New Photographs Should Lead To A Complete Blanket Ban On Smoking Across...

» Home » Health

New Photographs Should Lead To A Complete Blanket Ban On Smoking Across The UK.

The new evidential photographs depicting the horrific illnesses smokers inflict on themselves, (I.E. BLACK ROTTING DECAYING TEETH, DISEASED GUMS, ROTTING BLACK FILTHY LUNGS, AND EVENTUALLY A HORIFFIC HORRIBLE CANCER RIDDEN DEATH), to be implemented as a warning on all cigarette packets, should lead to a complete blanket ban on smoking across the UK. Please refer to my comment in the For Column before entering this debate.

joe9

18 Nov 2008 11:36

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

I would actually like to see the effect these new photographs have on smokers. Some of them are pretty horrific but I don't think it'll be as effective as people think. Not a lot of smokers buy fags to look at the packaging. I suppose I could see what my dad says and get a general opinion.

Tromanator

18 Nov 2008 12:14

Add a Comment

The doctrine in Stuart Mill's essay 'On Liberty' strongly advocates that a blanket ban on smoking should now be put into effect ASAP. Mill's view on the problematic consequences on liberty is of specific importance within this debate. For the whole crux of the matter in hand is the horrific horrible self-harm that the individual does to themselves by puffing on their cancer sticks. Some ardent pro smoking lobbyists may say that the photographic evidence is disgusting propaganda, distributed to shame smokers into giving the disgusting habit up. And in their defense they may suggest that Mill's essay defends the right of the individual smoker by stipulating that Mill's stated that it is not sufficient for a right to be taken away simply because, and I quote ''it is for their own good, either physical or moral is not sufficient grounds.'' However, Mill goes on to say : ''the sole end for which we are warranted individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self protection - that the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against their will, is to prevent harm to others. Therefore, all pro smoking lobbyists who are against this debate are inflicting horrible, and lasting horrific harm on all smokers by allowing them to smoke. And, the biggest hypocrites of all are those pro smoking lobbyists who don't even smoke, yet defend the right of smokers to smoke, and inflict horrible horrific smoke related illnesses upon themselves, while quoting the great philosopher John Stuart Mill, and his essay': 'On Liberty', in their defense. Without fear of contradiction and in all realms of analytical reasoning I can quite openly state WITHOUT FEAR OF CONTRADICTION that the latter action is pure sheer hypocrisy. And that a blanket ban should be implemented on smoking across the UK forthwith!!

joe9

18 Nov 2008 12:08

12 Comments

See my response on the against column.

Quincel

18 Nov 2008 12:28

Comment

Even if they were, it wouldn't stop the majority of smokers actually smoking because they're addicted anyway. It wouldn't stop me, and I've seen pictures of the sorts many times. And don't we have a right to smoke if we choose to? And smoking hardly causes harm compared to the effects of alcoholism. Why ban smoking and not alcohol intake? All humans are hedonistic in some way, so why should smokers be so discriminated against?

MaYbCaKe

20 Nov 2008 12:39

Add a Comment

Though I respect the good intentions of your position and all the thought and work you put into it, I don't agree. All that will happen is another illegal substance will be contributing to crime and its various manifestations. Making smoking illegal is not the answer. Offering education to prevent smoking and help with getting off nicotine is a way for those members of society who really care to manifest their good will. God gave us free will and only He can take it away. Any attempt to ban smoking will be futile. I personally don't smoke but used to. I think it is a terrible habit, but I had to come to that conclusion on my own. Don't forget, most smokers have an addiction to nicotine. You can't make them stop being addicts by passing a law.

kkcoyne

18 Nov 2008 17:07

1 Comment

You raise some very valid points kkcoyne. Evidential photographs depicting the devastating horiffic horrendous effects smoking has on the health of a smoker is an educational start. However, I personally think a complete blanket ban on smoking would help combat the addiction to nicotine, if nobody is smoking around a smoker, which after all nine times out of ten starts as a social habit, then a smoker will not be drawn back to the habit if you get my drift?

joe9

18 Nov 2008 17:44

Comment

The term "Nazi" springs to mind....

Maybe because they were the first government to ban smoking, or maybe because you feel you have the right to impose lifestyle choices on other people.

Kirsty08

18 Nov 2008 16:45

20 Comments

You Kirsty08 are the biggest Hypocrite on this site. You don't even smoke, yet you are openly speaking out against Stuart Mill's first principle 'On Liberty' by condoning the habit of smoking, which you have openly stated in other smoking dabates causes horific horrible smoking induced illnesses. Thus condoning the smoker to an agonising death! While I don't condemn the right of a smoker to smoke, while it is legal, I would pour the utmost scorn upon selfish do-gooder hypocrites like you, who act against a caring community. You are the worst form of Nazi, high above SS level. Shame on you Kirsty08! The majority of smokers want to quit their disgusting habit, and you haven't got the decency to throw them a life line. I hope you clearly see the huge error of your selfish stance...;-(

joe9

18 Nov 2008 17:25

Comment

O' dear Kirsty08, Kirsty08, Kirsty08, I told you, you were digging a big hole for yourself, now let's see if I can completely bury you...;-) Since you COMPLETELY fail to understand the motion that I have put forward, and some of Mill's basic priciples, (specifically, and I quote Mill direct: ''of doing exactly as we like, as long as we do not harm others.'') I'll try and simplify the Motion for you. If, you were a member of parliament, and a bill was presented before the house calling for a blanket ban on smoking. And, yours was the deciding vote, would you vote Aye! For, the Bill! Knowing full well that your vote would most probably save the life of numerous weak willed smokers who want to kick their habit or would you vote Nay! Against! Not only condemning smokers to immense harm through horrific horrible smoke related illnesses, but also to a grotesque horrific horrible pain ridden cancerous death in many cases. Please note for the record that the latter action, WOULD! As I have clearly pointed out be against your man Mill's basic first principle?

Comment

Aye! I don't dispute the fact that a person has a right to take drugs, especially if they are prescribed by a doctor, and are legal! And, there are certain laws already in force which cover the point you have raised. However, sticking to the main conception of this debate, and not floating off at a tangent, (i.e. talking to brick walls along the prescribed route), are you now saying that cigarettes are an addictive drug? And, that John Stuart Mill would endorse the right of a person inflicting self harm upon themselves by using cigarettes like a drug, with all the evidential literature that is available about the harm that smoking cigarettes have upon the smoker? If so, then i would ask you the simple question: 'what taunt would you personally consider more mordant the right of a person to inflict harm upon themselves by harmful addiction? or the right of a community through legislative means to change the law so that a harmful addiction to law abiding citizens is no longer applicable to those that are addicted? Taking into consideration that two wrongs don't make a right. However, also taking into consideration that one right action could possibly correct two wrongs!...;-) Which in your view is the greater wrong? And, which one do you personally think would be the greater wrong in your Mr. Mill's view?

Comment

Since when were people not allowed to harm themselves? We have banned the cause of secondary smoking or passive smoking, banning smoking entirely is a terrible precedent. Will we ban fatty foods next, or alcohol? People are allowed to make bad choices that harm themselves, otherwise you live in a dictatorship.

Quincel

18 Nov 2008 12:28

8 Comments

By promoting the fact of openly allowing people to inflict self harm on themselves you are basically taking away the concept of a caring community, and therefore propounding a sadistic stance against this motion. It is this very stance that is so controversial in this debate. It is not about the right to inflict self harm by the individual upon their own self, but the right of a whole caring community to offer a precedent that offers a healthier life style to the smoking minority. By voting against this motion you are in fact taking nothing more than a sadistic stance against a very worthwhile motion. Which is in fact a sadistic dictatorship to promote self harm against an individual, by not recognising, and promoting what is good for the constitutional community as a whole. Which completely goes against the grain of Stuart Mill's very learned essay: 'On Liberty'.

joe9

18 Nov 2008 15:36

Comment

A LOGICAL FALLACY? TWICE! Quincel I was just reiterating a valid point. This debate is not about beer being legal, or McDonalds...;-) By thinking smoking should be legal anywhere in the country, (which it is in certain places, which is why I don't condemn smokers from legally smoking), one can only pressume that you are pro smoking. May I now refer you to Kirsty's box above, and ask you the same question?

As for Mill, Stuart Mill, or John Stuart Mill, you are completly wrong to state no one calls him Stuart Mill, especially when I had just called it him...;-) How on earth do you know no one called him Stuart you plonker, did you know him personally. This would be very hard to believe due to the fact that Stuart Mill wrote his essay: 'On Liberty' in 1859...;-) I know Patrick and Murphy were in a graveyard once, looking at tombstones, and Patrick shouted over to Murphy, ''Hey! Murphy, there's a guy here who is 157 years old.'' Be Jesus, said Murphy, what's his name?'' ''Miles from London,'' replied Patrick. Now there isn't any Irish in you Quincel is there? And, you are not rying to be witty by any chance.?..;-)

I am also au fait with Mill's essay: 'On Liberty', AS Kirsty08 well knows, and also on his other two works, 'Principles of Political Economy',and 'Utilitarianism'.
Maybe you should familarise yourself with these two works, too!

Comment

I have, Utilitaianism at least, but they are irrelevant to this argument, unless you intend to argue that it is our responsibility to force people to do the right thing for themselves, which could easily be derived from Utilitarianism.

Your entire argument hinges on the link between me being pro-smoking being legal, and me being pro-smoking. So far you have repeatedly stated this, but never explained why you think it is so. I think it is perfectly possible to support something being legal but not support it's consumption, for example unhealthy foods. As for your MP scenario, it's just a rehashing of your original argument, and I can't see an advantage to having the same argument in two parallel ways, so I'll ignore it and continue with the original one.

In short, explain why this is true:

"By thinking smoking should be legal ... one can only presume that you are pro smoking."
If there is a difference between supporting the right to choose and supporting the choice itself, then the above statement is wrong. How do you intend to deny this.

Comment