Cigarette Sales to be restricted to over 21's

[nw1]

I doubt it would be banned in my lifetime but I wouldn't rule it out very long term. It does cause a lot of problems and people are drifting slowly away from it, partly for health reasons and partly from the growth of religions which oppose it like Islam.

There are countries where it's effectively banned now if anyone wants to live in that context, of course.

It's fair enough being prohibited in some countries for religious reasons. I accept the bans in countries such as Saudi Arabia, for example, because it's a long-term part of their own culture.

However I would hope that the West is not drifting into what I would call "health authoritarianism" where any risk to health is increasingly clamped down on by legislation. It's perfectly possible to drink sensible amounts of alcohol without suffering bad consequences. Sensible alcohol drinking is part of the culture across much of Europe, should we impose prohibition on it?

Would governments who attempt to impose such prohibition have a serious chance of being voted in, in Europe and North America at least, where alcohol is a long term part of the culture?

I realise we are talking long-term but such actions are only going to increase the divisions and polarisation in society.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would governments who attempt to impose such prohibition have a serious chance of being voted in, in Europe and North America at least, where alcohol is a long term part of the culture?

I don't think it'd happen through imposition, short of a war resulting in a Muslim country invading and taking control of a non-Muslim country (or a less strict one).

However, opinions are slowly shifting. The idea of a smoking ban in pubs would have been unthinkable even in the 1990s. Young people are increasingly choosing not to start drinking. A "liquid lunch" was once a given in the City and now it's near unknown - people might go to a pub for a meal, but soft drinks would be much more usual.

 

[najaB]

I doubt it would be banned in my lifetime but I wouldn't rule it out very long term.

I can't see it happening. It's way too ingrained in culture generally.

It does cause a lot of problems and people are drifting slowly away from it, partly for health reasons and partly from the growth of religions which oppose it like Islam.

But equally, religions like Christianity use wine as part of their rituals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But equally, religions like Christianity use wine as part of their rituals.

Though (yay for some thread crossover) we are getting to the point where the number of active observers of Islam (i.e. those who attend a mosque most Fridays) is likely to be zooming past the number of active observers of Christianity (i.e. those who attend a church most Sundays). Which tips that balance rather.

Communion wine is largely irrelevant to people who don't go to church, which is the vast majority of nominal "Christians".

 

[najaB]

Though (yay for some thread crossover) we are getting to the point where the number of active observers of Islam (i.e. those who attend a mosque most Fridays) is likely to be zooming past the number of active observers of Christianity (i.e. those who attend a church most Sundays). Which tips that balance rather.

I'd be surprised if that's the case. Based on the 2010 Census 59.5% of people identify as Christian and 4.4% identify as Muslim. For mosque attendance to be "zooming past" church attendance would require less than 10% of self-identifying Christians to go to church while 100% of Muslims do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be surprised if that's the case. Based on the 2010 Census 59.5% of people identify as Christian and 4.4% identify as Muslim. For mosque attendance to be "zooming past" church attendance would require less than 10% of self-identifying Christians to go to church while 100% of Muslims do.

I would be very surprised if even 10% of people who called themselves Christian/CoE on a survey or Census went to church on a weekly basis (rather than just for weddings, funerals and maybe Christmas Eve carol service). I'd expect it to be far, far lower, maybe as low as 1%. "CoE" is just a default.

I'd love to see actual stats on it though.

 

[Phil56]

Please don't tell me your "healthier lifestyle" extends to a preference for Decaffeinated Coffee rather than the "real stuff"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2022 ==



Not to mention it's cost to the NHS and social problems it causes. Should alcohol and for that matter obesity linked foods be taxed to cover their cost to the NHS in the same manner everyone seems to be happy to advocate for smoking ?

Alcohol is already taxed with duty and VAT.

Catering (i.e. fast food), crisps, chocolate bars, fizzy drinks, etc all have 20% added VAT whereas "basic" foodstuffs such as fruit & veg, raw meat/fish, etc are VAT free. (Also the new sugary fizzy drink tax!).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2022 ==

You can, but some foods are very highly calorific compared to how much they sate, e.g. very sugary/fatty foods, and often unnecessarily so.

It is undoubtable that e.g. sweets and chocolate pose health problems, and taxing them wouldn't really cause issues to those who consume them only rarely, as one should, because it's only a small amount extra.

I think it's also fair to tax things that cost the NHS money to cover the cost to it. It's only the same idea as if we had private insurance the premiums would be higher for non-healthy eaters. Alcohol is highly taxed; to me the tax should cover NHS and policing costs resulting from it, though I have no idea if it already does or not.

Whilst I agree, you also have to look at the other side of the coin. People with health problems often die younger, so whilst there's a short term cost of treating them on the NHS, there's a longer term saving in not having to pay their pensions for a decade or two due to their shortened life expectancy.

 

[Peter0124]

I suppose there are problems with alcohol too, eg sickness on trains (probably caused by it) requiring a coach to be locked out of use, people that are rowdy on trains irritating passengers. I understand that not everyone who uses alcohol is like that though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose there are problems with alcohol too, eg sickness on trains (probably caused by it) requiring a coach to be locked out of use, people that are rowdy on trains irritating passengers. I understand that not everyone who uses alcohol is like that though.

Cigarettes mostly cause problems for the smoker or their family now that public indoor smoking is banned. Alcohol mostly causes problems for people other than the person consuming it, e.g. by way of public urination/vomiting or antisocial behaviour.

I do drink, but I do recognise why some might want it banned. In my eye the law's role is to protect people from the actions of others, and banning alcohol would certainly do that.

 

[najaB]

I would be very surprised if even 10% of people who called themselves Christian/CoE on a survey or Census went to church on a weekly basis (rather than just for weddings, funerals and maybe Christmas Eve carol service). I'd expect it to be far, far lower, maybe as low as 1%. "CoE" is just a default.

25.7% identified as "No religion" so I don't think it's just defaulting to CoE.

 

[Techniquest]

@Butts Don't worry, I still drink real coffee, at the time of my post I had not long consumed some and was feeling decaffeinated after a challenging morning. I do sometimes have 7 day challenges of no coffee, but not too often. I might be a (relative) health and fitness nut these days, but I cannot go with coffee for long. Tea, even the awesome Earl Grey, does not do the job as well! Coffee and biscuits is my main hook these days, I'd add chocolate to that list but I consume very little of it these days.

On which note, I'm slowly addressing my biscuits obsession too. Plenty of health reasons for doing so, but they're not the main drivers of fixing that! I managed to get my consumption of ice cream back down to the occasional treat, so I can do it with biscuits too!

Anyway, I think I have to agree that I'd consider hiking the price of unhealthy food to help inspire people to make better choices. Supermarkets seem to be doing that a lot anyway, my choice of biscuit has gone up by 12p a packet this year as it is!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like coffee, but tea seems to work much better in terms of perking me up without making me feel dehydrated and a bit over-acidic in my stomach.

 

[Butts]

Excessive consumption causes health problems, true. But @Butts was comparing them to smoking, where any consumption is detrimental to health.

Should that not say "may be" or do you know something the rest of us don't

I've been smoking for over 40 years and only had time off work once to have my tonsils removed over 35 years ago.

I doubt there's many non-smokers could match that record.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Whack the price up so the full cost to the NHS is covered, ban it in public (entirely including outdoors) and leave it at that. If people want to smoke themselves to death at home, their choice.

This is a sensible idea - the old 'harm principle' coming in handy.

 

[Dent]

ban it in public (entirely including outdoors) and leave it at that. If people want to smoke themselves to death at home, their choice.

That comes back to the point I made earlier, banning people from going outside to smoke would mean forcing them to smoke inside and the rest of their household to suffer from their smoke.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2022 ==

This is a sensible idea - the old 'harm principle' coming in handy.

Not really, why should anyone have to suffer second hand smoke because a smoker who wants to do the responsible things and smoke outside is banned from doing so?

 

[gabrielhj07]

Not really, why should anyone have to suffer second hand smoke because a smoker who wants to do the responsible things and smoke outside is banned from doing so?

The idea is that people should be allowed to smoke, provided they don't cause other people to have to endure it. Keeping it within the private home would allow this.

 

[Dent]

The idea is that people should be allowed to smoke, provided they don't cause other people to have to endure it. Keeping it within the private home would allow this.

If there are other people sharing that private home then it clearly wouldn't, it would make everyone else in that home suffer from their smoke.

 

[najaB]

Should that not say "may be" or do you know something the rest of us don't

To quote Cancer Research UK:

There is no safe level of smoking.

Smoking 1-10 cigarettes per day increases the risk of getting smoking-related cancers and other diseases.

Even smoking less than one cigarette per day is harmful. One study found that it significantly increases the risk of dying early compared with people who have never smoked.

The best thing you can do for your health is to stop smoking completely. Find out about how to stop smoking.

Source: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ab...er/how-does-smoking-cause-cancer#tobaccorefs0

The National Institute of Health:

Many Americans who’ve smoked cigarettes have been successful in their efforts to quit. But there’s some bad news for those who’ve settled for just cutting back: new evidence shows there’s no safe amount of smoking. One cigarette a day, or even less than that, still poses significant risks to your health.

A study conducted by NIH researchers of more than 290,000 adults between the ages of 59 and 82 found that those who reported smoking less than one cigarette per day, on average, for most of their lives were nine times more likely to die from lung cancer than those who never smoked. The outlook was even worse for those who smoked between one and 10 cigarettes a day. Compared to never-smokers, they faced a 12 times greater risk of dying from lung cancer and 1½ times greater risk of dying of cardiovascular disease.

Study Finds No Safe Level of Smoking

Many Americans who’ve smoked cigarettes have been successful in their efforts to quit. But there’s some bad news for those who’ve settled for just cutting back: new evidence shows there’s no safe a…

directorsblog.nih.gov

The World Health Organisation:

All forms of tobacco are harmful, and there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco. Cigarette smoking is the most common form of tobacco use worldwide. Other tobacco products include waterpipe tobacco, various smokeless tobacco products, cigars, cigarillos, roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco, bidis and kreteks.

I've been smoking for over 40 years and only had time off work once to have my tonsils removed over 35 years ago.

That still doesn't mean that you aren't less healthy than you could have been, nor that you will not develop a preventable cancer in the future.

 

[gabrielhj07]

If there are other people sharing that private home then it clearly wouldn't, it would make everyone else in that home suffer from their smoke.

This isn't a matter for regulation

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there are other people sharing that private home then it clearly wouldn't, it would make everyone else in that home suffer from their smoke.

Children are the challenge there, of course. You don't want them breathing it.

I would allow it in private gardens provided effort was made to avoid it going through peoples' windows, so not right next to the house.

 

[Dent]

This isn't a matter for regulation

It is the consequence of a regulation that some on here are advocating, and you claimed would be "sensible"

 

[gabrielhj07]

Overall, I think it would be sensible, as more people are likely to be affected by smoke in public than in private homes. As with anything, it's a trade off.

 

[Dent]

Children are the challenge there, of course. You don't want them breathing it.

I would allow it in private gardens provided effort was made to avoid it going through peoples' windows, so not right next to the house.

Not every household has a private garden.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2022 ==

Overall, I think it would be sensible, as more people are likely to be affected by smoke in public than in private homes. As with anything, it's a trade off.

Smoke outside had little if any effect on anyone as the smoke dissipates in the open air. Living in a confined space which is constantly full of smoke is far more harmful.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Smoke outside had little if any effect on anyone as the smoke dissipates in the open air. Living in a confined space which is constantly full of smoke is far more harmful.

Realistically, someone smoking alone, in open air cannot be said to be causing harm to anyone else. I was thinking more along the lines that a general ban on public smoking would include public buildings, and imporantly, public transport. (Remember when the tube used to be smoke-filled?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not every household has a private garden.

Best consider that when deciding to smoke.

Yes, you might be addicted, but you can vape or use patches instead. Smoking is not the only way to consume nicotine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2022 ==

Smoke outside had little if any effect on anyone as the smoke dissipates in the open air. Living in a confined space which is constantly full of smoke is far more harmful.

Walking through a cloud of fug outside the door of a pub is very unpleasant.

 

[najaB]

Walking through a cloud of fug outside the door of a pub is very unpleasant.

I agree it is unpleasant, but the public policy needs to be focused on reducing harm - and there's limited evidence to suggest that walking through a cloud of smoke outside a pub does any serious injury to health*.

*Asthmatics excluded.

 

[Dent]

Realistically, someone smoking alone, in open air cannot be said to be causing harm to anyone else. I was thinking more along the lines that a general ban on public smoking would include public buildings, and imporantly, public transport. (Remember when the tube used to be smoke-filled?)

These are all places where smoking is already banned. The suggestion was that smoking should be banned everywhere except in the confined space of a home where it would cause the whole household to suffer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree it is unpleasant, but the public policy needs to be focused on reducing harm

I fundamentally disagree. Public policy in all areas of legislation should be focused on reducing harm and inconvenience TO OTHERS. What an adult wilfully does to themselves is their own call provided vices are taxed to cover the financial cost to NHS, policing etc. I most vehemently oppose policy, beyond education, that seeks to control what an adult does to their own body.

It should be noted that the primary purpose of workplace health and safety legislation, for instance, is to protect employees from unscrupulous bosses by levelling the playing field so companies can't gain business by being cheaper by being unsafe.

 

[Dent]

I fundamentally disagree. Public policy in all areas of legislation should be focused on reducing harm and inconvenience TO OTHERS. What an adult wilfully does to themselves is their own call provided vices are taxed to cover the financial cost to NHS, policing etc. I most vehemently oppose policy, beyond education, that seeks to control what an adult does to their own body.

That would be a valid argument if you were proposing allowing smoking only where it does not harm others, but not if you are proposing allowing smoking only where it does cause harm to the whole household and banning it where it does no harm to anyone.

 

[najaB]

I fundamentally disagree. Public policy in all areas of legislation should be focused on reducing harm and inconvenience TO OTHERS.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. You brought up walking through smoke outside a pub as being unpleasant, I said that while it is unpleasant it's not something that public health policy should be focused on.

Either one of us has misunderstood the other's posts, or you objected to my post to say the same thing that I did.