Legal age for smoking

I like it. Perhaps too many vested interests for it to be taken up?

Tony

Don't disagree in principle, but it would be an interesting correlation to see the savings from healthcare and the deficit created for pensions funds because people are healthier and living longer. An aging population, a shrinking at work population to pay tax - we're doomed!



Personally, I've always thought alcohol was a bigger problem for society. From a healthcare perspective, it's usually at the top of the list.

Drinking alcohol is a part of being British, whether we approve or not. So I guess we'll have to swallow that one.

Tony

More nanny-ism!

There are far too many experts who profess to know what is best for the individual, and all too often these experts are far too close to legislators ... with nanny state interfering results.

It would be entirely unworkable and the law would once again be seen as an ass.

ATB from George

I'm guessing that in say, 200 years, fags will have been banned. And our decendants will look at us and laugh. Why wait? Nobody here would want to bring back cars with no seat belts, radium products in the house, Bob Monkhouse jokes.....

Tony

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
More nanny-ism!

There are far too many experts who profess to know what is best for the individual, and all too often these experts are far too close to legislators ... with nanny state interfering results.

It would be entirely unworkable and the law would once again be seen as an ass.

ATB from George

So you would disgaree with the assertion that most smokers wish they had never taken up the habit?

You would diagree that most smokers continue to smoke (in spite of the high cost and increasing social pressures) because of nicotine addiction?

You would diagree that people begin to smoke as result of peer pressure and clever marketing by economic stakeholders, and that there is little if any, intrinsic value in the activity?

You would disgaree that smoking is a net cost, both to the smoker and to society at large?

There actually are experts who know what is best for the individual in this case. They arrive at that knowledge by very thorough research. Few public health issues are as clear as the link between smoking and poor health, high healthcare costs and premature death. Our elected officials should take an interest in public health. Policy should maximise the benefit to all. It is not nanny-ism. This a prime example of a issue in which the government should interfere.

If there was any upside at all to all these people wasting their money, health and lives sucking on cigarettes, I'd agree with you George. But there isn't.

I can't see how the law would be any more unworkable than the current fixed age. Yes, people would cheat, lie and steal but what's different there?

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Lockhart:
Drinking alcohol is a part of being British, whether we approve or not. So I guess we'll have to swallow that one.

Tony

The abuse of alchohol is incredibly visible and problematic (yet revered by many) in the UK and in Australia. One of the reasons I no longer live in those countries.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

So you would disagree with the assertion that most smokers wish they had never taken up the habit?

I have no idea how anyone could possibly know what most people - smokers or not - actually think, though a research poll will tell you what a sample of people - smokers or not - think might be sensible to say.

quote:

You would disagree that most smokers continue to smoke (in spite of the high cost and increasing social pressures) because of nicotine addiction?

I could not possibly say why each smoker smokes, and could only venture an opinion on why I partake in this or that activity which experts say might be better if I did not!

quote:

You would disagree that people begin to smoke as result of peer pressure and clever marketing by economic stakeholders, and that there is little if any, intrinsic value in the activity?

I have no idea why other people smoke. I know why I started - at the age of 35 ...

quote:

You would disagree that smoking is a net cost, both to the smoker and to society at large?

As with many pleasurable activities there is a cost to the individual and to society at large ...

quote:

There actually are experts who know what is best for the individual in this case. They arrive at that knowledge by very thorough research. Few public health issues are as clear as the link between smoking and poor health, high healthcare costs and premature death. Our elected officials should take an interest in public health. Policy should maximise the benefit to all. It is not nanny-ism. This a prime example of a issue in which the government should interfere.

Now we are getting to the point! I think no one knows better than me how I should live my life. Indeed I am all for freedom of choice and proper dissemination of the effects which may guide decisions. For example, in a would of finite fossil fuels, I turn unused replay equipment off when not used ... I think we die when time calls a close. If I die tomorrow, I shall do so knowing that I have enjoyed my life to the greatest degree allowed by circumstances, and with a rather lower than average cost to society as a whole than average. I see absolutely no role for government in controlling actions by individuals that do not lead to crime or violence. I don't see smokers mugging old ladies for the next bob to buy a bit of tobacco.

quote:

If there were any upside at all to all these people wasting their money, health and lives sucking on cigarettes, I'd agree with you George. But there isn't.

There is and it’s called pleasure - same as drinking coffee, or listening to Bach, and both have a wider cost to society.

quote:

I can't see how the law would be any more unworkable than the current fixed age. Yes, people would cheat, lie and steal but what's different there?

So it is unworkable, and would be more so if what you propose is implemented. The US government tried to ban drinking and established the Mafia in the USA.



Best wishes from a libertarian, George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

Best wishes from a libertarian, George

I think you're missing what I'm suggesting. The idea of the progressive lifting of the legal age is so that we don't deprive current addicts of their pleasure.

Prohibition in the US was a complete and instantaneous ban. Not what I'm talking about here.

Would you propose that all drugs are made legal? How do we draw the line?

Given the proven link between currently illegal drugs [most at least] and criminal activity of a heinous kind, I am not about to propose legalizing [or indulge myself in] currently illegal rugs.

On the other hand the completely legal activities of our day, such as drinking coffee, smoking, enjoying a drink are based on thousands of years of cultural development, and should remain a matter of personal choice about enjoying them. I see no reason why today's expert [or tomorrow’s drip of water under pressure] should dictate what I or anyone else does so long as it harms society no more than say motor sport, mountain climbing, riding cycles, eating Big Macs, flying off on holiday, or leaving Hifi equipment powered 24/7, for just a few examples.

I am fed up with today's experts [so often shown to have entirely wrong priorities with hindsight] dictating.

If you want to lessen your chance of mortal illness in case of smoking, then either don't start or give up!

Personally I like the bit in pension annuities where the results are better if you do smoke. Better to go in the 70s than survive another twenty years on a drip at the expense of the public depriving future generations of ever more finite resources.

Enjoy life, work hard, and play hard, IMO!

Others may differ, but I prefer that the choice remains open. And the choice is your's dear winky. You need not smoke, and indeed can avoid it now it is banned in public places in many countries. That was the right move IMV, but please don't push for the loss of [legally approvaed] choice further on this ...

ATB from George

Ripping into "experts" is a bit disingenuous. Would you rather that we all made decisions based on gut-feel and instinct? Sure those that purport to be knowledgable can and do come unstuck. It's a complex and imperfect world, but I'd rather that people put the time and effort into study, learning and understanding. Should I need to seek medical aid, I'd much prefer to see an expert than to see a homepath or aromatherapist. Just an example, but expertise is something to be lauded, not derided.

The extent to which experts "dictate" our actions is a socially and politically controlled process and is largely independent of the underlying expertise.

One can accept that research has established a strong caustive link between smoking and lung cancer/heart disease without necessarily agreeing that this should drive some public policy. But in this case we should attack the policy, not the expertise. Not without dissenting data, at least.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

If you want to lessen your chance of mortal illness in case of smoking, then either don't start or give up!


ATB from George

We agree on this. The escalating age policy is intended to help people with the "don't start" bit. The habit itself will then eventually achieve the "give up" bit, in spite of the addictive nature of nicotine (which is shown in lab experimants to be more addictive than opiates, b.t.w.).

quote:

Should I need to seek medical aid, I'd much prefer to see an expert than to see a homeopath or aroma therapist.

In this case I find I agree with your choice, though I would also reserve the right to refuse the proposed medical case. If I had a malignancy I would definitely refuse treatment.

I suspect that mountain rescue should be stopped and mountain climbing be banned as a silly activity, but I would not seek to impose this view in law! There ae those who would legislate the "quacks" out of their role. I would oppose this type of legislation, even if I quite fail to understand the choice of apporaching a "quack" for medical advice!

In the case of smoking your proposition is a completely un-necessary addition to laws that cannot and will not be adminsitered with success. The law therefore becomes an ass. The choice remains, whether legal or not, and so to criminalise perfectly normal people in your proposed way is simple nonsense. As with foxhunting, there are much bigger issues to address first, not the least of which is unsustainable human population growth, which seems a taboo subject in legislative circles!

ATB from George

PS:

If you want to lessen your chance of mortal illness in case of smoking, then either don't start or give up!

We agree on this. The escalating age policy is intended to help people with the "don't start" bit. The habit itself will then eventually achieve the "give up" bit, in spite of the addictive nature of nicotine (which is shown in lab experimants to be more addictive than opiates, b.t.w.).

It is called education. We have sex education, and education is in part preparing the young for the adult world, but the choices on smoking as in many other fields are personal. Made with a view to the evidence [where the experts come in] and personal preference as the over-riding lead. The personal preference is "rightly" the over-riding lead in any choice, be it smoking or choice of Hifi componemt!

quote:

Why wait? Nobody here would want to bring back cars with no seat belts, radium products in the house, Bob Monkhouse jokes.....

Free choice. I still have some radium products in my house, and no intention to ditch them.

And I woud rather have a car with no seat belts. I would love a Morris Eight "E" Series, which is so old you cannot fit them, and can be perfectly well used legally without.

[As for Monkhouse ... One of those fashions that is probably not going to return ... Anyone remember the "Black and White Minstrel show?" Well that is not coming back either I suspect! Culturally worn out in a freer an more liberal society, I would think.]

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I suspect that mountain rescue should be stopped and mountain climbing be banned as a silly activity, but I would not seek to impose this view in law!

We agree that mountain climbing should not be banned by law. However, climbers should accept that they have no intrinsic right to be rescued and indeed, act as if there is no possibility of rescue.

Nevertheless we as a society do choose fund rescue services for all sorts of misdaventure, including overwhelmingly, rescue from the consequences of crashing our cars into each other and into immoveable objects. Should we disband the ambulance service? No. It is by agreement as a society, that we contribute taxes (compulsorily - more nanny-sate!) for the provision of these services.

There is an analogy between this social contract (e.g. provision of health care funded by levying compulsory taxes) and legislation around the legality of drugs. In each case, an action is imposed upon us for the greater good, even though the specific consequence for an individual may be viewed as bad. Do I begrudge paying healthcare taxes and levies because I have virtually never made use of the services? No, it is a cost of living a society. That some activities I may enjoy are made illegal for my own and/or for the greater good is a similar thing. We're better off for the existence of these arrangements.

I must admit to not really understanding why you wouldn't seek treatment to extend your life in the face of a curable illness. Are you unhappy, or is it a philosophical view?

We agree completely on the issues around population growth. A great tragedy is unfolding. Like you, I have chosen not to reproduce. It ends here.

quote:

That some activities I may enjoy are made illegal for my own and/or for the greater good is a similar thing. We're better off for the existence of these arrangements.

I must admit to not really understanding why you wouldn't seek treatment to extend your life in the face of a curable illness. Are you unhappy, or is it a philosophical view.

We agree completely on the issues around poulation growth. Like you, I have chosen not to reproduce. It ends here.

Dear winky,

The first point I simply disagree with. My late Norwegian grandfather died at 76 having lived at least three normal human lives in terms of experience and wisdom thus gained. He was a profound libertarian. I thank him for the compelling lead in his philososophy about life ...

My choice of whether to not receive cancer treatment was made for real in the face of what ultimately [after six weeks in summer 1976] proved a scare as a fifteeen year old, twenty year before I first smoked! When it is time to go, go!

With me it ends here, and I intend to enjoy not growing terribly old!

But I would want others to have my choices, and be legal in making these choices.

One should have the free choice to be a Puritan or not ...

ATB from George

George,

Climbing is about as silly and as remarkable as playing music.

The notion of an ascending age restriction on smoking is very silly indeed though and wins my nomination for least practical suggestion of the decade.

David

Dear David,

I could not agree more even without three bottles of Tyskie!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:


The notion of an ascending age restriction on smoking is very silly indeed though and wins my nomination for least practical suggestion of the decade.

David

With all due respect (which usually prefaces something quite disrespectful), you'll have to try harder than that. Shallowest statement on the forum today.

winky, I feel the need to get involved here....

- There was no clever marketing when people first started rolling tobacco (and other substances) to smoke. Why did they then do it if it didn't satisfy something in them? As George says - pleasure.
- I do think that governments make a nett profit out of their taxation of tobacoo products.
- Experts who (think) they know what is good for the individual are dangerous. What if 'experts' suddenly decided that listening to music was a dangerous, subersive culturally unacceptable behaviour that prevented you from contributing to society? Or maybe just certain kinds of music?
- I agree with George when he says:

"I see no reason why today's expert [or tomorrow’s drip of water under pressure] should dictate what I or anyone else does so long as it harms society no more than say motor sport, mountain climbing, riding cycles, eating Big Macs, flying off on holiday, or leaving Hifi equipment powered 24/7, for just a few examples.

I am fed up with today's experts [so often shown to have entirely wrong priorities with hindsight] dictating."
- I think that mountain climbing and cycling should be banned as they are pointless activities and "I" see no intrinsic value in them. In fact the latter absolutely annoys me.

For the record I am not a smoker and while I don't appreciate smokers foisting their their beliefs on me I also don't appreciate non-smokers doing the same.

I could say a lot more but I think you get the point.

I would ban cigarettes tomorrow if I could. Failing that I would move the legal age to 122.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
There actually are experts who know what is best for the individual in this case. They arrive at that knowledge by very thorough research. Few public health issues are as clear as the link between smoking and poor health, high healthcare costs and premature death. Our elected officials should take an interest in public health. Policy should maximise the benefit to all. It is not nanny-ism. This a prime example of a issue in which the government should interfere.

One of the major problems is thought that governments ask these "experts" to come up with a finding, then if its not the finding they wanted they will ignore it. (Example: reclassifying Cannabis as Class B)

At least that's a problem in UK.

quote:

Originally posted by King Size
Experts who (think) they know what is good for the individual are dangerous. What if 'experts' suddenly decided that listening to music was a dangerous, subersive culturally unacceptable behaviour that prevented you from contributing to society? Or maybe just certain kinds of music?

Well the nanny experts in Europe want to stop us listening to our music too loud! There are plans afoot to put a maximum output level on portable music devices - which will render using them with a lot of "good" headphones difficult without secondary amplifier device.

It's like today Tesco are calling for a Minimum price on Alcohol. Supposedly to try to reduce binge drinking. But lets wait a moment, who actually benefits from minimum prices - oh yes ... the Supermarkets, etc who get to still buy cheep but sell a little more expensively ... all in the good name of promoting "health and good society".

Eloise

Ban smoking - good idea

Burn books we don't approve of - another good one

Round up Homosexuals and the Jews - yup, I'm up for that too

Hang on, haven't we been here before

With all due respect, this "thin end of the wedge" argument using unrelated rhetorical suggestions is pointless. Smoking is well accepted as being harmful and costly, and we as a society already place significant restrictions on it. I just asked for discussion on whether a move to a full ban would be a good idea. What crap you spout when suggesting that I am tacitly proposing banning these other things. You really must try harder.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
With all due respect, this "thin end of the wedge" argument using unrelated rhetorical suggestions is pointless. Smoking is well accepted as being harmful and costly, and we as a society already place significant restrictions on it. I just asked for discussion on whether a move to a full ban would be a good idea. What crap you spout when suggesting that I am tacitly proposing banning these other things. You really must try harder.

And saying 'you really must try harder' is just a cheap way of saying that you disagree with another's POV in a dismissive way.

You seek to infringe other individual's liberty - it is for you to justify this, not for others to justify their right to that liberty!

'What crap you spout...'

Twat!