- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Rishi Sunak is considering introducing some of the world’s toughest anti-smoking measures that would in effect ban the next generation from ever being able to buy cigarettes, the Guardian has learned.
Whitehall sources said the prime minister was looking at measures similar to those brought in by New Zealand last December. They involved steadily increasing the legal smoking age so tobacco would end up never being sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.
I’m sure if I asked the parents of the kids if they could ask them to wait til after 9am to play on the go kart they probably would, I have a lower expectation of “polite” behaviour from kids and I don’t want to take their fun away from them, you’re only young once and I don’t really begrudge them it.
For vehicle exhaust, we’re basically already solving the problem by moving away from ICE vehicles, so I don’t see the reason in arguing about it.
Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can’t decide that the air pollution isn’t? Why do you get to make that decision for them, and just say “you have to deal with some problems in a tolerant society”?
Because there’s more than one way of generating air pollution and some would argue that the transition isn’t happening fast enough, or even that transitioning to electric cars isn’t really a solution.
My position is pretty simple: we should prioritise personal freedoms over personal preferences, as long as our actions are not significantly harmful to others, then there shouldn’t be any laws forbidding those actions.
Is OP harmed by someone smoking weed in the middle of nowhere? No. Yet they want to ban it. They said that there should be a ban on all kinds of smoking. Total authoritarian nonsense.
The car thing, there’s a reason I completely ignored that part of the comment, it is totally irrelevant to anything I wrote and I’m not going to engage with it, sorry.
But you’re not being consistent about what “significantly harmful” even means. Loud noises apparently counts, but only if you want it to. Air pollution doesn’t, even if you think it should.
To be fair, they specifically said “smoking just smells bad and is really unpleasant to be around in the street”, so presumably they only really care about the ban when it’s near other people and would be enforceable in the first place. So if no one’s around, do what you want, but near other people you shouldn’t smoke. That goes along rather neatly with your ‘personal freedoms so long as there isn’t harmful to others.’
It’s nothing to do with “me”, it’s more to do with reality. There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues. Likewise, yes, air pollution also does. But we’re not talking about coal power plants here, we’re talking about people smoking cigarettes. There’s tons of evidence which shows that they are essentially harmless to others if smoked outdoors. That’s why preventing people from getting sleep matters, but smoking outdoors does not.
I’m not going to engage with the other thing you wrote, except to say that OP said that smoking should be banned with no additional qualifiers, in my view, everything else they wrote was explaining why they felt that way. I’m not going to argue that point though, because it’s not relevant.
Care to show some of that evidence? Because the EPA and NCBI seem to disagree with you.
But you used someone being loud and obnoxious and waking you up at 6am on a Saturday as an example of something that should explicitly be allowed.
The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned. I was giving examples of things which we tolerate in society - including kids being noisy while playing. I wasn’t writing a proposal for a new law, you’re holding my friendly, conversational, informal comment to a ridiculous standard.
I absolutely think there’s a case to be made for restricting smoking in places where it does harm. But I once again remind you, the comment I was replying to, was saying that tobacco should be banned outright because the OP didn’t like the smell. That was what I wrote my response to. The “health effects” stuff was post-hoc justification for their bigotry. I’m not interested in arguing the toss with you, I’ve shared my opinion, if you don’t like it, I don’t give a shit.
You can’t expect me to take you seriously if you’re just going to lie about what the page says. I’ll admit it might not be the best page to prove my point, but it does still show particulate matter exists in noticeable amounts outside. Also, why are you trying to say that nicotine has no harmful effects?
You’re just making stuff up.
You gave an example of something that should be allowed (kids being loud), described that same thing as something that shouldn’t be allowed (people being loud), and then justified why it shouldn’t be allowed (sleep is important).
“Semi-closed outdoor area” is not considered to be outdoors by UK law. I’m not arguing semantics with you. You are interpreting everything I say in the weakest possible way. I’m not doing that to you, so I just feel like you’re really being quite unfair. Are you trying to understand my position, or are you just trying to win some internet argument?
I haven’t seen any good proof of the levels of nicotine from second-hand smoke being harmful to anyone. Please feel free to provide a source if you want to make that claim.
Are you seriously not seeing a difference between kids playing on a go-kart at 6am and someone listening to extremely loud music at 3am and refusing to turn it down when asked?
I’m getting really tired very quickly of your aggressive manner, please dial it back or I’ll just block you.