Generational Smoking Bans

[londonbridge]

So ten years from now are we going to have “Think 30” where we have to ID anyone we think looks under 30 because they might be 25, and five years after that it’ll be “Think 35” and so on? And how on earth , when faced with two people who look a similar age, are we supposed to decide whether to ID one of both of them and then turn round and say person A can buy but person B, even though they’re the same age, can’t buy because they were born two days later?? Totally stupid and unnecessary law which is going to be an absolute nightmare to police or enforce.

 

[jon81uk]

So ten years from now are we going to have “Think 30” where we have to ID anyone we think looks under 30 because they might be 25, and five years after that it’ll be “Think 35” and so on? And how on earth , when faced with two people who look a similar age, are we supposed to decide whether to ID one of both of them and then turn round and say person A can buy but person B, even though they’re the same age, can’t buy because they were born two days later?? Totally stupid and unnecessary law which is going to be an absolute nightmare to police or enforce.

I think there is a good chance of a full ban in 10-20 years time anyway as those who currently smoking quit and the number getting smaller, many retailers will stop stocking nicotine based products as the market for them shrinks.

 

[birchesgreen]

So ten years from now are we going to have “Think 30” where we have to ID anyone we think looks under 30 because they might be 25, and five years after that it’ll be “Think 35” and so on? And how on earth , when faced with two people who look a similar age, are we supposed to decide whether to ID one of both of them and then turn round and say person A can buy but person B, even though they’re the same age, can’t buy because they were born two days later?? Totally stupid and unnecessary law which is going to be an absolute nightmare to police or enforce.

You need to ID both as happens already. There was an incident at the store my wife works at, where a couple were trying to buy alcohol. Although both said they were of legal age (and most probably were) only one had ID proving it, but the store rules were they couldn't buy it because of one of them couldn't prove it.

 

[Enthusiast]

(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.

There is no defence allowing the retailer to sell them to you. But somebody born before 1/1/2009 would be able to buy them on your behalf:

2 Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others

"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of cigarette papers to prove that they had no reason to suspect that
the other person intended to use the papers for smoking."

 

[londonbridge]

You need to ID both as happens already. There was an incident at the store my wife works at, where a couple were trying to buy alcohol. Although both said they were of legal age (and most probably were) only one had ID proving it, but the store rules were they couldn't buy it because of one of them couldn't prove it.

That is no longer policy at my store, if we have a group of young people who all look under 25 and one of them buys drink, we only have to ID that person unless we have clear evidence of it being a proxy sale.

 

[geoffk]

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.

or you just pop over the border to Wales or Scotland if you live near enough, as this bill only covers England. I'm a non-smoker by the way.

 

[jfollows]

or you just pop over the border to Wales or Scotland if you live near enough, as this bill only covers England. I'm a non-smoker by the way.

Not so, sorry, see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0189/230189.pdf

Part 1 Sale and distribution: England and Wales
Part 2 Sale and distribution: Scotland

The Scotland part might need formal approval by the Scottish Parliament in some way also, but I think that's generally assumed.

 

[geoffk]

Not so, sorry, see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0189/230189.pdf
Part 1 Sale and distribution: England and Wales
Part 2 Sale and distribution: Scotland
The Scotland part might need formal approval by the Scottish Parliament in some way also, but I think that's generally assumed.

OK - I thought public health was a devolved matter though. Although it doesn't affect me or my family, I've got mixed feelings about going down this road. Smoking does of course impose a big cost on the NHS, but then so does alcohol.

 

[jfollows]

OK - I thought public health was a devolved matter though. Although it doesn't affect me or my family, I've got mixed feelings about going down this road. Smoking does of course impose a big cost on the NHS, but then so does alcohol.

Yes, from the briefing at https://www.parliament.scot/-/media...vapes-bill/legislative-consent-memorandum.pdf:

As health is devolved, and the majority of provisions have a public health purpose, the inclusion of the majority of provisions which extend to Scotland in the Bill requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

 

[dangie]

Many are saying that if tobacco products can’t be sold in shops they’ll be sold on the Black Market instead. Where is this Black Market? How big will it need to be to satisfy those who still wish to start/continue to smoke.

I know Black Markets probably exist now if you know where to find them, but in the future it they would need to be far more numerous and larger and easier to access, therefore in theory easier to shutdown. I appreciate that tobacco usage will never be eradicated completely, but surely anything which makes it more difficult to obtain is a good thing.

Although they are unlikely to admit it I’d guess that even the most ardent smoker wishes they’d never started. Do they have offspring who smoke? I bet they wish they hadn’t started. Do they have young children or grandchildren? Do they hope that they never smoke?

I’m 73 years young and gave up smoking when I was at school. Believe me, for getting caught smoking the cane was far less pleasurable than any ‘enjoyment’ from a quick drag around the back of the bike sheds. However it stopped me from smoking and I’m glad it did and for that I’m eternally thankful.

Edit: I should add that if buying on the Black Market you don’t really know what you’re getting. Who knows what substances and chemicals are contained. Buying genuine tobacco products could actually be less bad for your health.

 

[Enthusiast]

Edit: I should add that if buying on the Black Market you don’t really know what you’re getting. Who knows what substances and chemicals are contained. Buying genuine tobacco products could actually be less bad for your health.

Indeed. In Cuba there is a thriving black market in cigars. The vast majority of these are made from all sorts of things including sawdust, floor sweepings and dried banana leaves.

 

[GusB]

Many are saying that if tobacco products can’t be sold in shops they’ll be sold on the Black Market instead. Where is this Black Market? How big will it need to be to satisfy those who still wish to start/continue to smoke.

The black market is potentially anyone who goes on holiday and brings back cheaper cigarettes and tobacco from the continent. It's not that difficult to find.

 

[johnnychips]

When I was a lot younger, it was really difficult to buy cannabis unless you were in a certain circle. Now, even though it is still illegal, I think I could source some in four hours maximum. (I don’t, by the way)!

Similarly, if I still smoked it wouldn’t take me long to find cheap fags (imports from cheaper countries) or even cheaper fags (fakes, which probably are the factory floor sweepings). My next door neighbour used to be a lorry driver abroad and this was a nice sideline for him, which, I admit I took advantage of when I did smoke.

However, I think it might just work.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Many are saying that if tobacco products can’t be sold in shops they’ll be sold on the Black Market instead. Where is this Black Market? How big will it need to be to satisfy those who still wish to start/continue to smoke.

I know Black Markets probably exist now if you know where to find them, but in the future it they would need to be far more numerous and larger and easier to access, therefore in theory easier to shutdown. I appreciate that tobacco usage will never be eradicated completely, but surely anything which makes it more difficult to obtain is a good thing.

Although they are unlikely to admit it I’d guess that even the most ardent smoker wishes they’d never started. Do they have offspring who smoke? I bet they wish they hadn’t started. Do they have young children or grandchildren? Do they hope that they never smoke?

I’m 73 years young and gave up smoking when I was at school. Believe me, for getting caught smoking the cane was far less pleasurable than any ‘enjoyment’ from a quick drag around the back of the bike sheds. However it stopped me from smoking and I’m glad it did and for that I’m eternally thankful.

Edit: I should add that if buying on the Black Market you don’t really know what you’re getting. Who knows what substances and chemicals are contained. Buying genuine tobacco products could actually be less bad for your health.

Many convenience stores will, if someone asks for the "cheapest cigs", pull out a box from under the counter with an assortment of imported packets. You really don't have to try that hard to find this "black market".

As for your last paragraph, that alone should cause anyone pause for thought before entertaining the idea of a full ban. As long as there is demand, someone will provide a supply. Much better for that supply to be controlled and regulated, than to be left for unscrupulous criminals to fulfill.

I'm fundamentally opposed to the "generational ban" idea simply because it creates a two-tier system of rights, even if that "right" is harmful. Besides, as stated above it won't actually make a difference- if someone really wants to smoke they'll find a way, and if it isn't possible to do so legally then they'll resort to the black market.

 

[Busaholic]

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.

The Disability Living Allowance is only available for children, and has been since 2014. No other disability benefits have been available for new adult claimants since that time. Disability in itself no longer entitles an individual to any extra money from the state, a fact which many people are totally unaware of.

 

[E27007]

If you must smoke tobacco then choose to smoke a pipe, ready-made cigarettes are gods gift to the tobacco industry, ready-made cigarettes are so convenient to the user, smoke a pipe and you spend so much time fiddling with the device your consumption of tobacco is minimal

 

[Enthusiast]

Meanwhile:

MSN

Ukrainian soldiers trained in UK given free cigarettes under MoD deal.

 

[gnolife]

The Disability Living Allowance is only available for children, and has been since 2014. No other disability benefits have been available for new adult claimants since that time. Disability in itself no longer entitles an individual to any extra money from the state, a fact which many people are totally unaware of.

The gov.uk site disagrees with you on that one

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) can help with extra living costs if you have both:

• a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability

 

[uglymonkey]

"If you must smoke tobacco then choose to smoke a pipe" . High risk of mouth and tongue cancer I would have thought though.

 

[Busaholic]

The gov.uk site disagrees with you on that one

No, it doesn't. Having physical or mental illness may entitle you to claim Personal Independence Payment, and you may have a recognised disability as a part of that, but any necessary extra costs associated with that disability are no longer recognised as being the state's responsibility, as they were when the Disabled Living Allowance was in existence up to 2014.

 

[Silenos]

No, it doesn't. Having physical or mental illness may entitle you to claim Personal Independence Payment, and you may have a recognised disability as a part of that, but any necessary extra costs associated with that disability are no longer recognised as being the state's responsibility, as they were when the Disabled Living Allowance was in existence up to 2014.

People who are unable to walk more than a few metres and require supplemental oxygen are going to be a cost to the State one way or another

 

[Howardh]

If you must smoke tobacco then choose to smoke a pipe, ready-made cigarettes are gods gift to the tobacco industry, ready-made cigarettes are so convenient to the user, smoke a pipe and you spend so much time fiddling with the device your consumption of tobacco is minimal

Back in the day I remember sweets disguised a cigarettes for kids, and if memory serves, toy pipes you could blow bubbles out of. In some ways just innocent fun but deep down, a subconcious way to "normalise" using cigarettes and pipes for when you grew up?

Not there are no such things today!

 

[Busaholic]

People who are unable to walk more than a few metres and require supplemental oxygen are going to be a cost to the State one way or another

Which was precisely why the Disability Living Allowance was created, giving some of the groups you mention and others beside more money to choose things that could bring a better quality to their life and perhaps maintain some independence thus, in the long run, possibly saving the state money as emergency situations involving NHS resources wouldn't need to be accessed so much. Its removal by the Coalition Government of 2010-14 has been regarded by most health and social care professionals without strongly monetarist prejudices as deeply retrograde, and also contrary to what has happened in most other developed countries, even the USA.