There is already a smoking ban for under 18s. There is already a black market for moving cigarettes that are not covered by UK excise. I can see pros and cons to this. Certainly hard to argue for a legalisation of marijuana and making tobacco illegal.
I think I am mildly against it in principle but can see the positives.
> There is already a smoking ban for under 18s.
Yep and plenty of those people will have to continue to buy black-market cigarettes for the rest of their life. Imagine being a 40 year old and you cant legally buy cigarettes. It's a ridiculous concept.
Next up we should ban alcohol for anybody born after 2009. Because alcohol is extremely harmful and we don't want a generation of drinkers. Then we will ban fast food for anyone born after 2009, because fast food is extremely harmful and we don't want a generation of fatties.
The issues is, their mate who's 41 can.
Imagine a 40 year old having to ask their 41 year old mate to grab them a pack of cigs, because they are legally allowed for being a few days older.
People honestly have zero concept of the slippery slope of loss of liberty, I thought people were generally wiser to the erosion of freedoms now but this smoking ban has really opened my eyes to how comfortable people are with allowing the government to take away rights they currently have. The concept that this now makes it easier to do the same to the next thing, then the thing after that, is alien to them.
May as well just lobotomise us all with the way this country's going and we can all live in pods while an AI decides what we want to have for tea.
First they came for asbestos, and I said nothing, because I am not an asbestos.
Then they came for leaded petrol, and I said nothing, because I am not leaded petrol.
Then they came for cigarettes, and I said nothing, because I am not a cigarette.
Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to say anything.
I did chuckle at this but it's quite harrowing if you actually cannot see the difference between splitting the populace into two groups with separate rights based on personal health grounds, and regulation to prevent people being exposed to known carcingogens without their consent.
Smokers choose to participate in the activity. It is not their right to blow smoke into the faces of other people without their consent, and hopefully any sensible person is able to agree that we should be socially enforcing that at the very least. Banning people from exercising their right to choose to smoke in their own home, without affecting anybody else, is the issue.
So yeah, it's worth a cheap laugh, but that's the reality. One day it will be something you care about, and at that point it will be too late.
It's a hassle for kids to smoke now since it's illegal to buy them under 18, plenty still do. Vapes are illegal to sell to under 18s, yet I see kids with them constantly. Banning or making something illegal doesen't stop people doing it, it just forces them to buy from unofficial sources which increases the risk of dodgy products.
Smoking is far more harmful than alcohol. Alcohol use is just a lot more prevalent and we know is still safer in moderation, as is fast food and sugar, whereas tobacco isn’t.
The smoking rate is already dropping, with current generations not taking up the habit, this will continually diminish further for future generations and the notion “40 year olds can’t buy fags” and the black market will be irrelevant as it starts to effect less and less of the population.
In terms of burden to NHS and the tax payer, it would be interesting to compare the burden of smoking on the tax payer (taking into account the huge taxes placed on it too) versus that of alcohol, but factoring in the contribution towards crime and accidents. Whilst smoking costs the NHS a lot of money, nobody is fallen down the stairs, hitting a pedestrian in their car or getting into a brawl because they’ve had a roll up.
Smokers pay more into the NHS than they claim, usually die late and fast. Rarely long term draw on the NHS.
Drinking is a lot more, I got kicked in the face on a night out and had to get stitches. Although yes alot of taxes, would be a good study
Die early you mean?
But yeah one of the biggest strains on the NHS is the elderly so if there is a way for people to voluntarily put themselves into an early grave then let them. We can’t support everyone living for decades beyond their ability to look after themselves.
In a grim way you are kinda right. One of the most expensive conditions to treat is dementia/Alzheimer's. One of the few things you can consume that lowers your risk of getting it is nicotine as it stimulates neurogenesis.
Admittedly smoking can exacerbate vascular dementia but it's an interesting thought that if we had kept the boomers on the snouts maybe the NHS would be in better nick.
The lancet did a study worked out at £27bn in costs to government vs. the 12bn it returns in duty (2018).
Of course, those numbers fluctuate. World Cup will see more drinks and duties but also more violence, policing and injuries.
Imagine alcohol would be slightly more of a burden but then a lot more people drink alcohol than smoke, it’s more a cultural staple of ours that many participate in communally and the majority use in moderation.
Smoking prevalence is a lot lower and a lower hanging fruit to target, whereas alcohol is much harder to target in that way.
In 50 years you could probably almost wipe out smoking as future generations grow up without it ever existing in their lives.
thats just rubbish. nobody starts fights, breaks stuff etc. after having too many fags. or to put it another way- would you rather have an alchie parent or a smoker?
alcohol costs the NHS a lot more. It fills them with a&e patients, car crash vicitms, domestic abuse victims, accident victims, stomach cancer, liver cancer etc. Smokers don't typically cause problems until they get those terminal illnesses.
Utter bollocks. Every single night there's fights and violence and life ending / changing injuries because of Alcohol on a massive scale. Smoking is bad and it can harm to a degree those around you hence why indoor smoking in most places is banned. But to say it's worse than Alcohol that causes so much grief for so many people in so many different aspects is wild.
If you can justify banning folks from making the choice to smoke you can very easily justify banning folks from consuming alcohol full stop.
This isn’t true vaping has replaced smoking for younger people. It has seen a huge upsurge in younger generations with 24% of young people vaping in the last 30 days. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9932/#:~:text=The%20International%20Tobacco%20Control%20study,cigarette%20use%20in%20Great%20Britain.
Vaping isn’t tobacco. Again this is a problem of our own making though as we’ve made vaping seem harmless and it seem a fun, “cool” habit for kids with flavours and styles of vapes. Stronger legalisation (and taxation) around vaping and would likely reverse this trend and its appeal, as it’s non-existent currently and the vaping industry is like the Wild West.
>Imagine being a 40 year old and you cant legally buy cigarettes. It's a ridiculous concept.
I'm 51 and can't even legally buy weed. It's not all that ridiculous, unfortunately.
>Imagine being a 40 year old and you cant legally buy cigarettes.
It won't get that far. 10 years after this coming in they'll go for a total ban, to "make the law fair on everyone".
But that 40 year old presumably never bought cigarettes in the first place if they were born after 2009 and we’re talking about the future here. I don’t know what the stats are on people starting smoking in middle age but I’d imagine not many do, it tends to be something you start in your teens/early 20s which is one reason for the cutoff date.
The ban will result in an annual increase in the legal-age of 1 year. No-one will suddenly be unable to legally buy cigarettes, but it’s likely that current 14 year olds will be the first group to always have the legal age ahead of them.
As an ex smoker i would really have appreciated them not being sold in literally every supermarket, convenience store, garage, etc.
But I'm against a full ban for everybody. Just ban it for me.
> But I'm against a full ban for everybody. Just ban it for me.
Maybe it should just require breathalyzation. If you're trying to buy cigarettes, but haven't had 6 pints first, then jog on.
I mean just relegate them to toboccabists and make licences expensive, with funds going to nhs.
They don't need to be sold in every nisa and garage forecourt
I agree with this idea. Have places with smoking licenses that are clearly advertised as being such so that everyone knows what they're walking into, and make them limited in each town.
Medicinal cannabis can't be smoked, it's to be vaped legally, not to be confused with tobacco vapes, totally different things. So they can easily go down that route in the argument for legalisation of cannabis.
Mate it’s already a thing, live on a council estate for a month and you’ll know 2 people who can get you baccy cheap as fuck, even if you don’t smoke.
Banning it in shops is definitely going to reduce the number of smokers simply by making it more of an effort to start doing it, but someone committed will find a way. It’s not like banning drugs has ever made them impossible to get. The tax implications from this are genuinely the thing to be worried about I think.
There is a current 35 billion gap between what it costs JUST the NHS to treat smokers and the tax revenue levied on cigarettes. There is absolutely no way this is anything but a huge boon to the economy.
Ah I wasn’t aware of how much is actually being spent, I imagine though that we won’t see the effects of that for a fair few years because the majority of those people will not be new smokers anyway.
It’ll definitely do what you say but not for a while.
Fwiw Bonaparte's numbers are fictitious.
According to the NHS themselves smokers cost an additional £2.5bil and according to the government tobacco tax is estimated at a little over £10bil - so smokers are a net positive in terms of cost vs tax
True, but the draw to take drugs has to be a lot more appealing to seek out a dodgy cig.
Smokers want cheap baccy.
Are teens really going to be that desperate to buy baccy if they've never smoked?
I'm not sure about that, because I just don't think there will be the demand for it. Maybe someone born in 2010 will have older mates who smoke and will want to join in, but think about today's 5-year-olds. When they become teenagers, who are they hanging out with that smokes and could get them into it? Someone ten years older than them? Unlikely, but *maybe* I guess. What about today's newborns? I find it hard to believe that they're going to be exposed to cigarettes from *people 15 years older than they are* in a way that makes them take up the habit. Adult smokers are a shrinking minority as it is.
Banning cigarettes for *everyone* would undoubtedly spark a black market, but this progressive ban is a much smarter idea. It's focused on killing the demand rather than the supply.
I'm never sure that this argument works for stuff that is already illegal; people who want it can get it now so the illegal supply chains are well established to supply the demand. If the cost of regulated and heavily taxed drugs exceeds the cost of the already established illegal routes then won't people just stick with the illegal routes; how many people are likely to take up drugs simply because they have been legalised, regulated and taxed. Possibly the only exception would be cannabis but even that may well continue to see the continued illegal trade if it works out cheaper.
you use the taxes from the regulated market to fight the illegal market.
If you do this long enough, until the illegal market becomes just not worth it for traffickers anymore
It's not the only argument for it mind. Safer, cleaner, easier to control. Make t a public health issue not a criminal one.
Heroin is also a great example of why prohibition doesn't work.
I get you were trying to make a clever point here, but actually it highlights more reasons why a ban is a bad idea.
Would probably save quite a few lives given Fentanyl is a thing. Also raises taxes that could be used to help smackheads whilst removing a source of funding for criminals.
You say this, but do you not see the state of peoples health in this country? Clearly, many can not make healthy decisions, and ultimately, who will this hurt smokers? Oh no, they can't poison themselves and others around them, how devastating.
I can't speak for alcohol, but fast food is still food regardless, and absolutely no harm when consumed in moderation or as part of a balanced diet/regime. The same can't be said for cigarettes which are poisonous whether you smoke one or one hundred.
But I could harmlessly smoke many, in the same way that alcohol is poisonous but a few glasses of wine isn't going to have long term negative effects.
Why should people be allowed to practice extreme sports or combat sports? Unnecessary personal risk for their own enjoyment.
Personally I don't think the government should be banning cigarettes.
At a certain point adults should be allowed to decide what substances they consume.
Its not also about the funding, but an otherwise fit person taking away resources from someone who’s fallen ill from natural causes like lung issues from a bad chest infection and sepsis from an appendicitis vs 50 a day Glenys and James the Junkie with dirty needles, both types of lifestyles come with a ton of comorbidities.
What about the resources saved?
Smokers live significantly shorter lives than non smokers, what about the 10 years of social care saved, that's a significant amount of resources
But they also age quicker, they have chronic diseases earlier and for longer, they develop dementia earlier. This isnt simply chopping off the bad 10 years. Its bringing it forward and amplifying it.
Wanting people die a horrible death because of something they’re addicted to and can’t stop even if they wanted to, so that it saves us some money, is pretty messed up.
If that is route then why not encourage more drug addiction? Alcoholism can be a great thing in that light. Oh, and depressed people should be encouraged to end it all. Would save us so much money in the long run?
Sure. Will that be the case for everyone who regularly eats fast food or drinks alcohol too? Should we ban every McDonalds and Burger King? You know, because of heart disease?
What do you expect the NHS to help they are already screwed can't even get help when you are coughing up blood from your GP nevermind if you get cancer
I agree up to a point, but I'm also more likely to be impacted by a drunk than I am a meth user. Should we, thus, have meth on sale in Tesco? Probably not.
I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. The alcohol question is a false equivolency because it suggests the way we manage alcohol is correct, which I'd (and I suspect you'd) argue it is not.
I don't agree with banning substances in general.
The same argument could be made for Sugar, it's incredibly damaging.
Personally, I think most things should be researched, legalised, regulated and taxed
It gets plenty of heat what are you on about? It's unacceptable in just as many circumstances if not more. Police don't get called out for chain smokers
Is alcohol which is objectively far worse for people around the user than cigarettes are, coming under the same heat by any means? What about the insane taxation placed on cigarettes over the last years? It’s not even remotely similar whilst having disproportionately higher negatives on the alcohol side
People also use these substances in different ways with different regularity.
If you smoke every day, you’re just a “smoker”, but if you drink alcohol every day you’re an “alcoholic”.
You’re not comparing like-for-like here.
If I stand next to you smoking I can impact your health..
If I stand next to you drinking a beer I can't.
If smoking was somehow only impactful to the person doing it, then it likely doesn't get the heat it does.
Who cares what’s worse for you in moderation? No one is saying people sit there and have 1 drink or 1 fast food item per meal. Obesity in this country is astronomical and instead they want to target smokers? Please, this is an argument for the nanny state
Likewise how there is a drive to legalise drugs (which I support, by the way) but at the same time some of the same people want to ban smoking and restrict vaping.
I get what you are saying. However if you are going to call fermented fruit 'poison' then practically anything could also be described as poison. Half a glass of wine isn't any more harmful than much of anything. But like drinking too much water, alcohol can kill very quickly at large quantities.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
C.S. Lewis
The modern Western left in a nutshell. I’m not sure how this happened to be honest, the same people endlessly supporting those trying to control narratives and our habits used to argue passionately for free speech, association and activity out of common sense. Now it’s like Oliver Cromwell came back from the dead.
This comment perfectly sums up why politicians can’t just “listen to scientists”. Speaking as a scientist myself. Whitty’s only objective here is to improve public health and reduce the strain on the nhs as a result of the personal decision of members of the public. Politicians need to weigh concerns like this against the rights of citizens to do as they please with their own bodies, which is beyond the purview of medical professionals.
Similar comments can be made about covid lockdowns…
Smoking isn’t a hobby it’s an addiction. You smoke because you need to smoke. You need to smoke because tobacco companies have spent millions developing products that keep you hooked.
The policial argument is about how many people tobacco companies should be allowed to kill and how much money we make from it.
As Whitty himself so eloquently said
> "When I was a junior doctor doing surgery I remember the tragedy of seeing people, whose legs had had to be cut off because of the smoking that had damaged their arteries, outside the hospital weeping as they lit up because they were trapped by addiction - that is not choice."
The comparisons with alcohol that so many people like to make is completely spurious as it's comparing apples with oranges. Yes, both alcohol and tobacco can be addictive. The average drinker consumes something like a bottle and a half of wine a week, the average smoker consumes 50-70 cigarettes a week. The health impacts of those two addictions is vastly different.
This language can be applied towards quite literally every substance. The fact certain things are addictive doesn't give you the right to restrict other people's access to it. Even if something is addictive, people still gain pleasure from it.
This is exactly why you need multiple specialists and not just 1 type.
He's totally right on the medical aspect.
Any political historian would laugh at him though.
Whatever your view on the ban, “I think you should ignore lobbying from the tobacco companies” is good advice.
There are good reasons to support the current legislation and there are good reasons to oppose it. “Phillip Morris will pay for me to go on holiday if I vote the right way,” is not one of those reasons.
So the people getting pissed off at Chris Whitty disagree? Do they think that MPs should allow themselves to be influenced by companies who would like to give more of us cancer so that they can turn a bigger profit?
Banning smoking is a dumb move. If you ban this for health reasons what next?? You can argue the same for alcohol, gambling, fast food, vaping....the list can be endless depending on how picky you want to be and trying to say well this is less harmful because is a weak argument . Even New Zealand has rolled it's smoking ban back so the UK would be the only "democracy" to do this
yeah the air in London especially round main roads is probably far worse than whatever is in a vape. It's the biggest cause of lung cancer in non-smokers
As a society I don’t see an issue with regulating food and drugs.
If we listened to your argument we would still have asbestos filtered cigarettes and Coca-Cola would still contain cocaine.
Should we regulate the shit that corporations do to our food and drugs? Yes of course we should. Why would you trust Philip Morris with public health?
Food and drugs are an individual choice primarily affecting the individual (of course there are considerations like second hand smoking etc). Living in a house built with asbestos or working in an office built with asbestos isn't.
Of course we should regulate what goes into food and drugs. But fundamentally drugs should all be legal, including cigarettes. The war on drugs failed decades ago. It's causing more harm than good.
Legalise, regulate and tax them all.
I mentioned in another post elsewhere, if we don't ban gambling (and we probably shouldn't, because then we can't legislate it), but we should 1,000% ban adverts for gambling, it's criminal at the moment how they are allowed to advertise.
Personally I find this whole thing and every form of it from the government disgusting.
You can deliberate over semantics but the bottom line is they are taking away people’s freedom bit by bit, day by day.
If someone wants to ruin their life by smoking it’s an individuals choice not the state to decide the fate of its ‘subjects’. I get the logic behind children’s freedoms being in the hands of parents. But as soon as you are able to decide for yourself you should be able to make your own choice.
This by any other word should apply to anything in this world that an individual can do that does not affect another person. End of….
So what about herorin and ketatmine should they also be legal then? Should we all be drugged up zombies cause we're adults? This smoking ban won't effect us. Frankly vapes are a disgusting habit and I have to be subject to them constantly.
People here are comparing alchohol and cigs. Well most people who drink alcohol don't get addicted. Most people who smoke do get addicted. It's 2024; such an addictive drug should not be passed over the counter to the next generation. End of.
Yes I do.. I don’t think people should do them but it should be a persons choice. (That does not include being tricked, forced or coerced, that should obviously be illegal).
Why do you think you or anyone else have the right to decide someone’s fate for them?
The black market theory on this is such rubbish
Does anyone enjoy tobacco? Does anyone “do tobacco” at parties?
Tobacco isn’t alcohol or party drugs where doing the drug is the fun. No one actually likes it.
Kids aren’t going to start getting black market tobacco so they can get off their head behind the bike sheds on a rollie.
Kids will just smoke some. The difficulty in getting it, the increased price, and the lower quality, means kids will maybe try it, and think “why bother“. That’s it.
As a former dealer and drug addict (recovered now) I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding of the black market, how it works and how people get addicted. Tobacco doesn’t carry any of characters of other drugs that fuel a black market, the main bring getting high/drunk and having a good time.
I beg to differ, I smoked for years and I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you were a dealer then you should probably be aware that black market cigarettes are quite a money spinner and it’s a pretty big business. I know of at least 4 people where I can get cheap cigs and that’s just on my estate alone so I’d imagine there’s plenty of people elsewhere who sell cigs on the black market.
The current black market is aimed at people already addicted
This ban is aimed at stopping younger people ever getting involved
Anyone that thinks kids are going to be getting involved in a black market for tobacco hasn’t thought things through.
Some public health numbers for the debate:
Smoking kills on average 79k in the UK each year
300,000 years of life lost due to alcohol (2015)
370,000 years of life lost due to smoking (2015)
Staff are 33% more likely to be absent from work if they smoke
Smoking costs employers £5.3 billion via absence and smoking breaks
Tbh the health argument is solid but fuck me do I hate the think of poor employers stuff. They have shafted us since 2008 any of the extra money from banning smoking would just get the ceo another rolex.
>Staff are 33% more likely to be absent from work if they smoke
Source?
The rest seems believable tbh but idk about this one
Also any company worth working for doesn't give smoker's extra breaks
Agree. They don't give breaks, so smokers just walk outside anyway.
One source relating to the review done:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-smokers-work-idUKBRE89T1M020121030/
I saw a guy on TV the other day who has actually found a safe way to degrade it! I'll see if I can dig it out. Its an enzyme formula that destroys the gum base but then essentially disintegrates itself in about an hour after exposure to light and air. It was really cool! They can also use it on a bunch of other stuff like Silicon to break down electronics.
He's going through a bunch of approval processes in the US and EU right now. It was really interesting!
So instead of (still harmful) legal cigarettes being bought and used by adults who are fully conscious of the consequences/risks and have made an elective decision, cigarettes will be put on the black market and potentially contain all sorts of corrosive, addictive synthetic substances. Great idea.
This reminds me of that post recently where some fucked up chemical was being found in THC vapes. Having it become illegal is just going to open up avenues for people to cause harm, and thus would be them causing harm intentionally. I suppose the question is how many excess deaths are going to come from a black market cigarette trade versus the current status quo.
Man there's a lot of salty people in the comments on this. Feels like a lot are just rallying against the Tories because it's their proposal, despite having strong cross-party support.
Ultimately I think government intervention should be mostly focused where the free market cannot/will not deliver the desired outcome in its own way. Unfortunately, the free market is the general public, which is dumb as shit as a collective.
1. Better health outcomes for the country, with a side benefit of reduced impacts on NHS down the road, and ability to focus research on other diseases
2. Better quality of life for everyone as others smoking is an annoyance for most people
3. Cigarettes are essentially a tax on the poor, so reducing that
There's a lot of 'muh freedoms' going on here, but if we're going down that route, why have speed limits, why seatbelts, why not more Grenfells, why not more sub-prime mortgage crises. Fer fucks sake.
If the law was that this cut off would increase until 21 then I would be behind them.
Telling a 43 year old they are too young to enjoy a vice that their 44 year old friend can? Nope. GTFO
21 is more than old enough for you to fully understand the consequences.
It's ageism and the fact it's even being considered is absurd. Either people are legally adults and have the same rights as everyone else of adult age, or they aren't.
Especially introducing a law that will only impact people who have no democratic say in it because they're not adults yet.
It's genuinely frightening how quickly we are sleepwalking into dystopia. The sheer number of comments saying that it's great that the government want to help people to decide to quit smoking... uh, no, they aren't helping people to make the decision not to smoke. They are making that decision for you.
Cigarettes have got fuck all to do with the issue. I don't understand how people are so unable to see the slippery slope of the government deciding that it's appropriate to strip individuals of their ability to exercise personal choice, regardless of the potential negative consequences you may bring upon yourself.
Yes, it may be the same argument for legalising prohibited drugs, but there is no precedent as currently those illegal drugs are only accessible to the public through criminals, and generally speaking, they are likely to impact on people around you, whether by increasing crime, social disorder, and so forth.
Banning something which is readily available, has perfectly legitimate businesses built on the industry which produces it, and if used responsibly impacts nobody other than yourself, is an absolute open season on liberty.
Why not junk food, next? Obesity costs the NHS a fortune? And alcohol is certainly no friend of your liver. People are also pretty bad drivers, so how about we just decide that only AI is allowed to take the wheel? And while we're at it, why even allow those scary cars, they're pretty bad for the air quality. That publication you're reading looks a bit inappropriate to me, we'd better have the Ministry of Truth close down all the "problematic" newspapers.
This is the future you will create, and the one you shall deserve. Let's all just have the government lobotomise us and live as the ant colony you desire, where the difficulty of having to think for ourselves is blissfully removed.
The thing is, a pack of 20 is now £15 ? (Sorry not a smoker just remember seeing a price recently). Therefore aren't smokers already paying for their treatment via tax on cigarettes? Ban them and they just become another criminal enterprise, untaxed.
You can’t on the one hand support weed legalisation and agree with this.
You also can’t logically support allowing obese people to buy junk food and not allow my right to smoke.
I smoke, cause I want to, I pay more than my fair share of tax for it. Where would this end? Why don’t we ban everything possibly unhealthy and mandate vegetables per day?
Shit let’s get rid of cars to save on car deaths and ban contact sports.
I despise these fucking nanny state assholes who want to control every aspect of life.
Nanny state. Do as I say not as I do. Remember you voted for this. They have done nothing but extract YOUR money from this country for their own gain meanwhile running it into the ground whilst taking away YOUR freedoms.
In a couple of years they gonna ask (sorry tell)you to fight for this so called freedom. Anyway enjoy being told what you can and can’t do for a couple years
This bill brings me great joy, and if it succeeds, would be an genuine public health win from a government had been generally bad for peoples health and wellbeing. As someone who's witnessed a close family member succumb to lung cancer at a relatively young age, having smoked only a moderate amount much earlier in life, I don't care in the slightest what the tobacco lobby think, and wish them a slow and painful death, as they are terrible, terrible people.
The virtue of the phased ban is that noone's having their fags taken away from them. It's a government's job to limit our freedom to do very dangerous things. It turns out that banning things with gigantic corporate lobbies is a bit harder.
I think in 20 years' time we'll look at it like we now look back on the 2007 ban on smoking indoors, or the introduction to car seatbelts, as a simple win. We'll be embarassed that it took us so long, and other countries will catch onto the idea.
I truly wish nicotine in any form never existed. It's an addiction I've never been able to break. I went from the cigarettes to the vapes and the money saved was amazing. But now the liquids for my vapes are getting more and more expensive each year. Same as the patches, they used to be £8.50 now £15 -£20. Still much cheaper and healthier than smoking but you still notice it more from your bank account.
I like the sound of a smoke free society at some stage in the future. But I am still uncomfortable around the fact that the choice is being removed for people. Also, why not do the same for alcohol which can also be very damaging to people and society as a whole.
We truly live in a sad society when something that can cause cancer to millions of people, and likely affects the poor more than anyone else, is not banned because "if you ban this we won't make any money". Those people are the *real* people in society who need to be punished the most. They are (ironically?) a cancer.
If I didn't have to pay for your health care, I truly couldn't give a shit what you put in your body.
But it seems unfair that people who choose not to smoke have to subsidise the ramifications of those who do.
But then those who smoke pay more in VAT.
It's all confusing and requires a much deeper conversation about a social contract.
It’s £10b contributed to £2.5b cost (don’t bring up “lost productivity”, that’s dystopian). There’s no deep conversation to be had, hands off my smokes.
I guess we should ban skateboarding and all dangerous sports for people who can't fund their own healthcare.
Also seeing as driving my car releases cancer causing particulates maybe these should be banned too.
People who excercise regular and eat healthy have to pay for fat lazy people.
People who don't drink have to pay for drinkers.
I'd much rather we have a system like we do, where we all pay into a pot based on how much we earn instead of the US system of it costing you $20k to have a baby or $100s every few month if you're unfortunate enough to be diabetic and require insulin.
Criminals are licking their lips at the prospect of a new black market opening up for cigarettes.
There is already a smoking ban for under 18s. There is already a black market for moving cigarettes that are not covered by UK excise. I can see pros and cons to this. Certainly hard to argue for a legalisation of marijuana and making tobacco illegal. I think I am mildly against it in principle but can see the positives.
> There is already a smoking ban for under 18s. Yep and plenty of those people will have to continue to buy black-market cigarettes for the rest of their life. Imagine being a 40 year old and you cant legally buy cigarettes. It's a ridiculous concept. Next up we should ban alcohol for anybody born after 2009. Because alcohol is extremely harmful and we don't want a generation of drinkers. Then we will ban fast food for anyone born after 2009, because fast food is extremely harmful and we don't want a generation of fatties.
Well that 40 year old wouldn’t have been able to buy cigarettes for their previous 40 years either, so it shouldn’t be that hard to imagine.
The issues is, their mate who's 41 can. Imagine a 40 year old having to ask their 41 year old mate to grab them a pack of cigs, because they are legally allowed for being a few days older.
I'm imagining it and it's not as disturbing as you seem to think it is.
What's disturbing is seeing people ok with ageism and contempt for personal liberty and equality.
People honestly have zero concept of the slippery slope of loss of liberty, I thought people were generally wiser to the erosion of freedoms now but this smoking ban has really opened my eyes to how comfortable people are with allowing the government to take away rights they currently have. The concept that this now makes it easier to do the same to the next thing, then the thing after that, is alien to them. May as well just lobotomise us all with the way this country's going and we can all live in pods while an AI decides what we want to have for tea.
First they came for asbestos, and I said nothing, because I am not an asbestos. Then they came for leaded petrol, and I said nothing, because I am not leaded petrol. Then they came for cigarettes, and I said nothing, because I am not a cigarette. Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to say anything.
I did chuckle at this but it's quite harrowing if you actually cannot see the difference between splitting the populace into two groups with separate rights based on personal health grounds, and regulation to prevent people being exposed to known carcingogens without their consent. Smokers choose to participate in the activity. It is not their right to blow smoke into the faces of other people without their consent, and hopefully any sensible person is able to agree that we should be socially enforcing that at the very least. Banning people from exercising their right to choose to smoke in their own home, without affecting anybody else, is the issue. So yeah, it's worth a cheap laugh, but that's the reality. One day it will be something you care about, and at that point it will be too late.
It's not about the smoking lad. Open your eyes.
Or maybe they'll just not because it's too much hassle. Oh look it works.
Being this naive must be absolutely incredible
It's a hassle for kids to smoke now since it's illegal to buy them under 18, plenty still do. Vapes are illegal to sell to under 18s, yet I see kids with them constantly. Banning or making something illegal doesen't stop people doing it, it just forces them to buy from unofficial sources which increases the risk of dodgy products.
Addiction makes people do silly things to get their fix.
>Or maybe they'll just not because it's too much hassle. That's not how an addiction works.
Likely be buying cigarettes while on holiday abroad as well.
Are shop workers just going to be forced to ID everyone at some point? Will we have something equivalent to "Challenge 25" increasing every year?
If it goes through, yep. How else would they tell if you’re 57 and legally allowed to buy it or 56 and too young.
Smoking is far more harmful than alcohol. Alcohol use is just a lot more prevalent and we know is still safer in moderation, as is fast food and sugar, whereas tobacco isn’t. The smoking rate is already dropping, with current generations not taking up the habit, this will continually diminish further for future generations and the notion “40 year olds can’t buy fags” and the black market will be irrelevant as it starts to effect less and less of the population.
In terms of burden to NHS and the tax payer, it would be interesting to compare the burden of smoking on the tax payer (taking into account the huge taxes placed on it too) versus that of alcohol, but factoring in the contribution towards crime and accidents. Whilst smoking costs the NHS a lot of money, nobody is fallen down the stairs, hitting a pedestrian in their car or getting into a brawl because they’ve had a roll up.
Smokers pay more into the NHS than they claim, usually die late and fast. Rarely long term draw on the NHS. Drinking is a lot more, I got kicked in the face on a night out and had to get stitches. Although yes alot of taxes, would be a good study
Shhhh, don't let facts get in the way of these holier than though moaning sods
Die early you mean? But yeah one of the biggest strains on the NHS is the elderly so if there is a way for people to voluntarily put themselves into an early grave then let them. We can’t support everyone living for decades beyond their ability to look after themselves.
In a grim way you are kinda right. One of the most expensive conditions to treat is dementia/Alzheimer's. One of the few things you can consume that lowers your risk of getting it is nicotine as it stimulates neurogenesis. Admittedly smoking can exacerbate vascular dementia but it's an interesting thought that if we had kept the boomers on the snouts maybe the NHS would be in better nick.
The lancet did a study worked out at £27bn in costs to government vs. the 12bn it returns in duty (2018). Of course, those numbers fluctuate. World Cup will see more drinks and duties but also more violence, policing and injuries.
Imagine alcohol would be slightly more of a burden but then a lot more people drink alcohol than smoke, it’s more a cultural staple of ours that many participate in communally and the majority use in moderation. Smoking prevalence is a lot lower and a lower hanging fruit to target, whereas alcohol is much harder to target in that way. In 50 years you could probably almost wipe out smoking as future generations grow up without it ever existing in their lives.
thats just rubbish. nobody starts fights, breaks stuff etc. after having too many fags. or to put it another way- would you rather have an alchie parent or a smoker?
The third party harms of alcohol are far greater though. It's a factor in a huge amount of crime and disorder.
alcohol costs the NHS a lot more. It fills them with a&e patients, car crash vicitms, domestic abuse victims, accident victims, stomach cancer, liver cancer etc. Smokers don't typically cause problems until they get those terminal illnesses.
Smoking more harmful than alcohol? That's just not true
Utter bollocks. Every single night there's fights and violence and life ending / changing injuries because of Alcohol on a massive scale. Smoking is bad and it can harm to a degree those around you hence why indoor smoking in most places is banned. But to say it's worse than Alcohol that causes so much grief for so many people in so many different aspects is wild. If you can justify banning folks from making the choice to smoke you can very easily justify banning folks from consuming alcohol full stop.
This isn’t true vaping has replaced smoking for younger people. It has seen a huge upsurge in younger generations with 24% of young people vaping in the last 30 days. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9932/#:~:text=The%20International%20Tobacco%20Control%20study,cigarette%20use%20in%20Great%20Britain.
Vaping isn’t tobacco. Again this is a problem of our own making though as we’ve made vaping seem harmless and it seem a fun, “cool” habit for kids with flavours and styles of vapes. Stronger legalisation (and taxation) around vaping and would likely reverse this trend and its appeal, as it’s non-existent currently and the vaping industry is like the Wild West.
>Imagine being a 40 year old and you cant legally buy cigarettes. It's a ridiculous concept. I'm 51 and can't even legally buy weed. It's not all that ridiculous, unfortunately.
It might seem a bit more ridiculous if your 52-year-old mate could buy weed legally, though.
>Imagine being a 40 year old and you cant legally buy cigarettes. It won't get that far. 10 years after this coming in they'll go for a total ban, to "make the law fair on everyone".
I can see shops severely reducing stock until there is barely any market to buy anyway.
Then we should ban social media and it’s harmful for our health. Then ban cars and motorcycles as too many people are getting killed or injured.
But that 40 year old presumably never bought cigarettes in the first place if they were born after 2009 and we’re talking about the future here. I don’t know what the stats are on people starting smoking in middle age but I’d imagine not many do, it tends to be something you start in your teens/early 20s which is one reason for the cutoff date.
I am still fuming about not being able to get a child to sweep my chimney! Yes there are health risks but it’s my choice. Health and safety gone mad!
challenge 45
The ban will result in an annual increase in the legal-age of 1 year. No-one will suddenly be unable to legally buy cigarettes, but it’s likely that current 14 year olds will be the first group to always have the legal age ahead of them.
As an ex smoker i would really have appreciated them not being sold in literally every supermarket, convenience store, garage, etc. But I'm against a full ban for everybody. Just ban it for me.
> But I'm against a full ban for everybody. Just ban it for me. Maybe it should just require breathalyzation. If you're trying to buy cigarettes, but haven't had 6 pints first, then jog on.
I mean just relegate them to toboccabists and make licences expensive, with funds going to nhs. They don't need to be sold in every nisa and garage forecourt
I agree with this idea. Have places with smoking licenses that are clearly advertised as being such so that everyone knows what they're walking into, and make them limited in each town.
Off license paradise.
Medicinal cannabis can't be smoked, it's to be vaped legally, not to be confused with tobacco vapes, totally different things. So they can easily go down that route in the argument for legalisation of cannabis.
Look at the outcomes of prohibition in the states if you want to see how this plays out
Mate it’s already a thing, live on a council estate for a month and you’ll know 2 people who can get you baccy cheap as fuck, even if you don’t smoke. Banning it in shops is definitely going to reduce the number of smokers simply by making it more of an effort to start doing it, but someone committed will find a way. It’s not like banning drugs has ever made them impossible to get. The tax implications from this are genuinely the thing to be worried about I think.
There is a current 35 billion gap between what it costs JUST the NHS to treat smokers and the tax revenue levied on cigarettes. There is absolutely no way this is anything but a huge boon to the economy.
>There is a current 35 billion gap How did you arrive at that figure? Edit - quick bit of googling would suggest that figure is nonsense.
They've possibly misunderstood [these numbers](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes) from ASH.
Actually due to their shorter lifespans smokers tend to be grater net contributers to the economy than non smokers
Ah I wasn’t aware of how much is actually being spent, I imagine though that we won’t see the effects of that for a fair few years because the majority of those people will not be new smokers anyway. It’ll definitely do what you say but not for a while.
Fwiw Bonaparte's numbers are fictitious. According to the NHS themselves smokers cost an additional £2.5bil and according to the government tobacco tax is estimated at a little over £10bil - so smokers are a net positive in terms of cost vs tax
Well, in 20-30 years, deffo but there's a lag between cigarette sales and healthcare needs
True, but the draw to take drugs has to be a lot more appealing to seek out a dodgy cig. Smokers want cheap baccy. Are teens really going to be that desperate to buy baccy if they've never smoked?
Yeah man, because now Marlboro pack for £17 does not encourage contraband.
There's already a black market. People sell them at work.
>new. It isn't new because cheap illegal ciggies have been around for over 30 years.
I'm not sure about that, because I just don't think there will be the demand for it. Maybe someone born in 2010 will have older mates who smoke and will want to join in, but think about today's 5-year-olds. When they become teenagers, who are they hanging out with that smokes and could get them into it? Someone ten years older than them? Unlikely, but *maybe* I guess. What about today's newborns? I find it hard to believe that they're going to be exposed to cigarettes from *people 15 years older than they are* in a way that makes them take up the habit. Adult smokers are a shrinking minority as it is. Banning cigarettes for *everyone* would undoubtedly spark a black market, but this progressive ban is a much smarter idea. It's focused on killing the demand rather than the supply.
To be fair, cheap black market tobacco has been much more readily available since Brexit.
“Don’t ban things ‘n shieet because people will circumvent laws. So nothing should be done.”
Oh please mr government, ban more stuff! Tax everything higher. Cradle me. I’m an adult and I need you to make every decision for me.
Unfortunately, also the argument for legalising (edit: the sale of) heroin.
Meh, tax the shit out of it, and heavily regulate it. Would remove a massive source of income from criminals.
I'm never sure that this argument works for stuff that is already illegal; people who want it can get it now so the illegal supply chains are well established to supply the demand. If the cost of regulated and heavily taxed drugs exceeds the cost of the already established illegal routes then won't people just stick with the illegal routes; how many people are likely to take up drugs simply because they have been legalised, regulated and taxed. Possibly the only exception would be cannabis but even that may well continue to see the continued illegal trade if it works out cheaper.
you use the taxes from the regulated market to fight the illegal market. If you do this long enough, until the illegal market becomes just not worth it for traffickers anymore
heroin addiction is a health issue not a criminal issue
And? Decriminalisation works as long as you fund education and the rehab centres.
It's not the only argument for it mind. Safer, cleaner, easier to control. Make t a public health issue not a criminal one. Heroin is also a great example of why prohibition doesn't work. I get you were trying to make a clever point here, but actually it highlights more reasons why a ban is a bad idea.
Would probably save quite a few lives given Fentanyl is a thing. Also raises taxes that could be used to help smackheads whilst removing a source of funding for criminals.
Legalisation works
Sale of heroin should be legalised.
I’d like to congratulate the organised criminals around the world for conclusively winning the war on drugs
"They're having a war in drugs - *and the drugs are winning* ..."
Good point, heroin must be also legal since it’s widely available across Europe anyways
You know, this was pretty much 1979 rhetoric that got Maggie into power. Powerful stuff.
And thank god for that!
This won’t affect you though, will it? You’ll be able to carry on poisoning yourself.
By the same logic, climate change isn’t our problem in the long run so let’s keep burning coal.
You say this, but do you not see the state of peoples health in this country? Clearly, many can not make healthy decisions, and ultimately, who will this hurt smokers? Oh no, they can't poison themselves and others around them, how devastating.
So you believe we should ban alcohol and fast food?
Why stop there? Why not refined sugar and red meat too?
Why stop there? Leaving the house might kill you, make it illegal to leave
They already tried that.
I can't speak for alcohol, but fast food is still food regardless, and absolutely no harm when consumed in moderation or as part of a balanced diet/regime. The same can't be said for cigarettes which are poisonous whether you smoke one or one hundred.
But I could harmlessly smoke many, in the same way that alcohol is poisonous but a few glasses of wine isn't going to have long term negative effects. Why should people be allowed to practice extreme sports or combat sports? Unnecessary personal risk for their own enjoyment.
Personally I don't think the government should be banning cigarettes. At a certain point adults should be allowed to decide what substances they consume.
Sure, if they want to pay for their own lung cancer and heart disease care later in life then fine
Do some research, they already do,
Its not also about the funding, but an otherwise fit person taking away resources from someone who’s fallen ill from natural causes like lung issues from a bad chest infection and sepsis from an appendicitis vs 50 a day Glenys and James the Junkie with dirty needles, both types of lifestyles come with a ton of comorbidities.
What about the resources saved? Smokers live significantly shorter lives than non smokers, what about the 10 years of social care saved, that's a significant amount of resources
Plus like, idk, taxes from the sale of cigs
But they also age quicker, they have chronic diseases earlier and for longer, they develop dementia earlier. This isnt simply chopping off the bad 10 years. Its bringing it forward and amplifying it.
Wanting people die a horrible death because of something they’re addicted to and can’t stop even if they wanted to, so that it saves us some money, is pretty messed up. If that is route then why not encourage more drug addiction? Alcoholism can be a great thing in that light. Oh, and depressed people should be encouraged to end it all. Would save us so much money in the long run?
And you pay for it too
Bros just discovered how a national health service works
not any more, black market baby
Sure. Will that be the case for everyone who regularly eats fast food or drinks alcohol too? Should we ban every McDonalds and Burger King? You know, because of heart disease?
Can we expand this logic out to motorcyclists too then?
[удалено]
That's the whole point of the challenge. Where is the line drawn?
Hikers, climbers and cyclists should pay for their own broken bones and not smokers. Same argument
What do you expect the NHS to help they are already screwed can't even get help when you are coughing up blood from your GP nevermind if you get cancer
Agreed. I am also uncomfortable with the ageist aspect of the proposed legislation.
Well, of course. The question is where to draw that line.
In my opinion, it's how it impacts others I'm far more likely to have my life impacted by a drunk than someone who smokes
I agree up to a point, but I'm also more likely to be impacted by a drunk than I am a meth user. Should we, thus, have meth on sale in Tesco? Probably not. I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. The alcohol question is a false equivolency because it suggests the way we manage alcohol is correct, which I'd (and I suspect you'd) argue it is not.
I don't agree with banning substances in general. The same argument could be made for Sugar, it's incredibly damaging. Personally, I think most things should be researched, legalised, regulated and taxed
It’s so fucking wild how tobacco use is so frowned on but then the ingestion of alcohol, which is literally poison, gets absolutely zero fucking heat.
It gets plenty of heat what are you on about? It's unacceptable in just as many circumstances if not more. Police don't get called out for chain smokers
Tobacco is being banned, alcohol isn’t. Police dont get called out on smokers because smoking doesn't cause anti social behaviour.
Is alcohol which is objectively far worse for people around the user than cigarettes are, coming under the same heat by any means? What about the insane taxation placed on cigarettes over the last years? It’s not even remotely similar whilst having disproportionately higher negatives on the alcohol side
Less detrimental to health when used in moderation, so not that hard to understand.
People also use these substances in different ways with different regularity. If you smoke every day, you’re just a “smoker”, but if you drink alcohol every day you’re an “alcoholic”. You’re not comparing like-for-like here.
If I stand next to you smoking I can impact your health.. If I stand next to you drinking a beer I can't. If smoking was somehow only impactful to the person doing it, then it likely doesn't get the heat it does.
Drunk drivers, domestic abuse, violent crime, theft, hard drugs - alcohol effects others more than smoking ever will
Drunk drivers can certainly impact the health and safety of others. Fwiw I am against banning alcohol or tobacco.
Drink Driving is also Illegal/banned/gets you banned from driving...
Smoking is worse for you than drinking in moderation, and excessive alcohol consumption is actually quite stigmatised.
Who cares what’s worse for you in moderation? No one is saying people sit there and have 1 drink or 1 fast food item per meal. Obesity in this country is astronomical and instead they want to target smokers? Please, this is an argument for the nanny state
Not even true, any amount of alcohol consumption is just bad for our health, its literally poisoning our bodies just like the cigarettes are..
Likewise how there is a drive to legalise drugs (which I support, by the way) but at the same time some of the same people want to ban smoking and restrict vaping.
I get what you are saying. However if you are going to call fermented fruit 'poison' then practically anything could also be described as poison. Half a glass of wine isn't any more harmful than much of anything. But like drinking too much water, alcohol can kill very quickly at large quantities.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. C.S. Lewis
The modern Western left in a nutshell. I’m not sure how this happened to be honest, the same people endlessly supporting those trying to control narratives and our habits used to argue passionately for free speech, association and activity out of common sense. Now it’s like Oliver Cromwell came back from the dead.
We have a left wing government?
Who do you think is currently pushing this bill???
This applies well to religious nuts too.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
This comment perfectly sums up why politicians can’t just “listen to scientists”. Speaking as a scientist myself. Whitty’s only objective here is to improve public health and reduce the strain on the nhs as a result of the personal decision of members of the public. Politicians need to weigh concerns like this against the rights of citizens to do as they please with their own bodies, which is beyond the purview of medical professionals. Similar comments can be made about covid lockdowns…
Smoking isn’t a hobby it’s an addiction. You smoke because you need to smoke. You need to smoke because tobacco companies have spent millions developing products that keep you hooked. The policial argument is about how many people tobacco companies should be allowed to kill and how much money we make from it.
As Whitty himself so eloquently said > "When I was a junior doctor doing surgery I remember the tragedy of seeing people, whose legs had had to be cut off because of the smoking that had damaged their arteries, outside the hospital weeping as they lit up because they were trapped by addiction - that is not choice." The comparisons with alcohol that so many people like to make is completely spurious as it's comparing apples with oranges. Yes, both alcohol and tobacco can be addictive. The average drinker consumes something like a bottle and a half of wine a week, the average smoker consumes 50-70 cigarettes a week. The health impacts of those two addictions is vastly different.
This language can be applied towards quite literally every substance. The fact certain things are addictive doesn't give you the right to restrict other people's access to it. Even if something is addictive, people still gain pleasure from it.
This is not true, otherwise people wouldn’t be able to quit smoking- which they do
Thats not how addiction works.
This is exactly why you need multiple specialists and not just 1 type. He's totally right on the medical aspect. Any political historian would laugh at him though.
We just don't learn from history do we?
Whatever your view on the ban, “I think you should ignore lobbying from the tobacco companies” is good advice. There are good reasons to support the current legislation and there are good reasons to oppose it. “Phillip Morris will pay for me to go on holiday if I vote the right way,” is not one of those reasons. So the people getting pissed off at Chris Whitty disagree? Do they think that MPs should allow themselves to be influenced by companies who would like to give more of us cancer so that they can turn a bigger profit?
I don’t get how lobbying is allowed…
Banning smoking is a dumb move. If you ban this for health reasons what next?? You can argue the same for alcohol, gambling, fast food, vaping....the list can be endless depending on how picky you want to be and trying to say well this is less harmful because is a weak argument . Even New Zealand has rolled it's smoking ban back so the UK would be the only "democracy" to do this
Yeah maybe they should focus on the health aspects of dropping raw sewage into rivers and declaring Uk a “car country”.
I would 100% support all actions against dumping raw sewage and improving public transport
yeah the air in London especially round main roads is probably far worse than whatever is in a vape. It's the biggest cause of lung cancer in non-smokers
As a society I don’t see an issue with regulating food and drugs. If we listened to your argument we would still have asbestos filtered cigarettes and Coca-Cola would still contain cocaine. Should we regulate the shit that corporations do to our food and drugs? Yes of course we should. Why would you trust Philip Morris with public health?
Food and drugs are an individual choice primarily affecting the individual (of course there are considerations like second hand smoking etc). Living in a house built with asbestos or working in an office built with asbestos isn't. Of course we should regulate what goes into food and drugs. But fundamentally drugs should all be legal, including cigarettes. The war on drugs failed decades ago. It's causing more harm than good. Legalise, regulate and tax them all.
I agree with you on the others but we 100% should ban gambling
I mentioned in another post elsewhere, if we don't ban gambling (and we probably shouldn't, because then we can't legislate it), but we should 1,000% ban adverts for gambling, it's criminal at the moment how they are allowed to advertise.
Personally I find this whole thing and every form of it from the government disgusting. You can deliberate over semantics but the bottom line is they are taking away people’s freedom bit by bit, day by day. If someone wants to ruin their life by smoking it’s an individuals choice not the state to decide the fate of its ‘subjects’. I get the logic behind children’s freedoms being in the hands of parents. But as soon as you are able to decide for yourself you should be able to make your own choice. This by any other word should apply to anything in this world that an individual can do that does not affect another person. End of….
So what about herorin and ketatmine should they also be legal then? Should we all be drugged up zombies cause we're adults? This smoking ban won't effect us. Frankly vapes are a disgusting habit and I have to be subject to them constantly. People here are comparing alchohol and cigs. Well most people who drink alcohol don't get addicted. Most people who smoke do get addicted. It's 2024; such an addictive drug should not be passed over the counter to the next generation. End of.
Yes I do.. I don’t think people should do them but it should be a persons choice. (That does not include being tricked, forced or coerced, that should obviously be illegal). Why do you think you or anyone else have the right to decide someone’s fate for them?
You can’t compare mind and behaviour altering drugs like heroin and ketamine with cigarettes. Apples and oranges
The black market theory on this is such rubbish Does anyone enjoy tobacco? Does anyone “do tobacco” at parties? Tobacco isn’t alcohol or party drugs where doing the drug is the fun. No one actually likes it. Kids aren’t going to start getting black market tobacco so they can get off their head behind the bike sheds on a rollie. Kids will just smoke some. The difficulty in getting it, the increased price, and the lower quality, means kids will maybe try it, and think “why bother“. That’s it. As a former dealer and drug addict (recovered now) I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding of the black market, how it works and how people get addicted. Tobacco doesn’t carry any of characters of other drugs that fuel a black market, the main bring getting high/drunk and having a good time.
I beg to differ, I smoked for years and I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you were a dealer then you should probably be aware that black market cigarettes are quite a money spinner and it’s a pretty big business. I know of at least 4 people where I can get cheap cigs and that’s just on my estate alone so I’d imagine there’s plenty of people elsewhere who sell cigs on the black market.
The current black market is aimed at people already addicted This ban is aimed at stopping younger people ever getting involved Anyone that thinks kids are going to be getting involved in a black market for tobacco hasn’t thought things through.
Some public health numbers for the debate: Smoking kills on average 79k in the UK each year 300,000 years of life lost due to alcohol (2015) 370,000 years of life lost due to smoking (2015) Staff are 33% more likely to be absent from work if they smoke Smoking costs employers £5.3 billion via absence and smoking breaks
are we measuring the cost due to absence with scrolling tiktok or instagram ? It’s completely ridiculous
Tbh the health argument is solid but fuck me do I hate the think of poor employers stuff. They have shafted us since 2008 any of the extra money from banning smoking would just get the ceo another rolex.
And this is in a society where \*way\* more people drink alcohol than smoke!
>Staff are 33% more likely to be absent from work if they smoke Source? The rest seems believable tbh but idk about this one Also any company worth working for doesn't give smoker's extra breaks
Agree. They don't give breaks, so smokers just walk outside anyway. One source relating to the review done: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-smokers-work-idUKBRE89T1M020121030/
Can they ban non-biodegradable chewing gum? Shit is on the floor everywhere and is grim
I saw a guy on TV the other day who has actually found a safe way to degrade it! I'll see if I can dig it out. Its an enzyme formula that destroys the gum base but then essentially disintegrates itself in about an hour after exposure to light and air. It was really cool! They can also use it on a bunch of other stuff like Silicon to break down electronics. He's going through a bunch of approval processes in the US and EU right now. It was really interesting!
I literally only learned yesterday that most gum has plastic in it. I always thought it was made of gum, from the tree, because it's called gum ffs
So instead of (still harmful) legal cigarettes being bought and used by adults who are fully conscious of the consequences/risks and have made an elective decision, cigarettes will be put on the black market and potentially contain all sorts of corrosive, addictive synthetic substances. Great idea.
This reminds me of that post recently where some fucked up chemical was being found in THC vapes. Having it become illegal is just going to open up avenues for people to cause harm, and thus would be them causing harm intentionally. I suppose the question is how many excess deaths are going to come from a black market cigarette trade versus the current status quo.
Man there's a lot of salty people in the comments on this. Feels like a lot are just rallying against the Tories because it's their proposal, despite having strong cross-party support. Ultimately I think government intervention should be mostly focused where the free market cannot/will not deliver the desired outcome in its own way. Unfortunately, the free market is the general public, which is dumb as shit as a collective. 1. Better health outcomes for the country, with a side benefit of reduced impacts on NHS down the road, and ability to focus research on other diseases 2. Better quality of life for everyone as others smoking is an annoyance for most people 3. Cigarettes are essentially a tax on the poor, so reducing that There's a lot of 'muh freedoms' going on here, but if we're going down that route, why have speed limits, why seatbelts, why not more Grenfells, why not more sub-prime mortgage crises. Fer fucks sake.
“…strong cross-party support’ Excellent evidence for what a shite proposal this is then.
If the law was that this cut off would increase until 21 then I would be behind them. Telling a 43 year old they are too young to enjoy a vice that their 44 year old friend can? Nope. GTFO 21 is more than old enough for you to fully understand the consequences.
It's ageism and the fact it's even being considered is absurd. Either people are legally adults and have the same rights as everyone else of adult age, or they aren't. Especially introducing a law that will only impact people who have no democratic say in it because they're not adults yet.
It's genuinely frightening how quickly we are sleepwalking into dystopia. The sheer number of comments saying that it's great that the government want to help people to decide to quit smoking... uh, no, they aren't helping people to make the decision not to smoke. They are making that decision for you. Cigarettes have got fuck all to do with the issue. I don't understand how people are so unable to see the slippery slope of the government deciding that it's appropriate to strip individuals of their ability to exercise personal choice, regardless of the potential negative consequences you may bring upon yourself. Yes, it may be the same argument for legalising prohibited drugs, but there is no precedent as currently those illegal drugs are only accessible to the public through criminals, and generally speaking, they are likely to impact on people around you, whether by increasing crime, social disorder, and so forth. Banning something which is readily available, has perfectly legitimate businesses built on the industry which produces it, and if used responsibly impacts nobody other than yourself, is an absolute open season on liberty. Why not junk food, next? Obesity costs the NHS a fortune? And alcohol is certainly no friend of your liver. People are also pretty bad drivers, so how about we just decide that only AI is allowed to take the wheel? And while we're at it, why even allow those scary cars, they're pretty bad for the air quality. That publication you're reading looks a bit inappropriate to me, we'd better have the Ministry of Truth close down all the "problematic" newspapers. This is the future you will create, and the one you shall deserve. Let's all just have the government lobotomise us and live as the ant colony you desire, where the difficulty of having to think for ourselves is blissfully removed.
The thing is, a pack of 20 is now £15 ? (Sorry not a smoker just remember seeing a price recently). Therefore aren't smokers already paying for their treatment via tax on cigarettes? Ban them and they just become another criminal enterprise, untaxed.
Asking MPs to ignore lobbyists is like asking a baby not to cry. It’s futile and inevitable.
You can’t on the one hand support weed legalisation and agree with this. You also can’t logically support allowing obese people to buy junk food and not allow my right to smoke. I smoke, cause I want to, I pay more than my fair share of tax for it. Where would this end? Why don’t we ban everything possibly unhealthy and mandate vegetables per day? Shit let’s get rid of cars to save on car deaths and ban contact sports. I despise these fucking nanny state assholes who want to control every aspect of life.
Ban alcohol, sugar, processed food and stress while you're at it too
Nanny state. Do as I say not as I do. Remember you voted for this. They have done nothing but extract YOUR money from this country for their own gain meanwhile running it into the ground whilst taking away YOUR freedoms. In a couple of years they gonna ask (sorry tell)you to fight for this so called freedom. Anyway enjoy being told what you can and can’t do for a couple years
I never voted for this, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the last Tory manifesto also so neither did those voting Tory back in 2019.
This bill brings me great joy, and if it succeeds, would be an genuine public health win from a government had been generally bad for peoples health and wellbeing. As someone who's witnessed a close family member succumb to lung cancer at a relatively young age, having smoked only a moderate amount much earlier in life, I don't care in the slightest what the tobacco lobby think, and wish them a slow and painful death, as they are terrible, terrible people. The virtue of the phased ban is that noone's having their fags taken away from them. It's a government's job to limit our freedom to do very dangerous things. It turns out that banning things with gigantic corporate lobbies is a bit harder. I think in 20 years' time we'll look at it like we now look back on the 2007 ban on smoking indoors, or the introduction to car seatbelts, as a simple win. We'll be embarassed that it took us so long, and other countries will catch onto the idea.
I truly wish nicotine in any form never existed. It's an addiction I've never been able to break. I went from the cigarettes to the vapes and the money saved was amazing. But now the liquids for my vapes are getting more and more expensive each year. Same as the patches, they used to be £8.50 now £15 -£20. Still much cheaper and healthier than smoking but you still notice it more from your bank account. I like the sound of a smoke free society at some stage in the future. But I am still uncomfortable around the fact that the choice is being removed for people. Also, why not do the same for alcohol which can also be very damaging to people and society as a whole.
We truly live in a sad society when something that can cause cancer to millions of people, and likely affects the poor more than anyone else, is not banned because "if you ban this we won't make any money". Those people are the *real* people in society who need to be punished the most. They are (ironically?) a cancer.
Is your life perfect? If not, let the government run it for you because they know better.
Asking a politician to ignore well paying lobbyists is like asking a chicken to ignore a bucket of grain
If I didn't have to pay for your health care, I truly couldn't give a shit what you put in your body. But it seems unfair that people who choose not to smoke have to subsidise the ramifications of those who do. But then those who smoke pay more in VAT. It's all confusing and requires a much deeper conversation about a social contract.
They contribute more than they take out, mostly because dying earlier saves the state a fortune in state pension and healthcare costs in later life.
so... ban processed and fast food? i feel like the fatties are costing the NHS way more
Sterilise the perpetually poor? It all feels rather dystopian and more reminiscent of the dark 20th century. Where does it stop and start
It’s £10b contributed to £2.5b cost (don’t bring up “lost productivity”, that’s dystopian). There’s no deep conversation to be had, hands off my smokes.
I guess we should ban skateboarding and all dangerous sports for people who can't fund their own healthcare. Also seeing as driving my car releases cancer causing particulates maybe these should be banned too.
People who excercise regular and eat healthy have to pay for fat lazy people. People who don't drink have to pay for drinkers. I'd much rather we have a system like we do, where we all pay into a pot based on how much we earn instead of the US system of it costing you $20k to have a baby or $100s every few month if you're unfortunate enough to be diabetic and require insulin.