4 ms·
I cannot fathom the twists of logic necessary to justify such a specific and arbitrary prohibition
by stevenalowe 6mo ago
I cannot fathom the twists of logic necessary to justify such a specific and arbitrary prohibition
- cineticdaffodil 6mo agoI think its an attempt to cut back on health system costs, disguised as well meaning measure. Up next alcohol bans. One might not even numb oneself while beeing a slave to the "allways right" generation vampire.
- rorylawless 6mo agoYes, the government has concocted a dastardly conspiracy to cut health system costs by reducing access to a known cause of illness.
- cineticdaffodil 6mo agoIf only we could impprison them all. Beeing in prison reduces almost all life risks, even that of incarceration.
- Pooge 6mo agoAlcohol was always an important cultural symbol (drinking wine as a Christian, for example). This is not the case for tobacco, especially highly artificial one. Tobacco is inherently bad for one's surrounding as well.
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agohttps://keepitsacred.itcmi.org/tobacco-and-tradition/traditional-tobacco-use/?utm_source=copilot.com https://keepitsacred.itcmi.org/tobacco-and-tradition/traditi...
- Pooge 6mo agoSo my point stands; it's not a cultural symbol like alcohol is for Europeans.
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agoCorrect, and since the UK has an Established Church, and does not recognise “freedom of religion” as understood in the USA, banning tobacco entirely is reasonable. Good luck, Canada.
- weego 6mo agoSmoking related illness costs the UK more in healthcare than the tax revenue it collects. No twist needed, it's really fucking logical.
- HiroProtagonist 6mo agoCould one make a similar argument for banning sugar?
- gbear605 6mo agoOne could, but it would be a much harder sell politically. The pro-smoking voting block is much smaller than the tasty-food voting block.
- orf 6mo agoSure, except sugar in itself isn’t bad. It’s products with excessive quantities of sugar. Various laws restrict those, including the promotion to children: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-or-salt-by-location-and-by-volume-price-implementation-guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-promo...
- zdragnar 6mo agoOf course. The government has bought and paid for your health. It is only by the gracious largess that we have been allowed sugar at all.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- sph 6mo agoNonsense. Did people already forget the prohibitionism? Did people already forget the war on drugs? I remember liberals were talking about drug decriminalisation 10 years ago, has everybody turned into a puritan nowadays? Also, very hypocritical argument when alcohol (and gambling) are very accepted in British culture. I'd like to see the numbers showing that the few people that still roll their own cigs at 15 pounds a pouch cost more to the NHS than all the alcoholics in Britain. Smoking ban is, as usual, Labour going for the low-hanging fruits to scrape the votes of the elderly that are likely to be swayed by these empty arguments, just like the Online Safety Act. One thing's for sure: Barry, 63, would not like if alcohol and gambling were regulated in any way. I'm not a smoker any more, hate the things and can't stand the smoke, but I sure am glad to have left that island of short-sighted yet heavy-handed politics.
- t-3 6mo agoThere's little logic to it because prohibition is a fashion, and politics is the dressing up of self-interest in flashy clothes while telling the public they like it. This is not the first ban on tobacco in Britain, and it probably won't be the last.