Generational Smoking Bans

[nw1]

btw isn't 'Neoliberal economic policies, and an interventionist state' self contradictory?

Not necessarily - you could have neoliberal economic policies but strong authoritarian state-mandated restrictions on personal or professional freedom on non-economic matters. Section 28 is one example, and abortion bans in US red states is another.

 

[Eyersey468]

I have never smoked and hate the habit, however I don't think the proposal is workable. Wherever the line is drawn there will be someone who misses it by a day, how are shops meant to enforce it? I also agree it will simply drive the black market

 

[nw1]

The proposed law is a ban on sale, not use.

Ah ok, fair enough - that does change things somewhat.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have never smoked and hate the habit, however I don't think the proposal is workable. Wherever the line is drawn there will be someone who misses it by a day, how are shops meant to enforce it?

Presumably they will enforce it in exactly the same way that they enforce the current age restrictions: By asking for proof of age/date of birth if someone looks like they might be too young to be allowed to buy cigarettes.

 

[Busaholic]

The thing is it is not a smoking ban, it's a vote on those born from 2009 buying cigarettes. It will just drive it underground, which it already is in parts.

Yet the BBC Radio news headlines throughout the last few hours announced it as a smoking ban. I'd like to see the wording of this Bill. Of course, we all know how successful the bans on marijuana, heroin and cocaine have been. The latter has, of course, never been seen anywhere near the Houses of Parliament.

 

[JamesT]

Yet the BBC Radio news headlines throughout the last few hours announced it as a smoking ban. I'd like to see the wording of this Bill. Of course, we all know how successful the bans on marijuana, heroin and cocaine have been. The latter has, of course, never been seen anywhere near the Houses of Parliament.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3703/publications If you want some bedtime reading.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yet the BBC Radio news headlines throughout the last few hours announced it as a smoking ban.

I would assume that's just sloppy journalism, combined with that journalists need snappy headlines for stories and 'smoking ban' is a lot snappier than 'ban on selling cigarettes to people born after a certain date'

 

[Busaholic]

I would assume that's just sloppy journalism, combined with that journalists need snappy headlines for stories and 'smoking ban' is a lot snappier than 'ban on selling cigarettes to people born after a certain date'

Sloppy journalism no doubt, compounded by saying the LibDems had been whipped to support the Bill, which they hadn't. It's plainly untrue to imply that some people will be arrested for smoking, though, although maybe that's yet to come!

 

[davews]

Never smoked, think it is a horrible habit and being a sufferer of nasal rhinitis I try and get as far away from smokers as I can. But I oppose this draconian bill especially the increasing every year aspect which will be unworkable.

 

[dangie]

Just because something is unworkable doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be implemented.

There is a law against dropping litter.
There is a law banning use of mobile phones whilst driving.
Both of those are generally unworkable unless caught in the act, but does this mean they shouldn’t be there?

 

[JamesT]

Never smoked, think it is a horrible habit and being a sufferer of nasal rhinitis I try and get as far away from smokers as I can. But I oppose this draconian bill especially the increasing every year aspect which will be unworkable.

In what way is it unworkable? Retailers already have to check age for selling some products. In this case it would be easier, rather than having to calculate if the birthdate on the ID means they're over 16/18/21 etc, they merely have to check if it's before or after 1st January 2009.

 

[jfollows]

In what way is it unworkable? Retailers already have to check age for selling some products. In this case it would be easier, rather than having to calculate if the birthdate on the ID means they're over 16/18/21 etc, they merely have to check if it's before or after 1st January 2009.

Yes, but retailers don't actually verify age for a significant number of people - I'm over 60 now and nobody asks me to prove it. Laws like this one will change this, it's all well and good in theory but it's going to get annoying in practice.
It adds to the list of laws which politicians make in order to gain votes, the one about smoking in cars being one for which there have been almost no attempted prosecutions, and it's only good because it will have some effect on reducing smoking deaths over time because some people will be put off smoking because of it.
However its headline claims don't stack up, it's mis-reported in the media as others have said as a "smoking ban", and it's another example which makes me think that the Conservatives don't actually stand for anything any more, apart from doing things to gain votes in a hopeless quest.
But at least we can agree to disagree here, I don't like it but it's mainly political noise and it will die down and be forgotten in due course.

 

[spyinthesky]

As a long term smoker I would welcome even more a complete ban. The best way to assist me to give up

 

[sor]

I think people are missing that it doesn't have to be 100% successful to work.

OK, someone born from 2009 onwards might eventually be able to pass as older and not get ID'd. The hope is that they won't try, because they wouldn't have been able to buy them at a younger age and get addicted via smoking. Maybe they'll have vaped their way into an addiction, but they will be able to legally buy those anyway at 18+.

 

[jon81uk]

I’m disappointed there isn’t a total ban on smoking. If people wish to damage their health that’s their prerogative, but littering the streets with discarded fag ends isn’t. I’m sure not all smokers are guilty of this, but because of it I tar (no pun intended) them all with the same brush.

There are already laws on littering.

This basically is a smoking ban, it just means those currently addicted can continue to smoke. The other option would have been a full ban and then doctors having to prescribe to the addicted.
I expect in twenty years when the number still smoking has dwindled they can then go in for a full ban and offer the right support to those who need it.

 

[D6130]

I have never smoked and hate the habit, however I don't think the proposal is workable. Wherever the line is drawn there will be someone who misses it by a day, how are shops meant to enforce it? I also agree it will simply drive the black market

This.

 

[DC1989]

This bill makes me uncomfortable. As for enforcing, I suppose the only real way it makes sense if retailers just think 'we won't bother selling cigarettes anymore' so they are not having to ID 40 year olds. In which case why not restrict who can sell cigarettes anyway to make it such a pain in the arse it's almost a de facto ban

 

[renegademaster]

Just because something is unworkable doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be implemented.

There is a law against dropping litter.
There is a law banning use of mobile phones whilst driving.
Both of those are generally unworkable unless caught in the act, but does this mean they shouldn’t be there?

Litter laws don't funnel money to gangs

 

[birchesgreen]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of retailers stop selling ciggies. Its already tricky enough with the existing rules on people having to prove their age to buy certain items.

 

[jon81uk]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of retailers stop selling ciggies. Its already tricky enough with the existing rules on people having to prove their age to buy certain items.

As time goes on and young people aren't allowed to buy them, older ones quit or die there won't be enough smokers to make it worth selling to them. So yes I think in 5-10 years many retailers will stop.

 

[Trackman]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of retailers stop selling ciggies. Its already tricky enough with the existing rules on people having to prove their age to buy certain items.

I wonder what the mark-up is for retailers

 

[Strat-tastic]

I wonder whether they considered adding vapes to the bill. Makes sense to me

 

[JamesT]

I wonder whether they considered adding vapes to the bill. Makes sense to me

See post #66 where you can read the current text of the bill. Vapes are included.

 

[Strat-tastic]

See post #66 where you can read the current text of the bill. Vapes are included.

Oh, thanks

 

[Silenos]

Controversial opinion - the reduction in smoking is causing more problems for the NHS than it solves.

Lots of poeple who would have smoked for life, and expired fairly quickly with little treatment through lung cancer or heart troubles in their 50s, are now making it to their 70s / 80s and having more, longer and more complicated ailments in later life (as most older people do).

In fact, no. The most frequent consequence of smoking is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which requires long-term management with bronchodilators, steroids, frequent antibiotics, and eventually oxygen. You’re probably looking at a good 20+ years of that sort of management, for some of which the patient is likely to require disability benefit. Patients with smoking-induced circulatory disorders are also quite likely to survive longer.

 

[52290]

As a life-long non smoker I can see some loopholes in the ban if it only applies to cigarettes. Years ago people used to make their own ciggies by buying the tobacco, fag paper and filters separately and then constructing a cigarette. There's also pipes and cigars which would also seem to be outside the legislation.

 

[Ediswan]

As a life-long non smoker I can see some loopholes in the ban if it only applies to cigarettes. Years ago people used to make their own ciggies by buying the tobacco, fag paper and filters separately and then constructing a cigarette. There's also pipes and cigars which would also seem to be outside the legislation.

The proposed ban, as linked in post #66, would apply to:

(a) a tobacco product;
(b) a herbal smoking product;
(c) cigarette papers.

(c) would be a bit of a nuisance. Cigarette papers are handy as very thin shims for model engineering. Rizla Blue are very close to 0.001". I note there would be a statutory defence that would cover this.

 

[dangie]

(c) would be a bit of a nuisance. Cigarette papers are handy as very thin shims for model engineering. Rizla Blue are very close to 0.001". I note there would be a statutory defence that would cover this.

Buy a good stock in ready

 

[Bald Rick]

Years ago people used to make their own ciggies by buying the tobacco, fag paper and filters separately and then constructing a cigarette.

Plenty of people eople still do !

 

[nw1]

Incidentally, in the year 2068, assuming the law doesn't change, would it be illegal for a then 60-year-old to buy a tobacco product for their 59-year-old friend?

Would it be enforceable? (Answer: no).