UK to raise smoking age from 18, by one year, every year.

[zouzounaki]

"You're comparing 2 evils" is just a turn of phrase... I'm sure you've heard it?

And, there are plenty of types of smoking that can be harmless (or relatively so), mainly the very light or occasional smokers are unlikely to come to due harm...
.. and even heavy smokers up to a certain age (about 30 odd I think), once they have given up for a significant period (I think it's !0+ years), their lungs have cleared out enough to have same risk of disease as non-smokers...

aye i know it’s a turn of phrase. i don’t think it’s a very useful one though.

you’re not right though, there is research that shows increased risk of heart disease and other stuff in people that smoke one a day or even less. there is no harmless smoking.

 

[Toby iVapour]

you’re not right though, there is research that shows increased risk of heart disease and other stuff in people that smoke one a day or even less. there is no harmless smoking.

Not that I'm particularly interested in the evidence, but I haven't heard of that...

aye i know it’s a turn of phrase. i don’t think it’s a very useful one though.

I think it's useful, and especially in this case...
i.e. both are bad for you, in quite different ways, and different degrees, so what is really the point, and could it really be objectified that one is worse for you than the other?

Another aspect of this, is junkies going to treatment centres are not encouraged to give up smoking at the same time as drugs (most drug users are smokers)...
But I've never heard of it the other way round - "Hey, give up smoking first, and then think about giving up the heroin..."

 

[zouzounaki]

Not that I'm particularly interested in the evidence, but I haven't heard of that...

I think it's useful, and especially in this case...
i.e. both are bad for you, in quite different ways, and different degrees, so what is really the point, and could it really be objectified that one is worse for you than the other?

Another aspect of this, is junkies going to treatment centres are not encouraged to give up smoking at the same time as drugs (most drug users are smokers)...
But I've never heard of it the other way round - "Hey, give up smoking first, and then think about giving up the heroin..."

i think your views are very steeped in culturally ingrained stuff.

but anyway, no, many class a drugs have therapeutic uses and are licences as medicines. plus there is the known fact of functional recreational use which doesn’t cause harm in moderation. but smoking is always harmful, even one single fag. it has no positive use and is significantly more harmful than other drugs, illegal or not.

 

[Toby iVapour]

there is the known fact of functional recreational use which doesn’t cause harm in moderation.

Yes, there are exceptions...

But try saying that to any addict in recovery (that isn't in denial)...
.. or try saying that to someone that has just lost a loved one to a fatal overdose...

 

[zouzounaki]

Yes, there are exceptions...

But try saying that to any addict in recovery (that isn't in denial)...
.. or try saying that to someone that has just lost a loved one to a fatal overdose...

they’re not exceptions. drug use patterns vary widely from one person to another. and those more at risk of addiction are people who have experienced adversity, especially in childhood, and who have lived in poverty. i think what you have in mind is a stereotype.

 

[vapervince]

Are you a social worker Zou? In the final analysis it is down to personal choices, not everyone born into poverty ends up a junky or a villain.

 

[Toby iVapour]

they’re not exceptions. drug use patterns vary widely from one person to another. and those more at risk of addiction are people who have experienced adversity, especially in childhood, and who have lived in poverty. i think what you have in mind is a stereotype.

Yes, some people have addictive personalities, for a number of possible reasons.. and some people do not...
.. so the word "exception" I used is referring to the type of person that can use an addictive drug, but not get addicted.. and you can call that a stereotype if you like...

 

[vapesmarter]

isn't it easier instead of this whole increase in age for the next 60 odd years after all life expectancy is 76 depending on loads of things just to ban them in say 2 years or 5 years or just increase the cost by 25% per year

this is mainly because how will you challenge a 22-year-old to prove their age or 30 year old, can you imagine asking any beared tall man with age lines with his family to whop out his driving license he could be in the forces or a solicitor, mp, doctor the whole idea is just crazy

 

[zouzounaki]

Are you a social worker Zou? In the final analysis it is down to personal choices, not everyone born into poverty ends up a junky or a villain.

i am not. of course choice is a factor. but it isn’t the ultimate one. the consequences of any particular choice are often contingent on external factors., and almost always when talking about the subject at hand.

Yes, some people have addictive personalities, for a number of possible reasons.. and some people do not...
.. so the word "exception" I used is referring to the type of person that can use an addictive drug, but not get addicted.. and you can call that a stereotype if you like...

that’s not what i was calling a stereotype.

but anyway, you can’t just write off a fact that doesn’t agree with your argument as an “exception”. you seem to be arguing that 75% of what can be observed is an exception. what we are discussing here is quite complex and is not jus the result of “personality” types.

but none of this changes the fact that smoking is more harmful and is never safe, anyway

 

[zouzounaki]

Yes, some people have addictive personalities, for a number of possible reasons.. and some people do not...
.. so the word "exception" I used is referring to the type of person that can use an addictive drug, but not get addicted.. and you can call that a stereotype if you like...

but we are stuck in a loop. to go back to the point that sent us away on this tangent, if it is the case that tobacco has or is becoming socially unacceptable and society/government think it needs to be subject to legal controls, then it should be seen in the same light as class a substances based on the potential for addiction and level of harm it causes.

this seems logically sound to me.