Smoking ban

Ok. If you don't have the critical thinking skills to consider anything beyond the rhetoric then I'll leave you to it 😀

It is the definition of whataboutery! This is a thread about cigarettes and the smoking ban and you’re saying “but what about alcohol?!”.

So are you saying that the government shouldn't seek to restrict/ban smoking because alcohol is also bad?

Reminds me of the old joke about the man whose mum gives him two jumpers for his birthday. He sees her the next day and he's wearing one of the jumpers.

He says "Wow, thank you, Mum, this is a fantastic gift - I love this jumper so much, it's perfect!" And her instant response is "So what's wrong with the other one, then?"

It's not about "whataboutery" at all! It's about the fact that it doesn't matter if you drink moderately or not. Any amount of alcohol is poisonous! So on that basis why aren't the Government addressing this? Because it's a vote loser, while banning smoking is a vote winner.

Yes, alcohol would be a Class-A as well. But most people can drink it moderately. Most people who drink alcohol don't become alcoholics. Again, this is just whataboutery.

Yes, absolutely, it is different.

Alcohol can be very damaging too - and maybe tighter restrictions could be in order in future - but it is the addiction aspect that I think is one of the strongest distinctions.

Everybody acknowledges that alcoholism is a terrible thing to be living with, with no pleasures and it's almost always a downward spiral for the small proportion of drinkers who succumb to it. But the equivalent for smoking affects virtually every smoker.

People frequently give up or reduce their alcohol intake for health/financial/other reasons - but how many 40-a-day smokers do you meet who could easily drop down to 20 for a few weeks?

I'd say both approaches have a place. When it was banned from public indoor spaces, 1000s of people did give up. So, legislation does have a part to play.
But, yes, it's a great thing that it's no longer seen as cool in most circles.

I am very much an anti smoker but banning anything just makes it cooler and more attractive to young people , drives it underground and criminalises them

Education and making it uncool is the way forward

OK. Apologies if I misunderstood some of what you said. I've only been on one side of this you see. I've lost a number of older relatives due to smoking. I've never been a smoker.
I know when I was grieving, I felt incredibly angry. With anything smoke-related. I can imagine I might have said something similar, but not really have meant it. So, I felt for the poster, and felt she (or he, don't know) was being unfairly targeted. I actually personally didn't read what she/he said as publicly shaming smokers. I read it as that there should be a general culture of smoking being a somewhat shameful or unpleasant thing to do (I might have been projecting) Which, to be honest, I do agree with. Definitely not public shaming, but a general culture of it being unacceptable or something that nobody should aspire to do, and everyone should aspire to give up if they do do it.
I freely admit that I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, and also don't have an addictive personality. So, I am ignorant about 'the other side' so to speak. I don't remotely know what it's like to be addicted to cigarettes. I can only go by things others say.

The person you're defending literally suggested shaming smokers because they thought it would be an effective way to make them quit. I was telling them that's bollocks. That's it.

And at no point have I compared caring for someone dying of smoking related illness to smoking, that's not my "narrative" and I'm not sure where you've got the idea I'm comparing the two. I have literally been the smoker and the person watching a loved one die of it, I know full well they're not comparable tyvm.

I was saying that watching someone dying due to smoking doesn't give you a right to dehumanise and shame smokers trying to kick the addiction, and shame doesn't help anyway. In fact it basically does the opposite.

I do agree that alcohol abuse is causing considerable anguish. But, I do still think it's different.
The whole industry is different. There are societies where alcohol is consumed much more responsibly. We've got a particular problem with alcohol in this country.
But, smoking is universally harmful to everyone. There are literally no positives. For some people - asthmatics, children & babies, those with heart conditions etc, even a small amount of smoke particles inhaled passively outdoors can do harm, and cause considerable discomfort.
The majority of people would like to see smoking banned, which is also an important point. Timing.
I think the reason some (by no means all or even most) smokers and their friends become so defensive on forums and other discussions, is that they know their days are numbered.

Well, I don't personally agree with shaming people. But, I don't think you can compare being a smoker trying to quit as the same thing as someone dealing with the emotional pain of caring for someone terminally ill. A pretty crass comparison.
I have to say anyway that I think you're being hyperbolic. Nobody suggested public shaming.
The anti-smokers on this thread speak generally. The smokers' defenders resort to personal attacks.
I do feel sorry for addicts, of course. But, I feel far more sorry for the innocents they harm. Your narrative that the addicts are the main victims, is wholly inaccurate.

And if alcohol was discovered today it would also be a Class A drug. No amount of alcohol is good for you. It is poison in a bottle! According to this study by The Lancet "Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK by a considerable margin, beating heroin and crack cocaine". Why is the Government not doing anything to address this 🤔See my previous post!

Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin or crack' | Alcohol | The Guardian

You mean like kicking someone who is struggling with an addiction by publicly shaming them? Hmmm?

^ Sorry, don't know how I posted the video twice. Ah well.

I think the government needs to bite the bullet and start a high-profile campaign on the deaths of children caused by smoking parents. No British government has ever had the balls to actually do this - it's the one smoking-related issue they've all tiptoed around. They're terrified that the bereavement charities will start shrieking about blaming parents for their children's deaths, even if it's true. Parental smoking greatly increases the risks of stillbirth, SIDS, asthma, childhood cancer, and God knows what else. If an advert like this Finnish one - - went viral in the UK, I guarantee the number of teenage girls starting to smoke would fall.

I think it'd probably have a knock on effect, with people a little older too. The hassle of bringing out ID might discourage more people from smoking generally.
I'd prefer a total ban, but this has got to be a step in the right direction.

@MonsteraMama that's really very unfair, and pretty unpleasant. I've read the whole thread, and the poster you're attacking made it clear she's caring for a terminally ill parent. It's understandable she'd feel angry with all things cigarette related as a result. People don't always convey things they mean to when they're under such strain and pain.

Mumsnet never ceases to amaze me, the way so many posters don't pause to think before kicking someone when they're down.

Why is it surreal? About half of all smokers die young from smoking-related illnesses. It needs to be tackled now. I know it's a cliché, but if tobacco were discovered today, it'd be a Class-A drug. The reason people always resort to this sort of excessive whataboutery with smoking is that they know there's no justification for it nowadays.

I agree that alcohol and fast food are bad for you, but ultimately most people don't get addicted to them. It's possible to drink alcohol and eat fast food in moderation without suffering any ill effects whatsoever. In fact, IIRC, alcohol follows a J-shaped curve: a small amount is good for you. But the very first cigarette a person smokes that day is the one that constricts their blood vessels.

I agree that screen addiction among children is extremely concerning, but what do you what the government to do? Ban iPads, phones and TV? The government can't ban lazy parenting.

You would just get used to asking everybody for ID, regardless, as is the policy of some places now when it comes to alcohol - even if a would-be purchaser is very clearly well old enough.

It's not really that different from asking for a membership card or entitlement card that anybody of any age may (or may not) have - such as with folk who qualify for free prescriptions, or indeed those who prepay and have proof of this that they can show.

I’m not sure how I feel about it. I’ve never smoked though and hate smoking and vaping. But it’s going to strange in the future asking for ID for people in their 30s, 40s and beyond. Also very difficult to judge the age of a mature adult.

But nobody is saying that alcohol or fast food are good, harmless, wise choices, just because the focus is currently on cigarettes.

We may well see restrictions on them introduced in the future - however, the big difference is that people don't actually get addicted to fast food (reluctant to go without, but not addicted) and only a small proportion of drinkers become alcoholics.

With tobacco, other than the minority of social smokers who blag the odd fag at an occasional party, almost everybody who smokes is properly, fully addicted to it. Fast food-lovers and (non-alcoholic) drinkers will fancy a takeaway or beer/wine; smokers will need a fag.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were - I was trying to phrase it in a way that made sense, but it sounded clunky otherwise!

I just think that bad things that are to be considered for banning need to be taken in isolation. I see how there could be some natural progressions with similar substances or activities, but I don't see how banning smoking would make the government any more or less likely to ban, say, yoyos or buckets.

In the meanwhile alcoholism is rampant, there’s pubs everywhere and drinking a few pints after work is totally fine. The cost for the NHS of chronic drinking is bigger than smoking. Fast food creates as much issues for our NHS yet I’m sorrounded by fast food places. Those youngsters who won’t be able to smoke ever they’re growing up glued to a screen, addicted and loosing touch with reality, we have a pandemic of mental health issues with the young ones but as long as they don’t have access to cigarettes it’s all good.

Surreal.

Banning smoking is about the one positive thing this government might achieve. And only because it has cross party support. I don’t think it will be a vote winner - it won’t change my voting intentions. I certainly won’t be voting Conservative.