Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 430 posts

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#281

Post by seba_dos1 »

pjc50 wrote: post #226
neonstatic wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cigarettes are not incorporated into the UK culture the way alcohol is. Drinking at a pub is sacred to them.

People used to be able to smoke in pubs. But I agree it wasn't quite so culturally foundational. I'm not going to lose sleep over the idea of a smoking ban, since it was already driven to the margins, but the implementation of it by age is really weird. Clearly a move to avoid annoying pensioners, like everything else.

It makes sense to me, we're talking about a highly addictive psychoactive substance. It's much harder to get out of addiction than not get addicted in the first place, and people born after 2008 did not have a legal way to get addicted yet. That's exactly how I'd approach having a transition period to not cause unnecessary suffering in the process.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#282

Post by mothballed »

tim333 wrote: post #280
gcanyon wrote: post #16

There are two separate issues here: 1. will this work (will the UK stop smoking) 2. is this something the UK government should be doing Setting aside 1 and looking at 2, it seems silly to me to point out that other things (alcohol) that cause problems and are not being restricted. You take the wins where you find them, and the government isn't a magical force that can impose its will on the people arbitrarily. This i…

Alcohol is quite different to cigarettes. It's fun and part of the culture - most people drink and the country is full of pubs and restaurants serving it. You couldn't ban it without most of the country, including me, objecting. Cigarettes on the other hand are not so popular. If you ask most smokers if they regret starting about 90% say yes. They mostly want to quit but are addicted. Quite different from booze.

If you look at the US about 50% have ever smoked some form of tobacco at least once. Only 11-15% currently do.

For booze it's much 'worse.' Nearly 80% have ever drunk alcohol but 50% of them still do. A much higher rate of ongoing use.

Also note a very large portion of people that have ever smoked have had a nice cigar or pipe, smoked once in a blue moon is extremely unlikely to cause cancer or addiction. This likely represents a 'quiet' large portion of the statistic that have ever used tobacco. The loudest are the pack a day smokers who loudly proclaim everyone else will be like them and therefore everyone else should suffer restrictions that presume the same.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#283

Post by Daviey »

scoofy wrote: post #275
Daviey wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't agree with this. When they become voters, if enough people of that age bracket wanted to reversed it then they could elect a party that has it in their manifesto. For example, some parties have a cannabis pledge and not enough people have wanted it as yet. My son is 16, and will be impacted by this ban. He is constantly exposed to the temptation to smoke and vape. As a responsible parent, I want to do everyth…

Then ban smoking under 26 for everyone under 26. That would be a sensible law. What is proposed is something very different in kind.

Yeah, that seems a sensible compromise.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#284

Post by protimewaster »

sebastiennight wrote: post #278
nslsm wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? Seems borderline psychopathic. Kinda sums up democracy in current times though.

> It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? You do realize that this is what basically every single law in existence does, right? That my kids, and likely yours, once they're adults, can't drive under the influence, rob a bank, impersonate a cop, lie under oath, exercise medecine without a licence, walk downtown naked, jaywalk, evade taxes, criticize the King?

I've seen confusion about this before with people that I know.

You tell them it's against the law to drink, and they'll point out that it's restrictive and controlling. You tell them it's against the law to commit tax fraud, and they'll have no objection.

Why? I think, at least with the people that I know, it's related to what they want to be able to do. They want to be able to drink alcohol, so it feels controlling to tell them they can't. They aren't interested in committing tax fraud, so they're not bothered by that being restricted.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#285

Post by apetrov »

sebastiennight wrote: post #278
nslsm wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? Seems borderline psychopathic. Kinda sums up democracy in current times though.

> It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? You do realize that this is what basically every single law in existence does, right? That my kids, and likely yours, once they're adults, can't drive under the influence, rob a bank, impersonate a cop, lie under oath, exercise medecine without a licence, walk downtown naked, jaywalk, evade taxes, criticize the King?

you can but they can't. just plain hypocrisy.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#286

Post by mothballed »

protimewaster wrote: post #284
sebastiennight wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? You do realize that this is what basically every single law in existence does, right? That my kids, and likely yours, once they're adults, can't drive under the influence, rob a bank, impersonate a cop, lie under oath, exercise medecine without a licence, walk downtown naked, jaywalk, evade taxes, criticize the King?

I've seen confusion about this before with people that I know. You tell them it's against the law to drink, and they'll point out that it's restrictive and controlling. You tell them it's against the law to commit tax fraud, and they'll have no objection. Why? I think, at least with the people that I know, it's related to what they want to be able to do. They want to be able to drink alcohol, so it feels controlling…

If you check it the other way around, you'll get consistency. Almost everyone that is against taxation is also against restrictions on consuming drink.

If you ask an addict then yeah you'll get some gibberish that enables them whether it fits into a logical paradigm or not.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#287

Post by apetrov »

lokar wrote: post #109
dnel wrote: post #91

I've been accosted outside enough shops to buy underage smokers a pack of cigs to know how well this will work.

This lack of social consensus is the problem here. A national referendum would be better, as it provides a way to force people to consider the changes and decide.

great idea, let's people without skin in the game to vote for whose who have.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#288

Post by scoofy »

Daviey wrote: post #283
scoofy wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then ban smoking under 26 for everyone under 26. That would be a sensible law. What is proposed is something very different in kind.

Yeah, that seems a sensible compromise.

Compromise, sure. I'm an ex-smoker, we can make smoking completely illegal for all I care. Again, I just think it's absurd that a government can think it is in any way legitimate to pass a law that only affects one class of people and passes it only when that class of people have no representation in government. That is a kind of tyranny, we shouldn't pretend it's not.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#289

Post by OJFord »

pjc50 wrote: post #226
neonstatic wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cigarettes are not incorporated into the UK culture the way alcohol is. Drinking at a pub is sacred to them.

People used to be able to smoke in pubs. But I agree it wasn't quite so culturally foundational. I'm not going to lose sleep over the idea of a smoking ban, since it was already driven to the margins, but the implementation of it by age is really weird. Clearly a move to avoid annoying pensioners, like everything else.

But nevermind culturally foundational, if you take away drinking at pubs then they're not pubs, it's immediately more of an impact, and more of an effect on local economies, small businesses, etc. too.

I disagree that age-based is weird: these are people who can't (yet) already do it, so they're not having something (current) taken away from them. It's a lot harder and crueller to say you're taking away something someone likes/does, even if they're not fully addicted to it.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#290

Post by hackable_sand »

MiiMe19 wrote: post #258
tgv wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't even about that. It was about selling cigarettes to others, pretending to be a romantic rebel. And freedom isn't absolute. There's no need to exaggerate 1984 style just because smoking is banned. You don't even have to stop smoking. You just can't start.

You WILL get your state mandated 1 hour of exercise everyday and you will eat your state mandated five servings of vegetables. You will not go outside for more than an hour a day to prevent skin cancer. If you were born after 2010, you will eat the state mandated bug-based red meat replacement. You don't even need to stop eating meat, you just can't start.

Bro what
Post reply on HN