[Paparazzo]

Do it! Don't succumb to the pressures of industries! Ban ha! Eliminate ha!

[madonnas]

I'm not sure about this....

[BlazingLovatic]

Originally posted by Qwerty1234

Ah come on. I know plenty of rational, smart, capable adults that smoke. ****, President Obama smoke(d). If you start banning people from smoking/eating/drinking things that could have a bad effect on their health, then you're intruding way too much with their life and rights.

If the government decides to make laws for people who are "unable to make decision that positively affect their lives". Next thing you know, the government will decide to tell you how much food you can buy (to keep you from getting too fat), impose a law that tells you to exercise (again to keep you from getting fat). Tell you you can only have one child because of the world population etc etc.

Unless they can prove that cigarettes are just as harmful to the brain as harddrugs, they don't stand a chance.

This completely makes it the taxpayers problem. They're the ones who fund the NHS, and therefor they have the moral grounds to intrude on people who are negatively affecting their own health and raising the amount of money needed to run the NHS.

[Dark Horse]

good intentions, but prohibition doesn't work

[Topherfy]

Originally posted by BlazingLovatic

This completely makes it the taxpayers problem. They're the ones who fund the NHS, and therefor they have the moral grounds to intrude on people who are negatively affecting their own health and raising the funding need to run the NHS.

What about junk food, fumes from factories and cars, natural occurrences like pollen, alcohol, and other daily ingestions?

[rihannabiggestfan]

Hopefully America is next

[Swag]

I an a heavy smoker (1-2 packs a day) but I agree with this, hopefully it passes and extends to many many countries

[monsterLd]

But the cigarettes can bring in a lot of tax for the UK even if it's bad for you.

As a worker I do hope that they don't jump to raising people's tax because they will lose this source

[brIt-()nstar]

Realistically, this ban won't really fly with a lot of external influences surrounding them.

[bleuwaffle]

Yes.

[BlueTimberwolf]

Such an infringement on someone's rights

[Moonview]

This law is stupid and is not gonna work.

Cigarettes are going to be like drugs for those who can't buy 'cause they born after 2000, but people who born before that can smoke and buy it. I think they might going buy/sell illegally cigarettes, and srsl, is not such a big deal, to make a ban law.

If people what to smoke, is their problem, and their choose, period. All this crap is nonsense. What came after this, ban alcohol and junk food, ETC? I mean, they are not necessary to live, and only give you problems so, by that logic, it should be ban.

Like SRSL?





BYE GERL.-

[BlazingLovatic]

Originally posted by Topherfy

What about junk food, fumes from factories and cars, natural occurrences like pollen, alcohol, and other daily ingestions?

They are currently trying to ban advertisements for junk food pre-watershed. Tesco have recently removed junk food stands from their checkouts. It also cannot be brought into or bought in schools. It's all about baby steps.
There are already limits on gas emissions that factories can release.
Inhaling pollen is involuntary.
Whilst they'd like to ban alcohol, it would just be a repeat of the 1920s prohibition era, ultimately resulting in a failure. Not that it would even reach that stage, due to the large amounts of opposition it would attract.

[Legend ReX]

Why are people applauding this? You're letting the government tell you what to do with your bodies. Poor Britain. They basically live in a police state.

[King B]

And yet y'all want weed legalized, which is a form of smoke and booze to stay? You know what? Let's ban all three. This is defiantly an infringement of rights. ****ing stupid, thank God this would never pass here in Canada.

[lousaysthings]

Originally posted by Legend ReX

Why are people applauding this? You're letting the government tell you what to do with your bodies. Poor Britain. They basically live in a police state.

A wonderful exaggeration

I personally think it would be a good thing. A lot of tax money goes towards treating those who suffer smoking-related illnesses, tax money which could fund treatment for those who don't willingly make themselves ill. Saying that, I don't see it happening nor working even if it was implemented.

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by King B

And yet y'all want weed legalized, which is a form of smoke and booze to stay? You know what? Let's ban all three. This is defiantly an infringement of rights. ****ing stupid, thank God this would never pass here in Canada.

Which right does this infringe upon? Surely we've given up that right years ago by happily allowing ever other dangerous addictive drug be banned?



Any particular reason y'all are pretending that this is an official Government announcement rather than just a bunch of Doctors saying they're gonna campaign for the banning of smoking?

[bullshizzlen]

People should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do with their own body.

End of discussion.

[DAP]

What a stupid proposal. All this would do is strengthen an already robust underground drug economy. That's potentially billions of dollars down the drain.

[Grumpy Gills]

This is why we left