UK smoking ban for those born after 2009

[rjfp1962]

The debate has just begun in the House of Commons.. (BBC Parliament channel)

[super7]

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.

Really?????

[bodhi]

super7 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.

Really?????

As already mentioned, their efforts are being comprehensively outsold by the Chinese brands like Lost Mary etc.

But then again, if a company that sells harmful but legal products wants to sell much less harmful products, is that really a bad thing? Philip Morris have already said their ambition is to stop selling ciagrettes in favour of reduced harm products like IQOS - again, not seeing the issue.

[AmyRichardson]

Donbot said:

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.

Doubtless declining consumption has been a big part of it. Another factor is that the 1993 tobacco duty "accelerator" created an illicit trade where one hadn't much existed before and it took the police several years to appreciate the growing issue - and several more years to roll-out effective counter measures.

Tobacco is a low hanging fruit (well, a leaf); smokers are increasingly few, for many it's a modest "nice to have" and for most it's a "not nice to have" (supposedly more than half try to quit each year) - there are very few for whom it's a hill to die on. In public policy it's hard to turn a tide but easy to nudge-on an existing trend.

Almost all the above run the opposite way for alcohol; the demographic proportions are reversed, save for a few problem drinkers most drinkers don't "want out" and consumption levels are historically normal (after a 19thC-grade spike in the 90s/00s) and declining only incrementally.

[Dagnir]

Probably been mentioned already but I expect fatty and sugary foods to follow.

Addictive, cheap and the health burden is far greater.

If adults can't choose to smoke, what's the argument that they should be allowed to buy surgery/fatty foods?

[ChemicalChaos]

I think the big difference between smoking vs junk food/alcohol, is that you can't passively get drunk or fat from someone else indulging. How many friends/relatives/children suffer health issues from proximity to smokers? Obviously far less now than before indoor smoking was banned, but I'd wager still quite a lot

[Nomme de Plum]

Dagnir said:

Probably been mentioned already but I expect fatty and sugary foods to follow.

Addictive, cheap and the health burden is far greater.

If adults can't choose to smoke, what's the argument that they should be allowed to buy surgery/fatty foods?

Tobacco companies once had food companies as a division within their portfolio. These were largely spun off but those spin offs took the addiction approach with HPFs (hyper palatable foods). These have now morphed into ultra precessed foods which are incredibly addictive and hence the increasing obesity we have here in the UK ands of course the USA and spreading globally.

They will fight tooth and nail just as big tobacco did to prevent any legislation around restricting these, essentially, drugs being sold.

This piece of legislation is one of the very few positives from the RS premiership. It's also good to hear that when asked in school on balance those impacted are largely in favour of the ban. So from a democratic perspective of those it impacts it gets the thumbs up.

[otolith]

ChemicalChaos said:

I think the big difference between smoking vs junk food/alcohol, is that you can't passively get drunk or fat from someone else indulging.

You can certainly suffer the social and health consequences of other people being drunk, though.

The passive smoking angle was always more of a lever to create a moral argument rather than a nannying argument than it was an actual reason to legislate.

[Nomme de Plum]

ChemicalChaos said:

I think the big difference between smoking vs junk food/alcohol, is that you can't passively get drunk or fat from someone else indulging. How many friends/relatives/children suffer health issues from proximity to smokers? Obviously far less now than before indoor smoking was banned, but I'd wager still quite a lot

Passive smoking was a huge problem and caused the untimely, unpleasant and unnecessary deaths of a number of entertainers. Roy castle being a very well known one.

[Nomme de Plum]

otolith said:

You can certainly suffer the social and health consequences of other people being drunk, though.

The passive smoking angle was always more of a lever to create a moral argument rather than a nannying argument than it was an actual reason to legislate.

You are factually incorrect with regard to passive smoking.

[Dagnir]

ChemicalChaos said:

I think the big difference between smoking vs junk food/alcohol, is that you can't passively get drunk or fat from someone else indulging. How many friends/relatives/children suffer health issues from proximity to smokers? Obviously far less now than before indoor smoking was banned, but I'd wager still quite a lot

Hmmm, personally I don't see that as a real separating factor between the two. It's a non-issue....I haven't seen anyone smoking indoors for years!!

Parents smoking at home with kids is another issue. That's just down to ignorance/arrogance/ neglect and is part of wider abuse problem.

[otolith]

Nomme de Plum said:

otolith said:

You can certainly suffer the social and health consequences of other people being drunk, though.

The passive smoking angle was always more of a lever to create a moral argument rather than a nannying argument than it was an actual reason to legislate.

You are factually incorrect with regard to passive smoking.

I may be cynical, however it was clear that the restrictions on indoor smoking were intended to denormalise smoking and cause people to quit through inconvenience, and the primary beneficiaries would be quitters rather than the passively exposed.

[bodhi]

Nomme de Plum said:

Tobacco companies once had food companies as a division within their portfolio. These were largely spun off but those spin offs took the addiction approach with HPFs (hyper palatable foods). These have now morphed into ultra precessed foods which are incredibly addictive and hence the increasing obesity we have here in the UK ands of course the USA and spreading globally.

They will fight tooth and nail just as big tobacco did to prevent any legislation around restricting these, essentially, drugs being sold.

This piece of legislation is one of the very few positives from the RS premiership. It's also good to hear that when asked in school on balance those impacted are largely in favour of the ban. So from a democratic perspective of those it impacts it gets the thumbs up.

You've quoted this about Big Tobacco making kids fat a couple of times, and whilst it may sound plausible, the evidence supporting the assertion is weaker than a Silk Cut Ultra.

https://snowdon.substack.com/p/did-big-tobacco-mak...

tl:dr - it's nonsense. The study used to back this assertion up even admits they haven't found any evidence of product reformulation.

[Dagnir]

Nomme de Plum said:

Dagnir said:

Probably been mentioned already but I expect fatty and sugary foods to follow.

Addictive, cheap and the health burden is far greater.

If adults can't choose to smoke, what's the argument that they should be allowed to buy surgery/fatty foods?

Tobacco companies once had food companies as a division within their portfolio. These were largely spun off but those spin offs took the addiction approach with HPFs (hyper palatable foods). These have now morphed into ultra precessed foods which are incredibly addictive and hence the increasing obesity we have here in the UK ands of course the USA and spreading globally.

They will fight tooth and nail just as big tobacco did to prevent any legislation around restricting these, essentially, drugs being sold.

This piece of legislation is one of the very few positives from the RS premiership. It's also good to hear that when asked in school on balance those impacted are largely in favour of the ban. So from a democratic perspective of those it impacts it gets the thumbs up.

Corruption, greed, evil, and legislative power influence aside though....if we're ok with removing an adult's freedom to smoke, then the exact same principles could be applied to ban sugary foods.


I worry about the progressive trend of removing freedoms, choice and automany for able-minded adults.

[S600BSB]

Dagnir said:

Probably been mentioned already but I expect fatty and sugary foods to follow.

Addictive, cheap and the health burden is far greater.

If adults can't choose to smoke, what's the argument that they should be allowed to buy surgery/fatty foods?

Really do hope so. We are (literally) eating ourselves to death. Use the tax regime to hammer the sales of ultra processed foods etc as with cigarettes.

[Ari]

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.

Agreed, let's get rid of it, and then move on to other stupid things that cost the NHS money.

Motorcycling That really is stupid and definitely costs the NHS.

All motorsport See above.

Alcohol, obviously! Worse than smoking if you think about it, you get the associated diseases, and you get alcohol induced violence! Banning it would save the NHS a FORTUNE! Utterly stupid habit.

Rock climbing Natch.

Mountain biking Of course, nasty injuries.

Road biking Yes it's healthy, but only if you don't get knocked off. Peleton bikes provide the former without risk of the latter, ban road bikes and force cyclists to use those instead.

Unnecessary journeys If we stop people going out just to go for a walk or visit friends, we'd dramatically reduce traffic accident injuries and deaths. Ban it all!

BONUS: With none of the above, people would have more time to bang pots and clap hands again in reverence to our wonderful NHS and its sainted staff.


Your logic is absolutely sound with regards to ALL of the above, and much much more!

[Ari]

S600BSB said:

Dagnir said:

Probably been mentioned already but I expect fatty and sugary foods to follow.

Addictive, cheap and the health burden is far greater.

If adults can't choose to smoke, what's the argument that they should be allowed to buy surgery/fatty foods?

Really do hope so. We are (literally) eating ourselves to death. Use the tax regime to hammer the sales of ultra processed foods etc as with cigarettes.

Of course!!

How did I miss this off of my list!? We absolutely must ban this as well!

BAN BAN BAN BAN! If it's not healthy comrade, it MUST be banished!

[sugerbear]

Dagnir said:

Nomme de Plum said:

Dagnir said:

Probably been mentioned already but I expect fatty and sugary foods to follow.

Addictive, cheap and the health burden is far greater.

If adults can't choose to smoke, what's the argument that they should be allowed to buy surgery/fatty foods?

Tobacco companies once had food companies as a division within their portfolio. These were largely spun off but those spin offs took the addiction approach with HPFs (hyper palatable foods). These have now morphed into ultra precessed foods which are incredibly addictive and hence the increasing obesity we have here in the UK ands of course the USA and spreading globally.

They will fight tooth and nail just as big tobacco did to prevent any legislation around restricting these, essentially, drugs being sold.

This piece of legislation is one of the very few positives from the RS premiership. It's also good to hear that when asked in school on balance those impacted are largely in favour of the ban. So from a democratic perspective of those it impacts it gets the thumbs up.

Corruption, greed, evil, and legislative power influence aside though....if we're ok with removing an adult's freedom to smoke, then the exact same principles could be applied to ban sugary foods.

I worry about the progressive trend of removing freedoms, choice and automany for able-minded adults.

What they are doing is removing the freedom of large companies to push sugary crap onto the general public. No one is going to starve/die if they dont have a bowl of chocoshreddies as there are plenty of healthy alternatives available. Porridge is healthier and cheaper. You can still buy a large bag of sugar and spoon feed it into your mouth if you want so your freedom to eat crap hasn't been curtailed.

[Ari]

sugerbear said:

What they are doing is removing the freedom of large companies to push sugary crap onto the general public. No one is going to starve/die if they dont have a bowl of chocoshreddies as there are plenty of healthy alternatives available. Porridge is healthier and cheaper. You can still buy a large bag of sugar and spoon feed it into your mouth if you want so your freedom to eat crap hasn't been curtailed.

Exactly!!!

So many comrades in agreement, this is wonderful!

What else can we ban!?

[anonymous-user]

Dagnir said:

Probably been mentioned already but I expect fatty and sugary foods to follow.

Addictive, cheap and the health burden is far greater.

If adults can't choose to smoke, what's the argument that they should be allowed to buy surgery/fatty foods?

Because those things can form a part of a healthy lifestyle if taken in moderation.

There is nothing healthy about smoking even in moderation.