Smoking ban

As an owner of shop Involved in the industry we are completely pro the new measures and laws. Infact personally I’d say it doesn’t go far enough….

There are other convenience shops near me, and around the country who are kicking up a right stick about it though, many where 40% or more of their trade comes from tobacco and vapes. Some of the supermarkets, Tesco/Sainsbury’s etc are also lobbying the gov to reduce the impact on stores.

And if you accept the personal liberty argument, then clearly all drugs should be legalised (and taxed) which will make the Tories heads explode.

not that kind of freedom. only the kind that makes money for tory party donors..

not that kind of freedom. only the kind that makes money for tory party donors..

Theresa May’s Husband Set To Personally Profit From UK Cannabis Reform

I’ve not noticed movies or fashion pushing smoking more than it has in the last decade or so.

Watching “One Day”… it’s period correct use of smoking for scene setting, character definition, and just the look is absolutely spot on. The variation in the way fags are lit or held for example. Very well studied. If you’re weren’t around in the early 90s it probably just looks glamorous.

Making stuff illegal doesn’t work. Look at the so called war on drugs.

The context would be a different.  Hard drugs exist for a different reason. The issue with tobacco is that it doesn’t really do a lot – you aren’t going to go out to score some fags for a hardcore bender, are you?  It just permeates society everywhere, gets people addicted and then kills them horribly and slowly.  If coffee were carcinogenic would we be ok with everyone drinking it all the time?

Making stuff illegal doesn’t work.

The oft cited example being American Prohibitionism. There’s plenty of evidence to say that actually, it did in a reasonably noticeable way, epically on public health;

According to the historian Jack S. Blocker Jr., “death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect.

And there’s mixed evidence to suggest that crime surged during prohibition, historians noting that violent crime existed before and after prohibition at about the same levels. The reason the 21st  amendment was introduced was probably the effect on the economy that banning alcohol had, estimates put the loss of taxes at $226 million/ annum.

Making stuff illegal doesn’t work. Look at the so called war on drugs.

It’s not a flat out ban though is it?

Existing smokers can carry on smoking legally. It’s only stopping those who would become underage.

Smoking has a drug would eventually die out along with the smokers….

I have no idea how it will work in practice. Are all shop workers now meant to ask everyone for ID as it will soon become impossible to tell if some one is 35 or 33 and one legally can buy them and one cant.

I believe the idea is that they’ll phase tobacco out, so there won’t be any to buy by the time they approach the legal age.

When you let people smoke they have a sense of freedom. It gives people something to look forward to and brings people together.

Smokers pay more in tax, once from their wages, secondly on the purchase of tabacco products. They also, on average, don’t live as long as non-smokers and therefore save the government thousands in pension payouts and associated health costs of old age.

Pretty sure this is in an episode of Yes Minister c1982

Alcohol being so cheap in supermarkets needs addressed though.

Easily done through Minimum Unit Pricing.

Pretty sure this is in an episode of Yes Minister c1982

😂

I have no idea how it will work in practice. Are all shop workers now meant to ask everyone for ID as it will soon become impossible to tell if some one is 35 or 33 and one legally can buy them and one cant.

Essentially we would need to ask anyone who looks under 25 for id, as we do now, and if they are born 2009 or after refuse. Really not as big a deal as some in the trade are making if out to be – we already have to enforce age restriction on products, this would just be a rolling age.

By the time we get to 2044 and those born 2008/9 will be in there mid 30’s the idea is that the vast majority won’t be smoking.

I admire the intent.

I think the bill is a bit performative.

I have doubts that it’ll be effective.

I’m interested to see the impact.

Yeah, it does sound a bit like re-aranging the deck chairs on the titanic, something this government specialises in.

I’m not against the ban, I’m just unconvinced it will be very effective given the natural decline anyway.

When this subject comes up the thing that amazes me most is just how f****** judgemental people are about others use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. If you don’t want to smoke, drink, take drugs and eat shit food then very well done, but the leave the rest of us to make our own decisions about how we live our lives. It’s none of your f****** business!

PS. And yes this smoking ban policy is the most lunatic, unworkable, ill-thought out policy since Theresa May came up with the dementia tax.

Crumbs, I agree with dazh.

Uncanny!

When this subject comes up the thing that amazes me most is just how f****** judgemental people are about others use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.

I mostly see people receptive to the idea of future generations of addicts being denied to tobacco companies.

When this subject comes up the thing that amazes me most is just how f****** judgemental people are about others use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.

Got any examples from this thread or you just yelling at clouds?

but the leave the rest of us to make our own decisions about how we live our lives

As alluded to above, smokers aren’t the free-thinking rebels just “going their own way” you seem to think they are, they’re weak-minded, easily manipulated people preyed on by huge multinationals who want to kill them for profit. And you think this is a good thing??! 😂

I think the ID issue will become a non issue. As smokers die out and fewer (illegally) start the number of customers for fags will reduce and a tipping point will be reached where retailers decide the hassle of stocking them isn’t worth the income. Supply will reduce and fags will become even less visible hastening their decline.

Personally I think vapes should also be included in the rolling ban.

Very good point there Jon. Vaping works to help move smokers off cigs… but letting people sell them to people they’ve never been allowed to sell cigs to makes little sense.

And yes this smoking ban policy is the most lunatic, unworkable, ill-thought out policy since Theresa May came up with the dementia tax

i mean it seems quite simple to me. Am I missing something?

fixed odds betting machines next anyone?

Were those petty tyrants in the SNP involved in this? It smacks of being one of their nutjob policies. Where does this lead up to, ‘MAID’ in my pretty cynical opinion.

Vote freedom!

It is supported across all four nations, by all parties.

Got any examples from this thread or you just yelling at clouds?

“they’re weak-minded, easily manipulated people”

See above, and many comments like it. Every smoker I’ve ever met (including myself) chose to begin smoking of their own accord, then continued because they liked it. Many have also given up (including myself), again because they chose to for a variety of reasons (none of them included being victims of evil multinational companies). A small minority (mostly from my parent’s generation) are addicts and can’t stop and need help. Same goes for alcohol etc. This view of smokers/drinkers/drug users as mindless drones being exploited by malign influences is a fantasy borne of superiority and self-justification. Has it occured to you guys that maybe people just like consuming these things because they derive some benefit from it?

chose to begin smoking of their own accord

or so you think. Everyone believes they’re immune to advertising, etc, but if that were the case then companies would not spend such huge amounts of money on it! They have spent fortunes convincing young people that smoking is “cool”, and it absolutely has paid off many many times over for them.

Every smoker I’ve ever met (including myself) chose to begin smoking of their own accord, then continued because they liked it.

How old were you when you started?

And how old were the majority of smokers you know when they started?

Would you say they were fully formed adults with the maturity to make the decision to start something with addictive qualities, an addictive quality that was most likely going to follow them around for the rest of their lives?

or so you think. Everyone believes they’re immune to advertising, etc

So what if they are? We’re all motivated by outside influences in everything we do, but we still ultimately have agency (and responsibility) to make our own decisions. Just because you’re congratulating yourself at being able to resist some of these influences doesn’t give you the right to impose your opinion on others who can make their own decisions.

You’re the one “congratulating yourself” about your singular resolve and having a handle on a substance that others sadly can’t escape the grip of and wish they’d never taken up.

You’re the one “congratulating yourself”

No I’m suggesting that the majority of smokers smoke out of choice rather than because they’re victims of tobacco companies. Those who are addicted and want/need help to stop should of course get it. It’s their choice though, just as taking it up was. It shouldn’t really be anyone else’s business.

This is all getting too personal and unnecessary. Sorry for joining in.

A change of angle…

In the debate, one Conservative MP spoke against the bill saying that we should be turning young people into “warriors” and that this bill goes against that. Sounded quite bonkers to me… I’ll look for a clip…

EDIT: Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley… dodgy local press website has the quotes and video here.

Just because you’re congratulating yourself at being able to resist some of these influences doesn’t give you the right to impose your opinion on others who can make their own decisions.

The only people who are going to be affected by the law are currently 14-15 years old. Can we at least agree that they are not really ready to decide whether to start smoking or not?

It could be this law has absolutely no effect on the numbers who start smoking.  I’m struggling to see what the risks of trying are though.  There is plenty of time to observe the effects and roll back if any unforeseen things are happening.

Even if you just wanted to increase the starting age from 18 to 21 this seems like the most sensible way of doing it, rather than suddenly making a bunch of 19 and 20 year old addicts unable to buy cigarettes legally.

The only people who are going to be affected by the law are currently 14-15 years old. Can we at least agree that they are not really ready to decide whether to start smoking or not?

Of course we can. But there’s no reason to continue preventing them from smoking when they reach adulthood. Banning adults from doing stuff they like doesn’t work, it’s as simple as that and we have more than enough evidence of that fact.

 Banning adults from doing stuff they like doesn’t work,

Most adults who start smoking don’t like it and don’t continue.  If the tobacco companies don’t get kids to take it up before they are 20 they have pretty much lost that customer forever.

Not true for alcohol, mushrooms, MDMA, etc.  You can take those up pretty much anytime in your life because they are actually quite good drugs.

I don’t see anything wrong with exploring ways of reducing the number of children who take up smoking.  This isn’t a blanket ban and it’s being introduced in the most sensible way possible.

And if, after 3 years, we have seen a massive increase in the black market for cigarettes then the law can be looked at again.

Like I said, it seems like it’s worth trying and there are very few risks involved.  As far as I can see it’s nothing to get worked up about.

“others sadly can’t escape the grip of and wish they’d never taken up.”

Is that your view @kelvin or is it from elsewhere? BITD you could certainly be given nicotine chewing gum via the NHS to help with stopping, does anyone know if that’s still the case?

dazh is right in that “it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business” and it does concern me that (most) folk on here have such an intolerant attitude. Why? Because you stopped smoking? Does it give you rights?

What an enlightening thread!

No I’m suggesting that the majority of smokers smoke out of choice rather than because they’re victims of tobacco companies. Those who are addicted and want/need help to stop should of course get it. It’s their choice though, just as taking it up was. It shouldn’t really be anyone else’s business.

A recent survey suggested 53% of all smokers try to quit per annum and 75% relapse in 6 months. Not victims of tobacco companies per se but the addictive nature of the product they sell.

PS I’m a ex smoker (saved over £73k on cigarettes since giving up) and support the right for people to make choices.

I don’t see anything wrong with exploring ways of reducing the number of children who take up smoking.

Me neither, but we already have ways of doing that. I wouldn’t for instance object to raising the minimum age to 21 and would (probably) support a blanket ban on flavoured vapes etc.

This isn’t a blanket ban and it’s being introduced in the most sensible way possible.

It is if you’re under 14 as you won’t legally be allowed to smoke. This is why it’ll never work, what are they going to do, issue smoking licences? Great, lets spend even more money on bureacracy when public services are crumbling. 🙄

This is why it’ll never work, what are they going to do, issue smoking licences?

No, they are going to ID people.  Same as they do now.

Again, not sure what the issue is.  If you are in favour of raising the age to 21 anyway then you are getting what you want in the most sensible way possible (although vapes should also be included, I agree).

Why not wait until 2030 when the current crop turn 21 and we have a better idea of what the effects are before declaring the whole thing a disaster?

I suspect that the Conservatives have chosen this method because it’s cheap above all else.