this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
506 points (98.5% liked)
World News
32353 readers
248 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've been suggesting they do this in the states for a while now.
I smoke. I like smoking, and I don't plan to quit. But it's obvious that most people want smoking to go away. They keep increasing the price of cigarettes, they keep banning smoking in new areas, and every time they'll tell you it's to keep kids from smoking. It's a lie - they want everyone to stop smoking.
So fine. Set a date, and make it illegal for anyone born after that date to smoke. Then leave us smokers alone. If it's as bad for us as you say it is, we'll all die soon anyway.
Will some people born after that date smoke? Sure. But the majority won't. And it'll be a constant annoyance for them that they can't just go buy a carton at the store, which will encourage them to quit. I'd feel sorry for them, but I was told it was bad for me, not that I'd be standing outside in -50° weather puffing as fast as I can because I can't smoke in my hotel room, or that I'd spend more on cigarettes than I do electricity. They at least know they'll never be allowed to smoke.
You don't like smoking; you're addicted to a harmful drug. You have nicotine induced Stockholm syndrome.
Oh, you're a mind reader now? You don't know me, buddy.
Are you sure about this?
That's just not the case, at all. I'm a very recent ex-smoker and non-smoking areas absolutely helped me stop, but not for the reason you might think.
In Australia it's the same - cigarettes getting more expensive and the number of places you can smoke reducing.
No one ever suggested that it's to keep kids from smoking - the message has always been pretty clear: every cigarette is doing harm, so less places to smoke means less harm.
The main benefit of non-smoking areas is that it made me realise that withdrawals and cravings are really no big deal. About 5 years ago I was terrified of trying to stop because I had convinced myself that the withdrawals would be awful. Then I took a job at a place where it just wasn't possible to smoke even on breaks. The most noticeable thing was that getting through the entire day without a smoke was actually no big deal - the symptoms were very manageable.
So, to say "they" want everyone to smoke is an odd take IMO. The assumption is that everyone want's to stop - and non-smoking areas assist with that.
I don't really believe that you do enjoy smoking. I mean, sitting with friends and having a few beers and smokes is certainly an enjoyable activity - but it's not the smoking that makes it enjoyable. Anyhow, even if you did truly enjoy smoking, I guess you unfortunately just have to cater for the majority who do not.
Non-smoking area are also there so that the people around smokers don't have to breathe cancer they never asked for.
A absolutely hate how every time I go eat on a restaurant terrace the experience is ruined by some guy next to me smoking...
Yeah. That is one of the purported reasons for non-smoking areas, all though your actual risk of cancer must be pretty minor surely.
If you worked in a bar then yeah - breathing the smoke-filled air all shift for many years might effect your risk profile.
Catching a whiff of tobacco not so much.
Passive smoking is health problem as soon it's indoor, but even when it's not a health issue, smoke fucking stinks.
I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it's not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.
But if you say it's about the health of sweet, innocent children... well then suddenly it's a lot more palatable for the public.
So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.
Maybe things are different down under, but here in the states they very much do use the "keep kids from smoking" excuse. Every. Single. Time.
I don't mind going outside or whatever so much. That wasn't the point I was making. When I started smoking, you could still smoke in restaurants, airplanes, offices, etc. They still had ashtrays at the end of every aisle at the supermarket when I was a kid. Picking up smoking wasn't a radical thing to do.
They've pushed us out to the fringes, but that's fine. But their goal is to eliminate smoking. What I'm saying is that enough is enough. Let us smoke off away from everyone and die out.
You did that with alcohol. Prohibition does not work. It isn't working with drugs; it will never work with cigarettes either.
Prohibition works most of the time. Do you know where to get your hands on some black tar heroin? I don't, nor do most people.
Prohibition of alcohol took something that was popular and made it illegal. Of course it failed. Making tobacco illegal would fail if they did it for everyone. I'm suggesting they make it illegal for people who aren't already addicted to it.
Edit: heroin, not heroine. Thanks, autocorrect.
I have no idea what black tar heroin is, but I am fairly sure I could find someone who sells drugs of any type locally. As I said the war on drugs has failed. Watch this video from an ex-UK policeman. This is what happens when you make things illegal.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
this video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
The fact that you don't know what it is is proof enough that the prohibition against it works. I have no interest in watching your video.
And besides, you're missing the point. Prohibition of tobacco is coming. I'm not arguing in its favor. I'm suggesting that if they must prohibit tobacco, they phase it out instead of banning it outright.
I have never seen Labour push this policy and Sunak has no time. I feel you are deluded on this one. I should add I am very much an anti smoking person. I just see this as a sensible option.
I would love to be wrong on that, but I don't think I am.
Kids are already not allowed to smoke or purchase nicotine products but millions of teenagers are still addicted to nicotine and vape like crazy. How can you enforce a ban for an entire age group? And how could you possibly justify an arbitrary ban that allows half the population to purchase and consume something and prohibits the ither half? A law that bans women from purchasing tobacco because it is harmful for a fetus would be struck down by every court in the nation, so why would a ban that discriminates against adults based kn age be any different?
Well, I guess we'll just make it illegal for everyone and the old timers like me just have to deal with it. Thanks, I hate it.