UKH

Smoking is constantly causing deaths, amputations and chronic respiratory diseases.  But if we prohibit smoking we'll just give the Mob another income source and another reason to terrorise us. 

Not only should we not ban smoking and alcohol but we should also decriminalise drugs.

Regulation and education, yes. Prohibition, no.

I don't think we should ban smoking, I think we should just ban the sale of cured tobacco, but allow seeds and grow kits to be sold for those who wish to grow them, including not-for-profit co-operatives.

You make an interesting point, I'm generally in favour of legalisation of recreational drugs, but I do think tobacco should be banned.

Tobacco doesn't give the same kind of high that allows you to forget your troubles that other drugs do, so I don't think it would really have the same draw to people who wish to escape their lives that other narcotics do. So presumably wouldn't have the same market.

The main initial draw of tobacco seems to be its 'coolness' and a bit of an act of rebellion, and then people get addicted. I'm sure some people might still hunt it out, but probably more to help smoke weed. So I think drastically reducing the ease of supply of tobacco probably would reduce its use massively, with only a small increase in mob business.  So I think its worth it.

How about restricting the places that can sell tobacco products? Yes I know only licenced retailers can, but making it only available from specialist shops so it's not as convenient to get hold of 

I fully support an outright ban, but thats speaking from the potentially selfish perspective of a non smoker. Making tobacco harder to get hold of and only available to over 30s (who are hopefully old enough not to bow to peer pressure) is perhaps more realistic - plus much stricter ID checks and losing their licence sell tobacco for any retailer failing to comply

That surely would violate the principle of "Equality under the Law".  I can only see such a prosecution succeeding in an Asian style authoritorian state where the ministers responsible are not aware of the modern principles of English and Welsh law and have inherited their ideas of how to run a state from other cultures, perhaps  even the 3rd Reich

Yes, that's how it works, it's not about the age so much, you're just in one cohort or the other for life. At the boundary there will of course be a sense of injustice but most people won't be at that boundary, it's something done to (non voting) others for their benefit (and ours via better public health) while not affecting us, even if we are currently addicted so a relatively easy sell as bans go.

I'm sure the black market will grow slightly in response but unless those black market sellers can sustain the same level of start up interest in teens as the big tobacco companies have, even with their products hidden, expensive and made hideous, smoking will eventually just wither away.

jk

This was attempted in South Africa during the COVID lockdown although it was not successful and was probably done for other purposes ie. putting money in cronies pockets

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/31/6/694

In summary:

Results: About 9% of prelockdown smokers in the sample successfully quit smoking. 93% of continuing smokers purchased cigarettes despite the sales ban. The average price of cigarettes increased by 250% relative to prelockdown prices. Most respondents purchased cigarettes through informal channels.

Conclusions: The demand-side preconditions for an effective sales ban were not in place in South Africa, making a sales ban inappropriate. The South African experience suggests that supply-side factors are also important in ensuring the success of a sales ban. These are: (1) the illicit market must be under control before implementing a sales ban; and (2) an effective sales ban needs to be synchronised with a ban on the manufacture, transport and distribution of cigarettes.

But that's a totally different policy and one clearly doomed to fail.

Suddenly banning something people are addicted to will inevitably just fuel crime.

Preventing new people becoming addicted in the first place while allowing existing addicts to access their drug legally shouldn't fuel crime.

While I hate to credit Sunak. This probably is the way to eradicate smoking in the longer term, minimising pushback from addicts and lobbyists, minimising new opportunity opened up for smugglers while still quite effectively preventing new addictions. Also while it might seem slow acting, in conjunction with the current duty escalator and adequate enforcement of licenced sales restrictions it could well see us pretty much smoke free within a generation. Which seems worthwhile.

jk

Prohibition doesn't work.  Tax it to the hilt so it fully covers its costs to the NHS etc by all means, though.  That said, that figure is hard to work out as by killing people off early before they develop expensive to treat chronic conditions or require expensive care may save the welfare state money overall in some cases.

I also favour legalisation, and taxation, of soft recreational drugs, even though I have no interest in taking any of them.  It would wipe out huge amounts of crime in a flash.  Criminalising cannabis but having alcohol legal, in particular, is ridiculous beyond belief - the latter causes far, far more harm to society and individuals than the former ever would.

It's slowly eradicating itself in favour of vaping.

However I see no need to eradicate it.  If people want to harm themselves via a vice, that's up to them as adults, as long as they have the information about what it will do (which they very much do) and the taxation covers the costs of the vice.  The issue of getting addicted and being unable to give up is less of a concern now too, because one can simply switch to vaping.

Having said that I could see sense in criminalising some aspects of it, such as smoking while driving (possible distraction) and smoking in the presence of a child, be that in public or at home (abuse).

I'd also ban disposable vapes on environmental grounds, but people can buy reusable vapes (just as they can reusable bags and water bottles) so that's no barrier.

Should we ban climbing?  That kills people and is totally unnecessary.  There are much safer forms of exercise.

Smoking isn't eradicating itself. Vaping is the tobacco companies (and other opportunists) response to very high taxes and decades of tightening regulation on tobacco.

It's a holding pattern keeping people addicted and indeed feeding nicotine into a far broader new userbase with their low prices, sweetie flavours and toy appearance than they could have possibly hoped for with cigarettes alone.

Vaping may or may not turn out to be low harm (in its own right, not as a smoking cessation tool) but for now it's just a new and lucrative, low tax, poorly regulated gateway to addiction and a huge commercial opportunity. People addicted to vaped nicotine will be just as hard to wean off it as smoked nicotine, if we allow a large userbase to develop we have to accept the future cost of resolving the issues that causes. As we don't well understand what they may be, some caution would seem advisable!

jk

The damage smoking does to society as a whole means it should be illegal; the costs to tax-payers, illness and premature deaths resulting in loss of productivity, etc. 

Alcohol should be illegal. Hospital A&E and police cells regularly fill-up at weekends with seemingly normal people who become violent after consuming alcohol. Famillies are destroyed by alcohol. It stuns me that anyone would even try to defend alcohol!

Marijuana should 100% be legal in edible form.

I don't want to live in the authoritarian, dystopian nanny state you do.

Peoples' bodies are theirs to harm as they wish.  Taxation should simply cover the costs of this to e.g. the NHS and policing.

As I said, people die climbing on a relatively regular basis.  Should we ban climbing and require safer forms of recreation and exercise?

This actually isn't true, as you can wean fairly slowly by slowly reducing the nicotine content of the vaping fluid.

(Also works for caffeine by mixing decaf and regular coffee in progressive ratios - but there's little need to bother with that as it's harmless to most people - why do we accept that but don't accept that there can be forms of nicotine that don't necessarily cause much harm?)

I'm wondering how on earth such a "law" could be enforced. In a few years time the government would be expecting sales staff to question whether someone was 33 or 34. I really can't see how this could be done - unless of course they intend introducing compulsory photo ID for everyone.

I'm quite happy to see smoking end completely, but this idea is about as half-baked as Brexit - and from the same source.

Some US states do require photo ID for purchase of alcohol at any age, there's a joke on the Internet every now and again about an 80 year old being "carded".

Only compulsory ID for those who want to buy tobacco products.

But I agree the details haven't been thought out. For example it's going to be problematic when I'm housebound in my 80s and unable to get to the shops, but my careers are too young to purchase them on my behalf.

What next in your (dizzy) vision of the future - meat is bad, so ban that. Or maybe you'd ban soft drinks, sugar, nuts, white bread, sexual relations.

Some people can't cope with some of these, some get addicted, some get an illness/infection - but for the majority they are an occasional pleasure. To ban something because it could hurt someone or give them an illness/infection would mean banning just about everything.

Yep - my Dad was very bemused about being ID'd going into a bar in the US when he was over there on business. Despite being clearly middle-aged and with several similarly-aged colleagues.

apart from the enforcement difficulties it is a fundamental breach of the principle that people should have equal rights under the law.  (People if equivalent status of course - I'm not suggesting that children should be treated the same as adults in every respect but adult citizens of voting age having different legal rights??  Perhaps older people should be the only ones entitled to drink alcohol or drive a ICE car too?)

From a jurisprudential point of view it seems wrong - like having a caste or feudal system.

An official photo (or otherwise biometric) 'cigarette card' required for every purchase would seem reasonably robust and minimally burdensome. Not ID, just a confirmed age>threshold tag robustly tied to an individual.

Brexit came from New Zealand? This is not a new idea!

jk

But people of equivalent status (age in this case) say two 35 year olds would have equivalent rights at a given point in time. They may have different rights to a 34 year old at that same point in time but 34 is not 35. This is conceptually no different to existing age restrictions, only the rate of change of the threshold is 'new'.

jk

It's a bit easier in the US though because everyone can easily get photo ID - not via an ID card scheme, but by it being possible to get a driving licence with no driving entitlement on it, which would be by far the easiest way to implement such a scheme here.  Young people often do it with provisionals, but if you're medically disqualified or have a driving ban you can't get one.

Yes, anyone can get a passport, but they're expensive and inconvenient to carry.

The difference is, this cannot be said about smoking tobacco.

As an ex-smoker, I can confirm that whilst it give you a little bit of pleasure initially until you get used to the oxygen deprivation, it very quickly does nothing more than relieve withdrawal. There's no pleasure involved and hardly anybody does it occasionally.

Sounds like denial. Ho hum.

Alcohol and heroin are on par in your state of chaos then?

And what's your view on guns? Some would be responsible with them and some would not, right?

Anyways, you've made your mind up. Thankfully with each new generation the penny drops even further on the alcohol debate. 

Being realistic, robust and lightweight* age verification is a problem we can't keep ignoring, if not to deal with smoking and other drugs then to deal with exposure of children to porn and gambling.

*not overly burdensome or intrusive

jk

Sophocles (died ~405BC) taught rulers "do not decree what you cannot enforce"
Seems like this thinking is still too new and cutting edge for the current government

"unless of course they intend introducing compulsory photo ID for everyone."

Imagine, the state or your council dictating where you shop and what you can buy?

That was my main drift. I can't stand cigarette smoke being blown over me ( i grew up in an all smoking household and went to school on the top deck of the bus); I'm sure my asthma is a consequence. 

But the damage people cause themselves by smoking, drinking, shooting up and eating would be easier to cope with as a society without a new opportunity for county lines and smuggling being created. Restrictions on supply and marketing and consistent, relentless public information would minimise the damage.

I have to say that the nuisance caused by tobacco smokers is much much less than it was 50 years ago. Junk food probably impacts the NHS more than all the drugs put together, I'm guessing. 

Where did I say they were?  People tend to trot that out for any discussion on legalisation and control of soft drugs.  It's comparable to saying "we should ban cars" because some people drive at 120mph in a 30 limit occasionally, though to be fair some people do do exactly that!

That's why we control guns rather than outright banning them.  Same with knives.  Target sports are enjoyable to many, and remain legal with controls on which guns are used for them and where - nobody needs an AK47, nor do they need to wander down the high street with a shotgun strapped to their back.

Comparable to that is banning smoking in indoor public places, plus the extra controls I suggested of also banning it in the presence of a child or when driving.

However just as it's legal to own a gun and go clay pigeon shooting with it (and I'd oppose banning that, though suspect you might see it differently) I wouldn't ban having a cigarette in your back garden if you so wish.  And similarly, walking down the street with a kitchen knife clearly isn't appropriate (unless you've just bought it and are on the way home and it's still in the packet, or you're a chef on the way to/from work) but it'd be silly to ban people from having them for the purpose of cooking in their kitchen.

Though smoking (or vaping) cannabis seems to become ever more common with the progression of generations - it's so common and lacking enforcement that it might as well be legal and gain some tax revenues.  Unlike yourself, most young people aren't neo-Puritans, they have just changed their poison.

Similarly, in certain circles preferring a line rather than a can of Coke is rather common, again so much so that may as well be legal too (much as I have no interest in doing it myself).

Neither of these are even remotely comparable to shooting up heroin.  Or spice, which causes some pretty nasty antisocial behaviour in places like Manchester's Piccadilly Gardens.

By the way, do you consider Canada, where cannabis has been legalised for sale and for personal consumption, to be a "state of chaos"?  I'd struggle to think of a country any more civilised!

No, the law would apply to everyone, as it does now, just not at 18 as it does now.

I don't drink much. I'll have the odd beer and then a fair few at special occasions. I don't see any reason why that should be banned.

I have mixed feeling about the smoking ban. I don't like smoking, or people that smoke around me, and I'm happy for my kids to never be allowed to smoke, but I also don't like heavy handed government control. Although, might turn a blind eye to this one.

Poe's law strikes again.

jk

County lines, more like your dad naughtily sticking 60 B&H on his weekly Asda delivery for you, if that's what you're into.

Most people just won't get hooked, smoking will just fade away into obscurity, something only old people do like Horlicks. It's almost a non policy, people already regularly get challenged to prove their age buying cigs, that will become more regular, perhaps compulsory as the boundary age gets harder to judge visually. That's all. Retail license enforcement etc remains unchanged.

jk

Now what about this scenario:- teenager working behind counter of local corner shop asked for some cigarettes by her father - who she knows is under the age limit. Are you expecting her to refuse to serve her own father (whose home she lives in).

The idea of passing the buck regarding enforcement of such a law to individual shop assistants is ludicrous. 

No,

adult citizens would be treated differently dependent on age within the adult category despite the fact that they are all supposedly equal before the law.  It seems a clear breach of the anti discrimination principles embodied in the Equality Act. 

To be clear, I am in favour of the end of smoking but this method sets a dangerous precedent of removing individuals rights to be treated equally before the law.

Yup, pretty much.

You'd be wanting the mother of all awareness campaigns across every medium and at all ages at school and adulthood to make sure people were equipped with honest information about the effects of different drugs. And I think you'd need to go for a phased multi-year approach starting with relatively harmless stuff like marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, etc. and moving up the scale from there with really thorough analysis of what impact this policy was having on people's lives.

There is a part of my brain though that reminds me that eventually you're going to end up with the free availability of stuff like fentanyl and the USA is showing the terrible damage and death rates that kind of stuff can achieve. Obviously things _could_ be different if decriminalisation was the order of the day but _would_ things be different? It's very hard to say.

One thing you have to remember if you are sitting there happy, motivated, stable, morally upright and with a great support structure of friends and family is that many, many laws are not really made for you. They are made for people who lack one, many or all of the above, they are made for both the worst and the most unfortunate in our society. For example, there are laws around gambling, loan-sharking, cutting down historically important trees and a load of other things, not because you personally would ever be likely to be harmed but because they are a catchall not just to punish the immoral and amoral but to protect the most vulnerable. In this context, you have to think incredibly carefully about any policy likely to make seriously harmful drugs more available.

What the government should absolutely be doing at the minimum though is reworking their classification of A, B and C drugs, it's complete nonsense as it currently stands and has been known to be such for decades now.

As an aside, personally I don't think their plan to phase out smoking is a real thing, I think it's like the bridge to Ireland - something random but headline grabbing to throw out into the press furore to try and dilute all the bad headlines.

Yes. That's the job, one that already falls only to people above an age of responsibility, and it's the manager's job to ensure that's clearly understood. It's their licence, with it a fraction of the business and their liability for a significant fine that is on the line

We already 'pass the buck' to retail and hospitality workers to verify age for restricted products, everywhere, every day.

Obviously some people will break the law, they always do. Some people murder, does that mean we should abolish the crime of murder?

jk

As much as we sometimes don't like such intrusions, we nevertheless understand that laws are required to prevent us from harming ourselves and/or others, and by extension, our society. 

I can see where you're coming from, and I do appreciate it.

Alcohol is a drug. And if a drug is overall doing more harm than good to the individual and society then why should it be allowed. It shouldn't. But too many people use this drug and enjoy how it makes them feel relaxed.

Marijuana edibles should replace alcohol. I reckon the NHS would appreciate the break such a move would provide. And the Police too.

Like film classifications (12, 15, 18), Christmas crackers (12), Airline Transport Certificate (23), state pensions and free bus passes (variable with DOB)?

jk

Film classifications, Crackers - irrelevant as those are for people who are not adult citizens of voting age and there is a rationale of protection.

State Pensions are not of variable age now and the previous gender based difference was wrong and also the way in which the change to the situation now was brought about. 

Free bus passes are a benefit with administrative inconsistencies, not about equality of treatment among so called equals regarding criminal law in a regulatory context.  And anyway, they are a fiction for people who do not have  public transport in their area.  The right to buy things on the other hand?  It is a clear case of age discrimination among adults. Not between adults and children or adults who are or who are not of retirement age. 

Would this would lead to a country where is is perfectly legal for a 25 YO to buy some fags but illegal for a 24 YO? How is this going to be enforced? Will the 25 YO be treated as a criminal if they buy some fags for his 24 YO mate? How does this sit with ageism and the law?

Whatever next? Bans on climbing, hang gliding, skateboarding, road biking etc?

Obesity should be the priority when looking at public health IMO. Smoking - the info is there for you to choose your own destiny. Obesity is caused by many factors, we all know crap food is bad for you but for some its either that or nothing due to the cost of living. The proliferation of Maccys/BK/KFC etc continues and you can't fail to notice the explosion of fast food delivery firms nowadays that simply serve to provide these FF outlets new revenue streams. 

Vaping has been good for me, No longer a smoker but still a nicotine addict. I use (and always have) a reusable vape that takes rechargeable batteries. Disposable vapes are incredibly bad for the world - bright funky colours and flavours that appeal to youngsters, single use plastic and probably most importantly, all of that perfectly reusable lithium going into landfill. 

I see this latest idea that Rishi has shat out for nothing more than it actually is - a vote grab for the politically undecided non-smoking parents of the country.

Yes

All fags can only be sold with valid ID.

yes, I expect so.

Why is it any different to what we have now? Driving at 17, but not 16, allowed to drink with an adult with a meal at 16 (I assume this is still allowed), but not 15, booze and cigs at 18, but not 17. We've always had different laws for different ages.  It's nothing new.

Those all exist for protection of individuals and to a greater or lesser extent, society. 18 is no more or less arbitrary than 12, 15, 16 21, 23, 25, 34, 48

Retirement ages are variable in as much as they have varied over time and they likely will again. They also apply exclusively to what we would all consider adults, rather than at the blurrier end of the spectrum.

I'll try that argument next time I'm skipping a fare because 'administrative inconsistencies'

Retirement age is a clear and universally accepted inconsistency in the treatment and rights of adults.

jk

That's largely happening anyway.  Young people are vaping, or if they're smoking anything it's cannabis.  And I'm totally opposed to doing anything against vaping "just in case" - any control legislation should be based on evidence of actual harm.  If vaping turns out to be relatively harmless, go for it, what are you going to do next, ban caffeine?

There's no need for a nasty piece of authoritarian, illiberal legislation to push that along, it's happening anyway.

It’s been an offence to sell tobacco to someone under a given age since 1908. How else do you think age restrictions on things like tobacco and alcohol should be enacted if not via the people selling them? A police officer at every shop door checking people’s bags and ID as they leave?

It's only happening anyway because of decades of 'nasty illiberal legislation', your words not mine!

Also, that's not my experience. I went back to my old uni' recently for a picnic with my wife (who works there), I couldn't quite believe how prevalent smoking was among the 20 somethings sitting around in the sun outside the library. If anything noticeably more so than back in the 00's.

jk

There's some logic to driving at 17 - it gives you time to learn and pass your test before "striking out alone" at 18.  Most other things that you get at 18 don't need that preparatory period before you can usefully do it.

18 is generally used because it's considered the point people can sensibly make their own decisions and no longer need the same protections as a child, though there are more recent arguments that it should perhaps be 21 or even 25 based on brain development that is totally different from "people born after <date> may never do X".

I don't really agree, nothing presently prevents anyone over 18 smoking who wishes to.  Present legislation informs and protects people (particularly those who don't smoke) being adversely affected by those who do.

Telling people what they can do with their own bodies is illiberal and I cannot support it.  Again, should we ban climbing because quite a lot of climbers end up hurt or dead?

Interesting, as my observation these days is that hardly anyone of any age seems to smoke any more, but far more people vape now than smoked in the 00s.  Of course some of the vapers may not be vaping nicotine.

Smoking kills 76,000 people annually in the UK and disables many more. Still. After all that nasty oppressive legislation.

Climbing: kills maybe 15, so 0.02% of smoking's toll. By all means make a case!

jk

I think a better figure might be the percentage of smokers who are killed by smoking and the percentage of climbers who are killed by climbing.  There are far, far fewer climbers than smokers.

Though even that may be hard to work out, as is it a bad thing if a smoker dies quickly of smoking-related diseases at say 75 rather than living to 90 but as a near-vegetable for most of that time?  Lost years of quality life per capita of participants might be a better measure still, and as climbers who do hard stuff tend to die young that'd skew in favour of allowing smoking and banning climbing.

(I don't want to ban either, FWIW).

I suspect from Sunak's perspective it's both.

But you're right, post Sunak it'll disappear since he likely won't find the time to enact it and won't risk having to rely on opposition support in an election year.

jk

I don't think banning something that people want is ever going to work, especially when there's a level of chemical addiction involved.  I think the societal 'nudge' towards making it unappealing is much more effective.  Smoking was the coolest thing in the world when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's and everyone seemed to do it.  

Now it's banned on buses and in pubs, and (I think) every public place.  When you do actually go into a smokers house you really notice how much it reeks and how nasty it is.  Smoking seems like leprosy now.  There just isn't the draw anymore.  I wouldn't dream of taking the grandkids anywhere they could be exposed to second hand smoke.

But yeah...vaping seems to be king now.  Instead of stinking nicotine, it's now cake-flavoured smog.

By the way, I was on 20 B&H a day up until about 15 years ago - so I'm trying not be too preachy about it all.

You're right of course, a bit of googling suggests there is a roughly 6:1 ratio of smokers to independent climbers in the UK making climbing just over 0.1% as deadly as smoking.

And of course I am overlooking all the benefits of smoking!

jk

As far as alcohol is concerned archaeological evidence suggests humans have been making and consuming it in various forms since around 7000 BC. A lot of people are involved in its production and distribution. In Scotland alone around 10000 people are involved in the whisky industry and is one of the country' s major export earners to the tune of several billion pounds. 

That didn't fit with my experience in schools where there has been a significant decline in kids smoking (but an increase in vaping outside of school) I looked up ONS data, smoking has decreased between 2011 and 2021 in all age groups, but the most significant decline,by some margin, is in the 18-24 age group, down to 11% from 25%. Anecdotally smoking seems more common Western Europe, so perhaps overseas students are more likely to smoke? I'd also be interested if there is a significant number of  people who start smoking when it becomes legal for them to, compared to the increase when they are older than 24? 

How many climbers are killed climbing? Is it a big number? 

One thing I have spotted recently is a lot more young guys occasionally socially smoking, outside a club, outside a pub, etc. that do not regularly smoke otherwise. A lot of my younger friends do this, while 20 years ago both myself and a lot of my friends were actual smokers, not occasional.

Probably a different age group, but my friends that still smoke have at least stopped complaining about the inconvenience of having to go outside/off site and I can't say I've felt the inclination to join them. I think addictive nature of smoking means you need to be lucky to be able to be a social one. Both mum and dad gave up when she was pregnant with me, mum still often has the occasional one, dad said he knew even one would probably have different consequences. I think that is why vaping, although common amongst school age kids, isn't anything like the problem smoking was in schools 20+ years ago. 

Some people enjoy climbing, some people enjoy smoking.  Some people enjoy both (go to a French sport crag and see! ).

Climbing isn't a particularly effective form of exercise for anything other than climbing, though climbers tend to be motivated to be fit because it makes it easier.  The parts of the body that get strong through climbing aren't much use for much else.

Thus you're starting to apply value judgements to things people enjoy but which may harm them, which is in my view downright dangerous.

I suppose it depends what sort of climbing you consider.

Not many people are killed hillwalking or doing single pitch (though sadly I do personally know of two people who were killed recently due to an accident during each of those).  But alpinism and the likes do carry quite a high risk.

I don't see a huge value in analysing that to the Nth degree, though.  My point is that the Government shouldn't be banning people doing "stuff that they enjoy that might kill them", though I'm happy with controls on those activities to reduce their effects on others (e.g. not allowing climbing above Cheddar Gorge when it's busy lest people get rocks on their heads, or not allowing indoor smoking in public places) and for taxation to cover costs to society (e.g. the NHS), but not for things to be banned, unless it's not viable to control those external risks using restriction rather than prohibition, which might apply to driving a car at 120mph but doesn't apply to smoking - it's fairly easy to restrict that in such a way that clinically significant passive smoking is near eliminated.

Still climbing? I'm not. My long gone physique and fitness would be pretty bloody useful again right now for dealing with young kids and heavy DIY. The social network I built through climbing, the skills and experiences I gained continue to be of value. Comparing climbing and smoking seems a little disingenuous to me.

We do this all the time. Societies have and impose values, in part because an individual's actions rarely have consequences completely confined to that individual.

jk

While that is definitely what is commonly claimed, my own (obviously n=1) experience is a bit more complicated than that. I always found that I am *much* more fit than I should be after periods where I’ve done nothing but (an absolute f***ton of) indoor climbing, and no other exercise whatsoever. I run my first half marathon with basically no training after such a period, and my first 100 mile ride, and most of my mountaineering. My point is that while you aren’t gonna be getting good at other specifics, doing a lot of any one activity that gets your blood flowing does at least appear to improve general fitness.

Like I said, n=1, so take it with a pinch of salt.

Climbing doesn't give you much fitness.  It encourages it, because if you're a fat oaf climbing is a lot harder, but it doesn't give you much in the way of aerobic fitness nor burn all that many calories.  It makes you stronger and more flexible in specific ways, but those specific ways aren't that useful for daily life unless you have a very strange house with a load of holds in place of the staircase.

This is true, but for smoking that's why we apply taxation to fund costs to the NHS and why we ban smoking indoors in public places, and why I've suggested a couple more regulations such as banning it when driving a vehicle and in the presence of children in any setting.  However, I don't think banning it entirely is necessary to deal with that kind of externality.  If you're getting onto "we should ban X because it might result in someone dying which is upsetting to their spouse, kids or whatever", then there are a lot of things that need banning as well, and you really get rather puritanical with those value judgements, such as that climbers should pack in climbing and take up running because that's better exercise and you're less likely to die.

So to me the only sensible way is to apply restrictions and taxation to control those externalities and only ban things if that's infeasible to do that.  Which it probably is for heroin injection or driving a sports car at 120mph through a city centre, but it definitely isn't for tobacco smoking.  Nor alcohol, nor caffeine, nor cannabis, nor probably snorting cocaine either.

I'm not sure about analysing to the nth degree, but a ballpark figure would be useful. For example, if the number is 100 or so annually, the load on the NHS is very small, especially by comparison with the load imposed by smokers (figures vary between £2.5 billion and £6 billion).

I find it hard to believe that climbers, walkers and mountaineers impose the same load on the NHS. I would be interested in any figures you may be able to find in this regard. Of course, any such figures and calculations would need to recognise the health benefits of our outdoor activities. There are very few health benefits of smoking. 

Without any supporting data, it does seem to me that you are making an entirely unreasonable comparison. 

No they don't. 

Not sure what did then because for most of my climbing career I was lean, fit and only climbing.

They really are, try losing them!

A person smoking themselves, through addiction not pleasure, into early disability and death doesn't just represent a direct medical cost to be offset by the taxes they paid.

Smoking kills 76,000 people per year, compare that to 1600 road deaths and contrast your almost certainly differing emotional response to things like seatbelts and drink driving limits Nasty illiberal legislation? Pre-ban, handguns killed hardly anyone annually. Nasty illiberal legislation? Big bitey dogs kill very few annually. Nasty illiberal legislation?

An escalating age restriction on something addictive, of zero social value and known to cause significant harms is about the softest possible way of eradicating that harm. I simply cannot find it in myself to get all libertarian about this, it is a good idea.

jk

Load on the NHS (and the welfare state more widely) can be funded by taxation on smoking.  If the taxation level on tobacco isn't presently doing that, then I'd be fully supportive of it being increased such that it is.  But it's a very complex thing to work out, because smoking has a habit of causing people to die younger and often very quickly, which can actually reduce that person's cost to the NHS and care services compared to if they need expensive treatment or residential care for chronic conditions later, or simply because you pay them state pension until their mid 70s instead of until their 90s.

Smokers tend to die of smoking related conditions in the lower end of old age (50s-70s).  Climbers tend to take more risks when younger, and as such if they are going to be killed by a climbing accident it isn't likely to be in old age, not that that doesn't happen of course.

"Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers."

Quoted from this publication in BMJ.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678

To improve public finances, smoking should be encouraged.

No doubt you ate sensibly and did stuff like walking and cycling though.

I only took up climbing in my 30s, and I can't think of a single thing in day to day life it's actually made easier.

That's one externality.  Another is passive smoking, which is controlled by the indoor public smoking ban which I support.

As I said, the impact on people like your family, friends and kids is between you and them, and can be applied to anything that's dangerous to the individual.

I am quite fortunate in having known very few people well who have died before their time, but I have known people who died from the following:

Smoking or related illness: 0

Climbing (single pitch trad, fell and gear popped): 1

Hillwalking (awkward fall resulting in a fatal head injury): 1

Leukaemia of unknown cause (lifelong non-smoker): 1

Banning drink-driving is right, because it is impossible to mitigate the risk it poses to other road users.  Were drink driving only a risk to the driver (not possible, but let's say if) I'd not ban it.  I'm not in favour of strict enforcement of drunk cycling because that mostly does just result in the cyclist falling in a ditch and hurting themselves, I haven't ever once heard of someone killed by a drunk cyclist.

I don't actually support a penalty for not wearing seatbelts, even though I always wear one.  Similarly I don't support a penalty for not wearing a cycle helmet, even though I mostly (other than hire bikes if I wasn't expecting to use one) wear one of those too.  I do however support legislation requiring cars to be fitted with seatbelts so the choice of whether to wear one or not is always available to the individual.  And I could see an argument for bike hire schemes to have to provide them locked to the bike (indeed one of the scooter trials is doing that, I forget if it's Glasgow or Newcastle, it's one of the two).

Along similar lines, I support Health and Safety at Work not because it reduces the risk of someone killing/injuring themselves by being stupid, but because it moderates competition so no business can gain advantage by being cheaper because they don't keep their staff safe - that is, it protects staff from unscrupulous employers.  It protects people from the bad acts of others.

We've had this before, and here's my fundamental: the law exists to protect people from the bad actions of others, and it is wrong when it significantly over-reaches beyond that.  An outright ban on smoking (or climbing, for that matter) would do that.

I didn't support the outright ban on handguns, no, it should be legal to own and use them for the purposes of target sports.  I do support gun control (e.g. Enhanced DBS checks on owners/users), however, so as to ensure that they don't fall into the wrong hands.

Big bitey dogs tend to kill/injure people other than their owners.  If there was a way to mitigate that so the only people they could kill/injure was their owner, then that's up to them.

Actually, in a way there kind of is - legally mandated muzzling, which I believe is proposed for American XL Bully dogs.  A dog can't maul someone if it's got a cage over its gob.  Though there's also the issue of protecting children in the home, though I do support dog licencing and one aspect of that could be that a licence for that kind of dog will not be issued to anyone who has children in their household.

I disagree in the most fundamental way possible.  It should not be the State's role to prevent people making bad choices that impact on their own health or safety, only to ensure they are informed about what their choice is going to imply.

Paying for smoking-related costs through taxation is all well and good, but it would be better if those costs were not imposed in the first place. It would obviously be better for smokers to enjoy better health, and with the NHS under considerable strain, taking an entire cohort out of the system would seem to me to be a good thing. Half a million hospital admissions are due to smoking related illnesses, and smokers impose a considerable load on GP services. Eliminating these loads would help the NHS deliver better care. 

I note you have deciding against trying to quantify the load imposed by outdoor activities. 

That's not yours to decide on behalf of those who wish to undertake activities potentially harmful to their health.

It is better for a smoker's health not to smoke - but here's the key - it is up to them if they want to undertake a known dangerous activity posing personal risk, not you.

Assuming the costs were paid for by the taxation, that simply isn't true.  The NHS can scale as long as the costs of it doing so are paid.

If the costs aren't paid by the taxation, then I'm fully supportive of increasing it so that they are.

Because it's irrelevant (and very difficult to actually quantify).

I can’t answer for him, but there are periods where I definitely didn’t. I’ve heard claims such as “a brisk walk is more exercise than climbing”, and unless the climbing session is leisurely going up V0s and sport 3s that is patently untrue. A two hour bouldering session can leave you absolutely battered, sweaty, needing to catch your breath, generally destroyed in every way. Put an heart rate monitor on, I have as part of a training plan in the past, your heart rate goes high and remains high if you’re doing anything remotely hard. Unless the brisk walk is 10 miles long or the person doing it is ridiculously unfit, it won’t raise your heart rate even remotely as much.

It has made me a lot more supple, a lot more acrobatically able and physically strong when doing jobs around the house, a lot more sure footed in everything I do. I started when I was 21. There are a lot of things I do I would not have been able to do with the body I had as an 18 year old.

Not remotely true. The NHS is failing in so many ways it cannot possibly scale up according to increased demand. Simply saying 'increase taxation' fails to recognise the strains that are imposed on the NHS. The overall aim of any decent health service should be to reduce the numbers of people who need its help. Keeping smokers in the system fails to do this. 

People don't make rational informed choices to get hooked on smoking, they try it because decades of advertising, art and and lobbying has shaped a culture where it is still somehow seen as cool and rebellious, they get hooked when they're young, often children and obviously therefore immortal. Severe restrictions on smoking look to me quite comparable with health and safety legislation, protecting individuals from the unscrupulous (tobacco companies) AND themselves. I'm cool with that.

jk

Education is part of the role of preventative care, but control is not.

If the NHS can't scale up, then it needs to be replaced with a system that can, such as a European style social insurance model.  Restriction of peoples' choices of personal risk, outside of a national emergency like COVID*, is not an acceptable fix.

* It was generally an overriding view on here that in the early days of the pandemic it was irresponsible to engage in any dangerous personal activities because the NHS would likely not be able to deal with patching them up as well as COVID, and because being there would increase the spread risk.  That's probably right, but totally different to something like smoking which has existed longer than the NHS has and thus totally possible to plan for.

We will have to agree to disagree.  There are similarities, but it's not the same.

It doesn’t set a precedent, see the law on motorcycle licensing:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/motorbikes/getting-a-motorbike-licence/#...(allowing%20you%20to,you%20are%2024%20or%20over.

I can't see any age related conditions there.  It isn't unfair that I got a full licence in my 30s when some people did their tests at 17 under different rules.  There are differences based on personal history which presumably relate to the changes in testing regimes over the years and the age at which different people do things.   This is not like that.  It takes cohorts and gives them future different treatment under the criminal law from other citizens of the same full adult citizen status, (Assuming an offence will be committed ) depending on year of birth.

Politicians who think this way could edit citizens rights to vote or other things regarding equality under the law that follow from what is equal citizenship if they start here.

It is as illogical and unjust as having penalties for being gay as a member of the armed forces as compared with the civil population.  The material difference of course is that those rules were voluntarily "accepted" on sign-up to the forces whereas the deprivation of future equality based on age will not be subject to sign-up but just imposed.

Perhaps it would be fairer if only the population to be so affected could vote on it

Sorry, link didn’t send you where I thought.

There are limits on engine capacity based on age, with you not being able to be licensed for the most powerful machines until you are 24.

yes but in this case the age is not going to retreat annually in the future to the point you will never reach it.  All people who attain the age of 24 under those rules will be treated the same, rather than the age going up out of reach for future cohorts.

What age will you be claiming your state pension, I bet it isn’t the same age as me.

I can also remember when you could buy cigarettes at 16. Realistically it is a way of rising the legal smoking age above the age that most people take it up, without outlawing people currently legally smoking.

Regardless of whether the policy is a good idea or not, the discussion that it’s in some way discriminatory is surely nonsense? 
 

the state pension age changes, so someone a year or two older than you may have had or may have a different retirement age.

Someone has pointed out the changes in regulations around driving different class vehicles/motorcycles depending when a test was taken.

the minimum wage is different for different age brackets of younger people.

Discrimination challenged would usually related to a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.  I can’t think of any protected characteristic that would specifically apply in this case, unless an argument was made for age, but this is usually taken to be bandings (ie. Older people/younger people) rather than one year difference.

I also think a challenge would likely fall if based on the decision being irrational - there’s a clearly defendable public interest in Ministers taking steps here to reduce tobacco consumption given the absolutely proven link it has to serious health harms.  
 

so I think this focuses on ‘is it right/will it work’ rather than ‘is it lawful’ 

Those damn authoritarian states like... New Zealand?

I'm curious, which cohort do you think is getting the worse deal here? 

Presumably the young so what do you think their informed, unaddicted choice would be? From a generation well informed about tge shit behaviour of the companies that have pushed toxic priducts on us decades after they knew the cost I suspect it would be pretty clear cut.

Maybe we should poll the young on fossil fuels. 

Jk

For what it’s worth, the illicit market is worth an estimated £4bn p.a. already. During lockdown domestic volume rose +20%, some of it due to travel volume (duty free) but most because fewer illicit consignments landed. 
My worry is that tobacco revenue brings in £10.6bn to the treasury. Where are we supposed to find that? 

By poisoning another generation of children?

Jk

I think you misunderstand my position. 
Where would you plug that gap, in addition to presumably decreasing tax from motor fuel as more people use electric vehicles? 
Foreign Aid dropped to around £11bn post lockdown and although Ukraine defence aid budget is under £5bn, it doesn’t sound to me as if there is much to replace tobacco duty. 
A good start would be to heavily tax vape products but again, that’s a fraction of the size of market. 
So, do you think we should ignore the fiscal gaps and carry on regardless? 
Sunaks plan like NZ does offer a gradual reduction in duty as smokers die out, literally. 
Just to be doubly clear, of course I advocate banning tobacco products. 

I’m not expressing a view either way on the subject of banning smoking, but I don’t think the “loss of tax” angle is such a barrier to effecting change.

1. The money spent on cigarettes won’t disappear from the economy if smoking fades away.  It’ll be spent on other things, which are…. Taxed!  All be it at a different rate.
2. Loss of tax revenue from smoking is nothing compared to what’s coming with fossil road fuels under the shift to EVs.  That doesn’t stop us moving to EVs, it just signals that the way tax is raised is going to have to change.  As it will with tobacco products.
3. Health benefits if smoking was to disappear would remove about 2.5 sick days per year per smoker almost immediately.  Some quick fag packet maths estimates that as adding about £6 Bn to GDP annually.  The health benefits and healthcare savings will continue to rack up as time goes on.

(Aside with regards your comment on Ukraine defence aid; It’s not so much current tax money going to Ukraine, rather much of the value is in old military hardware with limited shelf life left.  In some instances I think it will be cheaper to fly explosive weapons - especially those with explosive propellant or solid rocket motors - to Ukraine for use there than to legally and safely dispose of them here…)

I didn't misunderstand, I (ab)used your post to make a point. Our world has always changed, changing costs and income can be managed. The point of vice taxes is to eliminate the vice, not raise revenue to support it.

Different topic but as you recognise, a planned and telegraphed change in VED is urgently needed.

I have no idea what we replace tobacco income with, there are many options but personally I'd be inclined to go after another harm/vice.

Jk

But how do you tax arguing on the internet?

Cynic  

Perhaps I should have written an essay. 
The only sentiment I expressed was a concern over the lost duty. I didn’t say it was nor should be a barrier to progression.

You expressed a concern and I gave my reasons why I think the concern is eminently addressable.  

If it isn’t a barrier to progression, how can it be a concern?  It’s a valid concern IMO and that risk needs to be addressed to progress.  As you’ve noted a “sliding ban” would be gradual and so help there but I think there are other ways the concern is addressed by knock on consequences of any such ban.  Much more gradual than the coming collapse of revenue from fuel duty…

In reply:

Well that’s kind of my point. We need credible alternative duty sources and a fairly well-thought out target. Regardless of the original point of the duty, successive governments have plundered tobacco to such a degree that it is difficult to replace. Just shouting ‘ban it, think of the children is naive. 

You honestly believe that revenue will simply find its way to the Chancellor?

Of course something can be a concern without being a barrier! These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

I didn’t say that, did I?  We’re going to go round in merry circles all day at this rate.

I said the money won’t stop being spent and there’ll have to be adjustments to taxation, but less perhaps than you think as the public health effects start switching on so rapidly.  As concerns go, this one feels eminently addressable.

To me a concern is a risk, and until a risk.  If there was no risk, why is there concern? Until that risk is mitigated it’s a barrier, because if would be foolish to run head long into risks of unknown consequences.
 

Yes, that’s exactly my point. I’m not exactly clear on your solution to address the risk, but I think we agree. (Edit except on the concept of risk).

De-criminalise certain currently illegal drugs and replace tobacco duty with that? Shouting “ban it…” is what we do with illegal drugs at the moment after all. Obviously never gonna happen in this country.

I do think it is the young (future legally divided citizens) who are getting the bad deal directly and the rest of us because of the making of this idea of inequality before the law of adults in a criminal context gaining acceptance which is a red flag for me.  Perhaps if I forgot the law degree I got in the 70s I'd be less alarmed

Perhaps we could employ the same sliding deprivation of legal status to remove ICE driving entitlement from younger people?  Or the right to frequent foreign travel?

Or some kind of reverse sliding scale to bring down the maximum voting age to 50 ?

I don't trust the current generation of politicians not to try ideas like this out, perhaps not in those specific cases but after the astonishing changes in politics this century I don't think anything can be ruled out if it is shown as the will of the people where self pronounced lictors of the people just pass the post first.

I'll say it again. We already accept treating adults of different ages very differently and we accept that principle very readily at younger ages. You're fixating on the criminality aspect and the arbitrary age of 18 where we should apparently, for reasons, stop subdividing groups (at least until they get to their 60s when it's ok again). But the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10, if it's the criminality aspect that bothers you, why isn't 10 your line in the sand? It's all arbitrary but by broad agreement, it works.

Perhaps. Indeed we sort of already have indirectly by banning their sale from a fixed date, we all but ensure there will be none available at the right price point for young people at another date in the future. My very young kids will likely never own an IC car. I'm ok with that and I guess you are too? In reality there will probably be harder 'bans' (with plentiful loopholes for collectibles and niche equipment) imposed on ICVs in the late 40's early 50's before we simply run out of the dregs of 2030something's IC build. Again, I'm relaxed in principle.

What would be the justification for it? None, so it won't happen but if it did I'd be with you on the barricades because it would represent blatant election rigging.

Its the most sensible, least oppressive way to eradicate smoking, existing addicts can remain addicted and legally access their drug, new addictions are radically decreased by gradually raising the bar to access well past the age at which people are impressionable and immortal enough to get hooked on what really doesn't offer much but withdrawal prevention past those early years posturing to schoolmates. One can make a libertarian case that we shouldn't seek to eradicate smoking as Neil has or indeed to ban anything (which he hasn't quite) but clearly I'm not swayed. I see no reason to fear the suggested method, it's sensible, proportionate, easily deliverable and likely to be effective without severe unintended consequences.

It is also an excellent distraction from all the vandalism, infighting, cynicism and failure on display at conference.

jk

I'm not convinced of either point, although I doubt any consequences would be considered severe. According to the Ons, even though it is legal smoking has reduced significantly amongst 18-24 year olds in the last decade (from 25% to 11%) During the same period illegal  drug use has increased slightly in the 16-24 and in the case of cannabis more common (16%) and even class A drugs not much lower (5%). I'm all for the de-nicotinisation of cigarettes to make them less addictive. It will be intresting to see the effects of the law change in New Zealand. I can't see the legality or not affecting the behaviour of those purchasing cigarettes much, it will affect those selling them, which I think could be problematic. 

Identifying a potential under-18 is one thing.

Trying to tell the difference visually between an under-30 and an over-30, and so forth .... ?

One of the reasons I gave up (among others) was a guy who told me that smoking 10 a day gives youa 25% chance of dying. I started for no good reason and took 16 years to quit, not enjoying it at any point.

Weren't you in favour of the 20mph limit in Wales which might save 5 deaths a year?

Though nowadays you could switch to vaping and quit the most dangerous bit immediately, and have the option of tapering the nicotine much more easily.

I'm in favour of it because of the other externalities, e.g. a more pleasant urban environment particularly for cycling and pedestrianism rather than because I think it will make much of a difference to actual safety.

You could probably parallel it with places banning indoor vaping, which I'm all for because I don't want to smell it, not because it poses any significant risk to me.

It's also not a ban on driving, it's more comparable to stuff like banning public indoor smoking because of negative externalities.

Though in terms of deaths it's also because those would be deaths of other road users - again referring to the principle of the law being to protect third parties, not the perpetrators of any given act.  If you crash a car into a brick wall at 30mph you are almost certain to survive, but if you crash it into a pedestrian they are going to be at least badly injured.

The expectation isn’t that a shop assistant can accurately determine people’s age visually. That’s why shops ask for ID if they aren’t certain.

Most places have a “challenge 25” policy, because it’s not actually that easy to accurately guess whether someone is over 18. Just scale that up to “Challenge 40” when the age limit is 30.

It’s all academic. This is not going to happen, and it does not need to happen either. Taxation, education, and the indoor smoking ban, have sent adult smoking rates in the U.K. from 45% in 1974 down to the low teens. Taxation is exceptionally good at making it hard for young people to start smoking. It made me quit at 19, when tobacco was 7 quid a pouch, it’s now £20. If you want to limit smoking further, the tried and tested method of taxing it works without requiring such divisive measures.

I remember Dad was actually quite pleased once when he was asked to produce his bus pass, because he was nearly 80 at the tine

It's also going to become a bit of an irrelevancy over time, because one of the things an ever declining pool of smokers is going to do is make it less worthwhile for shops to stock them, which in turn increases the faff associated with continuing to smoke - a virtuous cycle. That's probably going to be more important than a few 34 year olds sneaking through when the minimum age is 35. 

Check. That's the job.

jk

Yes but that tax escalator leaves addicts to choose between taxed tobacco they can't afford or black-market tobacco they can afford, increasing revenue to criminals and the knock on enforcement costs.

A ratcheting age restriction doesn't have that same impact, most addicts retain access to a taxed, regulated, legal supply.

Around the time the policy switches on I'm sure the black market would grow for a year or three to fulfil the demand from those already addicted as children and those buying tobacco with their weed. Within very few years though the new, addiction driven, demand for black-market straight tobacco products will fade away and the existing black market will stop growing then eventually shrink as onetime teenage smokers grow up and quit.

All other things being equal.

jk

The way to implement that properly that would be an outright ban where tobacco is still available to addicts via dispensaries. Anything approaching an age based limit *amongst adults* at the retail level is going to fail and be a clusterf*** to administer and kind of like trying to have the cake (tax income from retail tobacco sales) and eat it (no tobacco sales).

But we don't need to medicalise and complicate it, every corner shop and supermarket has a functioning tobacco 'dispensary' with trained staff operating within strict licencing conditions with regard to underage sales.

Why exactly?

It's a single unchanging date of birth cut-off (or simply year if implemented on NYD). Make compulsory age verification a license condition. Don't do anything daft like criminalise underage possession. It couldn't be any simpler to administer. Frankly it's simpler than the existing perfectly functional 'challenge 25' system where the cut-off DOB changes daily.

• Strikingly simple to implement and enforce
• Tapering loss of tax and sales revenue allows time to adjust
• No increased long term driver toward smuggling
• Effectively phases out smoking
• Saves hundreds of thousands of lives

The unknown really is the interaction with the weed market but then the weed market deserves a separate discussion.

jk

Using taxation increases and the current health campaign structure, the tobacco market in UK is naturally declining at around 7% per annum, for context. 

I will be interested to see, in future years, how sellers of tobacco products go about ensuring that someone is 31 or whatever the cut-off that year is.

Yeah, that's the thing, it appears that the current measures are really quite successful.

I've been trying to find the words for a good response to this but fundamentally I find cohort-based discrimination to be distasteful and very prone to weaponisation for more division, even if it's for a good cause.

It's not the same as stopping underage sales, the concept of "underage" involves people being able to come of age at some point, which wouldn't be the case here, they wouldn't be underage sales.

How do they check someone is 18?

I know politics changes with the seasons, but the Health minister may disagree. 

There are clearly millions still smoking, but we went from nearly half the population of the U.K. to around 1 in 8. I just don’t see how a cohort-based ban (I am not going to call it a age based ban, it is not), coupled with basically allowing current smokers to continue smoking at current cost is going to cause anything but resentment. 

I agree, ethically, philosophically, in many other ways it’s wrong, but it’s the only way that works now, it seems. No other UK government has come anywhere near as close to banning tobacco products. 
I also doubt current smokers will continue smoking at current cost. Duty increases have been baked into forecast for almost ever. Manufacturers increase retail prices to address margins, consumers -8% continue to purchase. It’s an awful cycle. Current market size is around 40bn sticks by the way. 

I don't know if you're a (ex) smoker, but having been one for 40 years, till I found vaping, one will pay any price for tobacco. When I was seriously poor, I'd go without food before being deprived of baccy, that's how bad I was! 😂

Have you got a reasonably contemporary example of its weaponisation?

Jk

I’m a heavy ex smoker from 14 to 37. Making illegal will only increase its attraction to teenagers. I cannot see many people starting to smoke after 20. After 18 I kept on trying to stop. so from that perspective I cannot see any real reason to make it illegal after the age of 18. I suspect a better way to stop it is to invest in education and awareness and find some way of making it uncool for early teens to experiment. Just my personal thoughts and probably not borne out by research!!

Yes. You can pretty much write the right wing “nanny state” “communist” headlines yourself, it doesn’t even take much. Add a bit of class and age warfare to it, only from the Laurence Fox side of things, and you suddenly have unnecessary controversy around *getting people to stop smoking*, something that is currently supported by everyone other than tobacco companies. You may say that’s far fetched but it really isn’t, smaller things have been used by that side for this purpose, and have been escalated to policies of the Conservative Party.

Similarly, I started smoking occasionally at 13, was a smoker by 15, and was smoking 25-30g of tobacco a day by 17/18. At 19 I quit because I couldn’t really afford U.K. tobacco prices and had run out of my Greek stockpile. I already wanted to quit because I knew it was really bad for me, but being unable to afford it worked even better.

At that point I had only been /legally/ smoking for 2 years and illegally for 5/6. Hell, I was 15 the first time I visited the U.K. and had no problem whatsoever illegally buying tobacco at the off-licence.

Edit: Amusingly, one thing that inadvertently really helped me quit is that I started taking lozenges, while still smoking a reduced amount… I ended up in the horrid too-much-nicotine scenario that feels like the worst hangover of your life with the taste of tobacco in your mouth. Great shock therapy that, got me to love the taste a lot less and allowed me to more easily wean myself off lozenges over a few months.

This has been law in NZ for some time: proposed at the end of the last century and (slightly surprisingly) endorsed by the centre-right national government as they needed the support of the Maori Party (who proposed the legislation and whose people remain the highest proportion of smoking adults) - an example of supply and confidence voting in proportional representative systems.

Does it work? Yes (although there is more to the NZ system than Sunak appears to be proposing). My kids will never be legally able to buy tobacco in NZ. As a respiratory physician and lung cancer specialist, I'm fine with that. There are a whole raft of measures including sinking lid imports, reduction in nicotine levels, wide availability of smoking cessation help, reduction in outlets with none near schools, banning smoking in cars with children present etc.

"8.0% of adults were daily smokers in 2021/22, down from 9.4% the previous year and 16.4% in 2011/12. Daily smoking rates in 2021/22 are 19.9% for Maori, 18.2% for Pacific peoples, 7.2% European/other and Asian 2.6%. 8.3% of adults are now vaping daily increasing from 6.2% in the past year." The aim is to get NZ functionally smoke free (defined as less than 5% smoking rates) by 2025 and if the government holds its nerve then we should do it.

b

A distraction from HS2, immigration, inflation etc and their record in government since 2010.

True, although it doesn't preclude it actually being a good idea (even a broken clock is right twice a day...)

b

IMHO other measures would be much more effective and in fact this measure alone may be counterproductive as potentially a black market in cheap tobacco could boom. It is illegalising the sale of tobacco not its consumption which he is proposing. A stop smoking campaign should be primarily targeting consumption ie hitting demand rather than supply.

Oh I see, the headbangers will weaponise it against government, not government weaponising it against citizens. C'est la vie, you're makingan argument for doing nothing, they weaponise everything!

Jk

I actually think the NZ approach is a good idea as it specifically targets the recruitment of new smokers.

We've had substantial tobacco taxes for decades. I don't see more of the same achieving different results.

That's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought of, although perhaps rising to about 25 might help bridge the "daft" years a bit more.

I remember a friend starting smoking tobacco at about 20, due to eventually starting to smoke hash in joints at parties, despite years of insisting on only smoking pipes. I was pretty gobsmacked at that, having been already trying to kick tobacco for a couple of years.

Seems to me it's pretty "cool" to vape now rather than smoke, so the kids are getting their addiction through different means, and I get the impression everyone smokes weed now, so less likely to get introduced to tobacco that way.

It does amaze me that anyone is still smoking tobacco with vapes so much cheaper and readily available.

It might not be 100% risk free, but being able to feed the addiction in the same "comforting" manner you're used to without coating your lungs with tar seems like a no-brainer until you're ready to quit.

How old are you? I grew up in the 90s, at that time ID checks just involved getting asked your DOB and cigarettes were available from 16. If you were tall for your age getting hold of age restricted products (alcohol and cigarettes) was easy.

I was never interested in smoking, but knew others who saw being able to buy cigarettes as a badge of honour (I look more mature than you do), then obviously once bought yes they smoked them.

I almost worry more about vaping. Restrict sales to places with an alcohol licence (do we really trust Poundland to do thorough ID checks?) and ban not only 'pretty colours', but also the horribly insipid flavours that mimic sweets and are clearly targeted at non-smokers.

​​​​​​

No, I’m not making the argument for doing nothing at all. I’m making the argument against a specific course of action that can rightly considered to be discriminatory. My argument would be for even higher taxation, and more free pathways to get free nicotine to wean people off smoking.

Edit: Raising the minimum age by a bit might help, just by making it extra faff to get tobacco in the years people are likely to start smoking, and that is very different to a cohort ban.

Edit 2: Restricting public smoking further would also be more effective, without having the ridiculous situation of young people being able to see others smoking in public and being told they will never be able to do that, if there is something guaranteed to make it cool to teenagers, it’s that.

I’m 37 now, this would have been, hmm, 2001? I was told to expect an ID check but no one checked me at multiple off licences or even asked for that matter. I did look around 18 at the time, but it did feel like it wasn’t taken remotely as seriously as buying alcohol, which is interesting considering how addictive cigarettes are.

There was a good Science Versus podcast about that recently. Turns out a lot of the flavouring agents they use can do pretty nasty things to your lungs but there's almost no reglation whatsoever as they are neither foods nor specifically restricted drugs.

The measures introduced since 2000 seem to have been effective reducing the proportion of 15 year old smoking from around 25% to less than 5%

The figures might have changed since 2004, but back then nearly  90%  smokers in their 20`s started when they were at school, 80% of them wanted to give up but we're struggling because they were addicted. I don't think a law change will affect them positively. 

Ban smoking by all means, whether absolutely or by other measures including taxation, for one and all but do not create legal novelties like specific laws for particular cohorts who will not have equal rights to other adults and by the definition of the law will always prevent them from attaining the rights others enjoyed when they came of age

Legal novelties can have far reaching and unexpected consequences when politicians use them in future.  Politicians do not look far ahead when any kind of novelty (like vapes) is introduced

The only way for cohort based banning to be fair, ethical and equitable is for that cohort to have a vote on the ban and no one else.

That vote would be at majority or as majority is reached by the cohort, at whatever age that might be.

Although I don’t want to see a ban on smoking, the cost of the NHS treating those who have willingly smoked in the past is a burden. Something needs to be done, especially as it’s common to see very young kids vaping, something which will most likely escalate to other types of smoking.  

There may not be much of government expenditure argument against smoking as the additional cost to the NHS is likely to be more than outweighed by the savings on state pension.

I'm guessing that the cost to the NHS would be a stronger argument for banning the sale of alcohol. I've seen a figure of 3.5 billion a year attributed to alcohol causing accidents/assaults resulting in injuries, before looking at long term health issues. 

Smacking is banned, smoking next and then smirking to be outlawed.

followed by banning Squegging

Sorry, my doubt was that the cost would stay the same. It will or course rise exponentially. 

I discussed this with the guy who runs our local corner shop. Over the last few years they have gone from selling £10k a week in tobacco products to £3k a week on average. They do £10k a week in disposable vapes now.

If their experience is anything to go by the tax take is dropping anyway. Most of the people I know who smoke unly buy from a shop if they are desperate anyway. The majority get theirs from the "baccy man" 

In my opinion making it progressivly harder for young people to buy cigs is a positive move adn will reduce smoking over time as long as it is backed up by a reduction in importing for "personal use" van loads at a time.

On a side note, back to the vapes. £10k for a small corner shop is a metric crap load of vapes being sold and this is just one shop. Plastic waste, batteries, electronics, these things definetly need banning. I have nothing against vapes just get shut of the disposable ones and only sell the refillable chargable ones. This will probably cut down on the amount of kids vaping as well (I see a lot of school kids vaping when I drive past the local school to my workshop at kicking out time) as its a lot harder for the kid to hide and refill a propper vape than it is to have a disposable one stashed in their school bag.

Pod devices are just as easy to hide - Juul is tiny. But yes, disposables should be banned. 

The psychology of disposables is that they are temporary, a one night only consumer deal. Somehow if you commit to a refillable device, somewhere in there is a commitment to vaping. And who wants to admit that to themselves….

Well one of the (few) benefits of Brexit is that we have taken back control and  reintroduced limits to how much can be legally brought back to the UK duty free. I'm not aware of any reason though why the current limit of 200 cigarettes couldn't be reduced to say 40.

Obviously the huge question is how much effort are customs putting into checking? I know from previous (pre Brexit) experience we've never once had anyone look inside when leaving France, and that's in a proper panel van.

Who are they selling them to? Those figures fit with national statistics where the number of 16/17 year olds who vape is four times the number who smoke amongst, it's still the other way round amongst those who are 60+

Isn't that illegal? Does that put anyone off doing it? 

Putting the age up to 18 in 2007, was IMO a good step, but I can't find any evidence that, in isolation, it had a major effect on school children smoking. We are now down to very low levels of smoking amongst school children. I think we need to be looking at why a small minority start smoking. Why are kids in the most deprived areas much (four times) mire likely to than those in the most affluent? 

Banning lots of  disposable things, whether it's vapes, bnq's, tents seems a good idea to me. Not sure it would affect vaping amongst school kids, even if they were confiscated they would probably have to be returned to the parents. 

Apparently disposable vapes are also responsible for quite a lot of bin lorry fires too. They should absolutely be banned. 

I imagine the aviation industry would kick up merry hell if we tried to get rid of duty free, not to mention consumers (voters). It's a perk of going on holiday for travellers and a nice little earner for airports.

200 cigs from the airport isn't the problem, you buy them at ~£4/pack, sell at what, £8? That's £40 made off 10 packs before you've paid for the travel. That's not a business, it's a post holiday perk at most.

jk

Not suggesting getting rid, just reducing the duty free tobacco allowance into the UK. Nothing new, for years we had no duty free within EU and airports still manned to make money from overpriced sales.

And remember this wouldn't affect UK airports, as we buy duty free on departure not arrival.

When you say ‘quite a lot’ how many do you mean? 
 

They sell them to adults only, they make a lot of money from vapes and before that cigs and are exceptionally careful not to break the rules.

doesnt seem to round our way, if there is money in it people will do illegal things.

Much as I try avoid doing so due to the volume of traffic I often pass schools at kicking out time, I also live just down the road from a highschool and what seems like thousands of kids walk past our house every day, if I get back from site early I will walk the dogs before sitting down to do admin work and often this is a school kicking out time. I cant remember the last time I saw a kid with an actual cig but loads with vapes.

I live in a deprived area, the kids have very little chance at life unfortunatly. The majority of the adults dont work and sit on their arse all day chain smoking and drinking and the kids with a total lack of parental guidance are feral.

Fortunatly for me im living in the middle of a stereotype and the area is improving. About 5 or 6 years ago an asian family moved over the road and now just a few years later for 10 houses in any direction (I live on a coner junction) the only white faces are in our house, next door and the old woman over the road. Its great, scummy people are moving out and nice working families are moving in, everyone talks to eachother adn an actual community is building in the area, there are also far less blue lights flying down the street on a night  and far less drunken shouting matches at 2am.

I think it would, disposables are as cheap as dirt and apparently very easy to get hold of, if the kid gets caught with one they lose £5 or so. On the other hand £100 worth of refillable vape is a  lot to lose. I was watching a youtube video a few days ago posted by a barister who was explaining the law around schools confiscating things and apparently they are within their right to not only confiscate but also dispose of thinks up to and including mobile phones.

Post Brexit, checks are a little more stringent, hence bigger queues at big ports, out and back. 

Pod systems are cheaper. Devices are around a fiver and pods are 6 or 7 quid for 2 or 3. UK nicotine users have a lot of history of ignoring cheaper alternatives. 

I'm all in favour of banning disposables, but that's a huge financial commitment in order to try a product. If we are trying to lure existing smokers away from tobacco, £100 is a lot of money for something that you might decide you don't like.

Disposables are an inexpensive way to try vaping (do friends share vapes?). Maybe make them only available in tobacco favour though, so only existing smokers will be attracted to them.

Fair enough, but as you go onto say kids don't seem to find getting vapes difficult, even though it's illegal 

Same here, which is why I'm skeptical that making cigarettes illegal for some adults will reduce the number smoking. 

Again that's my experience and reflected in national statistics at the moment  five times as many kids vape and that is increasing while smoking is continuing to decline. 

I think my most depressing home visit was to see a thirteen year old boy. I was greeted at 11am by his seven year old sister, sat in the sofa in the front yard, fag in one hand bottle of cheap cider in the other. Not being in school during covid has really affected the less extreme cases. 

Ah, I was responding to the ease of concealment, the financial argument against disposables makes sense to me, a bit like the dubious shop owners I remember as a kid selling single cigarettes. 

You would get away with disposing of a refillable vape, but you would need to weigh that against the hassle that would cause v benefit. What are you trying to achieve? Kids would be more careful not to get caught in school, but I don't think it would affect them vaping outside. Alienating parents who might generally positive towards school could be an outcome in some cases. I'm pretty sure a school not returning and disposing a mobile phone would make national news and that child would have it replaced by their parents along with a made up story about how the kid was put at risk walking home without their phone.

My experience is that vaping during the day, on the school site is a fraction of the problem that smoking used to be 20 years ago, but there are plenty of accounts suggesting my experience might not be typical. 

No, disposables are more costly to produce than Pod systems actually. The tobacco flavour idea is under way in some markets and under discussion with UK govt. 
 

Again, there is no financial argument for choosing a disposable over a Pod system, similar to Juul. You may recall Juul was like iPhone in the USA before the FDA reduced the nicotine inclusion limits to 2% Prior to that it was 5%. It must have felt like glue sniffing to new users. 

Although up until this summer there was a loophole in the law that allowed  kids to be given disposable vapes by unscrupulous companies, they might have been less inclined to give away pod systems.

As a kid I don't think value for money was the reason kids bought single cigarettes. 

No exactly. 
Some of these operations have already had their wings clipped for marketing via Snapchat TikTok etc. They create bold colours, youth-friendly names, even the flavour compositions, all built with a young caper in mind. 
Recently Elf was found to be over filling the tanks on disposables so consumers would experience more puffs. 
It’s pretty grim stuff. Contrast with products from tobacco companies (which are set up to stay responsible given the issues with tobacco in the past and because they are directly scrutinised), sensible names, moderate flavours, muted colours etc. It’s crying out for greater regulation. 

Folk across the globe have been using, enjoying, and, yes, sometimes harming themselves with alcohol since the dawn of civilisation. Is it really time ban it now or is that just an authoritarian streak coming through?