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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.