this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
508 points (98.5% liked)

World News

32348 readers
500 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
jackmarxist@lemmy.ml
zephyreks@lemmy.ml
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
508
Rishi Sunak considers banning cigarettes for next generation (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by EdenRester@kbin.social to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
225 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

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.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

as long as our actions are not significantly harmful to others, then there shouldn’t be any laws forbidding those actions.

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.

Is OP harmed by someone smoking weed in the middle of nowhere?

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.'

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s tons of evidence which shows that they are essentially harmless to others if smoked outdoors.

Care to show some of that evidence? Because the EPA and NCBI seem to disagree with you.

That’s why preventing people from getting sleep matters, but smoking outdoors does not.

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.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.

Among the different types of outdoor areas, the highest median outdoor SHS levels (nicotine: 4.23 µg/m3, PM2.5: 43.64 µg/m3) were found in the semi-closed outdoor areas of venues where indoor smoking was banned.

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?

Although health studies on nicotine exposure alone are limited, ... in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies strongly indicate that nicotine exposure alone can adversely affect the nervous, respiratory, immune, and cardiovascular systems, particularly when exposure occurs during critical developmental periods.

You're just making stuff up.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned.

Living in a tolerant society means that we need to be willing to deal with these little inconveniences in our lives. One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning

As long as it’s not a direct risk to health (e.g. smoking indoors) and not extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down) people should be able to do what they want to.

There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues.

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).

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

“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.