UK smoking ban for those born after 2009

[Terminator X]

super7 said:

Personally I hate smoking, but I also appreciate everyones personal choice even if it is an addiction.... that includes Alcohol and junk food.

The answer is to make sure that the rest of us are not penalised for the additional healthcare that smokers are likely to require.

Two ways, either charge each smoker a 'smokers' fee when the end up in hospital (checked by CO levels), maybe £20 a day, or add an additional NI tax to tobacco which goes directly to the NHS. Maybe a £2 a pack. Same with Alcohol to be fair to drinkers! And the same with large bars of chocolate and XL Pizzas....

Then, I don't care what people decide to do.

Those without sin. I guess you live a virtuous life?

TX.

[Dave200]

Astacus said:

I am not keen on banning stuff, but smoking is an addiction driven by profit, that causes harm both to those that do it and those that don’t, but are exposed to it. I should know. I have ever smoked but I did work as a barman when smoking was derigeur in pubs. I got lung cancer and had about half of one of my lungs removed.

The cost to our self destructing NHS of smoking is astronomical, not just in cancer but in all the other diseases that are either caused by it or exacerbated by it.

So I say if you want to smoke, then smoke but I would add £5 to each packet of fags to go directly to the NHS. Yes yes I know all about sporting injuries all the other whataboutery that comes up in these discussions and I don’t care. I’d rather be a hypocrite with a functioning NHS

I'm not keen on banning stuff either. But I'm even less keen on allowing big tobacco companies to continue to profit from a product that causes horrible illnesses as you suffered.

[Hants PHer]

Dave200 said:

I'm not keen on banning stuff either. But I'm even less keen on allowing big tobacco companies to continue to profit from a product that causes horrible illnesses as you suffered.

Would you, therefore, approve of a ban on junk food, or alcohol? Some will argue that your view about tobacco is just as applicable to booze and cakes.

[Baroque attacks]

Astacus said:

I am not keen on banning stuff, but smoking is an addiction driven by profit, that causes harm both to those that do it and those that don’t, but are exposed to it. I should know. I have ever smoked but I did work as a barman when smoking was derigeur in pubs. I got lung cancer and had about half of one of my lungs removed.

The cost to our self destructing NHS of smoking is astronomical, not just in cancer but in all the other diseases that are either caused by it or exacerbated by it.

So I say if you want to smoke, then smoke but I would add £5 to each packet of fags to go directly to the NHS. Yes yes I know all about sporting injuries all the other whataboutery that comes up in these discussions and I don’t care. I’d rather be a hypocrite with a functioning NHS

Yup.

The whataboutery only occurs when people don’t have a counter for your point!

[bodhi]

Baroque attacks said:

Astacus said:

I am not keen on banning stuff, but smoking is an addiction driven by profit, that causes harm both to those that do it and those that don’t, but are exposed to it. I should know. I have ever smoked but I did work as a barman when smoking was derigeur in pubs. I got lung cancer and had about half of one of my lungs removed.

The cost to our self destructing NHS of smoking is astronomical, not just in cancer but in all the other diseases that are either caused by it or exacerbated by it.

So I say if you want to smoke, then smoke but I would add £5 to each packet of fags to go directly to the NHS. Yes yes I know all about sporting injuries all the other whataboutery that comes up in these discussions and I don’t care. I’d rather be a hypocrite with a functioning NHS

Yup.

The whataboutery only occurs when people don’t have a counter for your point!

That's because his point is incorrect - tax revenues from cigarettes far exceed the costs to the NHS from smoking (£12 billion in revenue vs £5 billion in costs).

[Dave200]

Hants PHer said:

Dave200 said:

I'm not keen on banning stuff either. But I'm even less keen on allowing big tobacco companies to continue to profit from a product that causes horrible illnesses as you suffered.

Would you, therefore, approve of a ban on junk food, or alcohol? Some will argue that your view about tobacco is just as applicable to booze and cakes.

And those people would be wrong.

[Vanden Saab]

super7 said:

Personally I hate smoking, but I also appreciate everyones personal choice even if it is an addiction.... that includes Alcohol and junk food.

The answer is to make sure that the rest of us are not penalised for the additional healthcare that smokers are likely to require.

Two ways, either charge each smoker a 'smokers' fee when the end up in hospital (checked by CO levels), maybe £20 a day, or add an additional NI tax to tobacco which goes directly to the NHS. Maybe a £2 a pack. Same with Alcohol to be fair to drinkers! And the same with large bars of chocolate and XL Pizzas....

Then, I don't care what people decide to do.

Then we can charge people who live past 82/83 £20 per day for living too long. Smokers are already paying over £10 per pack to the government now.

[Hants PHer]

Dave200 said:

Hants PHer said:

Dave200 said:

I'm not keen on banning stuff either. But I'm even less keen on allowing big tobacco companies to continue to profit from a product that causes horrible illnesses as you suffered.

Would you, therefore, approve of a ban on junk food, or alcohol? Some will argue that your view about tobacco is just as applicable to booze and cakes.

And those people would be wrong.

Why would they be wrong?

Take alcohol, for example. It does a great deal of harm to people, can be highly addictive, and you don't actually need it to stay alive. And of course alcohol sales generate profits for sellers. All of those points apply to tobacco and to alcohol. It's a strange logic that says that it's OK to ban one but not the other.

[Astacus]

bodhi said:

Baroque attacks said:

Astacus said:

I am not keen on banning stuff, but smoking is an addiction driven by profit, that causes harm both to those that do it and those that don’t, but are exposed to it. I should know. I have ever smoked but I did work as a barman when smoking was derigeur in pubs. I got lung cancer and had about half of one of my lungs removed.

The cost to our self destructing NHS of smoking is astronomical, not just in cancer but in all the other diseases that are either caused by it or exacerbated by it.

So I say if you want to smoke, then smoke but I would add £5 to each packet of fags to go directly to the NHS. Yes yes I know all about sporting injuries all the other whataboutery that comes up in these discussions and I don’t care. I’d rather be a hypocrite with a functioning NHS

Yup.

The whataboutery only occurs when people don’t have a counter for your point!

That's because his point is incorrect - tax revenues from cigarettes far exceed the costs to the NHS from smoking (£12 billion in revenue vs £5 billion in costs).

But that goes to the treasury. It doesn’t go to the NHS in a hypothecated manner, and it certainly doesn’t go specifically to fix the issues created by smoking. Any idea that it does is nonsense

The tobacco lobby has had generations to implant their point of view in the minds of the government and spends a fortune on lobbyists to ensure that they can continue to sell tobacco. Presently they are spending a fortune on ensuring that they can continue to sell vapes to children as well.

In my view the government owes a duty first and foremost to the populous. It doesn’t owe the tobacco industry a living any more than it does you or me.

See this link for lack of hypothecation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8...

[S600BSB]

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is pretty much the only commendable thing this government has done. Sunak’s ambition of creating the UK’s first smoke-free generation should be applauded. Well done Rishi.

[bodhi]

Astacus said:

But that goes to the treasury. It doesn’t go to the NHS in a hypothecated manner, and it certainly doesn’t go specifically to fix the issues created by smoking. Any idea that it does is nonsense

The tobacco lobby has had generations to implant their point of view in the minds of the government and spends a fortune on lobbyists to ensure that they can continue to sell tobacco. Presently they are spending a fortune on ensuring that they can continue to sell vapes to children as well.

In my view the government owes a duty first and foremost to the populous. It doesn’t owe the tobacco industry a living any more than it does you or me.

See this link for lack of hypothecation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8...

So it's isn't ring fenced in the same way that VED doesn't go on the roads, National Insurance doesn't directly go to the NHS etc etc. it all goes into a pot and fixing smokers is paid out of that pot, and even when you take out the pot to put smokers back together, it's bigger than it was if people didn't smoke.

Probably why I compared revenues and costs considering they're all covered by the same thing - taxation.

So after smoking is banned, which taxes should increase to pay for the shortfall?

Also FYI the tobacco companies don't really have a massive interest or presence in the vaping market, they're more interested in Heated Tobacco Products and pouches similar to snus.

[Snow and Rocks]

I generally despise smoking and watched my grandfather die of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking a pipe but I really can't get behind the government thinking it has the right to nanny people like this.

For those in support, what else would you like banned for the greater public good? Alcohol? Coca cola? Frosties? Fast motorbikes? I occasionally go winter hill walking in Scotland, on my own in places without a phone signal. Should I be banned from doing that too?

[Dave200]

bodhi said:

Astacus said:

But that goes to the treasury. It doesn’t go to the NHS in a hypothecated manner, and it certainly doesn’t go specifically to fix the issues created by smoking. Any idea that it does is nonsense

The tobacco lobby has had generations to implant their point of view in the minds of the government and spends a fortune on lobbyists to ensure that they can continue to sell tobacco. Presently they are spending a fortune on ensuring that they can continue to sell vapes to children as well.

In my view the government owes a duty first and foremost to the populous. It doesn’t owe the tobacco industry a living any more than it does you or me.

See this link for lack of hypothecation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8...

So it's isn't ring fenced in the same way that VED doesn't go on the roads, National Insurance doesn't directly go to the NHS etc etc. it all goes into a pot and fixing smokers is paid out of that pot, and even when you take out the pot to put smokers back together, it's bigger than it was if people didn't smoke.

Probably why I compared revenues and costs considering they're all covered by the same thing - taxation.

So after smoking is banned, which taxes should increase to pay for the shortfall?

Also FYI the tobacco companies don't really have a massive interest or presence in the vaping market, they're more interested in Heated Tobacco Products and pouches similar to snus.

Yeah, big tobacco are totally chilled about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/18/lo...

All of the big tobacco brands (PMI, JTI, Imperial) own mainstream vape brands.

[AmyRichardson]

It's fine. It's a nudge to accelerate the steady decline in smoking - 100%, copper bottomed enforcement isn't necessary for this to be a success.

As to the illicit trade, the real driver of that is demand and effective suppression. In the last 20 years declining consumption and effective enforcement have reduced the volume of illegal cigarettes traded per annum from 17bn to 2.5bn; an additional source of demand suppression won't change that trend.

[S600BSB]

AmyRichardson said:

It's fine. It's a nudge to accelerate the steady decline in smoking - 100%, copper bottomed enforcement isn't necessary for this to be a success.

As to the illicit trade, the real driver of that is demand and effective suppression. In the last 20 years declining consumption and effective enforcement have reduced the volume of illegal cigarettes traded per annum from 17bn to 2.5bn; an additional source of demand suppression won't change that trend.

Spot on. Need the same effort now with ultra processed foods and sugar. Sort out our nation of fatties!

[bodhi]

Dave200 said:

bodhi said:

Astacus said:

But that goes to the treasury. It doesn’t go to the NHS in a hypothecated manner, and it certainly doesn’t go specifically to fix the issues created by smoking. Any idea that it does is nonsense

The tobacco lobby has had generations to implant their point of view in the minds of the government and spends a fortune on lobbyists to ensure that they can continue to sell tobacco. Presently they are spending a fortune on ensuring that they can continue to sell vapes to children as well.

In my view the government owes a duty first and foremost to the populous. It doesn’t owe the tobacco industry a living any more than it does you or me.

See this link for lack of hypothecation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8...

So it's isn't ring fenced in the same way that VED doesn't go on the roads, National Insurance doesn't directly go to the NHS etc etc. it all goes into a pot and fixing smokers is paid out of that pot, and even when you take out the pot to put smokers back together, it's bigger than it was if people didn't smoke.

Probably why I compared revenues and costs considering they're all covered by the same thing - taxation.

So after smoking is banned, which taxes should increase to pay for the shortfall?

Also FYI the tobacco companies don't really have a massive interest or presence in the vaping market, they're more interested in Heated Tobacco Products and pouches similar to snus.

Yeah, big tobacco are totally chilled about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/18/lo...

All of the big tobacco brands (PMI, JTI, Imperial) own mainstream vape brands.

None of which are particularly successful, and are all being massively outsold by Lost Mary, Elfbar etc etc.

[Donbot]

AmyRichardson said:

It's fine. It's a nudge to accelerate the steady decline in smoking - 100%, copper bottomed enforcement isn't necessary for this to be a success.

As to the illicit trade, the real driver of that is demand and effective suppression. In the last 20 years declining consumption and effective enforcement have reduced the volume of illegal cigarettes traded per annum from 17bn to 2.5bn; an additional source of demand suppression won't change that trend.

I'd assume illegal imports have gone down because hardly anyone smokes anymore, not because they've managed to stop it coming in to the country. If the authorities are so good at getting rid of black market tobacco you have to wonder why they have completely failed to stop illegal drugs.

[redrabbit29]

Why do so many people immediately reply with "unenforcable" with things like this. It's immediately going to the conflict or with people objecting by refusing to comply.

The majority of the population, particularly youngsters who are now growing up wouldn't give a toss about smoking whether it's illegal or not.

So many things which are the law are difficult to enforce, there are countless things yet they're still complied with by the vast majority.

[Astacus]

bodhi said:

Astacus said:

But that goes to the treasury. It doesn’t go to the NHS in a hypothecated manner, and it certainly doesn’t go specifically to fix the issues created by smoking. Any idea that it does is nonsense

The tobacco lobby has had generations to implant their point of view in the minds of the government and spends a fortune on lobbyists to ensure that they can continue to sell tobacco. Presently they are spending a fortune on ensuring that they can continue to sell vapes to children as well.

In my view the government owes a duty first and foremost to the populous. It doesn’t owe the tobacco industry a living any more than it does you or me.

See this link for lack of hypothecation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8...

So it's isn't ring fenced in the same way that VED doesn't go on the roads, National Insurance doesn't directly go to the NHS etc etc. it all goes into a pot and fixing smokers is paid out of that pot, and even when you take out the pot to put smokers back together, it's bigger than it was if people didn't smoke.

Probably why I compared revenues and costs considering they're all covered by the same thing - taxation.

So after smoking is banned, which taxes should increase to pay for the shortfall?

Also FYI the tobacco companies don't really have a massive interest or presence in the vaping market, they're more interested in Heated Tobacco Products and pouches similar to snus.

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. If revenue is non hypothecated 100% of it could be spent on duck houses. There is no reason any of it should go to the NHS. Maybe that’s not the point you were trying to make?
As far as replacing the revenue goes? I am not suggesting banning. I am suggesting that those who smoke should pay towards the excessive cost of their health repair - directly.

[bodhi]

Astacus said:

bodhi said:

Astacus said:

But that goes to the treasury. It doesn’t go to the NHS in a hypothecated manner, and it certainly doesn’t go specifically to fix the issues created by smoking. Any idea that it does is nonsense

The tobacco lobby has had generations to implant their point of view in the minds of the government and spends a fortune on lobbyists to ensure that they can continue to sell tobacco. Presently they are spending a fortune on ensuring that they can continue to sell vapes to children as well.

In my view the government owes a duty first and foremost to the populous. It doesn’t owe the tobacco industry a living any more than it does you or me.

See this link for lack of hypothecation

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8...

So it's isn't ring fenced in the same way that VED doesn't go on the roads, National Insurance doesn't directly go to the NHS etc etc. it all goes into a pot and fixing smokers is paid out of that pot, and even when you take out the pot to put smokers back together, it's bigger than it was if people didn't smoke.

Probably why I compared revenues and costs considering they're all covered by the same thing - taxation.

So after smoking is banned, which taxes should increase to pay for the shortfall?

Also FYI the tobacco companies don't really have a massive interest or presence in the vaping market, they're more interested in Heated Tobacco Products and pouches similar to snus.

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. If revenue is non hypothecated 100% of it could be spent on duck houses. There is no reason any of it should go to the NHS. Maybe that’s not the point you were trying to make?
As far as replacing the revenue goes? I am not suggesting banning. I am suggesting that those who smoke should pay towards the excessive cost of their health repair - directly.

I'm suggesting that there is already about £10 a packet of tax on a packet of cigarettes which goes into the same pot the NHS is funded from. If that's not being used to fund treating smokers then that doesn't really seem like the smokers issue, and more of Government allocation of funds issue.

Putting more tax on cigs to "directly fund the NHS" when smokers are already paying nearly 3 times the tax needed to fix the problems they cause seems just like excessive punishment.

I know some on this thread would have no problem punishing people enjoying a perfectly legal habit, but that doesn't make it a particularly good idea.