• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cigarette Sales to be restricted to over 21's

Status
Not open for further replies.

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,841
Location
Stirlingshire
I heard on the Radio that there is a proposal to increase the legal age for buying Cigarettes to the age of 21.

Something to do with a health initiative entitled "Smokefree England by 2030" - (fat chance of that)

Is this a sensible policy or the nanny state on steroids ?

A bit of a dichotomy being able to vote but not buy a packet of fags :?:
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

transportphoto

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Quizmaster
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Messages
5,575
Is it Australia or New Zealand introducing laws which prevent the current youth from ever being able to legally buy cigarettes and tobacco? I’d honestly rather such a policy being introduced here. There is never a healthy age to start smoking.
 

alxndr

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
1,694
Will it actually stop anyone? I started smoking at about 13, five years before the legal age. The law didn't work to stop me.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,730
Location
Scotland
Is this a sensible policy or the nanny state on steroids ?
There is zero health benefit to smoking tobacco, unlike drinking or even smoking marijuana, so anything that makes it harder to start is a good thing.

I rather like the "increasing age" idea - it doesn't stop those who already smoke from doing so, reduces future harm, and gives the tobacco companies time to adjust (or close down) in an orderly fashion.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,327
Location
Glasgow
Is it Australia or New Zealand introducing laws which prevent the current youth from ever being able to legally buy cigarettes and tobacco? I’d honestly rather such a policy being introduced here. There is never a healthy age to start smoking.
New Zealand, anyone currently 14 or younger will never legally be able to purchase any tobacco products in NZ.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,413
Location
Yorks
It would seem peculiar to be contemplating criminalising tobacco consumption at a time when we could conceivably be de-criminalising cannabis consumption.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,244
Location
UK
I'm against this, giving people information to make healthy choices is one thing, but it seems more and more that Public Health is about removing the right for people to choose.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,730
Location
Scotland
It would seem peculiar to be contemplating criminalising tobacco consumption at a time when we could conceivably be de-criminalising cannabis consumption.
There's already an age limit for purchasing tobacco, all that's being suggested is an increase to the limit.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,244
Location
UK
There's already an age limit for purchasing tobacco, all that's being suggested is an increase to the limit.
Do any other European nations have a limit of 21? Or will we be looked at in incredulity in the same way that we mock the US for it's 21 age for the purchase of alcohol?
 
Joined
9 Apr 2011
Messages
317
Location
Over there
Will it actually stop anyone? I started smoking at about 13, five years before the legal age. The law didn't work to stop me.

I started while in the last year of primary school. I saw a discarded packet on the path while walking home from school with a mate. We half-heartedly collected different cigarette packets in those days, so I picked it up. When we looked inside there were cigarettes still in the box; so we decided to hide in my dad's shed and try them.

They made us cough and choke, but the combination of doing something naughty and a brief light-headedness was something very different to our normal routine.

Fortunately I gave up about 15 years later, and have not had any for the last forty years or so, although a whiff of tobacco smoke does occasionally take me back.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
While I am a lifelong non-smoker and would absolutely never smoke, due to health risks that have I have been aware of since the age of about 8, I do feel this is an unnecessarily "big state" approach to tackle the problem.

Much better to reduce smoking by increasing the price/tax, as others have suggested. Or, more hard-hitting advertising campaigns.

Just seems like another attempt by the weakened and increasingly despised Boris Johnson to look good. "Look at me, I care, I am not a vain, egotistical amoral power freak, honest..."
 
Last edited:

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,327
Location
Glasgow
Do any other European nations have a limit of 21? Or will we be looked at in incredulity in the same way that we mock the US for it's 21 age for the purchase of alcohol?
It's 18 for purchase in every other country in Europe, except Switzerland where it varies by Canton (16 or 18).

In some countries (and Swiss Cantons), its also 18 for consumption, some countries have no age limit for consumption. In England and Wales for example, public consumption is permitted at 16. In Scotland not only is it a blanket 18 for puchase or consumption, but any tobacco products may be seized by the police from anyone they suspect to be under 18 or suspected of supplying to anyone under 18.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Just seems like another attempt by the weakened and increasingly despised Boris Johnson to look good. "Look at me, I care, I am not a vain, egotistical amoral power freak, honest..."
Just wait for Sturgeon to adopt this and claim they thought of it first. If anything I'm surprised they haven't yet.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,730
Location
Scotland
Do any other European nations have a limit of 21? Or will we be looked at in incredulity in the same way that we mock the US for it's 21 age for the purchase of alcohol?
I believe it is pretty uniform at 18 across Europe, but "Nobody else does it" is a terrible basis for legislation.

As an aside, the legal drinking age in the USA is a technically a matter reserved to the states, though Congress passed a law in the 1980s that means any state who doesn't set the age to 21 has a reduction in Interstate highway funding. Unsurprisingly, Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico didn't feel the need to increase the age from 18 to 21.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,244
Location
UK
I believe it is pretty uniform at 18 across Europe, but "Nobody else does it" is a terrible basis for legislation.
Equally, if we are deviating from the norms, we should have good reasons for it, and not simply the blinkered hyper fixation of those in public health.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,411
I thought our age was 16 but I'm obviously a bit behind on the current legislation!.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
As an aside, the legal drinking age in the USA is a technically a matter reserved to the states, though Congress passed a law in the 1980s that means any state who doesn't set the age to 21 has a reduction in Interstate highway funding.
So much for "small-state" America! ;)
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,541
Location
Taunton or Kent
Prohibition has a long history of being counterproductive, we saw with alcohol in the US, see it now with cannabis, and to an extent with tobacco in those under the age limit smoking it. What's needed is better education into the health and financial implications of said substances, and leave the age of majority as it is.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,413
Location
Yorks
There's already an age limit for purchasing tobacco, all that's being suggested is an increase to the limit.

There's also the reported suggestion of progressively increasing the age limit until some people can never legally purchase it. I agree it's unlikely to be adopted.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,730
Location
Scotland
Equally, if we are deviating from the norms, we should have good reasons for it, and not simply the blinkered hyper fixation of those in public health.
Smoking costs the publicly-funded health system considerably more than it provides in tax revenue and has zero health benefit. Increasing the age at which people can legally start smoking (as opposed to an outright ban) sounds reasonable to me.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,149
Location
Wilmslow
I'm instinctively against this proposal, and I do think in part it's Boris Johnson looking for something popular for his populist-but-unpopular government to do.
I feel that the line between childhood and adulthood is dreadfully blurred in a way it didn't use to be. I feel that 18 is a good age at which an individual should be considered an adult, reflected in the ability to enter into contracts for example, and that saying that someone aged 18 is an adult but can't buy cigarettes is silly. As others have said, it's unlikely to have much effect anyway.
We're heading down the route of the USA, in which an 18 year-old can buy all sorts of nasty weapons and can fight and be killed in the armed forces, but can't buy a beer in a bar.
I remember when I was 18 I wanted to be treated as an adult in all respects, with the problems and responsibilities that this implied.
Politicians go down the route of "we can do something, something has to be done" when it really doesn't.
Oh, and I've never smoked either, both my parents did, both of them gave up when I was a teenager, but I didn't need them or anyone else to stop me. I well remember buying cigarettes for my mother when she couldn't park the car well under the age of 16 even.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,411
Oh, and I've never smoked either, both my parents did, both of them gave up when I was a teenager, but I didn't need them or anyone else to stop me. I well remember buying cigarettes for my mother when she couldn't park the car well under the age of 16 even.
When i was quite young (under 11) in the very early 70s I remember my dad sending me to the shop for a "An ounce of Old Holborn and a packet of red papers".
 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,149
Location
Wilmslow
Smoking costs the publicly-funded health system considerably more than it provides in tax revenue and has zero health benefit. Increasing the age at which people can legally start smoking (as opposed to an outright ban) sounds reasonable to me.
I don't think it's necessarily "considerably more", however I read https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/ which estimates the revenue at £12 billion versus £14 billion cost trying to account for some indirect ramifications of smoking such as the cost of putting out fires caused by smoking.
Obviously £2 billion is a large amount of money, but at least in proportion it's talking about <20% extra cost compared to revenue.
Does smoking cost as much as it makes for the Treasury?

12 OCTOBER 2015


Do taxes on cigarettes bring in enough revenue to cover what smoking costs the government?

We know they bring in about £12 billion in direct tax revenues, although that doesn't count other contributions of the tobacco industry to total tax take (for instance income tax paid by employees).

And the cost side of this equation is even trickier to pin down.

Estimates suggest costs anywhere between £3 billion and £6 billion for NHS treatments in a given year. In the longer term the total cost might be lower, since some of those who die prematurely due to smoking might otherwise have gone on to cost the service even more money due to other health conditions.

NHS treatment isn't the only cost to the government, which spends money on things like sweeping up cigarette butts and putting out fires caused by cigarettes. It also loses tax revenue from lost productivity when people are made ill by smoking.

Conditions caused by smoking cost the NHS billions

The cost of treating smokers in England was estimated at £2.7 billion in 2006. That was made up of £1.2 billion spent on hospital treatment, £600 million on consultations with GPs and practice nurses, and £900 million on GP prescriptions.

That £2.7 billion would be worth about £3.2 billion today (adjusting using GDP deflators).

Other research put it as high as £5.2 billion in 2005/06 (about £6.2 billion today).

These studies suggest a range of between £3 and £6 billion costs to the NHS, but there's too much uncertainty in the estimates to rely on these bounds or place a more precise estimate between them.

None of this comes close to telling us what the NHS spends on smokers on top of what it would spend if they didn't smoke.

Imagine a patient in her 40s who is diagnosed with terminal cancer as a result of her smoking. Let's say her care costs the NHS £20,000 before she passes away. Now imagine we could go back in time and prevent her from taking up smoking in the first place. She might live into her 80s, and even if she spends that time in relatively good health is likely to require any number of GP consultations and routine prescriptions in that time.

If her treatment over these decades costs any more than £20,000 then actually the NHS would have spent less had she been a smoker.

This is just an example and isn't meant to reflect a typical case, although some research has suggested non-smokers have greater healthcare costs over time. It also takes a very narrow view of costs—there would also be economic costs to her premature death, which we deal with in the following section, as well as the very substantial personal cost to her and loved ones of her lost years of life and the suffering that comes with lung cancer.

The cost to the public purse is higher

While smoking has a direct impact on the NHS, it can also be said to have an indirect impact on society more widely (for instance, fire services need to be called out to incidents caused by smoking and ill health can result in lost productivity at work). The think tank Policy Exchange made an attempt in 2010 at quantifying the wider costs, coming up with a £14 billion total (including the £2.7 billion estimate of NHS costs).

This is even more uncertain an estimate since it's based on estimating lost economic output from workers dying early from smoking-related conditions (£4 billion) and even taking smoking breaks at work (£2.9 billion). That assumption has been criticised on the basis that it assumes smokers take more breaks than other workers.

As in the case of NHS costs, the net effect on the public purse might be smaller in the longer term. People dying earlier can reduce the state's spending on social care and pensions.

So the 'real' costs of smoking can go some way beyond admissions to hospital alone, although it's a mammoth task to put a number on this.

So is the Treasury clawing the money back?

Smokers will be all too familiar with the price of cigarettes, but perhaps not with how much of it is actually tax.

The typical price of a pack of 20 cigarettes was £7.13 in 2013, according to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Of this, a full £5.89 was tax, including tobacco duty and VAT. So 83% of the price of a pack went back to the Treasury.

Hand-rolling tobacco is less burdened by tax (71% goes to the Treasury) and cigars even less so (48%).

The government takes in a total of about £9.5 billion in tobacco duties, and the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has told us another £2.5 billion goes to the Treasury in VAT. So the Treasury is taking in about £12 billion directly from tobacco sales.

Even here, you could argue indirect benefits such as taxes from people employed in the tobacco industry and the contribution of tobacco sales to the economy as a whole could add to the Treasury's take. Again, that's where we go beyond the realm of fact and into very complicated and uncertain estimates.

Update 12 October 2015

This article replaces a previous version, published in November 2013, and includes the latest figures and other research we've been pointed to.

By Laura O'Brien, Joseph O'Leary
 

transportphoto

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Quizmaster
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Messages
5,575
Much better to reduce smoking by increasing the price/tax, as others have suggested. Or, more hard-hitting advertising campaigns.
What effect do we reckon that increasing price will have on consumption? I’d guess that the price elasticity of demand is quite low given the addictive nature of the product.
There's also the reported suggestion of progressively increasing the age limit until some people can never legally purchase it. I agree it's unlikely to be adopted.
Unlikely under the current government, but we need to do something. I’d hope that stricter measures on smoking will feature heavily on future manifestos - and would support a move similar to down under.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,741
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What effect do we reckon that increasing price will have on consumption? I’d guess that the price elasticity of demand is quite low given the addictive nature of the product.

Your first cigarette doesn't render you permanently addicted. Higher prices will affect how many take it up.

If you price cigarettes up and vape liquids down, even addicted people will switch. There is the danger of people just starting to vape from scratch, but I'm not sure it's that much of a danger in that it's massively less harmful. I'm addicted to caffeine without a doubt, but it doesn't really matter as it's not really harmful to the body. It's not a reason to start shutting down Starbucks.
 

Worm

Member
Joined
13 May 2020
Messages
106
Location
Manchester
I have a feeling the price of cigarettes is a far more effective obstacle.
A smoker will just spend less on essentials to keep going with smoking I suspect, alcoholics already do that while gambling addicts just take out more lines of credit.
 

Peter0124

Established Member
Joined
20 Nov 2016
Messages
2,753
Location
Glasgow
I'd be happy if smoking in public areas were banned altogether and instead only allowed in designated smoking spaces, don't like breathing that stuff in when passing by people. Though it would probably be difficult to actually ban it.
 
Last edited:

Phil56

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
199
Location
Rural NW England
Tax doesn't really work. It's easy for people to buy "duty free" cigarettes from "friends" in pubs etc if you are that way inclined - all you have to do is ask around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top