Proposed UK tobacco ban

[Chris T]

Something is not a human right if it requires the fruits of someone else's labor to produce it.

Wow, this thread has taken several ugly turns... So let's just be consistent with this premise and see how dark we can get:
1. No human right requires the labor of another.
2. Human infants two months old require feeding.
3. Human infants two months old cannot feed themselves.
4. By 2 and 3, human infants require another's labor.
5. By 1 and 4, a 2 month old human infant doesn't have a human right to be fed.

Nice belief system going on there, ain't it?

But let's keep this on topic:
1. Same as 1 above.
2. Human infants can't protect themselves from having their fingers harvested for smoking in tobacco pipes.
3. A human infant would require someone to protect it from someone who wanted to smoke its fingers in a tobacco pipe.
4. By 1, 2, and 3, securing an infant's fingers and smoking them in a tobacco pipe would not be a violation of the infant's human rights.

Apologies to all, that's very distasteful, but some of the less well thought out posts in this thread are bringing out my snarkiness.

 

[HeadMisfit]

Wow, this thread has taken several ugly turns... So let's just be consistent with this premise and see how dark we can get:
1. No human right requires the labor of another.
2. Human infants two months old require feeding.
3. Human infants two months old cannot feed themselves.
4. By 2 and 3, human infants require another's labor.
5. By 1 and 4, a 2 month old human infant doesn't have a human right to be fed.

Nice belief system going on there, ain't it?

But let's keep this on topic:
1. Same as 1 above.
2. Human infants can't protect themselves from having their fingers harvested for smoking in tobacco pipes.
3. A human infant would require someone to protect it from someone who wanted to smoke its fingers in a tobacco pipe.
4. By 1, 2, and 3, securing an infant's fingers and smoking them in a tobacco pipe would not be a violation of the infant's human rights.

Apologies to all, that's very distasteful, but some of the less well thought out posts in this thread are bringing out my snarkiness.

Ah, but it follies dictates held in common belief for decades.

It is considered a sin in certain belief circles to use any force or violence to stop an animal chewing on a child. Even a new born. Because it would violate the animals civil rights. And be cruel to the animal.

As a result there is a local girl who's mother let the pet raccoon chew on her face. No charged ever doled. Prosecutor said it was just a horrible and expected event.

She needed major plastic surgeries over the years.

And on human behavior, in the 90s a Venezuela prison uprising ended up with 450 inmates being slaughtered.. burning brooms used as barbecue skewers. The army units that rebook the prison also found 300 heads in metal barrels, but couldn't find any other parts or actual inmates missing a head.

 

[Sig]

This is my rebuttal as I understand your statement. If I’ve misunderstood your statement, and you feel like it, please correct me.

Would we in The States have more liberty if we could safely and legally buy cocaine? Bombs? Lethal chemicals?
Extreme examples, maybe, but my point is that simply making more things available to buy does not necessarily mean more liberty for people.

Cocaine? Yes
Bombs? Yes
Lethal chemicals? Yes
Bombs and lethal chemicals are already widely available. Nicotine and bleach are "lethal chemicals". Even water can be lethal in large doses.
Every 4th of July the are literally millions of bombs sold in the US.
This all goes back to our constitution, the Federalist papers, and how the SCOTUS has defined and interpreted them.
Bombs are legal, until they reach the "dangerous AND unusual" stage where SCOTUS has clearly defined.
Buying a 24 megaton nuke is obviously dangerous AND unusual", so can be banned. However, tanerite is legal in most jurisdictions, and can blow a 3 story building into toothpicks. Its very common and available in every sporting goods store.
Dangerous chemicals can be highly controlled, but are not banned in most jurisdictions. You can buy cyanide and Yersinia pestis bacteria which causes Bubonic plague, but you need permits.
Cocaine is FAR less dangerous than alcohol and refined sugar, so why not?
As far a American freedom, the SCOTUS has interpreted several times that when banning what someone can own, it must pass scrutiny. The current and well defined interpretation is the "text, history, and tradition" test.
This means they cannot ban anything that was not banable at the nation's founding. The federalist papers describe this in detail. According to our constitution, things like speech, guns, religion...cannot be banned. UNLESS it falls in the "dangerous AND unusual" context.
Many want to ban some firearms because they are dangerous. But, one of the reasons the 2nd amendment was added is because privateer ships wanted cannons. Some wanted cannons banned because they were to dangerous for civilians. The founding fathers disagreed. Cannons were not unusual. They clearly said that any arm which can be used offensively OR defensively cannot be banned. They even took into account that arms would advance, and possibly become more "dangerous". This is why the dangerous AND unusual clause came to be. If an arm is "in common use", it cannot be banned, or even restricted.....infringed if you will. An arm must be both dangerous AND unusual to be banned.
This all goes back to our "text, history, and tradition."
Ok,ok, ill stop.

 

[Briarcutter]

Cocaine is FAR less dangerous than alcohol and refined sugar, so why not?

You're really stretching it on this one.

 

[NookersTheCat]

You're really stretching it on this one.

Multiple studies have proven @Sig correct. This one from the UK... cocaine (powder, not freebase) is roughly as harmful as tobacco to health and society... and that's with it being still criminalized which multiple other studies show magnifies any substances negative effects.. not mitigates them.

The sugar one may sound absurd until you start looking at diabeetus numbers (at least here in the good old High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-Fed-U-S-of-A, lol) If you looked at negative health and societal issues caused from sugar like heart disease and diabetic organ failure, etc. it would dwarf all the drug issues shown below combined.

Multiple studies have also shown that alcohol intoxication is a significant contributing factor involved in nearly half of all homicides in the U.S. Not to mention drunk driving and affects to the body. Alcohol is quite literally a (mild) toxic poison that thousands of years of human social tradition tells us is okay...

 

[Sig]

You're really stretching it on this one.

Cocaine in moderation is much safer for the user, and society than alcohol. There have been many studies over the years.
Cocaine addicts commit less violent crimes, cause fewer overdose deaths, and cause fewer auto accidents than alcohol. Its very difficult to OD on Cocaine. Of course we are talking about powder and "free base", which is just cocaine and baking soda for smoking.
Cocaine is also less apt to cause psychosis and delusion than alcohol.
All this said, im not advocating to make Cocaine legal. In the few places this has been tried (Portugal, Seattle, Portland OR) things haven't went well. Mainly because cocaine is a SERIOUSLY bad gateway drug. The majority of coke users eventually graduate to meth and fentanyl. Cocaine is expensive, meth and fentanyl are ridiculously inexpensive. Both of which can, over time, cause a lot of issues from skin necrosis to brain lesions.
Im a Libertarian at heart....with a few caveats. You do you, just dont hurt anyone else.
We dont see banning sugar due to the massive health crisis and medical expenses. We dont see banning alcohol due to the many health issues, auto accidents, and health related costs.
If you look into why drugs like Cocaine, opium, morphine and weed, were heavily controlled, you may be surprised it has ZERO to do with health or saftey.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

But sugar?

 

[fireground_piper]

lol I love a great chart.

“A multi criteria decision analysis” is GREAT!

 

[Sig]

I should add that I personally have been called a "prude" when it comes to these things.
Nicotine is my vice.
No street drugs, no alcohol, no caffeine, and no other "naughtiness".

 

[Sig]

But sugar?

Sugar is the most dangerous and deadly food stuff. Obesity and other heath related illness is becoming an epidemic. The number one cause of death in the US is heart disease. The major causes of heart disease in the US include obesity, poor diet, diabetes, and lack of exercise. In countries that consume much less sugar, heart disease is much lower.
The number 2 cause of death is cancer. Some of the causes of your body triggering cancer is obesity, lack of exercise, poor diet and even excessive alcohol use.
See the trend?

 

[Briarcutter]

Multiple studies have proven @Sig correct. This one from the UK... cocaine (powder, not freebase) is roughly as harmful as tobacco to health and society... and that's with it being still criminalized which multiple other studies show magnifies any substances negative effects.. not mitigates them.

The sugar one may sound absurd until you start looking at diabeetus numbers (at least here in the good old High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-Fed-U-S-of-A, lol) If you looked at negative health and societal issues caused from sugar like heart disease and diabetic organ failure, etc. it would dwarf all the drug issues shown below combined.

Multiple studies have also shown that alcohol intoxication is a significant contributing factor involved in nearly half of all homicides in the U.S. Not to mention drunk driving and affects to the body. Alcohol is quite literally a (mild) toxic poison that thousands of years of human social tradition tells us is okay...


View attachment 433493

Cocaine in moderation is much safer for the user, and society than alcohol. There have been many studies over the years.
Cocaine addicts commit less violent crimes, cause fewer overdose deaths, and cause fewer auto accidents than alcohol. Its very difficult to OD on Cocaine. Of course we are talking about powder and "free base", which is just cocaine and baking soda for smoking.
Cocaine is also less apt to cause psychosis and delusion than alcohol.
All this said, im not advocating to make Cocaine legal. In the few places this has been tried (Portugal, Seattle, Portland OR) things haven't went well. Mainly because cocaine is a SERIOUSLY bad gateway drug. The majority of coke users eventually graduate to meth and fentanyl. Cocaine is expensive, meth and fentanyl are ridiculously inexpensive. Both of which can, over time, cause a lot of issues from skin necrosis to brain lesions.
Im a Libertarian at heart....with a few caveats. You do you, just dont hurt anyone else.
We dont see banning sugar due to the massive health crisis and medical expenses. We dont see banning alcohol due to the many health issues, auto accidents, and health related costs.
If you look into why drugs like Cocaine, opium, morphine and weed, were heavily controlled, you may be surprised it has ZERO to do with health or saftey.

I've spent 40 years in recovery. You'll never convince me in a million years or pages upon pages of "stats" that coke is harmless or less dangerous than alcohol or sugar, sugar,really sugar????..... You need to speak to some addicts and see how their lives and their families lives were destroyed. I never seen anyone get evicted or arrested because of his sugar habit. I'd say Alcohol and coke are on the same destructive level. Talk to the addicted, they will tell you the eye opening truth.

 

[smudgersmissingleg]

Cocaine? Yes
Bombs? Yes
Lethal chemicals? Yes
Bombs and lethal chemicals are already widely available. Nicotine and bleach are "lethal chemicals". Even water can be lethal in large doses.
Every 4th of July the are literally millions of bombs sold in the US.
This all goes back to our constitution, the Federalist papers, and how the SCOTUS has defined and interpreted them.
Bombs are legal, until they reach the "dangerous AND unusual" stage where SCOTUS has clearly defined.
Buying a 24 megaton nuke is obviously dangerous AND unusual", so can be banned. However, tanerite is legal in most jurisdictions, and can blow a 3 story building into toothpicks. Its very common and available in every sporting goods store.
Dangerous chemicals can be highly controlled, but are not banned in most jurisdictions. You can buy cyanide and Yersinia pestis bacteria which causes Bubonic plague, but you need permits.
Cocaine is FAR less dangerous than alcohol and refined sugar, so why not?
As far a American freedom, the SCOTUS has interpreted several times that when banning what someone can own, it must pass scrutiny. The current and well defined interpretation is the "text, history, and tradition" test.
This means they cannot ban anything that was not banable at the nation's founding. The federalist papers describe this in detail. According to our constitution, things like speech, guns, religion...cannot be banned. UNLESS it falls in the "dangerous AND unusual" context.
Many want to ban some firearms because they are dangerous. But, one of the reasons the 2nd amendment was added is because privateer ships wanted cannons. Some wanted cannons banned because they were to dangerous for civilians. The founding fathers disagreed. Cannons were not unusual. They clearly said that any arm which can be used offensively OR defensively cannot be banned. They even took into account that arms would advance, and possibly become more "dangerous". This is why the dangerous AND unusual clause came to be. If an arm is "in common use", it cannot be banned, or even restricted.....infringed if you will. An arm must be both dangerous AND unusual to be banned.
This all goes back to our "text, history, and tradition."
Ok,ok, ill stop.

I didn't need to read any further, you have my vote

 

[NookersTheCat]

I've spent 40 years in recovery. You'll never convince me in a million years or pages upon pages of "stats" that coke is harmless or less dangerous than alcohol or sugar, sugar,really sugar????..... You need to speak to some addicts and see how their lives and their families lives were destroyed. I never seen anyone get evicted or arrested because of his sugar habit. I'd say Alcohol and coke are on the same destructive level. Talk to the addicted, they will tell you the eye opening truth.

Trust me, I know many addicts as well. Congratulations on your recovery.. sincerely.

There's a difference between personal scale and societal scale though.. that's something that often gets mixed up in these discussions. I'm not saying hard drugs are healthy lol.
Just that there are different levels and causalities and people tend to focus on some while ignoring others.

To (try to) get more back on topic... we see it here even in this hobby.. in this thread even. Many people today completely demonize tobacco while many in this hobby try talking themselves into it being a health supplement lol. The truth, as with most everything in life, is somewhere inbetween...

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Yeah... but you don't blame hammers when you smash your hand, and you don't blame sugar when you get diabeetus.

As far as blaming cocaine for addiction... IDK

I've done it many times in the past... never once thought about robbing my grandmother or ditching my babies.

All that said... the cocaine vs sugar thing is a stretch fo sho.

 

[Briarcutter]

I've done it many times in the past... never once thought about robbing my grandmother or ditching my babies.

That's, gratefully, because you never crossed the line.

 

[Brad H]

Cocaine in moderation is much safer for the user, and society than alcohol. There have been many studies over the years.
Cocaine addicts commit less violent crimes, cause fewer overdose deaths, and cause fewer auto accidents than alcohol. Its very difficult to OD on Cocaine. Of course we are talking about powder and "free base", which is just cocaine and baking soda for smoking.
Cocaine is also less apt to cause psychosis and delusion than alcohol.
All this said, im not advocating to make Cocaine legal. In the few places this has been tried (Portugal, Seattle, Portland OR) things haven't went well. Mainly because cocaine is a SERIOUSLY bad gateway drug. The majority of coke users eventually graduate to meth and fentanyl. Cocaine is expensive, meth and fentanyl are ridiculously inexpensive. Both of which can, over time, cause a lot of issues from skin necrosis to brain lesions.
Im a Libertarian at heart....with a few caveats. You do you, just dont hurt anyone else.
We dont see banning sugar due to the massive health crisis and medical expenses. We dont see banning alcohol due to the many health issues, auto accidents, and health related costs.
If you look into why drugs like Cocaine, opium, morphine and weed, were heavily controlled, you may be surprised it has ZERO to do with health or saftey.

Is there legislation or a petition for this somewhere?

 

[dd57chevy]

I do like the occasional Milky Way bar .

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

That's, gratefully, because you never crossed the line.

If it really is something that jumps up and bites you on the ass, then I consider myself lucky.

Congrats on your victory, I'm sure glad you made it.

I have seen what awful things addiction does to many people... just saying I'm not sure what's to blame, the object or the person with the obsession with the object.

From what I've seen many of the rehabs and other NGOs seem to enable the junkies.

and believe me, I've got friends in prison who swear they aint to blame... people that I love.

but the ones who got their shit straight carry at least some of the blame.

 

[Briarcutter]

If it really is something that jumps up and bites you on the ass, then I consider myself lucky.

Congrats on your victory, I'm sure glad you made it.

I have seen what awful things addiction does to many people... just saying I'm not sure what's to blame, the object or the person with the obsession with the object.

From what I've seen many of the rehabs and other NGOs seem to enable the junkies.

and believe me, I've got friends in prison who swear they aint to blame... people that I love.

but the ones who got their shit straight carry atleast some of the blame.

Thank you Sir! I'm100% to blame but I truly believe I was born with an addictive personality. That's the tough part,if someone is born with it, which science confirms,you never know it until it too late. There ain't no putting that genie back in the lamp

 

[Jo L.S.]

They can do what they want, but there will always be people who smoke tobacco. They make a lot of noise for nothing in the end. What I find hypocritical is reading that they are increasing the price of tobacco to discourage people from smoking. I think above all they are afraid to admit that they like putting money in their pockets.