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

51–60 of 430 posts

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

#51

Post by guzfip »

brador wrote: post #28
squigz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the government's perspective, this may (or may not) be silly. But putting that aside, if a citizen supports banning cigarettes for people born after a certain date, but not alcohol, that certainly seems hypocritical to me.

We know the dangers of second hand smoke. Someone drinking near you does not impact your health.

> Someone drinking near you does not impact your health.

Hah, alcoholics have done more damage to my life than a smoker could ever dream of.

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

#52

Post by apetrov »

tgv wrote: post #36
pech0rin wrote: post #10

This is insanely dumb. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. So if people want to do it anyway who cares. I understand the cafe and indoor space bans but not allowing anyone to do it seems stupid. I don’t smoke but UK has really gone off the deep end recently with social controls, what is the point?

> So [...] who cares. I do. I prefer people not to get lung cancer, among other afflications. And for no benefit that I can think of. I don't live in the UK, but I say: good to them, and boo to you, for your misanthropic attitude.

i this context, "who cares" means "whose business". and the answer by the western society is that no ones but person in question.

bucketing ppl by birth year is literally a discrimination.

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

#53

Post by mytailorisrich »

subjectsigma wrote: post #50

Natural consequence of socialized medicine. If I’m paying for your healthcare then I (and by extension the state) get a say in basically every aspect of your life. Time to ban alcohol, marijuana, Tylenol, fatty foods, sugar, candles, campfires, fireworks, food coloring, bicycles, playgrounds, cars, cell phones, and anything else that might be harmful

In the UK tobacco is heavily taxed and those taxes bring in more money than the cost on the healthcare service.

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

#54

Post by joegibbs »

adjejmxbdjdn wrote: post #7
joegibbs wrote: post #6

Drinking has been decided to be totally fine though, no need to ban that - probably because it's unfashionable to smoke, and the kind of people who come up with these laws find it uncouth. It will also be ridiculous in a few years when the UK inevitably decides to legalise marijuana - totally fine to smoke a joint, but don't you dare put any of that tobacco in it!

Drinking doesn’t affect others as direct as smoking does. Most of the indoor smoking bans in the U.S. have been based entirely on the fact that second hand smoke affects the employees who are forced to be there. Further, drinking has a far deeper cultural resonance, so smoking is clearly the lower hanging fruit. And it’s not like the UK has not been taking action against drinking. For example, they’ve imposed minimum…

Nobody was ever attacked on the street by a tobacco-addled stranger at 3 in the morning though. Besides, they're not banning indoor smoking, they're banning it entirely - including vaping and other nicotine products.

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

#55

Post by joegibbs »

Sweepi wrote: post #31
joegibbs wrote: post #6

Drinking has been decided to be totally fine though, no need to ban that - probably because it's unfashionable to smoke, and the kind of people who come up with these laws find it uncouth. It will also be ridiculous in a few years when the UK inevitably decides to legalise marijuana - totally fine to smoke a joint, but don't you dare put any of that tobacco in it!

Newsflash: Its possible to consume "marijuana" w/o smoking it (just like nicotine!).

They're not banning smoking in general (which would be impossible anyway, what are they going to do, make it illegal to set something on fire and breathe it in?), they're banning nicotine products. I also really doubt that they will legalise weed and then say "but of course you're not allowed to smoke it, edibles only".

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

#56

Post by squigz »

afavour wrote: post #39
squigz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't? That should be good news for victims of drunk driving, and the families of abusive drunks.

There’s still a difference, surely? Drinking alcohol can lead to drunk driving and it can lead to abuse. Thankfully in the vast majority of instances it doesn’t. Second hand smoke, however, inflicts damage the moment it’s inhaled.

I'm not saying there's no difference. I just don't that difference is as pronounced as some people think, and I don't think it excuses the apparent double standard.

Brief Googling also suggests that second-hand smoke affects at least similar levels of people as drunk driving, if not more - to say nothing of e.g. domestic violence.

Not to mention, there are already various laws designed to mitigate the effects of second-hand smoke, such as not smoking indoors or in cars with children.

Overall, I am just not convinced that it's necessary to focus so much more on cigarettes over other drugs.

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

#57

Post by tgv »

apetrov wrote: post #52
tgv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So [...] who cares. I do. I prefer people not to get lung cancer, among other afflications. And for no benefit that I can think of. I don't live in the UK, but I say: good to them, and boo to you, for your misanthropic attitude.

i this context, "who cares" means "whose business". and the answer by the western society is that no ones but person in question. bucketing ppl by birth year is literally a discrimination.

> i this context, "who cares" means "whose business".

I don't think so, but if the original poster is around...

Anyway, it's the government's business to keep their population out of trouble.

> bucketing ppl by birth year is literally a discrimination.

Contrary to popular opinion, discrimination isn't illegal or even undesirable per se. In this case, it has a health benefit.

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

#58

Post by xienze »

neogodless wrote: post #37

You can kind of tell when people think about only themselves or the community when they present arguments for things like smoking and vaccination. "I don't want to be controlled" is a perfectly valid argument, and I prefer humans can make choices for themselves and have reasonable autonomy when it does not have a negative affect on others . Vaccination and smoking affects people around you. Drinking does too - in cer…

> I prefer humans can make choices for themselves and have reasonable autonomy when it does not have a negative affect on others.

How far do you want to take this? Your choice of diet may have a negative effect on others by way of having to pay for additional medical care.

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

#60

Post by wookmaster »

brador wrote: post #28
squigz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the government's perspective, this may (or may not) be silly. But putting that aside, if a citizen supports banning cigarettes for people born after a certain date, but not alcohol, that certainly seems hypocritical to me.

We know the dangers of second hand smoke. Someone drinking near you does not impact your health.

If you just ignore alcohol fueled violence, birth defects, deaths from drivers hitting people and cars and the emotional health toll to others from dealing with an alcoholic, sure.
Post reply on HN