Sunak wants to phase out legal smoking

[jimbarkanoodle]

NZ is the middle of nowhere therefore this banning tactic can work a bit more practically. If it was put into practice in the UK the fags would just flow in illegally from the continent, just like drugs do. I hear the purity and price of coke in NZ is very unfavourable compared to here, for example.

 

[mentalchik]

Like to know just how this would work......as someone that sells cigs and tobacco and already has to combat "challenge 25" with people that fairly often get really aggro when asked for I.D. we would virtually have to I.D. everyone ?
There is already a huge flourishing black market (cigs, tobacco and vapes) in this town, it's hardly policed now, there are many many dodgy shops doing exactly as they like....surely this will just balloon even more ?

As for alcohol not being such a serious health issue....you need to see the people coming in at 7am buying spirits, speak to the DV victims that alcohol contributes to, all the crazy and anti social behaviour and violence that is fueled by alcohol...but thats ok, it's our culture's acceptable drug i supose.

 

[weltweit]

It seems complicated

I don't fully understand how it will work, I suppose it will be up to the retailers to police people's age at the point of sale.

Still, if it reduces smoking.

 

[marty21]

What will happen initially (if it comes in) is legal age smokers having a side hustle of buying fans for the illegals , eventually 110 year olds will have a massive side hustle.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

That'll be a whole lot of revenue lost for the government so i'd expect all sorts of other stealth taxes and fines to come in from other areas. Scaring the shit out of gullible people over the environment will probably be one of the main sources of covering the losses if smoking is banned. It's bad for you so we'll have to fine you............ it kills people so we'll profit from it ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, cunts.

They’re probably more thinking about reducing the cost of the NHS.

 

[Elpenor]

On reflection I reckon this policy is purely to stop Farage from coming to another conference

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I mean obviously a situation I'd prefer to what we have here, I mean very significantly prefer. My 'hasn't been a net good' is probably the wrong way to phrase it; 'has come with many downsides' might be better.

This is similar to what we've seen with vaping. I vape still, years after switching. I'm still addicted to nicotine, but I have seen tangible health benefits from switching and it's very surely better for the people around me that I'm not sending out plumes of stinking smoke. But vaping isn't good for you. It can cause asthma, for starters. I would have liked to have seen a complete ban on vape advertising from the start, then maybe it wouldn't have taken off with kids in the way it has.

So yes, supporting various measures often comes with caveats - depends how it's done. I'd like to see not just cannabis but also 'hard' drugs like heroin legalised. But just because a government doesn't ban something doesn't have to mean that a govt or society needs to permit that thing's promotion and commercialisation.

Similar arguments hold for betting. You can't ban betting out of existence. Various states in India try to and fail miserably. But you can regulate it. The deregulation of betting here in the UK was a thoroughly bad thing. Made some people very rich on the backs of the misery of others. Having licensed premises and only allowing betting at those premises and banning all advertising for it was a sensible thing, imo, mitigating at least some of its worst effects.

 

[weltweit]

This is similar to what we've seen with vaping. I vape still, years after switching. I'm still addicted to nicotine, ..

I vape and have done for about 5 years since I stopped smoking. But I have been reducing my nicotine levels every so often and just today I took delivery of 25 ampoules of Mint Blast with a nicotine level of 0mg!

It will be interesting what happens next when I start using them.

I am hoping after a while I will be able to stop vaping completely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I started on 24 mg, then they banned that so I now have 18 mg. Even just that change saw me vaping a bit more to get the right hit. I bought some 6 mg by mistake a while ago and thought I'd try switching to that, but I found myself sucking constantly on it. I'm pretty sure that the lower nicotine liquid is worse for my health, and I'd switch back to 24 mg if I could. I'd rather take fewer hits from a stronger liquid.

 

[Brainaddict]

As for alcohol not being such a serious health issue....you need to see the people coming in at 7am buying spirits, speak to the DV victims that alcohol contributes to, all the crazy and anti social behaviour and violence that is fueled by alcohol...but thats ok, it's our culture's acceptable drug i supose.

Alcohol is an extremely serious health issue for those who over-indulge, but is a minor or non-issue for those who drink in moderation. That's different from tobacco, which has no level of use that won't shorten your life. Drinking a few pints a week won't shorten your life. I'm not downplaying the havoc and health and mental health problems from alcohol but its still different I think.

 

[Serge Forward]

I started on 24 mg, then they banned that so I now have 18 mg. Even just that change saw me vaping a bit more to get the right hit. I bought some 6 mg by mistake a while ago and thought I'd try switching to that, but I found myself sucking constantly on it. I'm pretty sure that the lower nicotine liquid is worse for my health, and I'd switch back to 24 mg if I could. I'd rather take fewer hits from a stronger liquid.

Prohibition for no very good reason other than "being tough" on something or other. The nicotine in vapes is as harmless as what you get in nicotine chewing gum or lozenges from the chemist (unless you start drinking the bloody stuff). The problem comes from inhaling bigger and bigger vape clouds, though the jury's out on the extent of danger. And this measure encourages vapers to do exactly that

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Prohibition for no very good reason other than "being tough" on something or other. The nicotine in vapes is as harmless as what you get in nicotine chewing gum or lozenges from the chemist (unless you start drinking the bloody stuff). The problem comes from inhaling bigger and bigger vape clouds, though the jury's out on the extent of danger. And this measure encourages vapers to do exactly that

Yep. As far as I can find out, the 18 mg limit has no particular scientific rationale, it was just that someone somewhere thought they needed to regulate (this was an EU regulation originally). Beware of unintended consequences when banning shit.

Nicotine's not completely harmless. It's a stimulant and does what stimulants do - narrowing blood vessels and the like. But yes, it's not the main cause of concern health-wise from vaping.

 

[WouldBe]

They’re probably more thinking about reducing the cost of the NHS.

They said on the BBC news it costs the NHS £3b to treat smoking related illnesses while the tax on tobacco raises £10b.

That loss in revenue will have to come from everyone else.

 

[brogdale]

They said on the BBC news it costs the NHS £3b to treat smoking related illnesses while the tax on tobacco raises £10b.

That loss in revenue will have to come from everyone else.

But the loss of revenue will not occur all at once; if I've understood the policy correctly the revenue stream would presumably diminish gradually with each additional yearly cohort reaching 18? Any way, if there were such a 'shortfall' it does not need to come from everyone else; it could be made up from higher tax on corporations or the rich.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They said on the BBC news it costs the NHS £3b to treat smoking related illnesses while the tax on tobacco raises £10b.

That loss in revenue will have to come from everyone else.

We're talking long-term here, though. The first non-legally-allowed-to-buy 18 year olds won't happen for four years. Long term, the hope would be that fag tax revenue would fall steadily anyway.

I'm not a fan of this tbh. Either you're 18 and old enough to buy fags or you're not. Everyone knows it is stupid to start smoking. Smoker numbers are declining and will continue to decline. This is an authoritarian measure that isn't proportionate to the problem it purports to tackle.

But planning to replace fag tax with proper, progressive taxes should be in place anyway. Fag tax is a horrible, regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. It's always been a rotten way to raise funds.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But the loss of revenue will not occur all at once; if I've understood the policy correctly the revenue stream would presumably diminish gradually with each additional yearly cohort reaching 18? Any way, if there were such a 'shortfall' it does not need to come everyone else; it could be made up from higher tax on corporations of the rich.

Duty on cigarettes and alcohol is about as regressive a taxation measure as possible. The poorer you are, the more you will pay proportionate to income. And they rely on the fact that these substances produce dependency to set the taxes at punitive levels. It's a rotten business.

 

[8ball]

I’m surprised Sunak hasn’t suggested a similar trick regarding the right to vote.

 

[WouldBe]

Duty on cigarettes and alcohol is about as regressive a taxation measure as possible. The poorer you are, the more you will pay proportionate to income. And they rely on the fact that these substances produce dependency to set the taxes at punitive levels. It's a rotten business.

When you can get 20 fags for £2.50 in Spain and they're over £13 here the price may fall if the black market picks up.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

When you can get 20 fags for £2.50 in Spain and they're over £13 here the price may fall if the black market picks up.

Back when I smoked, most of my fag taxes went to the Belgian Exchequer.

 

[sealion]

As for alcohol not being such a serious health issue....you need to see the people coming in at 7am buying spirits, speak to the DV victims that alcohol contributes to, all the crazy and anti social behaviour and violence that is fueled by alcohol...but thats ok, it's our culture's acceptable drug i supose.

As a former alcoholic myself and the son of what was an extremely violent alcoholic i could not agree with you more. It's a destructive addiction and causes as much misery and grief for those related/ close to that person as it does the the actual alcoholic. The psychological and long term effects that it can have on partners and children that have lived with one are far reaching and costly because of the amount of services within the NHS that deal with the fall out from all of it. Both from the physical damage that the drinker has incurred plus counselling for family members that are suffering from the trauma of it all.

 

[Nine Bob Note]

I'm sure shop staff will look forward to implementing 'Challenge 45'

It's not gonna happen, let's be honest. The courts will throw it out three minutes after it becomes law (if it gets that far).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sure shop staff will look forward to implementing 'Challenge 45'

It's not gonna happen, let's be honest. The courts will throw it out three minutes after it becomes law (if it gets that far).

There is a sinister side to it. It's normalising the idea that everyone should be carrying id at all times.

 

[BristolEcho]

Prohibition of substances has a long track record of working and nothing worse has ever replaced substances that are banned. People who turn 18 after the deadline definitely won't be able to still buy cigarettes from all their mates who turned 18 the week before. Education and restrictions on advertising are not working and it's easier to ban something. The police are already keeping drugs off the streets and out of our prisons.

Sunak is laughable.

 

[SpookyFrank]

All these new policy pitches have to be seen in the light of there only being maybe eight months left of this government, and them being fucking useless. So a massive pinch of salt.

I'd expect them to prioritise doing stuff that will either sabotage public services or the economy and/or assuage some rich fuckers who they'll be hoping will give them cushy jobs once they're out of office. Everything up to stripping the copper out of the walls on their way out.

 

[platinumsage]

It's a very Labour policy so I don't see it being reversed.

 

[Brayfart]

It doesn't have to be 100% successful to be beneficial. If it reduces smoking by another couple of percent and makes it even less socially acceptable to smoke in public then it will improve and save countless lives.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Been up and down on this. At first glance it seems like a good idea, but the thought of fifty year olds having to prove their age to buy a product is ridiculous. The fact that a tory PM is mooting it is the decider, of course it's a shit idea.

Very few, if any people argue smoking is a good thing, as Sas posted earlier, every 13 minutes a person dies in the UK cos they made the choice to smoke at some point in their life. And you can bet that every one on their deathbeds, or previously when carting their bottles of oxygen around, tubes up their noses and so on, you can bet they can remember that first fag and wish to fuck they hadn't done it, not quite as cool now as it seemed back then.

Education combined with real, effective services to help people to stop when they want to, with further restrictions on where you can smoke, e.g. can't smoke on beaches in California or, to my surprise, Thailand, no reason not to ban it outdoors except in designated areas, why should beer gardens be a no-go zone for non-smokers, picnics in the park polluted and so on? The indoor ban really helped me and so many others to stop, the hiding them behind screens and the nasty coloured packs removes whatever glamour there may have been, committed smokers are gonna smoke and that is their right and must remain their right, but if and when they choose to stop there needs to be all the support possible to help them get it done, I was lucky and had a fantastic stop-smoking service at my GP's who sprang in to action the moment I approached them, in a friendly, non-judgmental manner and saw it through for 6 months of bi-weekly visits, really helped me get there, sounds a bit dramatic, they gave me back my future, a future that started to vanish like the Back to the Future family photo the moment in the back room of his mum's house that Matthew Gibson handed me that first fag aged 12.

Good luck to anyone who tries to stop, vapers too, whilst massively better than smoking, nothing comes without a price.

 

[muscovyduck]

The best thing to do would be to improve working conditions in pubs and kitchens, where a lot of young people work and end up having to pick up smoking to get a break

 

[dessiato]

There’ll be money to be made by selling tobacco products to underage users.

 

[Cid]

Problem with alcohol is that it's very easy to make, and very dangerous as a black market. So even if we decided that the obvious harms outweighed it being our social lubricant of choice, it would be next to impossible to ban.

Weed is not as easy to grow, but it's also high value. And not exactly hard to grow, just a bit resource intensive. And its smuggled forms are compact enough for it to be worth the risk... Actually kind of intrigued as to whether bud/leaf etc still gets smuggled in bulk. US strains seem to be available, though obviously there's no real guarantee that they are what they say they are, and they're very high value/g products.

Tobacco I think you'd need to smuggle in very high quantities if it was replacing the legal market... People get away with it now, but that picture might not remain the same. Growing is definitely viable, but again quantity is higher.

That said I think further restrictions on selling and where you can smoke might be better. A legal market that is a bit of a pain in the arse. With accessible alternatives.