You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Proposed, for those born after 2009. Linky.
Thoughts? I'm mildly conflicted by this. I am broadly in favour. I know it will be difficult to enforce but I think the potential public health benefits could be huge in years to come, savings for the NHS and just less cancer and lung disease. Win, win. Full disclosure - I've never smoked and as per a recent (somewhat controversial) thread I actively dislike being anywhere near anyone who is smoking. But.... and I recognise this is a bit of a contradiction, a small part of me can't help but thinking it is a bit of an erosion of personal freedom, civil liberties call it what you will. Despite that nagging thought, I think on balance it's the right thing to do.
People who smoke are addicts. They only have an illusion of choice.
Don't know why they don't just whack a tax escalator on them and maybe ban duty free imports.
Guess the black market will need some attention...
Unworkable nonsense - as demonstrated by New Zealand who tried it then gave up on it when they concluded it was unworkable nonsense.
It just highlights how detached from reality the cockwomble in number ten is
It just highlights how detached from reality the cockwomble in number ten is
And yet it has significant Labour and cross party support and is likely to get voted through because of it. The principle objectors who share your view are back bench Tories.
Phasing out the sale of tobacco makes sense to me. And this seems the least problematic way of doing so.
Unworkable nonsense – as demonstrated by New Zealand who tried it then gave up on it when they concluded it was unworkable nonsense
Er, no.
It was abandoned (never actually implemented) because a right wing government were elected who were worried about the loss in tax revenue.
The principle objectors who share your view are back bench Tories.
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
Its totally unworkable for reasons so glaringly obvious that even Liz Truss gets it
Its totally unworkable for reasons so glaringly obvious that even Liz Truss gets it
Again, no.
even Liz Truss gets it
Does she tho, or has she just read something she's been told to say without understanding it fully.
Don’t know why they don’t just whack a tax escalator on them
That would penalise people who are already addicted and unable to do anything about it. Maybe something a bit more sophisticated like a huge hike in price for more nicotine, forcing people to buy progressively lower nicotine fags until they have reduced their dependency? I'm not even sure that's possible. However, I've heard smokers tell me that they try and switch to whatever their version of 'lighter' fags is and they just end up smoking more - which is exactly what happens to me when I try and drink less caffeinated coffee.
However, whilst this certainly won't stop younger people smoking, or it might make older smokers who regret ever starting (most of them, in my experience) think twice about buying cigarettes for young people.
it doesn't need to be 100% effective, they just need to keep making it more expensive/difficult to buy until the point they can just ban it outright without too much trouble.I am supportive, but am unsure how this will be policed at the point of sale.
I am supportive, but am unsure how this will be policed at the point of sale. Conversely I am supportive of the legalisation of cannabis, so that’s seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in my thinking.
I'm of the same thinking. But, policing tobacco sales will be easy at first, while those near the age of being blocked from buying are relatively young and used to carrying ID for other stuff... and I suppose the hope is that a generation grows up not hooked on fags, so policing sales to them when they are older just isn't much of a thing. Time will tell... it's a future problem... that might not even be a problem at all when the time comes... who knows.
savings for the NHS
Isn't it reckened to actually be a net benefit? Speaking generally, they pay thousands in tax, for decades, then die in a hospital (which most people do anyway) but at an age that is lower than average (claiming less pension both state and private), but still usually post retirement (so a lifetime of income tax).
I support the ban in public places - its now really weird to go abroad and have people smoking inside.
But I'm on the side of let them have their vices when it isn't affecting anyone else. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak up...
When they come for beer, red meat and amateur outdoor adventure sports, there will be nobody left to speak up for me.
Lovely fags. Mmmm, smoking. Satisfying ciggy after a meal or when your lungs are freshly scoured after a bike ride.
Yes of course it should be banned. It ends with a miserable death and huge costs to society. The companies who sell them should be fined until there’s no profit left in it.
It’s a dumbass thing to do, like not wearing a seatbelt or a crash helmet on a motorbike. Duh. Just get rid and the next generations will never know what a great way to pace your day puffing away is.
Save me from what I want. See also, cream cakes and those little cylinders of cheese with salami wrapped around them that look like a smokers artery.
Smoking is a fairly unique drug in that if you don't take it up in your teens most likely you won't. It's main appeal is that it is available and it's very very difficult to stop once you've started. 18 year olds can buy it for their 16 year old mates. They can pass it on to their 13 year old mates. It's an industry that is entirely reliant on children having access to their product for its survival.
If you can gradually make it harder and harder for 13 to 18 year olds to buy cigarettes then eventually the path to addiction should be broken at which point tobacco companies are relying on people in their 20s deciding that smoking is cool and they want to give it a try.
Best of luck to them with that.
"That would penalise people who are already addicted and unable to do anything about it. "
But it is possible to do something about it - there must be thousands of ex-smokers out there...
smoked for 20 years
hated it, couldn't give up, never understood why it was even a legal thing, been smoke free at least 10 years now
great idea, smoking killed my mum at 55, probably contributed to my dads health later in life, my daughter has the occasional cigarette. no idea why.... would put it out of reach of my lad
Smoking doesn't need to be a thing, freedom of choice? well the current smokers have got that freedom of choice so there should be no argument.
Although I guess you could say the same about alcohol in some universe, I would argue smoking is way more addictive as I was stuck with it, yet i can drink as little or as much as I want with no addictive side affects, I know this isn't the same for everyone. I guess smoking isn't the same for everyone either, in my mind smoking is way more dangerous than drinking.
We have been heading this way, with it being phased out of public spaces 20? years ago... It seems weird to think you could sit on a table in restaurant chuffing away while a stranger on the next table is eating..
The idea of a ban that means that a 42 year old is being asked for their ID to make sure they are not 41 is clearly daft. However - I'm not sure it's quite that. I guess the idea is to get people to 25 years old or similar before buying fags is no longer a hassle. I'm sure the research is there somewhere but how many people would bother starting a cigarette addiction at 25 or thereabout. Or to put in another way - if you asked a punch of 50 years old smokers what age got a committed habit going, I'd be astonished if many of them said it was older than 18 or 19.
IMO it would have been better if they were proposing a raising old the age by a year every year until it was 25 or 27 or something. It would have been easier to buy into as a workable proposal.
In other news - how many of today's 13 year old are actually going to smoke? Vape yes, smoke not so much.
Following the STW consensus, tobacco should be banned, cannabis should be legal, wood-burning stoves should be mandatory, and dogs should be allowed all these things free on the NHS.
But it is possible to do something about it – there must be thousands of ex-smokers out there
Theoretically possible, sure. In practice, there are a whole raft of issues surrounding addiction that can be very difficult to overcome - see the large number of people who smoke themselves to death whilst being fully aware that they are doing it.
But I’m on the side of let them have their vices when it isn’t affecting anyone else.
But it does affect other people. Ever seen a parent or loved one die of lung cancer? It definitely has an effect.
We have been heading this way, with it being phased out of public spaces 20? years ago… It seems weird to think you could sit on a table in restaurant chuffing away while a stranger on the next table is eating..
was talking about that with family the other week. I remember in the 80s going on long train journeys and walking through the smoking carriage on the way to the restaurant car etc. Horrific.
Banning it gets my vote. Three of my grandparents died of lung cancer after smoking for large parts of their lives. We know the effects of smoking now so why on earth anyone does it is beyond me...
In other news – how many of today’s 13 year old are actually going to smoke? Vape yes, smoke not so much.
According to my teacher friend, smoking is in and vaping is out.
Apparently it's only the old folk who are vaping (ie, 25 year olds).
MSPFull Member
I am supportive, but am unsure how this will be policed at the point of sale. Conversely I am supportive of the legalisation of cannabis, so that’s seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in my thinking.
I don't think there's a dichotomy. There are benefits of cannabis. Don't think there's any for smoking cigs.
politecameraactionFree Member
Following the STW consensus, tobacco should be banned, cannabis should be legal, wood-burning stoves should be mandatory, and dogs should be allowed all these things free on the NHS.
Now that’s what a socialist utopia looks like.
You can take up cannabis at any age. And people do. Because it's actually a good drug that doesn't rely on making its users hopelessly addicted while they are still adolescents. Same with many other drugs.
Banning those good drugs leads to a black market and all the associated problems.
You can actually get high off nutmeg. Most people don't bother because it's a crap drug. It's also not addictive so even people who try it don't find themselves spending all their spare money on nutmeg.
Tobacco is a special case and there is nothing wrong with treating it as such.
then die in a hospital (which most people do anyway) but at an age that is lower than average (claiming less pension both state and private), but still usually post retirement (so a lifetime of income tax)
There's a 'yes and no' to that. Death from smoking-related illness is often preceded by a long period of smoking related ill health and debility, which if we're going to look at this from an actuarial POV carries its own financial and social cost. I think the overall answer to tax vs cost argument is 'we don't really know' but if we can make people's lives better in 30yo time because they don't get out of breath walking from the sofa to the front door, or have both their legs, then it's all to the good, no?
Following the STW consensus, tobacco should be banned, cannabis should be legal, wood-burning stoves should be mandatory, and dogs should be allowed all these things free on the NHS.
As with those opposing e.g. LTNs (which are also as much a public health measure as anything else), I think the STW consensus isn't that at all, but it is the consensus of those with the loudest voices?
Like one of the earlier posters it's a bit of a dichotomy for me. For reference I'm a non-smoker.
Was reading about the proposed smoking ban and thinking that it makes perfect sense. Save the NHS etc etc.
But on the other hand I think that drugs should be legalised to drive them out of the black market and all that entails.
Also I'd hazard a guess that the next big cost for the NHS is obesity followed by alcohol. I like crappy food and booze, so don't want that banned.
So yeah I feel like my liberal view means that a smoking ban for those born after 2009 should not be put in place.
Maybe they should just not treat anyone for free on the NHS if the issue is caused by smoking, being a fatty or booze.
Means I've only got a 2 in 3 chance of having to pay 😄
I struggle to see how something like cocaine is banned and use can end in a jail sentence, but fags aren’t. Both are hugely addictive and terrible for your health.
Indeed they are. But being under the influence of tobacco means you are unlikely to run down someones kid. Cocaine in the system, thats a distinct possibility.
That's why we have laws about drink and drug driving. Completely separate to the legality of consuming them based on harm to self.
potential public health benefits could be huge in years to come, savings for the NHS and just less cancer and lung disease. Win, win.
I work in primary healthcare and see the results of smoking and what it does to folks. I'm broadly in favour of banning. If some-one invented ciggies now, they'd be banned immediately pretty much. The health benefits to a huge swathe of he population who'd otherwise take up smoking can't be underestimated. Plus the tobacco co's have shown themselves time and time again to be merciless in their pursuit of profit at the expensive of lives and the very worst sort of corporate a-holes.
The freedom of choice argument is interesting, because where do you stand on drugs? What if they decided to reclassify nicotine as Class C? That changes the entire landscape of things, it becomes just as much freedom of choice as illegal drugs but opens up the black markets to take advantage and sees us lose taxable income.
Stopping smoking won't fix the NHS. Yes, long term it may see a reduction in patient load, but more funding and proper management is what's needed, everything else is smoke and mirrors.
a small part of me can’t help but thinking it is a bit of an erosion of personal freedom, civil liberties call it what you will.
Firearms used to be legal in the UK< and for a bit there was no speed limit. In other areas of public health concern we take action. Yes individual freedoms may be curtailed, but society as a whole benefits
I'm generally against this sort of thing, but as someone that's recently quit - I'm fully on board with this
Like most smokers, I wish I'd never started - once you do, it's an addiction, don't kid yourself
However, I'm also for the decriminalisation of weed so my opinions don't really make any sense
Indeed they are. But being under the influence of tobacco means you are unlikely to run down someones kid. Cocaine in the system, thats a distinct possibility.
you’ll go absolutely nuts when you find out about alcohol..
Last thing. Also when the likes of Truss and Mordant are espousing the personal liberty or freedom of choice argument , it is because a Tufton Street think-tank funded by the likes of Philip Morris are paying them to say those things.
Unworkable nonsense – as demonstrated by New Zealand who tried it then gave up on it when they concluded it was unworkable nonsense.
I thought NZ dropped it when the party in power changed rather than a real difficulty implementing it. I'm not sure why it would be unworkable; some people seem to be convinced that because there is a potential for black market and some people to break the rules you should do nothing...
But I’m on the side of let them have their vices when it isn’t affecting anyone else.
Well, except for the kids of people who smoke around them.
18 year olds can buy it for their 16 year old mates.
To be fair, typical 16 year olds seem to be on the vapes rather than fags...
I thought NZ dropped it when the party in power changed rather than a real difficulty implementing it.
Correct. A new party took lead and decided to abolish to pay for tax cuts.
Unsure why there is need for legislation when the numbers of people smoking falls year on year:
Seems a better reason to bring it into effect.
"That would penalise people who are already addicted and unable to do anything about it."
Excellent. Why pander to the needs of these people?
Tax it to the skies. Outlaw anything attempting to get round it. Throw the key away on those illegally importing the stuff.
Thousands of people, including yours truly have quit smoking. There is no unable to do it. Just a lack of will to admit addiction and want to do something about it. A ban for a certain age bracket makes no sense to me. I wasn’t allowed to smoke at thirteen. Still managed to get through ten a day, moving to twenty by aged fifteen. It’s another headline grabber with no real thought behind it. Either ban it full stop or let it naturally die out as it is doing anyway
Either ban it full stop or let it naturally die out as it is doing anyway
Indeed. Who still smokes nowadays anyway? The numbers of young people doing so are absolutely minuscule compared to previous generations.
Nobody can afford it for a start. Isn’t it now £15 for twenty fags (90% of which is tax) ? Mental! I’m bloody glad I packed in my 20 B&H a day a long time ago
This all just seems like pointless posturing though, which will be completely unenforceable, but then that’s this lot all over.
I bet you could come back in 20 years and not a single person will have been prosecuted under this daft new law. A waste of everyone’s time but as this thread demonstrates, it seems to have hit a chord with the more sanctimonious and hectoring, so probably a result for Rishi
Nobody can afford it for a start. Isn’t it now £15 for twenty fags
Bloody hell! Last time I bought a pack of 20 Regal I think they were about £3. How does anybody afford £15!
I bet you could come back in 20 years and not a single person will have been prosecuted under this daft new law.
I hope the implementation is that successful. Fewer people starting smoking without the need for any prosecutions? That'll be the best possible outcome.
I bet you could come back in 20 years and not a single person will have been prosecuted under this daft new law. A waste of everyone’s time
Do we only make new laws that we expect people to break and be prosecuted for? That seems odd. Surely an ideal law is one which has a 100% compliance, and the next best thing is one that have 98% compliance even if the 2% don't get punished? Its not like the corner shops, super markets or petrol stations are going to voluntarily get some ethics and stop flogging addiction sticks to 18yr olds without something to push them in the right direction. It might even send a message to those peddling vapes to teenagers that if they can't get their house in order they will be regulated out too.
but as this thread demonstrates, it seems to have hit a chord with the more sanctimonious and hectoring, so probably a result for Rishi
Except the core tory vote are more typically the "how dare they" camp and this is a cross party initiative to get the votes so the other parties can equally claim to be behind it if its a success. I'm surprised Rishi is doing it - he must want to leave some lasting legacy. Either that or his mates have hedged the big tobacco firms and need a shareprice hit!
Yeah you don’t know much about psychology.
Considering I used to smoke in excess of 20 a day plus jazz woodbines and I no longer do either, psychology can piss off 😂 also not a proper science 😉
You have to want to quit. If you don’t you’re ****ed before you begin.
I hope the implementation is that successful. Fewer people starting smoking without the need for any prosecutions? That’ll be the best possible outcome.
I’m sure they’ll take the credit for a massive reduction in smoking, when it’s just because everyone is vaping instead anyway
Its like when the police made a big thing about taking the credit for a drop in football hooliganism in the early 90’s when everyone knew it was an influx of industrial quantities of weapons grade MDMA from Holland that was responsible for it
Nobody could be arsed fighting because everyone was off their tits on ecstasy and more likely to give you a big sweaty hug than punch you. Same as nobody is paying 15 quid for 20 Regal when disposable vapes are a quid a pop
Totally pointless bollocks
I still smoke. 50grams (£31.50) of hand rolling tobacco will last me a month. (0ccassionally pipe smoking)
As long as I can still smoke, they can ban the younger generation from smoking as much as they like.
I have no objection nor do I support the ban. Their health and body so do as they like.
However, I would like to ban all processed food because I can cook from scratch so there you go.
Another thing that is overlooked is the artificial sweetener. Ban that!
Cocaine is banned, and use can end in a jail sentence, but cigs aren’t. Both are hugely addictive and terrible for your health.
If this passes with the new STW trope be smoke and hookers?
Let’s just ban ****ing everything, shall we? 🙄
Anyway… I see it’s gone through with a collective shrug, some cabinet ministers voting against it, general apathy, some unhinged speeches from Liz Truss and Co and zero enthusiasm for ‘Rishi’s Big Idea’ from anyone
Meh…
I’ll support it the day it’s coupled with a similar restriction on the sale of alcohol. Now that smoking is not allowed indoors alcohol is far more dangerous to non-drinkers than smoking is to non-smokers.
This will never happen as banning alcohol is a vote loser, while banning smoking is a vote winner.
"Last time I bought a pack of 20 Regal I think they were about £3."
Snap.
Also a late 90s quitter then?
£16 for 20 is nucking futs.
Actually I want an outright ban with prosecutions. I want to live in a world where underground smoking clubs are a thing. Trench coats, secret handshakes, running from the fuzz for a brief period before your lungs pack in. I’d start smoking again just for the thrill of it!
What does a pack of 10 Benson's and some king skins cost these days? Come to think of it, has soap bar gone up in price along with inflation?
alcohol is far more dangerous to non-drinkers than smoking is to non-smokers.
Passive drinking?
Actually I want an outright ban with prosecutions. I want to live in a world where underground smoking clubs are a thing. Trench coats, secret handshakes, running from the fuzz for a brief period before your lungs pack in. I’d start smoking again just for the thrill of it!
Having to sneak in through a secret door disguised as a public telephone...
alcohol is far more dangerous to non-drinkers than smoking is to non-smokers.
How does that work?
I’d happily see a reduction in alcohol too, yes very hypocritical of me, but it’s not a great thing to get into.
Retired colleague took up wine drinking happily (3 to 4 bottles a week because life is good), until one day his GP told him if he continued to drink happily as he did, he would not be able to enjoy his retirement or use up his pension. LOL! Since then he cut his wine enjoyment down to one bottle a month.
Everything in moderation is the key including processed food.
alcohol is far more dangerous to non-drinkers than smoking is to non-smokers.
Is probably a pretty fair comment.
For the sluggish of thinking if you tweaked that to "the consumption of alcohol by others is far more dangerous to non-drinkers than the smoking of tobacco by others is to non-smokers", they'd probably be with you.
fuels a huge amount of (violent) crime, assaults on emergency workers, etc etc.How does that work?
I’m not in favour of an outright alcohol ban, but certainly a drinking licence, so you have to prove you can handle it and not turn into a complete nob head after a few 😂
“How does that work?”
Drink driving. Glass on the streets from bottles dropped by drunks. Avoiding certain areas of town at certain times as there is regularly potential trouble. Being violently attacked by drunks in the street (it’s happened to me). domestic violence, often set off by alcohol.
There are plenty of other downsides of alcohol that are not immediately dangerous. Noise after closing time. Vomit on the streets. People pissing in the street after closing time. Covering for a colleague who had a ‘few too many’ on numerous occasions. That feeling you get when walking home alone after 11 when you see and hear a group of ‘lads’.
Don’t get me wrong I have no desire to ban alcohol, but I’d get rid of it before smoking which doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I’ve travelled a lot, and I’ve felt safest after dark in Muslim countries where drinking is rare (and smoking is common).
Batshoot crazy idea to ban part of the population. Never smoked nor took drugs, but that's nuts.
As for youngsters that smoke, they vape or smoke weed - weed is massively on the increase - smell it all the time, more so than ciggy smoke.
Vaping isn't good either, but it's "cooler/on trend" than smoking and smells less. I still think it affects lungs adversely, given how many coughs my son gets (vapes, as do his mates). That's expensive too.
Those are examples of the effects of alcohol, they don’t represent non drinkers being more at risk.
Whatever.
Be careful what you wish for…
If you curtail the ability of Baz and Tommo to drink 20 pints of Fosters before kicking the ****out of each other outside a kebab house at 3am, the entire of British society would implode
you’ve got that completely arse about face - being punched in the face by a drunken **** isn’t an “effect of alcohol” 🙄Those are examples of the effects of alcohol, they don’t represent non drinkers being more at risk
Those are examples of the effects of alcohol, they don’t represent non drinkers being more at risk.
You are just being deliberately obtuse. Drinking by a third party is more likely to do me harm than smoking by a third party is, is a pretty reasonable assumption. And I am a drinker, not a smoker.
Alcohol is a bit like food though - plenty of us are able to drink alcohol and eat food without it either doing us long term harm or becoming addictive (well, if you were to be a pedant I am technically addicted to food, just not it's over consumption). Much harder to make the same case with tobacco though. It would be a much tougher call to ban something the majority of the population can handle with relative ease so society can all walk at the pace of the slowest.
You are just being deliberately obtuse. Drinking by a third party is more likely to do me harm than smoking by a third party is, is a pretty reasonable assumption. And I am a drinker, not a smoker.
No, I’m not. Does alcohol have more social problems than smoking? Yes. Does it matter if the other people drinks or not? No.
you’ve got that completely arse about face – being punched in the face by a drunken **** isn’t an “effect of alcohol”
If they punched you because they were drunk what would be the cause?
You can actually get high off nutmeg.
Got a sore throat. Shit.
I know we are having a debate about it, but the fact that this bill has been passed without a huge amount of hoo-hah is a demonstration of how the habit of smoking is dying out pretty quickly.. I don’t think the ban is a bad idea however because it provides a bit of impetus.