Rishi Sunak is considering introducing some of the world’s toughest anti-smoking measures that would in effect ban the next generation from ever being able to buy cigarettes, the Guardian has learned.
Whitehall sources said the prime minister was looking at measures similar to those brought in by New Zealand last December. They involved steadily increasing the legal smoking age so tobacco would end up never being sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.
Creating a new illegal drug market.
In fairness, smoking tobacco is one of the few routes of administration where outlawing makes sense. The overall societal cost is very high, even for non-smokers, as in second-hand smokers and cigarette butts littering. It’s one of the few substances that health experts often recommend to make as unattractive as possible, be it through taxation or law.
I don’t really mind vaping or heating that much, I’d be fine with making cigarettes illegal while keeping the alternatives. Unfortunately, latest legislation has imposed higher burdens on the latter while doing jack about smoking.
Using the litter aspects of cigarettes as a reason to curb smoking has always been a tough one for me. Say someone quits smoking and takes up vaping. Now we have introduced plastic waste & to an extent e-waste in the form of batteries in the disposable vapes.
I don’t have an answer to it but I have at least thought about how there is no 100% environmentally friendly alternative outside of smoking straight tobacco leaf in rolling papers.
The “disposable” vapes are a different issue that needs to be tackled. I’m pretty sure that a meaningful deposit (5 or 10 euros) and the obligation for every seller to accept returns would solve the problem.
I mean smoking itself isn’t environmentally friendly. You’re taking all the nicotine and smashing it with oxygen, producing lots of carbon particulates including CO2 and CO - greenhouse gases. Yes, it’s only a tiny amount, but you don’t get that with vaping. With vaping you just extract whole molecules, rather than breaking things down, at least as long as the temperature is properly controlled.
A good vape should have next to no waste. The vape itself should not be disposable, and batteries should last a year minimum even with heavy use. That just leaves whatever container you get your liquid in, which wouldn’t be hard to recycle. Alternatively you could use a dry herb vape, along with pipe tobacco - but if we’re honest if you have a dry herb vape you’re probably not putting tobacco in it. You’re going to put in things like lavender and thyme, of course.
You can always ban disposable vapes? Requiring anyone that wants to vape to carry around those massive refillable batteries would do wonders to discourage people picking up the habit.
Using the litter aspects of cigarettes as a reason to curb smoking has always been a tough one for me.
Tell me you’ve never had to clean up after smokers without telling me you’ve never had to clean up after smokers.
You’re forgetting the harm from all the fires (house, grass, and forest) caused by smokers too.
I think a larger more unnoticed social harm is the damage it does to single payer/socialized medicine. When you only have one insurance pool every person receiving healthcare related to smoking is funding that could have gone to treating diseases that aren’t as easily preventable.
The same goes for things like diabetes, which is absolutely destroying medicare. Right now one out of every three medicare dollars are being used to treat a completely preventable disease for the vast majority of those inflicted with it.
I think that if you want to smoke or drink tons of soda, that’s fine. But we shouldn’t be lessening the scope of healthcare coverage for other people just because of your bad habits. Either the industry making the money needs to subsidize the healthcare cost of their consumers, or the consumers themselves need to do it.
At least over here, taxation on cigarettes offsets the direct cost caused by smoking according to experts. That’s why I left it out, I do believe you’re allowed to be stupid and smoke. But keep the damage to yourself and make sure non-smokers aren’t paying for it one way or another.
So yeah your demand is at least partially already reality over here.
“taxation on cigarettes offsets the direct cost caused by smoking”.
By about 25 percent. I calculated it a few years back combining the total US taxes on tobacco (state, federal and local) and comparing it to the Medicare expenditures on treating the percentage of lung cancer caused by tobacco smoking. This is actually pretty skewed against my claims since tobacco isn’t always smoked so the tax from smoking is smaller than the total tobacco tax revenue, Medicare only pays for a portion of the lung cancer treatments (since not everyone uses Medicare but the private insurance data isn’t as available), and this is only one albeit expensive aliment caused by tobacco smoking. So 25 percent is a generous estimate.
Long story short “sin taxes” don’t actually pay for anything, it’s a complete myth mostly promoted by people who want to use the product.
That becomes ammo against single payer, then. “If we get socialist medicine, they’ll bring back prohibition!”
I thought smokers ended up being cheaper for healthcare in the long run because they don’t live as long?
Smokers on average don’t die that much younger. But they do have a much less healthy end of life.
The life expectancy of male smokers, ex-smokers, and never-smokers at age 40 years was 38.5, 40.8, and 42.4 years respectively. In women, the corresponding life expectancies were 42.4, 42.1, and 46.1 years.
For-Profit healthcare is the scam here, not people drinking or smoking “too much,” whatever that means to you personally.
“the overall societal cost is high”
Just like every other drug. Everyone wants to legalise marijuana, ostensibly for the tax money (but not really), and yet it has far greater social costs than tax will recover. Even the states that legalise it (and consequently becoming tourist destinations) are not actually benefiting from it even though the “Las Vegas effect” means that they should disproportionately benefit from it.
For some. Some would ultimately quit and some would never start.
There can be some significant downside to a black market though. De-regulation could pose additional health risks to users as the product may be exposed to unknown and untested chemicals. Not to mention the additional violence and related crimes that always seem to accompany a black market. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol. Prohibition isn’t working for Weed. Why do we think it will work for nicotine?
I think a big part of the difference is that most people get addicted to cigarettes just by being around it, rather than seeking it out. Cigarettes don’t get you high/drunk (well OK, you get a small buzz early on, but nothing like weed or alcohol).
People will seek out weed even when it’s illegal because the risk is worth the reward (to them), because it comes with an intense high you can’t really get anywhere else. I don’t see nearly as many people seeking out cigarettes in the same way, unless they’re already hooked.
I don’t think it will “solve” the cigarette problem, but I do think that prohibition for cigarettes won’t go quite the same route as prohibition for weed and alcohol.
Now, whether I want the government to be able to ban recreational substances just because they think it’s bad (or use that as an excuse) is another question
I don’t think you’ve seen how many high schoolers have a crippling nicotine addiction already
Except we have cleaner alternatives in the form of vaping. This isn’t like prohibition where all alcoholic beverages were banned, or like drug prohibition where all narcotics and hallucinogens are only accessible for medical need.
If you need nicotine, you can still buy it. Just not in cigarette form.
Shittest high ever. Only people already hooked would be interested and they could buy it legally anyway.
you can make it illegal to sell and only a fine for getting caught. Major retailers won’t do it, cornershops(“/bodegas” for the US) that sell under the counter will do it until they get caught, new ones won’t bother because they want their business to be a success, and honestly, probably make more money on chewing gum than black market fags
nicotine high isn’t worth the effort to a dealer to sell if you’re used to selling fent, coke, weed, triple sod, clarky cat etc
gone within a generation. if you really want it, go to France, smuggle it. it’s probably not worth it.
deleted by creator
If they want to ban tobacco let them first legalise weed, acid, and psylocybin. That’d be a fair trade.
Why are cocaine fent oxy schedule 2?
All these progressively restrictive laws have been good to me. I’m of the generation who remembers smoking on planes, and my grandmother smoking in her hospital bed.
I was probably at two packs a day in the nineties because it was cheap and acceptable.
These days, a pack will last me a week, and I only ever smoke in my backyard at home, in clothing dedicated to the habit that get washed separately from my other clothes.
Bans and social stigma have forced me into near non-smoking without ever consciously trying.
Do I ever have an occasional night of celebratory drinking where I exceed that trend? You betcha, and I don’t feel sorry about it. But I’m glad that I’m not the chain smoking beef jerky with a voice three octaves lower than it should be that my grandparents were.
I still believe that people should be able to enjoy vice and that you shouldn’t be completely ostracized from society for not living a perfect organic free range fair trade intoxicant free perfectly vegan whatever else life.
But to phase out tobacco as it has been going, I have found that I haven’t minded at all in the long term.
(As to the occasional celebratory night, for completely different reasons, I hardly drink anymore. Also was not a conscious choice or effort. It just lost its attraction for me)
What’s a “progressively restrictive law”?
The first smoking bans were sections of airplanes
Then they were for domestic flights under two hours
Then they were for domestic flights
Then they were for all flights
The first restaurant bans were only the dining area
Then they included the bar area
Then they hit stand alone bars
The smoking bans you know today did not hit all at once. They got progressively more restrictive over a period of many years.
Back many many moons ago in the year 2008 I traveled to the great city Vancouver to see a friend. They took me to a venue to see a band and cigarette smoking wasn’t allowed.
But you bet your fucking ass there was plenty of people smoking weed. Which seems to be just fine…breathing in second hand smoke…which is the main reason these tabacco restrictions are in place.
EDIT
I don’t care if you smoke weed, only it has the same second hand smoke issue tabacco does and should follow the same rule.
I remember going to restaurants as a kid and being asked if we wanted the smoking or non-smoking section. It seems kind of surreal these days that this was ever a thing. I’m probably the last generation to remember indoor smoking.
A law that is slightly more restrictive than the last that will be followed by a slightly more restrictive law.
Tried going cold Turkey today, made it like 14 hours.
It’s the right thing to do. It’s a very hard addiction to escape. I know a guy who beat heroin and can’t beat nicotine.
It took me years to quit, I slowly cut cigs out of my daily activities.
Good on you! That’s awesome. thankfully I’m not inhaling anything anymore, but damn if it’s hard to quit the substance entirely. Big ups to everyone who made it out though.
Yeah its tough, just do your best and stick with it. Now my only nicotine is from a cigar a few times a year.
Nice, what type? I’m not a cigar guy, but if I ever encounter a Cohiba I’m going to try it.
Just random cigars from samplers like Rocky Patel, Oliva, Romeo y Julieta. Had a Cohiba my buddy brought back a while back. It was good but not mind blowing.
Didn’t he just say yesterday that he didn’t want the government to butt into people’s lives? I thought that was why he abandoned all those laws which didn’t exist. You know, the meat tax and the 7 bins xD
The (stopped?) trend in the US had been to tax cigs to make them unaffordable. Just before the last major hike, my brand was about $5/pack. Now it is $10-12. So glad I quit.
Is that a viable strategy, to continue tax/price hikes?
Did it stop you smoking? If so, then yes it worked.
Every 10% increase in cigarette tax results a 4% reduction in consumption among adults, and a 7% decrease amongst youth. Source
It was a minor motivator for me. Bigger ones were things like not dying and my son.
Interesting stats, thanks.
It’s a hella regressive tax though… and we know social ad campaigns actually work.
I went to Niagara Falls in 2004, and I was a little perplexed with the stop smoking campaign flyers attached to the back of individual cigarette packs (pictures of rotten teeth, black lung, etc.). Ended going over to New York to buy smokes because they were SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive and without the flyers.
I mean taxes change habits, there is no doubt about that. Some people quit, some people buy illegal cigarettes imported from the south, others buy Indian cigarettes, others stop smoking, some roll their own with pipe tobacco that no one has ever smoked In a pipe. But the ad campaigns worked surprisingly well for long term smoke cessation. They really did nip it in the butt
I was paying $14 a pack when I quit 6 weeks ago in NYS. The gum is working out great so far and I feel so much better. 17 years smoking regularly. They should be banned everywhere, sorry fellow smokers. It’s a disgusting, nasty habit that is incredibly hard to break.
Good for you! Enjoy your journey to better health!
I’ve been on zyns for a while now, my lungs do feel so much better. It’s hard to quit the substance, but it’s easier than ever to take it in without inhaling anything.
About bloody time. Cigarettes are disgusting and do nothing but immense harm to those who smoke them, and those around them.
Sunak is a tosser, but cigarettes are a no brainer. Sure, old boomers still smoke them, but only the dumbest young people still smoke, and most of them use e-cigs (which are still bad, but nowhere remotely near as bad).
Several of my grandparents died before I could ever know them because of smoking, for example. Fuck smoking. Smoking kills.
prohibition still doesn’t work
Alcohol is a bigger problem in the UK.
IMHO they should ban all types of smoking. If people want to eat weed brownies and nicotine chewing gums, I don’t care. But smoking just smells bad and is really unpleasant to be around in the street.
Just ban smoking drugs and combustion engine. I just want clean air.
Neither of those things are even like, the top 3 things that are stopping you from having clean air.
If he/she lives in Denver it is! lol
I don’t think that is realistic.
If you can make it literally easier than stuffing a wad in a pipe and burning then yay!!! Otherwise go back to the drawing board.
Yeah! Prohibition always works out flawlessly.
Living in a tolerant society means that we need to be willing to deal with these little inconveniences in our lives. One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning, sometimes I can smell people barbecuing even though I’m vegan, and so on.
As long as it’s not a direct risk to health (e.g. smoking indoors) and not extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down) people should be able to do what they want to.
One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning
As long as it’s not … extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down)
I’m not sure I see a meaningful difference here. And why is it you don’t see polluting the air to be a direct health risk? If you wanted to ride a bike or walk instead of drive everywhere, I’m sure you’d see how car exhaust doesn’t just disappear immediately.
I’m sure if I asked the parents of the kids if they could ask them to wait til after 9am to play on the go kart they probably would, I have a lower expectation of “polite” behaviour from kids and I don’t want to take their fun away from them, you’re only young once and I don’t really begrudge them it.
For vehicle exhaust, we’re basically already solving the problem by moving away from ICE vehicles, so I don’t see the reason in arguing about it.
Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can’t decide that the air pollution isn’t? Why do you get to make that decision for them, and just say “you have to deal with some problems in a tolerant society”?
For vehicle exhaust, we’re basically already solving the problem by moving away from ICE vehicles, so I don’t see the reason in arguing about it.
Because there’s more than one way of generating air pollution and some would argue that the transition isn’t happening fast enough, or even that transitioning to electric cars isn’t really a solution.
Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can’t decide that the air pollution isn’t?
My position is pretty simple: we should prioritise personal freedoms over personal preferences, as long as our actions are not significantly harmful to others, then there shouldn’t be any laws forbidding those actions.
Is OP harmed by someone smoking weed in the middle of nowhere? No. Yet they want to ban it. They said that there should be a ban on all kinds of smoking. Total authoritarian nonsense.
The car thing, there’s a reason I completely ignored that part of the comment, it is totally irrelevant to anything I wrote and I’m not going to engage with it, sorry.
as long as our actions are not significantly harmful to others, then there shouldn’t be any laws forbidding those actions.
But you’re not being consistent about what “significantly harmful” even means. Loud noises apparently counts, but only if you want it to. Air pollution doesn’t, even if you think it should.
Is OP harmed by someone smoking weed in the middle of nowhere?
To be fair, they specifically said “smoking just smells bad and is really unpleasant to be around in the street”, so presumably they only really care about the ban when it’s near other people and would be enforceable in the first place. So if no one’s around, do what you want, but near other people you shouldn’t smoke. That goes along rather neatly with your ‘personal freedoms so long as there isn’t harmful to others.’
It’s nothing to do with “me”, it’s more to do with reality. There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues. Likewise, yes, air pollution also does. But we’re not talking about coal power plants here, we’re talking about people smoking cigarettes. There’s tons of evidence which shows that they are essentially harmless to others if smoked outdoors. That’s why preventing people from getting sleep matters, but smoking outdoors does not.
I’m not going to engage with the other thing you wrote, except to say that OP said that smoking should be banned with no additional qualifiers, in my view, everything else they wrote was explaining why they felt that way. I’m not going to argue that point though, because it’s not relevant.
Lung Cancer for Me but not Thee!
Typical, have your fun then pull up the ladder on the next generation!!!
If they don’t outlaw ALL nicotine products it wont work.
Nicotine while addictive is not what causes most of the health issues associated with smoking.
Yes, but it is a drug with very little upside. It is more addictive than caffeine and produces an incredibly short and mild effect, in comparison. The vasoconstriction is not worth the very mild buzz from nicotine.
How so? If they outlawed hard liquor but not beer or wine, don’t you think just about everyone would switch to whatever is legal?
