|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 9, 2023 14:26:51 GMT
I thought this was quite apt for this thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 9, 2023 14:31:48 GMT
Logically, the ban on selling harmful tobacco products appears long overdue. The connection between lung cancer (just one disease) and tobacco smoking has been known for 70 years. Other killer effects of smoking — and not only to the smokers themselves — have become apparent since. Arguments against banning and restricting tobacco have ranged from the impact on employment in growing and manufacturing, the loss of tax and duty income to government, the positive effects on mood and performance, and the closure of pubs.
Lobbying against tobacco restrictions follows a similar pattern to that of the fossil fuel industries — rich producers and marketing companies recruit and pay academics and researchers to query findings and feed misinformation into the academic and public domain, and fund extensive re-education programmes for medical commentators and the news media... Pat, I agree smoking is detrimental to health, everyone knows that. But you seem to think that banning tobacco will stop people smoking. Believe me, all the evidence suggests it will not. A ban will however greatly increase profits for criminals and smugglers. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 9, 2023 14:34:27 GMT
The effect of the ban is likely to lower the price of tobacco. You see the black market is what some have called the only true free market. A free market is a market which is unaffected by government intervention. As the entire tobacco market becomes a free market, so it will optimise its efficiency. Not how the legalisation of cannabis in Canada has worked out. They can have weed delivered to their door within an hour at a third of the price here and the black market has virtually collapsed. We prefer to have a multi-billion pound industry untaxed with all the proceeds going to organised crime and Albanian people traffickers. Well the black market tobacco is already cheaper here than the official stuff. It's about economy of scale.
Here's something else I picked up in researching this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 9, 2023 14:44:15 GMT
Not how the legalisation of cannabis in Canada has worked out. They can have weed delivered to their door within an hour at a third of the price here and the black market has virtually collapsed. We prefer to have a multi-billion pound industry untaxed with all the proceeds going to organised crime and Albanian people traffickers. Well the black market tobacco is already cheaper here than the official stuff. It's about economy of scale.
Here's something else I picked up in researching this topic.
It won't be if it's all that's available. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 9, 2023 14:56:52 GMT
Well the black market tobacco is already cheaper here than the official stuff. It's about economy of scale.
Here's something else I picked up in researching this topic.
It won't be if it's all that's available. What will be available is what people want to be available. Starmer on the other hand is a bloody communist, who has been lying to us about being centralist. Like many lawyers he gets a kick out of telling others what they must do. Many will tell him to fuck off, and the tobacco plant growing in their front gardens will be a political statement. He's also into promoting this trans rights bullshit. I've really gone off the guy big time lately. hopefully others will as well before we have Stalin Starmer in power. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 9, 2023 14:59:09 GMT
Logically, the ban on selling harmful tobacco products appears long overdue. The connection between lung cancer (just one disease) and tobacco smoking has been known for 70 years. Other killer effects of smoking — and not only to the smokers themselves — have become apparent since.
Arguments against banning and restricting tobacco have ranged from the impact on employment in growing and manufacturing, the loss of tax and duty income to government, the positive effects on mood and performance, and the closure of pubs.
Lobbying against tobacco restrictions follows a similar pattern to that of the fossil fuel industries — rich producers and marketing companies recruit and pay academics and researchers to query findings and feed misinformation into the academic and public domain, and fund extensive re-education programmes for medical commentators and the news media...
So what happened to personal choice? It gets overruled when the choice (to do, have, or use something) is known to cause avoidable harm to others... |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 9, 2023 15:05:54 GMT
So what happened to personal choice? is known to cause avoidable harm to others... I have a better idea. Ban the banners. Whether we like it or not it is down to the individual what they do or participate in. Their life their choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 9, 2023 15:06:20 GMT
So what happened to personal choice? It gets overruled when the choice (to do, have, or use something) is known to cause avoidable harm to others... So what else is on your list? Alcohol, cars, overseas holidays? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 9, 2023 15:07:37 GMT
Logically, the ban on selling harmful tobacco products appears long overdue. The connection between lung cancer (just one disease) and tobacco smoking has been known for 70 years. Other killer effects of smoking — and not only to the smokers themselves — have become apparent since. Arguments against banning and restricting tobacco have ranged from the impact on employment in growing and manufacturing, the loss of tax and duty income to government, the positive effects on mood and performance, and the closure of pubs.
Lobbying against tobacco restrictions follows a similar pattern to that of the fossil fuel industries — rich producers and marketing companies recruit and pay academics and researchers to query findings and feed misinformation into the academic and public domain, and fund extensive re-education programmes for medical commentators and the news media... Pat, I agree smoking is detrimental to health, everyone knows that. But you seem to think that banning tobacco will stop people smoking. Believe me, all the evidence suggests it will not. A ban will however greatly increase profits for criminals and smugglers. A ban will stop some people smoking. It will also deter others from starting.
Just because smuggling — like illicit immigration — is proving difficult to combat, it shouldn't mean other harmful activities are allowed to continue... |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 9, 2023 15:14:29 GMT
It gets overruled when the choice (to do, have, or use something) is known to cause avoidable harm to others... So what else is on your list? Alcohol, cars, overseas holidays? All those, used sensibly, can be accommodated and enjoyed.
I also enjoy shooting, but I understand and adhere to the regulations...
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 9, 2023 15:18:55 GMT
So what else is on your list? Alcohol, cars, overseas holidays? All those, used sensibly, can be accommodated and enjoyed.
I also enjoy shooting, but I understand and adhere to the regulations...
So can smoking. It's already virtually impossible to smoke anywhere that can cause harm to others. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 9, 2023 15:27:41 GMT
Pat, I agree smoking is detrimental to health, everyone knows that. But you seem to think that banning tobacco will stop people smoking. Believe me, all the evidence suggests it will not. A ban will however greatly increase profits for criminals and smugglers. A ban will stop some people smoking. It will also deter others from starting.
Just because smuggling — like illicit immigration — is proving difficult to combat, it shouldn't mean other harmful activities are allowed to continue... What's next? A ban on unhealthy food? what about banning alcohol? I'm sure that would be popular with nanny state supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 9, 2023 15:32:04 GMT
A ban will stop some people smoking. It will also deter others from starting.
Just because smuggling — like illicit immigration — is proving difficult to combat, it shouldn't mean other harmful activities are allowed to continue... What's next? A ban on unhealthy food? what about banning alcohol? I'm sure that would be popular with nanny state supporters. The only ones who will profit from this are baccy smugglers. Fucking nany state supporters do not know Jack about real life. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 9, 2023 15:40:24 GMT
All those, used sensibly, can be accommodated and enjoyed.
I also enjoy shooting, but I understand and adhere to the regulations...
So can smoking. It's already virtually impossible to smoke anywhere that can cause harm to others. If you live the life of a hermit that's possibly true... |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 9, 2023 15:40:45 GMT
A ban will stop some people smoking. It will also deter others from starting.
Just because smuggling — like illicit immigration — is proving difficult to combat, it shouldn't mean other harmful activities are allowed to continue... What's next? A ban on unhealthy food? what about banning alcohol? I'm sure that would be popular with nanny state supporters. Winston Smith was still able to buy a bottle of Victory Gin. There's something very ironic in that. I think it was the case that post WW2 everything was a victory something or other. |
|
