To think, "enough with the smoker-bashing"

[47to31in7days]

I opened up MN today to find a picture of an innocent little girl next to Cancer Research UK's spiel on plain packaging and child smoking. It says "Help us protect children from starting by supporting us..."

I am not and have never been a smoker, nor are most of the people close to me. The declining rates of smoking in the past few decades have certainly been good for individual and public health. So I'm not coming from the perspective of a disgruntled victim of the new persecution, or a Big Tobacco shill trying to contest whether it's that bad for you after all.

I signed up to the rival "Hands off our Packs" anti-plain packaging campaign when two people approache me in the street with their petition. I find the continuous anti-choice assaults on tobacco to be an injustice to the companies and people who choose to use it.

Nearly all the 11-15 year olds I knew who smoked when I was in that age group started by sneaking a cigarette or two off friends, their mum or someone else or by buying "loosies" which some inner city off licenses continue to sell to this day [though they have been banned for 20 years]. People only got near a pack when they'd moved from experimental to regular nicotine fixes. There was always a circle around the back of school where 4 or 5 of the older kids- probably 15, can't have been 16 as we had a different uniform for leavers' year in my school- pulled out cigs from packs that never got seen and distributed them to a whole posse of younger ones, who shared one between three or four of them. I was never tempted to join in and seeing a shiny gold pack- without gruesome warning pictures- was not going to make me.

They may well have figures suggesting that plain packaging will lower the number of smokers, which I am not questioning the validity of. It does not justify bringing in yet more legislative compulsion though. This government had said "no more nanny state." It promised to restore liberties. It attacked Labour's authoritarian record. The most insidious thing at all is that it is being pushed on a "safeguarding" platform. The signs outside primary school gates telling you to "protect" your children from secondhand smoke, the pack warnings using the same "protect" language and an image of smoke blowing toward a baby's face, it's all emotional blackmail against parents, especially offensive to those who are careful not to light up around their kids.

Child protection is too often used as a trump card to defeat principled objection to government policies that deny or circumscribe liberty of adults or youth. Besides which smokers have suffered enough already. Tax rises, publicans being ordered to stop them by central government, guilt trip tactics, advertising bans, now the display ban (after the legal challenge was tossed out)- I say LEAVE THOSE SMOKERS ALONE! AIBU to think the government and the medical establishment ought to back off quickly?

Yabu.

And boring. The smoking ban came in ages ago. Everybody is used to it now.

What's to discuss? Your right to see branding on fag packets? Nobody cares.

(im)Purity, you are making points that I've heard so often before and will never accept, in order to justify an absolute non sequitur that I should support binding LEGAL restrictions on tobacco because I have strong MORAL views on other matters, where I still believe the law should not get involved and adults make their own minds up.

Number one, "consenting adults" is generally sufficient for determining what sexual behaviour should be forbidden by law in a liberal democracy: sometimes with exceptions like incest and prostitution. But in my belief it is absolutely not sufficient for morality. You still have a legal right to shag who you like without my acceptance or approval, so if you do not support the ethic of chastity, go and live your own way. I am not stopping you, there is no active movement to stop you in this country, and if there was one I wouldn't join it. Satisfied?

Number two, "love" doesn't make it morally acceptable IMHO either. ONLY a marriage between man and woman gives a proper context for sexual activity. An emotion does not change the fact of whether they are committed to each other by a matrimonial bond that is intended to last for life. Once more, YMMV. I wasn't advocating the restoration of old laws against buggery, "gross indecency" or "unlawful carnal knowledge" to legally enforce my view of morality there.

Your "pick and choose" talk drives me right up the frigging wall. I had 4 posts deleted the other night for arguing with an angry opponent who had made tired, old, unoriginal and very easily debunked "cherry-pick" nonsense claims on top of other stuff that got to me. It is an insult to the faith and intelligence of Christians to suggest this.

It is my policy not to toss my irreplaceable time down the sink explaining Theology 101 to every same-argument-again challenger. I will answer original, well-supported arguments that raise genuine points of theological contention, but not this babyish meme which attacks my Faith. So go and look it up- plenty of resources online, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptists, Holiness churches, even Pentecostals- if you fancy knowing why all the comparisons you make are a steaming heap of bovine faecal matter and Christian theology is a rich and complex subject which goes far beyond picking the nicest cherries off a big bloody tree (of knowledge).

Morris- I am NBU, >99% certain of that. This was going reasonably until a couple of people insisted on bringing in other threads to manufacture imaginary contradictions in my belief system (like they do with a certain Book... hmm!) So the smoking ban's been in for five years, so what. Laws have been repealed after much longer than that with a change in elite and/or popular opinion. I was not arguing against the smoking ban anyway. I was specifically writing against the new tobacco-hatred measures. The others were mentioned just to show how the War on Smoking had progressed.

Some people I know do care about this infantilism over packaging so much that they will make the switch to illegal tobacco at risk to their own health and benefit to pan-European crime syndicates rather than spend their money on a plain pack pulled from under the counter like some sort of depraved sex magazine. Which is becoming a more popular option the harder and more expensive the government make it to get hold of cigs legally.

unless you're gay, black, poor, a child, a woman in need of reproductive healthcare...

What is this about?
To use the word "black" makes YOU a disgusting bigot, for accusing someone you don't know of RACISM when I am strongly anti-racist and have vehemently opposed the BNP along with all similar groups.
I did not speak about poverty.
I am certainly not against rights for children.
"Reproductive healthcare" is likely a euphemism but never mind. It's the "black" which is way over the line and the poor/ children are just another two unsubstantiated lies.

What would you say if I said I was a big supporter of Save The Children, whose main beneficiaries are children, poor, and often black?

I know the web can make us get nastier than we ever would do talking face to face, but this is time to stop.

Smokers are demonised. I don't think that inflicting your smoke on anyone else is ever acceptable, but if you want to do, you should be allowed to without the lynching. Very few people walk up to the obese and start commenting on how their eating too much andproportionate inactivity has health risks, but people feel entirely comfortable with telling smokers all about health risks, as with the obese, as if they don't know!

White packaging? Brilliant. Further conceals my secret shame if anyone were to glimpse inside my handbag!

YANU smoking is just stinking full stop. The women standing outside the school today smoking over a newborns prams are disgusting.

I like going into the smoking areas when I'm drinking, you can have a good old chat without loud music and I've even pulled another disgusting stinking smoker a few times! If I'm out with non smoking friends I'll just go and chat to other smokers.

bringme- you could say it was a box of sweets made to go unnoticed.

Am not sure anyone would believe me on account of fact fat/rotten teeth more socially acceptable than smoking!

But abortion should not be a civil liberty, or gay marriage? Strange, if it KILLS people it's fine but if gives people fair and equal rights it's wrong?
I'm not all over hating smokers but they do more harm.

Bringmesunshine why compare it to obesity? Passive smoking does exist, not passive obesity! Don't make comparisons that make no sense.
And if you think obese people are treated better than smokers! You are very wrong.

I smoked from the age of 12 to 28, very grateful to the government for restricting my 'civil liberties' to smoke in public, it allowed me to give up free of temptation in pubs/restaurants/cafes etc... as did many of my friends. Bad for the tobacco companies, I know, poor dears.

It is good for the majority to not have their environment polluted by the vile stench of smoke, especially those who have little choice but to work in the service industry.

It is not a 'choice' at 12/13/14/15 and it is the teen years where most smokers start. It is not demonising smokers to do everything necessary to prevent kids getting addicted to cigarettes or protect them from the health consequences of second hand smoke.

Smokers are not victims of oppression, it is not oppression to be prevented from inflicting your nasty habit on others in enclosed spaces or to have kids warned of the dangers of that habit.

I'm still curious as to where in the bible it says don't eat prawns? The writing is far to little to find it without my glasses

The old testament says not to eat shellfish.

I'm not sure you can say there is no passive obesity, Krumbum - not in quite the same way, in that feeding your own face won't make someone else fat - but parents who overfeed their children are causing them to be fat without their active consent, iyswim. Yes, they still have to be the ones eating the food but they're probably told to eat it all up (thus taking their choices out of the equation)

47 - I really have no idea what this thread hoped to achieve. You are a strange person, no doubt. Reasoned debate is impossible with you because you are so very dogmatic in your views and really, why on earth would you give a flying fuck about the packaging of cigarettes when you don't even smoke? Just utterly bizarre.

Where abouts in it, I want to photocopy it and stick it to my fridge. for unknown reasons it makes me giggle

www.11points.com/books/11_things_the_bible_bans,_but_you_do_anyway - ha! Just knew it was going to be in Leviticus (point 10 but do read the others as well)

I explained how most children do not buy/have hold of a pack of cigarettes when they first experiment with smoking. It's usually a loose cig from a friend or family member. I never knew any of the people who started to smoke in school to just walk to the shop one day at 13-15 and think "yes, I fancy a pack of 10/20 Marlboro and a lighter"- and with the lenient local shops, particularly the ones which were not also off licences and didn't have that to lose, it certainly wasn't because they were unable to get served.

Krumbum- civil marriage is a legal contract for the good of society, it is not remotely the same as buying a product on the free market so expecting it to be redefined cannot be a "civil liberty" even if you support that on other grounds. Also funny to say smoking kills then mention abortion. Because abortion leaves that unborn human's life intact, does it? It doesn't dismember him so his pieces have to be put back together to check there's none still in the woman to infect and kill her, suck him into a biohazardous puree, or stop his heart and drag him out stillborn, does it? Am I thinking of something else when I say "abortion"? You are being anti-choice on smoking. It kills people who choose to do so, usually after a fairly long life, who would die anyway and many of whom would prefer to die at 75 than get progressively sicker and less independent until they go at 90. With the ban in force it should kill very few non-smokers if any. Unless you decided to set up an underground "smoke-easy" and allow people to light up non-stop, and that would definitely be your fault. It doesn't make people drop dead after a few cigarettes, it's not PMA or anything.

But if abortion should stay legal, so should colourful cigarette packets (already covered in huge warning stickers- don't you think it's humiilating for the companies to be effectively forced to write DON'T BUY ME on their products? You don't have to sympathise with the billionaire bosses, just with the thousands of workers whose jobs depend on an industry as large as tobacco.)

I'm a smoker. Have done since school and changing packaging wouldn't bother me. I don't buy cigs because of the packaging!

Exactly SPs It's the lit cigarette in the mouth that silly teens thinks is "cool" and "grown-up", not the packaging.

It's revolting and should be banned starting with my DP

HTH

But the same is true of private abortion providers. They cannot advertise so what's the difference?
It is exactly the same, abortion is women choosing to have a procedure done to their own bodies which is actually much less risky than having a full term pregnancy. Abortion protects health, smoking does not.
I'm not anti choice on smoking but neither am I on abortion, they are EXACTLY the same in this sense. something you can buy on the free market. It's hypocritical to be anti choice one and pro choice on the other.
Please do not use the generic 'he'.

If anything I'd like them to get rid of the branded packaging. That way no one will see what common cigs I smoke

Krumbum. I made it quite clear I absolutely do not condone inflicting smoke on others. But if people want to smoke without affecting others then fine. Could use drink as comparison also. "have a nice glass of wine" "relax with a bottle" are fine. Despite health risks. Not quite the same vilification there. Being around drunk people is unpleasant, alcoholics even worse. But I accept not a perfect analogy as to passive in true sense. But again, I do not agree with subjecting others to second hand smoke.

I use the "universal he". It is not out of disrespect for women, and virtually no-one picks me up on it other than overzealous feminist types. If you used "she" in the same way I wouldn't be offended at all (except by the grammar maybe, "he" is standard, "it" is depersonalising which is exactly what I never do when speaking of unborn children, "they" is ungrammatical.)