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
Already is. Cheap illegal cigarettes are not difficult to get hold of.
It certainly is a hilarious word. Although I think you guys pronounce it differently than we do. I personally much prefer the American pronunciation, and I think the popularity of the game would be well served if all TV commentators were forced to adopt its usage lol.I already knew was snooker was, of course.
It's just a funny sounding word---and the game so veddy British---that I wanted to see how you described it.
You did not disappoint.
(Best get your playing in while you can, BTW. It's haram.)
It seems to me the UK is trying to create a udopeia, meaning you would have to be a real dope to live there!
Agreed.
The founding fathers used "god given rights", but its the same as natural rights, or unalienable...or inalienable rights.....which all mean the same thing. These are things that ALL people are born with. Not just Americans, but all people.
Civil rights were given to us by other humans in the USA.....equal opportunities for all regardless of race, religion, gender, creed, age, disabilities.....
Constitutional rights were natural rights that our founders didn't give us, they just guarantee all Americans cannot have them restricted by the government. A very large portion of the US population do not understand this AT ALL. They confuse civil rights, Constitutional rights, and natural rights. If a right is not SPECIFICALLY wrote out IN WORDS in the constitution, its not guaranteed...period.
Sooooooo many people believe they have the protected RIGHT to food, shelter, abortion, marriage, citizenship, saftey....but none of these are protected rights, nor natural rights.
A very simple concept which has our country about to explode into violence. Very sad days.
This is why the founders of the USA were really on to something.
If im not hurting you, or violating your rights....LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!!
Unfortunately, many Americans dont like that. They prefer having power, and making money fighting against what made America different.
“A people that forgets its history is doomed to repeat it,” George Santayana. Well, this is what political correctness is allowing in Europe. An excellent quote, although I don't share his political ideology.
Last edited:
The slippery slope never rests.
The older smokers are safe for now.
This is how politicians have operated for decades, maybe centuries.
They pass a law which doesn't seen to egregious. They ban tobacco, but grandfather in that people of a certain age are exempt. Eventually those older smokers die, or quit smoking, and the exemption dissolves. Sure, for the older smokers that's fine, they will be dead.
But for those of us who look ahead to the future of civilization, we see the slope getting more slippery.
This exact thing happens all the time.
One example is NYS firearm laws.
In 2013 Cuomo created the SafeAct, in the middle of the night, behind the backs of his constituents. This banned semi automatic rifles with a list of cosmetic features....pistol grip flash hider, barrel shroud.....
Previously owned rifles were exempt if they were registered within a time frame. Less than 2% of the estimated rifles were registered.
The very next year Cuomo proposed the SafeAct 2. This would further limit rifles, and pistols with purely cosmetic features, which have NOTHING to do with the operation of the firearm. This bill failed because he could not push it through at midnight with less than 24 hours for the legislators to read 750 pages....like he did with the first SafeAct.
Sinse then NY legislators have proposed banning ALL semi automatic firearms. This would include 95% of handguns and long guns.
The same thing happened with magazine bans. They first banned any detachable magazine that holds more than 7 rounds. Immediately they proposed limiting magazines to 5 rounds. Then they proposed limiting ANY firearm to 5 rounds, making 6 shot revolvers, and most long guns illegal no matter what platform they use....detachable magazine, tube magazine, revolving cylinder, internal magazine...
Fortunately a state judge from the Western NY jurisdiction tossed out the 7 round limit, and stopped the other proposals. Sinse that day, the Democrat politicians in NYS have proposed over 800 new laws pertaining to firearms. Many have passed. These laws do ZERO to save lives, they are proposed and passed to garner support from uneducated voters.
My point is, "they" never stop....never.
Once the conquer tobacco, they will go for maybe sugar, or swimming pools, or maybe speech....oh wait, they are already aggressively attacking free speech.
Give them an inch, they take it all.
It’s easier when you stop teaching history that way there’s nothing to remember.
Or when you reshape history as you see fit
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.
I agree with the way you have broken down different rights, and neatly categorised them. However, I find the idea that the inalienable rights you describe are somehow static, and frozen in time, problematic. I certainly wouldn't demur from the idea that these principles apply to all people. The universalism of those ideas are certainly very attractive. The problem, as I see it, is that when these words were written by your founding fathers, or indeed when such ideas were articulated by Locke, Paine and other liberal thinkers, the world was an entirely different place. Colonial America at that time was pretty monocultural (leaving aside the thorny issue of slavery), as was the country in which these ideas were originally articulated. The western world now, is far more pluralistic, the interpretation of these ideas is naturally going to be contested. Is the problem as much the resistance to the democratic reinterpretation of these ideas, as opposed to confusion over the proper categorisation of rights?
Because Europe was totally destroyed, and relied on American money to rebuild. That money came with certain conditions, such as open markets for American goods and services. Hence globalisation.
Glorifying the “founding fathers” isn’t my cup of tea. Let’s never forget they enslaved other human beings which is clearly harmful to the enslaved so I’m not sure the “founding fathers” are ones to look to for moral guidance.
Also, let’s never forget that tobacco related deaths number in the hundreds of thousands per year. Tobacco is obviously, objectively, demonstrably very harmful.
As I stated in past posts on this thread, I don’t love the idea of a tobacco ban but I also understand why an establishment that provides healthcare and makes laws, as in countries with socialized medicine, would want to ban it.
I agree with the sentiment of this post.
You are forgetting the 9th Amendment... which is really the best Amendment.
But no, there is no right to have the government feed and clothe you.
There are limits to all rights, and calling out extremes does not make your case. Do you hold smoking a pipe to be on the same level as cocaine use? Yes, we would have more liberty if people were able to acquire whatever they damn well please, but at the cost of someone else's liberty. My rights end where someone else's begin, that sort of thing. Making more things available to buy is indeed an indication of more liberty, but it by no means justifies flooding society with items that disrupt the social order, kill, maim or otherwise infringe on other's rights. Nobody is talking in absolutes here.
- Status