Generational Smoking Bans

[GusB]

Just had another thought, I'm sure they came in something that looked near enough like a cigarette packet.

They did! I well remember having "sweetie fags" as a kid; thankfully they're long gone.

 

[rapmastaj]

Looking at the BBC report about this (link), it seems one problem could be that this bill simply isn't yet sufficiently advanced in its journey through the various Parliamentary procedures to stand much chance of being completed before Parliament is dissolved for the election.



I would also surmise that the Tories would also be reluctant to try to push through something that many Tory MPs are likely to vote against: A split party is not a good look just before the election. Must be disappointing for Sunak though as the reports seemed to be that he wanted this legislation to be one of his legacies.

Thank god we won't have to put up with Sunak for much longer. Prohibition and the war on drugs have been fairly widely recognised as disastrous, and more sensible countries are generally moving towards cannabis legalisation / decriminalisation. So going in the complete opposition direction and banning tobacco really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[gg1]

They even had a red end(!) I can remember pretending to ‘smoke’ them like real cigarettes.

There exists a picture of me aged 3 doing exactly that

I also remember beer glass shaped gummy sweets which did actually taste of beer.

 

[Howardh]

Thank god we won't have to put up with Sunak for much longer. Prohibition and the war on drugs have been fairly widely recognised as disastrous, and more sensible countries are generally moving towards cannabis legalisation / decriminalisation. So going in the complete opposition direction and banning tobacco really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If this ban went ahead, would that also apply to anyone "underage" who would be legally entitled to buy tobacco at the point of departure bringing it in to the UK for their own consumption? Thinking if I were 18, subject to this "ban" I could circumnavigate by having several foreign holidays and using duty-free? Also would someone in NI be able to simply cross the border and buy legitimately??

 

[jfollows]

If this ban went ahead, would that also apply to anyone "underage" who would be legally entitled to buy tobacco at the point of departure bringing it in to the UK for their own consumption? Thinking if I were 18, subject to this "ban" I could circumnavigate by having several foreign holidays and using duty-free? Also would someone in NI be able to simply cross the border and buy legitimately??

No, it’s a ban on purchase rather than a ban on use, you don’t bypass it by buying elsewhere, it’s simply not in the scope of the bill.
Post 54 and others above.

 

[philthetube]

They even had a red end(!) I can remember pretending to ‘smoke’ them like real cigarettes.

Thankfully I’ve never turned to smoking, apart from a few drags in the old school toilets. Getting caught and receiving the cane soon put a stop to my smoking life.

Also available were paper fags with a powder inside which you could blow through and "smoke" came out.

 

[Howardh]

Also available were paper fags with a powder inside which you could blow through and "smoke" came out.

Early vapes? 2024 and we're at the situation where people carry small tubes around with them all day and suck/blow out of them.

 

[jfollows]

Labour will include reintroduction of the legislation in its manifesto, it is reported.

x.com

x.com

The smoking ban is not dead, merely resting. It will appear in Labour manifesto, @theipaper understands, while Sunak would make it a priority if Tories re-elected.

 

[Yew]

Labour will include reintroduction of the legislation in its manifesto, it is reported.

x.com

x.com

So no effort on student fees, and illiberal generational bans on smoking, Starmer is looking more and more like a Conservative PM in all but (party) name.

 

[Trackman]

Early vapes? 2024 and we're at the situation where people carry small tubes around with them all day and suck/blow out of them.

No, it was a joke thing for kids in the 70's at least. Gawd knows what would happen to you if you actually inhaled them.

 

[takno]

No, it was a joke thing for kids in the 70's at least. Gawd knows what would happen to you if you actually inhaled them.

It's only chalk dust. You can't get cancer from something innocuous like that...

 

[Trackman]

It's only chalk dust. You can't get cancer from something innocuous like that...

Always wondered what it was.

 

[AY1975]

Labour will include reintroduction of the legislation in its manifesto, it is reported.

x.com

x.com

Indeed, and it was also mentioned in the King's Speech.

I suppose a compromise solution could be to require everyone who wants to buy tobacco to have a tobacco permit, and to get one you would either have to do a breath test to prove that you are already addicted, or if you're not already a nicotine addict but want to become one, you would have to sit a written test where you'd have to answer various questions on the dangers of both active and passive smoking (and the addictive nature of tobacco). That way, adults would still have the right to choose whether or not they wanted to smoke but only after thinking about it properly.

I believe that in some parts of India (and maybe some other Asian countries) you can only buy alcohol if you are a non-Muslim western tourist and have a liquor permit, so it would be more or less the same principle (except that there you don't have to sit a test to get such a permit).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

So no effort on student fees, and illiberal generational bans on smoking, Starmer is looking more and more like a Conservative PM in all but (party) name.

Bit like Blair in 1997 then?

 

[RailWonderer]

You might reduce lung cancer but dementia will rise as people are living longer and will have to die of something, which will become something long and protracted which may take up more NHS resources and will be a problem. Dementia and alzheimers has surged in recent decades since people started living longer.

The NHS really needs to be means tested Australian style and only available to citizens or taxpayers (with a grace period for a non-UK citizen who has stopped paying tax). This would have been better than a generational ban, which seems a bit over the top.

 

[takno]

You might reduce lung cancer but dementia will rise as people are living longer and will have to die of something, which will become something long and protracted which may take up more NHS resources and will be a problem. Dementia and alzheimers has surged in recent decades since people started living longer.

The NHS really needs to be means tested Australian style and only available to citizens or taxpayers (with a grace period for a non-UK citizen who has stipped paying tax). This would have been better than a generational ban, which seems a bit over the top

The NHS needs no such thing. It wouldn't save any money or lives. My opposition to poorly-conceived smoking bans should never been taken as support for ridiculous and extremist views on healthcare funding

 

[RailWonderer]

The NHS needs no such thing. It wouldn't save any money or lives. My opposition to poorly-conceived smoking bans should never been taken as support for ridiculous and extremist views on healthcare funding

Fair point but surely just means testing on its own is sensible - where national insurance goes up for higher earners until at a certain point, no NHS care is covered. For people earning six figures it's surely fair to ask them to pay for their own health care out of pocket. You'd have a growing private health care sector which will attract well paid doctors and nurses and will prevent flight of medical staff abroad while the NHS would be less pressured.

 

[jfollows]

I think more and more people on high salaries are already paying for their own health care by going to private hospitals and private GPs. There’s one of the latter about 100y from my house, for example. The “growing private health care sector” already exists.

 

[takno]

Fair point but surely just means testing on its own is sensible - where national insurance goes up for higher earners until at a certain point, no NHS care is covered. For people earning six figures it's surely fair to ask them to pay for their own health care out of pocket. You'd have a growing private health care sector which will attract well paid doctors and nurses and will prevent flight of medical staff abroad while the NHS would be less pressured.

No chance. Why on earth would reasonably wealthy people bother hanging around and paying their taxes if they get literally nothing out of the government? You lose an insane amount of goodwill and all community spirit, and you gain absolutely nothing. It's a completely stupid notion.

 

[RailWonderer]

No chance. Why on earth would reasonably wealthy people bother hanging around and paying their taxes if they get literally nothing out of the government? You lose an insane amount of goodwill and all community spirit, and you gain absolutely nothing. It's a completely stupid notion.

We all pay for public services we won't use. Anybody who works contributes towards welfare they won't get because they aren't unemployed or disabled. Seeing as the UK refuses to drill for oil and gas and set up a sovreign wealth fund it's mostly dependant on taxing the mid-high band earners even more heavily becuase that seems to be the only way they think they can fund anything.

 

[GardenRail]

I don't smoke, but I don't support banning it either. What next..... Beer? Chips? Sweets.....?
I do quite like the smell of it though......

 

[JamesT]

We all pay for public services we won't use. Anybody who works contributes towards welfare they won't get because they aren't unemployed or disabled. Seeing as the UK refuses to drill for oil and gas and set up a sovreign wealth fund it's mostly dependant on taxing the mid-high band earners even more heavily becuase that seems to be the only way they think they can fund anything.

I would suggest the bureaucracy required for means testing might cost you more than saved from not treating higher earners on the NHS. See the US healthcare ‘system’ which manages to spend far more of their GDP on healthcare than other developed countries but doesn’t get the same results.

 

[takno]

I would suggest the bureaucracy required for means testing might cost you more than saved from not treating higher earners on the NHS. See the US healthcare ‘system’ which manages to spend far more of their GDP on healthcare than other developed countries but doesn’t get the same results.

Not to mention that most of the money is spent on retired people who are massively less likely to earn over the threshold, and even for people who aren't retired, expensive chronic sickness is very often rapidly followed by falls in income.

 

[Bald Rick]

For people earning six figures it's surely fair to ask them to pay for their own health care out of pocket.

People earning six figures pay progressively more of their income as tax, so arguably pay more for all government services, including healthcare. According to Parliament stats, those in the top 10% of income pay over a third of all income tax collected, and over 60% of all taxes. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/ (way too much to quote)

 

[takno]

People earning six figures pay progressively more of their income as tax, so arguably pay more for all government services, including healthcare. According to Parliament stats, those in the top 10% of income pay over a third of all income tax, and over 60% of all taxes. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/ (way too much to quote)

Agreeed. The marginal rate of income tax between 100k and 125k in Scotland is almost 70% already, I don't think adding another massive bill onto the list is even in the general area of "the least they could do"

 

[Tetchytyke]

People earning six figures pay progressively more of their income as tax, so arguably pay more for all government services, including healthcare. According to Parliament stats, those in the top 10% of income pay over a third of all income tax collected, and over 60% of all taxes.

This is the thing a lot of people forget.

Here [ETA: in the Isle of Man] we have an elective tax cap, where a rich person can agree to pay £200,000 per year in income tax irrespective of their income. They have to agree to do it for five years, after which they either renew the tax cap for another five years or the cap is removed. This means that, as a percentage of their income, their tax will be much lower than mine.

However I earn £50,000 a year and at current tax rates here [ETA: in the Isle of Man] it would take me around 25 years to pay £200,000 in income tax. So in two years that rich person has paid the same amount of tax as I will in my entire working life. In terms of paying for stuff, you can see what's more important for the government.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is the thing a lot of people forget.

Here we have an elective tax cap, where a rich person can agree to pay £200,000 per year in income tax irrespective of their income. They have to agree to do it for five years, after which they either renew the tax cap for another five years or the cap is removed. This means that, as a percentage of their income, their tax will be much lower than mine.

However I earn £50,000 a year and at current tax rates here it would take me around 25 years to pay £200,000 in income tax. So in two years that rich person has paid the same amount of tax as I will in my entire working life. In terms of paying for stuff, you can see what's more important for the government.

Interesting.

For clarity for some readers who may not be aware - “here” for @Tetchytyke is the Isle of Man, which not being part of the United Kingdom can (and does) have its own tax arrangements.

 

[Horizon22]

Bit like Blair in 1997 then?

Labour have never been that liberal even if they are more to the left/centre-left of the economic spectrum - there's the Liberal Democrats who challenge them on that and did so quite effectively in the mid 2000s, so might be able to do so again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2024 ==

People earning six figures pay progressively more of their income as tax, so arguably pay more for all government services, including healthcare. According to Parliament stats, those in the top 10% of income pay over a third of all income tax collected, and over 60% of all taxes. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/ (way too much to quote)

There's also various marginal tax issues at the child benefit threshold at £100K threshold. Obviously people on such wages are reasonably well-off, but they shouldn't necessarily be ignored.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Interesting.

For clarity for some readers who may not be aware - “here” for @Tetchytyke is the Isle of Man, which not being part of the United Kingdom can (and does) have its own tax arrangements.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Our income tax rates are lower than in the UK:
The first £14,500 is tax-free*;
The next £6,500 is taxed at 10%;
The remainder is taxed at 22% (which has just increased from 20% in April 2024.

Married couples can pool their individual allowances into a joint allowance (helpful if one partner doesn't work/has a low income) and there are additional tax-free allowances for single parents.

* This tax-free allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 that someone earns over £100,000, which increases their marginal tax rate. This is a new development too.

Possibly drifting off topic though...

As for banning smoking because it costs the NHS money and is bad for your health, it's a very slippery slope. Chips are bad for your health and obesity costs the NHS money, shall we ban them? It's expensive piecing someone back together after they've fallen off a motorbike. And so on and so on and so on.

It's an article from 2001, but the BBC reported that over 6,000 people a year are injured by their trousers, shall we ban trousers?

BBC News | HEALTH | Home hazards injure thousands

Nearly 6,000 people were hurt after tripping over their trousers or falling down stairs while pulling them up.

And 10,773 are hurt each year in accidents involving socks and tights: Many trip over the items and children sometimes wrap them round their necks, strangling themselves.

I don't like smoking, I don't understand why anyone would do it, but banning it is a very very stupid idea. The UK's drug dealers must be rubbing their hands with glee at the idea though.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I don't like smoking, I don't understand why anyone would do it, but banning it is a very very stupid idea. The UK's drug dealers must be rubbing their hands with glee at the idea though.

Correct. You just create a black market and more wasting of police time.