View Full Version : First place in Britain to completely quit fags!
jimnyc
09-11-2018, 12:05 PM
Yup, and you thought, that I, that I would have.... nope!
So it's muslims in, and cigarettes out??
---
STUB IT OUT Bristol could be the first British city to quit cigarettes — but Derby will have to wait much longer
BRISTOL could be the first place in Britain to completely quit fags.
New data suggests the city is on course to have no smokers at all by 2024.
Wokingham and York could be next – ciggie-free by 2026.
But people in Derby are expected to carry on puffing for at least another 30 years.
The findings come from research carried on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris.
It predicts England will not be completely smoker-free until well after 2050.
Last week Public Health England called for less than five per cent of people to be smoking by 2030.
The latest analysis suggests only a quarter of towns and cities will have quit completely by then.
Some regions have seen smoking rates drop 10 per cent since 2011.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7226515/bristol-uk-city-quit-cigarettes/
STUB YOUR FAGS OUT Health chief says there should be no smokers in England within 12 years
Public Health England's chief executive says all smokers must be helped to stop so England can be smoke free by the year 2020
NOBODY in England should be smoking within 12 years, a health chief has said.
The boss of Public Health England wants a “smoke-free society” by the year 2030.
Chief executive Duncan Selbie last night called for all smokers to be given help to quit.
He told the NHS England Expo in Manchester: “Smoking should no longer be seen as a lifestyle choice. It is an addiction that warrants medical treatment.
“Everyone who smokes must be offered the support they need to quit.”
He said the move would save thousands of lives and free up almost £900million a year — cash the NHS spends treating illnesses caused by tobacco.
Rest - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7198077/no-smokers-in-england-2030/
Drummond
09-11-2018, 07:22 PM
Yup, and you thought, that I, that I would have.... nope!
So it's muslims in, and cigarettes out??
---
STUB IT OUT Bristol could be the first British city to quit cigarettes — but Derby will have to wait much longer
BRISTOL could be the first place in Britain to completely quit fags.
New data suggests the city is on course to have no smokers at all by 2024.
Wokingham and York could be next – ciggie-free by 2026.
But people in Derby are expected to carry on puffing for at least another 30 years.
The findings come from research carried on behalf of tobacco giant Philip Morris.
It predicts England will not be completely smoker-free until well after 2050.
Last week Public Health England called for less than five per cent of people to be smoking by 2030.
The latest analysis suggests only a quarter of towns and cities will have quit completely by then.
Some regions have seen smoking rates drop 10 per cent since 2011.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7226515/bristol-uk-city-quit-cigarettes/
STUB YOUR FAGS OUT Health chief says there should be no smokers in England within 12 years
Public Health England's chief executive says all smokers must be helped to stop so England can be smoke free by the year 2020
NOBODY in England should be smoking within 12 years, a health chief has said.
The boss of Public Health England wants a “smoke-free society” by the year 2030.
Chief executive Duncan Selbie last night called for all smokers to be given help to quit.
He told the NHS England Expo in Manchester: “Smoking should no longer be seen as a lifestyle choice. It is an addiction that warrants medical treatment.
“Everyone who smokes must be offered the support they need to quit.”
He said the move would save thousands of lives and free up almost £900million a year — cash the NHS spends treating illnesses caused by tobacco.
Rest - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7198077/no-smokers-in-england-2030/
Ah, yet another story that the BBC News Channel isn't giving a mention to ...
Well, I suppose I could support it, if such a status quo extended to at least one other matter.
How about, a town or city somewhere in the UK declaring itself to be HALAL FREE ? The sale of meat prepared according to the barbaric tradition dictated by 'Halal' being banned completely in a city ?
FAT CHANCE. It'd be slammed as 'bigoted', 'racist', and more.
We're being buried underneath a mountain of regulation and control (much of it, currently, authored by the EU Parliament). Somehow, though, none of it ever manages to impinge on eternal deference to Muslims.
Smoking a going to linger a lot longer than the OP suggests, but atleast the signs are encouraging in that the numbers are dropping.
How about, a town or city somewhere in the UK declaring itself to be HALAL FREE ? The sale of meat prepared according to the barbaric tradition dictated by 'Halal' being banned completely in a city ?
I didn’t think you’d be in favour of government regulation and social engineering for food options. Do you think this is something governments (local or national) should be doing?
Drummond
09-12-2018, 07:41 AM
I didn’t think you’d be in favour of government regulation and social engineering for food options. Do you think this is something governments (local or national) should be doing?
I'm not. But, if it's going to happen, how about its happening to serve a NON 'PC' agenda, just for once ??
No. You talk about 'social engineering' .. and I'm sure you love the idea. Me ... I'd really like to see imperatives seeing the light of day which DON'T see us embarking yet further along the 'deference' route, where our culture is PRESERVED, not ERODED.
I'm not. But, if it's going to happen, how about its happening to serve a NON 'PC' agenda, just for once ??
No. You talk about 'social engineering' .. and I'm sure you love the idea. Me ... I'd really like to see imperatives seeing the light of day which DON'T see us embarking yet further along the 'deference' route, where our culture is PRESERVED, not ERODED.
Do you consider smoking to be “non-pc”?
Drummond
09-12-2018, 08:19 AM
Do you consider smoking to be “non-pc”?
Don't YOU ?
Aren't you Lefties trying to create a climate in which the very act of smoking is regarded as antisocial ? What's the point of politics, if not to meet social need ?
Therefore, having 'established' the 'antisocial nature' of smoking, so you enjoy seeing authorities clamping down on it. It's a classic case of The State trying its upmost to run peoples' lives for them, and to hell with individual freedoms.
Don't YOU ?
No.
Therefore, having 'established' the 'antisocial nature' of smoking, so you enjoy seeing authorities clamping down on it. It's a classic case of The State trying its upmost to run peoples' lives for them, and to hell with individual freedoms.
Am I to understand by this that you are in favour of decriminalisation for drugs?
Drummond
09-12-2018, 09:15 AM
No.
... Am I to understand by this that you are in favour of decriminalisation for drugs?
Laws exist for the betterment of society and the betterment of peoples' lives.
They shouldn't exist purely as a control mechanism, existing merely to control, and dictate what people must think.
Drugs, by-and-large (depending on exactly what they are !), are versions of poison. They don't exist for betterment, but to do harm. It's right & proper that they are legislated against.
That's totally different to PC imperatives, which exist to graft someone else's will and perspective(s) on to others.
The one doesn't equate to the other.
Laws exist for the betterment of society and the betterment of peoples' lives.
They shouldn't exist purely as a control mechanism, existing merely to control, and dictate what people must think.
Drugs, by-and-large (depending on exactly what they are !), are versions of poison. They don't exist for betterment, but to do harm. It's right & proper that they are legislated against.
That's totally different to PC imperatives, which exist to graft someone else's will and perspective(s) on to others.
The one doesn't equate to the other.
You think cigarettes cause betterment and not harm?
Drummond
09-12-2018, 09:46 AM
You think cigarettes cause betterment and not harm?
Highly debatable (... and, yes, I was waiting for you to convert your argument into a 'fags-specific' one).
The lure of drugs generally, of course, is that they make you feel better. This is true of cigarettes. It's also true even of heroin, for example.
Ah, BUT, there are other considerations. The true effect of the drug .. its toxicity. Its capacity for damage, and what dosages are required to achieve that damage. How irremediably addictive it is.
Alcohol is a drug. It's capable of doing great harm, IF the doses of it are great enough, IF exposure to those doses is prolonged enough. IF.
Likewise for tobacco.
But drugs like heroin are toxic, damaging, addictive too, at orders of magnitude greater than is true for either tobacco or alcohol. This is why different categorisations of drugs exist. That's why legislation takes all of that into account.
Heroin is too dangerous NOT to legislate for. Compare that to cigarettes. The damage cigarettes do, takes many years to accumulate, and even then, only affects some people. With heroin, because it's so much more addictive, its own capacity for harm is far more solidly assured than is true for cigarettes.
Alcohol again ... unfortunately for you, you're posting to the very society that tried Prohibition, many decades ago, BUT, ultimately it was a failure.
Yes. Freedom won out, Noir.
Freedom is the issue. Drugs which you're free to break yourself of, before they do harm, need not have draconian legislation thrown at their usage. But ... heyy ... enter disapproving Lefties on to the scene, who have zero interest in issues connected to freedom, and total interest in seeing that you think and behave according to their PC diktats .. and, IF they succeed, what do you have ??
THE DEATH OF FREEDOM.
Highly debatable
In what circumstance would you recommend to someone that they should start smoking cigarettes?
Drummond
09-12-2018, 10:08 AM
In what circumstance would you recommend to someone that they should start smoking cigarettes?
Why would I recommend it ?
I wouldn't recommend wrapping up in winter clothes in ninety degrees temperature, either. But if somebody wants to, that's their affair; as is their choice to smoke.
Would you legislate to ban winter clothing in summer, Noir ?
Why would I recommend it ?
Presumably you would recommend someone start smoking cigarettes if you think it is for their betterment, no?
Drummond
09-12-2018, 06:06 PM
Presumably you would recommend someone start smoking cigarettes if you think it is for their betterment, no?
Or perhaps, if I was a Leftie and decided that cigarette smoking couldn't be recommended, I'd take it an outrageous step further and outlaw smoking them ? My approach in that instance would be to say, 'I don't approve of your smoking, therefore, I'll dictate to you that you MUST NOT smoke ....
... BY ORDER ...
Sorry, Noir, but my mind wouldn't willingly and naturally work like that. Cigarettes aren't so harmful that they are guaranteed to cause illness, not even after regular smoking lasting years. So I could hardly turn around to a hapless smoker, do my best Leftie impersonation, and say 'You are smoking. I forbid you to ... do as I command !!'
darin
09-13-2018, 01:26 AM
Britain needs a revolution. This insanity is societal cancer.
Or perhaps, if I was a Leftie and decided that cigarette smoking couldn't be recommended, I'd take it an outrageous step further and outlaw smoking them ? My approach in that instance would be to say, 'I don't approve of your smoking, therefore, I'll dictate to you that you MUST NOT smoke ....
... BY ORDER ...
Sorry, Noir, but my mind wouldn't willingly and naturally work like that. Cigarettes aren't so harmful that they are guaranteed to cause illness, not even after regular smoking lasting years. So I could hardly turn around to a hapless smoker, do my best Leftie impersonation, and say 'You are smoking. I forbid you to ... do as I command !!'
At no point in this post do you address recommending someone start smoking.
Is there a circumstance in which you would recommend to someone that they should start smoking?
Drummond
09-13-2018, 07:04 AM
Britain needs a revolution. This insanity is societal cancer.
Not that it's anything like a complete answer .. but, with Brexit, we're busily taking a step in the right direction. Once the UK is out of the EU, our legal system won't be beset by tons of EU legislation, all designed to tie us ever closer to an eventual United States of Europe.
Drummond
09-13-2018, 07:10 AM
At no point in this post do you address recommending someone start smoking.
Is there a circumstance in which you would recommend to someone that they should start smoking?
You need this reminder, then:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?64088-First-place-in-Britain-to-completely-quit-fags!&p=917300#post917300
I'll ask you a second time ... and in the words of my earlier post ... 'Why WOULD I recommend it' ?
If I don't see a reason to, as must've surely been obvious from that, then how do I answer your current question ??
This is in any case, on your part, a diversionary point, Noir. Recommendation isn't the point. Heavy-handed legislative dictatorship, and all that this says for the agenda-driven directioned terraforming of social attitudes, IS.
Remain focused, Noir.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.