UK smoking ban for those born after 2009

[Hill92]

otolith said:

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.

I don't think entitlements to state benefits are the same as freedoms in this sense. The closest would be the grandfathering of rights related to driving licences, but that's not quite the same either. It will be interesting to see whether anyone challenges it.

There is no absolute right to smoke in this country. The High Court held in 2008 (and EWCA upheld on appeal) that:

"Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."

Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.

[otolith]

Hill92 said:

There is no absolute right to smoke in this country. The High Court held in 2008 (and EWCA upheld on appeal) that:

"Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."

Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.

Is that perhaps the right to smoke anywhere one pleases, brought on the back of a restriction on smoking in one particular place? Would you think that would equally allow a ban on, say, black people smoking, or women smoking?

[Ridgemont]

jules_s said:

Ridgemont said:

Dave200 said:

BoRED S2upid said:

CheesecakeRunner said:

Of course not.

But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.

Are you sure of that? How do you know how many people take cocaine? You can’t track sales like with fags. Cocaine use is rife across the country at all ages and goes largely unpunished.

Are you sure of that? How do you know it's rife?

The new oddest thing over the last 10 years or so having frequented both town and country pubs is the sheer bonkers level of emptied wraps left in men’s loos. You may not be aware of it but it is absolutely rife.
My partner works in the local: there are chaps there who snort just to come down the local. Absolutely bonkers. But it is everywhere.

I would suggest that it was the same in the 90's.

Just back then we smoked and drank way too much too.

Pfff. Was there. I did speed in the lavs once. Drugs were what you did once back home and largely involved gear. That said I may have been sheltered.

[Hill92]

otolith said:

Hill92 said:

There is no absolute right to smoke in this country. The High Court held in 2008 (and EWCA upheld on appeal) that:

"Preventing a person smoking does not, at any rate in the culture of the United Kingdom, generally involve such adverse effect upon the person's 'physical or moral integrity', or the other concepts cited above, as would amount to an interference with the right to respect for private or home life within the meaning of article 8. We do not accept the notion of an absolute right (subject to article 8(2)) to smoke wherever one is living."

Parliament can restrict smoking however they see fit.

Is that perhaps the right to smoke anywhere one pleases, brought on the back of a restriction on smoking in one particular place? Would you think that would equally allow a ban on, say, black people smoking, or women smoking?

Unlike race or sex discrimination, age discrimination is permitted when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

A PH example of lawful age discrimination is the law requiring that a driver supervising a learner driver must be over 21 (as well as having held a full driving licence for at least two years).

[otolith]

Hill92 said:

Unlike race or sex discrimination, age discrimination is permitted when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

A PH example of lawful age discrimination is the law requiring that a driver supervising a learner driver must be over 21 (as well as having held a full driving licence for at least two years).

Or indeed the current law on under 18s buying tobacco. But a 29 and 30 year old? And the 29 year old won’t get the right when they’re 30? I don’t believe there is a precedent which quite fits this.

In any case, the point was that the quoted judgement is not a precedent for discrimination.

[carlo996]

Dave200 said:

Absolutely. And if they want to take crack in their own homes then let them get on with it. You lot are absolutely hilarious. The constant impotent rage must be exhausting.

Not as hilarious as someone making a point, and not being able to convey why :rofl;

[wc98]

Not-The-Messiah said:

wc98 said:

CheesecakeRunner said:

Of course not.

But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.

I would bet a substantial amount of money that is not the case among people under 40. The level of cocaine use in this country, particularly in young professionals, is crazy high.

Well easily sorted just tell people if they are born before 2007 they no longer can buy cocaine that will solve the problem. The naive child like public will love the idea and the clapping seal like MPs will go for it. Problem solved.

To be honest i get the feeling this legislation is yet another example of the disconnect between government and the general public. I know lots of people that are vehemently anti smoking, i don't know any that would see it banned for private individuals outside of the current rules around smoking in public places (of which i am in favour myself).

Regarding cocaine use, i doubt there is a pub in any major city or town that it couldn't be picked up on a swab test and as for "surveys" regarding it's use i suspect there are plenty people that wouldn't answer truthfully for a variety of reasons.

[Dave200]

carlo996 said:

Dave200 said:

Absolutely. And if they want to take crack in their own homes then let them get on with it. You lot are absolutely hilarious. The constant impotent rage must be exhausting.

Not as hilarious as someone making a point, and not being able to convey why :rofl;

You've jumped the shark. People are going to stop reacting to you because you took the troll too far. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[carlo996]

Dave200 said:

carlo996 said:

Dave200 said:

Absolutely. And if they want to take crack in their own homes then let them get on with it. You lot are absolutely hilarious. The constant impotent rage must be exhausting.

Not as hilarious as someone making a point, and not being able to convey why :rofl;

You've jumped the shark. People are going to stop reacting to you because you took the troll too far. Don't get ahead of yourself.

All you have to do is answer the very simple question? But you won’t, because doing so would make you look more stupid than you do already

[Dave200]

carlo996 said:

Dave200 said:

carlo996 said:

Dave200 said:

Absolutely. And if they want to take crack in their own homes then let them get on with it. You lot are absolutely hilarious. The constant impotent rage must be exhausting.

Not as hilarious as someone making a point, and not being able to convey why :rofl;

You've jumped the shark. People are going to stop reacting to you because you took the troll too far. Don't get ahead of yourself.

All you have to do is answer the very simple question? But you won’t, because doing so would make you look more stupid than you do already

I got lost when you started dribbling on about county lines, as if that had a place in a mature debate about smoking. If you're going to troll effectively then you need to be more consistent.

[BoRED S2upid]

Ridgemont said:

Dave200 said:

BoRED S2upid said:

CheesecakeRunner said:

Of course not.

But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.

Are you sure of that? How do you know how many people take cocaine? You can’t track sales like with fags. Cocaine use is rife across the country at all ages and goes largely unpunished.

Are you sure of that? How do you know it's rife?

The new oddest thing over the last 10 years or so having frequented both town and country pubs is the sheer bonkers level of emptied wraps left in men’s loos. You may not be aware of it but it is absolutely rife.
My partner works in the local: there are chaps there who snort just to come down the local. Absolutely bonkers. But it is everywhere.

Dave doesn’t get out much.

[Dave200]

BoRED S2upid said:

Ridgemont said:

Dave200 said:

BoRED S2upid said:

CheesecakeRunner said:

Of course not.

But a hell of a lot less people take coke than smoke cigarettes.

Are you sure of that? How do you know how many people take cocaine? You can’t track sales like with fags. Cocaine use is rife across the country at all ages and goes largely unpunished.

Are you sure of that? How do you know it's rife?

The new oddest thing over the last 10 years or so having frequented both town and country pubs is the sheer bonkers level of emptied wraps left in men’s loos. You may not be aware of it but it is absolutely rife.
My partner works in the local: there are chaps there who snort just to come down the local. Absolutely bonkers. But it is everywhere.

Dave doesn’t get out much.

You missed my point. You challenged how he could quantify cocaine usage, and then went right ahead and decided to quantify it yourself. A level of misplaced confidence that can only exist on PH.

[Dagnir]

All I see are people playing ping pong with different specifics, figures, subjective anecdotes etc.


The real discussion is around the principle.

Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.


If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?

[Eric Mc]

I can see this going the same way as the New Zealand law.

It's another bonkers, idiotic and unenforceable piece of legislation brought in by a government that seems to have lost all sense of sense.

I'm not, and never have been, a smoker.

[Terminator X]

I see that the LA's can keep the proceeds of the fines. It will be the new "parking ticket" racket eg new staff members employed to hand out fines to 30yr old smokers gotta fill those empty coffers somehow.

TX.

[Hants PHer]

Dagnir said:

<edited for brevity>

Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.

If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?

Good question (my bold). The principle seems to be "We politicians know best"; not every politician of course. But this appears to include Laura Farris MP, who told LBC that the proposed policy was "very sensible" and that she wasn't "particularly interested in arguments about freedom".

Well, thanks for that, Laura Farris. What other freedoms are you not particularly interested in, I wonder? Coming from a government minister her comment is rather disturbing in my opinion.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Terminator X said:

I see that the LA's can keep the proceeds of the fines. It will be the new "parking ticket" racket eg new staff members employed to hand out fines to 30yr old smokers gotta fill those empty coffers somehow.
TX.

Which raises the hilarious thought that if your LA fine collector stops you in the street for smoking and demands £60 can you simply say "This is a joint." and carry on smoking without censure.

[carlo996]

BoRED S2upid said:

Dave doesn’t get out much.

Better for everyone tbh.

[Ridgemont]

Hants PHer said:

Dagnir said:

<edited for brevity>

Adults have the right to harm their body if they want to. The cost of smoking to the UK is similar to alcohol and actually causes far less violent crime etc. Fatty/processed foods are allowed and even advertised.

If it's not the cost and the smoking isn't hurting anyone else, on what principle can this be justified?

Good question (my bold). The principle seems to be "We politicians know best"; not every politician of course. But this appears to include Laura Farris MP, who told LBC that the proposed policy was "very sensible" and that she wasn't "particularly interested in arguments about freedom".

Well, thanks for that, Laura Farris. What other freedoms are you not particularly interested in, I wonder? Coming from a government minister her comment is rather disturbing in my opinion.

How very SNP of her.
Oddly enough some of her voters are very much interested in said arguments.
Another addition to the very long list of chickens that will turn the sky dark when they come home to roost in November.

[bodhi]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Terminator X said:

I see that the LA's can keep the proceeds of the fines. It will be the new "parking ticket" racket eg new staff members employed to hand out fines to 30yr old smokers gotta fill those empty coffers somehow.
TX.

Which raises the hilarious thought that if your LA fine collector stops you in the street for smoking and demands £60 can you simply say "This is a joint." and carry on smoking without censure.

You may laugh, but last time I went to Santa Barbara in Cali, they'd just banned smoking in all public places, so you couldn't even have a cig walking down the street without getting fined.

A joint tho? Please carry on sir, and have a nice day.

Having said that I did notice last time we went to our favourite brewery in Carpinteria (Island Brewery down by the railway if anyone knows it), I went to the smoking area where there were about 10 of us, and I was very conscious of the fact I was the only one with a cigarette.....