UK smoking ban for those born after 2009
Discussion
CheesecakeRunner said:
Bluequay said:
Nobody is being asked to give anything up, nobody affected by this new law is allowed to buy cigarettes already.
And the idea is, by the time they get older, they won't want to because they won't have been sucked into it whilst young and stupid.I've got a 15 year old lad who'd get 'caught' by this legislation, so I asked him what he thought.
"So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a s
t, and mostly think it's a good idea.
"So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a s
t, and mostly think it's a good idea.Bluequay said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
smn159 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
We need to scrap the NHS ASAP.
I want my healthcare to look after me, I don't want me to have to give up stuff to protect my healthcare provider.
That's a pretty entitled opinion - there are responsibilities as well as rights in societyI want my healthcare to look after me, I don't want me to have to give up stuff to protect my healthcare provider.
Its utterly insane.
It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
BikeBikeBIke said:
I was responding to someone saying we should give smoking up for the sake of our healthcare provider.
It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Do you actually read what you write, or just vomit it out and hit submit?It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
jameswills said:
Hill92 said:
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of laws with restrictions based on age or date of birth over and beyond age 18 child/adult distinction, including minimum wage, pensions and citizenship to name a few major examples. Courts have upheld Parliament's right to make such laws, e.g. rejecting the arguments of Women Against State Pension Inequality.
As for enforcement, it will likely be a case that retailers will require that anyone wishing to buy tobacco must show valid ID or no sale.
Not like this, I’m not sure people are grasping the maths on this. It means someone born pre 2009 can buy cigarettes from a shop for the rest of their lives up until their death. Someone who was born in 2009 cannot, ever. No age at all they can reach that deems the responsible for consuming a product that is freely available to another sector of society.As for enforcement, it will likely be a case that retailers will require that anyone wishing to buy tobacco must show valid ID or no sale.
Unless of course perhaps we have some sort of ID, and maybe this person in 2009 could buy some sort of social credit……..
Married Men's Allowance was removed for anyone not born after 6 April 1935.
Anyone born in the British Islands before 1 January 1983 was automatically a British citizen regardless of nationality of their parents. Individuals born since then only receive citizenship at birth if at least one of their parents is a British citizen or holds settled status.
Parliament has the power to do this.
BikeBikeBIke said:
I was responding to someone saying we should give smoking up for the sake of our healthcare provider.
It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Sounds a bit like the NHS with the ability to have private care…It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Bluequay said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
I was responding to someone saying we should give smoking up for the sake of our healthcare provider.
It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Do you actually read what you write, or just vomit it out and hit submit?It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
If you want something to work well, creating an artifical monopoly (and then making it state owned) isn't typically considered a good plan.
CheesecakeRunner said:
I've got a 15 year old lad who'd get 'caught' by this legislation, so I asked him what he thought.
"So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a st, and mostly think it's a good idea.
Exactly. Got to remember that this measure is also combined with aggressive taxation. 20 cigarettes are now £15, so every reason for children not to be interested in starting to smoke. "So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a s
t, and mostly think it's a good idea.Dingu said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
I was responding to someone saying we should give smoking up for the sake of our healthcare provider.
It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Sounds a bit like the NHS with the ability to have private care…It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Anyhoo.....
CheesecakeRunner said:
I've got a 15 year old lad who'd get 'caught' by this legislation, so I asked him what he thought.
"So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a st, and mostly think it's a good idea.
They don't smoke, but ask them about vaping. Seems like a surprising (to me) number of children are vaping instead. "So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a s
t, and mostly think it's a good idea.EddieSteadyGo said:
They don't smoke, but ask them about vaping. Seems like a surprising (to me) number of children are vaping instead.
Yes, that is a problem. My lad doesn't, but you can't tell me that all the brightly colour displays of vapes in newsagents and small shops aren't aimed at kids. Sooner they're in plain packets under the counter, the better.Castrol for a knave said:
Dingu said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
I was responding to someone saying we should give smoking up for the sake of our healthcare provider.
It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Sounds a bit like the NHS with the ability to have private care…It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Anyhoo.....
In any case who trains them is completely irrelevant.
The NHS was set up to fix people not being used as an excuse to tell people what the can or cannot do.
Like people have already pointed out tax from cigarettes easily pay for the costs to the NHS. Add that to the fact the vast amount of money spent on people in the NHS is when they are older. Most heavy smokes are the type of people who get cancer just after retirement and drop dead after a few month later.
And if we want to save money for the NHS why don't we stop giving free care away to people who have never paid a penny into. Most other countries don't allow people just to rock up and take advantage of their health system with paying we seem to do.
Like people have already pointed out tax from cigarettes easily pay for the costs to the NHS. Add that to the fact the vast amount of money spent on people in the NHS is when they are older. Most heavy smokes are the type of people who get cancer just after retirement and drop dead after a few month later.
And if we want to save money for the NHS why don't we stop giving free care away to people who have never paid a penny into. Most other countries don't allow people just to rock up and take advantage of their health system with paying we seem to do.
Eric Mc said:
If that's the case, it makes the legislation even more senseless.
Not at all. He's 15, he's stupid like al 15 year old lads. At some point between now and 18 he'll think about smoking. Under the current rules, he might ponce a few off older mates, then come 18 start buying them.Under the new rules, he'll just accept it as it is what it is, and find something else to p
s off his Dad with.BikeBikeBIke said:
Bluequay said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
I was responding to someone saying we should give smoking up for the sake of our healthcare provider.
It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
Do you actually read what you write, or just vomit it out and hit submit?It's as mental as turning bread into a state provided good and then saying "oooh, we should all eat less bread for the sake of other bread consumers."
No. Its better to let everyone buy the bread they want. If we want bread equality just give everyone an equal bread grant, but still allow people extra bread if they want it. (Without totally duplicating their existing bread spend.)
If you want something to work well, creating an artifical monopoly (and then making it state owned) isn't typically considered a good plan.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 17th April 14:54
ChocolateFrog said:
Seems wrong to me even though the intentions are good.
I think a better way forward would be to set minimum pricing, say £100 per 10.
I was wondering if mandating that all cigarette tobacco sold in the UK had to be cut with a 5% concentration of desiccated and finely ground cat crap, such that the absolute stench of the stuff being burned, and the lingering acidic nauseous miasma of incinerated sI think a better way forward would be to set minimum pricing, say £100 per 10.
t that would cling to the smokers and their clothing, might put people off the habit, unless they're hopelessly addicted.Turns out the legislation was quietly enacted 20 years ago, however, so maybe some folk just *like* smelling like a well used cat's litter tray.
Not-The-Messiah said:
The NHS was set up to fix people not being used as an excuse to tell people what the can or cannot do.
Like people have already pointed out tax from cigarettes easily pay for the costs to the NHS. Add that to the fact the vast amount of money spent on people in the NHS is when they are older. Most heavy smokes are the type of people who get cancer just after retirement and drop dead after a few month later.
And if we want to save money for the NHS why don't we stop giving free care away to people who have never paid a penny into. Most other countries don't allow people just to rock up and take advantage of their health system with paying we seem to do.
Not even close. The cost to the UK is over £17Bn and the tax take a little over £11Bn. So £6Bn we all need to fund. Like people have already pointed out tax from cigarettes easily pay for the costs to the NHS. Add that to the fact the vast amount of money spent on people in the NHS is when they are older. Most heavy smokes are the type of people who get cancer just after retirement and drop dead after a few month later.
And if we want to save money for the NHS why don't we stop giving free care away to people who have never paid a penny into. Most other countries don't allow people just to rock up and take advantage of their health system with paying we seem to do.
Why do people think that cigarettes just cause cancer, There are a whole list of negative health work related impacts.
If we don't treat people who have not contributed would that extend to those impaired people that cannot work? How about those than contribute very little like all those well below median earnings. Obviously they should get second tier care.
Why not add up your contributions and if you don't have enough in the bank then you need to get your credit card out. Would that be fair?
CheesecakeRunner said:
I've got a 15 year old lad who'd get 'caught' by this legislation, so I asked him what he thought.
"So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a st, and mostly think it's a good idea.
Yes but they all vape. Next on the list. They are still all addicted. "So what?', he said, "Nobody smokes anyway".
And he's not exactly the shy and retiring type at school... It really is middle aged men shouting at clouds, when the kids it'll affect don't give a s
t, and mostly think it's a good idea.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff