Proposed, for those born after 2009. Linky.
Thoughts? I'm mildly conflicted by this. I am broadly in favour. I know it will be difficult to enforce but I think the potential public health benefits could be huge in years to come, savings for the NHS and just less cancer and lung disease. Win, win. Full disclosure - I've never smoked and as per a recent (somewhat controversial) thread I actively dislike being anywhere near anyone who is smoking. But.... and I recognise this is a bit of a contradiction, a small part of me can't help but thinking it is a bit of an erosion of personal freedom, civil liberties call it what you will. Despite that nagging thought, I think on balance it's the right thing to do.
People who smoke are addicts. They only have an illusion of choice.
Don't know why they don't just whack a tax escalator on them and maybe ban duty free imports.
Guess the black market will need some attention...
Unworkable nonsense - as demonstrated by New Zealand who tried it then gave up on it when they concluded it was unworkable nonsense.
It just highlights how detached from reality the cockwomble in number ten is
It just highlights how detached from reality the cockwomble in number ten is
And yet it has significant Labour and cross party support and is likely to get voted through because of it. The principle objectors who share your view are back bench Tories.
Phasing out the sale of tobacco makes sense to me. And this seems the least problematic way of doing so.
Unworkable nonsense – as demonstrated by New Zealand who tried it then gave up on it when they concluded it was unworkable nonsense
Er, no.
It was abandoned (never actually implemented) because a right wing government were elected who were worried about the loss in tax revenue.
The principle objectors who share your view are back bench Tories.
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
Its totally unworkable for reasons so glaringly obvious that even Liz Truss gets it
Its totally unworkable for reasons so glaringly obvious that even Liz Truss gets it
Again, no.
even Liz Truss gets it
Does she tho, or has she just read something she's been told to say without understanding it fully.
Don’t know why they don’t just whack a tax escalator on them
That would penalise people who are already addicted and unable to do anything about it. Maybe something a bit more sophisticated like a huge hike in price for more nicotine, forcing people to buy progressively lower nicotine fags until they have reduced their dependency? I'm not even sure that's possible. However, I've heard smokers tell me that they try and switch to whatever their version of 'lighter' fags is and they just end up smoking more - which is exactly what happens to me when I try and drink less caffeinated coffee.
However, whilst this certainly won't stop younger people smoking, or it might make older smokers who regret ever starting (most of them, in my experience) think twice about buying cigarettes for young people.
it doesn't need to be 100% effective, they just need to keep making it more expensive/difficult to buy until the point they can just ban it outright without too much trouble.I am supportive, but am unsure how this will be policed at the point of sale.
I am supportive, but am unsure how this will be policed at the point of sale. Conversely I am supportive of the legalisation of cannabis, so that’s seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in my thinking.
I'm of the same thinking. But, policing tobacco sales will be easy at first, while those near the age of being blocked from buying are relatively young and used to carrying ID for other stuff... and I suppose the hope is that a generation grows up not hooked on fags, so policing sales to them when they are older just isn't much of a thing. Time will tell... it's a future problem... that might not even be a problem at all when the time comes... who knows.
savings for the NHS
Isn't it reckened to actually be a net benefit? Speaking generally, they pay thousands in tax, for decades, then die in a hospital (which most people do anyway) but at an age that is lower than average (claiming less pension both state and private), but still usually post retirement (so a lifetime of income tax).
I support the ban in public places - its now really weird to go abroad and have people smoking inside.
But I'm on the side of let them have their vices when it isn't affecting anyone else. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak up...
When they come for beer, red meat and amateur outdoor adventure sports, there will be nobody left to speak up for me.
Lovely fags. Mmmm, smoking. Satisfying ciggy after a meal or when your lungs are freshly scoured after a bike ride.
Yes of course it should be banned. It ends with a miserable death and huge costs to society. The companies who sell them should be fined until there’s no profit left in it.
It’s a dumbass thing to do, like not wearing a seatbelt or a crash helmet on a motorbike. Duh. Just get rid and the next generations will never know what a great way to pace your day puffing away is.
Save me from what I want. See also, cream cakes and those little cylinders of cheese with salami wrapped around them that look like a smokers artery.
Smoking is a fairly unique drug in that if you don't take it up in your teens most likely you won't. It's main appeal is that it is available and it's very very difficult to stop once you've started. 18 year olds can buy it for their 16 year old mates. They can pass it on to their 13 year old mates. It's an industry that is entirely reliant on children having access to their product for its survival.
If you can gradually make it harder and harder for 13 to 18 year olds to buy cigarettes then eventually the path to addiction should be broken at which point tobacco companies are relying on people in their 20s deciding that smoking is cool and they want to give it a try.
Best of luck to them with that.
"That would penalise people who are already addicted and unable to do anything about it. "
But it is possible to do something about it - there must be thousands of ex-smokers out there...
smoked for 20 years
hated it, couldn't give up, never understood why it was even a legal thing, been smoke free at least 10 years now
great idea, smoking killed my mum at 55, probably contributed to my dads health later in life, my daughter has the occasional cigarette. no idea why.... would put it out of reach of my lad
Smoking doesn't need to be a thing, freedom of choice? well the current smokers have got that freedom of choice so there should be no argument.
Although I guess you could say the same about alcohol in some universe, I would argue smoking is way more addictive as I was stuck with it, yet i can drink as little or as much as I want with no addictive side affects, I know this isn't the same for everyone. I guess smoking isn't the same for everyone either, in my mind smoking is way more dangerous than drinking.
We have been heading this way, with it being phased out of public spaces 20? years ago... It seems weird to think you could sit on a table in restaurant chuffing away while a stranger on the next table is eating..
The idea of a ban that means that a 42 year old is being asked for their ID to make sure they are not 41 is clearly daft. However - I'm not sure it's quite that. I guess the idea is to get people to 25 years old or similar before buying fags is no longer a hassle. I'm sure the research is there somewhere but how many people would bother starting a cigarette addiction at 25 or thereabout. Or to put in another way - if you asked a punch of 50 years old smokers what age got a committed habit going, I'd be astonished if many of them said it was older than 18 or 19.
IMO it would have been better if they were proposing a raising old the age by a year every year until it was 25 or 27 or something. It would have been easier to buy into as a workable proposal.
In other news - how many of today's 13 year old are actually going to smoke? Vape yes, smoke not so much.
Following the STW consensus, tobacco should be banned, cannabis should be legal, wood-burning stoves should be mandatory, and dogs should be allowed all these things free on the NHS.
But it is possible to do something about it – there must be thousands of ex-smokers out there
Theoretically possible, sure. In practice, there are a whole raft of issues surrounding addiction that can be very difficult to overcome - see the large number of people who smoke themselves to death whilst being fully aware that they are doing it.
But I’m on the side of let them have their vices when it isn’t affecting anyone else.
But it does affect other people. Ever seen a parent or loved one die of lung cancer? It definitely has an effect.
We have been heading this way, with it being phased out of public spaces 20? years ago… It seems weird to think you could sit on a table in restaurant chuffing away while a stranger on the next table is eating..
was talking about that with family the other week. I remember in the 80s going on long train journeys and walking through the smoking carriage on the way to the restaurant car etc. Horrific.
Banning it gets my vote. Three of my grandparents died of lung cancer after smoking for large parts of their lives. We know the effects of smoking now so why on earth anyone does it is beyond me...
In other news – how many of today’s 13 year old are actually going to smoke? Vape yes, smoke not so much.
According to my teacher friend, smoking is in and vaping is out.
Apparently it's only the old folk who are vaping (ie, 25 year olds).
MSPFull Member
I am supportive, but am unsure how this will be policed at the point of sale. Conversely I am supportive of the legalisation of cannabis, so that’s seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in my thinking.
I don't think there's a dichotomy. There are benefits of cannabis. Don't think there's any for smoking cigs.
politecameraactionFree Member
Following the STW consensus, tobacco should be banned, cannabis should be legal, wood-burning stoves should be mandatory, and dogs should be allowed all these things free on the NHS.
Now that’s what a socialist utopia looks like.
You can take up cannabis at any age. And people do. Because it's actually a good drug that doesn't rely on making its users hopelessly addicted while they are still adolescents. Same with many other drugs.
Banning those good drugs leads to a black market and all the associated problems.
You can actually get high off nutmeg. Most people don't bother because it's a crap drug. It's also not addictive so even people who try it don't find themselves spending all their spare money on nutmeg.
Tobacco is a special case and there is nothing wrong with treating it as such.
then die in a hospital (which most people do anyway) but at an age that is lower than average (claiming less pension both state and private), but still usually post retirement (so a lifetime of income tax)
There's a 'yes and no' to that. Death from smoking-related illness is often preceded by a long period of smoking related ill health and debility, which if we're going to look at this from an actuarial POV carries its own financial and social cost. I think the overall answer to tax vs cost argument is 'we don't really know' but if we can make people's lives better in 30yo time because they don't get out of breath walking from the sofa to the front door, or have both their legs, then it's all to the good, no?
Following the STW consensus, tobacco should be banned, cannabis should be legal, wood-burning stoves should be mandatory, and dogs should be allowed all these things free on the NHS.
As with those opposing e.g. LTNs (which are also as much a public health measure as anything else), I think the STW consensus isn't that at all, but it is the consensus of those with the loudest voices?
Like one of the earlier posters it's a bit of a dichotomy for me. For reference I'm a non-smoker.
Was reading about the proposed smoking ban and thinking that it makes perfect sense. Save the NHS etc etc.
But on the other hand I think that drugs should be legalised to drive them out of the black market and all that entails.
Also I'd hazard a guess that the next big cost for the NHS is obesity followed by alcohol. I like crappy food and booze, so don't want that banned.
So yeah I feel like my liberal view means that a smoking ban for those born after 2009 should not be put in place.
Maybe they should just not treat anyone for free on the NHS if the issue is caused by smoking, being a fatty or booze.
Means I've only got a 2 in 3 chance of having to pay 😄
I struggle to see how something like cocaine is banned and use can end in a jail sentence, but fags aren’t. Both are hugely addictive and terrible for your health.
Indeed they are. But being under the influence of tobacco means you are unlikely to run down someones kid. Cocaine in the system, thats a distinct possibility.
That's why we have laws about drink and drug driving. Completely separate to the legality of consuming them based on harm to self.
potential public health benefits could be huge in years to come, savings for the NHS and just less cancer and lung disease. Win, win.
I work in primary healthcare and see the results of smoking and what it does to folks. I'm broadly in favour of banning. If some-one invented ciggies now, they'd be banned immediately pretty much. The health benefits to a huge swathe of he population who'd otherwise take up smoking can't be underestimated. Plus the tobacco co's have shown themselves time and time again to be merciless in their pursuit of profit at the expensive of lives and the very worst sort of corporate a-holes.
The freedom of choice argument is interesting, because where do you stand on drugs? What if they decided to reclassify nicotine as Class C? That changes the entire landscape of things, it becomes just as much freedom of choice as illegal drugs but opens up the black markets to take advantage and sees us lose taxable income.
Stopping smoking won't fix the NHS. Yes, long term it may see a reduction in patient load, but more funding and proper management is what's needed, everything else is smoke and mirrors.
a small part of me can’t help but thinking it is a bit of an erosion of personal freedom, civil liberties call it what you will.
Firearms used to be legal in the UK< and for a bit there was no speed limit. In other areas of public health concern we take action. Yes individual freedoms may be curtailed, but society as a whole benefits
I'm generally against this sort of thing, but as someone that's recently quit - I'm fully on board with this
Like most smokers, I wish I'd never started - once you do, it's an addiction, don't kid yourself
However, I'm also for the decriminalisation of weed so my opinions don't really make any sense
Indeed they are. But being under the influence of tobacco means you are unlikely to run down someones kid. Cocaine in the system, thats a distinct possibility.
you’ll go absolutely nuts when you find out about alcohol..
Last thing. Also when the likes of Truss and Mordant are espousing the personal liberty or freedom of choice argument , it is because a Tufton Street think-tank funded by the likes of Philip Morris are paying them to say those things.
