Generational Smoking Bans

[Sorcerer]

Something that I think might be worth discussing and something I am interested in hearing opinions on. But recently, New Zealand lifted it's generational smoking ban that would have banned cigarette sales to anyone born after 2008.

New Zealand smoking ban: Health experts criticise new government's shock reversal

Health experts are appalled as the new government plans to repeal the policy to fund tax cuts.

www.bbc.co.uk

New Zealand's new government says it plans to scrap the nation's world-leading smoking ban to fund tax cuts.

The legislation, introduced under the previous Jacinda Ardern-led government, would have banned cigarette sales next year to anyone born after 2008.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in New Zealand, and the policy had aimed to stop young generations from picking up the habit.

Health experts have strongly criticised the sudden reversal.

"We are appalled and disgusted... this is an incredibly retrograde step on world-leading, absolutely excellent health measures," said Prof Richard Edwards, a tobacco control researcher and public health expert at the University of Otago.

"Most health groups in New Zealand are appalled by what the government's done and are calling on them to backtrack," he told the BBC.

However, despite the reversal, Rishi Sunak is surprisingly adamant on going ahead with his own plans.

Rishi Sunak's position on smoking ban 'unchanged' as New Zealand scraps policy

A change of government in New Zealand has led to the radical anti-smoking measures being scrapped - meaning England could soon have the toughest tobacco laws in the world.

news.sky.com

Rishi Sunak said he plans to continue with his smoking ban after New Zealand reversed its own flagship policy.

The prime minister said England's ban means: "A 14-year-old today will never legally be sold a cigarette and... they and their generation can grow up smoke-free."

Asked whether Mr Sunak would consider following Wellington's lead, a spokeswoman for the prime minister said: "No, our position remains unchanged.

Now personally, as someone who has never smoked in his life and doesn't plan to despite being surrounded by smokers, I would love to see a gradual decline in smoking to the point where we can have a smoke-free society. But that said I think the idea is far too idealistic. I feel like such a law would be too easy to get around, and there will always be people willing to buy younger people cigarettes. Even when that generation dies off I would expect a black market to have already been established where people can get some easy cigarettes from people who get them when travelling abroad since airports sell packets of 200 duty-free. That said, I would like to be wrong since cigarettes and their related illnesses are among the leading cause of preventable deaths, and also because it's not just smokers who have to deal with it, but other people who are around smokers too. Even though I've never smoked myself I wouldn't be surprised if all the second-hand smoke I've been surrounded with will have a long-term affect on my health. But what does everyone else think of this? Would a generational smoking ban work in the UK? Or will it just be prohibition 2.0 with tobacco? I am interested to hear everyone's thoughts!

 

[renegademaster]

Sounds like an easy way to line the pockets of existing tobbaco smuggling rings. It's not exactly like cannabis prohibition is exactly working with teens. It's so unessecary too, tobbaco smoking has fell so dramatically among younger people, it's not cool anymore. To me it's just a cynical ploy to keep the Theresa May/Nanny state Anglican branch of Tories behind him and not defecting to lib dems or whatever

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

Personally, I'm inclined to the view that manufacturing or selling cigarettes to anyone should eventually become illegal, irrespective of age, so I'm not keen on the generational idea. I can see the argument for the generational ban to the extent that you don't want to penalise people who are already addicted to cigarettes, but at the same time I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a person born on one day will always be allowed to buy tobacco, but someone born the following day will never be allowed to buy it. And enforcing a law that only allows shops to sell to some people will be an absolute nightmare.

For those concerned about smuggling/criminal gangs: Yes, that's a potential problem. But if we refused to outlaw anything where criminals might form gangs to break the law, then we'd have almost no laws at all! The answer to that problem is decent law enforcement.

 

[Flying Snail]

For those concerned about smuggling/criminal gangs: Yes, that's a potential problem. But if we refused to outlaw anything where criminals might form gangs to break the law, then we'd have almost no laws at all! The answer to that problem is decent law enforcement.

Name one country that has successfully stopped the sale of black market banned substances.

Illicit tobacco trade isn't a potential problem it is a current one, there is already a thriving trade in smuggled and counterfeit manufacturing and that is just to take advantage of the ability to undercut the heavily taxed legal trade.

While this scenario of a tobacco free country is a great ideology the reality is that when there is enough money to be made the criminals will get around the law and make themselves very rich while spreading crime, violence, exploitation and misery.

More often than not the damage caused by this criminality is far more destructive than the negative effects of use of the offending substances.

 

[Busaholic]

I hate the concept of laws preventing one group of people doing what other groups can do quite legally, Why differentiate so radically between two individuals with one year's age difference, for the rest of their lives? It's one thing saying any given 17 year old may not be able to participate in certain things until they're 18, but another thing to say that when they in turn hit adulthood they're still prohibited forever more. It's irrational, will prove unworkable and should be ditched forthwith as a stupid idea. Good for the new NZ government, in this case if no other.

 

[Harpers Tate]

1: As others have said, it would/will simply create a (bigger) black market
2: Unreasonable to expect retailers to distiniguish between someone who is (for example) 29 years od vs. someone who is 30. Or 49 vs 50 etc.
3: (For this reason, I voted "uncertain") From a purely financial perspective, I would want to know the differential between the impact on the health service and/or the exchequer (however it's funded) of
- the costs of providing healthcare to those who have smoked and have contracted a smoking related condition MINUS the taxation they have paid in so doing vs.
- the costs of providing age related support to the same person, had they not smoked and had lived longer and long enough to encounter age related debilities.

 

[jfollows]

It's a ridiculous and unenforceable law which only exists to enable politicians to be seen to be doing "something".
Because people are generally law-abiding, its ramifications will be that some kind of net positive effect in terms of reduction in the number of people smoking will eventually happen.
But it's a blunt and vague instrument, it's anti-libertarian because it will prevent some adults from doing things that other adults can do, and I guess it's relatively cheap in its implementation.
It's knee-jerk politics of the worst sort.

 

[AlterEgo]

3: (For this reason, I voted "uncertain") From a purely financial perspective, I would want to know the differential between the impact on the health service and/or the exchequer (however it's funded) of
- the costs of providing healthcare to those who have smoked and have contracted a smoking related condition MINUS the taxation they have paid in so doing vs.
- the costs of providing age related support to the same person, had they not smoked and had lived longer and long enough to encounter age related debilities.

Sorry, are you suggesting there's a potential for it to be negative if some people lived longer and didn't get cancer? This is Treasury brain on steroids.

I'm not supportive of such a ban either but this seems like such an odd way to approach the issue.

 

[Snow1964]

I am not in favour of the age discrimination idea, where one group of adults can and another cannot

However I would happily suggest vape shops should be banned and they are restricted and only available from licensed shops like cigarette and pharmaceutical drugs with strict age enforcement

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Name one country that has successfully stopped the sale of black market banned substances.

Well, the UK and the entire EU for a start.... Think about all the food additives and pesticides that have been banned in the UK and EU over the years. As far as I'm aware, we don't have criminal gangs on a large scale importing/illegally producing those. And although it's not quite a 'substance', the UK's ban on most guns seems to work pretty well; There is a black market for guns, but it's small and the number of guns in circulation appears to be massively smaller than in countries where they are not banned.

Illicit tobacco trade isn't a potential problem it is a current one, there is already a thriving trade in smuggled and counterfeit manufacturing and that is just to take advantage of the ability to undercut the heavily taxed legal trade.

The answer to that is a mixture of more resources for law enforcement plus education so that people understand why the item (cigarettes, in this case) is so bad. If you are proposing that we just abandon law enforcement whenever there's a risk that criminal gangs will work to break the law on a large scale, then - how many laws do you think you'd have left?

Ultimately the question here is: Do cigarettes cause sufficient harm to justify banning them? Or to put it another way, would the good that comes from banning them (people having longer, higher quality, lives because they don't get lung cancer etc.) outweigh the harm (mainly, the loss of people's freedom of choice)? If you believe the answer is 'yes' then you'd logically be in favour of banning cigarettes (and ditto for anything else), if you believe it's 'no' then you wouldn't be. But to argue against banning them just on the basis that criminal gangs would seek to evade the law seems to me perverse, and amounts to an argument not to have any laws.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Think about all the food additives and pesticides that have been banned in the UK and EU over the years. As far as I'm aware, we don't have criminal gangs on a large scale importing/illegally producing those.

Respectfully, comparing drugs to e-numbers and food additives is a stretch. For every banned food additive there is a safe, legal and easily obtainable alternative so it's easy to switch.

If people want to smoke or take drugs they will whether they're legal or not. Trying to enforce such a ban on cigarettes will be such an unbelievable waste of time and money. I can buy (I don't smoke but it's not hard to see what they're up to) knock-off imported cigarettes at my three closest corner shops, that's with smoking being legal, imagine the size of the black market and the impossibility of enforcing it if they ever became illegal.

By far the most sensible option for tobacco, soft drugs, and even arguably hard drugs is to decriminalise, educate, tax, and decontaminate the supply chain. The taboo effect is removed immediately (people won't get a thrill out of doing something a bit naughty), what people are taking will be as safe as possible, the black market will be vastly reduced and you'll get tax money coming into the treasury.

It's not exactly like cannabis prohibition is exactly working with teens

You'd be surprised just how prevalent cannabis usage is across all ages. It's not like it's a new invention, my grandparents were definitely smoking reefer in the 60s listening to their Beatles and Grateful Dead records. The earliest documented use of cannabis as a drug was in the 5th century BCE, that's 2500 years, it's only been widespread illegal for less than 100 years.

I'm not even a cannabis user, but how pointless and expensive the war on it has been should easily dissuade anybody from thinking that criminalising tobacco is a good idea.

 

[ScottGallagher]

I would say that the ever growing choice of candy flavoured vapes are far more damaging to children right now ( as with smoking in the 40s 50s etc we don't know the long term effects and won't for another 30 years)

The hefty tax take from it will also have to be recouped from somewhere else, any guesses where?

 

[renegademaster]

as with smoking in the 40s 50s etc we don't know the long term effects

They did back then for quite a long term, a lot of doctors just got paid off then put infront of the media

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If people want to smoke or take drugs they will whether they're legal or not. Trying to enforce such a ban on cigarettes will be such an unbelievable waste of time and money.

But if they are legal, people will take them in much greater quantities, causing a much greater number of deaths and much more suffering. Look at the statistics that compare cigarettes with all the drugs that are illegal:

Deaths from (illegal) drugs in England and Wales in 2021: 4859 (source)
Deaths from smoking in just England (excluding Wales) in 2020: 74 600 (source)

A few other statistics from our addictive drug that is for historical reasons still legal: In 2020 there were 506,100 hospital admissions attributable to smoking - that's a full 1% of the population! And 710 000 prescription items dispensed to help people stop smoking - and that's just England alone. I think those stats make it pretty clear that if you want to massively reduce the level of suffering caused by smoking/drugs, making them/keeping them illegal is the best way to achieve that.

I can buy (I don't smoke but it's not hard to see what they're up to) knock-off imported cigarettes at my three closest corner shops, that's with smoking being legal, imagine the size of the black market and the impossibility of enforcing it if they ever became illegal.

So if I've understood you right, you're saying that, even with cigarettes legal, law breaking to evade tax occurs so openly that you can buy black market cigarettes at all three of your local corner shops? (And by the way, have you told the police about this?) That sounds to me like, if that kind of fraud/smuggling is going to occur anyway whether cigarettes are legal or not, you may as well move towards making them illegal (in the long term - since you do need to consider the liberty/etc. implications for people who already smoke) so that you can save lots of lives by having far fewer people take it up in the future

 

[PsychoMouse]

But if they are legal, people will take them in much greater quantities

I highly doubt it.

you may as well move towards making them illegal

And spend money on trying to enforce the impossible and convicting criminals for something which they've done legally their entire lives.

You can make things obsolete easily with education and reasoning. You don't need to retroactively make people criminals to do it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I highly doubt it.

What do you doubt about the statistics I showed that demonstrate that making a smokable drug (cigarettes) legal apparently results in more than 15 times as many deaths from that drug as from all illegal drugs combined?

 

[renegademaster]

Deaths from (illegal) drugs in England and Wales in 2021: 4859 (source)

It helps the most common illegal drug is practically impossible to overdose on and isnt pleasant to consume as often as cigarettes are

Plus you should also include war on drugs related deaths both home and from the countries of import too

 

[PsychoMouse]

What do you doubt about the statistics I showed that demonstrate that making a smokable drug (cigarettes) legal apparently results in more than 15 times as many deaths from that drug as from all illegal drugs combined?

That's not what you said though. You said that decriminalising something makes more people use it. I'm disputing that assertion.

You can't compare cigarette smokers to cannabis/other drug smokers because cigarettes have never been illegal.

 

[DC1989]

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

 

[Russel]

It'll obviously never work in the real world, a different approach is needed.

I'd personally favour banning smoking in all public places.

 

[jfollows]

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 think it's because all governments go rotten, they rot from the centre and it infests the entire government. They come in to power with clear ideas and some kind of a mandate which resonates with enough voters to get them in, but then they get seduced by power and corrupted by it, and move to thinking of how to retain power rather than how to to a good job. And core principles go out of the window, they know best, they know what's good for the rest of us, they're blinded by the Westminster bubble. Nothing specific to the Conservatives, they're just the latest lot to rot.
EDIT But that's a discussion for another existing thread, not for this one .......

 

[Busaholic]

I think it's because all governments go rotten, they rot from the centre and it infests the entire government. They come in to power with clear ideas and some kind of a mandate which resonates with enough voters to get them in, but then they get seduced by power and corrupted by it, and move to thinking of how to retain power rather than how to to a good job. And core principles go out of the window, they know best, they know what's good for the rest of us, they're blinded by the Westminster bubble. Nothing specific to the Conservatives, they're just the latest lot to rot.
EDIT But that's a discussion for another existing thread, not for this one .......

One of the newspaper political writers compared Sunak's announcement on this, together with his other recent pronouncements, as akin to John Major's cones hotline nonsense back in the dying days of his government. Real desperation from a government in power but not in control and utterly bereft of any good ideas.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Anecdotally, the number of young people (read teenagers, essentially) smoking cigarettes these days is miniscule. It's all about vaping with the younger generation. So any such ban would, in my opinion, be almost completely trivial.

 

[PsychoMouse]

Anecdotally, the number of young people (read teenagers, essentially) smoking cigarettes these days is miniscule. It's all about vaping with the younger generation. So any such ban would, in my opinion, be almost completely trivial.

Spot on tbh.

The more pressing matter is banning disposable vapes.

 

[Busaholic]

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.

I'm in broad agreement with that.

 

[Trackman]

Spot on tbh.

The more pressing matter is banning disposable vapes.

I know nothing about them, what is the issue with disposable vapes, Is it kids that can get hold of them easily? Cost?

 

[GusB]

I know nothing about them, what is the issue with disposable vapes, Is it kids that can get hold of them easily? Cost?

The fact that they're disposable is a big problem - litter is one issue but, because of the batteries, they're a fire risk when they're not disposed of properly. That's before you consider any health implications.

 

[Trackman]

The fact that they're disposable is a big problem - litter is one issue but, because of the batteries, they're a fire risk when they're not disposed of properly. That's before you consider any health implications.

I see. I was watching something recently about battery disposal in general and how dangerous it is if you throw it in your bin.

 

[sor]

I'm not overly precious about whether this ban goes in or not, but I don't think there's much merit to the "some adults can do it still!" argument. There are already examples of things that are not available to all adults, either until they reach a certain age (eg to ride anything with more power than a moped) or like this ban, as a permanent consequence of your date of birth (eg university tuition fees, state pension eligibility).

Tobacco itself has been involved, for those born in the early 90s who could legally buy tobacco at 16 but were then prevented from doing so for a couple of years once the age changed to 18, without any sort of "grandfather" clause.