It is a grave wrong and I am opposing it by doing my best! The decisions that belong to me or anyone else should not be stolen from us by the power of the state. In legislating unconstitutional counter-smoking legislation, our elected representatives are abusing the power that has been entrusted to them by the electorate to turn it against us and punish us when it is not our fault and we are not responsible for anything, like smoking indoors and buying cigarettes from an adult with legal responsibility, who has every right to do so. The decision belongs to me, or to my next neighbouring person, but that way the decision gets stolen by the state, the health minister and the parliament. This has got to stop and a limit be put in place that is called the state constitution, the Magna Carta from 1215, which says that, "No free man [citizen who may also smoke] shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions [his or her right to smoke or the fine imposed], or deprived of his standing in any way [what anti-smokers do to smokers], nor will we proceed with force against him [the threat of the antismoking law and its exchange], or send others to do so [the Police who charge fines for smoking], except by the lawful judgement of his equals [the dissemination of what is fair and what is not], or by the law of the land [which had not passed through parliament if it is so before all of the above took place].". Just like we are subject to following the law that has been elected by society with the use of the parliament, the politicians who control this are subject to the constitution and its compliance. There is a limit on what can be decided by them and on what can be voted for the rest by the parliament. Our decisions cannot be stolen from us by politicians and the parliament and arbitrary requirements that do not form social rules should not be voted into law. It is them violating the state constitution who should pay for doing so, not the rest of society for smoking indoors who don't owe anything else to pay because they are not guilty but innocent of their actions, and punishments should only be directed against guilt and not be applied to innocence. That's that. They should know.
You are very right, I couldn’t agree more. What a disgrace to condemn the people of Britain, young people and those who have not yet been born, to anything of the like. Not being entitled to buy tobacco until you die was what was happening exactly when you were growing up and it should not accompany you until you die, because no one wants to die anyway. It is a form of condemnation of the people and the young people of our country which should not take place and not even be discussed either. What should happen instead is the age requirement to buy tobacco can be be increased by a constant to 21, and it should be a constant anyway, and this should be discussed instead, because the purpose of its existence is to prevent and deter underage smoking and punish the sale of tobacco to young teenagers and children, which is what it is expected to do, and should be kept to remain the same way. The reason there is an age requirement to buy tobacco is to prevent and deter young teenagers and children from underage smoking and punish the exchange of money for tobacco for them and not for anyone else or the rest. This is what should be happening and continue to be happening. Not taking advantage of the existence of the law to serve an external purpose of eliminating smoking from the general population to serve and defend everyone’s health, by turning the power that was entrusted to our elected representatives in the form of its abuse against those who elected them and using it against them and their wishes for their punishment for innocent actions that underlie no guilt. A teenager who has just turned 18 or other person turned 21 is fully entitled within his own rights to buy tobacco whether such a law has been voted or not and what’s more, doing so is not guilty for them to do but innocent to carry out, so what is being punished by the proposed legislation? Nothing at all! Just like nothing is being punished when somebody smokes inside buildings as his action is innocent and not guilty of anything or responsible for the same thing, and if tobacco circulated in decorated packets with commercial logos and signs printed on the wrapper, that would not be guilty but innocent to do as well. Those who are in control of what the law says should assume their responsible position and realise that the punishment of the law exists exclusively to prevent crime and other wrongdoing. Not to put them in control of the rest, and make them control the way that society behaves, because society has its own rules, which have become the law, and anything must not be the law or get punished by it if it is not first a social rule that binds all of our social relationships. That is why the state should not legislate in the absence of society, and the smoking ban and all counter-smoking legislation have not been decided upon by society nor have they been voted with the consent of its members, and the majority of the parliament does not identify with the real majority of everyone, which can be estimated more accurately by polls.
We are no longer a 'liberal' society, and in fact have not been for quite some time. I applaud your determination to speak out for individual liberty, and agree with you about cigarettes and other 'bad choices'. However, all indications are now that Britain and other western countries are moving inexorably towards 'pc' authoritarianism and the 'we know best' rule of the managerial class. New Zealand, once a land of freedom and rugged individualism, has led the way, specially since their appalling Covid police state. It's important for people to oppose this nightmare, but short of some actual revolution or a major disaster or war, I see little chance of this changing any time soon.
It is a grave wrong and I am opposing it by doing my best! The decisions that belong to me or anyone else should not be stolen from us by the power of the state. In legislating unconstitutional counter-smoking legislation, our elected representatives are abusing the power that has been entrusted to them by the electorate to turn it against us and punish us when it is not our fault and we are not responsible for anything, like smoking indoors and buying cigarettes from an adult with legal responsibility, who has every right to do so. The decision belongs to me, or to my next neighbouring person, but that way the decision gets stolen by the state, the health minister and the parliament. This has got to stop and a limit be put in place that is called the state constitution, the Magna Carta from 1215, which says that, "No free man [citizen who may also smoke] shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions [his or her right to smoke or the fine imposed], or deprived of his standing in any way [what anti-smokers do to smokers], nor will we proceed with force against him [the threat of the antismoking law and its exchange], or send others to do so [the Police who charge fines for smoking], except by the lawful judgement of his equals [the dissemination of what is fair and what is not], or by the law of the land [which had not passed through parliament if it is so before all of the above took place].". Just like we are subject to following the law that has been elected by society with the use of the parliament, the politicians who control this are subject to the constitution and its compliance. There is a limit on what can be decided by them and on what can be voted for the rest by the parliament. Our decisions cannot be stolen from us by politicians and the parliament and arbitrary requirements that do not form social rules should not be voted into law. It is them violating the state constitution who should pay for doing so, not the rest of society for smoking indoors who don't owe anything else to pay because they are not guilty but innocent of their actions, and punishments should only be directed against guilt and not be applied to innocence. That's that. They should know.
You are very right, I couldn’t agree more. What a disgrace to condemn the people of Britain, young people and those who have not yet been born, to anything of the like. Not being entitled to buy tobacco until you die was what was happening exactly when you were growing up and it should not accompany you until you die, because no one wants to die anyway. It is a form of condemnation of the people and the young people of our country which should not take place and not even be discussed either. What should happen instead is the age requirement to buy tobacco can be be increased by a constant to 21, and it should be a constant anyway, and this should be discussed instead, because the purpose of its existence is to prevent and deter underage smoking and punish the sale of tobacco to young teenagers and children, which is what it is expected to do, and should be kept to remain the same way. The reason there is an age requirement to buy tobacco is to prevent and deter young teenagers and children from underage smoking and punish the exchange of money for tobacco for them and not for anyone else or the rest. This is what should be happening and continue to be happening. Not taking advantage of the existence of the law to serve an external purpose of eliminating smoking from the general population to serve and defend everyone’s health, by turning the power that was entrusted to our elected representatives in the form of its abuse against those who elected them and using it against them and their wishes for their punishment for innocent actions that underlie no guilt. A teenager who has just turned 18 or other person turned 21 is fully entitled within his own rights to buy tobacco whether such a law has been voted or not and what’s more, doing so is not guilty for them to do but innocent to carry out, so what is being punished by the proposed legislation? Nothing at all! Just like nothing is being punished when somebody smokes inside buildings as his action is innocent and not guilty of anything or responsible for the same thing, and if tobacco circulated in decorated packets with commercial logos and signs printed on the wrapper, that would not be guilty but innocent to do as well. Those who are in control of what the law says should assume their responsible position and realise that the punishment of the law exists exclusively to prevent crime and other wrongdoing. Not to put them in control of the rest, and make them control the way that society behaves, because society has its own rules, which have become the law, and anything must not be the law or get punished by it if it is not first a social rule that binds all of our social relationships. That is why the state should not legislate in the absence of society, and the smoking ban and all counter-smoking legislation have not been decided upon by society nor have they been voted with the consent of its members, and the majority of the parliament does not identify with the real majority of everyone, which can be estimated more accurately by polls.
We are no longer a 'liberal' society, and in fact have not been for quite some time. I applaud your determination to speak out for individual liberty, and agree with you about cigarettes and other 'bad choices'. However, all indications are now that Britain and other western countries are moving inexorably towards 'pc' authoritarianism and the 'we know best' rule of the managerial class. New Zealand, once a land of freedom and rugged individualism, has led the way, specially since their appalling Covid police state. It's important for people to oppose this nightmare, but short of some actual revolution or a major disaster or war, I see little chance of this changing any time soon.