Generational Smoking Bans

[brad465]

I’m on the fence.

Never smoked (officially) and the number of people I know who smoke is in low single figures - curiosly all teachers or medical profession, you‘d think they would know better.

However, I’m of the opinion - admittedly very controversial - that smoking does not, actually, cost ’society’ much at current levels.

I know (or rather, knew) several people who smoked and have died at a relatively young age as a result, almost exclusively due to lung cancer or circulatory issues. In all cases, the end was relatively swift. Very sad obviously, but nothing could be done. AIUI this is typical for those who are long term smokers, although obviously there are many exceptions (including my great aunt who was 60 Embassy a day from the age of 13 to 85.)

Now that smoking is a niche pursuit, many people who would otherwise have died in their 50s and 60s through smoking are living longer, and instead of expiring with lung cancer etc. are having other types of illnesses in their 60s / 70s / 80s, often prolonged. This must cost the NHS more. Whilst true that their illnesses are later in life (deferred, if you like), they still happen, and more expensively. And all whilst drawing a state pension too.

Given how much knowledge there is on the subject, I find it difficult to believe that the average UK smoker does not know what risks they are taking. And, given restrictions on smoking in public places, the effect on others through passive smoking must now be close to negligible. (I certainly get more ‘passive’ smoke from those smoking ‘jazzy roll ups‘ than tobacco).

So, if a ‘consenting adult’ wishes to smoke, and does so in a way that does not materially affect others, and pays relevant duty and tax on their product of choice… then if they choose to significantly increase their chances of shortening their life, have a (relatively) swift demise, pay a decent sum in tax and duty to the Exchequer, and reduce the amount of state pension the rest of us have to pay to them in future… then I say that is up to them.

More or less how Yes Prime Minister put it:

 

[AY1975]

Those opposed to anti-smoking measures often argue that in a free society adults should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to smoke. I suppose they do have a point; after all, tobacco is a perfectly legal product that is used by millions of law-abiding citizens across the world.

But they tend to overlook the fact that it is mostly children and adolescents, not adults, who start smoking, and that most smokers didn't exactly make a conscious decision to take up the habit in the first place. You hear people who are already smokers moaning about having their rights taken away from them, such as the right to smoke indoors other than in their own home, but you don't hear young people who haven't started smoking yet moaning about the government trying to stop them from starting.

For most smokers their habit is a childhood addiction rather than an adult choice. That said, I suppose you could argue that whilst it is a childhood addiction, it's an adult choice to carry on smoking rather than do something about it. But I think you will find that most smokers wish they had never started but lack the determination to stop, or have tried to kick the habit but failed.

It is a difficult one. On the one hand, there is the "out of sight, out of mind" argument that if you don't see people doing something, you're less likely to think to try it yourself, but on the other hand, making something more of a taboo can increase its appeal to those who are of a rebellious mindset.

 

[plugwash]

I think one minor issue with this poll is that votes opposing generational smoking bans are going to be ambiguous: You might be opposed because you think smoking should always be legal, or you might be opposed because you want an even stronger ban that applies to everyone.

Or you might be opposed because you think age discrimination is wrong, whether it's smoking, driving licenses or anything else.

 

[Cdd89]

For most smokers their habit is a childhood addiction rather than an adult choice. That said, I suppose you could argue that whilst it is a childhood addiction, it's an adult choice to carry on smoking rather than do something about it

I’m not sure this has much to do with generational smoking bans. Children are already prohibited from purchasing cigarettes.

 

[E27007]

How would the generational smoking ban fare in the Courts under a case of discrimination by age?
l

 

[sprunt]

But they tend to overlook the fact that it is mostly children and adolescents, not adults, who start smoking

And it's already illegal for them to buy tobacco. Hardly a glowing reference for the effectiveness of prohibition is it?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I wouldn't support a ban; it's anti-libertarian and discriminatory. And personally, I can't remember the last time I saw a young adult smoking a cigarette. It's all vapes these days. Provided they are well informed, I think anyone should have freedom of choice.

I would rather the Government regulate the ever-increasing popularity of vapes as god-only-knows what's in them. This is another time-bomb health issue ready to explode in the next 10-20 years but of course, it'll be for the government of the day to worry about rather than this government

 

[AY1975]

I wouldn't support a ban; it's anti-libertarian and discriminatory. And personally, I can't remember the last time I saw a young adult smoking a cigarette. It's all vapes these days. Provided they are well informed, I think anyone should have freedom of choice.

It's all very well saying that, and to be fair that argument does have some merit, but for most smokers I would doubt very much if their decision to try smoking for the first time genuinely was well informed whether they were under or over the legal age for buying tobacco when they first started.

I suspect that the decision to try a cigarette (or vaping) for the first time is usually a spur-of-the-moment decision that someone makes without giving it much thought: either they have been exposed to smoking from an early age so they regard it as normal adult behaviour, or they just happen to find themselves in a situation where there is tobacco on offer (for example with friends at a pub outside table or at a party) and they aren't strong-willed enough to resist the temptation to try it.

Libertarians often despise the "nanny state", but in a civilised society some restrictions are necessary to prevent harm. There are a lot of vulnerable people out there who need protecting from themselves.

And it's already illegal for them to buy tobacco. Hardly a glowing reference for the effectiveness of prohibition is it?

There are still ways and means by which they can obtain tobacco, though.

 

[renegademaster]

There are still ways and means by which they can obtain tobacco, though.

And when the age ban comes in , their will still be ways and means, just ones that fund criminal gangs rather than HMRC

 

[Broucek]

And when the age ban comes in , their will still be ways and means, just ones that fund criminal gangs rather than HMRC

This. Also, I believe that most of today's black market fags are made by (in relative terms) reputable firms for sale in other markets. But what happens when the black marketeers start making their own fags?

 

[Tetchytyke]

And when the age ban comes in , their will still be ways and means, just ones that fund criminal gangs rather than HMRC

Precisely.

Look at cannabis. It’s illegal but it’s everywhere, funding organised crime. Exactly the same would happen with tobacco.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Look at cannabis. It’s illegal but it’s everywhere, funding organised crime. Exactly the same would happen with tobacco.

But the question is, is it available in the same quantities as it would be available if it was legal. Ditto harder drugs that are more dangerous and also illegal, but still available from criminal gangs etc.

Experience is that making something illegal almost never means that that thing disappears completely. But we generally consider that it's worth making something bad illegal if doing so substantially reduces the extent to which people use (or do) whatever it is. (In just the same way that you don't decide the laws against - say - speeding, or murder, or robbery, are a failure because those things still happen a lot. Rather, you keep them illegal and see what you can do to improve enforcing those laws.)

For that reason, I have little time for arguments along the line of 'X happens a lot therefore we should just make X legal'. If you take that approach then you've basically abandoned one of the key roles of Government: To set standards of what behaviour we consider acceptable in our society.

 

[renegademaster]

is it available in the same quantities as it would be available if it was legal

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL5730185/

According to research Netherlands is below average in European cannabis consumption

 

[Tetchytyke]

But the question is, is it available in the same quantities as it would be available if it was legal.

There is some research to show that cannabis consumption is actually lower in countries where it is legal.

Research also shows that the illegality is part of the appeal of smoking cannabis for young people.

So the answer is: very probably.

I have little time for arguments along the line of 'X happens a lot therefore we should just make X legal'. If you take that approach then you've basically abandoned one of the key roles of Government: To set standards of what behaviour we consider acceptable in our society.

If something is very popular, and does no harm to others, is that behaviour “unacceptable” though?

I don’t have much time for the reverse argument: “I don’t like it therefore it should be illegal, even though lots of people do like it”. There’s a very puritanical edge to a lot of these people who want stuff banned, whether it’s gambling or alcohol or tobacco.

I’ve no desire to smoke tobacco but I think it should be legal to do so.

 

[AM9]

I think it's a bit of a silly nanny state policy, brought in of course by the party who are the opposite of everything they claim to be

Low immigration
Low tax
Anti Nanny State
Pro Business
Pro Family
Pro Freedom of choice

I just don't see why they didn't continue down the successful road smoking legislation has been going down until this point, continue to tighten it up. Gradually reduce the places you can buy cigarettes, keep wacking the tax up etc

I agree that this is probably the best way to go. Aside from the health issues of the perpetrators of smoking, - ultimately whether illegal or otherwise, it's the effect it has on normal people who don't, - smoking in a public place, even outdoors impacts on others as unpleasant, and for a many (think asthmatics), does have a health penalty. By progressively squeezing the habit into non-public spaces, most habitual smokers will eventually give up.
For all the libertarians out there, your right to smoke does not trump a non-smoker's right to breathe air that hasn't been polluted by others pursuing an unnecessary habit.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There is some research to show that cannabis consumption is actually lower in countries where it is legal.

Research also shows that the illegality is part of the appeal of smoking cannabis for young people.

I suspect cannabis is not quite comparable to smoking because, whereas pretty much everyone knows that smoking is extremely harmful, there's quite a widespread belief that cannabis is harmless and therefore that there isn't much good reason for it to be banned. I admit I'm not sure to what extent that belief is correct. The thing I should have added in my previous post is that, for banning something to be effective, there needs to be a fairly strong opinion across society that the thing is bad. For that reason, I would argue that cigarettes are somewhat more comparable to harder drugs - which are well known to be extremely harmful and which therefore almost noone proposes to legalise.

If something is very popular, and does no harm to others, is that behaviour “unacceptable” though?

I would say there are very few circumstances in which smoking does no harm to others though. Even if you smoke in your own house and are careful not to cause anyone else to have to breathe in the smoke, the health problems you cause yourself will ultimately put an additional strain on NHS resources, as well as very likely causing distress to those close to you.

But in any case I believe what we're talking about is banning selling cigarettes. If you sell cigarettes to someone who is not already completely addicted to them, then it looks to me much more clear cut that you are causing harm to someone else. Your actions will contribute to getting your customer addicted to something that will very likely cause them a huge amount of suffering in the future, as well as shortening their life, reducing their quality of life - and with a very high likelihood that they will later come to regret that they started smoking - but be unable to stop because of the addictive chemicals in cigarettes.

I realise there is a balance here between freedom to do what you want and the harm that freedom causes. There's no perfect solution, and for things like smoking (or other drugs), you have to make a possibly difficult judgement call over where the balance lies. To my mind though, one of the most powerful arguments for moving towards making it impossible for people to legally acquire cigarettes is that so many smokers themselves later on come to regret smoking and to feel that their lives would have been better if they had not been able to start smoking.

 

[AY1975]

I suspect cannabis is not quite comparable to smoking because, whereas pretty much everyone knows that smoking is extremely harmful, there's quite a widespread belief that cannabis is harmless and therefore that there isn't much good reason for it to be banned. I admit I'm not sure to what extent that belief is correct. The thing I should have added in my previous post is that, for banning something to be effective, there needs to be a fairly strong opinion across society that the thing is bad. For that reason, I would argue that cigarettes are somewhat more comparable to harder drugs - which are well known to be extremely harmful and which therefore almost noone proposes to legalise.



I would say there are very few circumstances in which smoking does no harm to others though. Even if you smoke in your own house and are careful not to cause anyone else to have to breathe in the smoke, the health problems you cause yourself will ultimately put an additional strain on NHS resources, as well as very likely causing distress to those close to you.

But in any case I believe what we're talking about is banning selling cigarettes. If you sell cigarettes to someone who is not already completely addicted to them, then it looks to me much more clear cut that you are causing harm to someone else. Your actions will contribute to getting your customer addicted to something that will very likely cause them a huge amount of suffering in the future, as well as shortening their life, reducing their quality of life - and with a very high likelihood that they will later come to regret that they started smoking - but be unable to stop because of the addictive chemicals in cigarettes.

I realise there is a balance here between freedom to do what you want and the harm that freedom causes. There's no perfect solution, and for things like smoking (or other drugs), you have to make a possibly difficult judgement call over where the balance lies. To my mind though, one of the most powerful arguments for moving towards making it impossible for people to legally acquire cigarettes is that so many smokers themselves later on come to regret smoking and to feel that their lives would have been better if they had not been able to start smoking.

Exactly, well said. With choice comes responsibility.

I see that MPs will be voting on the measure today.

 

[RailWonderer]

We'll have to see the results of the MP's vote today but these nanny state ideas are masking up the failure of the NHS - life expectancies will fall anyway from the lack of GPs and long waiting lists for vital operations (there is some evidence this is already the case) not cigarette smoking. In fact smoking rates have declined regardless of legislation, even with the tobacco lobbies in the US smoking rates have still fallen sharply.

 

[Bald Rick]

Controversial opinion - the reduction in smoking is causing more problems for the NHS than it solves.

Lots of poeple who would have smoked for life, and expired fairly quickly with little treatment through lung cancer or heart troubles in their 50s, are now making it to their 70s / 80s and having more, longer and more complicated ailments in later life (as most older people do).

 

[Busaholic]

Controversial opinion - the reduction in smoking is causing more problems for the NHS than it solves.

Lots of poeple who would have smoked for life, and expired fairly quickly with little treatment through lung cancer or heart troubles in their 50s, are now making it to their 70s / 80s and having more, longer and more complicated ailments in later life (as most older people do).

Intuitively I can see how that seems to be true, but it has to be considered alongside the statistical evidence that life expectancy is decreasing for both males and females in the UK, such that the 2020 to 2022 Census figures show males back below the 2010-2012 figures, with females on a par. I suspect this is due to an overwhelmed NHS being quite unable to deal with the increased demand, so many lives are being foreshortened by smallish amounts and a (comparative) few by longer ones.

 

[brad465]

Controversial opinion - the reduction in smoking is causing more problems for the NHS than it solves.

Lots of poeple who would have smoked for life, and expired fairly quickly with little treatment through lung cancer or heart troubles in their 50s, are now making it to their 70s / 80s and having more, longer and more complicated ailments in later life (as most older people do).

Basically what Sir Humphrey said all those years ago:

EDIT: Just realised I shared the same clip last year upthread.

 

[nw1]

I don't smoke and never have done, but I consider it unnecessarily authoritarian and discriminatory.

If they want to completely ban sale of tobacco to all age groups, that could be acceptable. But not just to one adult age group. And even here, the ban should apply to sale, not use.

 

[Trackman]

We'll have to see the results of the MP's vote today but these nanny state ideas are masking up the failure of the NHS - life expectancies will fall anyway from the lack of GPs and long waiting lists for vital operations (there is some evidence this is already the case) not cigarette smoking. In fact smoking rates have declined regardless of legislation, even with the tobacco lobbies in the US smoking rates have still fallen sharply.

The thing is it is not a smoking ban, it's a vote on those born from 2009 buying cigarettes. It will just drive it underground, which it already is in parts.

 

[JamesT]

I don't smoke and never have done, but I consider it unnecessarily authoritarian and discriminatory.

If they want to completely ban sale of tobacco to all age groups, that could be acceptable. But not just to one adult age group. And even here, the ban should apply to sale, not use.

Given the addictive nature of smoking, introducing a generational ban is about the only sane way to ban it for everyone unless you were going to hand out free patches for life.
The proposed law is a ban on sale, not use.

 

[Yew]

Even New Zealand, which first proposed this extreme and authoritarian policy, has since backend down. I fear that given the support on the Labour benches, we're in for the next parliament being one of continuation of broken Neoliberal economic policies, and an interventionist state trying to interfere in our personal lives at every opportunity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Intuitively I can see how that seems to be true, but it has to be considered alongside the statistical evidence that life expectancy is decreasing for both males and females in the UK, such that the 2020 to 2022 Census figures show males back below the 2010-2012 figures, with females on a par. I suspect this is due to an overwhelmed NHS being quite unable to deal with the increased demand, so many lives are being foreshortened by smallish amounts and a (comparative) few by longer ones.

I suspect - based on my views only - that is much more to do with obesity and processed food.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Even New Zealand, which first proposed this extreme and authoritarian policy, has since backend down. I fear that given the support on the Labour benches, we're in for the next parliament being one of continuation of broken Neoliberal economic policies, and an interventionist state trying to interfere in our personal lives at every opportunity.

I don't think 'backed down' is the right way of putting it. My understanding is that the proposed smoking ban in New Zealand fell by the wayside when the Labour Government lost the 2023 general election (for other reasons, not related to the smoking ban), giving way to the Conservatives who in New Zealand are libertarian-minded and were always opposed to the smoking ban.

btw isn't 'Neoliberal economic policies, and an interventionist state' self contradictory?

 

[jfollows]

Second Reading passed, of course, because Labour supported it, but maybe 100 Conservative abstentions, 60 Conservative votes against the principle of the bill rather than the details at this stage, and 6 or more Cabinet members voted against.
I'm totally against this legislation, as I said earlier in this thread, so for once I'm in agreement with people with whom I normally disagree strongly.

EDIT The numbers reported by https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ry-splits-rishi-sunak-labour-uk-politics-live

According to the UK Parliament website’s division list, 57 Tory MPs voted No to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Among them were former home secretary Suella Braverman, the business secretary Kemi Badenoch, former Home Office minister Robert Jenrick, former prime minister Liz Truss and former housing secretary Sir Simon Clarke.

Several serving ministers were also among those voting against including Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart, Northern Ireland minister Steve Baker, culture minister Julia Lopez, and communities minister Lee Rowley.

Tory MPs voting against the Bill were joined by 7 DUP MPs, Reform Party MP Lee Anderson, and Workers Party of Britain MP George Galloway.

Some 178 Conservatives supported the Bill according to the list, alongside 160 Labour MPs, 31 SNP MPs, 5 Liberal Democrats, 3 Plaid Cymru MPs, 2 independents, and the Alliance Party’s Stephen Farry.

Some 106 Tory MPs did not vote as well as 40 Labour MPs.

 

[dangie]

I’m disappointed there isn’t a total ban on smoking. If people wish to damage their health that’s their prerogative, but littering the streets with discarded fag ends isn’t. I’m sure not all smokers are guilty of this, but because of it I tar (no pun intended) them all with the same brush.

 

[Yew]

I’m disappointed there isn’t a total ban on smoking. If people wish to damage their health that’s their prerogative, but littering the streets with discarded fag ends isn’t. I’m sure not all smokers are guilty of this, but because of it I tar (no pun intended) them all with the same brush.

There are already laws against littering though?