This is the point, though. It isn't a case of all or nothing. Nor is it a slippery slope. Each one is debated, and adopted, or not. Fundamentalist freedomism is not the slam dunk you think it is, because it removes the possibility that freedom from is more important than freedom to. Freedom from smoke is more important than the freedom to smoke.
Originally posted by pease: Rather unsurprisingly, consumption of alcohol rises with real income. There are clearly some sectors of society that are likely to be less affected by minimum pricing (ie anyone who can still afford it), but if has a significant effect on demand among young people, it might still be worthwhile.
Amongst people I know, generally moderate drinkers who are not deterred by price increases, what has drastically reduced our alcohol consumption from a point which wasn't high in the first place, is the reduction in the drink-driving levels in Scotland.
None of us would have gone out for meal / social occasion and drunk alcohol if we were driving home afterwards. There would always be a "designated driver". But the new lower levels means that we have to think twice about drinking wine with dinner at home, if there's any chance we might want to nip out to the local shop later because we've run out of milk, or fancy some chocolate etc.
This is the point, though. It isn't a case of all or nothing. Nor is it a slippery slope. Each one is debated, and adopted, or not.
That’s what everyone who agrees with the first steps says. Funny how, for example, any suggestion that lower immigration numbers would be a good idea is treated as if it’s equivalent to calling for all non-whites to be instantly deported, whereas depriving people of the right to choose what they do or do not put inside their own bodies when it comes to one such thing is treated as perfectly justifiable and in no way opening the door for anyone who wants to exert even more control over us For Our Own Good.
Fundamentalist freedomism is not the slam dunk you think it is, because it removes the possibility that freedom from is more important than freedom to. Freedom from smoke is more important than the freedom to smoke.
This is the point, though. It isn't a case of all or nothing. Nor is it a slippery slope. Each one is debated, and adopted, or not.
That’s what everyone who agrees with the first steps says. Funny how, for example, any suggestion that lower immigration numbers would be a good idea is treated as if it’s equivalent to calling for all non-whites to be instantly deported,
That's not because of a "slippery slope" argument, it's because a lot of people are outright saying that and a lot of the others strongly hint at it. What exactly do you think the "Mass Deportations Now" slogan means?
Tobacco is straightforward, I think. It's lethal, highly addictive and can't be used in small quantities. So phase it out.
You can drink alcohol in moderation and stay well. So help people do that.
I'm addicted to sugar and it's a very difficult addiction to deal with. I manage well and I'm slim - but I only keep it under control with the help of weekly talking therapy. Any emotional upset sends me careering off the wagon.
snip ...
... eventually we’re only allowed out of our ultra-safe padded rooms for the mandatory two hours exercise every day, and all we’re given to eat is some plant-based food substitute with exactly the right amount of nutrients according to some scientist somewhere. For Our Own Good.
We’ve just got a message from a friend asking us to pray. She and her son are in A & E right now. Her son, who is a very heavy smoker, and now in his 50’s is very frightened. He has a terrible cough, is breathing with extreme difficulty and will be having a chest x-ray. He is terrified about what that will reveal and, after years of stubborn resistance, is now saying “I wish I’d never started smoking”.
I figure that story, with variations, is told many times a day.
Reality is, unfortunately, a dictatorship. Constitutions and votes can't defend people against reality. There are many at play: the destructive nature of apparently tiny changes in the composition of the atmosphere, the impact of smoking on the smoker and those around them, the effect of overconsumption of various foodstuffs. All of these have impacts well beyond the individual and are therefore appropriate targets for collective solutions.
Of course, this doesn't prevent empathy with those who find themselves in that situation. I'm not that much better at believing what I am seeing coming towards me until it hits me. That's why we need to protect each other.
I don’t want you to protect me. I want you to let me make my own sodding decisions.
When you retire to your own small island and live as a hermit, entirely without contact with others, you can. Otherwise, your well-being and that of the people around you are intertwined. Many decisions in societies are made collectively. Some individuals won't agree with them, but we don't all get our own way all the time.
This is the point, though. It isn't a case of all or nothing. Nor is it a slippery slope. Each one is debated, and adopted, or not. Fundamentalist freedomism is not the slam dunk you think it is, because it removes the possibility that freedom from is more important than freedom to. Freedom from smoke is more important than the freedom to smoke.
It is entirely possible for people to smoke either alone, or in the company of consenting fellow smokers. That provides both freedom from and freedom to, no?
Tobacco is straightforward, I think. It's lethal, highly addictive and can't be used in small quantities. So phase it out.
Not sure this is correct. I don't smoke, have never smoked, and have no desire to smoke, but I do have a neighbor who smokes cigars from time to time. He says (and observation says that he is correct) that he smokes one on a Saturday night with his friends from time to time.
I appreciate that nicotine is highly addictive, but I think "can't be used in small quantities" may be a bit strong.
This is the point, though. It isn't a case of all or nothing. Nor is it a slippery slope. Each one is debated, and adopted, or not. Fundamentalist freedomism is not the slam dunk you think it is, because it removes the possibility that freedom from is more important than freedom to. Freedom from smoke is more important than the freedom to smoke.
It is entirely possible for people to smoke either alone, or in the company of consenting fellow smokers. That provides both freedom from and freedom to, no?
Tobacco is straightforward, I think. It's lethal, highly addictive and can't be used in small quantities. So phase it out.
Not sure this is correct. I don't smoke, have never smoked, and have no desire to smoke, but I do have a neighbor who smokes cigars from time to time. He says (and observation says that he is correct) that he smokes one on a Saturday night with his friends from time to time.
I appreciate that nicotine is highly addictive, but I think "can't be used in small quantities" may be a bit strong.
I get the sense that what used to be called a “sin tax” is now done as a “health tax,” possibly because the people making and marketing those taxes to the public believe less in sin and more in biological health as “The most important thing.”
I suspect it's because there's evidence that people *paying* the taxes are generally more compliant if laws are framed in this way. (I also wonder if "sin tax" has an echo of sumptuary laws - ones that regulate luxurious or extravagant consumption.)
Regardless, I really don’t like them using this kind of thing (in either case) as a form of social engineering with the aim of long-term changes to society—and I include this law which I consider draconian.
A draconian law is one with excessively harsh penalties. This law introduces fixed penalty notices of £200 (£100 if paid within 14 days) as an alternative to prosecution. Social engineering is a feature of modern societies. (Or a bug.) I would consider the invasion of privacy required by the enforcement of your preferred option - of being allowed to smoke in private with consenting adults - to be less desirable.
I’d prefer more taxes on tobacco than limiting it to people born before a certain year, or banning it outright. Hopefully at least some people can get it by going over to mainland Europe and bringing it back—or for their friends—and since they didn’t buy it in the UK, no laws would be broken.
Good point. As things stand, it does appear that adults born after 2008 would be able to purchase tobacco products abroad for personal use in the UK. There are established limits to the amounts that can be carried back.
Naturally that results in some compromises when it comes to individual freedoms.
This is, in its sheer earnest banality, one of the more terrifying comments I’ve read here for a long while. So much evil towards individuals has happened because of people who think “the good of society” (as defined by them) is more important than individual freedoms. Authoritarianism doesn’t magically become ok if it’s “for our own good”.
Where does this idea that we have "individual freedoms" come from? Societies have always operated on the basis that the people in them have our freedoms constrained for "the good of society". Or would you rather they were constrained for the good of only the people *running* society, which is the only alternative I can see in operation.
None of us would have gone out for meal / social occasion and drunk alcohol if we were driving home afterwards. There would always be a "designated driver". But the new lower levels means that we have to think twice about drinking wine with dinner at home, if there's any chance we might want to nip out to the local shop later because we've run out of milk, or fancy some chocolate etc.
Thanks, North East Quine. A consequence of convenient consumerism that hadn't occurred to me.
I just want to point out that people born after the cut off year, will, in almost all cases, not be buying illicitly, or suffering from lack of their pipes and fine cigars, because in most cases they won't have had the chance to start in the first place.
I just want to point out that people born after the cut off year, will, in almost all cases, not be buying illicitly, or suffering from lack of their pipes and fine cigars, because in most cases they won't have had the chance to start in the first place.
Until they decide to check it out, illicitly or not. Perhaps even more because of making it a “forbidden fruit.”
I think it partly depends on how you think of harm and risk to health, and whether you're thinking of it in the short term or the long term - the acute effects compared to the chronic effects.
I also wonder how many of the differences in outcome are down to tobacco being legal and the quality regulated, in contrast to illegal, unregulated narcotics which may have been cut with a wide range of substances.
I keep coming back to the forbidden fruit issue. Legal smoking is regulated, it is not glamorous. If it is banned does it become glamorous by the fact it is banned? Something needs to be done. I am not sure this is the right solution
I keep coming back to the forbidden fruit issue. Legal smoking is regulated, it is not glamorous. If it is banned does it become glamorous by the fact it is banned? Something needs to be done. I am not sure this is the right solution
It's going to be primarily associated with being an elderly (to young eyes) addict and one dose of coming home stinking of fag smoke is going to be more than enough to put most off.
I keep coming back to the forbidden fruit issue. Legal smoking is regulated, it is not glamorous. If it is banned does it become glamorous by the fact it is banned? Something needs to be done. I am not sure this is the right solution
I don't think smoking in private is being banned any more than is already the case. (Smoking in a vehicle in which there's someone under 18 was banned in 2015.) It's the procurement of something to smoke that's being targeted.
According to the ONS General Lifestyle Survey 2011, 66% of adult smokers started smoking before they were 18, and 40% started before they were 16. And from an Action on Smoking and Health briefing paper:
The evidence from the US is that raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 immediately reduced smoking prevalence in 18-20 year olds by at least 30%. This is very similar to the impact when the age of sale in England was increased from 16 to 18 in 2007. This led to a reduction of 30% in smoking prevalence in people aged 16 and 17 years, partly by reducing uptake and partly by promoting cessation, and also had a sustained impact.
This is the point, though. It isn't a case of all or nothing. Nor is it a slippery slope. Each one is debated, and adopted, or not. Fundamentalist freedomism is not the slam dunk you think it is, because it removes the possibility that freedom from is more important than freedom to. Freedom from smoke is more important than the freedom to smoke.
It is entirely possible for people to smoke either alone, or in the company of consenting fellow smokers. That provides both freedom from and freedom to, no?
Tobacco is straightforward, I think. It's lethal, highly addictive and can't be used in small quantities. So phase it out.
Not sure this is correct. I don't smoke, have never smoked, and have no desire to smoke, but I do have a neighbor who smokes cigars from time to time. He says (and observation says that he is correct) that he smokes one on a Saturday night with his friends from time to time.
I appreciate that nicotine is highly addictive, but I think "can't be used in small quantities" may be a bit strong.
Cigars are a different thing. My husband quit by first moving to cigars, then just having one a day, then one a week, then none. He quit at the same time as me, when we were 28 and expecting our first child.
@Marvin the Martian@ChastMastr do you think that seat belts should be optional? What about laws preventing fly-tipping (I don't know if there's a different American term sorry - fly-tipping is dumping rubbish in public areas rather than taking it to the local municipal tip aka the dump, hence the name)? There are all kinds of laws which restrict our choices because our choices impact other people. Pointing that out is only terrifying if you don't give a shit about other people. Comparing, say, seat belt laws to a totalitarian regime is incredibly silly and you know it.
Smoking necessarily involves subjecting others to passive smoking, which we know causes serious health problems in other people. It's not simply a victimless personal habit.
This is the point, though. It isn't a case of all or nothing. Nor is it a slippery slope. Each one is debated, and adopted, or not. Fundamentalist freedomism is not the slam dunk you think it is, because it removes the possibility that freedom from is more important than freedom to. Freedom from smoke is more important than the freedom to smoke.
It is entirely possible for people to smoke either alone, or in the company of consenting fellow smokers. That provides both freedom from and freedom to, no?
Tobacco is straightforward, I think. It's lethal, highly addictive and can't be used in small quantities. So phase it out.
Not sure this is correct. I don't smoke, have never smoked, and have no desire to smoke, but I do have a neighbor who smokes cigars from time to time. He says (and observation says that he is correct) that he smokes one on a Saturday night with his friends from time to time.
I appreciate that nicotine is highly addictive, but I think "can't be used in small quantities" may be a bit strong.
Under UK law you can't consent to being harmed, so you can't consent to passive smoking. The harm to others from cigarettes is from the smoke, not the nicotine - and actually even for the smoker, most of the harm comes from the smoke.
The issue for me is that very few people only ever smoke tobacco alone - it would be next to impossible to police.
If I remember correctly, the tobacco plant is fussy about the soil in which it grows. Perhaps it would be feasible to buy up all that tobacco-friendly land and repurpose it,
I keep coming back to the forbidden fruit issue. Legal smoking is regulated, it is not glamorous. If it is banned does it become glamorous by the fact it is banned? Something needs to be done. I am not sure this is the right solution
It's going to be primarily associated with being an elderly (to young eyes) addict and one dose of coming home stinking of fag smoke is going to be more than enough to put most off.
Unless they smell much more pleasant cigar or pipe smoke. I really think that a distinction should be made between the cheapest and most additive ridden cigarettes and things that are much higher quality with genuine taste that aficionados can actually tell you about. It’s like the difference between what has been called “rotgut” alcohol versus fine wines, liqueurs, cocktails, or even very good beer/lager/etc. I feel like everyone here is focusing on the nastiest stuff that people primarily smoke out of addiction rather than stuff that people smoke because it’s a taste that they have and they really like it.
Pointing that out is only terrifying if you don't give a shit about other people.
Sorry, but that’s not true, at least in my case, certainly. Indeed, I don’t smoke and have no plans to do so. I care about the people who are going to be deprived of this, and their rights and freedoms, as well.
Comparing, say, seat belt laws to a totalitarian regime is incredibly silly and you know it.
But I didn’t do that. That might be a discussion with having perhaps, but I certainly did not say that.
Under UK law you can't consent to being harmed
I’m really hoping that this does not apply to consensual BDSM between adults. But there’s a difference between flogging and deliberately breaking bones, etc.
I’m also going to say, again, that bringing back smoking rooms, parlors, cigar bars, etc. or certain clubs would be a good solution.
The issue for me is that very few people only ever smoke tobacco alone - it would be next to impossible to police.
Unless I miss something, I think people can police getting smashed or sloppy drunk on a regular basis around children, etc.
I think we are in disagreement about some really basic things here so I’m not really sure what else to say, but again I wish you well.
No one is going to be deprived of their pleasurable addiction. The old smokers will keep on smoking, just youngsters will not have the option to start.
And no, no one polices adults getting smashed or sloppy drunk around children, it happens all the time. It happened to me. It happened, despite my attempts to stop it, to my daughter, until her father found AA.
I keep coming back to the forbidden fruit issue. Legal smoking is regulated, it is not glamorous. If it is banned does it become glamorous by the fact it is banned? Something needs to be done. I am not sure this is the right solution
It's going to be primarily associated with being an elderly (to young eyes) addict and one dose of coming home stinking of fag smoke is going to be more than enough to put most off.
Unless they smell much more pleasant cigar or pipe smoke.
That's very much grading on a curve, and doesn't change the fact that cigarettes are and will remain by far the most common form of tobacco consumption and will therefore be what most people encounter.
The issue with smoking rooms is that bars, pubs etc. are also workplaces. Someone is going to have clear glasses, do the cleaning and such. This is one of the reasons smoking was banned in hospitality venues in the first place.
The issue with smoking rooms is that bars, pubs etc. are also workplaces. Someone is going to have clear glasses, do the cleaning and such. This is one of the reasons smoking was banned in hospitality venues in the first place.
Also to get to none smoking areas you can often had to go through smoking areas. I remember when one side of the cinema was smoking and the other wasn’t.
I can see @Chastemaster’s argument but I think people in the UK at least have found it better with the smoking ban and would not go back.
I do agree with him that this system is not the way to go. There must be better solutions.
<snip>Unless they smell much more pleasant cigar or pipe smoke.<snip>
That is very much a matter of personal taste. I have known people who were quite happy with the smell of cigarette smoke, but really could not abide either cigar smoke or pipe smoke, or both.
Also, in my opinion, while “fresh“ pipe or cigar smoke may smell nicer than cigarette smoke, once it is old and cold and on people’s clothes or on upholstery the same does not apply.
It's going to be primarily associated with being an elderly (to young eyes) addict and one dose of coming home stinking of fag smoke is going to be more than enough to put most off.
Unless they smell much more pleasant cigar or pipe smoke.
I've always been grateful that the cigarillos one of my older relatives smoked smelled absolutely disgusting. Put me off very effectively. Another one of his generation smoked a pipe, which wasn't quite as bad, but still wasn't what I'd call pleasant.
I really think that a distinction should be made between the cheapest and most additive ridden cigarettes and things that are much higher quality with genuine taste that aficionados can actually tell you about. It’s like the difference between what has been called “rotgut” alcohol versus fine wines, liqueurs, cocktails, or even very good beer/lager/etc. I feel like everyone here is focusing on the nastiest stuff that people primarily smoke out of addiction rather than stuff that people smoke because it’s a taste that they have and they really like it.
What you're talking about is the level of compulsion. "Genuine taste" is in the mouth of the beholder, along with nicotine absorption and toxic smoke. But the line between habitual consumption and addictive consumption gets obscured by the fug.
That's very much grading on a curve, and doesn't change the fact that cigarettes are and will remain by far the most common form of tobacco consumption and will therefore be what most people encounter.
Intriguingly, research indicates it may be more complex. From the Public Library of Science on the Age of initiation of cigarillos, filtered cigars and/or traditional cigars among youth:
Introduction
According to the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) data, cigar products are the most popular combustible tobacco product used among high school (7.6%) and middle school (2.3%) youth, surpassing cigarettes (of which 5.8% of high and 2.3% of middle school students reported using)
Abstract
Early age of initiation of tobacco use is associated with sustained tobacco use and lower rates of smoking cessation.
…
Developmentally and culturally appropriate cigar use interventions and communication campaigns should be provided to youth before 17 years of age to prevent the onset and progression of cigar products. Regulatory policies that reduce appeal of all cigar products should be implemented to curb cigar initiation among youth.
So are perhaps the issues raised here and what side of the issue we all fall on. I don’t really have anything new to add here and I don’t see anything people are saying on the “other side“ that has convinced me in any way (nor as far as I can tell, vice versa).
If I can’t think of anything else to say here, I’ll just say I wish everyone here well, regardless of our positions on this matter.
If I remember correctly, the tobacco plant is fussy about the soil in which it grows. Perhaps it would be feasible to buy up all that tobacco-friendly land and repurpose it,
North Carolina still produces about 60% of the tobacco grown in the US, but the actual amount of tobacco grown has dropped significantly in the last two or three decades. Part of that has to do with falling demand, but part has to do with ending government quota/allotment programs and buying farmers out of those programs. Small farmers in particular have moved to growing other things, like sweet potatoes or grapes. Government grants have helped farmers transition away from tobacco.
The issue with smoking rooms is that bars, pubs etc. are also workplaces. Someone is going to have clear glasses, do the cleaning and such. This is one of the reasons smoking was banned in hospitality venues in the first place.
Also to get to none smoking areas you can often had to go through smoking areas. I remember when one side of the cinema was smoking and the other wasn’t.
Where I live, in places where smoking is prohibited, it’s prohibited altogether. There are no smoking areas.
Cigar lounges/cigar bars are permitted, but any opened in 2009 or later must be in a free-standing building in which the cigar lounge or bar is the only occupant. At least, that was the case until two years ago, when our @$!#$ legislature made an exception, saying a cigar lounge or bar that doesn’t sell food doesn’t have to be in a free-standing building.
For those cigar bars or lounges in a building shared with other occupants, the law does require that smoke cannot migrate into an area where smoking is prohibited, like outdoor seating for a restaurant.
If I remember correctly, the tobacco plant is fussy about the soil in which it grows. Perhaps it would be feasible to buy up all that tobacco-friendly land and repurpose it,
North Carolina still produces about 60% of the tobacco grown in the US, but the actual amount of tobacco grown has dropped significantly in the last two or three decades. Part of that has to do with falling demand, but part has to do with ending government quota/allotment programs and buying farmers out of those programs. Small farmers in particular have moved to growing other things, like sweet potatoes or grapes. Government grants have helped farmers transition away from tobacco.
I'm all for helping US farmers find things other than tobacco to grow, but China, India and Brazil farm a lot more tobacco than we do. China produces by far the most tobacco worldwild, and they'll do as they see fit.
@ChastMastr for clarification - I don't actually agree with the law wrt consenting to being harmed, I was just pointing out that it is the stance taken by the law. BDSM is not illegal but the law does impact what acts can be portrayed on screen (because showing an act on screen can be read as promoting something). Again, I disagree with that. I personally think that things like substance misuse (including all drugs including alcohol and nicotine under "substances") should just come under the banner of public health issues anyway.
Aside from the obvious issue of personal taste - I personally think that cigar smoke smells a whole lot worse than cigarettes for eg - portraying some substances as good/better because they're associated with wealth isn't a coherent stance to take. A vintage bottle of port is just as bad for you as a bottle of cheap vodka. Your body doesn't distinguish between nicotine or alcohol etc depending on how much you paid for it or how classy the packaging is. Indeed, a few years ago the UK had a real public health problem with people binge drinking wine at home not seeing themselves as "real" binge drinkers because they weren't going to a club and causing havoc in public, and were drinking "good alcohol".
I appreciate that you don't actually want others to suffer. But equally, people who want to restrict the use of substances that are a public health issue don't hold that stance because we hate fun. I don't care if people want to take other substances that aren't a public health issue.
If I remember correctly, the tobacco plant is fussy about the soil in which it grows. Perhaps it would be feasible to buy up all that tobacco-friendly land and repurpose it,
North Carolina still produces about 60% of the tobacco grown in the US, but the actual amount of tobacco grown has dropped significantly in the last two or three decades. Part of that has to do with falling demand, but part has to do with ending government quota/allotment programs and buying farmers out of those programs. Small farmers in particular have moved to growing other things, like sweet potatoes or grapes. Government grants have helped farmers transition away from tobacco.
I'm all for helping US farmers find things other than tobacco to grow, but China, India and Brazil farm a lot more tobacco than we do. China produces by far the most tobacco worldwild, and they'll do as they see fit.
Oh for sure. And their role in the market is one reason unrelated to health that demand for US tobacco has fallen.
@ChastMastr for clarification - I don't actually agree with the law wrt consenting to being harmed, I was just pointing out that it is the stance taken by the law. BDSM is not illegal but the law does impact what acts can be portrayed on screen (because showing an act on screen can be read as promoting something). Again, I disagree with that. I personally think that things like substance misuse (including all drugs including alcohol and nicotine under "substances") should just come under the banner of public health issues anyway.
Aside from the obvious issue of personal taste - I personally think that cigar smoke smells a whole lot worse than cigarettes for eg - portraying some substances as good/better because they're associated with wealth isn't a coherent stance to take. A vintage bottle of port is just as bad for you as a bottle of cheap vodka. Your body doesn't distinguish between nicotine or alcohol etc depending on how much you paid for it or how classy the packaging is. Indeed, a few years ago the UK had a real public health problem with people binge drinking wine at home not seeing themselves as "real" binge drinkers because they weren't going to a club and causing havoc in public, and were drinking "good alcohol".
I appreciate that you don't actually want others to suffer. But equally, people who want to restrict the use of substances that are a public health issue don't hold that stance because we hate fun. I don't care if people want to take other substances that aren't a public health issue.
I appreciate the areas on which we have common ground. Obviously the areas in which we disagree are areas in which we disagree.
Freedom is what western liberal democracies are founded on.
Not really. The rule of law, and due process, are far more foundational. All sorts of things have been banned over the centuries, some bans have been rescinded or softened (abortion, same-sex relationships), others tightened (opiates, tobacco) and others have fluctuated (alcohol). Liberal democracy balances individual freedoms alongside majority rule, with different systems providing greater or lesser protection to specific individual rights. I'm not aware of any that protects a general right to poison oneself and one's surroundings.
Are there other ways than an outright ban? How do we deal with the black market that will inevitably grow? How does this square with the Green Parties idea of legalising drugs to control them and make them less attractive if they get in? Are the police over stretched as it is?
These are all questions that need answering. It is no good bringing in a ban if we cannot police it. Banning could very well make it glamorous. I’m not saying don’t ban. I am saying it is not that simple.
Are there other ways than an outright ban? How do we deal with the black market that will inevitably grow?
I'm not sure there will be a significant black market. If you're going to the hassle of procuring illegal substances I'd have thought you'd go for one with better toxicity/effect ratio.
IMO most of the attractiveness of smoking when you’re young is social - doing what others in your group are doing. I think we will very soon reach a point where that (even now residual) attractiveness will have gone, and there won’t be any buyers for black market tobacco products.
As far as other drugs are concerned, legal availability at a reasonable price will undercut the illegal market very quickly thus eliminating a significant social harm from drugs. It is also likely to reduce the extent to which users, for one reason or another, ‘push’ drug-taking onto others.
I appreciate that you don't actually want others to suffer. But equally, people who want to restrict the use of substances that are a public health issue don't hold that stance because we hate fun. I don't care if people want to take other substances that aren't a public health issue.
A lot of what you call a "public health issue" is a numbers game. If lots of people partake in vice X, it becomes a public health issue. If few people do Y, it's not a public health issue, even if Y is much more harmful than X.
IMO most of the attractiveness of smoking when you’re young is social - doing what others in your group are doing. I think we will very soon reach a point where that (even now residual) attractiveness will have gone, and there won’t be any buyers for black market tobacco products.
As far as other drugs are concerned, legal availability at a reasonable price will undercut the illegal market very quickly thus eliminating a significant social harm from drugs. It is also likely to reduce the extent to which users, for one reason or another, ‘push’ drug-taking onto others.
You appear to be making opposing arguments here. Banning tobacco is good, because its a social activity, and once you reduce the incidence of smoking below some critical level, nobody will want to smoke. But also, legalizing non-tobacco drugs is good because it will prevent harms from smuggling, pushing, and cutting street drugs with various poisons.
So if tobacco is illegal, fewer people will smoke, but if other drugs are illegal, more people will do them? I don't follow your logic.
IMO most of the attractiveness of smoking when you’re young is social - doing what others in your group are doing. I think we will very soon reach a point where that (even now residual) attractiveness will have gone, and there won’t be any buyers for black market tobacco products.
As far as other drugs are concerned, legal availability at a reasonable price will undercut the illegal market very quickly thus eliminating a significant social harm from drugs. It is also likely to reduce the extent to which users, for one reason or another, ‘push’ drug-taking onto others.
You appear to be making opposing arguments here. Banning tobacco is good, because its a social activity, and once you reduce the incidence of smoking below some critical level, nobody will want to smoke. But also, legalizing non-tobacco drugs is good because it will prevent harms from smuggling, pushing, and cutting street drugs with various poisons.
So if tobacco is illegal, fewer people will smoke, but if other drugs are illegal, more people will do them? I don't follow your logic.
IMO the initial allure of tobacco isn’t really the pharmaceutical effect itself, but once someone becomes a user of tobacco it is very hard to quit.
With many (most) other drugs (including alcohol) there is an immediate and strong effect which is alluring in itself - socialisation issues aside.
Comments
Rather unsurprisingly, consumption of alcohol rises with real income. There are clearly some sectors of society that are likely to be less affected by minimum pricing (ie anyone who can still afford it), but if has a significant effect on demand among young people, it might still be worthwhile.
Amongst people I know, generally moderate drinkers who are not deterred by price increases, what has drastically reduced our alcohol consumption from a point which wasn't high in the first place, is the reduction in the drink-driving levels in Scotland.
None of us would have gone out for meal / social occasion and drunk alcohol if we were driving home afterwards. There would always be a "designated driver". But the new lower levels means that we have to think twice about drinking wine with dinner at home, if there's any chance we might want to nip out to the local shop later because we've run out of milk, or fancy some chocolate etc.
That’s what everyone who agrees with the first steps says. Funny how, for example, any suggestion that lower immigration numbers would be a good idea is treated as if it’s equivalent to calling for all non-whites to be instantly deported, whereas depriving people of the right to choose what they do or do not put inside their own bodies when it comes to one such thing is treated as perfectly justifiable and in no way opening the door for anyone who wants to exert even more control over us For Our Own Good.
It’s possible to have both, you know.
That's not because of a "slippery slope" argument, it's because a lot of people are outright saying that and a lot of the others strongly hint at it. What exactly do you think the "Mass Deportations Now" slogan means?
You can drink alcohol in moderation and stay well. So help people do that.
I'm addicted to sugar and it's a very difficult addiction to deal with. I manage well and I'm slim - but I only keep it under control with the help of weekly talking therapy. Any emotional upset sends me careering off the wagon.
That's just a silly straw man appeal to extremes.
I figure that story, with variations, is told many times a day.
When you retire to your own small island and live as a hermit, entirely without contact with others, you can. Otherwise, your well-being and that of the people around you are intertwined. Many decisions in societies are made collectively. Some individuals won't agree with them, but we don't all get our own way all the time.
It is entirely possible for people to smoke either alone, or in the company of consenting fellow smokers. That provides both freedom from and freedom to, no?
Not sure this is correct. I don't smoke, have never smoked, and have no desire to smoke, but I do have a neighbor who smokes cigars from time to time. He says (and observation says that he is correct) that he smokes one on a Saturday night with his friends from time to time.
I appreciate that nicotine is highly addictive, but I think "can't be used in small quantities" may be a bit strong.
Amen to the above.
A draconian law is one with excessively harsh penalties. This law introduces fixed penalty notices of £200 (£100 if paid within 14 days) as an alternative to prosecution. Social engineering is a feature of modern societies. (Or a bug.) I would consider the invasion of privacy required by the enforcement of your preferred option - of being allowed to smoke in private with consenting adults - to be less desirable.
Good point. As things stand, it does appear that adults born after 2008 would be able to purchase tobacco products abroad for personal use in the UK. There are established limits to the amounts that can be carried back.
Where does this idea that we have "individual freedoms" come from? Societies have always operated on the basis that the people in them have our freedoms constrained for "the good of society". Or would you rather they were constrained for the good of only the people *running* society, which is the only alternative I can see in operation.
Thanks, North East Quine. A consequence of convenient consumerism that hadn't occurred to me.
The only place we're at liberty to do this is in our dreams. (If we're lucky. And dreams are free from the effects of climate change on sea levels.)
Until they decide to check it out, illicitly or not. Perhaps even more because of making it a “forbidden fruit.”
I also wonder how many of the differences in outcome are down to tobacco being legal and the quality regulated, in contrast to illegal, unregulated narcotics which may have been cut with a wide range of substances.
It's going to be primarily associated with being an elderly (to young eyes) addict and one dose of coming home stinking of fag smoke is going to be more than enough to put most off.
According to the ONS General Lifestyle Survey 2011, 66% of adult smokers started smoking before they were 18, and 40% started before they were 16. And from an Action on Smoking and Health briefing paper:
Cigars are a different thing. My husband quit by first moving to cigars, then just having one a day, then one a week, then none. He quit at the same time as me, when we were 28 and expecting our first child.
Cigars are not easy to inhale or chain smoke.
Smoking necessarily involves subjecting others to passive smoking, which we know causes serious health problems in other people. It's not simply a victimless personal habit.
Under UK law you can't consent to being harmed, so you can't consent to passive smoking. The harm to others from cigarettes is from the smoke, not the nicotine - and actually even for the smoker, most of the harm comes from the smoke.
The issue for me is that very few people only ever smoke tobacco alone - it would be next to impossible to police.
Unless they smell much more pleasant cigar or pipe smoke. I really think that a distinction should be made between the cheapest and most additive ridden cigarettes and things that are much higher quality with genuine taste that aficionados can actually tell you about. It’s like the difference between what has been called “rotgut” alcohol versus fine wines, liqueurs, cocktails, or even very good beer/lager/etc. I feel like everyone here is focusing on the nastiest stuff that people primarily smoke out of addiction rather than stuff that people smoke because it’s a taste that they have and they really like it.
Sorry, but that’s not true, at least in my case, certainly. Indeed, I don’t smoke and have no plans to do so. I care about the people who are going to be deprived of this, and their rights and freedoms, as well.
But I didn’t do that. That might be a discussion with having perhaps, but I certainly did not say that.
I’m really hoping that this does not apply to consensual BDSM between adults. But there’s a difference between flogging and deliberately breaking bones, etc.
I’m also going to say, again, that bringing back smoking rooms, parlors, cigar bars, etc. or certain clubs would be a good solution.
Unless I miss something, I think people can police getting smashed or sloppy drunk on a regular basis around children, etc.
I think we are in disagreement about some really basic things here so I’m not really sure what else to say, but again I wish you well.
And no, no one polices adults getting smashed or sloppy drunk around children, it happens all the time. It happened to me. It happened, despite my attempts to stop it, to my daughter, until her father found AA.
I also am not in agreement that people who smoke pipes or cigars are all “addicted” and that that’s why they do it.
That's very much grading on a curve, and doesn't change the fact that cigarettes are and will remain by far the most common form of tobacco consumption and will therefore be what most people encounter.
Also to get to none smoking areas you can often had to go through smoking areas. I remember when one side of the cinema was smoking and the other wasn’t.
I can see @Chastemaster’s argument but I think people in the UK at least have found it better with the smoking ban and would not go back.
I do agree with him that this system is not the way to go. There must be better solutions.
That is very much a matter of personal taste. I have known people who were quite happy with the smell of cigarette smoke, but really could not abide either cigar smoke or pipe smoke, or both.
Also, in my opinion, while “fresh“ pipe or cigar smoke may smell nicer than cigarette smoke, once it is old and cold and on people’s clothes or on upholstery the same does not apply.
What you're talking about is the level of compulsion. "Genuine taste" is in the mouth of the beholder, along with nicotine absorption and toxic smoke. But the line between habitual consumption and addictive consumption gets obscured by the fug.
Intriguingly, research indicates it may be more complex. From the Public Library of Science on the Age of initiation of cigarillos, filtered cigars and/or traditional cigars among youth:
So are perhaps the issues raised here and what side of the issue we all fall on. I don’t really have anything new to add here and I don’t see anything people are saying on the “other side“ that has convinced me in any way (nor as far as I can tell, vice versa).
If I can’t think of anything else to say here, I’ll just say I wish everyone here well, regardless of our positions on this matter.
Where I live, in places where smoking is prohibited, it’s prohibited altogether. There are no smoking areas.
Cigar lounges/cigar bars are permitted, but any opened in 2009 or later must be in a free-standing building in which the cigar lounge or bar is the only occupant. At least, that was the case until two years ago, when our @$!#$ legislature made an exception, saying a cigar lounge or bar that doesn’t sell food doesn’t have to be in a free-standing building.
For those cigar bars or lounges in a building shared with other occupants, the law does require that smoke cannot migrate into an area where smoking is prohibited, like outdoor seating for a restaurant.
Aside from the obvious issue of personal taste - I personally think that cigar smoke smells a whole lot worse than cigarettes for eg - portraying some substances as good/better because they're associated with wealth isn't a coherent stance to take. A vintage bottle of port is just as bad for you as a bottle of cheap vodka. Your body doesn't distinguish between nicotine or alcohol etc depending on how much you paid for it or how classy the packaging is. Indeed, a few years ago the UK had a real public health problem with people binge drinking wine at home not seeing themselves as "real" binge drinkers because they weren't going to a club and causing havoc in public, and were drinking "good alcohol".
I appreciate that you don't actually want others to suffer. But equally, people who want to restrict the use of substances that are a public health issue don't hold that stance because we hate fun. I don't care if people want to take other substances that aren't a public health issue.
But I’ll take what we can get.
I appreciate the areas on which we have common ground. Obviously the areas in which we disagree are areas in which we disagree.
@pease Free choice is an urban myth? Seriously? Freedom is what western liberal democracies are founded on.
Not really. The rule of law, and due process, are far more foundational. All sorts of things have been banned over the centuries, some bans have been rescinded or softened (abortion, same-sex relationships), others tightened (opiates, tobacco) and others have fluctuated (alcohol). Liberal democracy balances individual freedoms alongside majority rule, with different systems providing greater or lesser protection to specific individual rights. I'm not aware of any that protects a general right to poison oneself and one's surroundings.
These are all questions that need answering. It is no good bringing in a ban if we cannot police it. Banning could very well make it glamorous. I’m not saying don’t ban. I am saying it is not that simple.
I'm not sure there will be a significant black market. If you're going to the hassle of procuring illegal substances I'd have thought you'd go for one with better toxicity/effect ratio.
As far as other drugs are concerned, legal availability at a reasonable price will undercut the illegal market very quickly thus eliminating a significant social harm from drugs. It is also likely to reduce the extent to which users, for one reason or another, ‘push’ drug-taking onto others.
A lot of what you call a "public health issue" is a numbers game. If lots of people partake in vice X, it becomes a public health issue. If few people do Y, it's not a public health issue, even if Y is much more harmful than X.
You appear to be making opposing arguments here. Banning tobacco is good, because its a social activity, and once you reduce the incidence of smoking below some critical level, nobody will want to smoke. But also, legalizing non-tobacco drugs is good because it will prevent harms from smuggling, pushing, and cutting street drugs with various poisons.
So if tobacco is illegal, fewer people will smoke, but if other drugs are illegal, more people will do them? I don't follow your logic.
I always thought modern liberal democracies were based on having laws that placed limits on those in power.
With many (most) other drugs (including alcohol) there is an immediate and strong effect which is alluring in itself - socialisation issues aside.