UK smoking ban for those born after 2009
Discussion
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.)
Nomme de Plum said:
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.
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?
You keep repeating that £17bn figure, however it isn't getting any more accurate. 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?
Nomme de Plum said:
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?
Alcohol has the same negative effects so should it be banned?
Smoking has been going down for years, since the 60s, we have had an indoor smoking ban for nearly 20 years now yet smoking related health issues such as heart attacks, strokes, asthma, i read today smoking causes diabetes https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases... should be tumbling especially considering the advances in medicine that have been made during the same period.
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 s
t, and mostly think it's a good idea.
You asked one kid."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.But it is true, I guess it is a success that they are far more likely to be using cannabis and hard drugs than smoking.
Hill92 said:
otolith said:
I wonder if this will survive challenge on equalities and human rights arguments once it actually has the effect of arbitrarily restricting the rights of one group of adults on the basis of age.
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.Oliver Hardy said:
Where do you the £17 billion number from, what is the cost?
Alcohol has the same negative effects so should it be banned?
Smoking has been going down for years, since the 60s, we have had an indoor smoking ban for nearly 20 years now yet smoking related health issues such as heart attacks, strokes, asthma, i read today smoking causes diabetes https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases... should be tumbling especially considering the advances in medicine that have been made during the same period.
The £17bn figure is from a Department of Health report from last year and contains some incredibly dodgy working. They account for things like lower wages, higher unemployment etc amongst smokers, as if any of that is to do with the fact they smoke. Alcohol has the same negative effects so should it be banned?
Smoking has been going down for years, since the 60s, we have had an indoor smoking ban for nearly 20 years now yet smoking related health issues such as heart attacks, strokes, asthma, i read today smoking causes diabetes https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases... should be tumbling especially considering the advances in medicine that have been made during the same period.
More info about it here https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2023/02/d...
Good to know that if I quit I'd not only have more money in my pocket (unarguable) and be paying less tax (lovely) I'd also get a pay rise, just for not smoking!
bodhi said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Where do you the £17 billion number from, what is the cost?
Alcohol has the same negative effects so should it be banned?
Smoking has been going down for years, since the 60s, we have had an indoor smoking ban for nearly 20 years now yet smoking related health issues such as heart attacks, strokes, asthma, i read today smoking causes diabetes https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases... should be tumbling especially considering the advances in medicine that have been made during the same period.
The £17bn figure is from a Department of Health report from last year and contains some incredibly dodgy working. They account for things like lower wages, higher unemployment etc amongst smokers, as if any of that is to do with the fact they smoke. Alcohol has the same negative effects so should it be banned?
Smoking has been going down for years, since the 60s, we have had an indoor smoking ban for nearly 20 years now yet smoking related health issues such as heart attacks, strokes, asthma, i read today smoking causes diabetes https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases... should be tumbling especially considering the advances in medicine that have been made during the same period.
More info about it here https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2023/02/d...
Good to know that if I quit I'd not only have more money in my pocket (unarguable) and be paying less tax (lovely) I'd also get a pay rise, just for not smoking!
BikeBikeBIke said:
Mr Penguin said:
Start with things like cannabis and gradually expand it. Prohibition and extremely strict regulations / extremely high tax rates just puts all the money from sales into the hands of criminals, which is a bad thing to do.
+1 We tried, it failed.
Time to take the business out of the hands of criminals.
Legalise the less problematic drugs and regulate and tax them.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Terminator X said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:paulw123 said:
My thoughts too, imagine being angry your children couldn't ruin their health and shorten their life expectancy smoking. Odd.
It won't affect anyone who's taken up smoking legally anyway.
You can just imagine the pep talk can't you.It won't affect anyone who's taken up smoking legally anyway.
"Well son it's your choice if you want to shorten your life expectancy and risk getting Lung Cancer. You know how I feel about all this woke nanny state bulls
t"Just weird.
hand wringers unite!TX.
The idea that being OK with smoking being slowly phased out makes me a "hand wringer" is pretty bizarre tbh.
TX.
bodhi said:
The £17bn figure is from a Department of Health report from last year and contains some incredibly dodgy working. They account for things like lower wages, higher unemployment etc amongst smokers, as if any of that is to do with the fact they smoke.
More info about it here https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2023/02/d...
Good to know that if I quit I'd not only have more money in my pocket (unarguable) and be paying less tax (lovely) I'd also get a pay rise, just for not smoking!
I always find taking a report commissioned by an action group to show.... exactly what they want is a very useful and unbiased one to take numbers from.More info about it here https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2023/02/d...
Good to know that if I quit I'd not only have more money in my pocket (unarguable) and be paying less tax (lovely) I'd also get a pay rise, just for not smoking!
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-release...
which this is the related report which is quite amusing to read through (given as you might remember I do have a tendency to have a speed read through supposed studies to see if they are anything like what they claim)
https://ash.org.uk/uploads/CBPF-model-2023.pdf
Adding in the cost of - early deaths due to smoking, reduced employment levels due to being a smoker, lower wages due to being a smoker, spending money on smoking compared to other things that could be bought and cost of house fires due to smoking all seems to be a totally reasonable way to look at the numbers and not at all a case of just sticking in any damn crap just to buff out a number because it suits your argument I think.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Donbot said:
18 YEAR OLDS AREN'T CHILDREN! ffs
Is it only me that understands that this is about stopping ADULTS from legally buying cigarettes?
The 2009 cutoff is someone who is currently 15. This is very much about stopping CHILDREN buying cigarettes. So they they won't become addicted adults.Is it only me that understands that this is about stopping ADULTS from legally buying cigarettes?
TX.
Terminator X said:
Wait for instructions, don't leave the house.
TX.
It's not though is it.TX.
Honestly not being allowed to buy cigarettes isn't a bad thing just because some weirdos want to make out people who are OK with it are hand wringers or that next thing we'll be smothering babies (nothing odd about that particular little leap).
iphonedyou said:
Oliver Hardy said:
You asked one kid.
But it is true, I guess it is a success that they are far more likely to be using cannabis and hard drugs than smoking.
Source for the claim it's more likely for a fifteen year old to be using hard drugs than smoking?But it is true, I guess it is a success that they are far more likely to be using cannabis and hard drugs than smoking.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2021/feb/10-teenage...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Terminator X said:
Wait for instructions, don't leave the house.
TX.
It's not though is it.TX.
Honestly not being allowed to buy cigarettes isn't a bad thing just because some weirdos want to make out people who are OK with it are hand wringers or that next thing we'll be smothering babies (nothing odd about that particular little leap).
The proposal is a fudge as it will not stop some children smoking in the same way as the current law doesn’t.
To my mind, the better solution would be to increase the tax payable so that ultimately it becomes unviable to smoke.
Oliver Hardy said:
Maybe not at 15 but by 17 a third have used cannabis and 10% have tried hard drugs
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2021/feb/10-teenage...
....and in future where cigarette supply is in the hands of the drug dealers those numbers are going to rocket.https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2021/feb/10-teenage...
isaldiri said:
I always find taking a report commissioned by an action group to show.... exactly what they want is a very useful and unbiased one to take numbers from.
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-release...
which this is the related report which is quite amusing to read through (given as you might remember I do have a tendency to have a speed read through supposed studies to see if they are anything like what they claim)
https://ash.org.uk/uploads/CBPF-model-2023.pdf
Adding in the cost of - early deaths due to smoking, reduced employment levels due to being a smoker, lower wages due to being a smoker, spending money on smoking compared to other things that could be bought and cost of house fires due to smoking all seems to be a totally reasonable way to look at the numbers and not at all a case of just sticking in any damn crap just to buff out a number because it suits your argument I think.
I know they're hilarious aren't they, lots of finger in the air numbers and very dodgy reasoning - sadly some folks seem to lap them up and quote them verbatim without querying where those numbers come from. https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-release...
which this is the related report which is quite amusing to read through (given as you might remember I do have a tendency to have a speed read through supposed studies to see if they are anything like what they claim)
https://ash.org.uk/uploads/CBPF-model-2023.pdf
Adding in the cost of - early deaths due to smoking, reduced employment levels due to being a smoker, lower wages due to being a smoker, spending money on smoking compared to other things that could be bought and cost of house fires due to smoking all seems to be a totally reasonable way to look at the numbers and not at all a case of just sticking in any damn crap just to buff out a number because it suits your argument I think.
Confirmation bias at work as usual I guess.
Boringvolvodriver said:
The issue here is the change in the age at which point it is legal or illegal to purchase tobacco. The law is currently 18 (iirc in the past it was 16?) which is sensible and still doesn’t stop under age smoking.
The proposal is a fudge as it will not stop some children smoking in the same way as the current law doesn’t.
To my mind, the better solution would be to increase the tax payable so that ultimately it becomes unviable to smoke.
It's a fudge.The proposal is a fudge as it will not stop some children smoking in the same way as the current law doesn’t.
To my mind, the better solution would be to increase the tax payable so that ultimately it becomes unviable to smoke.
That's not the same as all the crap about CBDC, Covid, kids being smothered, don't leave the house and whatever other utterly bonkers stuff people are coming up with off the back of it that's going to happen next apparently.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff