UK smoking ban for those born after 2009

[Dave200]

Bluequay 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?

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

There is nothing healthy about smoking even in moderation.

I'm staggered it took an adult this long to point out the obvious. Thank you. Hopefully the whataboutism nonsense can stop here.

[AmyRichardson]

The Selfish Gene said:

also to add (I haven't read the whole thread) don't be under any illusion the s in government give a fk about your health (see Covid BS)- any smoking ban is about saving money, purely and simply money.

How and to what end?

If the money is saved by improved public health (how else is it to be saved on the back of such a policy?) then take the upside. If the government really does manage to save money, then I don't see what the downside is.

[Yertis]

The Selfish Gene said:

I do ride motorbikes, every single day - and it's fking dangerous (particularly the way I do it)

That raised a snigger. I agree with the rest of the post too.

[Nomme de Plum]

bodhi said:

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.

I didn't mention reformulation. Something that intrinsically designed to be addictive did not need reformulating.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Essarell said:

So they won’t be able to buy cigarettes, class a drugs however will still be readily available…….

Exactly this - banning things and making it illegal has a habit of taking said activity underground an onto the black market.

Haven’t read the whole thread but even as a non smoker, I fundamentally disagree with banning the purchase of tobacco for a whole host of reasons. Yes make it harder by way of taxation etc. but an outright ban for an age range makes no sense.

I mean what else? Obesity is a big problem and also causes a strain on the NHS and is clearly bad for the health of individuals so are we going to ban fast food outlets or restrict the sale of certain foods at supermarkets?

And then there is alcohol, also a problem - let’s control how much we can drink a week by perhaps having some sort of ID card that has to be stamped

[Nomme de Plum]

Boringvolvodriver said:

Essarell said:

So they won’t be able to buy cigarettes, class a drugs however will still be readily available…….

Exactly this - banning things and making it illegal has a habit of taking said activity underground an onto the black market.

Haven’t read the whole thread but even as a non smoker, I fundamentally disagree with banning the purchase of tobacco for a whole host of reasons. Yes make it harder by way of taxation etc. but an outright ban for an age range makes no sense.

I mean what else? Obesity is a big problem and also causes a strain on the NHS and is clearly bad for the health of individuals so are we going to ban fast food outlets or restrict the sale of certain foods at supermarkets?

And then there is alcohol, also a problem - let’s control how much we can drink a week by perhaps having some sort of ID card that has to be stamped

Smoking is still costing £17Bn per annum.

Obesity is a growing problem and i think legislation is overdue but the cost is around £3.5Bn

The black market is a problem but we should not run away from a problem because it is difficult to manage.

Anything that prevents addiction is a good thing.

You mention alcohol. Age verification is already common and i see no issue with increasing duty especially away from hospitality and stopping highly discounted alcohol from supermarkets.

[bodhi]

Nomme de Plum said:

bodhi said:

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.

I didn't mention reformulation. Something that intrinsically designed to be addictive did not need reformulating.

So you're suggesting those evil cigarette companies *checks notes* bought and sold some food companies? One of which was called Nabisco, which committed the heinous crime of selling biscuits.

Can we build gallows high enough to punish such debauchery?

[Oliver Hardy]

Dave200 said:

Bluequay 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?

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

There is nothing healthy about smoking even in moderation.

I'm staggered it took an adult this long to point out the obvious. Thank you. Hopefully the whataboutism nonsense can stop here.

Yet 38% of adults are overweight, 25% of these are obese.

It is costing the NHS bullions, causing billions in lost revenue through lost productivity and causing early death

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/11/ob...

Don't we need to tax, regulate and ban.

[Oliver Hardy]

bodhi said:

Nomme de Plum said:

bodhi said:

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.

I didn't mention reformulation. Something that intrinsically designed to be addictive did not need reformulating.

So you're suggesting those evil cigarette companies *checks notes* bought and sold some food companies? One of which was called Nabisco, which committed the heinous crime of selling biscuits.

Can we build gallows high enough to punish such debauchery?

The tobacco companies did buy food companies when the ad bans were coming in, the idea was to market cigarettes with the same name as the food, so advertising cigarettes by associating with them ie. biscuits, coffee, chocolate.

There was a coffee ad with this principle in mind in the USA, I forget the name, but guess it never worked.

I wonder if it was meant to allow them to carry on sponsoring sport but never worked out.

[bitchstewie]

Voted through.

[jameswills]

Again, but not surprising, it’s just another bit of legislation to create another divide within society. You will now have the “post 2009ers” that in time will end up being treated differently because they apparently couldn’t buy cigarettes. Of course any ailments they get cannot possibly be caused by smoking, which could open all kinds of lovely ideas of segregation and possible decisions on health care on those before and after.

The health benefits will be absolutely minimal, it has nothing to do with that. Just more control over us “useless eaters”.

[S600BSB]

bhstewie said:

Voted through.

Sensible legislation. For the nation that invented the concept of public health this is a good step forward. Well done Rishi.

[jameswills]

That said anyone born before 2009 has now has a lovely new market and revenue stream out of nowhere. How can you tell an 18 year old they cannot buy a packet of fags off his mate

[carlo996]

Ex smoker, hate smoking generally. But it’s a total mess, you can fight and die for your country, make any adult choice, drink yourself into oblivion. But no cigarettes. The world has gone mad.

[bodhi]

S600BSB said:

bhstewie said:

Voted through.

Sensible legislation. For the nation that invented the concept of public health this is a good step forward. Well done Rishi.

For the nation that wrote the Magna Carta and invented the concept of personal liberty it's a disaster, but never mind. I'm sure when something you're a fan of gets banned you'll be just as happy.

[bitchstewie]

S600BSB said:

Sensible legislation. For the nation that invented the concept of public health this is a good step forward. Well done Rishi.

Can't say I've paid too much attention to this but I must admit from a quick skim of the thread I'm struggling with how anyone would explain to their kids why it would be a really good thing if they were allowed to smoke when they grow up

[S600BSB]

jameswills said:

That said anyone born before 2009 has now has a lovely new market and revenue stream out of nowhere. How can you tell an 18 year old they cannot buy a packet of fags off his mate

Fortunately he won’t be able to afford to! £15 a packet..

[carlo996]

S600BSB said:

Sensible legislation. For the nation that invented the concept of public health this is a good step forward. Well done Rishi.

Tells me a lot.

Explain to me why someone born in a certain year, when they became adults cannot make adult decisions? Are we going to ban McDonald’s?

[Smollet]

This will just create another illegal market. Look how well Prohibition worked in the US

[Randy Winkman]

carlo996 said:

Ex smoker, hate smoking generally. But it’s a total mess, you can fight and die for your country, make any adult choice, drink yourself into oblivion. But no cigarettes. The world has gone mad.

Gone mad? Women used not to be allowed to vote, gay sex was illegal etc