Is free choice not a human right?
Proposed UK tobacco ban
- Thread starter neildowne
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
There hasn’t been that 1964 moment yet like tobacco. Everyone still likes to play pretend like any type of smoke in your lungs doesn’t contribute to cancer and only tobacco is special.
Why is comparing tobacco to cannabis absurd?
And as far as human rights go, I think the lists compiled by citizens of nations who don’t have firearms are drastically different than by those who do.
To be honest, I'm not sure people should be allowed to smoke in the car with minors. My parents smoked like chimneys when me and my brothers were younger. We'd take long road trips to Ireland, and the pair of them would be chain smoking in the front. We'd be in the back literally blinded by the fog of thick smoke. Not sure parents should be allowed to do that.
Yeah, but at least they would crack the window open a bit in the winter time
We already have that here in London of course. Apparently it was introduced by the mayor. And, we've been invaded by illegal aliens like no one has seen before, everyone is saying it.
Really.
Government should intervene?
Could be they just don't want to pay for what they see as the "preventable" expense of tobacco related medical care through the NHS - by preventing you all from smoking. Forgetting, of course, that the NHS money actually comes from your pockets first in income taxes and then some more in tobacco sales tax.
I'm glad everyone has a right to an opinion around here... But some of these opinions are terrifying.
Yes for sure, the government should intervene to stop parents inflitcing such flagrant harm on children. Based on that good old liberal (small 'l') tradition that one person's freedom ends where another's begins. At least here, I can't say what other countries should do.
Human rights need to be separated from natural rights, or "god given" rights.
In the founding documents of the US, we were not GIVEN rights, our rights, that we ALREADY had, were guaranteed. The founding fathers put many of those in the constitution, but some were left out because they believed it was unnecessary. The 2nd amendment was almost not added because several of the founders believed it too absurd there would ever come a time that people wouldn't be allowed to protect themselves with arms.
Some of the other natural rights were also thought to absurd to put into the bill of rights......like using plants as medicine. Native Americans used tobacco as medicine for thousands of years. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence which exemplifies three UNALIENABLE rights given to us by our creator....according to the founders.
Although not codified into law, these natural rights have been used in several SCOTUS cases.
We still use the old English laws that basically say, if im not hurting you, or harming your unalienable rights, all is good.
If banning tobacco is ok, what's next?
Sugar? Alcohol? Sex? Motor vehicles? Rocks? Sticks? Big dogs?
As the SCOTUS has said in several cases over decades they must weigh people's unalienable rights with public saftey. They usually lean towards the unalienable rights. Otherwise what IS stopping them from banning ANYTHING dangerous or harmful.
A logical solution to a problem the majority of voters seem to want addressed. If there is any success to it, other jurisdictions will no doubt follow suit. Appears it will not affect any who are smoking today. So, much ado about nothing far as I can see.
say what you want about Muslim countries, but they’d probably be among the last to ban tobacco
I think you're correct to seperate human and natural (or god given rights). For me it seems human rights are much more fundamental, as they stipulate things that cannot happen to us, as opposed to things we're entitled to do. For example, it can never be OK for any power to execute genocide over another group of people. God given rights are more complicated given that some of us don't believe in god, and indeed may have different ideas about what constitutes 'natural'. Nevertheless, the distinction you've drawn is an astute one.
Exactly. Everyone here will be able to smoke till the day they die, nothing to worry about.
I can't see it lasting. Too much tax revenue. What I see is a certain reset. Classic example you propose an insanely high tax hike and people including people with the power to have their complaints heard complain. You "compromise' and say you'll do a smaller tax hike.
Say tobacco is going to be banned totally. That clearly doesn't work but it doesn't seem like a compromise when they put restriction or higher taxes on the product.
What I see is them picking a fight, getting that fight, and then looking like they lost when they get precisely what they wanted in the first place.
Say tobacco is going to be banned totally. That clearly doesn't work but it doesn't seem like a compromise when they put restriction or higher taxes on the product.
What I see is them picking a fight, getting that fight, and then looking like they lost when they get precisely what they wanted in the first place.
Dear Mr. Wolf, London Type
Long road trips in England are not possible.
Sincerely,
A United Statesian
Dear Mr George, D type,
Ireland is not in England.
A European.
PS - Geography not your strong point then lol.
- Status