They should simply raise the legal age for purchasing cigarettes by 1 year every 2 years until it's completely died out.
(71 posts) (17 voices)
BJ, you are damned by your own anecdote:
JFK bought 1,200 cigars and his life was tragically cut short.
Quod Erat Demononstrandum.
Discouraging or even banning smoking is one thing. Shooting smokers is a bit extreme though, and is regarded by some campaigners as cheating.
I think Arthur put it very well when he wrote
"What it will do to consumption is increasingly doubtful as far as convicted (older) smokers are concerned. We've all been given plenty of notice over decades that cigarette smoking isn't a good idea and, as far as existing nicotine addicts are concerned, increasingly, what the government is preaching to is the hapless sods who'd like to stop smoking but were hooked a long time ago and find it extremely difficult to quit. The important thing in my view is that the abolition of tobacco brand imaging will help very young people ignore the products, leaving them to concentrate on their clothing brands and so on. That said, however, lack of brand imaging doesn't stop them sniffing glue, smoking crack or sharing their chlamydia. In this regard, I am one for better education as distinct from prohibition but, obviously, I'm on a losing wicket as far as better education is concerned."
This is pretty much what I was rather clumsily trying to say in my OP: it is unfair on existing addicts - as well as illiberal - to try to ban smoking. You may as well try to ban illness or try to fine hospital patients for being unwell. But I am in favour of anything which makes it harder for cigarette manufacturers to recruit new addicts/victims. Banning bright, colourful branding won't be a cure (any more than in the case of solvent abuse) but it will help.
And the proof that branding enhances overall sales volume is the passionate - even almost desperate - opposition to such a ban from the tobacco industry. If the only effect of such a ban was simply to reduce 'brand switching' rather than reduce overall sales volume - and particularly, reduce the number of new addicts continually being recruited - the manufacturers wouldn't be bothered anything like so much.
Arthur may perhaps have a point, regarding the rather specialised area of up-market cigars, and perhaps a case could be made for some exemptions in this area. As others have said, those who occasionaly enjoy a fine cigar do not present the kind of major health and social problems which addicted heavy cigarette smokers do.
In that regard, it's a bit like those who enjoy fine wines, well-brewed ales or up-market spirit drinks who misguidedly protest about the the idea of a minumum price for alcohol. A 'minimum price' won't have any effect whatever on on civilised drinkers who are not a problem anyway; it will only affect the cheap, crappy but high-strength booze beloved by problematic binge-drinkers and alcoholics.
(Visited a smart new hopital yesterday and passed a gaunt, rather desperate-looking young person outside the entrance wearing pajamas and a leg brace, leaning against a pillar, clutching a pack of cigarettes and hunched over a glowing ciggie. He clearly wasn't savouring his experience, just satisfying a desperate craving. Have to say, he certainly didn't present a glamorous image as any kind of aspirational role-model. Pathetic useless scruffy wanker.)
Can i just ask a question for the mere observers of this thread. Is anyone going to flounce? A heating discussion with a few personal insults are fine, but if it doesn't end in a flounce then NewsBiscuit protocol is being broken. The new thread from Arthur was close, but not the fully committed 'You're all wankers, fuck you all, I'm not coming back'. If anyone is planning to flounce could you do it before the weekend as there is a lot of sport starting. Also you wouldn't want to Flounce only to have it undermined by the birth of a baby.
I was also wondering whether we were planning to achieve Godwin's Law soon or not. I think I was the culprit a few months back on a thread so I feel I shouldn't be given the honour this time.
Did Goebbels smoke ?
No but Hitler was a vegetarian. Of sorts. Apparently.
And no this isn't invoking Godwins Law becasue I say it isn't.
And this is my thread remember. No-one flounces in my threads. I forbid it - you don't escape that easily from my threads.
(Has the baby arrived yet?)
Arthur wouldn't dream of flouncing on a thread commenced by someone whose inquisitive thinking is expressed as well as Titus's. Also, he wouldn't flounce on the communal Neat-O, whether or not the Cambridge Circus runs full circle before Sunday's deadline. In that regard, HM The Queen would not be the only one to be royally pissed off.
He does, however, feel badly about bigotry, however it's expressed and no matter by whom, and that is likely to limit his involvement with NewsBiscuit in general.
The rest of you are well OK. You all know who you are.
I object to the prejudice being shown against us bigots.
You would, wouldn't you.
Mmmmmmph! (Still zipped as promised)
You must log in to post.