I am never in favour of bans. There are laws to prevent people doing harm to others and that is fair enough (until you get to 'misgendering' etc , but bans exist to restrict the right of individuals to make choices. Educating the young - perhaps by showing videos of youngsters egging each other on to smoke as a sign of rebellion or a rite of passage into adulthood and then showing people with emphysema gasping for breath in middle age - might help to phase the use of tobacco out through public choice... I like to encourage people to do what is in their best interests rather than berating them for making poor choices...
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.
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.
Thank you for subscribing Costa. Having read your comments, I can say I agree with almost all of them; it's a shame our ancestors didn't put in place a constitution which would have fully protected our freedom today, as you say, democracy should not people able to infringe upon our individual rights.
I am a big fan of the quote too. The issue with making it too central is many people have no idea who J.S. Mill is. Indeed, on Saturday I was assumed to be John Stuart Mill by an older woman.
I am never in favour of bans. There are laws to prevent people doing harm to others and that is fair enough (until you get to 'misgendering' etc , but bans exist to restrict the right of individuals to make choices. Educating the young - perhaps by showing videos of youngsters egging each other on to smoke as a sign of rebellion or a rite of passage into adulthood and then showing people with emphysema gasping for breath in middle age - might help to phase the use of tobacco out through public choice... I like to encourage people to do what is in their best interests rather than berating them for making poor choices...
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.
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.
Thank you for subscribing Costa. Having read your comments, I can say I agree with almost all of them; it's a shame our ancestors didn't put in place a constitution which would have fully protected our freedom today, as you say, democracy should not people able to infringe upon our individual rights.
I like the JS Mill quote on your rolling banner - if you could move it to eye level it might be even better as it's one for the ages.
I am a big fan of the quote too. The issue with making it too central is many people have no idea who J.S. Mill is. Indeed, on Saturday I was assumed to be John Stuart Mill by an older woman.