Should smoking be illegal?

Watch
It's_Ailie
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Loads of reasons for it, loads against. What are your opinions?


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(Original post by It's_Ailie)
Loads of reasons for it, loads against. What are your opinions?


Posted from TSR Mobile
My personal opinion is that it should be legal for use in private spaces, but that the NHS should refuse to pay for any smoking-related illnesses for people who smoke.
13
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Actually, it depends.

Tobacco has never been proven to be bad for people, even when smoked.

The problem lies in the fact that most tobacco is contaminated with uranium compounds from toxic fertilisers, and that the plastic filter and bleached white paper have carcinogenic chemicals within them.

Radioactive fertilisers are what cause tobacco related illness.

If we really wanted to reduce smoking related illness, meet the tobacco producers halfway and tell them,

1) produce 100% organic tobacco, subsidised by government if necessary
2) use hemp paper, instead of bleached white paper to wrap the tobacco in
3) provide an alternative to plastic filters which are carcinogenic. I'm not sure what would work.


Also, ironically, smoking lavender has been shown to help with lung cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djPBOZnMrFw
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
No. What people decide to put into their own body is their problem.
3
reply
It's_Ailie
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by The Dictator)
No. What people decide to put into their own body is their problem.
That's true but the problem is, it's not just going into their own body. Most of the smoke from a cigarette goes into the air and is actually worse as it is unfiltered. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to passive smoking and these 600,000 aren't all people who live with smokers - many of them are people who work with smokers or not even that, just live in a city polluted with the smokers' smoke


Posted from TSR Mobile
5
reply
Skyarex
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
Well its going to be. Very soon, those born after 2000 will be permanently banned from smoking.
0
reply
It's_Ailie
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Skyarex)
Well its going to be. Very soon, those born after 2000 will be permanently banned from smoking.
Where did you hear this?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
It's_Ailie
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Hydroxy)
I don't care about people smoking but it should be illegal in ALL public places.

I hate the smell and thought of breathing it in and the amount of times a day I have to hold my breath walking behind someone or out of a building annoys me.
I agree with this, yes if people want to ruin their bodies by all means let them but smoking in public is harming others who have made the decision not to smoke. I think there should be a total ban on smoking in public, not just inside.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
syrettd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
No, but as someone who works selling cigarettes, I believe I should be legally allowed to inflict violence on customers such as the one I had the other day-
Her: Can you get someone to get me a six pack of ready salted crisps?
Me: They're in the second aisle, did you not see them?
Her: I would get them, but I suffer from terrible breathlessness.
Me (being a good team member): I'll go get them!
...Come back, ring up all her items...
Her: And I'll have a pack of 20 Mayfair please.

Yes love, that'll sure help your breathlessness!
8
reply
AdamCee
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Not illegal, but there should be restrictions.

Not the governments problem if people are slowly killing themselves, but you should not be able to smoke in public places imo (second hand smoke and that)

Also any smoking related illness should not be covered by NHS

And tax the hell out of ****

Don't tax e-ciggs. No restrictions on them they're fine (afaik)

Basically what's already happening really...
3
reply
nohomo
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Chlorophile)
My personal opinion is that it should be legal for use in private spaces, but that the NHS should refuse to pay for any smoking-related illnesses for people who smoke.
Smokers pay high tax on cigs though
5
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Chlorophile)
My personal opinion is that it should be legal for use in private spaces, but that the NHS should refuse to pay for any smoking-related illnesses for people who smoke.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The taxes levied on tobacco contribute much, much more to the NHS than smokers take when being treated for smoking-related illnesses. According to a response from a Ministry of Health official, smoking costs the NHS £1.7bn every year, while the revenue from tobacco smoking contributes about £10bn to the treasury every year. Some place the NHS cost figure slightly higher, but a few billion pounds-worth of profit is retained either way. So purely on the basis of smokers costing the NHS, well, they don't, not by a country mile.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ipts_v_cost_of

It should also be pointed out that many people who suffer from smoking-related illnesses have never smoked a cigarette, that some of the voluntary smokers, such as the 90% of schizophrenics who smoke in this country, might be mentally ill, and also that those smokers who do not fall into these camps should not be refused treatment simply because they did something they knew carried health risks. Where do you draw the line with such a policy? Anyone who has more than five McDonalds a year will not be treated for high blood pressure? Anyone who has two sugars with their tea will not be treated for diabetes? It isn't how we do things in this country; everyone is entitled to treatment equally, full stop. The NHS exists to treat health problems, not to judge or give preferential treatment based on lifestyle choices, and it is supported generously by the taxes smokers pay for their ****. It is painfully obvious that you have either not even begun to think your opinions on this issue through or that you are worryingly deficient in a combination of arithmetic ability, compassion and common sense.
24
reply
syrettd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by It's_Ailie)
Where did you hear this?


Posted from TSR Mobile
There's talk of them introducing a law so that the age you can buy cigarettes increases once a year. So people who turn 18 a year or more before this is introduced are effectively banned from ever buying cigarettes. A ban, but they're not calling it a ban.
0
reply
zKlown
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
Yep

But that would just send it underground where it can't be taxed.

/thread
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by AdamCee)
Not illegal, but there should be restrictions.

Not the governments problem if people are slowly killing themselves, but you should not be able to smoke in public places imo (second hand smoke and that)

Also any smoking related illness should not be covered by NHS

And tax the hell out of ****

Don't tax e-ciggs. No restrictions on them they're fine (afaik)

Basically what's already happening really...
Another person with a loud mouth and not much sense...

Not everyone who suffers from a smoking-related illness smokes or has even ever touched a cigarette, not everyone by a long, long way. Do you still think it's a good idea to restrict treatment to anyone suffering from an illness commonly developed by smokers?

Your other points are thoroughly decimated by my other post.
0
reply
AdamCee
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Birkenhead)
Another person with a loud mouth and not much sense...

Not everyone who suffers from a smoking-related illness smokes or has even ever touched a cigarette, not everyone by a long, long way. Do you still think it's a good idea to restrict treatment to anyone suffering from an illness commonly developed by smokers?

Your other idiotic points are thoroughly decimated by my other post.
No lol, it's easy to tell if someone has smoked, and if they have, they shouldn't be eligible for the treatment. Simple.

My other idiotic points? Even though a fair few of them are already implemented in the law? Yeah good one.
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by AdamCee)
No lol, it's easy to tell if someone has smoked, and if they have, they shouldn't be eligible for the treatment. Simple.
No, it isn't. You will need to explain how you think that it is.

The NHS provides treatment to all UK citizens without qualification or delay. The idea that certain people should be restricted treatment because aspects of their lifestyle lend them a greater propensity to Ill health is insane, but especially insane when you consider the figures I have provided above that demonstrate that smokers contribute literally billions of pounds more to the NHS every year than they take in treatment bills. How can you possibly justify the fascistic idea of refusing then treatment after this?

My other idiotic points? Even though a fair few of them are already implemented in the law? Yeah good one.
Do you always judge an idea's worthiness by whether politicians have approved it or not? My goodness you and Europe's historical dictators really would have got on like a house on fire!

I provided a more expansive argument in my other post if you care to give your brain a much needed workout.
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by It's_Ailie)
That's true but the problem is, it's not just going into their own body. Most of the smoke from a cigarette goes into the air and is actually worse as it is unfiltered. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to passive smoking and these 600,000 aren't all people who live with smokers - many of them are people who work with smokers or not even that, just live in a city polluted with the smokers' smoke


Posted from TSR Mobile
Will you cite your source for this figure and what you've said about passive smoking? 'Live in a city polluted by the smoker's smoke'...umm, it may also have something to do with urban pollution which has been shown to be more of a health risk than passive smoking.
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Skyarex)
Yes, I am dismissing them. I am dismissing them because your "facts" are so extremely trivial that it doesn't make any sense to acknowledge them.

I mean really, potentially getting some type of cancer dude to second-hand smoking, or sitting uncomfortably in a bus for 20 minutes? They aren't even comparable. Grow up.
Could you cite some credible evidence that passive smoking causes any type of cancer in a significant number of people?
0
reply
Dinaa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
If smoking should be illegal, i should be too.. aha xo :sexface:
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (184)
43.6%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (49)
11.61%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (33)
7.82%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (89)
21.09%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (42)
9.95%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (25)
5.92%

Watched Threads

View All