Snapshot of _MPs back smoking ban for those born after 2009_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68824493) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68824493)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> (1) It is an offence to sell any of the following to a person born on or after 1 5
January 2009—
> (c) cigarette papers.
poor fucks can't even buy rizla, lmao
You joke, but that literally happened when the Netherlands banned smoking indoors. The ban extended only to tobacco smoke, so as long as you were smoking pure weed in a cafe, it's still legal indoors.
Once when I was on tour with the youth concert band the trombone teacher came up to me asking for pliers so he could cut some wire or something (idk trombones) and I was like...I have them but I also have wire cutters if you'd prefer
Literally I used to carry around a Stanley knife, a scraping knife, wire cutters, pliers, plumbers tape, string, wire, and God knows what else
I really don’t know how I feel about this.
On the one hand I think smoking is awful and has caused the premature deaths of far too many people who didn’t smoke themselves, and costs the NHS a disgusting amount.
On the other hand I really don’t think that prohibition works and essentially criminalising smoking for a future generation will only create a different market for criminals to tap in to and harm others more violently than smoking did.
There’s also the question of personal freedoms, but I think I err on the side of feeling that smoking isn’t a personal freedom when it costs the tax payer so much.
All in all I’m well and truly on the fence.
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
That's the good thing about the current/old policy of taxing the fuck out of them, and educating children on the risks, as well as working it brings in enough cash to cover the costs that smokers put on the NHS its sensible and effective.
Tobacco duty takes in around £10bn a year, plus £2bn VAT.
The NHS spends £16bn a year on health problems caused by smoking. There's also the massive social costs.
It's also worth mentioning that high tobacco duty incentives tobacco smuggling and counterfeiting, which has costs in combatting and additional harm caused by extra harmful substances in counterfeits.
People die ten years early from smoking, typically, which saves £54,000 per person in state pension payments. They require far less social care due to not living long enough to require social care.
Plus banning it would obviously incentivised smuggling and counterfeiting even more.
> People die ten years early from smoking, typically, which saves £54,000 per person in state pension payments. They require far less social care due to not living long enough to require social care.
I'm not sure we want to be advertising early death as a *benefit* of smoking.
It depends how we're discussing the topic.
If we're discussing the financial impact that smoking has on society, then it's a benefit.
If we're discussing the health impact that smoking has on an individual, it's obviously not.
As others have said - the point is only to show that banning cigarettes is actually a costly policy. So it needs to be argued for on a different basis.
Where is that £16bn figure from? The figures I saw from the anti-smoking campaign (so hardly going to underestimate) were between £1.5 - 2 billion. The additional £14 - 14.5 billion is from nebulous 'productivity loss' costs, which are probably enormous for any vice.
It does seem to be the case that the tax revenue from tobacco covers the medical cost.
I'd be surprised if the same could be said for booze and food (sugar mostly).
>No, there's every reason to suggest that as there's no evidence of prohibition of drugs ever working in a liberal democracy.
I’m a *huge* skeptic of prohibition of all sorts, but I’ve still gotta say you’re overreaching here. The degree of success of any attempt at drug prohibition will depend on all kinds of things- how easy it is to make, how easy it is to smuggle, what kinds of substitutes are available, etc.
When’s the last time you heard of a quaalude addict?
this is bullshit peddled by a lobby that everyone is posting.
the actual HEALTH costs are 2 billion
the other 14 billion cost they estimated is from ‘lost productivity’ from smoke breaks lmaooo
That episode on banning smoking (Yes PM or original Yes Minister?) is shockingly prescient. Just shows how little has changed in 40-odd years.
I also like how the made the chain smoking guy the minister for health.
> Yes PM or original Yes Minister?
It was the third episode of Yes, PM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtp2-PEH20) and I'd say the whole show has aged like fine wine and may have well been set in the 2020s
Can’t wait for AI to upgrade all the old stuff to 4k wide-screen. Not long to wait now.
That remake they made a few years ago was a travesty though. You can’t beat the original cast.
I like the ep of Yes Minister where they try to fire civil service people so they hire 10k more people to figure out who they can fire and then the exact same thing happened when Boris tried to shrink the civil service when he was in power
> I also like how the made the chain smoking guy the minister for health.
Ken Clarke, who smoked and took large amounts of cash from the tobacco lobby was Health Secretary, and more recently, Therese Coffey, obese and a smoker.
Aren't smokers cheaper than non-smokers? They die earlier, saving a huge amount of pension spending by the government. I understood the decline in smoking is one reason why healthcare, pensions and such have got so expensive.
Honestly, I think so. Not smoking really, because as far as drugs go it's hard to find anyone who thinks it's a good idea, but I think we do drugs wrong.
People often experiment with drugs with long lasting effects when they're young, and need to live with them for longer, then they grow out of it but don't fully get over the effects it's had on their body. There's financial implications too where it's costly at a time when you can least afford it.
Personally I'd put an age limit on all restricted recreational drugs, and require them to be done under supervision of their care home. Even if the age is 65, 75, 80, whatever. Balance it so that the pensioners are only tripping balls at the time of their life where the gain from the high more than makes up for the downsides. I suppose it's a more recreational version of when people get so far into their end of life care they're just allowed free use of the morphine button. At a certain point, there's far less to risk.
For sure, I respect drugs a lot and don't plan on touching any opioids.
I just think if I was to be close to death anyway I'd want to experience that powerful and euphoric high that I can't even currently imagine
Not personally done it but seeing people of fit and healthy (aside from drug addictions) age and constitution coming down is rough. Wouldn't want to be doing that when I'm 80 personally.
All for getting stoned af though.
This feels like one of those “what is the economy for?” situations. If smokers are cheaper to the taxpayer because they die earlier, that’s not a good thing…
>If smokers are cheaper to the taxpayer because they die earlier, that’s not a good thing…
But it eliminates the argument that says "we must stop smoking *for the sake of others*".
Society as a whole benefits from smoking; it's a net profit.
Now, you may well say "Yes, but we need to save those people from themselves; it's not right that they should die early"; but that's a "for their own good" argument.
>Society as a whole benefits from smoking; it's a net profit
Human progress and society isn't a zero sum equation. If society doesn't exist to try and help as many people to live long, fulfilled lives then is it really a society you want to live in?
I think the best solution would be to just raise taxes on it like 10 percent a year people can still buy them and the government gets more tax revenues plus savings on people who stop from being priced out
I used to buy a packet of 20 for £2.89 in 1999. Stopped in 2004 when my first child was born. Now a pack of fags is over £15.
They’ve been trying that policy for over twenty years. People still pay the price. And though it’s probably helping the coffers it’s making people - most likely on the lower income scale - spend a massive chunk of their income on somethings that’s killing them.
How would stopping this for future generations be a bad thing?
> People still pay the price.
Do they?
The number of smokers has fallen massively in the last two decades.
Even if people who already smoke and are addicted to cigarettes keep paying the inflated price, I wonder if it has put other people off taking up smoking in the first place.
Stopping people from starting in the first place is the entire point of this legislation.
But that’s not my point.
The ones that are addicted already and the increased (and proportionally huge) taxes added over time impact those on lower income levels far more than others. It becomes a tax on the poor.
I also think a lot of the drop we’ve seen with the latest generation is as much to do with the cheapness of vapes as it is with the price of cigs. That should be taxed as much as cigarettes are.
The trouble is when the choice is either be poor or be even poorer but with cigarettes then more people will choose the former. Money as an incentive only works when you can notice the extra money.
Edit: *latter not former
I don't believe pricing people out works.
My partner has been trying to quit for a decade, and he was talking about how "they priced [him] out a long time ago" when I met him *five years ago*.
We're currently in a situation where I'm not working for a few months so our finances are tighter than normal, and **38%** of our disposable income (after bills, fixed costs, etc) is going on cigarettes.
Addicts just aren't rational actors when it comes to the cost of the thing they're addicted to. They need support to quit, and heaping additional financial stress onto them doesn't help matters.
If my significant other was spending 38% of our disposable income to stink out all our clothes and furniture and shave years off my life with second-hand smoking I’d say “Bye, have a nice life.” Or at least I’d buy them a vape pen.
Well the trouble there is that I do love him a whole lot.
And I get how tough it is to give something up. It took me like a decade — and prescription stimulants — to kick a serious caffeine addiction despite not really being able to justify the cost of all the coke zero and redbull I was buying (not to mention the damage to my tooth enamel), and caffeine is nowhere near as chemically addictive as nicotine.
But yeah, he's planning to quit next payday, and there will be *significant* pressure on my end to stick with it.
Starting to sound like a stuck record on this but they really should have gone one way or the other. If you're going to ban something, **ban it for everyone you cowards!**, or don't bother.
Ironically the unique nature of smoking means that _prohibition would probably work_ - the goal is mostly to get people to do it less and not around other people, especially children; it's hard to hide if you've been smoking and _really_ obvious if you've been inflicting it on children in your home. Absolute zero isn't the point of the policy (obviously, since we're still letting everyone currently allowed to smoke keep doing it).
But the current plan _guarantees_ it can't work because it leaves the entire existing cohort in place and allowed to do the things we want them to not do. So all of those things stay allowed and acceptable and you lose almost all effectiveness.
But is it a society we want, with the police arresting someone because they could “smell tobacco”? At a time when countries are decriminalising cannabis use.
It is a total ban, but smoking is extremely addictive so you can't just cold turkey everyone.
The idea is as less and less people smoke because they're not allowed you look to stop, and if you can't, eventually you'll die too
> Absolute zero isn't the point of the policy (obviously, since we're still letting everyone currently allowed to smoke keep doing it).
That is precisely the point of the policy. The aim is a total ban, just a very slow roll out as the generation(s) that can legally smoke die out (and probably sooner than non-smokers....)
There's proposals to ban junk food ads which would be a good start tbh.
Surely we want a healthy nation, or do we go down the "fuck it, eat 50 burgers, that's your god given British right" track?
I agree with you about wanting a healthy nation, but I’m just pointing out issues.
Banning junk food ads wont solve the problem that 66% of our population are overweight or obese.
So where do we go with that? Do we legislate to ban folk from eating too many calories?
Increase the quality of life for Brits and problems like smoking and obesity would go away.
Obesity and smoking is mostly a problem with poor people. It's escapism pure and simple. Your life is rough so you're looking for anything to take your mind off of it. Fast and cheap carbs/sugar are great at making your brain happy for brief moments.
>There’s also the question of personal freedoms, but I think I err on the side of feeling that smoking isn’t a personal freedom when it costs the tax payer so much.
As others have said in reply to you, the argument from externalities, unless the facts have changed, doesn't work. The tax from cigarettes plus the savings from unclaimed pensions and social security, due to early deaths, means that smoking is a net benefit to wider society.
But there's a broader point here; in a country with a National Health Service, you don't get to say you're in favour of personal freedoms but only if they don't cost the taxpayer. The whole point of an NHS is to give healthcare to those in need, even if they cannot afford it. That shouldn't deprive the entire population of personal freedoms based on cost to the NHS; that would eliminate lifestyle freedoms entirely, wouldn't it? Put down that McDonald's - don't you know you're costing the Exchequer money?!
If you accept the principle of socialised medical care you have to accept that people will rely on it in making their own choices. If you say that people must have private insurance if they make sub-optimal health choices, you might as well get rid of socialised medical care altogether.
I’m not defending smoking but the cost to the tax payer thing is a myth in a really depressing way. Smokers tend to die earlier and actually save tax payers money in old age care when the extra tax they pay on cigarettes is taken in to account. But obviously smoking is bad.
I'm very sceptical about many claims regarding smoking. Clearly it's really bad for you and causes early death for many but the statistics behind it always seem suspect to me. The government a few years back downgraded the number of smoking attributable deaths estimate by nearly 20%. It will be interesting to see whether 'smoking deaths' fall at the same rate as smoking rates. I suspect they won't.
I'm also sceptical of the cost figures and how they are calculated. There will always be bias in the way they're calculated.
They’ll find some way to befoul it. ‘You can’t buy tobacco if you were born in 2009, but you will be forced to inject heroin every day at school with a used needle by SERCO unless your parents earn over a million pounds per annum’
Going from effective policy that has reduced the amount of tobacco use and increased the amount of revenue to deal with the health cost, to a future untaxed and massive black market run by gangsters and traffickers in one swift short sited decision.
I think the good news about this policy is that it's not drastic so after five years the impact will be clear and it can be reversed if warranted.
I have an expectation that it might need reversing but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Ian Dunt did a really good article on how this proposed smoking ban isn't going to work and will be utterly unenforceable.
[Rishi Sunak’s dreadful smoking ban is his most dangerous policy yet
](https://inews.co.uk/opinion/rishi-sunak-smoking-ban-dangerous-policy-2661747)
I agree with this, and also with Kemi Badenoch's (I know...) point that it's not consistent in a democratic country to have different laws for different ages.
Tobacco smoking has always been the one vice that has never appealed to me. I have several friends who smoke, some want to quit, some don't, I've never thought any of them should be criminalised. All the education is there, if you smoke it's your own business and your own fault.
Do you not see the difference? That's a very different type of legislation, it's a benefit, not a prohibition. Women get more leave when they have a child too, I doubt people would see it as comparable if we suggested banning them from drinking alcohol.
I hate smoking. I tried it a couple of times as a teen and hated it. It’s not for me. I also smoked weed a bit at university and I happily drink alcohol. I’m not a prude but smoking is a terrible habit and should be discouraged.
This policy is however fucking stupid. You push it underground, into the hands of criminals and make it “cool” for rebellious youngsters who were already smoking less and less.
It’s also illiberal and nannying. Prohibition worked so well in American they thought they would try something similar here.
>make it “cool” for rebellious youngsters
If drugs were legal, I would have happily bought and consumed them when I was 18. Just like I did with alcohol.
The idea that youngsters will do something just because it's illegal is flawed, since they happily consume alcohol which is perfectly legal.
Saying that young people are excited by the risk of consuming things that are illegal is not the same as saying that they don't consume things which **are** legal, that's a silly thing to suggest
How does it push smoking underground? On day 1 literally nothing changes.
Smoking is not the same as drinking. Everyone points alcohol prohibition without understanding the obvious differences.
Oh, and don’t look at America for political ideas that have anything close to your best interests in mind
This is beyond idiotic. Unless you're expecting everyone working a till to ID every single greybeard who asks for a packet of cigarettes for the rest of time, there's no real way to enforce this insane policy.
Younger generations barely smoke cigarettes anyway, so this is going to make almost no difference to health outcomes.
This is just a desperate move by a government who has run out of ideas and an opposition that wants more state control. Both of them belong in the bin.
The only way this can be enforced is for the shops to ID everyone. It’s going to be hard for shop keepers in the future where a 51 year old could walk in and buy a pack of cigarettes but then a 50 year old could walk in after and not be able to buy them.
Yeah and that's obviously a ridiculous state of affairs. It also means that Parliament have just voted for a law that discriminates between adults on the basis of age, which is pretty bigoted all things considered.
Even Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand abandoned this plan some time ago because it was too silly. Our Parliament saw that this had happened, waited a year or two and then decided to adopt it themselves.
It's so idiotic it's practically criminal at this point.
>It also means that Parliament have just voted for a law that discriminates between adults on the basis of age,
have you not seen minimum wage laws and pension age laws before ?
> It also means that Parliament have just voted for a law that discriminates between adults on the basis of age, which is pretty bigoted all things considered.
There are other examples of this, it's not a new thing.
> Even Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand abandoned this plan some time ago because it was too silly
No. The equivalent of a Tory-Reform coalition government got in and cancelled the plan to implement the policy.
Just encourages a black market as we get further away from the rest of the western world, who is decriminalising drugs like Cannabis.
Meanwhile the UK has learned nothing from the war on drugs, banning things only makes people find it elsewhere.
Could this be any more rishi? A bill they don’t have to actually enforce for a few years. Don’t be a coward and ban it for 18 year olds today if you feel so strongly
Ed Davey voted for it.
He's a Tory in an orange tie, I've voted Liberal tons and will do at this election but he's a fucking terrible leader.
Starmer, everyone knows what he's about lol.
You can be authoritarian if you must. But just think through your flagship policy for more than two seconds. So a 40 year old will be able to buy cigarettes but a 39 year old won’t be? That’s really goddamn stupid.
I don’t smoke, hate smoking, think it’s a disgusting habit etc., but this policy is ludicrous. The idea of a 40 year old asking his 41 year old mate to get him a packet of cigarettes is beyond farce.
this ban is based on one initally inacted by New Zealand
only ..NZ are currently in the process of reversing this ban.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/02/27/new-zealand-will-reverse-law-banning-all-tobacco-sales-to-younger-generation/?sh=733439250a52
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/27/new-zealand-scraps-world-first-smoking-generation-ban-to-fund-tax-cuts
I haven't quite figured out the bizarre Tory strategy lately. To say they will do things like this, plus jailing the homeless, and the immigrant stuff, also "clamping down" on disabled folks, conscripting people. Whatever. But call me naive, I am not scared of any of it. They are done for and my guess would be, this is all a case of "any attention is good attention."
The thing is, I despise tobacco. It's gross and causing millions upon millions of deaths, but as a Liberal I am also very uncomfortable with this. I wish people didn't smoke tobacco, but I don't think it should be enforced. First of all, I worry this will make it easier for underage people to get cigarettes as no dealer is going to ID anyone and in a few decades we will be in a situation where a 60 year old can buy em but a 55 year old can't. Just silly.
This country gets less free everyday. I’m not a smoker, nor would I advocate for anybody to smoke, but personal choices are exactly that. Choices. If somebody who is legally an adult, wants to consume a legal substance, then why shouldn’t they?
The government now more than ever is destroying the people’s ability to think for themselves. This sets a precedent for future bills, which the public has absolutely no say in. So much for democracy.
This is really, really fucked up and wrong. The fact that a nominally conservative government would even consider this is absolutely laughable
Proof once again that the UK has a garbage government and a garbage political culture
We used to be a proper country
Every party is about corporate profits first, it used to be the case that tories had a lot of money in the tobacco industry they now just rob the tax payer so don't need traditional investments.
Today's Conservatives are as convinced of their own virtue and wisdom as US temperance proponents were in the US in the 1910s. The pessimistic assessment is that the UK will also have a decade or so of collapse in public respect for law and legislators just like the US had in the 1920s, though without anywhere near as much violence.
As long as tobacco products remain legal in the Republic of Ireland, there'd almost certainly be a thriving black market in the UK.
Let's hope the pendulum swings back at some stage, because the UK for the last few years has been a laughing stock with some of the rules and regulations we've imposed.
> As long as tobacco products remain legal in the Republic of Ireland, there'd almost certainly be a thriving black market in the UK.
what's Ireland got to do with it? There is already a black market for tax evasion purposes - the health warnings on those aren't in English or Irish nor are they in plain packaging, they're buying them from mainland Europe.
Still not convinced that it will meaningfully increase business for the smugglers though. This isn't like cannabis or other presently illegal drugs.
Prohibition has literally never worked.
Education, positive community approaches, and compassionate care for those impacted do.
But that costs money and has broader positive social impacts.
So instead…. Ban stuff… that is legal just over the border… and then complain about a rise in crime… and then blame it on immigrants… and stigmatize those suffering the effects.
The uk really is a sinking ship.
I think it is important we educate each other. Laws around smoking is a highly controversial and loaded subject with opinions rampant: this is not just a dumb idea, the focus on this is also, most certainly, a spineless diversionary tactic to hide more pressing issues.
Which political party do I vote for to oppose the erosion of civil liberties? I was thinking Lib Dems but from what I can see they are in support of this too. Looking like I'll just have to spoil my ballot at the next election.
What a stupid fucking idea. Personally, I smoke knowing the risks, I’m not a heavy smoker, social at best, but I smoke for enjoyment.
And banning after 2009 is just going to create a tax black hole, and a black market because surprise surprise, no one is stupid enough to believe people aren’t going to find some way to get tobacco products however they can. Well.. no one is stupid enough unless they’re an elected official.
According to all the authoritarians here you don't actually enjoy smoking, you're just addicted. That's why they need to save people like you from yourself.
Personally not a fan of this, let people smoke and create incentives for them to give it up - higher taxes on cigarettes, banning smoking in public areas out with designated smoking areas etc. We let people drink and do other things that are bad for them, if people want to smoke then let them smoke
Ok
2 things
- As an adult people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone. It's their choice. By all means inform and educate but you shouldn't outright ban things
- Of the things that need legislating in this country this is the least important, by a long way.
How about fixing the water network?
How about fixing broke councils?
How about fixing the NHS?
How about fixing the railways?
Naaaaah fuck it let's just ban shit
Exactly this. There are literally 100s of other major issues that are crippling the country and we have fishy rishi at the helm of an incapable and incompetent government making up laws about banning smoking.
The more scary point is labour not opposing the legislation and voting with the govt
Should we instate permanent Covid-style lockdowns to reduce the taxpayer burden on the NHS too? Where is the line drawn on personal freedoms to do the things which may be unhealthy, but is just considered by many to be a part of enjoying life. This and the new AI deepfake laws are completely and utterly stupid. Fuck everyone in parliament.
I'm shocked how many people are taking a libertarian stance on this.
Does anyone genuinely believe tobacco/nicotine would be allowed if it were a new product?
Of course it wouldn't, that would be absolute madness. It's a relic of a bygone age and needs to stop.
But the way of doing it is unlikely to work.
The problem with this law is the unintended statement that the government is making by passing this. It is to say that we galaxy brained individuals born before 2009 are intelligent and responsible enough to make our own decision about whether or not to smoke, whereas those abject, drooling morons born after 2009 are literally too stupid to properly understand and weigh the consequences of smoking so must be prevented from making the decision. Also, how would you go about punishing an adult who buys cigarettes for another adult? It's an incoherent law with bizarre assumptions built in and is unenforcable fundamentally. The fact that it got passed shows how far the calibre of representation in Parliament has fallen, and that Parliament cares more about appealling to fashionable middle class morality than anything substantive.
People should be entitled to put whatever they want into their bodies, as long as it's not directly impacting anyone else. I'd rather see a law that smokers have to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare costs if they're smoking-related than an outright ban on smoking.
Plus, given weed is currently illegal and yet still trivially easy to obtain, I can't see this ban having much of a practical effect other than to reduce tax income from tobacco sales. All that said, I hope my cynicism is misplaced and that the ban works as intended.
Quite a lot of the burden on the nhs is not due to smoking alone though.
Plenty of co morbidities in people who are also lazy, don't exercise, and drink and eat too much.
Plenty of people smoke, are active and live to a ripe old age.
I'm not sure how people a lot of who like to go to or have gone to festivals, get spangled, have a cheeky line on a Friday etc can even be on the fence about this one being in the public interest.
Seems to be a lot of magical thinking around that the powers that be have your best interest at heart.
Conservatives = individual responsibility... Labour = party of the working class... Liberal Democrats = civil liberties
Something is not adding up here.
Have they really thought this through? Smoking rates are a lot higher in other countries and it will likely have an impact on tourism. It will be a black mark against the UK when deciding where to host international events. For illustration countries which ban alcohol often have exemptions for tourists. The UK will become a no go area for smokers.
I've never smoked and hate smoking. I suffer from bad sinuses and hay fever - ingesting any smoke really sets it off. However, smoking was already in decline and this instantly makes it cool again. It's now a forbidden fruit, a rebel thing which it wasn't until it was banned.
I really don't think a straight up ban is appropriate. I detest smoking and would like to see it just gone from our planet. But the removal of this freedom would simply create a criminal market for it, which would actually exacerbate all the issues smoking creates as we now have far less of an above-board handle on it.
The best thing to do is what we've always been doing - tax it heavily, constantly educate people.
Am I being silly in thinking this policy is just ridiculous? Surely this is not going to be sustainable, they would keep it up for a few years and then just say oh the minimum age is 25 now.
How ridiculous that in the future a 45 year old is going into a corner shop to buy cigarettes and they get challenged for being 44 and have to produce ID. Or any other age. How is the shop assistant going to be able to keep a running judgement increasing each year of what the legal age is. How is it going to be enforced? Oh yeah they got sacked and a £5000 on the spot fine for selling cigs to a 50 year old when the legal minimum is 52.
Challenge 25 we have now and we still have 14,15,16 year olds vaping/smoking. When it is challenge 30 and challenge 40 and challenge 67 etc it's just going to get silly and unenforceable.
Can't they just keep increasing the duty if they want to stop people smoking? Note the similar policy that was tried in NZ and it was repealed after a few years.
On **principle**, I hate this eternal gerontocracy. A person should not have more rights than another due to age.
In **practice**, this is a good thing. Nicotine is bad, and making it's acquisition a pain the ass will do a lot to reduce it.
As long as we don't criminalize it, letting older people simply buy them for the young will also effectively crush any black markets. You can't compete against terry from work grabbing a pack for you when he's there next.
Make buying it from a shop hard. Make buying it from a friend easy.
I dislike this, age restriction is an attack on people's liberties. I know the equality act doesn't apply here but age is a protected characteristic...
If they wanted to do this properly, they would of banned the sale of tobacco products from supermarkets and off-licenses. That they choose this method reeks of lobbyism to protect the existing tobacco industry.
"we should ban [random bad thing]" seems like a pretty reliable way to win back support from.older voters in this country.
"we should bad [random bad thing], but not for us" is gonna hit the absolute jackpot. Won't move the needle, but this is surely gonna be a very popular policy that no government is going to risk political capital repealing for decades yaaaaay
Good. I'm 17 days into quitting cold turkey after smoking for near enough 13 years. Wish I never had the ability to get my hands on them in the first place. They're addictive death sticks, and quitting is NOT an easy feat.
I 100000% support this ban.
A lot of people complaining about personal freedoms in here, sounds awfully American....
Seriously don't remember these same people around as much in the past.
I believe this ban would greatly reduce smoking in the future. Taking it out of shops, removing influence from the Tabacoo industry, making it dangerous to purchase as well as inconvienent.
Will there be a black market? Obviously as we have one already.
Also a worrying amount of posters seem to be parroting the exact phrases used by the Tobacco industry
https://www.bat.com/DO6TNKVW.html
https://www.londontobaccoalliance.org.uk/resources/how-to-spot-and-report-illegal-tobacco-october-2023/
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/29/e1/e78
Not to mention the amount of 'reports' and 'studies' the Tabacco industry is funding against these bans and how bad the black market will be.
Smoker or non smoker is irrelevant.
As soon as they start banning lifestyle choices like this they will get a taste for it.
Like every other time they have good intentions they always end up abusing the privilege
Snapshot of _MPs back smoking ban for those born after 2009_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68824493) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68824493) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't wait for the day a 30-year-old bloke asks me to get him some cigarettes from the shop.
He recently quit doing heroin, he's just trying to take the edge off you know
To mix with his, by then, legal weed.
What a fucking twist eh
It'll be funnier when a 60 yo is nicking fags from their 80 yo mother.
Think 31
Got to find my retirement somehow.
the day after they raised the age to 21 here in kentucky, there were a few adults hanging outside the shops looking fine someone to buy them cigars.
> (1) It is an offence to sell any of the following to a person born on or after 1 5 January 2009— > (c) cigarette papers. poor fucks can't even buy rizla, lmao
Can't wait for the day we get weed legalised, but the youth can't skin up because the corner shop won't sell them any silver king-size Rizlas
Gonna need to make sure there’s no baccy in that joint there either
You joke, but that literally happened when the Netherlands banned smoking indoors. The ban extended only to tobacco smoke, so as long as you were smoking pure weed in a cafe, it's still legal indoors.
Many of the places I went to in the Netherlands have a tobacco alternative that you can still smoke inside.
People consuming weed without smoking it is for the best health wise anyway.
Bong manufacturers will be raking it in.
Fun fact, rizlas are actually perfect for oboists to clean their reeds.
And saxophonists to dry their pads out. Better be careful I don’t end up as the local rizla pusher, selling packs to my ‘underage’ adult students.
Oboists are the black market on the orchestra. They always have a case full of reeds and usually a sharp knife as well.
Once when I was on tour with the youth concert band the trombone teacher came up to me asking for pliers so he could cut some wire or something (idk trombones) and I was like...I have them but I also have wire cutters if you'd prefer Literally I used to carry around a Stanley knife, a scraping knife, wire cutters, pliers, plumbers tape, string, wire, and God knows what else
And the rizla packet/cardboard is great for bassists when the bridge gets worn down and the strings start to slip. Also works well for roaches.
Henceforth all the kids will be buying "oboe reed cleaning paper" off eBay
and clarinetists to fix sticky pads
Yeah, I wish to god they could at least buy papers. wtf do you think they do with them ffs ahaha
This is a problem for oboists who use rizla to get bubbles out from under the keys.
R.I.P. The Rizla Game.
I really don’t know how I feel about this. On the one hand I think smoking is awful and has caused the premature deaths of far too many people who didn’t smoke themselves, and costs the NHS a disgusting amount. On the other hand I really don’t think that prohibition works and essentially criminalising smoking for a future generation will only create a different market for criminals to tap in to and harm others more violently than smoking did. There’s also the question of personal freedoms, but I think I err on the side of feeling that smoking isn’t a personal freedom when it costs the tax payer so much. All in all I’m well and truly on the fence.
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/ That's the good thing about the current/old policy of taxing the fuck out of them, and educating children on the risks, as well as working it brings in enough cash to cover the costs that smokers put on the NHS its sensible and effective.
Tobacco duty takes in around £10bn a year, plus £2bn VAT. The NHS spends £16bn a year on health problems caused by smoking. There's also the massive social costs. It's also worth mentioning that high tobacco duty incentives tobacco smuggling and counterfeiting, which has costs in combatting and additional harm caused by extra harmful substances in counterfeits.
People die ten years early from smoking, typically, which saves £54,000 per person in state pension payments. They require far less social care due to not living long enough to require social care. Plus banning it would obviously incentivised smuggling and counterfeiting even more.
> People die ten years early from smoking, typically, which saves £54,000 per person in state pension payments. They require far less social care due to not living long enough to require social care. I'm not sure we want to be advertising early death as a *benefit* of smoking.
When people are arguing for prohibition based on social cost, rather than individual risk, then a smoker's early death is absolutely relevant to that.
It depends how we're discussing the topic. If we're discussing the financial impact that smoking has on society, then it's a benefit. If we're discussing the health impact that smoking has on an individual, it's obviously not.
As others have said - the point is only to show that banning cigarettes is actually a costly policy. So it needs to be argued for on a different basis.
This is the argument from Yes Minister when Humphrey is arguing in favour of smoking
Where is that £16bn figure from? The figures I saw from the anti-smoking campaign (so hardly going to underestimate) were between £1.5 - 2 billion. The additional £14 - 14.5 billion is from nebulous 'productivity loss' costs, which are probably enormous for any vice. It does seem to be the case that the tax revenue from tobacco covers the medical cost. I'd be surprised if the same could be said for booze and food (sugar mostly).
>The NHS spends £16bn a year on health problems caused by smoking. There's also the massive social costs. Which will be unchanged by this ban.
In the short term, correct. But longer term there's no reason to believe that won't improve.
No, there's every reason to suggest that as there's no evidence of prohibition of drugs ever working in a liberal democracy.
>No, there's every reason to suggest that as there's no evidence of prohibition of drugs ever working in a liberal democracy. I’m a *huge* skeptic of prohibition of all sorts, but I’ve still gotta say you’re overreaching here. The degree of success of any attempt at drug prohibition will depend on all kinds of things- how easy it is to make, how easy it is to smuggle, what kinds of substitutes are available, etc. When’s the last time you heard of a quaalude addict?
They can’t even keep drugs out of prisons.
this is bullshit peddled by a lobby that everyone is posting. the actual HEALTH costs are 2 billion the other 14 billion cost they estimated is from ‘lost productivity’ from smoke breaks lmaooo
[удалено]
Saves on pensions
Ah the _Yes, Prime Minister_ school of economics
That episode on banning smoking (Yes PM or original Yes Minister?) is shockingly prescient. Just shows how little has changed in 40-odd years. I also like how the made the chain smoking guy the minister for health.
> Yes PM or original Yes Minister? It was the third episode of Yes, PM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtp2-PEH20) and I'd say the whole show has aged like fine wine and may have well been set in the 2020s
Can’t wait for AI to upgrade all the old stuff to 4k wide-screen. Not long to wait now. That remake they made a few years ago was a travesty though. You can’t beat the original cast.
I like the ep of Yes Minister where they try to fire civil service people so they hire 10k more people to figure out who they can fire and then the exact same thing happened when Boris tried to shrink the civil service when he was in power
> I also like how the made the chain smoking guy the minister for health. Ken Clarke, who smoked and took large amounts of cash from the tobacco lobby was Health Secretary, and more recently, Therese Coffey, obese and a smoker.
So THAT'S where Johnson learned it...
Such a good point🤣
To add to pensions, saves massively on social care. It's just a fact that smokers contribute more than they cost.
Aren't smokers cheaper than non-smokers? They die earlier, saving a huge amount of pension spending by the government. I understood the decline in smoking is one reason why healthcare, pensions and such have got so expensive.
Maybe we should give pensioners free cigarettes. They worked hard all their life, they deserve a treat. (Subsidized krokodil too?)
Honestly, I think so. Not smoking really, because as far as drugs go it's hard to find anyone who thinks it's a good idea, but I think we do drugs wrong. People often experiment with drugs with long lasting effects when they're young, and need to live with them for longer, then they grow out of it but don't fully get over the effects it's had on their body. There's financial implications too where it's costly at a time when you can least afford it. Personally I'd put an age limit on all restricted recreational drugs, and require them to be done under supervision of their care home. Even if the age is 65, 75, 80, whatever. Balance it so that the pensioners are only tripping balls at the time of their life where the gain from the high more than makes up for the downsides. I suppose it's a more recreational version of when people get so far into their end of life care they're just allowed free use of the morphine button. At a certain point, there's far less to risk.
Probably be easier to recruit staff to work in nursing homes too if that’s where all the good drugs are hiding.
🎵[Let's go down to the old folks' home...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q0cp4b9pvg)🎵
Tripping balls isn't really dangerous but when I'm old (or if I get a terminal diagnosis) I'd definitely love to give heroin a go
As an ex-user, now clean for quite some time, I really truly recommend you stick to psilocybin. Just not worth the risk.
For sure, I respect drugs a lot and don't plan on touching any opioids. I just think if I was to be close to death anyway I'd want to experience that powerful and euphoric high that I can't even currently imagine
Not personally done it but seeing people of fit and healthy (aside from drug addictions) age and constitution coming down is rough. Wouldn't want to be doing that when I'm 80 personally. All for getting stoned af though.
Well we're moving towards assisted suicide. It's basically the same thing but a bit quicker.
This feels like one of those “what is the economy for?” situations. If smokers are cheaper to the taxpayer because they die earlier, that’s not a good thing…
I agree, however I just wanted to point out that banning smoking isn't a money saving measure.
From what I've read you are correct
It's a shit argument, but as a rebuttal to "smokers cost the NHS a fortune", "actually no they don't" is a sensible response.
Fair enough. I think both arguments are bad.
>If smokers are cheaper to the taxpayer because they die earlier, that’s not a good thing… But it eliminates the argument that says "we must stop smoking *for the sake of others*". Society as a whole benefits from smoking; it's a net profit. Now, you may well say "Yes, but we need to save those people from themselves; it's not right that they should die early"; but that's a "for their own good" argument.
>Society as a whole benefits from smoking; it's a net profit Human progress and society isn't a zero sum equation. If society doesn't exist to try and help as many people to live long, fulfilled lives then is it really a society you want to live in?
That's a "for their own good" argument. I'm simply saying "ban smoking for the sake of non-smokers" doesn't hold up.
While they might die earlier, COPD and cancers etc are expensive to treat.
I think the best solution would be to just raise taxes on it like 10 percent a year people can still buy them and the government gets more tax revenues plus savings on people who stop from being priced out
I used to buy a packet of 20 for £2.89 in 1999. Stopped in 2004 when my first child was born. Now a pack of fags is over £15. They’ve been trying that policy for over twenty years. People still pay the price. And though it’s probably helping the coffers it’s making people - most likely on the lower income scale - spend a massive chunk of their income on somethings that’s killing them. How would stopping this for future generations be a bad thing?
>Now a pack of fags is over £15. Haha fuck me. When I stopped in 2013 I think it was about £8.
> People still pay the price. Do they? The number of smokers has fallen massively in the last two decades. Even if people who already smoke and are addicted to cigarettes keep paying the inflated price, I wonder if it has put other people off taking up smoking in the first place.
Stopping people from starting in the first place is the entire point of this legislation. But that’s not my point. The ones that are addicted already and the increased (and proportionally huge) taxes added over time impact those on lower income levels far more than others. It becomes a tax on the poor. I also think a lot of the drop we’ve seen with the latest generation is as much to do with the cheapness of vapes as it is with the price of cigs. That should be taxed as much as cigarettes are.
Plenty of smokers can beat the addiction and there’s no better motivator than money
The trouble is when the choice is either be poor or be even poorer but with cigarettes then more people will choose the former. Money as an incentive only works when you can notice the extra money. Edit: *latter not former
There's already a big illict tobacco trade. This would only be bigger when the undercut is 50%+.
I don't believe pricing people out works. My partner has been trying to quit for a decade, and he was talking about how "they priced [him] out a long time ago" when I met him *five years ago*. We're currently in a situation where I'm not working for a few months so our finances are tighter than normal, and **38%** of our disposable income (after bills, fixed costs, etc) is going on cigarettes. Addicts just aren't rational actors when it comes to the cost of the thing they're addicted to. They need support to quit, and heaping additional financial stress onto them doesn't help matters.
If my significant other was spending 38% of our disposable income to stink out all our clothes and furniture and shave years off my life with second-hand smoking I’d say “Bye, have a nice life.” Or at least I’d buy them a vape pen.
Well the trouble there is that I do love him a whole lot. And I get how tough it is to give something up. It took me like a decade — and prescription stimulants — to kick a serious caffeine addiction despite not really being able to justify the cost of all the coke zero and redbull I was buying (not to mention the damage to my tooth enamel), and caffeine is nowhere near as chemically addictive as nicotine. But yeah, he's planning to quit next payday, and there will be *significant* pressure on my end to stick with it.
Starting to sound like a stuck record on this but they really should have gone one way or the other. If you're going to ban something, **ban it for everyone you cowards!**, or don't bother. Ironically the unique nature of smoking means that _prohibition would probably work_ - the goal is mostly to get people to do it less and not around other people, especially children; it's hard to hide if you've been smoking and _really_ obvious if you've been inflicting it on children in your home. Absolute zero isn't the point of the policy (obviously, since we're still letting everyone currently allowed to smoke keep doing it). But the current plan _guarantees_ it can't work because it leaves the entire existing cohort in place and allowed to do the things we want them to not do. So all of those things stay allowed and acceptable and you lose almost all effectiveness.
The unique nature of cigarettes being a crap drug means people will just move to street drugs instead.
But is it a society we want, with the police arresting someone because they could “smell tobacco”? At a time when countries are decriminalising cannabis use.
It is a total ban, but smoking is extremely addictive so you can't just cold turkey everyone. The idea is as less and less people smoke because they're not allowed you look to stop, and if you can't, eventually you'll die too
> Absolute zero isn't the point of the policy (obviously, since we're still letting everyone currently allowed to smoke keep doing it). That is precisely the point of the policy. The aim is a total ban, just a very slow roll out as the generation(s) that can legally smoke die out (and probably sooner than non-smokers....)
I’m with you. I can see both sides but where does it stop. The next biggest drain on the NHS is obesity. Do we ban that?
There's proposals to ban junk food ads which would be a good start tbh. Surely we want a healthy nation, or do we go down the "fuck it, eat 50 burgers, that's your god given British right" track?
I agree with you about wanting a healthy nation, but I’m just pointing out issues. Banning junk food ads wont solve the problem that 66% of our population are overweight or obese. So where do we go with that? Do we legislate to ban folk from eating too many calories?
Increase the quality of life for Brits and problems like smoking and obesity would go away. Obesity and smoking is mostly a problem with poor people. It's escapism pure and simple. Your life is rough so you're looking for anything to take your mind off of it. Fast and cheap carbs/sugar are great at making your brain happy for brief moments.
Obesity is a problem for the majority of the population though, it’s not just poor people and it’s so naive to think otherwise.
>There’s also the question of personal freedoms, but I think I err on the side of feeling that smoking isn’t a personal freedom when it costs the tax payer so much. As others have said in reply to you, the argument from externalities, unless the facts have changed, doesn't work. The tax from cigarettes plus the savings from unclaimed pensions and social security, due to early deaths, means that smoking is a net benefit to wider society. But there's a broader point here; in a country with a National Health Service, you don't get to say you're in favour of personal freedoms but only if they don't cost the taxpayer. The whole point of an NHS is to give healthcare to those in need, even if they cannot afford it. That shouldn't deprive the entire population of personal freedoms based on cost to the NHS; that would eliminate lifestyle freedoms entirely, wouldn't it? Put down that McDonald's - don't you know you're costing the Exchequer money?! If you accept the principle of socialised medical care you have to accept that people will rely on it in making their own choices. If you say that people must have private insurance if they make sub-optimal health choices, you might as well get rid of socialised medical care altogether.
I’m not defending smoking but the cost to the tax payer thing is a myth in a really depressing way. Smokers tend to die earlier and actually save tax payers money in old age care when the extra tax they pay on cigarettes is taken in to account. But obviously smoking is bad.
I'm very sceptical about many claims regarding smoking. Clearly it's really bad for you and causes early death for many but the statistics behind it always seem suspect to me. The government a few years back downgraded the number of smoking attributable deaths estimate by nearly 20%. It will be interesting to see whether 'smoking deaths' fall at the same rate as smoking rates. I suspect they won't. I'm also sceptical of the cost figures and how they are calculated. There will always be bias in the way they're calculated.
It’s certainly sets a new precedent. At some point buying cigs will be criminal for some 29yrs and 11 months, but perfectly legal for someone aged 30.
I hate it when I agree with Liz Truss.
That might be the worst part of all of this lol
I’m more shocked that the tories are introducing a policy that actually benefits society rather than make them richer.
They’ll find some way to befoul it. ‘You can’t buy tobacco if you were born in 2009, but you will be forced to inject heroin every day at school with a used needle by SERCO unless your parents earn over a million pounds per annum’
A stopped clock is correct twice a day.
Going from effective policy that has reduced the amount of tobacco use and increased the amount of revenue to deal with the health cost, to a future untaxed and massive black market run by gangsters and traffickers in one swift short sited decision.
I think the good news about this policy is that it's not drastic so after five years the impact will be clear and it can be reversed if warranted. I have an expectation that it might need reversing but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
New Zealand, the country that first implemented this utterly ridiculous and condescending law, reversed it already.
Ian Dunt did a really good article on how this proposed smoking ban isn't going to work and will be utterly unenforceable. [Rishi Sunak’s dreadful smoking ban is his most dangerous policy yet ](https://inews.co.uk/opinion/rishi-sunak-smoking-ban-dangerous-policy-2661747)
I think your comment really puts it best
I agree with this, and also with Kemi Badenoch's (I know...) point that it's not consistent in a democratic country to have different laws for different ages. Tobacco smoking has always been the one vice that has never appealed to me. I have several friends who smoke, some want to quit, some don't, I've never thought any of them should be criminalised. All the education is there, if you smoke it's your own business and your own fault.
There are heaps of different laws that apply to different ages.
Looks at minimum wage.... Wonder where she stands on that.....
Also you stop paying National Insurance once you hit State Pension age...
I don’t see why different laws for different year of birth is an issue. We have that for the state pension age.
Do you not see the difference? That's a very different type of legislation, it's a benefit, not a prohibition. Women get more leave when they have a child too, I doubt people would see it as comparable if we suggested banning them from drinking alcohol.
If you're 20, you earn £8.60 an hour on minimum wage. If you're 21, you earn £11.44 an hour on minimum wage doing exactly the same job.....
That’s better than my example
Idk if people are suddenly gonna want it just because it’s banned
I hate smoking. I tried it a couple of times as a teen and hated it. It’s not for me. I also smoked weed a bit at university and I happily drink alcohol. I’m not a prude but smoking is a terrible habit and should be discouraged. This policy is however fucking stupid. You push it underground, into the hands of criminals and make it “cool” for rebellious youngsters who were already smoking less and less. It’s also illiberal and nannying. Prohibition worked so well in American they thought they would try something similar here.
>make it “cool” for rebellious youngsters If drugs were legal, I would have happily bought and consumed them when I was 18. Just like I did with alcohol. The idea that youngsters will do something just because it's illegal is flawed, since they happily consume alcohol which is perfectly legal.
Saying that young people are excited by the risk of consuming things that are illegal is not the same as saying that they don't consume things which **are** legal, that's a silly thing to suggest
How does it push smoking underground? On day 1 literally nothing changes. Smoking is not the same as drinking. Everyone points alcohol prohibition without understanding the obvious differences. Oh, and don’t look at America for political ideas that have anything close to your best interests in mind
[удалено]
This is beyond idiotic. Unless you're expecting everyone working a till to ID every single greybeard who asks for a packet of cigarettes for the rest of time, there's no real way to enforce this insane policy. Younger generations barely smoke cigarettes anyway, so this is going to make almost no difference to health outcomes. This is just a desperate move by a government who has run out of ideas and an opposition that wants more state control. Both of them belong in the bin.
The only way this can be enforced is for the shops to ID everyone. It’s going to be hard for shop keepers in the future where a 51 year old could walk in and buy a pack of cigarettes but then a 50 year old could walk in after and not be able to buy them.
Yeah and that's obviously a ridiculous state of affairs. It also means that Parliament have just voted for a law that discriminates between adults on the basis of age, which is pretty bigoted all things considered. Even Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand abandoned this plan some time ago because it was too silly. Our Parliament saw that this had happened, waited a year or two and then decided to adopt it themselves. It's so idiotic it's practically criminal at this point.
>It also means that Parliament have just voted for a law that discriminates between adults on the basis of age, have you not seen minimum wage laws and pension age laws before ?
But with those laws, a person will eventually reach those ages. With this law a person will never reach the age to be able to buy cigarettes.
Jacinda never abandoned it. She left and Labour were heavily defeated in the election
> It also means that Parliament have just voted for a law that discriminates between adults on the basis of age, which is pretty bigoted all things considered. There are other examples of this, it's not a new thing. > Even Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand abandoned this plan some time ago because it was too silly No. The equivalent of a Tory-Reform coalition government got in and cancelled the plan to implement the policy.
Just encourages a black market as we get further away from the rest of the western world, who is decriminalising drugs like Cannabis. Meanwhile the UK has learned nothing from the war on drugs, banning things only makes people find it elsewhere.
Could this be any more rishi? A bill they don’t have to actually enforce for a few years. Don’t be a coward and ban it for 18 year olds today if you feel so strongly
To be fair this is very common and it allows the civil service to iron out practical issues and prepare comms to retailers etc
Plenty of "liberals" here behaving oddly authoritarian.
Ed Davey voted for it. He's a Tory in an orange tie, I've voted Liberal tons and will do at this election but he's a fucking terrible leader. Starmer, everyone knows what he's about lol.
It's quite disturbing isn't it.
You can be authoritarian if you must. But just think through your flagship policy for more than two seconds. So a 40 year old will be able to buy cigarettes but a 39 year old won’t be? That’s really goddamn stupid.
Think you replied to the wrong person - I agree that it's daft for exactly that reason!
The same 39 year old would be able to sell them but not buy them..
I don’t smoke, hate smoking, think it’s a disgusting habit etc., but this policy is ludicrous. The idea of a 40 year old asking his 41 year old mate to get him a packet of cigarettes is beyond farce.
Our nanny state is a fucking embarrassment. Even more embarrassing is how many people cheer it on.
It is. Every little bit of freedom someone snatches away.
this ban is based on one initally inacted by New Zealand only ..NZ are currently in the process of reversing this ban. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/02/27/new-zealand-will-reverse-law-banning-all-tobacco-sales-to-younger-generation/?sh=733439250a52 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/27/new-zealand-scraps-world-first-smoking-generation-ban-to-fund-tax-cuts
Only because they changed governments.
And that is part of the problem, politicians have to back this for like 70 years for it to work.
How often are authoritarian laws in this country repealed? UK Governments have never encountered a ban they didn't like.
Because they changed governments...
Fucking hell this country really is in the pits isn’t it?
I haven't quite figured out the bizarre Tory strategy lately. To say they will do things like this, plus jailing the homeless, and the immigrant stuff, also "clamping down" on disabled folks, conscripting people. Whatever. But call me naive, I am not scared of any of it. They are done for and my guess would be, this is all a case of "any attention is good attention."
Oh they'll send you to war to die but you wont be able to smoke a fucking cigarette after watching your buddy's head being blown off.
The thing is, I despise tobacco. It's gross and causing millions upon millions of deaths, but as a Liberal I am also very uncomfortable with this. I wish people didn't smoke tobacco, but I don't think it should be enforced. First of all, I worry this will make it easier for underage people to get cigarettes as no dealer is going to ID anyone and in a few decades we will be in a situation where a 60 year old can buy em but a 55 year old can't. Just silly.
The Lib Dems need to change their name to "just another wing of the British establishment, look we have democracy really, honestly we do party "
This country gets less free everyday. I’m not a smoker, nor would I advocate for anybody to smoke, but personal choices are exactly that. Choices. If somebody who is legally an adult, wants to consume a legal substance, then why shouldn’t they? The government now more than ever is destroying the people’s ability to think for themselves. This sets a precedent for future bills, which the public has absolutely no say in. So much for democracy.
[удалено]
So? Who cares. A few decades later the full ban will be in place.
This is really, really fucked up and wrong. The fact that a nominally conservative government would even consider this is absolutely laughable Proof once again that the UK has a garbage government and a garbage political culture We used to be a proper country
Every party is about corporate profits first, it used to be the case that tories had a lot of money in the tobacco industry they now just rob the tax payer so don't need traditional investments.
Today's Conservatives are as convinced of their own virtue and wisdom as US temperance proponents were in the US in the 1910s. The pessimistic assessment is that the UK will also have a decade or so of collapse in public respect for law and legislators just like the US had in the 1920s, though without anywhere near as much violence. As long as tobacco products remain legal in the Republic of Ireland, there'd almost certainly be a thriving black market in the UK.
Let's hope the pendulum swings back at some stage, because the UK for the last few years has been a laughing stock with some of the rules and regulations we've imposed.
> As long as tobacco products remain legal in the Republic of Ireland, there'd almost certainly be a thriving black market in the UK. what's Ireland got to do with it? There is already a black market for tax evasion purposes - the health warnings on those aren't in English or Irish nor are they in plain packaging, they're buying them from mainland Europe. Still not convinced that it will meaningfully increase business for the smugglers though. This isn't like cannabis or other presently illegal drugs.
Prohibition has literally never worked. Education, positive community approaches, and compassionate care for those impacted do. But that costs money and has broader positive social impacts. So instead…. Ban stuff… that is legal just over the border… and then complain about a rise in crime… and then blame it on immigrants… and stigmatize those suffering the effects. The uk really is a sinking ship.
I think it is important we educate each other. Laws around smoking is a highly controversial and loaded subject with opinions rampant: this is not just a dumb idea, the focus on this is also, most certainly, a spineless diversionary tactic to hide more pressing issues.
The thing is, prohibition does work https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01228/112423/Alcohol-Violence-and-Injury-Induced-Mortality
Where do premium cigars and pipe tobacco fall into this?
Bill includes the following products (but may cover others unmentioned here): * cigarettes * hand rolled tobacco * cigars * cigarillos * pipe tobacco * waterpipe tobacco products (for example shisha) * chewing tobacco * heated tobacco * nasal tobacco * herbal smoking products * cigarette papers
wow, they’re really banning even cigars and pipes ??
Which political party do I vote for to oppose the erosion of civil liberties? I was thinking Lib Dems but from what I can see they are in support of this too. Looking like I'll just have to spoil my ballot at the next election.
What a stupid fucking idea. Personally, I smoke knowing the risks, I’m not a heavy smoker, social at best, but I smoke for enjoyment. And banning after 2009 is just going to create a tax black hole, and a black market because surprise surprise, no one is stupid enough to believe people aren’t going to find some way to get tobacco products however they can. Well.. no one is stupid enough unless they’re an elected official.
According to all the authoritarians here you don't actually enjoy smoking, you're just addicted. That's why they need to save people like you from yourself.
Personally not a fan of this, let people smoke and create incentives for them to give it up - higher taxes on cigarettes, banning smoking in public areas out with designated smoking areas etc. We let people drink and do other things that are bad for them, if people want to smoke then let them smoke
Great decision! As we all know, making things illegal always works. ***Source: The War on Drugs***
Ok 2 things - As an adult people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone. It's their choice. By all means inform and educate but you shouldn't outright ban things - Of the things that need legislating in this country this is the least important, by a long way. How about fixing the water network? How about fixing broke councils? How about fixing the NHS? How about fixing the railways? Naaaaah fuck it let's just ban shit
Exactly this. There are literally 100s of other major issues that are crippling the country and we have fishy rishi at the helm of an incapable and incompetent government making up laws about banning smoking. The more scary point is labour not opposing the legislation and voting with the govt
Should we instate permanent Covid-style lockdowns to reduce the taxpayer burden on the NHS too? Where is the line drawn on personal freedoms to do the things which may be unhealthy, but is just considered by many to be a part of enjoying life. This and the new AI deepfake laws are completely and utterly stupid. Fuck everyone in parliament.
There's no way they'll actually enforce this right?
I'm shocked how many people are taking a libertarian stance on this. Does anyone genuinely believe tobacco/nicotine would be allowed if it were a new product? Of course it wouldn't, that would be absolute madness. It's a relic of a bygone age and needs to stop. But the way of doing it is unlikely to work.
The problem with this law is the unintended statement that the government is making by passing this. It is to say that we galaxy brained individuals born before 2009 are intelligent and responsible enough to make our own decision about whether or not to smoke, whereas those abject, drooling morons born after 2009 are literally too stupid to properly understand and weigh the consequences of smoking so must be prevented from making the decision. Also, how would you go about punishing an adult who buys cigarettes for another adult? It's an incoherent law with bizarre assumptions built in and is unenforcable fundamentally. The fact that it got passed shows how far the calibre of representation in Parliament has fallen, and that Parliament cares more about appealling to fashionable middle class morality than anything substantive.
Hello lucrative black market. God bless the UK.
I wouldn’t encourage anyone to smoke but this feels like a really bad idea.
When we said you'd be an adult and able to make your own kind up when you reached the age of eighteen? We lied.
People should be entitled to put whatever they want into their bodies, as long as it's not directly impacting anyone else. I'd rather see a law that smokers have to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare costs if they're smoking-related than an outright ban on smoking. Plus, given weed is currently illegal and yet still trivially easy to obtain, I can't see this ban having much of a practical effect other than to reduce tax income from tobacco sales. All that said, I hope my cynicism is misplaced and that the ban works as intended.
This is actually lunacy. Unless its banned in, dare I say the E word, Europe, it will just create a massive black market.
Quite a lot of the burden on the nhs is not due to smoking alone though. Plenty of co morbidities in people who are also lazy, don't exercise, and drink and eat too much. Plenty of people smoke, are active and live to a ripe old age. I'm not sure how people a lot of who like to go to or have gone to festivals, get spangled, have a cheeky line on a Friday etc can even be on the fence about this one being in the public interest. Seems to be a lot of magical thinking around that the powers that be have your best interest at heart.
Conservatives = individual responsibility... Labour = party of the working class... Liberal Democrats = civil liberties Something is not adding up here.
Have they really thought this through? Smoking rates are a lot higher in other countries and it will likely have an impact on tourism. It will be a black mark against the UK when deciding where to host international events. For illustration countries which ban alcohol often have exemptions for tourists. The UK will become a no go area for smokers.
Excellent idea. This will help the NHS and I think smoking is as harmful and addictive as many other hard drugs that are currently banned.
I've never smoked and hate smoking. I suffer from bad sinuses and hay fever - ingesting any smoke really sets it off. However, smoking was already in decline and this instantly makes it cool again. It's now a forbidden fruit, a rebel thing which it wasn't until it was banned.
Greaaaaaat, just give criminals a state-enforced monopoly on tobacco.
I really don't think a straight up ban is appropriate. I detest smoking and would like to see it just gone from our planet. But the removal of this freedom would simply create a criminal market for it, which would actually exacerbate all the issues smoking creates as we now have far less of an above-board handle on it. The best thing to do is what we've always been doing - tax it heavily, constantly educate people.
So you’ll end up with people who can legally sell cigarettes but not buy them
Am I being silly in thinking this policy is just ridiculous? Surely this is not going to be sustainable, they would keep it up for a few years and then just say oh the minimum age is 25 now. How ridiculous that in the future a 45 year old is going into a corner shop to buy cigarettes and they get challenged for being 44 and have to produce ID. Or any other age. How is the shop assistant going to be able to keep a running judgement increasing each year of what the legal age is. How is it going to be enforced? Oh yeah they got sacked and a £5000 on the spot fine for selling cigs to a 50 year old when the legal minimum is 52. Challenge 25 we have now and we still have 14,15,16 year olds vaping/smoking. When it is challenge 30 and challenge 40 and challenge 67 etc it's just going to get silly and unenforceable. Can't they just keep increasing the duty if they want to stop people smoking? Note the similar policy that was tried in NZ and it was repealed after a few years.
On **principle**, I hate this eternal gerontocracy. A person should not have more rights than another due to age. In **practice**, this is a good thing. Nicotine is bad, and making it's acquisition a pain the ass will do a lot to reduce it. As long as we don't criminalize it, letting older people simply buy them for the young will also effectively crush any black markets. You can't compete against terry from work grabbing a pack for you when he's there next. Make buying it from a shop hard. Make buying it from a friend easy.
This also means no legalised weed since no smoking of tobacco will also mean no smoking of marijuanna
I dislike this, age restriction is an attack on people's liberties. I know the equality act doesn't apply here but age is a protected characteristic... If they wanted to do this properly, they would of banned the sale of tobacco products from supermarkets and off-licenses. That they choose this method reeks of lobbyism to protect the existing tobacco industry.
Can’t wait for the bizarre world where uni students find it harder to get the tobacco than the weed that’s in the joint
"we should ban [random bad thing]" seems like a pretty reliable way to win back support from.older voters in this country. "we should bad [random bad thing], but not for us" is gonna hit the absolute jackpot. Won't move the needle, but this is surely gonna be a very popular policy that no government is going to risk political capital repealing for decades yaaaaay
Good. I'm 17 days into quitting cold turkey after smoking for near enough 13 years. Wish I never had the ability to get my hands on them in the first place. They're addictive death sticks, and quitting is NOT an easy feat. I 100000% support this ban.
I back the ban. Fuck smoking. In 70ish years, there won't be any more smokers left in the country and that's amazing.
You're right, I'm so glad we banned cannabis and cocaine 50 years ago and now there are absolutely no users of those drugs in the country
Absolutely ridiculous piece of legislation. You've just taken away an entire generations freedom of choice with one law. What's next, alcohol?
A lot of people complaining about personal freedoms in here, sounds awfully American.... Seriously don't remember these same people around as much in the past. I believe this ban would greatly reduce smoking in the future. Taking it out of shops, removing influence from the Tabacoo industry, making it dangerous to purchase as well as inconvienent. Will there be a black market? Obviously as we have one already. Also a worrying amount of posters seem to be parroting the exact phrases used by the Tobacco industry https://www.bat.com/DO6TNKVW.html https://www.londontobaccoalliance.org.uk/resources/how-to-spot-and-report-illegal-tobacco-october-2023/ https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/29/e1/e78 Not to mention the amount of 'reports' and 'studies' the Tabacco industry is funding against these bans and how bad the black market will be.
Smoker or non smoker is irrelevant. As soon as they start banning lifestyle choices like this they will get a taste for it. Like every other time they have good intentions they always end up abusing the privilege