Smoking ban

[OnHerSolidFoundations]

Why would you not support this?

Yes, it makes me so mad to think of these predatory people, relying on young people choosing a pathway of poor health and early death so that they can live a life of luxury. Scum.

I'm sure they'd like to spin a yarn that they 'only' seek to target older people who have made the free mature decision to smoke, and that they are just trying to persuade them to switch from a competitor's brand to their own; but we all know that their continued survival depends heavily on all of the kids behind the bike sheds succumbing to peer pressure and making a terrible choice as juveniles that will plague and shorten their whole lives.

It would be so easy for them to have been (slightly) more responsible and target adverts at teenagers saying "Hey, Kids - smoking is an ADULT choice, and very dangerous, so you really MUST not think about doing it until you're old enough to properly weigh up all the negatives and make that informed decision; if you're in any doubts, you should talk to your parents about it" - in the same way that alcohol and even gambling companies (eugh) advertise to caution restraint. For some reason, they never seem to do this.

I was going to say 'weigh up the negatives and the positives', but I don't think there really are any positives, are there?

None of the things you have mentioned will be policed because none of them are unlawful.

This is a law that affects traders, no-one else. The behaviour of traders will be policed, no-one else.

No positives at all.
Smoking - shortens lives, causes numerous illnesses, exacerbates existing illnesses, wrecks skin and causes premature aging, reduces fertility, offends other people, harms the environment, is totally unethical as tobacco pickers are exploited and more. Just nothing good about it. It's such a no brainer that it needs banning, one way or another.

Re your description of tobacco moguls as scum. Correct. Scum is right. They've started pushing smoking on young vulnerable people in the developing world now, knowing they're losing the western market. How vile is that? As if these countries don't have enough issues already, without their population being hooked on an expensive destructive habit!
Such a morally bankrupt way to make a living, or make a fortune, as they have...

I never implied you could end up banning everything. My concern is this could lead to other bans that we might not be so happy about.

Surely smokers are to blame if they suffer smoking-related health problems, though? Yes, tobacco companies are scum, but smokers are responsible for their own actions. Health warnings on cigarette packets have been legally required since 1971. In fact, there are newspaper reports from the 1950s about the link between smoking and lung cancer. The vast majority of smokers alive today made a conscious decision to start smoking in the knowledge that it was highly addictive and dangerous. If you're old enough to read, you're old enough to know that buying/using something with "warning: this may kill you" written on the side is a very, very stupid decision.

We will end up with a situation where a 90 year old might be going out in a snow storm to buy their fags because a willing child or grandchild isn't old enough.

I doubt many smokers live to 90, but if they do so and insist on going out in a snowstorm, then that's their decision. No one's fault but their own.

Banning smoking is about the one positive thing this government might achieve. And only because it has cross party support. I don’t think it will be a vote winner - it won’t change my voting intentions. I certainly won’t be voting Conservative.

In the meanwhile alcoholism is rampant, there’s pubs everywhere and drinking a few pints after work is totally fine. The cost for the NHS of chronic drinking is bigger than smoking. Fast food creates as much issues for our NHS yet I’m sorrounded by fast food places. Those youngsters who won’t be able to smoke ever they’re growing up glued to a screen, addicted and loosing touch with reality, we have a pandemic of mental health issues with the young ones but as long as they don’t have access to cigarettes it’s all good.

Surreal.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were - I was trying to phrase it in a way that made sense, but it sounded clunky otherwise!

I just think that bad things that are to be considered for banning need to be taken in isolation. I see how there could be some natural progressions with similar substances or activities, but I don't see how banning smoking would make the government any more or less likely to ban, say, yoyos or buckets.

But nobody is saying that alcohol or fast food are good, harmless, wise choices, just because the focus is currently on cigarettes.

We may well see restrictions on them introduced in the future - however, the big difference is that people don't actually get addicted to fast food (reluctant to go without, but not addicted) and only a small proportion of drinkers become alcoholics.

With tobacco, other than the minority of social smokers who blag the odd fag at an occasional party, almost everybody who smokes is properly, fully addicted to it. Fast food-lovers and (non-alcoholic) drinkers will fancy a takeaway or beer/wine; smokers will need a fag.

I’m not sure how I feel about it. I’ve never smoked though and hate smoking and vaping. But it’s going to strange in the future asking for ID for people in their 30s, 40s and beyond. Also very difficult to judge the age of a mature adult.

You would just get used to asking everybody for ID, regardless, as is the policy of some places now when it comes to alcohol - even if a would-be purchaser is very clearly well old enough.

It's not really that different from asking for a membership card or entitlement card that anybody of any age may (or may not) have - such as with folk who qualify for free prescriptions, or indeed those who prepay and have proof of this that they can show.

Why is it surreal? About half of all smokers die young from smoking-related illnesses. It needs to be tackled now. I know it's a cliché, but if tobacco were discovered today, it'd be a Class-A drug. The reason people always resort to this sort of excessive whataboutery with smoking is that they know there's no justification for it nowadays.

I agree that alcohol and fast food are bad for you, but ultimately most people don't get addicted to them. It's possible to drink alcohol and eat fast food in moderation without suffering any ill effects whatsoever. In fact, IIRC, alcohol follows a J-shaped curve: a small amount is good for you. But the very first cigarette a person smokes that day is the one that constricts their blood vessels.

I agree that screen addiction among children is extremely concerning, but what do you what the government to do? Ban iPads, phones and TV? The government can't ban lazy parenting.

@MonsteraMama that's really very unfair, and pretty unpleasant. I've read the whole thread, and the poster you're attacking made it clear she's caring for a terminally ill parent. It's understandable she'd feel angry with all things cigarette related as a result. People don't always convey things they mean to when they're under such strain and pain.

Mumsnet never ceases to amaze me, the way so many posters don't pause to think before kicking someone when they're down.

I think it'd probably have a knock on effect, with people a little older too. The hassle of bringing out ID might discourage more people from smoking generally.
I'd prefer a total ban, but this has got to be a step in the right direction.

I think the government needs to bite the bullet and start a high-profile campaign on the deaths of children caused by smoking parents. No British government has ever had the balls to actually do this - it's the one smoking-related issue they've all tiptoed around. They're terrified that the bereavement charities will start shrieking about blaming parents for their children's deaths, even if it's true. Parental smoking greatly increases the risks of stillbirth, SIDS, asthma, childhood cancer, and God knows what else. If an advert like this Finnish one - - went viral in the UK, I guarantee the number of teenage girls starting to smoke would fall.

^ Sorry, don't know how I posted the video twice. Ah well.

You mean like kicking someone who is struggling with an addiction by publicly shaming them? Hmmm?

And if alcohol was discovered today it would also be a Class A drug. No amount of alcohol is good for you. It is poison in a bottle! According to this study by The Lancet "Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK by a considerable margin, beating heroin and crack cocaine". Why is the Government not doing anything to address this 🤔See my previous post!

Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin or crack' | Alcohol | The Guardian

Well, I don't personally agree with shaming people. But, I don't think you can compare being a smoker trying to quit as the same thing as someone dealing with the emotional pain of caring for someone terminally ill. A pretty crass comparison.
I have to say anyway that I think you're being hyperbolic. Nobody suggested public shaming.
The anti-smokers on this thread speak generally. The smokers' defenders resort to personal attacks.
I do feel sorry for addicts, of course. But, I feel far more sorry for the innocents they harm. Your narrative that the addicts are the main victims, is wholly inaccurate.

I do agree that alcohol abuse is causing considerable anguish. But, I do still think it's different.
The whole industry is different. There are societies where alcohol is consumed much more responsibly. We've got a particular problem with alcohol in this country.
But, smoking is universally harmful to everyone. There are literally no positives. For some people - asthmatics, children & babies, those with heart conditions etc, even a small amount of smoke particles inhaled passively outdoors can do harm, and cause considerable discomfort.
The majority of people would like to see smoking banned, which is also an important point. Timing.
I think the reason some (by no means all or even most) smokers and their friends become so defensive on forums and other discussions, is that they know their days are numbered.

The person you're defending literally suggested shaming smokers because they thought it would be an effective way to make them quit. I was telling them that's bollocks. That's it.

And at no point have I compared caring for someone dying of smoking related illness to smoking, that's not my "narrative" and I'm not sure where you've got the idea I'm comparing the two. I have literally been the smoker and the person watching a loved one die of it, I know full well they're not comparable tyvm.

I was saying that watching someone dying due to smoking doesn't give you a right to dehumanise and shame smokers trying to kick the addiction, and shame doesn't help anyway. In fact it basically does the opposite.

OK. Apologies if I misunderstood some of what you said. I've only been on one side of this you see. I've lost a number of older relatives due to smoking. I've never been a smoker.
I know when I was grieving, I felt incredibly angry. With anything smoke-related. I can imagine I might have said something similar, but not really have meant it. So, I felt for the poster, and felt she (or he, don't know) was being unfairly targeted. I actually personally didn't read what she/he said as publicly shaming smokers. I read it as that there should be a general culture of smoking being a somewhat shameful or unpleasant thing to do (I might have been projecting) Which, to be honest, I do agree with. Definitely not public shaming, but a general culture of it being unacceptable or something that nobody should aspire to do, and everyone should aspire to give up if they do do it.
I freely admit that I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, and also don't have an addictive personality. So, I am ignorant about 'the other side' so to speak. I don't remotely know what it's like to be addicted to cigarettes. I can only go by things others say.

I am very much an anti smoker but banning anything just makes it cooler and more attractive to young people , drives it underground and criminalises them

Education and making it uncool is the way forward

I'd say both approaches have a place. When it was banned from public indoor spaces, 1000s of people did give up. So, legislation does have a part to play.
But, yes, it's a great thing that it's no longer seen as cool in most circles.