UK smoking ban for those born after 2009

UK smoking ban for those born after 2009

Author
Discussion

andy43

9,723 posts

254 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Nomme de Plum said:
andy43 said:
Tom8 said:
Chainsaw Rebuild said:
Good! Another nail in the coffin of tobacco is a good thing.
Why?
Because it's a stupid habit that costs the NHS nearly as much as Mr Kipling does.
Don't want to come across as a Saddick Khan and/or a miserable anti-freedom muppet but the sooner it's stopped the better.
Andy (mother-in-law died October from a COPD attack, father died 2013 of a heart attack while he was in hospital waiting for them to take his stage 4 cancer-ridden jaw to bits and replace it with bits from elsewhere.)
Now there's an interesting analogy.

Did you know that some of those tobacco companies have invested heavily in the food industry and in particular the selling of addictive highly processed foods?

So having been responsible for the deaths and damaged lives of many millions of tobacco consumers they have now moved one step further into the gutter to damage the lives of children as well as adults.


Of course it's just business and completely legal.
Wouldn't surprise me at all. Gambling, smoking, alcohol, junk food, porn, they're probably all good investments until those pesky politicians stick their noses in.

Jordie Barretts sock

4,144 posts

19 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Cigarette tax (or rather tobacco tax) raises £10bn a year. Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS £17bn a year - according to the BBC.

New Zealand's Labour Govt were the first to moot this sort of law. All was going well until they lost rhe GE and National (Conservative) have very publicly dropped it. For the varying reasons voiced on this thread - unworkable, black market, smokers reducing anyway...

Donbot

3,943 posts

127 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
HRL said:
Donbot said:
They should do the same with cannabis.

Oh wait.
What’s wrong with cannabis? It’s less harmful than both tobacco and alcohol.
I'm not making any comment on cannabis. Just that it being illegal clearly hasn't worked.

Vanden Saab

14,107 posts

74 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
BikeBikeBIke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Excellent, alcohol next as it costs far more in lives and NHS time than smoking does. Let's see how many calling for this also want alcohol banned.
Bet it wlll be different somehow.
How did that work out in prohibition America?
Exactly.

eharding

13,725 posts

284 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Vanden Saab said:
Excellent, alcohol next as it costs far more in lives and NHS time than smoking does. Let's see how many calling for this also want alcohol banned.
Bet it wlll be different somehow.
How did that work out in prohibition America?
Exactly.
It's interesting to note that there are still a number of dry counties in various US States, so prohibition at a local level is still in force and maintained where a majority of the local community are opposed to the sale of alcohol - in the US largely down to many Christian denominations condemning the consumption of alcohol by their followers. I doubt very much that this would ever be the case in the UK, but there may be other faiths which are in a very localised majority which might support a form of local prohibition. The benefit to the NHS from the reduction in alcohol-related disease in the local level would obviously be offset on a national scale by the dramatic increase in explosive cranial aneurysms and super-heated urine scalding such a development might cause amongst other sections of the population.

Nomme de Plum

4,612 posts

16 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Cigarette tax (or rather tobacco tax) raises £10bn a year. Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS £17bn a year - according to the BBC.

New Zealand's Labour Govt were the first to moot this sort of law. All was going well until they lost rhe GE and National (Conservative) have very publicly dropped it. For the varying reasons voiced on this thread - unworkable, black market, smokers reducing anyway...
Assuming that's just the NHS cost. What about the impaired health thus meaning much more sickness and work under performance and abscence.

I do not agree with many of Sunak's policies but as a legacy this is pretty spectacular. In a good way.




Oliver Hardy

2,547 posts

74 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Nomme de Plum said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Cigarette tax (or rather tobacco tax) raises £10bn a year. Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS £17bn a year - according to the BBC.

New Zealand's Labour Govt were the first to moot this sort of law. All was going well until they lost rhe GE and National (Conservative) have very publicly dropped it. For the varying reasons voiced on this thread - unworkable, black market, smokers reducing anyway...
Assuming that's just the NHS cost. What about the impaired health thus meaning much more sickness and work under performance and abscence.

I do not agree with many of Sunak's policies but as a legacy this is pretty spectacular. In a good way.
I always wondered how this is measured and how this figure is arrived at. Wonder if the fact that smokers are less likely to get dementia is factored into this sum?

Note that the negative cost of air pollution is £6 billion to the the NHS and alcohol is only £1.7 billion (I think), which surprises me considering how busy the hospitals are with alcohol related casualties. I am guessing alcohol related sickness and work under performance and absence must be high too.


Biker 1

7,736 posts

119 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
An interesting one.
I smoke maybe 15 roll ups/day. It's getting ridiculously expensive, but I suppose I can afford it.
I was always under the impression that the NHS made a net profit, i.e. cost of relatively fast death through cancer v tobacco tax raised.
As others have alluded to, the cost/benefit may not be so straightforward. Neutral perhaps??

HRL

3,341 posts

219 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Oliver Hardy said:
How is it less harmful than tobacco?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...

It is not tobacco that causes health problems it is the smoke.
Not likely that that dick’s actions were because he was stoned. I’ve known hundreds of recreational cannabis users during my life and every single one of them has been chilled out and relaxed when stoned, never aggressive.

But sure, blame it on that “evil weed”.

Geffg

1,130 posts

105 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
HRL said:
Oliver Hardy said:
How is it less harmful than tobacco?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...

It is not tobacco that causes health problems it is the smoke.
Not likely that that dick’s actions were because he was stoned. I’ve known hundreds of recreational cannabis users during my life and every single one of them has been chilled out and relaxed when stoned, never aggressive.

But sure, blame it on that “evil weed”.
What about all the mental health issues long term users suffer?

J6542

1,625 posts

44 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Geffg said:
HRL said:
Oliver Hardy said:
How is it less harmful than tobacco?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...

It is not tobacco that causes health problems it is the smoke.
Not likely that that dick’s actions were because he was stoned. I’ve known hundreds of recreational cannabis users during my life and every single one of them has been chilled out and relaxed when stoned, never aggressive.

But sure, blame it on that “evil weed”.
What about all the mental health issues long term users suffer?
What about the millions of them driving everyday with weed in their system. What’s the point of banning cigarettes when class A drugs are so easily available.
Certain shops around here already do a roaring trade in black market cigs at £5 a packet, this will just increase the trade more

stemll

4,107 posts

200 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Nomme de Plum said:
Assuming that's just the NHS cost. What about the impaired health thus meaning much more sickness and work under performance and abscence.

I do not agree with many of Sunak's policies but as a legacy this is pretty spectacular. In a good way.
Not that it has much hope of making it through parliament before the next election. A cynic might suggest that's not by accident.

TheD

3,133 posts

199 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
Another nail in the I will decide how you will live before your coffin. If you want to smoke and there is nobody else is even close then smoke. Live your life as you wish as long as others are not involved

Newc

1,866 posts

182 months

Wednesday 20th March
quotequote all
The similar policy in Australia is going really well.

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oc...

AndrewCrown

2,286 posts

114 months

Thursday 21st March
quotequote all
Whenever there is any kind of curtailment of smoking it seems to bring out a very binary response of relative enmity to tobacco and its users or frustration at a restriction in freedoms.

In my view our brains are wired to need some kind of psychoactive or psychotropic substance or activity that mimics that effect. Life is so damned hard we all need something to help us cope with the ups and downs.

It’s a paradox that these activities/ substances:

  • Bring us all together.
  • Attract levy’s and duty as they become more popular
  • Wane with discoveries of relative harm to self or others
But the market… the market always finds a way to the next substance

Ridgemont

6,583 posts

131 months

Thursday 21st March
quotequote all
Newc said:
The similar policy in Australia is going really well.

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oc...
Infiltrated by organised crime you say? Whodathunk!

Oliver Hardy

2,547 posts

74 months

Thursday 21st March
quotequote all
HRL said:
Oliver Hardy said:
How is it less harmful than tobacco?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...

It is not tobacco that causes health problems it is the smoke.
Not likely that that dick’s actions were because he was stoned. I’ve known hundreds of recreational cannabis users during my life and every single one of them has been chilled out and relaxed when stoned, never aggressive.

But sure, blame it on that “evil weed”.
Well good on you,

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/menta...


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/01/quadru...

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-featu...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8144275/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/03/cannab...








hidetheelephants

24,410 posts

193 months

Thursday 21st March
quotequote all
Nomme de Plum said:
Assuming that's just the NHS cost. What about the impaired health thus meaning much more sickness and work under performance and abscence.

I do not agree with many of Sunak's policies but as a legacy this is pretty spectacular. In a good way.
It's unenforceable bks, this lot twiddled their thumbs while the vape makers wooed children with brightly coloured packaging, sweet flavours and wall-to-wall advertising on social media and hooked a new generation to cancer sticks, now they're dying on their arse in the polls they're scrabbling for something, anything, that might distract from the mighty spinning bowtie extravaganza of failure this govt is. A crackdown on disposable vapes, marketing to kids and lawbreaking vendors would have been a good idea 5 years ago, this stable door has been swinging in the wind for a while.

Biker 1

7,736 posts

119 months

Thursday 21st March
quotequote all
It does seem ridiculous. I could procure various classes of illicit drugs in no time at all 24/7 round here, same with vapes & booze. Then there's the amount of people on some sort of prescription from their GP, many with serious side effects &/or addictive qualities, such as antidepressants.
The plan seems utterly unenforceable, as with almost all prohibitions.

fiatpower

3,043 posts

171 months

Thursday 21st March
quotequote all
I'm not a smoker and never have. Nor do I really know of any smokers apart from my wife's aunt. I wouldn't ban it and don't see how it's enforceable. In my opinion in a generation or so it will have pretty much died out apart from the odd smoker so may as well let that happen naturally. I also despise Cannabis but i'd legalise it and make it controlled to get tax off it and hopefully control what is being taken by people.