It is proposed that there should be a new law in the UK (similar to the one in New Zealand) [New Zealand to completely outlaw smoking]
This will mean that anyone born after 2010 (or thereabouts) will never be able to buy tobacco products in the UK.
Difficult to argue against it?
Great idea, although many people who aren’t old enough to purchase cigarettes still smoke.
I’m not sure it will happen - the government has a right wing element that will vote it down so might rely on the opposition to vote in favour. Though I think the government will do it as a free vote (i.e. will tell its own MPs that they can vote with their conscience). Whether or not a bill gets introduced into parliament before the next election is also a factor.
Personally I would like to see it as cigarette smoking is so damaging.
This could backfire, and just drive up demand for tobacco products. Some people like to break rules, and once smoking is outlawed, it will become even more desirable for rule-breakers. I see an increase in the black market for teens who want to piss off their parents. If telling someone how bad something is for their health doesn’t stop them from doing it, what makes you think outlawing it will? It’s the War on Drugs all over again.
This approach says that smoking is “bad,” but not really bad enough to take any action other than creating another stick to beat the young (who we hate) with.
I think it is a bad idea. It will generate more resentment and division. Its an unnecessary incursion into personal freedom.
I am a Canadian, I think federalism is a good thing and that the state serves a purpose to protect people from others bad actions. I generally detest smoking, especially cigarettes. I am discouraged how popular it has become again, especially with vaping. Historically second hand smoke has been a serious issue, but for some time now, at least in Canada you really are not exposed to it in public spaces, restaurants, bars etc. I actually smell second hand marijuana smoke much more often than tobacco now. I think the actions that have been taken already are working well in protecting non smokers from smoker’s poor choices.
I don’t want the state telling me I can’t enjoy alcohol. When I was a regular marijuana user I strongly opposed the states coercion against its use. I am unlikely to ever smoke any tobacco product ever again, but I still rather that be my choice.
There are a lot of self destructive personal behaviors that put a cost on both the user and society. Therevis general agreement that certain things are so destructive prohibition is necessary. I don’t think tobacco crosses that line.
I’m American, but I think @FluffyBob laid it out about perfectly.
If the government wants to discourage smoking, first make it more expensive, and then enforce the shit out of anti-smuggling measures. Easier on a remote island nation like NZ or the UK (aside from that whole land border with Eire / the EU thing) than in a sprawling monstrosity like the USA or Canada, or e.g. Germany.
A friend of mine owns a bar. When he was told he could no longer allow smoking in his bar he got a lawyer and fought the law, which eventually was rescinded. Once the law was gone, he voluntarily made his bar no smoking.
Similarly, I helped the group (American Bikers Active Towards Education (ABATE)) that fought helmet laws in my state. We eventually won. I would never consider riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
Good idea, but as discussed above prohibitions tend to create more problems than they solve.
I’ve been listening to some debates where all of the above points have been made.
We in the UK have a different take on restrictive laws than you in the USA. Cigarettes are universally accepted as being A Bad Thing, but many people on both sides of the pond reserve the right of people to kill themselves in any way they wish.
Universal Healthcare makes a difference since the cost of looking after people who subject themselves to the many medical issues directly caused by inhaling nicotine falls to the whole community here (as in NZ).
One objector claimed that the revenue from tobacco tax more than covered the costs, but he could not provide a valid citation. He also said that by dying early, they saved the taxpayers the cost of their state pensions.
Liquor Prohibition caused so much crime. Mob wars. Bath tub gin. Stills in the backwoods, making moonshine that was deadly. Snakeoil salesmen. Medical products that were nothing but disguised hooch.
NASCAR alone is a good reason not to prohibit things wholesale.
I can just guess what people will do to get their tobacco, cause they will get it. It won’t be pretty.
To the OP, yeah raise the smoking age. Won’t make any difference.
A black market will form, and I wouldn’t be surprised if smoking actually increased because it will be seen as more rebellious.
I think this is a good approach, precisely because it doesn’t restrict anyone’s freedom, since it doesn’t take the right to smoke away from anyone who currently has that right. Obviously black markets already exist to some extent, since teens do find ways to get cigarettes. But this law wouldn’t create any new customers for them.
Obviously some teens smoke already despite it being illegal for them. AFIACT this law wouldn’t make it any more illegal than it already is, so the kids who are doing it to be rebellious wouldn’t have any more motivation to smoke than they already do.
And I read in the Guardian that Mr. Sunak wants to ban tobacco for teenagers, but not vaping. Sounds like a PR stunt to me, and a bad one at that.
I love the idea.
Teens under 18 already try this. So, I do nto think it will increase smoking. Besides, having talked to a lot of nicotine addicts, one of the reasons it is so hard to quit is the easy availability. That is why some heroin addicts say quitting smoking is harder.
I agree, except there is no 'right" to smoke.
Well, second hand smoke kills a lot of people, and vaping doesnt have that problem, it seems.
Prohibition outlawed alcohol for everyone. This law says that anyone old enough to currently smoke still can. So no one is having anything taken away from them that they already have.
Vaping very much does create second and third hand smoke issues.
I’m skeptical of any kind of drug prohibition, but if you are going to do it, this kind of grandfathering scheme seems the most likely to succeed. On the other hand, from a political philosophy point of view it does amount to unequal justice under the law, meaning some adult citizens will have less or more rights than their fellow citizens.
The point of the policy is not to ban smoking outright but to further de-normalise and so “discourage” young people from taking it up.
The sale of tobacco products is already strictly controlled in the UK. You have to be over 16. They are not advertised at all. Places that sell them are not allowed to display them. The packets have lurid health warnings on them. And, most of all they are heavily taxed to make them very expensive.
On average, smokers smoke 20 cigarettes a day; with a packet of cigarettes costing £13.30 that’s a spend of £93.10 per week, or £4,841.20 per year. To spend that, you have to earn well over £6k before tax at the basic rate.
The black market is the obvious reason this is a bad idea. There is absolutely nothing worse for society (and the people involved in it) than the black market. Its already the case that there is huge black market in tobacco in the UK, because the tax rate on it is so high. This will only increase that, until (once a sufficient percentage of the population is older than the cut off date) tobacco is an illegal drug, and traded just like heroin, cocaine etc. That’s a really bad idea, the illegal drugs trade (as in the fact the drugs are illegal and supply train is entirely managed by organized crime, not the drugs themselves) is responsible for massive problems in world society. This basically saying: “We don’t want government to get the revenue from tobacco we’d rather the absolutely worst criminals in the world get it instead”