Do you think smoking will be outlawed in your lifetime?

[RobotNews]

Obviously v.v. bad for you (directly or passively) - already banned in public places etc. Young people continue to start smoking (although I don’t know the figures for this anecdata)

My DM had been a smoker all her life and her lungs are giving up. Nothing official as she won’t go to the drs but wheezes and coughs all the time.

It’s gotten me thinking that a full ban on selling tobacco/smoking in public must be on the cards at some point - but when?

We may need the taxes but do smokers need the health problems?

@Babdoc it’s true that the money saved from smoking could then be spent elsewhere, but I’m not sure that a lot of other products are as highly taxed

I don't think banning to would work. I just hope it dies out naturally.

You are all forgetting to counterbalance the taxes made on cigarettes with the cost of respiratory illnesses drain on the economy.

Cigarettes = £12 billion revenue.
Respiratory drain = £14 billion BUT that figure is disputed as it takes into account many factors.

Over 70% of lung cancer cases are from smokers. 90% will be dead within a short number of years. However, a callous person could argue they cost less to the state dying at a younger age than living to 95.

I can’t believe that any of you are arguing in favour of people suffering ill health and dying young, purely for a theoretical tax benefit?!
And as I said earlier, if people weren’t spending money on cigarettes, they’d spend it on other things which also incur taxes, such as VAT on home improvements.
If HMRC found that their tax take was falling after a smoking ban, they’d simply to have to raise revenue elsewhere - perhaps by pursuing multinational companies more effectively for tax evasion.

The government make too much off of smokers with the tax on cigarettes they won't ban it

Then they will ban cigarettes make drugs legal and tax them instead!!!

Banning doesn't work.

Even if the existing population in Western democracies doesn't take it up, immigration from other countries means there will be smokers.

@Babdoc

VAT and home improvements aren’t a 90% tax though
So I’m afraid that argument doesn’t work.

When someone spends £10 on cigarettes, £9 of it goes straight to the government

When someone spends that same £10 in other things, £2 of it goes straight to the government and being generous, perhaps another £2 goes indirectly to the government

How are you going to find the other £5..?
And then how do you scale that up to plug the £14 billion gap?

And it’s not as simple as saying ‘but it will save the NHS money so we don’t need that £14b. Because there is a lag of several decades between someone taking up smoking and them needing expensive medical treatment for the diseases.
So what do you do for the 15-odd years after your ban when all the former smokers are still coming forward for cancer treatment but no one is putting cigarette tax money into the system?

No

Not while so much tax is made from cigarettes

Whilst ever money is being paid into the goverment coffers, it won't be banned or made illegal.
I think that perhaps the goverment may take a tougher stance on smoking in public spaces, but to directly outlaw it would cost too much in lost revenue and lost votes.

Plus, they would then have to consider banning alcohol and gambling too. Both of which have a financial cost to resources.

Junk food, cars, vaping, video games...

I am sure I read the other day that obesity will cause more deaths than smoking so maybe ban junk food and sugar.

Hopefully.

It'll go way before sugar and alcohol

I don't think banning to would work. I just hope it dies out naturally.

Yes, I've never smoked but I understand that any addiction can seem insurmountable - and that's if people actually want to quit.

The government missed a big trick in 2017. They could still do it just as easily now, but it would have made it much more straightforward and possibly higher profile then. If, instead of banning anybody under 18 from buying cigarettes until they reach 18, they had simply outright banned anybody born after the beginning of 2000 from ever buying them, nobody smoking legally would ever have been in a position to complain about losing privileges and/or being unable to give up.

They do it with other things, like with driving - whether it's making the theory test compulsory as well as the practical or drastically reducing the vehicle weight limit that you're allowed to drive on a standard licence. They didn't take away anybody's existing 'Grandad' rights, but they simply didn't grant them anew to anybody else after a certain date.

I am sure I read the other day that obesity will cause more deaths than smoking so maybe ban junk food and sugar.

What constitutes junk food is often subjective, though, and sugar occurs naturally in many foods. Would you simply ban manufacturers from adding sugar or would you force them to remove it where possible? Bearing in mind that fruit and bread contain sugar - in fact most foods will break down to it - and we do need some sugar to survive.

What would you replace it with? Nasty sweeteners that trick your body into thinking it's had a lot of sugar and react accordingly? Just my own personal belief, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if, not too far down the line, the likes of Aspartame and other nasties are exposed/proven to have devastating irreversible effects on people's health.

Nobody needs nicotine at all, so, as a substance, it could simply be completely banned. Food, on the other hand....

FFS, people have been using forms of sugar and alcohol for millennia, from pretty much the time they stood up on two legs. It's going nowhere. I also think banning doesn't work and is stupid. I vape, but used to smoke. I've got a couple of friends in their mid 50s who still smoke, and tbh, a) they can well afford it b) they truly don't care about dying, they have both had tragic lives c) they enjoy it.

I do wonder about aspartame.. I’ve only read on mn that it’s a “dangerous” alternative to sugar..

There's nothing wrong with sugar. Or alcohol, even. All in moderation.

The problem with smoking is that it doesn't just affect the smoker, it affects those around them too.

There have been loads of threads on MN with people complaining about neighbors smoking in their gardens and the smoke wafting through.

I would be very happy is smoking was banned.

MNers complain about people doing anything in their garden aside from reading quietly. No BBQs, no playing, no trampolines, no pools or hot tubs, no parties, no DIY, mowing and strimming allowed only in the afternoon after lunch but you need to make sure no one's baby or toddler is napping within a 5 mile radius. MNers cannot abide any smell other than fresh air.

Ban smoking and there will be more complaints about vaping, BBQ, weed (which might well be legalised soon).

No, to outlaw would result in it being sold on the black market and criminalise smokers. It would also make smoking more attractive to young people. Generally youngsters who smoke give it up as they get older.

Ironically, I'd legalize all drugs. Or at least decriminalize them. And put massively more money (from sales) into treatment, MH services and housing.

Banning things has the opposite effect of what you want. I mean it's not like young people are eschewing cannabis, is it?

There are less smokers than fat people. I propose the same level of tax for anyone over the normal weight range for height . Then they are paying for their dirty habit. Just as smokers are paying for there’s. Then you can ban them too.