Printable View
Making it illegal will only cut down on the smokers to a certain degree. People would smoke, and find ways to get cigarettes. They prohibit cops from smoking in squad cars, but I've seend many of them doing it. Who's gonna stop them? It is called selective enforcement, and it sucks.
If you smoke you get pregnant? I wondered what the wife was doing wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
;)
Well, it WAS off topic a bit, but this thread has stayed Waaaaaay too focused.
You cant say that the uk public benefit from smokers in a economical way...yes the government benefits...but smokers get taxed when they by the fags, then every body else pays (smokers and none smokers) when the nhs has to cover a patient ill with lung cancer....its mad........
i think smoking should defininatly be banned from some places (e.g, i have to take my 2 year old and 1 year old daughters into town and through shopping centres packed with people smoking(i dont think thats right)) but as per usually the government went well over the top...i dont think smoking should be banned from places like pubs...
You didn't hear much about Johnny Carson still smoking, but he did die of emphysema complications.
Banning it in pubs will have the greatest impact on peoples' smoking habit as this is where they smoke the most. The idea is that they will find it easier to quit when the biggest temptation, smoking while drinking, is removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by makster246
:thumb:
If drinking calms you anyway why would you need to smoke? :confused:
Exactly Bodwad.
I've never really seen the point in smoking.It's just stupid :rolleyes:
Don't be confused young grasshopper. Getting drunk and blowing smoke out your nose while pretending to be a dragon can be hours of entertainment. Add some bacardi 151 and a lighter, it's twice the laughs. You may even get to see a fire truck in action. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
Been there, done that.... Twice :wave:
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
So why not make it illegal?
(i) In the UK non-smokers reap the benefits of a substantial lump of cash
(ii) Making a legal activity enjoyed by millions of people illegal is impossible.
So what are you going to do:
(i) Compain about health issues
(ii) Complain about the smell
(iii) Introduce a highly limited ban that serves nobody.
Makes sense to me? No!
I would like to know ANY reasoning that justifies both (i) and (ii) of the the first list and corroborates all three of the second.
I bet no-one can.
Unless it involves aliens, JFK, and Princess Diana's murderer.
:lol:
Probably not. Give it time though and they will ban it eventually :thumb:
I agree that it's pointless smoking and I agree that there are health issues (which are obvious but yet to be proved - apart from spurious and sometimes evidently dubious statistical data) involved.
So why don't we just ban it altogether and stop the vote-winning b**locks; nancy-pansie political correctness?
It is the answer to this question which I would like a response. An answer I doubt I will ever get.
Which puts those in favour of a ban on very shaky ground. Very shaky ground, indeed.
Dude, I'd give you an answer, but I honestly can't understand the question. Could you re-phrase, please. It seems like you are asking "Why not ban smoking entirely?", but I am not sure.
My point is that smoking is inherently evil (tm) Everyone believes this (nearly) So why not make it illegal rather than some flimsy old ban.
As an aside I believe that a ban will be introduced and not illegality because in the UK (at least) smoking is worth billions to the government. I must therefore presume that banning smoking is more about votes than public health.
I want to know why those in favour of the ban do not argue for illegality.
That's what I thought you were saying, but I wasn't sure.
Why not ban it? Good question. Why do we make pot illegal and tobacco legal. The one is slightly addictive, while the other is about as addictive as heroin. In either case, smoking causes respiratory damage to those who smoke, and those around them (some people doubt the research on this, but when you get right down to it, inhaling particulates and smoke is NEVER beneficial, the only question is whether or not the harm is significant or not). The cost in health care from smoking is demonstrably large. However, simply making it illegal will not solve the problem, it will just make it more profitable for some people (just like banning alcohol did during prohibition).
The route being taken, whether deliberate or not, is a good one. I recently heard about a study that showed that smokers working in non-smoking environments are significantly more likely to successfully quit than smokers working in smoking environments. Therefore, by restricting where you can smoke, you will actually decrease the total number of smokers. A further study showed that employees happiness went up in smoking areas where smoking was banned.
Therefore, by slowly increasing a restriction rather than going for an up-front ban, you increase societies intolerance of the habit, which encourages more people to voluntarily give up the practice. Making it illegal would probably be detrimental (there are plenty of people who break the law simply because the law is there), but convincing people that the choice of not smoking is the right one, would improve compliance.
In the UK tax revenue gathered from cigarettes far exceeds the money spent on treating smoking related disease.Quote:
The cost in health care from smoking is demonstrably large.
Being rather suspicious about governments in general, I presume that the UK government does not want to ban smoking because it would be detrimental to it's 'profits'
Law makers?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Because it is TAXED, and provides a very high revenue to gov't.
If any company could make money off of weed, they'd spend the money to get FDA approval to get it on the market, and if they did that, it could be taxed, and the gov't would make weed legal for the TAXES. Now, they make SO MUCH MONEY off of prosecuting users, that it's about time for a revolution.
I think you guys are giving the government FAR too much credit. I've been involved in politics for a fair amount of time (my mother held a variety of elective offices, and was actually working on a PhD in government systems, and I attended a fari number of legislative sessions). The people in government are just regular folks, and like any other folks, they are mostly interested in what they are going to eat next, how can they make a buck, when the game starts, whether or not they left the stove on, etc. Everybody tugs on the process in various directions and to varrying degrees, and the result is the net sum of those vectors. Rarely does a single person have the power to direct their personal vision through the process, and even more rarely does a single person have a significant vision in the first place.
Even if someone were to get the idea to legalize weed for the tax revenues, by the time all the legislators and lobbyists were done with it, the final bill passed, would place a restriction on the use of velcro chaps in sheep ranching, with an amendment that authorized 25 billion dollars for wart research, and another that authorized the invasion of Tahiti.
Sure, they'd release part of the prison population, lay off all the cops that fight the drug war, and quit prosecuting users? LOL
ah damn! I wish they'd do the same in the US hahha
where do you think I'm from? sorry if I don't broadcast USA!
I would have said you were from the "center of it all" as you put it :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
from mars!Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
Journey to the center of IT ALL!
Never heard of ITALL, is it anything like ITALY? :ehh:
About 3 generations ago, actually.
You learn something new every day :lol: