain roles which require little training or physical exertion. these include: admin work, service positions, factory work. thus, it becomes more difficult for younger people to get these positions and increasingly, young people become excluded from the labour force.
3) thus, young people are encouraged to do degrees (in order to allow them to take the only jobs which are available to them - professional positions in the technical and creative sectors). this is only possible if they take on (increasingly) large(r) student debts and are thus trapped inside the capitalist system.
4) there is also other, non-economic reasons that getting older is bad: further strain on ecological resources, increasing mental health problems in older age.
it should be noted that both of these are relevant only within the capitalist system: the ecological crisis could be averted if everyone lived differently, there is evidence to suggest alzheimers is partly caused by stress due to the amount we work.
5) so, smoking can be constructed as a revolutionary action as it breaks through what we may denote 'the cult of immortality', which is central to the doublespeak at the heart of the capitalist project: live longer so you can enjoy retirement (which - by the way - we won't let you do)
whilst lining the pockets of british american tobacco. also, getting yourself addicted to a product to which you do not control the means of production: take that, capitalism
tell me how you can live outside work? it is literally not possible, unless you die. death is the only wait out. it is really important to make sure you die as early as possible
amongst kids/ teenagers, who are more likely to vape than actually smoker.
I'm a vaper now, it's great (today I've been using watermelon and sweet red apple. My office is like a shisha hut.)
i've been at the fair a bit recently and vaping is deffo the thing most people are doing. it's funny seeing big hard lads with them. then i saw some kids passing around cigarettes as if the police would arrest them if they saw.
but imagine devoting your time to working for a 'smoker's rights'. I mean, I appreciate that I have fairly non-productive interests, but Jesus Christ.
For what it's worth, I didn't begin smoking until the recession - I was out of work and had lots of free time, does that mean we're going to ban austerity too?
I have since quit (don't have much time to smoke anymore - time is money).
Either bring in an outright ban or just leave it as it is, ffs.
Because we live in too much of a nanny state as it is.
a bit like gay marriage in some respects.
I think both groups are a large enough a percentage of the population that you can't just ignore their needs, though.
I'm not sure of the exact figures, but one's definitely over-represented with a massively positive angle in the media whereas the other (which brings in huge tax revenues) is demonised and marginally under-represented to the point where it's illegal to portray the benefits of, or indeed engage in, such an act in a public place.
It's a funny old world.
Which would mean the production, importation, distribution and sale of cigarettes would be taken out of the hands of companies regulated by the state, paying tax revenues (£9.5 bn + £2.6bn VAT = £12.1bn - figures from ASH for f/y 11/12 - http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf) and taking this activity into the hands of organised crime.
You can't just ban products that are harmful to people because of some narrow view solely focused around health. Yes, we'd be healthier if alcohol, added sugar and tobacco were all outright banned - but the demand's still going to be there in sufficient quantities to lead to that vacuum being filled by far more malevolent suppliers.
we wouldn't even be "healthier" because this way of talking about "health" ignores the psychological effects of
(a) having your diet chosen by someone else
(b) no stress relief from increasingly longer working days
both of which negatively effect your mental "health" which is at least as, more likely far more, important than the small added chance of you "getting cancer" (which - by the way - will not really be a problem in about 10 years anyway)
1. i've smoked loads of cigarettes in my life but never got even a little bit addicted. is this normal? are some people just less susceptible to nicotine addiction?
2. e-cigarettes are much better for you than real cigarettes and probably actually completely fine in health terms right? so we should really be heavily promoting them as a cool cigarette alternative right? gonna post this again it's interesting http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/vapor-eyes/
snus: much better for you than smoking, no negative impacts on people around you, illegal in the EU (except sweden cos they were like naw pal). SCIENCE!
maybe, in like 100 years, vaping will have reached the height that the tv, or at least the nintendo ds, are now and smoking will be seen as so repulsive that the 2114 equivalent of georges bataille will go around smoking cigarettes and talk about how ze is transcending culture (based on a series of obscure messageboard posts ze found from 100 years ago, when searching for electrolarynx)
i've never vaped and always seen it as really uncool. it should in theory be related to dismagazine and cool, minimal bars in osaka but instead, based on my personal experience, its linked to total fuckboys puffing them in the library while listening to classic.fm and copying out mindmaps during revision period
i mainly just associate them with ryanair flights. UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS A NON-SMOKING FLIGHT, BUT WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE YOU CAN NOW PURCHASE A PACK OF E-CIGARETTES FOR THE BARGAIN PRICE OF TWELVE HUNDRED AND NINETY EIGHT POUNDS!
but seriously snus should be the hip and cool thing
i'm not really sure what the difference between snusing and chewing tobacco is?
it seems like, either way, the logical implication is that in the future you will be able to buy different flavour 'snog enhancers', where maybe each of you has half of the flavour but it comes together to work only when the snogging occurs (and, sure, it would also contain aphrodisiac)
the future is gonna be so great
so it just gets absorbed right through your skin and you don't have to get tobacco all up in yr teeth and be spitting and stuff
i think it might give you a wee bit of mouth cancer but still much better than cigarettes
also i will invest in your snog enhancer research
GUYS I'VE FOUND A HEALTHY ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING LOOK but apparently it's really bad for you.
Both from a purely biological point of view and a personality-oriented one. On the plus side, it probably means that you're less likely to get addicted to other things.
There's still a lot of debate about e-cigarettes, primarily because so little research has actually been undertaken. There are concerns that it's not actually health-neutral and that the marketing of them could be encouraging people to take up smoking in the first place: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/we-develop-policy/our-policy-on-tobacco-control-and-cancer/our-policy-on-harm-reduction-and
so feel like it's mostly a biological thing. maybe i'll give heroin a shot just to see.
seems like loads of work
just smoke a lot really consistently, gradually the amounts rise, eventually becomes habit I guess, and then addiction, maybe.
probably someone who is/has been addicted would be better placed to answer though
you are probably slightly addicted. It does take a while to build up though I suppose, I know people who just the odd one on a night out, then in the pub then a few years later would be fully fledged smokers.
Brooker wrote a good thing about getting hooked on them and then quitting.
it was quite scary, I tried to throw muy sister off a balcony. it made me give up for five years though and I only started again when I moved to machester because my new manchester friends all smoked.
i've smoked lots of cigarettes *overall* but never consistently. gone through a couple of periods of smoking lots every time i drank cause i liked to go out with the smokers, but then also gone through periods of just finding cigarettes a bit gross and not having a single one for about a year without any effort. now i maybe have one every few months when drunk and someone offers, but i have never once actively craved a cigarette. i win at addiction.
Sure sure. And I eat loads of cake but I'm not addicted. What do you mean 'stop eating cake'? I like it. Why would I stop? I'm not addicted honestly! *eats cake*
i eat a piece of cake every few months if someone offers, but i never bother buying cake and i never think 'i really need some fucking cake right now'. i'd say i'm probably not addicted to cake tbh.
instead of 2000. Just cause people never really think that far ahead. Would love to see how they planned it and worked towards it. Bet they would still fuck it up and in 3002 there would be a judge-led public inquiry into what went wrong and how so much money was wasted and whether it was the Tories or labour to blame.
(if they smoke)
Even if it was the tories. Radical idea, dudes