The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

no it should not be banned altogether, no chance no way. A ban in enclosed public spaces (pubs resturant etc) i can understand that and as a smoker i have not TOO much of a problem going outside for those sweet sweet cancer sticks. But i'l be damned if im going to let some PC politician tell me i cant light up in my own house
In an ideal world, yep I would support the outright banning.

But realistically it is not possible (just yet).

Any outright ban would take years to slowly implement, with gradual increases in bannings and situation in which smoking wasn't allowed.

Prices would have to gradually increase faster than they are now as one form of a deterrent, more exclusion would have to be introduced to put people off more.

This would have to be done along side a significant increase in offering assistant to quit smoking.

All in all this would hopefully reduce the number of smokers to the extent the number was low enough to implement an outright ban without any serious consequences.

But none of the above is really likely to happen, is it? :smile:
Reply 3
papz_007
If smoking was stopped full stoped it would save the nation millions of pound year. But on the other hand the vast ammout of money made of tax made of fags is a large sum so nation may not save as much.

But besids from money surely banning smoking will benefit the nation because its healtly for everyone, especially for people working were smoking occurs on a daily bases.


what do you thing?? should smoking be BANNED FULL STOP?


Such a policy would create a black hole of about 6 billion. Not only that, it would also be a massive infringement on personal liberty.
Reply 4
Howard
Such a policy would create a black hole of about 6 billion. Not only that, it would also be a massive infringement on personal liberty.
You support the legalisation of heroin then? The freedom to harm others is not a freedom.

I wouldn't support an outright ban as it's just not pragmatic.
Carl
You support the legalisation of heroin then? The freedom to harm others is not a freedom.


I would agree with almost all drugs being legalised for home use. Perhaps not heroin or pcp, as users of those can represent a risk to others. Smoking, LSD, mushrooms, ecstacy, etc should all be legal within a person's own home though, but forbidden in public. That said, I would say that people who choose to indulge in a given substance should be denied free health treatment for problems resulting from that choice. Get lung cancer from smoking, go private or die.
Reply 6
Ferret_messiah
I would agree with almost all drugs being legalised for home use. Perhaps not heroin or pcp, as users of those can represent a risk to others. Smoking, LSD, mushrooms, ecstacy, etc should all be legal within a person's own home though, but forbidden in public.
Well I agree up to here. I just wanted to see if Howard would too.
Carl
You support the legalisation of heroin then? The freedom to harm others is not a freedom.


then why not ban war but i doubt very much bush would go for that
Reply 8
Carl
You support the legalisation of heroin then?


No. The consequences of heroin use is far worse than tobacco use. If you don't believe me why not take up smoking this year? See how you do? Then next year, quit smoking and take up heroin instead. I think you'll see the difference.
Reply 9
Howard
No. The consequences of heroin use is far worse than tobacco use. If you don't believe me why not take up smoking this year? See how you do? Then next year, quit smoking and take up heroin instead. I think you'll see the difference.
But by proscribing either you're limiting my freedoms. Extent of harm doesn't come into it.

Are you a communist or something :biggrin: ?
Reply 10
Carl
The freedom to harm others is not a freedom.


I thought we were talking about a COMPLETE ban? Who exactly am I harming by smoking in my car or my home or my back yard? NOBODY.
Reply 11
Cadre_Of_Storms
then why not ban war but i doubt very much bush would go for that
Can this not turn into a Bush discussion?
Reply 12
Howard
I thought we were talking about a COMPLETE ban? Who exactly am I harming by smoking in my car or my home or my back yard? NOBODY.
You cost me tax from your NHS treatment. Smoking has no economic benefits either.
Reply 13
Carl
But by proscribing either you're limiting my freedoms. Extent of harm doesn't come into it.


It's a fredom that needs limiting. Heroin/hard drug use makes an excellent partner for crime. Where you find a heroin addict you'll often find someone that would mug his own grandmother to feed his habit. The same cannot be said of a pack a day smoker.
Reply 14
Howard
It's a fredom that needs limiting. Heroin/hard drug use makes an excellent partner for crime. Where you find a heroin addict you'll often find someone that would mug his own grandmother to feed his habit. The same cannot be said of a pack a day smoker.
I'm not disputing that heroin is harmful. I'm saying that smoking is not beneficial to society or the inidividual, and if it was pragmatic and realisable, I'd proscribe it too. I resent paying tax to cure people who harm themselves, whether it be heroin, attempted suicide or smokers.
Reply 15
Carl
You cost me tax from your NHS treatment. Smoking has no economic benefits either.


Not really. Smokers pay 8 billion a year in tax but only cost the NHS 2 billion. So I'm subsidizing you!!

And smoking does have economic benefits. Tobacco is an enormous business creating thousands, probably millions of jobs all over the world.

What would countries that depend on tobacco agriculture do? Many of these countries are third world; they need to sell tobacco; it's their chief export.

How many thousands would be out of a job if tobbacco giants Malboro, Philip Morris, British-American ceased to exist?

How much revenue would be lost if these companies were no longer paying capital gains taxes to governments?

Tobacco is a HUGE business. To say there's no economic benefits from these companies is insane.
Reply 16
Howard
Not really. Smokers pay 8 billion a year in tax but only cost the NHS 2 billion. So I'm subsidizing you!!

And smoking does have economic benefits. Tobacco is an enormous business creating thousands, probably millions of jobs all over the world.

What would countries that depend on tobacco agriculture do? Many of these countries are third world; they need to sell tobacco; it's their chief export.

How many thousands would be out of a job if tobbacco giants Malboro, Philip Morris, British-American ceased to exist?

How much revenue would be lost if these companies were no longer paying capital gains taxes to governments?

Tobacco is a HUGE business. To say there's no economic benefits from these companies is insane.
Do you have a problem with Bolivia increasing coca production to fund its own social reforms? Coca is also a lucrative trade for many people in many countries.
Yes in public areas. You should if you want to be allowed to smoke in the privacy of your own abode IMHO.
Reply 18
Carl
Do you have a problem with Bolivia increasing coca production to fund its own social reforms? Coca is also a lucrative trade for many people in many countries.


Quite honestly, I couldn't care a less about these tobacco growing nations but you did say that tobacco presented no economic benefits so I thought I'd make the effort to prove you wrong.

Do you want to dispute anything I have said or continue this ridiculous comparison with the illegal hard drugs industry?
Reply 19
Honestly Howard, I agree with your stance but not your justification. If you want to harm yourself fair enough, but if it's in the name of liberty don't deprive others of the chance to harm themselves however they please too.

Latest

Trending

Trending