Legal age for smoking

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:
The "like Svetty says" phrase refers to "haven't we been here before". I never mentioned Nazis, homesexuals or Jews. So please do not read something into what was not said.

The previous labour government did many things that annoyed the population but in general just treated us like kids who didn't know better.

Nannies or Nazis, the point remains - I agree completely, but I still wasn't referring to the latter.

Dude, it's a big internet, and the whole thing isn't about you. My reply was to the thread, a thread containing replies from yourself, Svetty, a lot of people. I never named any names. Call it the "if the shoe fits" approach.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
But if it is considered reasonable to legislate activities that pose a degree of risk to the indulging individual where do you stop?

There are enough criminalised people already

If a painter used lead-based paint on your house, he'd be committing a criminal act; if a farmer treated his acreage with DDT, ditto. Neither would have been illegal 60 years ago. But say it isn't even your house, and you have no particular fondness for clean drinking water or bald eagles - should we let them do whatever they want?

Society does draw lines - I bet even you have a few. It's just a matter of where. As the punchline from the old quip goes, now we're just haggling.

quote:

Originally posted by Guinnless:

NO. Now you're talking. As usual.
Anything else apart from smoking, driving, exercising that you like to have total control over?

Cheers
Steve

Oh my, yes!

Dear jayd,

The view of where line should be, as I suggested in an earlier post in this thread, on what might sensibly be regulated and made an illegal act, is where the currently legal activity is not something more than averagely deleterious to others. This not at all a hard call to make, and the legislative balance seems well judged in most cases to me, nowadays. [Banking Sector complex instruments aside, just now].

Of course it is right to regulate agricultural pesticides, and paints, and even lead in fuels [etc.], so that the risks thus posed to the by-standing general public and the natural environment are reduced to acceptably low levels. With smoking rightly being banned where involuntary secondary [passive] smoking is a risk - such as in the workplace, for example - then clearly smoking poses not larger risk to third parties than riding in a diesel powered bus, stuck in congested traffic outside the house of someone who has nothing to do with the bus, but certainly hears and smells the result.

Almost every activity from pedal cycling, dale walking, or taking children a mile to school in a private car, to using Hifi kit has a cost to society if one thinks about it. As I have already said in an earlier post, now that smoking in public places is regulated, I see no reason to pick on smokers as a group. Smokers are just another bash-able minority that the "holier than thou" clever brigade likes to patronise, belittle and seek to control in a rather nanny-like way, and because smokers are not fashionable, the nanny-istas, if I may coin a suitable new descriptor, can call this something that ought to be dealt with for the benifit of the minority concerned and spuriously for the benefit of society as a whole.

It would be rather un-PC to suggest a group such as homosexuals should be banned from their pleasure, because there is a risk of spreading AIDS. That is not something I would say, but the analogy works well enough.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Dear jayd,

The view of where line should be, as I suggested in an earlier post in this thread, on what might sensibly be regulated and made an illegal act, is where the currently legal activity is not something more than averagely deleterious to others. This not at all a hard call to make, and the legislative balance seems well judged in most cases to me, nowadays. [Banking Sector complex instruments aside, just now].

Of course it is right to regulate agricultural pesticides, and paints, and even lead in fuels [etc.], so that the risks thus posed to the by-standing general public and the natural environment are reduced to acceptably low levels. With smoking rightly being banned where involuntary secondary [passive] smoking is a risk - such as in the workplace, for example - then clearly smoking poses not larger risk to third parties than riding in a diesel powered bus, stuck in congested traffic outside the house of someone who has nothing to do with the bus, but certainly hears and smells the result.

Almost every activity from pedal cycling, dale walking, or taking children a mile to school in a private car, to using Hifi kit has a cost to society if one thinks about it. As I have already said in an earlier post, now that smoking in public places is regulated, I see no reason to pick on smokers as a group. It is just another bash-able minority that the "holier than thou" clever brigade likes to patronise and belittle, and because smokers are not fashionable, they can call this something that ought to be dealt with for the benifit of the minority concerned and spuriously for the benefit of society as a whole.

It would be rather un-PC to suggest a group such as homosexuals should be banned from their pleasure, because there is a risk of spreading AIDS. That is not something I would say, but the analogy works well enough.

ATB from George

Society pays for smokers to smoke, even with the impact of second-hand smoke reduced (though far from eliminated) via legislation. By anyone's accounting, it's a huge cost, and I, for one, resent bearing that cost.

But on the subject of lines, let's limit ourselves to drugs, just for the sake of argument. Should anyone be allowed to do all the heroin they like? All the PCP? Do we, as a society, excuse all behaviors arising therefrom? Do we allow them to do it around their kids? Do we stop funding programs that teach those kids not to be like their junkie parents? Do we refuse to care for those kids when their parents cease to do so? Do we meekly pay up when the time comes that they've destroyed their bodies and need medical care? After all, a junkie shooting up is only hurting himself, right?

I suspect this is heading toward a discussion of what is meant by the phrase "more than averagely", a discussion that frankly holds no interest for me. But contrary to your assertion, I think it's an exceedingly difficult call to make.

quote:

Should anyone be allowed to do all the heroin they like

This is actually a very unwise door for someone making your argument to open as almost all the ills arising from heroin abuse arise from its illegality. The few schemes which treat addiction by prescribing heroin result in most people leading pretty stable and healthy lives, families, children, jobs and all. The long term health risks of heroin injection are relatively few if you have clean needles, a reliable supply, don't share and don't need to commit crimes to pay for it.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:

quote:

Should anyone be allowed to do all the heroin they like

This is actually a very unwise door for someone making your argument to open as almost all the ills arising from heroin abuse arise from its illegality. The few schemes which treat addiction by prescribing heroin result in most people leading pretty stable and healthy lives, families, children, jobs and all. The long term health risks of heroin injection are relatively few if you have clean needles, a reliable supply, don't share and don't need to commit crimes to pay for it.

Illegality is a door I purposely avoided. Any comment on the ills I actually mentioned?

By the way, I don't see how clean needles, a steady supply, etc. impact overdose, which kills a helluva lot of users. Also, as a biochemist, I disagree strongly with your assertion that the long-term health risks of heroin injection are relatively few.

quote:

y the way, I don't see how clean needles, a steady supply, etc. impact overdose, which kills a helluva lot of users. Also, as a biochemist, I disagree strongly with your assertion that the long-term health risks of heroin injection are relatively few.

If someone has an adequate supply of medical heroin of known and reliable potency overdoes should be relatively unlikely. As to your second point, I'm just passing on what I've been told by friends who're GPs.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
If someone has an adequate supply of medical heroin of known and reliable potency overdoes should be relatively unlikely. As to your second point, I'm just passing on what I've been told by friends who're GPs.

All that nice, managed, controlled drug indulgence sounds excellent, but expensive. Who pays that tab? And what fraction of heroin users (not sure why heroin was singled out - what about PCP?) are in such an ideal situation?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible to construct a world where everyone who wanted to could potentially do all the heroin they liked with a negligible impact on society. But we don't live in that world, and building and maintaining it will take tax money. Seems a waste to me. I'd rather start working toward one where all kids have access to good nutrition and health care.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
To answer a question posed earlier, yes I would legalise all currently proscribed substances provided they were available at known levels of purity, from properly licensed premises, at not unreasonable price, and suitably taxed.

Adults should be presumed to be responsible (even though some are not) and it would destroy almost overnight the criminal activity that always results from prohibition.

What I said earlier.

I gather that the synthesised heroin isn't very expensive compared to other therapies which are less socially beneficial. Drug addiction generates and funds a huge amount of illegal activity and costs the country an enormous amount of money what with healthcare, policing, prison, social services etc, so I understand prescribed heroin could lead to huge savings. I'm not suggesting it's a panacea or is always the best option.

There are very few such schemes. They're not politically acceptable as they give 'bad' people what they want.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
I gather that the synthesised heroin isn't very expensive compared to other therapies which are less socially beneficial. Drug addiction generates and funds a huge amount of illegal activity and costs the country an enormous amount of money what with healthcare, policing, prison, social services etc, so I understand prescribed heroin could lead to huge savings. I'm not suggesting it's a panacea or is always the best option.

There are very few such schemes. They're not politically acceptable as they give 'bad' people what they want.

Sounds like we've got the heroin problem sussed. I expect it would work really well, and look forward to the happy junkies and the huge savings. Now, on to cocaine, uppers, downers, crystal meth, ketamine, temazepam, PCP, crack, MDMA (some responsible people still enjoy those, don't they?)... as soon as these are all cheaply and safely available, we'll be set.

Oh wait, we still haven't addressed tobacco. It's already cheap enough to be freely accessible to all socioeconomic levels, and it's already legal for responsible adults, so any tax we levy on its use ought to be more than offsetting the cost for health care, etc. In fact, given the number of users, we ought to be making a killing off smokers...

Say, there's the thing! Seems like the most sound economic option would be to make smoking (hey, let's throw heroin use in as well, since it's such a boon) mandatory for all citizens 18 and over. My god, the money will roll in, healthiness will course through our veins, and happiness will billow from us all like the clouds of sweet-smelling, super-enjoyable tobacco smoke.

And best of all, when we're all "bad people" there will be no "bad people". Hellooo, quality of life!

I reiterate. Tobacco causes 100,000 deaths per year in the UK alone. Nearly half a million in the US. 5 million lives lost in just ten years. Many, many more worldwide. Why aren't we outraged? If only for the sake of the family, friends and loved ones who had to watch their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and friends die long and unpleasant deaths.

Talk of the philosophy and "civil liberties" all you like. But this is what is happening today.

Jayd,

If any of that was aimed at me I think you missed.

David

Chaps

I think a little more tolerance is in order here. I do not smoke and I have moaned in the past at smokers in pubs who have stunk me out with their stale smoke but I think we have now got the balance right.

Smokers go outside to smoke so it has no effect on my health or my clothes. Workplaces and public places are now smoke free and that is good enough for me. If someone choses to smoke for pleasure, then let them do it. Adults are entitled to freedom of choice and not one of us has any right to make someone quit for whatever reason.

Some of the comments from the anti smoking brigade are frankly OTT.

Regards

Mick .. Non smoker

Do people smoke for pleasure? What is this pleasure? Is it not just the temporary relief of the withdrawal symptoms? It can be wonderful to scratch an itch but its better by far not to have the itch in the first place surely?

Smokers are more visible in some ways than they ever were. Everytime I walk along a high street I see huddles of these poor sad addicted people standing outside pubs and bars and resturants in the freezing cold and rain puffing pitifully on their cancer sticks not in ignorence of the dangers but in the stupid belief it won't happen to them. And in the mornings when I used to walk to work I had to witness the sight of cigarette ends all over the pavements and gutters - why dont they get arrested for littering? Singapore seems like a great place to live.

Sniper,

I'm not very interested in this debate, but as a point of information, my experience as someone with an on/off history of smoking is that there very definitely IS a positive pleasure in smoking beyond the scratching of the itch. It's a complex pleasure consisting of the drug, the place, the point you've reached in the day's narrative, the weather etc. But the ritual of smoking and the effect of the drug both play their part. I once started smoking again after a gap of ten years and realised one morning sitting in the garden with a cigarette that I was more at peace than I'd been in all that time. I don't think that was just scratching the itch.

A doctor friend tells me nicotine is a mild but effective anti-psychotic and points out how many patients in psychiatric wards self medicate with it.

Not joining in the debate, or intending this to change anyone's mind.

David

A few small points:

1) Whilst lung cancer deaths are high and, like all such, they cost, it is often not appreciated that the biggest single factor for cancer is old age.

2) The ascending idea is rather silly and little more than an attempt to grab votes from smokers. Unfortunately they are now significantly in the minority so it's of little relevance. Whilst smoking us on the rise in certain groups (teenage girls) overall it remains in decline.

3) Libertarianism is an interesting stance afforded only to individuals. It is unsustainable within society and remains peripheral for good reasons.

4) In reference to Mick Parrys comments - and I too am a non smoker - I'm not sure we have the valve right yet. Is it really better or acceptable that smokers congregate around the entrances to the very buildings from which they are banned providing a fog of smoke for us to all walk through; infesting our clothes regardless of the ban; preventing the use of outdoor facilities overpopulated by smokers

5) Nicotine in itself is not addictive until certain levels are reached. Thus why the social smoker exists. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing.

6) I would also not presume as to why people smoke. However, I remain to be convinced it's anything other than a red herring. Yes the marketing is appalling but when the thing itself contains 3,000 chemicals in combinations were we know little of the consequences...

7) Many if those chemicals have been banned or are accepted as unacceptable in other spheres yet appear in cigs.

I am a non-smoker but I do believe in the rights of an individual and the freedom of choice. Along with these freedoms I do, however, also believe in consequences. A subject that many people who take their rights as the end all and be all tend to forget. If I could pass a law on this it would be based on your unalienable right to do as you please (as an individual) bearing in mind that society is not responsible to come to your rescue and pay for something that had clear risks. So, if it could be proven that throat and lung cancer can be directly linked to the act of smoking then all smokers would sign a waiver that when health issues arise they have the right to fund their own medical necessities and solutions as a result. Simple as that. If a non-smoker became ill from the effects of second hand smoke, then society, as a whole, should fund and take care of this persons needs. I realize that in today's world this kind of severe, black and white philosophy wouldn't be accepted but I certainly would extend this philosophy to all of societies problems - drunk driving, speeding, obesity, gambling, risky lifestyles of any sort etc. etc. When one reaches 18 it should be presumed that your parents imparted some wisdom to you and that as an adult you have some level of intelligence. Society shouldn't be responsible for someones poor choices.

As for smokers, I have no issue with people choosing to smoke so long as it doesn't really affect me (ie. in their homes or cars etc. or in places specifically designed for them like bars or smoking only restaurants etc) I wouldn't spend my money at a smoking only restaurant and would support only smoke free venues. Let the market decide. Where I spend my dollars is where I place my vote. Public places / work places should be smoke free as a smokers rights impede into the lives of others or children, for instance.

This may not be understood by many but back in the day when smoking was allowed virtually everywhere I did have trouble with it in that I had trouble breathing, my eyes watered and my clothes stunk but I soldiered on as I realized how strong willed many smokers were / are. Except for the workplace, I could in most ways choose to avoid this problem even at my own inconvenience. But in a humorous way, if someone did have the courtesy to ask, "mind if I smoke" I almost always did reply after a slight delay and a smile, "mind if I fart." It was a straightforward way of illustrating what being courteous and respecting others around us meant. After that, I don't believe too many people continued lighting up.

Good post but what do you mean "if it could be proven..."?

One of the bizarre byproducts of the ban I think is that remaining smokers are now appallingly behaved. Smoking in doorways is deemed acceptable and the days of a smoker in a bus queue moving out of the shelter appear long gone.

Human rights eh.

Mike, You'd be referring to your right not to see or walk past smokers?

It is of course the problem with rights-based systems of morality that the list of rights has a tendency to multiply to the point of absurdity.

I'd suggest that as it's quite ridiculous to suggest that the people smoking in doorways are harming you during the brief moments when you squeeze past them, they're not doing anything wrong and you should just get used to it.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
I'd suggest that as it's quite ridiculous to suggest that the people smoking in doorways are harming you during the brief moments when you squeeze past them, they're not doing anything wrong and you should just get used to it.

Unless you're someone who employs smokers, who seem to think they have a divine right to take a 'Smoking Break", antagonising their non-smoking colleagues and congregating in the very places your customers need to traverse. how can you possibly "get used" to such a foul-smelling emanation?

Sorry, can't be doing with all this twaddle about freedom. Having dealt all my working life with the appalling consequences of smoking on both smokers and their families, causing misery and suffering on a huge scale, even if you leave out the enormous cost for treatment for smoking-related illnesses, it should be banned forthwith. A thoroughly hateful addiction.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
I'd suggest that as it's quite ridiculous to suggest that the people smoking in doorways are harming you during the brief moments when you squeeze past them, they're not doing anything wrong and you should just get used to it.

I consider that it is nonsense to suggest that they are not doing harm - to themselves and all others who come into contact with their vile smoke.

They should at the very least have the courtesy to not exhale and certainly not fart.

quote:

I consider that it is nonsense to suggest that they are not doing harm - to themselves and all others who come into contact with their vile smoke.

You're quite wrong though. I've never heard any informed person suggest there's an actual risk from the level of exposure to smoke that comes walking past a smoker in a doorway. Being exposed to a smell you don't like isn't harm. Don't be such a wimp.

Tonym, they should make their employees stand somewhere away from the customers then - and tell them they can't have extra breaks. You don't strengthen the anti-smoking case by making such weak arguments. You should stick to the much stronger ones in your second paragraph.