Ban smoking for those born after 2000 - what do you think?

[funambulist]

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/23/doctors-vote-cigarette-sale-ban-children-born-2000

I hope I've managed to do the link properly.

Tomorrow, the British Medical Association are having a vote on whether push for a permanent ban on the sale of cigarettes to those born after 2000. Those born in 2000 are 12 or 13 years old now, so, hopefully, not yet smoking. Is this a good way of ensuring that they never take it up and thus preventing the health consequences for the next generation?

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

Well yes Rudy - slippery slope and all that.

We do need to leave smoked tobacco behind, within about a generation or so. We need to find a way to do that that's a) doable and b) not cruel or discriminatory. I don't think this proposal is it.

There are other ways for people to get nicotine, pretty much harmlessly, and lots of people do actually enjoy the effects or find it genuinely therapeutic. These alternatives to smoking should be explored as part of the solution, not as part of the problem.

Or we could just carry on banning shit.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

I don't think a ban on tobacco is worse than a ban on other recreational drugs. There are sound harm reduction arguments for legalising all drugs.

The proposal is to ban the sale of tobacco, not possession or use. That's hard to police. A ban on the use of tobacco would be much easier to enforce - it stinks, as smokers are always being reminded. It would also make it easier to police the cannabis ban if nobody was allowed to smoke anything.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's a desireable thing to do.

[overthemill]

Why is a ban on selling tobacco and associated products worse than a ban on the sale of heroin and associated products? Genuinely don't understand why two drugs can't be treated in same way. I know the drugs' legislation is fraught but it is banned isn't it?

[PogoBob]

Chunderella - not sure about Scotland but it would be devolved in Wales, for example Wales brought in the ban on smoking in public places first (a good ban which is easily enforceable)

I am anti-smoking but am also anti silly ideas.

[PogoBob]

And how is this going to be policed going forward. The ban now would apply to teenagers, fairly easy to spot. In 10 years those people will be in their mid twenties so you could have a 26 smoking legally but a 24 year old smoking illegally - are the police expected to age check every they see smoking what about smoking in the house.

There are age limits now but people under that age still smoke so it's entirely possible to get your hands on something even if it is against the law are your age.

Finding it incredibly frustrating that the answer to everything seems to be seen as taxing it or criminalising it without any real though about how that will translate into realistic, effective implementation

[caroldecker]

As said above, smokers are massive contributors to the treasury - the government would ban them in a heartbeat if they didn't want the money.

[VitoCorleone]

Ban cigarettes altogether

Make smokers pay for their healthcare

Are some of you for real? I take it the people spouting this absolute twaddle don't smoke? Do you know how much tax smokers pay on fags and tobacco? Give your heads a wobble will you

[overthemill]

Why would a blanket ban on cigarettes be hard to implement? If they can't be sold legally they can't be bought legally. If you stop import and properly police customs then you'd find it easier than, say, marihuana or cocaine I would have thought? Or just make each pack of cigarettes cost £1200 (entirely random figure).

I am fed up with the my mum died of liver cancer and never drank a drop arguments. Always exceptions but we KNOW alcohol and tobacco are the direct cause of deaths. (And my mum died of lung cancer. Not a smoker)

[Isitmebut]

Simply cynical; that if a government receives more revenue for cigarettes than it pays out in health costs, then it will never try to micro (or totally) ban cigarettes.

A government trying to ban a section of society, from a legal substance for everyone else in the UK - and indeed, legal to everyone else in the world - and has access to on every one of their High Streets, is totally spinning its expensive wheels.

Furthermore putting an extras burden on law enforcement/border controls, who rumour has it, have better things to do, whilst still needing to handle the future health costs of those who ‘illegally’ obtained that substance, seems to me a zero sum game .

I agree that banning a substance makes using it ‘cool’ and just promotes a vibrant ‘black market’ in the product, especially for one so easily obtainable on the High Street from those older, but don’t know better. IMO.

Finally, ban cigarettes and what does that do to people’s food intake/obesity when their appetite increases and future ‘fat club’ NHS bills?

Arguably if they get their taste buds back ex smokers might go for quality over junk food quantity, I have no idea, but when you try to socially engineer people’s choices/habits, especially ones they believe ‘pleasurable’, who knows how else they might get their jollies.

[pointythings]

I don't think this is well thought through at all. I would like to see a smoke-free world - but in reality this will only create a shiny new black market for criminals to make their fortune. The same will happen if we ban alcohol - people will brew stuff at home, people will distil at home. Here too the black market will step in and the upshot will be that we have no quality control. Whether people distil at home or buy bootleg alcohol, they will risk drinking methanol, which carries terrible health risks.

If we really want to do something about smoking, we should do something about economic inequality. The percentage of people on low incomes who smoke is far, far higher than that among people on higher incomes, and in addition these people spend a large proportion of their income on smoking.

[caroldecker]

simply put:

You can't ban alcohol, because easily made in your home from sugar and yeast

The govt won't ban cigarettes as it brings in c. £12bn a year in tax and VAT, so far more than it costs - remember smokers subsidise your NHS and pensions, because they die young and do not need elderly care

[Hazchem]

I just mean that pension age has been moved recently so before younger adults could access it and now you have to be older.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

The numbers are not small. 200,000 children aged 11-15 start smoking in the UK each year. If they want to do this it should target those born 2004 or later.

I don't think this is more realistic than a complete ban because a rolling age limit is a completely new thing. I think it would have trouble getting through parliament.

The kind of 'incremental' tobacco control legislation we have at the moment is actually pretty ineffective. Meanwhile it's cruel, disproportionately affects poor people and is deeply hypocritical. It's a licence for everybody to treat smokers like shit while the government still rakes in the cash.

[pumpkinsweetie]

This will just make smoking more attractive, teens are rebellious and even more so if actually completely denied something.

This nanny state gets mire ridiculous by the day.

We will all die one day & everyone likes something that is bad for them. As long as you are over 16 it's your own body, no body should be able to rule what you do with it unless it's class A drugs for example.

Moderation is key

[funambulist]

A blanket ban on cigarettes would be difficult in lots of ways and much harder to bring into law I suspect.

The advantage of the gradual ban proposed by the BMA is that current (legal) smokers are unaffected. In theory all it should do is prevent / make it harder for young nonsmokers to take it up. Of course if it were passed into law tomorrow, some smokers would be affected. There are some 13 and 14 year old smokers, but the numbers are relatively low, I think. About 5% of 14 year olds smoke and they are already banned from buying cigarettes anyway as they are under 18.

I think that the BMA proposal is more realistic than a complete ban. Anti-smoking legislation tends to be incremental. When I watch old films and documentaries, or even just remember my childhood I am staggered that smoking was once allowed on planes and in restaurants. Does anyone else remember choking on smoke in the "non-smoking" section of the restaurant? It would be unthinkable to smoke on a plane now. Perhaps this proposal won't seem so outlandish in another 20 years or so.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

funambulist, as I said, economics is not a reason to not do this, but there will be financial implications for everyone which need thinking about and budgeting for carefully. Tax loss is likely to be small change in comparison with the costs of more people living longer.

I would be more in favour of a blanket ban brought in with a decent amount of notice as it would be fairer, easier to pass as law and easier to enforce. As I said though, if they don't fuck up ecigs, we could probably do nothing and watch the quiet death of smoking in a relatively short period of time.

[OurMiracle1106]

My mum died from liver cancer having had a bottle of wine a year (glass at Christmas and glass at new year) but was a smoker. My dad died from throat cancer but didn't smoke and was a drinker

[somedizzywhore1804]

Why not just have a blanket ban on cigarettes? They prove fatal for 50%+ of users so I'd support it. Hard to police but I'd rather see money and effort put into a blanket ban than the post 2000 idea.