Cigarette Sales to be restricted to over 21's

[jfollows]

I'd be happy if smoking in public was banned altogether, don't like breathing that stuff in when passing by people. Though it would probably be difficult to actually ban it.

I agree with the sentiment, but isn't the reality that you hardly ever encounter cigarette smoke these days? Or do you find otherwise? The only real problem I encounter is people lurking outside buildings and smoking, because they're not able to smoke inside the buildings, and I find that medical staff are especially guilty of this outside hospitals, you'd have thought they might have known better.
I mean, memories are fading but the need to cut through a fog of smoke regularly in daily life just doesn't seem to happen any more. Aircraft were horrible, I remember, not least if you found yourself in a non-smoking row but immediately in front of a smoking one .....

 

[XAM2175]

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.

This is possible, but not necessarily across all smokers. If I recall correctly some of the recent studies done on minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland, the results suggested that while highly-addicted drinkers were indeed likely to reduce spending in other areas (including essentials), the policy did appear to have reduced the overall amount of alcohol consumed by discretionary drinkers across the population. I'm fairly sure it was also correlated with a reduction in alcohol-related deaths and a reduction in hospital admissions resulting from alcohol-related liver conditions.

 

[Butts]

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.

The brand I smoke are Benson & Hedges Gold which retail for well north of £14 per packet. This is a premium product cheaper types are available for around £9 packet.

On qualifying BA Flights they are £82 for 400 or just over £4 per packet Duty Free.

Until we left the EU you could legally purchase as many as you liked in normal shops abroad as long as they were paid for, transported by and for personal consumption by you. I used to get mine in Luxembourg where they were about £5 per packet.

If you do the maths a £90 / £100 sleeve saving quickly makes a "fag run" economically viable even for an individual and gave you a nice day out somewhere as well.

Leaving the EU technically shut the door on this but there are ways and means.

4000 B&H Gold at £5 per packet was a far better benefit than 200 at £4 per packet the renewed Duty Free allowance permits.

 

[Snow1964]

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.

The law might not have stopped you, but verbal bullying would have done where I grew up, anyone who started smoking was called a poof (and some more colourful terms, that I wont repeat here as nowadays are unacceptable racist and homophobic terms). But I was at secondary school in late 1970s and by then smoking was seen as showing you weren’t a real man.

Nowadays would support a ban on before 21, but rather than fine the individual, would withdraw the retailers licence to sell or stock them, if caught selling to under age for at least a year.

 

[Techniquest]

I'd be happy if smoking in public was banned altogether, don't like breathing that stuff in when passing by people. Though it would probably be difficult to actually ban it.

I'll second that. I don't even have to be passing smokers to smell it, the smoking shelter (not well used by those so inclined either, they all sit on the tables originally allocated to non-smokers) at work is so near the staff entrance that the smell wafts in whenever the door is opened, and said smell lurks for ages. Never mind the interaction with those people who smoke, jeepers that's not pleasant.

Banning it in public would be a good idea, to begin with maybe we should have it only permitted in very selective areas. Anyone caught puffing away outside said areas gets fined. Obviously upgrading to a full outdoors ban would be required, but let's consider not being too draconian to begin with.

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.

Agreed. Plenty of people I work/live with buy their cigarettes from people who buy them abroad and sell them on cheap. 5 packets of 20 for £20 kind of deals, hardly a secret anywhere, so I dread to think how much more the Treasury would make off smoking if everyone only bought cigarettes in the correct manner.

Someone else commented about people simply cutting out other essentials to fund their addiction, and yes that is exactly what happens. So increasing the price only works so far, although I am also hugely in favour of such a scheme.

I'm also hugely in favour of putting the legal age up on it, I'd be tempted to be in support of putting the legal age of alcohol consumption up to 21 as well.

 

[nw1]

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.

Is banning it outdoors necessary, unless in a crowded environment? Plenty of fresh air and circulation of that air would mean that the risk of passive smoking would be much less likely.

 

[najaB]

I'm also hugely in favour of putting the legal age up on it, I'd be tempted to be in support of putting the legal age of alcohol consumption up to 21 as well.

I don't think that there's a need to increase the legal age for alcohol consumption. Alcohol can be and is enjoyed safely before the age of 21 - consider France where it's very common for children to be given watered-down wine with their meals from an early age.

I do agree that the sale of alcohol to minors should continue to be prohibited though (with the sensible exception of families in restaurants).

 

[Techniquest]

Is banning it outdoors necessary, unless in a crowded environment? Plenty of fresh air and circulation of that air would mean that the risk of passive smoking would be much less likely.

I'd say it's maybe not highly necessary, but it would be a good way to discourage people from it.

Mind you, can you imagine the fallout from a large number of people in the retail, catering and care industries? Just three industries I can think of with significant amounts of smokers (based on my observations and experience, obviously not everyone smokes) who would struggle to adjust. No smoking indoors and with a ban on it outdoors means technically no smoking at work at all. Ooh the irritation they would suffer would make them difficult to work with!

I don't think that there's a need to increase the legal age for alcohol consumption. Alcohol can be and is enjoyed safely before the age of 21 - consider France where it's very common for children to be given watered-down wine with their meals from an early age.

I do agree that the sale of alcohol to minors should continue to be prohibited though (with the sensible exception of families in restaurants).

I can see it being considered in the future though. Right now, yes I would agree that it isn't the biggest concern healthwise. I certainly feel that if the days of 'pay one price for unlimited drinks all night' (and yes I just about remember those in the early 2000s) had been allowed to continue things could be very different now.

I'd consider doing a Wales and using minimum pricing, I see and hear of people driving from Cardiff to Hereford just because they can save money on their alcohol. Never mind how it cost them in fuel, such people are blind to that!

As for the cigarette age, I certainly think it could go up and we would do well to follow the lead of New Zealand.

 

[Yew]

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.

Could you provide sources for those assertions? And what does "Zero health benefit" have to do with anything? Are our only purpose of our lives to be pawns for narrow minded public health specialists and their KPI's?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2022 ==

This is possible, but not necessarily across all smokers. If I recall correctly some of the recent studies done on minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Scotland, the results suggested that while highly-addicted drinkers were indeed likely to reduce spending in other areas (including essentials), the policy did appear to have reduced the overall amount of alcohol consumed by discretionary drinkers across the population. I'm fairly sure it was also correlated with a reduction in alcohol-related deaths and a reduction in hospital admissions resulting from alcohol-related liver conditions.

So a policy designed to reduce problem drinking doesn't reduce problem drinking? Surely that should count as an objective failure of the policy?

 

[Techniquest]

I think the point they made is that it helped bring the problem more under control, but the highly addicted will still find a way to get their fix, at the cost of other things. Not a whole ton of anything that can be done about that part of the human logic and reasoning!

 

[jfollows]

Could you provide sources for those assertions? And what does "Zero health benefit" have to do with anything? Are our only purpose of our lives to be pawns for narrow minded public health specialists and their KPI's?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2022 ==


So a policy designed to reduce problem drinking doesn't reduce problem drinking? Surely that should count as an objective failure of the policy?

I tried to answer your first question in #24

 

[Dent]

I'd be happy if smoking in public was banned altogether, don't like breathing that stuff in when passing by people. Though it would probably be difficult to actually ban it.

To clarify, are you suggesting that people who live with children or other nonsmokers should be banned from going outside to smoke (the responsible thing to do), and instead forced to smoke inside and expose everyone they live with to their smoke?

 

[Peter0124]

To clarify, are you suggesting that people who live with children or other nonsmokers should be banned from going outside to smoke (the responsible thing to do), and instead forced to smoke inside and expose everyone they live with to their smoke?

I didn't think of that actually! No, what I meant to suggest is instead there should be designated smoking areas for people outside, rather than people smoking in public areas eg entrances to stations, on open platforms, but in my opinion smoking needs to be gradually phased out over a number of decades and eventually banned completely then.

It wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't affect myself and make me feel annoyed when I walk past people smoking near station entrances, is it harmful to myself to breathe it in or should I just accept it? Always find myself coughing afterwards too, why? Am I worrying about this too much?

 

[XAM2175]

So a policy designed to reduce problem drinking doesn't reduce problem drinking? Surely that should count as an objective failure of the policy?

I think the point they made is that it helped bring the problem more under control, but the highly addicted will still find a way to get their fix, at the cost of other things. Not a whole ton of anything that can be done about that part of the human logic and reasoning!

Yes, as @Techniquest put it. Personal opinions may vary, but the definition of "problem drinking" from a public health perspective is a bit wider than just hardened alcoholics.

It wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't affect myself and make me feel annoyed when I walk past people smoking near station entrances, is it harmful to myself to breathe it in or should I just accept it? Always find myself coughing afterwards too, why? Am I worrying about this too much?

I actually don't know the exact rules here, but in some countries smoking outdoors is regulated in such a way that it's prohibited within a certain distance of entrances to public buildings and workplaces and the like - which seems to me to be a reasonably proportionate response assuming it can be effectively enforced.

 

[PeterC]

I actually don't know the exact rules here, but in some countries smoking outdoors is regulated in such a way that it's prohibited within a certain distance of entrances to public buildings and workplaces and the like - which seems to me to be a reasonably proportionate response assuming it can be effectively enforced.

Which seems like a proportionate response to me. Once a person reaches adulthood they should be entitled to make their own choices. If 18 is too young to smoke then it's too young to vote or buy alcohol.

 

[Butts]

I'll second that. I don't even have to be passing smokers to smell it, the smoking shelter (not well used by those so inclined either, they all sit on the tables originally allocated to non-smokers) at work is so near the staff entrance that the smell wafts in whenever the door is opened, and said smell lurks for ages. Never mind the interaction with those people who smoke, jeepers that's not pleasant.

Banning it in public would be a good idea, to begin with maybe we should have it only permitted in very selective areas. Anyone caught puffing away outside said areas gets fined. Obviously upgrading to a full outdoors ban would be required, but let's consider not being too draconian to begin with.



Agreed. Plenty of people I work/live with buy their cigarettes from people who buy them abroad and sell them on cheap. 5 packets of 20 for £20 kind of deals, hardly a secret anywhere, so I dread to think how much more the Treasury would make off smoking if everyone only bought cigarettes in the correct manner.

Someone else commented about people simply cutting out other essentials to fund their addiction, and yes that is exactly what happens. So increasing the price only works so far, although I am also hugely in favour of such a scheme.

I'm also hugely in favour of putting the legal age up on it, I'd be tempted to be in support of putting the legal age of alcohol consumption up to 21 as well.

Welcome to North Korea

If I recall correctly are you not an ex-smoker ?

Strange how righteous and illiberal they tend to be on quitting said habit compared to people who have never smoked.

 

[Phil56]

Is banning it outdoors necessary, unless in a crowded environment? Plenty of fresh air and circulation of that air would mean that the risk of passive smoking would be much less likely.

It's not just health risks though. It's the general unpleasantness of the smell/smoke. Even outdoors it's not pleasant to have to walk through the fog at building entrances, or to be eating/drinking outside when there are smokers on the next table where unless it's windy, you do get a fair dose of smoke. I can smell it on my clothes afterwards! Likewise if you're in a meeting, not pleasant if you get sat next to a smoker as you suffer the lingering smell off their clothes and breath if they've been out for a quick fag before the meeting!

 

[Eyersey468]

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.

My stepdaughter was about 14 when she started smoking so no I suspect it won't stop people. I am a lifelong non smoker

 

[Techniquest]

Welcome to North Korea

If I recall correctly are you not an ex-smoker ?

Strange how righteous and illiberal they tend to be on quitting said habit compared to people who have never smoked.

I am, and yes I have a very different set of morals and ethics these days. Quitting was by far one of the best things I ever did, I'd be very happy to see less people start and get hooked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am, and yes I have a very different set of morals and ethics these days. Quitting was by far one of the best things I ever did, I'd be very happy to see less people start and get hooked.

I think it is generally true that those who have given up are "harder line" on smoking than those of us who (like me) never started.

 

[Techniquest]

I think it is generally true that those who have given up are "harder line" on smoking than those of us who (like me) never started.

I have to agree, I think a lot of that is down to the fact those who have quit have experienced what it's like and how much nicer things are since the magical day of quitting. Those who never started haven't got that experience, so there's a different level of understanding I guess.

 

[Butts]

sIt's not just health risks though. It's the general unpleasantness of the smell/smoke. Even outdoors it's not pleasant to have to walk through the fog at building entrances, or to be eating/drinking outside when there are smokers on the next table where unless it's windy, you do get a fair dose of smoke. I can smell it on my clothes afterwards! Likewise if you're in a meeting, not pleasant if you get sat next to a smoker as you suffer the lingering smell off their clothes and breath if they've been out for a quick fag before the meeting!

Amazing what short memories people have. Smokers were kicked out of just everywhere inside and now you want to extend that to outside as well ?

Is it not enough that Aircraft, Trains, Taxis, Bus and Coaches, Restaurants, Pubs, Cinemas and numerous other places are not now available to smokers.

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

I have to agree, I think a lot of that is down to the fact those who have quit have experienced what it's like and how much nicer things are since the magical day of quitting. Those who never started haven't got that experience, so there's a different level of understanding I guess.

Tolerance is the word I'd use

 

[alxndr]

Banning alcohol would probably do far more to stop people starting smoking to be honest. A lot of people begin as "social smokers", especially young people, and that ends up creeping into their sober life as well until they're full blown smokers.

I don't typically drink or smoke any more (but do vape), and feel far stronger about having a less alcohol focused society than I do smoking to be honest.

 

[Techniquest]

Tolerance may be a better choice of word, I'm on break at work so I haven't really chosen my words too carefully. Tired and decaffeinated brain currently!

 

[Butts]

Tolerance may be a better choice of word, I'm on break at work so I haven't really chosen my words too carefully. Tired and decaffeinated brain currently!

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 ==

Banning alcohol would probably do far more to stop people starting smoking to be honest. A lot of people begin as "social smokers", especially young people, and that ends up creeping into their sober life as well until they're full blown smokers.

I don't typically drink or smoke any more (but do vape), and feel far stronger about having a less alcohol focused society than I do smoking to be honest.

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 ?

 

[najaB]

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 highly taxed and people have to eat - and there's no such thing as a "obesity linked food". You can get fat eating just about anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Alcohol is already highly taxed and people have to eat - and there's no such thing as a "obesity linked food". You can get fat eating just about anything.

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.

 

[najaB]

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.

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

 

[nw1]

Banning alcohol would probably do far more to stop people starting smoking to be honest. A lot of people begin as "social smokers", especially young people, and that ends up creeping into their sober life as well until they're full blown smokers.

I would hope that banning alcohol would never even be contemplated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would hope that banning alcohol would never even be contemplated.

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.