Smoking 'To Be Banned'

[RJRB]

16 minutes ago, El Cid said:

But you can legally drink alcohol from the age of 5, so increasing by one year per year would take a long time.

But you can’t purchase it at 5 and I did say by 5 years every successive year.

Other than that you are bang on.

[El Cid]

3 minutes ago, RJRB said:

But you can’t purchase it at 5 and I did say by 5 years every successive year.

Other than that you are bang on.

Five year olds are very clever, they can brew their own 

[Martin C]

How will the industrious Home Office employees in their Millsands offices cope without their ten minutes in every hour smoke-breaks (and dropping their fag ends etc.) on the riverside path (Estelli Parade)?

 

Sort these slackers out Suella.

[bassett one]

yes all those workers having  ciggy breaks,but it will take years and only end up with dealers ect making cash ,plus another idea they cannot police ,like the 20mph and  drugs ect,ect

[hackey lad]

42 minutes ago, El Cid said:

They tax petrol for vehicles, which the excepting of aviation fuel, at over 50%, so that is great.

George Osborne tried to tax hot cornish pasties at 20% in 2012, but he back tracked, so its difficult.

 

We could either tax ultra-processed food or/and hot food, followed up with a reduction to 16% in the starting rate for income tax. Start at 5% and increase it by 5% every year, to become the same standard 20% VAT rate after four years - lowering income tax by 1% per year.

.

How would reducing income tax help with obesity  ?

 

[El Cid]

11 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

How would reducing income tax help with obesity  ?

 

I wouldn't want to make people poorer

[hackey lad]

4 minutes ago, El Cid said:

I wouldn't want to make people poorer

What’s that got to do with obesity?

[Tipstaff]

i understand that there are 20% less smokers than there were 20 years ago, which is a push in the right direction.  Banning it completely? I think this would be extremely difficult.

Like with everything 'prohibited' it would be driven underground and greedy criminal gangs would literally be making a killing.  If people choose to smoke (legally) then so be it.  The smokers know how obnoxious it can be for none-smokers to be passively inhaling and going home with their clothing smelling like an old ashtray.  Banning it in pubs, clubs etc was a move in the right direction.

Smoking around children, the medically and physically vulnerable and pets is also pretty obnoxious. Let those who wish to smoke do so without further hindrance, just let them do it well away from the none-smokers, children and the vulnerable.

[pfifes]

4 hours ago, Tipstaff said:

i understand that there are 20% less smokers than there were 20 years ago, which is a push in the right direction.  Banning it completely? I think this would be extremely difficult.

Like with everything 'prohibited' it would be driven underground and greedy criminal gangs would literally be making a killing.  If people choose to smoke (legally) then so be it.  The smokers know how obnoxious it can be for none-smokers to be passively inhaling and going home with their clothing smelling like an old ashtray.  Banning it in pubs, clubs etc was a move in the right direction.

Smoking around children, the medically and physically vulnerable and pets is also pretty obnoxious. Let those who wish to smoke do so without further hindrance, just let them do it well away from the none-smokers, children and the vulnerable.

I agree.  But if people smoke outdoors in public how do they know if someone ‘vulnerable’ is nearby?  It’s not necessarily obvious.  Also, passive smoking is harmful to *anyone* breathing it in.  It is also disgusting to many non smokers.  That’s why I think people should only smoke in their own homes.  I am sick of furtive smokers forcing others to breathe in their toxic, stinky fumes whilst they lurk in doorways and bus stops etc.  Vile 🚬🚬🚬

[Chekhov]

Apparently Sunak said in his speech the smoking ban was "the biggest public health intervention in a generation"

 

Really ?

 

Has he already forgotten about the biggest public health intervention in history (which occurred only three years ago) ?

Namely suppressing the whole of the society for a virus. A virus, BTW, which 99% of people were surviving and which had an average age of death in the early 80s.....

 

And this is a man who, apparently, has the facts at his finger tips.

 

2 hours ago, pfifes said:

I agree.  But if people smoke outdoors in public how do they know if someone ‘vulnerable’ is nearby?  It’s not necessarily obvious.  Also, passive smoking is harmful to *anyone* breathing it in.  It is also disgusting to many non smokers.  That’s why I think people should only smoke in their own homes.  I am sick of furtive smokers forcing others to breathe in their toxic, stinky fumes whilst they lurk in doorways and bus stops etc.  Vile 🚬🚬🚬

I speak as a non smoker.

Passive smoking is  pretty much a non problem now.

It is a red herring.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Chekhov