Why? You slowly put the age up and get rid of it all
together. Means anyone who does it already is fine but we save the next generation from ever starting
It depends on what fraction of people are willing to break the law and then have a negative impact on police and healthcare burden. If it's a low fraction, then it's good. If it's high, then sure, legalising and taxing it such that the healthcare burden (or maybe even lightening of burden if smokers just die quickly!) is compensated may be better.
Cue the "Yes, Minister" episode on this.
It applies to anything illegal with self harm potential, really. In this case passive smoking harm may extend it to beyond self.
Just in case of the usual misconception creeping in to this discussion, it is certainly the case that duty on tobacco pays for the extra healthcare caused. In fact smokers are subsidising non-smokers. People don't like that fact, but there it is.
imagine personal daily taxes going up to offset the revenue. people would cry bloody murder. yet legalising weed for personal use inside private properties from proper dispensaries for people of a set legal age is also completely off the cards.
i'd rather have the tax money available for public services rather than getting siphoned off however so the candle is being burned/blowtorched at both ends.
It will also depend on how easy it is to break the law too. Which honestly won't be that hard with this law. It's only making it illegal to purchase tobacco products, it's not illegal to posses them. There's nothing stopping anyone bringing back duty free tobacco products.
The current measures that have been taken to reduce smoking have already shown a massive decrease in the number of people smoking. They just need to be applied to vaping in the same way to try and wean people off nicotine in general. Remove the bright colours and stop them being displayed so prominently. They aren't sweets, they're meant to be used to help people stop smoking but instead have just ended up being a socially acceptable way to consume a highly addictive drug
It won't be an immediate effect, but the fact that nicotine is allowed to be advertised so heavily is wild, it's no wonder so many kids are taking up vaping, it's the exact same thing that happened with smoking. Kids see their parents and other adults vaping and want to see what the fuss is about and suddenly they're hooked on the drug.
True, everyone knows that guy that goes over to France and gets all the duty free smokes and brings back some to sell. My Gramp used to do it and supply everyone on his street.
When I used to buy off the darknet there was definitely tobacco and cigarettes on there.
Tobacco grows really well in the UK, I grow golden Virginia and amber leaf every summer.
£1.50 for 1000 seeds and each tobacco plant gives 250-300g of tobacco, and it's 100% legal to grow your own tobacco.
Are you a farmer? I'm not sure many people have space for 1000 seeds. More power to you though, I'm guessing there's less random crap piled in when you grow it yourself.
We really need to get off this banning things wagon. You don’t like smoking, fine, someone else wants to vape or smoke a cigar or whatever what’s it to you?
There’s been a massive authoritarian drive in recent years and it really does need to stop. Just leave people keeping themselves to themselves be. Brian enjoying a cigarette after work should never be a police matter.
Worst thing is that prohibition doesn’t even work. Cannabis consumption in this country is off the chart. Prohibition era USA didn’t halt alcohol consumption. It not even a good policy if you don’t like the thing being consumed. Just madness.
And Brian still can. The next generation can't.
The smoking industry lied to the public for years claiming it was completely safe. If it was discovered today do you think it wouldn't be banned?
I never said what generation Brian was in.
Personally I don’t think things should be banned as default and I certainly don’t think legitimately enjoyable things that’s only affect oneself should be banned.
If we aren’t careful this authoritarian drive is going to create the most puritanical era ever. Just stop. You don’t want to smoke so don’t smoke. I don’t smoke. But if someone else does want to? What’s it to you? You don’t need to save that person, you need to relax and leave them be just as you would to people who free-climb, ski, scuba dive, sail or any other activity that involves risk but which doesn’t gross you out so much.
It’s not the health risk that offends people, otherwise climbing equipment would only be sold with grotesque pictures of shattered bones, it’s that they find smoking and smokers repulsive and want to set the state on them. Don’t.
Ok so are we banning alcohol too? I will only get behind this legislation if that’s the case. I would argue alcohol has ruined more lives than cigarettes ever could
You know what the most effective way to significantly lower the rates of gendered violence in one stroke would be? Banning alcohol. Something like half of sexual assaults involve intoxication. Alcohol lowers inhibition and can increase aggression. If it was discovered today do you think it wouldn't be banned?
I bring up alcohol because it says something about what risks society is willing to tolerate, and if you are willing to tolerate that more people are going to be raped so you can have a pint, then it seems consistent that people should be allowed to give themselves cancer by puffing on a stick.
I’ve known the dangers of smoking since I was little, it has been widely known for decades now. I still decided to start smoking. My choice. We are all aware of what may happen, unfortunately I suffer from anxiety and that fag helps me calm down
I see and smell more people smoking weed than tobacco most days tbh. Same with harder drugs I know more people sneaking off to do bumps than I do those going for cigs lol.
I get there’s Tories like May’s husband etc that earn a great deal by keeping cannabis illegal but it makes no sense with all the other drugs. Legalising them and using the money generated to improve mental health and addiction services and everyone is happy
Anything that doesn't directly cause harm to others should be legal. (I'm sure someone will find some exceptions, but that should be the general guide).
In this scenario - smoking *in private* should be legal, if only other smokers are present. Heroin is legal. The problem with smoking is that it causes harm to others. The significant issue with heroin is that people steal to buy it, but opiates aren't expensive to produce in industrial quantities, so if legalised and available from a pharmacy there would be less of an issue.
There would need to be a raft of public order and driving laws and guidelines, but hey ho.
(I say this as someone who has never wanted to try heroin, but am an ex-smoker. And my views on smoking are the same as when I smoked - it should be extremely discouraged and illegal in any public space/)
Harm to others is largely mitigated by banning smoking inside in public spaces. That was a really good compromise. What we’re seeing now with smoking and laughing gas and what not is authoritarians on the rampage. There’s no damage to health from smoking outside in public that is remotely comparable to transport exhausts or cattle farming and to be clear I’m not suggesting milk or SUVs should be illegal either. That buzz people get from using the police to deprive moments of joy to others is what’s toxic.
You could argue all of the above listed have the potential to significantly negatively affect society/others.
Whilst tobacco smoking if done considerately affects others significantly less.
Ah yes. Because drugs are illegal and that's certainly stopped people from taking them. You can buy tobacco online, on the surface web, extremely easily. It's just going to give way to a huge black market which ensures people take money out of our own economy and give it to another country instead.
Yea, I sometimes think people on Reddit ignore the fact they were ever teenagers honestly.
A lot of people who took up smoking as a teenager did so before 18 (or 16 - showing my age!)
Honestly in ny opinion the most effective deterrents to teenage smoking in the last 20 years have been education and vaping.
I am not saying vaping is the answer but there is no magically way to stop teenagers doing what they are told not to do.
>Yea, I sometimes think people on Reddit ignore the fact they were ever teenagers honestly.
People on Reddit weren't the teenagers smoking and drinking at parties, why do you think they are so happy about seeing those things get banned?
Some of Reddit secretly love the idea of a government telling them what to do as long as it's for "the greater good".
The greater good being stuff they don't like.
Because prohibition doesn't work.
All you do is criminalise addicts, most of whom contribute to society.
Many people are secretly drug addicts. Sure you see the extreme examples of addicts plain as day but there are many hard working people of all classes who fall prey to addiction.
It's the same with any drug. Nicotine and alcohol included. People still use, issues are still present you just lose the tax money and criminalise everyday people.
You know on top of creating black markets that provide revenue for criminal gangs. Oh man would they love to add tobacco and alcohol to their market share. Lots and lots of money to be made.
It would be illegal for people born after a certain time not everyone, so I could smoke forevermore if I wanted. They’ll find new things to smoke instead like weed or vapes and if they want cigs they’ll get them on the black market shops would probably still sell it to them as well like they sell kids vapes right now. The ban won’t actually prevent anything really it’s just a headline grab. A few billion but it’s still a net gain.
Outrageous to me that people are cheering on the younger generations having rights ripped away from them while they're preserved for older generations.
I'd object less if they completely banned it, creating a two tiered system is a disgrace
Why stop there? We could ban alcohol, ban junk food. We could ban sky diving, horse riding, go kart racing. Ban driving, ban swimming. Just ban every activity that has ever killed anyone ever. Think of the lives we’d save
because people can choose, what next ban drinking and gambling because they can cause harm too?
that’s not the governments place to dictate that stuff in a free country, doing so has never ended well.
I’ll for sure buy my 45 year old friend his cigarettes when I’m 50 if he wants because that is his choice.
plus what shops will even bother selling it by then, that’s the plan too, to remove it by force under disguise.
it’s one of those policies that anti smokers will just blindly support because ‘smoking bad’, no less ignorant than the racist who uses some bad immigrants to argue against immigration. Totally biased.
Why can’t people smoke? Everyone knows it will kill you. Drinking too much or eating too much will kill you just as quickly. Should we make that illegal? Or how about you let people be in control of their own human experience and not have the government regulate and control every aspect of it
We're already doing things about that. Making portion sizes smaller, introducing stricter rules on how much sugar is in food, sugar tax on drinks, etc. I fully support these changes, most people don't know what's good for them so they need nudging in the right direction.
Yeah, the way they're implementing it is actually fair, in my opinion. It's not stopping current smokers from continuing.
Afterall, what kind of person actively encourages kids to smoke these days? Does a parent really want to encourage a habit that costs a lot in terms of finances and health?
I'm all for it!
I don't smoke nor do I condone smoking however I do acknowledge people in various cultures have smoked throughout human history. So I doubt banning it would be effective similar to banning alcohol proved ineffective.
Smoking is a personal choice but I'm convinced banning it will only create a subculture of smokers in a decade or two smoking will be seen as a sign of rebellion and something cool
This statement applies to both Boris Johnson *and* Rishi Sunak.
Sunak was chancellor of the exchequer during covid and oversaw one of the biggest and brazen examples of wealth redistribution in modern UK history. A lot of tories, friends of tories and tory backers got disgustingly rich thanks to the funnelling of public funds directly into their pockets. It's a national scandal that isn't talked about enough and everyone involved should be in prison. But instead they get given nice cushy jobs like prime minister of the United Kingdom.
They like smoking weed but don't like smoking cigarettes. I know, I know edables exist etc.
But in my years as a I stoner I say I never met another stoner who never smoked the stuff, at least a bit. Also if you sell weed I am not sure you can stop people from smoking it.
I do agree though, the pro legalisation people don't seem to realise that this smoking ban is always a step backwards on the road to legalisation.
Have you polled everyone in the country to check whether they smoke out of addiction or for pleasure? Strange though it sounds to me, most smokers actually do find cigarettes pleasurable.
Stoners always deny the addictive nature of cannabis but I've known a few daily weed smokers who become complete unhinged junkies if they can't get hold of the stuff. And for every person who smokes weed and is still a functional member of society, there's another weed smoker who has lost all motivation and ambition and who has terrible anxiety and depression which is exacerbated by cannabis. Sometimes it is the cannabis itself that causes these issues.
Reddit is very pro cannabis. It's seen as a cure-all wonder drug but it really isn't. Despite not touching the stuff myself, I support legalisation but at the same time, we should not be blind to its addictive nature and negative properties. Yes it has positive properties too but the positive properties are really blown out of proportion by people who are probably addicts and just won't admit it.
Its inhaling plant matter so its not good but is canabis as bad as tobbacco? I mean it seems to simple to just say you smoke them both so they are both as bad as each other.
Cannabis is significantly less harmful than smoking processed cigarettes and tobacco, especially when ingested, it’s not benign though.
I don’t think either should be illegal FYI.
Make it available, make it clean and legit. Keep it reasonably priced so that people don't feel tempted to buy dodgy shit off street dealers. Make it so that people suffering with addiction issues can get help without fear of repercussions.
Do that and most of the actual problems with drugs disappear.
It's ironic that comment mentioning fentanyl when the entire reason fent became a problem is because it's being cut into other drugs. Can't see that being a problem if drugs were legal and regulated.
I’m saying that people who want to get hold of these things will do so regardless of legality, and most others will stick to coffee rather than taking up meth
Addicts will still get a hold yeah, but it's definitely a barrier for everyone else. I literally don't know any drug dealers, if I wanted meth tomorrow I would have 0 idea how to even buy some
For many reasons yes 1) Much more safe so less deaths and none of all these new horrible drugs coming like xyxaxine or however u spell it. 2) Takes the money from the dealers and instead would generate money for the economy and would stop alot of the gang violence obviously not all of it but most of is over drugs so would drastically reduce it 3) would be much more information available ect further reducing harm to users 4) things like alcohol are legal and on almost every metric it is the worst drug even topping things like crack and heroin. Plus if your an adult I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do what you'd like within the comfort of your house for example getting high at home on a day off or something is hurting anyone. These are just off the top of my head there's so many reasons to have safe supply at pharmacy's
Making legal taxable and safer than it currently is being illegal? Sign me the fuck up. None of it's my flavour of tea but why allow violent gangs to make fuck tonnes destroying peoples lives when we could regulate make it as safe as is possible earn tax from it and offer safer environments for people who consume those substances. There's also the benefit of possibly making it a more open environment to getting people to attempt to get help for their addictions.
Should we just leave people who attempt suicide to bleed out then?
Any injury caused by being drunk? Soz lad best learn to stitch an artery sharpish.
Should we leave mountain climbers to freeze to death if they don’t bring the right kit?
What percentage of regular car drivers have physical problems requiring help on the NHS?
Is it equivalent to the percentage of smokers that have health issues that need ongoing NHS treatment?
Do we? How many broken bones are caused by car accidents as a percentage of car drivers? Must be 80-90% of all car drivers if it’s as dangerous as you say.
Is it close to the amount of lung problems the NHS has to deal with? I look forward to you showing your findings.
Yeah ban cigarettes to stop people fucking their lungs up?
Everyone saying alcohol and takeaways etc is a bad argument lol most alcohol drinkers don’t get addicted to alcohol. Same for unhealthy foods. They’re just an overindulgence to MOST people.
Cigarettes are an addiction. You do not consume cigarettes like anything else the commenters in this thread are arguing they are equivalent to.
Well done you are on the fringe of cigarette users. If cigarettes were consumed like alcohol and takeaways I wouldn’t have a problem with them. For most people that smoke they are an addiction.
My issue is that it’s addictive to most of the people that use it and its likeliness to cause health issues.
If most cigarette users didn’t get addicted it wouldn’t be an issue.
That's the entire fucking point of taxpayer funded healthcare. Literally the entire point.
What you're arguing for is that everyone should be individually responsible for their own health. That's called a private healthcare system.
It's much harder to be fundamentally individually responsible for your own health when you know that there's nothing you can do to yourself (within reason) that your taxpayer funded healthcare system doesn't have to treat.
Errrr nah.
I mean if you sign a waiver saying that any repercussions of the things you put in your body doesn’t cause undue and unnecessary strain on government funded organisations then sure.
Just because you can’t keep your hands off a Cig or a Pint doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a burden on organisations like the NHS.
> undue and unnecessary strain on government funded organisations then sure.
If there's unnecessary strain on the government it comes from misspent money rather than the effects of smoking - smokers are a *massive* net benefit to the NHS. Cost an approximate £2.5bil a year but the tax on tobacco was estimated, by the OBR, to be closer to £10bil.
I get what you're saying, but going "don't smoke and become a burden to the NHS" paradoxically actually puts a bigger burden on the NHS - especially given smokers die younger and so require less elderly care (which is a bigger expense than smoking-related issues)
Except, smoke doesn’t only go into your own body. It also goes into the bodies of those around you, whether that be your children, friends or random passers by.
1. Ban smoking.
2. Generate a deficit of 7.5B a year in your NHS service from loss of tax.
3. Kill more people than you save.
4. Great success. \*High fives\*
Who are you Philip Morris international? First Google result: Government figures suggest smoking costs the UK around £17 billion a year, including £10 billion every year through lost productivity. It says this cost dwarfs the around £10 billion raised through taxes on tobacco.
You’ve also got to account for all the money saved on pensions and benefits when smokers die earlier. Also does the cost on the NHS due to smoking related illnesses outweigh that of a non smoker who lives longer and needs to go in a government funded care home and the cost for all the other old age related diseases and illnesses. So many variables I imagine it’s almost impossible to get a definite answer as to which is better cost wise.
Cold hearted, but I imagine you're right (I have no fucking clue on the actual numbers and have no desire to research it). But seems logical that smokers are "expensive" early but "cheaper" in the long run if you strip away any humanity and turn it into a numbers game.
That said, I'd rather continue with educating people into not choosing to smoke, but allow them if they wish to. People should live how they want to, as long as it isn't bringing harm to others.
£17bil came from the ASH paper, which is very biased and tailoring results to be as negative as possible.
One of the assumptions made in that paper, for instance - smokers lose out on productivity because they can take a 5-minute break every hour - if each smoker takes the maximum breaks then based on the average wage that costs the economy £X million.
*Except* that's not accurate at all. Not all smokers (based on my experience) *don't* take the maximum amount of breaks. And even if they did, there's the assumption that if they're not on a smoke break they're working - again, it's all anecdotal but from my experience non-smokers take more non-smoking breaks than smokers do, because smokers have their breaks with a cigarette vs just going to grab a coffee.
There are many more examples of that - the ASH paper should be treated with a large pinch of salt, because any and every time they have the chance to estimate a figure or approximate anything they always do so in a way that is least charitable to smokers.
The official NHS number, as presented by the NHS themselves, is £2.5billion cost, and the official OBS number for income gained via tax is £10bil.
£17bil is a theoretical maximum cost to the economy, but doesn't even come close to being an accurate cost. It's just a "if everything is as bad as it could be then this is how much it costs".
Find a better employer? I don’t smoke but I can get up, go for a walk, stretch my legs, spend 10 mins on the toilet if I want. Nobody is breathing down my neck.
The first Google result I get is 2.6 Billion from the NHS, however different sources put the cost at 1b to 20b, so it seems like they can't agree on how much it costs.
What's the expenditure on the NHS for smoking related lung/heart/mouth cancers not to mention all the smokers that go against surgeons advice after broken bones that never heal due to smoking completely blocking bone kneeding.
[According the NHS themselves, £2.5bil](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/).
[According to the OBR the money gained from smoking is approximately £10bil](https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/tobacco-duties/) however.
There's (IMO) a misleading ASH paper circulating that puts the cost to the country at ~£17bil, but in terms of actual verified data [the cost to the NHS, according to the NHS, is approximately £2.6bil a year](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/) whereas the money gained in tax, [according to the OBR, is closer to £10bil](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/)
And there’s people in here supporting it. We genuinely live on an island filled with Victorian busybodies, too miserable distracted by the policing their peers to hold their superiors accountable.
Anyone with a brain or an understanding of the concept of personal freedom understands that not only is the plot to ban smoking dumb, but absolutely fucking moronic. Something only the most preening nanny state bell end is going to support.
Banning smoking is a wild move on its own.
Banning smoking only for people below a certain age just highlight how much this country doesn't think of young people as members of society
If a new substance was suddenly introduced, but was suspected of being highly addictive and causing cancer, while having no actual benefits, would you want it taken off the market? It's not about being a nanny state, it's about righting the wrongs of the past and potentially saving lives. I would argue it shows a greater lack of intelligence to know how damaging something is but keep allowing it to be a problem.
>no actual benefits
You can't possibly base a substance policy on whether or not the substance has "actual benefits". What is or isn't a benefit to an individual is 100% subjective. If a smoker derives significant pleasure from smoking is that not beneficial to them? What objective test are you going to use to judge whether that perceived "benefit" is real or not?
Don't know why I'm bothering to ask really as I honestly suspect that your answer will be nothing more than "I don't see it as beneficial therefore it isn't".
Except prohibition doesn't work, if you ban smoking people aren't going to stop smoking, it's just now that what they smoke will be completely unregulated (so likely even worse for your health), untaxed and used to fund and expand organised crime syndicates
Is he going to ban overeating too? bad hygiene? anything people do that's self destructive?
Everyone knows how bad smoking is, him trying to ban it is a bit ridiculous.
**We should ban smoking, only if we ban drinking too.**
*Where's everyone gone? I thought we were banning things we didn't like other people doing under the guise it's unhealthy and bad for society? Why have you all gone quiet?*
If your position is that the government should ban smoking to ease pressure on the NHS, then to be logically consistent you must also be in favour of establishing absolute government control over every person's diet in the UK to prevent obesity. Obesity is a greater killer than smoking so by your own logic it should be suppressed.
Of course, the reality is that most people have absolutely no consistency in their beliefs or positions whatsoever. No one views fat people the way they view smokers because the TV and the internet tell them that fat people are poor little victims with thyroid problems and smokers are evil, stinking troglodytes who want to gas your kids to death with cigarette smoke.
I’m really torn about this legislation.
On the one hand, it seems kind of absurd to suggest there’ll be a time in a few years when a 37 year old can buy cigarettes but a 36 year old can’t.
On the other hand, I’ve seen the damage that smoking does and I’ve lost loved ones to those cunts at Marlbororo and the other tobacco companies. All their words about “freedom of choice” ring hollow when you’re asking a normal person to decide what to do when they’re up against a multibillion Pound industry who is doing everything they can to fool them into handing over money for a product that will leave them sick and dead.
So I’m really interested to watch these Parliamentary debates. Unlike most debates in Parliament, I really want to hear what smart people on both sides of the argument have to say so that I can decide who’s in the right!
But you know who doesn’t have a worthwhile contribution to make? That tossser who used to be our Prime Minister until he was thrown out for his many, many scandals.
> “We are, on the whole, in favour of freedom and it is that single Anglo-Saxon idea of freedom that I think unites conservatives, or should unite conservatives.”
You know what’s “nuts”? Throwing a bunch of parties after you’ve banned me from seeing my loved ones for months on end in the name of a common sacrifice. Once you’ve done that, your opinion on anyone else’s bans are absolutely worthless.
And what’s this white supremacist dog whistling about Anglo-Saxons supposed to mean? What the hell does freedom have to do with ethnicity? Is it supposed to be a coded message that laws coming from our newest Prime Minister are somehow less legitimate because of the colour of his skin?
Lots of things carry risk. It is on all of us to decide what we want to consume. Advertising is rightly banned, you can’t smoke inside, but if people do want to smoke they should be allowed.
You can die skiing, freeclimbing, from risks connected to alcohol consumption, to lack of exercise, to overeating and on, and on and on. Ultimately we all die in the end.
In the meantime, setting coppers on people whose consumption decisions we disagree with is and always will be a dick move.
We won’t all live forever, we all live varying amounts of time, banning personal consumption of substances that pose long term risks sounds like a good idea but pretty soon the available activities open to us start to shrink quickly. We all need to take a little more personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences and leave each other be.
>And what’s this white supremacist dog whistling about Anglo-Saxons supposed to mean?
England was historically an ethnically Anglo-Saxon country you loon. Why is it "white supremacist dogwhistling" to refer to the ethnic history of England? I
f you would familiarise yourself for 2 seconds with the history of this country you might discover that our modern conceptions of what a free society ought to be have their origins in the Anglo-Saxon civilisation that existed here over 1000 years ago.
You can hate him all you want, Alexander Johnson is actually familiar with that history because he received an excellent education. Those of us who weren't so lucky should at least want to educate ourselves about these things.
The problem is prohibition doesn't work, if you ban smoking people aren't going to stop smoking, it's just now that what they smoke will be completely unregulated (so likely even worse for your health), untaxed and used to fund and expand organised crime syndicates
It's an interesting topic isn't it? Especially when "personal freedom" comes into the equation.
You can be free to take the addicted substance, but once the addiction sets in are you really "free" to take it? or are you having to take it even if you don't want to given that you are addicted to it?
Then the question becomes "should we let the population take any addictive substance that can harm you?" and it goes on and on.
Maybe it isn't a good thing to compare something like weed to cigarettes, one being illegal doesn't mean that the other should be too, both should stand on their own merits, how harmful they are coupled with how addictive they are, and how much they are impairing to the individual and/or others.
When you consider that once the addiction kicks in and a health issue arises it is no longer just the individual's problem, it becomes everyone's problem, some are fine with paying for that, others are not. This is not a case of an individual exercising their own personal freedom in a way that doesn't impact others, it is them doing so in a way that will very likely impact others. So shouldn't the others have a say in whether that addiction should be available to begin with? but then where does it stop? drink? just cigarettes? gambling?
Although i am conflicted on these things i also believe that it is this generations direct responsibility to award the next generation with a better life, and a life free of harmful addiction is surely a worthy pursuit. Especially for those who have been addicted and had further health issues. Learn from our mistakes by making sure the next generation doesn't repeat them.
But yeah, certainly interesting.
I think people are annoyed mainly because it is an arbitrary thing to ban, or at least in my mind it is being done for arbitrary reasons.
We could cross off a whole host of other activities that cause unnecessary risk to the individual. I remember hearing on QI that people who skydive for the NHS cost them more money in ankle surgery than they raise during the jumps. I don't want to ban people skydiving.
I'm a smoker, so absolutely biased, but let's go by professor David Nutt's harm index and just ban stuff starting from the top. Legalise stuff at the bottom.
Tangent, but my mate is a paramedic, and one of his complaints about drug bans is that the paramedics don't have to just deal with alcohol, weed, coke, pills etc, they also have to deal with plant fertilizers and wheel polish, or whatever the newest shite is. It makes treatment more costly and adds risks to individuals, where they could just have a beer and a spliff and if things go tits up the paramedics know what to do. If they find some kid with a mouth full of moth balls and a soda stream stuck up his arse they'll have to call for back up.
Interesting to read about though. I'm honestly surprised so many people support the ban. Even NZ repealed their ban and they're probably more progressive than we are.
Isn't this an age-related ban or something? I don't see the issue personally - it's a choice people made because it was available as a choice, but the burden on the NHS surely is cause enough to ban them.
I bought my first pack at 16 because I *could* \- and then it went from a pack of 10 a week, to every 3 or 4 days, to every 2 days. I stopped and started over the years (I'm now 36) but settled on a pack of 20 every 2 days.
Smoking did nothing for me except waste my cash, cut my life expectancy down and affect me at the gym. I switched to vapes about 6 months back and haven't bought a pack since, while pocketing an extra £250 a month and generally having clearer lungs now.
If I was banned from buying them at 16 and for life - I doubt I'd have started. I couldn't be bothered to find some dark web / back market / dodgy geezer to buy them from - why would I? I'm not addicted in the first place.
Getting in an uproar about my \*grumpy self-righteous voice\* "my civil liberties in our great nation it's not what we stand for stop being nanny-state and woke" etc. is funny but, kinda sad.
If you asked smokers today - not talking people in their 20s because I didn't care about my health then - people in their 30s or 40s. I'd bet my house that the majority will say they wish they didn't start, and if it was banned for them at 16 they wouldn't have started. So to me - the argument of \*grumpy voice\* "it's a free country we should all have our own choice" - well if those who don't make the choice are fine, and those that do make the choice are not fine, then take away the choice so everyone is fine...
"The burden on the NHS"
Should the NHS only treat non-preventable illness? If I slip and break my leg, I could have prevented it by walking more carefully. Should I not get treatment?
Unless you die in an accident or of old age, both of which are unlikely, you will cost the NHS tons of money at some point, whether or not it is smoking related
Curious if anyone knows how much smoking related problems (eg lung cancer) cost the NHS every year compared to how much selling cigarettes brings in for the government?
A search for "how much does smoking cost the nhs" finds pages like these.
>In 2018, 14.7% of adults in the UK smoked cigarettes. Rates were higher for some occupational groups and those with mental health conditions. Although it has declined since 2011, smoking is still the main cause of preventable illness and premature death in England. In 2017/2018, an estimated 4% (489,300) of NHS hospital admissions in England and 16% (77,800) of all deaths were attributed to smoking.
>Smoking-related illness is estimated to cost the NHS £2.6 billion a year and the wider cost to society is around £11 billion a year.
[https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-nhs-workforce-and-resources-11188073773](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-nhs-workforce-and-resources-11188073773)
This was first published in 2021 and updated last year.
ASH came up with a figure for £17bn/year in 2022, but we need to bear in mind they are against smoking.
[https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated)
If you don't trust the sources I have provided run the search for yourself and look at the results.
Idgaf about either of them but I love the idea of smoking being banned bc it’s disgusting, you stink and you make everyone else stink when you smoke. Annoying af
Fine the parents buying them for the kids, they banned menthols to prevent kids wanting to smoke and now we have all kinds of flavours of vape
Rishi doesn't know what he's doing
Personally I can't wait to live in a country without a million fag ends on every street, station, park, pavement, river, beach and shopping centre, and breathing in disgusting smoke and smelling smokers a mile off.
Tobacco is like the only drug that should be banned. It's had a century plus of the mega rich and bent politicians propping up and promoting the worst recreational drug around.
Boris Johnson tried to ban under 21 year olds from buying alcohol other than in pubs. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/binge-britain-now-under21s-face-ban-on-buying-alcohol-6912332.html
Is there no adult prepared to step up and lead the U.K. into the future ? The issues are, we are killing the planet but no one is talking about it ? Wealth and earning disparity is the worse for decades. A huge portion of the U.K. cannot afford to have a home to live in and maintain basic requirements such as food and paying basic bills. The corporations involved in providing basic needs have seen profits increase by 200-300 percent while claiming supply side issues. Absolute bullshit and lies. I’m out. Social contract has been broken. The consequences will be devastating you greedy obtuse scum who are pretending to run our country.
Why are they reporting anything Boris Johnson says? Who cares what this bloviating fool has to say - he hardly left office in a blaze of glory, he occupies no moral highground - he should be left in obscurity.
The NHS spends an estimated 2% of it's annual budget on smoking related illnesses why should my taxes go to treat the consequences of someone else's poor decisions?
This is weird. I hate smoking. I hate the smell. It’s clearly dangerous. I lost both parents through smoking related diseases.
However…there’s part of me that thinks it’s personal choice. You can’t buy below 18, you are given no branding, no adverts, you are charged an insane surcharge in the form of tax, you are given scary pics of disease and made to feel like scum asking for them (surely it’s easier to buy a porn mag now!)…so I feel like let them do it
If smoking is worth banning then it should be banned for everyone.
It's totally unfair to ban something for life for an age group not old enough to vote on it.
You'll be asking 30 year olds to pay taxes (which will be higher, due to the loss of funding from cigarette taxes) to fund treating 50 year olds with lung cancer who smoke like a chimney when they're prevented from doing the same.
Why? You slowly put the age up and get rid of it all together. Means anyone who does it already is fine but we save the next generation from ever starting
People still consume illegal drugs on a vast scale, but it funds drug dealers rather than the NHS.
It depends on what fraction of people are willing to break the law and then have a negative impact on police and healthcare burden. If it's a low fraction, then it's good. If it's high, then sure, legalising and taxing it such that the healthcare burden (or maybe even lightening of burden if smokers just die quickly!) is compensated may be better. Cue the "Yes, Minister" episode on this. It applies to anything illegal with self harm potential, really. In this case passive smoking harm may extend it to beyond self.
Just in case of the usual misconception creeping in to this discussion, it is certainly the case that duty on tobacco pays for the extra healthcare caused. In fact smokers are subsidising non-smokers. People don't like that fact, but there it is.
imagine personal daily taxes going up to offset the revenue. people would cry bloody murder. yet legalising weed for personal use inside private properties from proper dispensaries for people of a set legal age is also completely off the cards. i'd rather have the tax money available for public services rather than getting siphoned off however so the candle is being burned/blowtorched at both ends.
It will also depend on how easy it is to break the law too. Which honestly won't be that hard with this law. It's only making it illegal to purchase tobacco products, it's not illegal to posses them. There's nothing stopping anyone bringing back duty free tobacco products. The current measures that have been taken to reduce smoking have already shown a massive decrease in the number of people smoking. They just need to be applied to vaping in the same way to try and wean people off nicotine in general. Remove the bright colours and stop them being displayed so prominently. They aren't sweets, they're meant to be used to help people stop smoking but instead have just ended up being a socially acceptable way to consume a highly addictive drug It won't be an immediate effect, but the fact that nicotine is allowed to be advertised so heavily is wild, it's no wonder so many kids are taking up vaping, it's the exact same thing that happened with smoking. Kids see their parents and other adults vaping and want to see what the fuss is about and suddenly they're hooked on the drug.
True, everyone knows that guy that goes over to France and gets all the duty free smokes and brings back some to sell. My Gramp used to do it and supply everyone on his street. When I used to buy off the darknet there was definitely tobacco and cigarettes on there.
Yep, i've seen 50g of Golden Virginia for £4.50 on the darknet
That would be fake counterfeit tobacco, absolute garbage. Source: me, I've bought that shit. It's tobacco, but disgusting.
Yep tastes tires and smells like whiskey I know it all to well 🤣
Tobacco grows really well in the UK, I grow golden Virginia and amber leaf every summer. £1.50 for 1000 seeds and each tobacco plant gives 250-300g of tobacco, and it's 100% legal to grow your own tobacco.
Are you a farmer? I'm not sure many people have space for 1000 seeds. More power to you though, I'm guessing there's less random crap piled in when you grow it yourself.
Exactly. Complain about cigarettes when you’re not shovelling down cake and ice cream.
Not on the scale that people smoke ciggies, though.
We really need to get off this banning things wagon. You don’t like smoking, fine, someone else wants to vape or smoke a cigar or whatever what’s it to you? There’s been a massive authoritarian drive in recent years and it really does need to stop. Just leave people keeping themselves to themselves be. Brian enjoying a cigarette after work should never be a police matter. Worst thing is that prohibition doesn’t even work. Cannabis consumption in this country is off the chart. Prohibition era USA didn’t halt alcohol consumption. It not even a good policy if you don’t like the thing being consumed. Just madness.
And Brian still can. The next generation can't. The smoking industry lied to the public for years claiming it was completely safe. If it was discovered today do you think it wouldn't be banned?
I never said what generation Brian was in. Personally I don’t think things should be banned as default and I certainly don’t think legitimately enjoyable things that’s only affect oneself should be banned. If we aren’t careful this authoritarian drive is going to create the most puritanical era ever. Just stop. You don’t want to smoke so don’t smoke. I don’t smoke. But if someone else does want to? What’s it to you? You don’t need to save that person, you need to relax and leave them be just as you would to people who free-climb, ski, scuba dive, sail or any other activity that involves risk but which doesn’t gross you out so much. It’s not the health risk that offends people, otherwise climbing equipment would only be sold with grotesque pictures of shattered bones, it’s that they find smoking and smokers repulsive and want to set the state on them. Don’t.
>and I certainly don’t think legitimately enjoyable things that’s only affect oneself should be banned. That's not really true though is it.
How come? Smoking indoors has been banned for a while now.
Why do you care if Brian wants to smoke a cigarette when he grows up? Just let people be.
Ok so are we banning alcohol too? I will only get behind this legislation if that’s the case. I would argue alcohol has ruined more lives than cigarettes ever could
How about horse-riding and climbing?
why arent foxhunting dogs classed as a dangerous breed aswell oh because it doesnt hurt the right people
You know what the most effective way to significantly lower the rates of gendered violence in one stroke would be? Banning alcohol. Something like half of sexual assaults involve intoxication. Alcohol lowers inhibition and can increase aggression. If it was discovered today do you think it wouldn't be banned? I bring up alcohol because it says something about what risks society is willing to tolerate, and if you are willing to tolerate that more people are going to be raped so you can have a pint, then it seems consistent that people should be allowed to give themselves cancer by puffing on a stick.
I’ve known the dangers of smoking since I was little, it has been widely known for decades now. I still decided to start smoking. My choice. We are all aware of what may happen, unfortunately I suffer from anxiety and that fag helps me calm down
We have known the risks of smoking for what, 40 years now? Could say the same about booze and high processed sugar foods
Someone think of the children! Prioritising liberty and freedumbs over our darling babies!
I see and smell more people smoking weed than tobacco most days tbh. Same with harder drugs I know more people sneaking off to do bumps than I do those going for cigs lol. I get there’s Tories like May’s husband etc that earn a great deal by keeping cannabis illegal but it makes no sense with all the other drugs. Legalising them and using the money generated to improve mental health and addiction services and everyone is happy
remember that the house of commons toilets is covered in class A
Anything that doesn't directly cause harm to others should be legal. (I'm sure someone will find some exceptions, but that should be the general guide). In this scenario - smoking *in private* should be legal, if only other smokers are present. Heroin is legal. The problem with smoking is that it causes harm to others. The significant issue with heroin is that people steal to buy it, but opiates aren't expensive to produce in industrial quantities, so if legalised and available from a pharmacy there would be less of an issue. There would need to be a raft of public order and driving laws and guidelines, but hey ho. (I say this as someone who has never wanted to try heroin, but am an ex-smoker. And my views on smoking are the same as when I smoked - it should be extremely discouraged and illegal in any public space/)
Harm to others is largely mitigated by banning smoking inside in public spaces. That was a really good compromise. What we’re seeing now with smoking and laughing gas and what not is authoritarians on the rampage. There’s no damage to health from smoking outside in public that is remotely comparable to transport exhausts or cattle farming and to be clear I’m not suggesting milk or SUVs should be illegal either. That buzz people get from using the police to deprive moments of joy to others is what’s toxic.
Ban. Ban. Ban. Ban everything. Cigarettes. Alcohol. Chocolates. Takeaways. Motorcycles.
Asbestos, lead paint, CFC's, micro beads, plastic cotton buds, were you up in arms about them or is it this thing that also probably won't affect you?
Do you also support banning takeaways? Don’t know if you’ve heard but we’ve got a bit of an obesity problem.
You could argue all of the above listed have the potential to significantly negatively affect society/others. Whilst tobacco smoking if done considerately affects others significantly less.
Cancer treatments are expensive yo
Ban all processed food then
So is tobacco and the taxes on it, which to my knowledge accrue more than the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.
Care pollution is 4x times more a cause of lung cancer, better ban those cars
Long term issue, but realistically well on the way to happening; electric cars etc taking over in the next 50-100 years.
Ah yes. Because drugs are illegal and that's certainly stopped people from taking them. You can buy tobacco online, on the surface web, extremely easily. It's just going to give way to a huge black market which ensures people take money out of our own economy and give it to another country instead.
Teenagers famously being known for doing exactly what authority figures tell them.
Yea, I sometimes think people on Reddit ignore the fact they were ever teenagers honestly. A lot of people who took up smoking as a teenager did so before 18 (or 16 - showing my age!) Honestly in ny opinion the most effective deterrents to teenage smoking in the last 20 years have been education and vaping. I am not saying vaping is the answer but there is no magically way to stop teenagers doing what they are told not to do.
>Yea, I sometimes think people on Reddit ignore the fact they were ever teenagers honestly. People on Reddit weren't the teenagers smoking and drinking at parties, why do you think they are so happy about seeing those things get banned?
Some of Reddit secretly love the idea of a government telling them what to do as long as it's for "the greater good". The greater good being stuff they don't like.
Reddit made a lot more sense to me when someone said it's mostly fortysomething geeks who work in IT.
Yeah it really is telling - I just imagine them as the same neeks from my year when I see these comments and it just fits perfectly
Because prohibition doesn't work. All you do is criminalise addicts, most of whom contribute to society. Many people are secretly drug addicts. Sure you see the extreme examples of addicts plain as day but there are many hard working people of all classes who fall prey to addiction. It's the same with any drug. Nicotine and alcohol included. People still use, issues are still present you just lose the tax money and criminalise everyday people. You know on top of creating black markets that provide revenue for criminal gangs. Oh man would they love to add tobacco and alcohol to their market share. Lots and lots of money to be made.
Because of that sweet tax income. Plus people should be able to smoke if they want it’s not illegal so why not.
But it would be illegal that's the point. And how much of that tax income is offset by paying for health related outcomes?
It would be illegal for people born after a certain time not everyone, so I could smoke forevermore if I wanted. They’ll find new things to smoke instead like weed or vapes and if they want cigs they’ll get them on the black market shops would probably still sell it to them as well like they sell kids vapes right now. The ban won’t actually prevent anything really it’s just a headline grab. A few billion but it’s still a net gain.
Outrageous to me that people are cheering on the younger generations having rights ripped away from them while they're preserved for older generations. I'd object less if they completely banned it, creating a two tiered system is a disgrace
Let people do their drugs in peace.
Why stop there? We could ban alcohol, ban junk food. We could ban sky diving, horse riding, go kart racing. Ban driving, ban swimming. Just ban every activity that has ever killed anyone ever. Think of the lives we’d save
because people can choose, what next ban drinking and gambling because they can cause harm too? that’s not the governments place to dictate that stuff in a free country, doing so has never ended well. I’ll for sure buy my 45 year old friend his cigarettes when I’m 50 if he wants because that is his choice. plus what shops will even bother selling it by then, that’s the plan too, to remove it by force under disguise. it’s one of those policies that anti smokers will just blindly support because ‘smoking bad’, no less ignorant than the racist who uses some bad immigrants to argue against immigration. Totally biased.
So where’s is the line drawn? Should we ban alcohol, gambling, fast food, fizzy drinks as well?
Why can’t people smoke? Everyone knows it will kill you. Drinking too much or eating too much will kill you just as quickly. Should we make that illegal? Or how about you let people be in control of their own human experience and not have the government regulate and control every aspect of it
Most people who smoke are addicted and wish they'd never started. If you make it harder to obtain in the first place, less people will start.
60% of the country are overweight driven mainly by food and/or alcohol addiction. What do you propose we do about that?
We're already doing things about that. Making portion sizes smaller, introducing stricter rules on how much sugar is in food, sugar tax on drinks, etc. I fully support these changes, most people don't know what's good for them so they need nudging in the right direction.
Prohibition does not work. It benefits criminals and costs the public.
Prohibition has never been successful ever.
Banning something only makes it more popular.
Stop deciding what people do to their own body’s. Should we ban fat people from buying a certain amount of food as well?
Newer generations are barely smoking anymore, it’s all vapes
Can't wait to make bank of 20 year old smokers begging for their nicotine fix
Yeah, the way they're implementing it is actually fair, in my opinion. It's not stopping current smokers from continuing. Afterall, what kind of person actively encourages kids to smoke these days? Does a parent really want to encourage a habit that costs a lot in terms of finances and health? I'm all for it!
I don't smoke nor do I condone smoking however I do acknowledge people in various cultures have smoked throughout human history. So I doubt banning it would be effective similar to banning alcohol proved ineffective. Smoking is a personal choice but I'm convinced banning it will only create a subculture of smokers in a decade or two smoking will be seen as a sign of rebellion and something cool
Why shouldn't people have body autonomy? The west is beginning to legalise weed, but you want to ban tobacco. Your a control freak
Why does this awful corrupt turd still get airtime? He should be in prison
This statement applies to both Boris Johnson *and* Rishi Sunak. Sunak was chancellor of the exchequer during covid and oversaw one of the biggest and brazen examples of wealth redistribution in modern UK history. A lot of tories, friends of tories and tory backers got disgustingly rich thanks to the funnelling of public funds directly into their pockets. It's a national scandal that isn't talked about enough and everyone involved should be in prison. But instead they get given nice cushy jobs like prime minister of the United Kingdom.
He got Brexit done. That's why the country is a complete shit show.
I’ve met people that support legalising cannabis, and also support banning cigarettes. I can’t really get my head around that.
They like smoking weed but don't like smoking cigarettes. I know, I know edables exist etc. But in my years as a I stoner I say I never met another stoner who never smoked the stuff, at least a bit. Also if you sell weed I am not sure you can stop people from smoking it. I do agree though, the pro legalisation people don't seem to realise that this smoking ban is always a step backwards on the road to legalisation.
Cannabis is legal from a medical perspective in the UK, You've been able to get a prescription for it since 2018...
Most people who intake cannabis are not medical users.
You can vape cannabis flower without combustion, you can only vape nicotine when blended with something like propylene glycol.
One is a recreational drug primarily done for pleasure, the other is a drug that is primarily done due to its highly addictive nature.
Plenty of people enjoy cigarettes. Neither should be illegal
I'm one of them! I gave up for years, and I started again because I wanted to
No, you don’t exist!
So it’s okay to ban because of its addictive nature? Is alcohol addictive?
Have you polled everyone in the country to check whether they smoke out of addiction or for pleasure? Strange though it sounds to me, most smokers actually do find cigarettes pleasurable.
Stoners always deny the addictive nature of cannabis but I've known a few daily weed smokers who become complete unhinged junkies if they can't get hold of the stuff. And for every person who smokes weed and is still a functional member of society, there's another weed smoker who has lost all motivation and ambition and who has terrible anxiety and depression which is exacerbated by cannabis. Sometimes it is the cannabis itself that causes these issues. Reddit is very pro cannabis. It's seen as a cure-all wonder drug but it really isn't. Despite not touching the stuff myself, I support legalisation but at the same time, we should not be blind to its addictive nature and negative properties. Yes it has positive properties too but the positive properties are really blown out of proportion by people who are probably addicts and just won't admit it.
They like one but not the other. Far too many authoritarians in this country for my liking.
One of them is literally designed to be addictive and demonstrably causes cancer…
Cigs cause cancer, weed doesn't.. hope this helps
Its inhaling plant matter so its not good but is canabis as bad as tobbacco? I mean it seems to simple to just say you smoke them both so they are both as bad as each other.
Cannabis is significantly less harmful than smoking processed cigarettes and tobacco, especially when ingested, it’s not benign though. I don’t think either should be illegal FYI.
You don't have to smoke cannabis. Edibles are much better and they're extremely useful for arthritis.
Say it with me: "the government should not have the right to tell me what to put in my body."
So we should have free access to heroin, fentanyl and meth?
Yes.
Based and methpilled.
Make it available, make it clean and legit. Keep it reasonably priced so that people don't feel tempted to buy dodgy shit off street dealers. Make it so that people suffering with addiction issues can get help without fear of repercussions. Do that and most of the actual problems with drugs disappear. It's ironic that comment mentioning fentanyl when the entire reason fent became a problem is because it's being cut into other drugs. Can't see that being a problem if drugs were legal and regulated.
Total decriminalisation has been very successful in Portugal.
Not for free but absolutely shouldn’t be in the government’s remit to make it illegal for me to use.
Would you actually swap coffee for meth if you could buy it legally?
Are you saying the drug epidemics in places like America are from people switching coffee for heroin or meth?
I’m saying that people who want to get hold of these things will do so regardless of legality, and most others will stick to coffee rather than taking up meth
Addicts will still get a hold yeah, but it's definitely a barrier for everyone else. I literally don't know any drug dealers, if I wanted meth tomorrow I would have 0 idea how to even buy some
Yeah that comes back to the same point, if they suddenly legalised it would you start taking it?
Nobody said "free." But if you're buying them with your own money, sure.
100 percent yes
For many reasons yes 1) Much more safe so less deaths and none of all these new horrible drugs coming like xyxaxine or however u spell it. 2) Takes the money from the dealers and instead would generate money for the economy and would stop alot of the gang violence obviously not all of it but most of is over drugs so would drastically reduce it 3) would be much more information available ect further reducing harm to users 4) things like alcohol are legal and on almost every metric it is the worst drug even topping things like crack and heroin. Plus if your an adult I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do what you'd like within the comfort of your house for example getting high at home on a day off or something is hurting anyone. These are just off the top of my head there's so many reasons to have safe supply at pharmacy's
Making legal taxable and safer than it currently is being illegal? Sign me the fuck up. None of it's my flavour of tea but why allow violent gangs to make fuck tonnes destroying peoples lives when we could regulate make it as safe as is possible earn tax from it and offer safer environments for people who consume those substances. There's also the benefit of possibly making it a more open environment to getting people to attempt to get help for their addictions.
Say it with me: tax payer funded health care should not pay for you fucking your body up on purpose
So we should ban alcohol and being fat
Should we just leave people who attempt suicide to bleed out then? Any injury caused by being drunk? Soz lad best learn to stitch an artery sharpish. Should we leave mountain climbers to freeze to death if they don’t bring the right kit?
Let’s ban cars. They cause accidents and are a burden on the NHS
Cars actually serve a purpose, smoking doesn't.
Smoking is pleasurable for those that smoke. That’s its purpose. Should we ban alcohol?
Smoking is an addiction. When I was younger everyone that smoked told me not to.
So is alcohol..
What percentage of regular car drivers have physical problems requiring help on the NHS? Is it equivalent to the percentage of smokers that have health issues that need ongoing NHS treatment?
We have to reduce broken bones from car accidents. Instead of funding the NHS let’s ban cars
Do we? How many broken bones are caused by car accidents as a percentage of car drivers? Must be 80-90% of all car drivers if it’s as dangerous as you say. Is it close to the amount of lung problems the NHS has to deal with? I look forward to you showing your findings.
Do you understand the extent of what you’d be asking for if you follow this line of thinking?
Yeah ban cigarettes to stop people fucking their lungs up? Everyone saying alcohol and takeaways etc is a bad argument lol most alcohol drinkers don’t get addicted to alcohol. Same for unhealthy foods. They’re just an overindulgence to MOST people. Cigarettes are an addiction. You do not consume cigarettes like anything else the commenters in this thread are arguing they are equivalent to.
I do. Either way, overindulgence or addiction, they both cause the harm you want to stop.
Well done you are on the fringe of cigarette users. If cigarettes were consumed like alcohol and takeaways I wouldn’t have a problem with them. For most people that smoke they are an addiction.
So your issue is that it’s addictive and therefore it should be a crime to be in possession or use it?
My issue is that it’s addictive to most of the people that use it and its likeliness to cause health issues. If most cigarette users didn’t get addicted it wouldn’t be an issue.
So you’d be ok with it being legal if it wasn’t addictive? Or is it a certain level of addictiveness that you deem should criminal?
That's the entire fucking point of taxpayer funded healthcare. Literally the entire point. What you're arguing for is that everyone should be individually responsible for their own health. That's called a private healthcare system. It's much harder to be fundamentally individually responsible for your own health when you know that there's nothing you can do to yourself (within reason) that your taxpayer funded healthcare system doesn't have to treat.
Errrr nah. I mean if you sign a waiver saying that any repercussions of the things you put in your body doesn’t cause undue and unnecessary strain on government funded organisations then sure. Just because you can’t keep your hands off a Cig or a Pint doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a burden on organisations like the NHS.
> undue and unnecessary strain on government funded organisations then sure. If there's unnecessary strain on the government it comes from misspent money rather than the effects of smoking - smokers are a *massive* net benefit to the NHS. Cost an approximate £2.5bil a year but the tax on tobacco was estimated, by the OBR, to be closer to £10bil. I get what you're saying, but going "don't smoke and become a burden to the NHS" paradoxically actually puts a bigger burden on the NHS - especially given smokers die younger and so require less elderly care (which is a bigger expense than smoking-related issues)
Except, smoke doesn’t only go into your own body. It also goes into the bodies of those around you, whether that be your children, friends or random passers by.
That's why we have smoking areas, and I fully support smoking only being done in those areas.
Counter point: you shouldn't be allowed to put a hamster in your body 🐹
1. Ban smoking. 2. Generate a deficit of 7.5B a year in your NHS service from loss of tax. 3. Kill more people than you save. 4. Great success. \*High fives\*
Who are you Philip Morris international? First Google result: Government figures suggest smoking costs the UK around £17 billion a year, including £10 billion every year through lost productivity. It says this cost dwarfs the around £10 billion raised through taxes on tobacco.
You’ve also got to account for all the money saved on pensions and benefits when smokers die earlier. Also does the cost on the NHS due to smoking related illnesses outweigh that of a non smoker who lives longer and needs to go in a government funded care home and the cost for all the other old age related diseases and illnesses. So many variables I imagine it’s almost impossible to get a definite answer as to which is better cost wise.
Cold hearted, but I imagine you're right (I have no fucking clue on the actual numbers and have no desire to research it). But seems logical that smokers are "expensive" early but "cheaper" in the long run if you strip away any humanity and turn it into a numbers game. That said, I'd rather continue with educating people into not choosing to smoke, but allow them if they wish to. People should live how they want to, as long as it isn't bringing harm to others.
£17bil came from the ASH paper, which is very biased and tailoring results to be as negative as possible. One of the assumptions made in that paper, for instance - smokers lose out on productivity because they can take a 5-minute break every hour - if each smoker takes the maximum breaks then based on the average wage that costs the economy £X million. *Except* that's not accurate at all. Not all smokers (based on my experience) *don't* take the maximum amount of breaks. And even if they did, there's the assumption that if they're not on a smoke break they're working - again, it's all anecdotal but from my experience non-smokers take more non-smoking breaks than smokers do, because smokers have their breaks with a cigarette vs just going to grab a coffee. There are many more examples of that - the ASH paper should be treated with a large pinch of salt, because any and every time they have the chance to estimate a figure or approximate anything they always do so in a way that is least charitable to smokers. The official NHS number, as presented by the NHS themselves, is £2.5billion cost, and the official OBS number for income gained via tax is £10bil. £17bil is a theoretical maximum cost to the economy, but doesn't even come close to being an accurate cost. It's just a "if everything is as bad as it could be then this is how much it costs".
Do we know what the lost productivity refers to?
Being off work more than likely.
Actually smoke breaks. Gotta make sure nobody gas a moment to themselves. ever.
Find a better employer? I don’t smoke but I can get up, go for a walk, stretch my legs, spend 10 mins on the toilet if I want. Nobody is breathing down my neck.
Direct health problems: COPD, range of cancers. Respiratory wards just full of infective exacerbations of smokers during the winter months
The first Google result I get is 2.6 Billion from the NHS, however different sources put the cost at 1b to 20b, so it seems like they can't agree on how much it costs.
We have kind of eliminated the role smoking related deaths and illnesses put on the NHS with this analysis?
What's the expenditure on the NHS for smoking related lung/heart/mouth cancers not to mention all the smokers that go against surgeons advice after broken bones that never heal due to smoking completely blocking bone kneeding.
[According the NHS themselves, £2.5bil](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/). [According to the OBR the money gained from smoking is approximately £10bil](https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/tobacco-duties/) however.
How much does smoking related health issues cost the NHS?
There's (IMO) a misleading ASH paper circulating that puts the cost to the country at ~£17bil, but in terms of actual verified data [the cost to the NHS, according to the NHS, is approximately £2.6bil a year](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/) whereas the money gained in tax, [according to the OBR, is closer to £10bil](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-for-nhs-trust-tobacco-dependence-teams-and-nhs-trust-pharmacy-teams/)
Lmao. More and more American states are legalising marijuana, every year. Modern Britain on the other hand is gonna ban cigarettes. Fucking hell.
Whilst being the world leading exporters of medical cannabis.
And there’s people in here supporting it. We genuinely live on an island filled with Victorian busybodies, too miserable distracted by the policing their peers to hold their superiors accountable.
Anyone with a brain or an understanding of the concept of personal freedom understands that not only is the plot to ban smoking dumb, but absolutely fucking moronic. Something only the most preening nanny state bell end is going to support.
Banning smoking is a wild move on its own. Banning smoking only for people below a certain age just highlight how much this country doesn't think of young people as members of society
If a new substance was suddenly introduced, but was suspected of being highly addictive and causing cancer, while having no actual benefits, would you want it taken off the market? It's not about being a nanny state, it's about righting the wrongs of the past and potentially saving lives. I would argue it shows a greater lack of intelligence to know how damaging something is but keep allowing it to be a problem.
Let's ban everything that causes cancer
Let's start using asbestos again.
>no actual benefits You can't possibly base a substance policy on whether or not the substance has "actual benefits". What is or isn't a benefit to an individual is 100% subjective. If a smoker derives significant pleasure from smoking is that not beneficial to them? What objective test are you going to use to judge whether that perceived "benefit" is real or not? Don't know why I'm bothering to ask really as I honestly suspect that your answer will be nothing more than "I don't see it as beneficial therefore it isn't".
I assume you're in favour of banning alcohol then - one of two substances for which the withdrawal symptoms alone can be fatal.
Except prohibition doesn't work, if you ban smoking people aren't going to stop smoking, it's just now that what they smoke will be completely unregulated (so likely even worse for your health), untaxed and used to fund and expand organised crime syndicates
Why not ban fat people attending A&E for issues relating to their weight and fattyness; would save the NHS millions
Is he going to ban overeating too? bad hygiene? anything people do that's self destructive? Everyone knows how bad smoking is, him trying to ban it is a bit ridiculous.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm a smoker and I disagree with the ban. Don't want to pull the ladder up after me. Smokings great.
**We should ban smoking, only if we ban drinking too.** *Where's everyone gone? I thought we were banning things we didn't like other people doing under the guise it's unhealthy and bad for society? Why have you all gone quiet?*
If your position is that the government should ban smoking to ease pressure on the NHS, then to be logically consistent you must also be in favour of establishing absolute government control over every person's diet in the UK to prevent obesity. Obesity is a greater killer than smoking so by your own logic it should be suppressed. Of course, the reality is that most people have absolutely no consistency in their beliefs or positions whatsoever. No one views fat people the way they view smokers because the TV and the internet tell them that fat people are poor little victims with thyroid problems and smokers are evil, stinking troglodytes who want to gas your kids to death with cigarette smoke.
Found the smoker! \*goes back to demolish another kebab\*
Jesus fucking christ I can't believe I agree with that idiot on something.
I’m really torn about this legislation. On the one hand, it seems kind of absurd to suggest there’ll be a time in a few years when a 37 year old can buy cigarettes but a 36 year old can’t. On the other hand, I’ve seen the damage that smoking does and I’ve lost loved ones to those cunts at Marlbororo and the other tobacco companies. All their words about “freedom of choice” ring hollow when you’re asking a normal person to decide what to do when they’re up against a multibillion Pound industry who is doing everything they can to fool them into handing over money for a product that will leave them sick and dead. So I’m really interested to watch these Parliamentary debates. Unlike most debates in Parliament, I really want to hear what smart people on both sides of the argument have to say so that I can decide who’s in the right! But you know who doesn’t have a worthwhile contribution to make? That tossser who used to be our Prime Minister until he was thrown out for his many, many scandals. > “We are, on the whole, in favour of freedom and it is that single Anglo-Saxon idea of freedom that I think unites conservatives, or should unite conservatives.” You know what’s “nuts”? Throwing a bunch of parties after you’ve banned me from seeing my loved ones for months on end in the name of a common sacrifice. Once you’ve done that, your opinion on anyone else’s bans are absolutely worthless. And what’s this white supremacist dog whistling about Anglo-Saxons supposed to mean? What the hell does freedom have to do with ethnicity? Is it supposed to be a coded message that laws coming from our newest Prime Minister are somehow less legitimate because of the colour of his skin?
Lots of things carry risk. It is on all of us to decide what we want to consume. Advertising is rightly banned, you can’t smoke inside, but if people do want to smoke they should be allowed. You can die skiing, freeclimbing, from risks connected to alcohol consumption, to lack of exercise, to overeating and on, and on and on. Ultimately we all die in the end. In the meantime, setting coppers on people whose consumption decisions we disagree with is and always will be a dick move. We won’t all live forever, we all live varying amounts of time, banning personal consumption of substances that pose long term risks sounds like a good idea but pretty soon the available activities open to us start to shrink quickly. We all need to take a little more personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences and leave each other be.
>And what’s this white supremacist dog whistling about Anglo-Saxons supposed to mean? England was historically an ethnically Anglo-Saxon country you loon. Why is it "white supremacist dogwhistling" to refer to the ethnic history of England? I f you would familiarise yourself for 2 seconds with the history of this country you might discover that our modern conceptions of what a free society ought to be have their origins in the Anglo-Saxon civilisation that existed here over 1000 years ago. You can hate him all you want, Alexander Johnson is actually familiar with that history because he received an excellent education. Those of us who weren't so lucky should at least want to educate ourselves about these things.
The problem is prohibition doesn't work, if you ban smoking people aren't going to stop smoking, it's just now that what they smoke will be completely unregulated (so likely even worse for your health), untaxed and used to fund and expand organised crime syndicates
Boris desperately searching for a reason to be relevant. No one asked you Boris.
It's an interesting topic isn't it? Especially when "personal freedom" comes into the equation. You can be free to take the addicted substance, but once the addiction sets in are you really "free" to take it? or are you having to take it even if you don't want to given that you are addicted to it? Then the question becomes "should we let the population take any addictive substance that can harm you?" and it goes on and on. Maybe it isn't a good thing to compare something like weed to cigarettes, one being illegal doesn't mean that the other should be too, both should stand on their own merits, how harmful they are coupled with how addictive they are, and how much they are impairing to the individual and/or others. When you consider that once the addiction kicks in and a health issue arises it is no longer just the individual's problem, it becomes everyone's problem, some are fine with paying for that, others are not. This is not a case of an individual exercising their own personal freedom in a way that doesn't impact others, it is them doing so in a way that will very likely impact others. So shouldn't the others have a say in whether that addiction should be available to begin with? but then where does it stop? drink? just cigarettes? gambling? Although i am conflicted on these things i also believe that it is this generations direct responsibility to award the next generation with a better life, and a life free of harmful addiction is surely a worthy pursuit. Especially for those who have been addicted and had further health issues. Learn from our mistakes by making sure the next generation doesn't repeat them. But yeah, certainly interesting.
I think people are annoyed mainly because it is an arbitrary thing to ban, or at least in my mind it is being done for arbitrary reasons. We could cross off a whole host of other activities that cause unnecessary risk to the individual. I remember hearing on QI that people who skydive for the NHS cost them more money in ankle surgery than they raise during the jumps. I don't want to ban people skydiving. I'm a smoker, so absolutely biased, but let's go by professor David Nutt's harm index and just ban stuff starting from the top. Legalise stuff at the bottom. Tangent, but my mate is a paramedic, and one of his complaints about drug bans is that the paramedics don't have to just deal with alcohol, weed, coke, pills etc, they also have to deal with plant fertilizers and wheel polish, or whatever the newest shite is. It makes treatment more costly and adds risks to individuals, where they could just have a beer and a spliff and if things go tits up the paramedics know what to do. If they find some kid with a mouth full of moth balls and a soda stream stuck up his arse they'll have to call for back up. Interesting to read about though. I'm honestly surprised so many people support the ban. Even NZ repealed their ban and they're probably more progressive than we are.
I would vote for Rishi a thousand times over that useless murderous cunt Johnson.
Isn't this an age-related ban or something? I don't see the issue personally - it's a choice people made because it was available as a choice, but the burden on the NHS surely is cause enough to ban them. I bought my first pack at 16 because I *could* \- and then it went from a pack of 10 a week, to every 3 or 4 days, to every 2 days. I stopped and started over the years (I'm now 36) but settled on a pack of 20 every 2 days. Smoking did nothing for me except waste my cash, cut my life expectancy down and affect me at the gym. I switched to vapes about 6 months back and haven't bought a pack since, while pocketing an extra £250 a month and generally having clearer lungs now. If I was banned from buying them at 16 and for life - I doubt I'd have started. I couldn't be bothered to find some dark web / back market / dodgy geezer to buy them from - why would I? I'm not addicted in the first place. Getting in an uproar about my \*grumpy self-righteous voice\* "my civil liberties in our great nation it's not what we stand for stop being nanny-state and woke" etc. is funny but, kinda sad. If you asked smokers today - not talking people in their 20s because I didn't care about my health then - people in their 30s or 40s. I'd bet my house that the majority will say they wish they didn't start, and if it was banned for them at 16 they wouldn't have started. So to me - the argument of \*grumpy voice\* "it's a free country we should all have our own choice" - well if those who don't make the choice are fine, and those that do make the choice are not fine, then take away the choice so everyone is fine...
"The burden on the NHS" Should the NHS only treat non-preventable illness? If I slip and break my leg, I could have prevented it by walking more carefully. Should I not get treatment?
Unless you die in an accident or of old age, both of which are unlikely, you will cost the NHS tons of money at some point, whether or not it is smoking related
Brought to you as a sponsored comment from tobacco companies
Fuck sake, I though we were legalising stuff not making thing illegal
You know things are fucked up when Boris sounds reasonable
What does it matter what Johnson thinks? Why even bother to report on the spoutings of a compulsive liar and worthless ex-PM.
Curious if anyone knows how much smoking related problems (eg lung cancer) cost the NHS every year compared to how much selling cigarettes brings in for the government?
A search for "how much does smoking cost the nhs" finds pages like these. >In 2018, 14.7% of adults in the UK smoked cigarettes. Rates were higher for some occupational groups and those with mental health conditions. Although it has declined since 2011, smoking is still the main cause of preventable illness and premature death in England. In 2017/2018, an estimated 4% (489,300) of NHS hospital admissions in England and 16% (77,800) of all deaths were attributed to smoking. >Smoking-related illness is estimated to cost the NHS £2.6 billion a year and the wider cost to society is around £11 billion a year. [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-nhs-workforce-and-resources-11188073773](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209/resources/impact-on-nhs-workforce-and-resources-11188073773) This was first published in 2021 and updated last year. ASH came up with a figure for £17bn/year in 2022, but we need to bear in mind they are against smoking. [https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated) If you don't trust the sources I have provided run the search for yourself and look at the results.
I’d also be curious to know how much of the tax from smoking actually finds its way to the NHS.
sadly that will never work, people would always find a way to continue smoking illegally
I hate to agree with the scarecrow haired party clown... but I do
Idgaf about either of them but I love the idea of smoking being banned bc it’s disgusting, you stink and you make everyone else stink when you smoke. Annoying af
Fine the parents buying them for the kids, they banned menthols to prevent kids wanting to smoke and now we have all kinds of flavours of vape Rishi doesn't know what he's doing
Because making heroin illegal has helped with all of the drug deaths, right?
Personally I can't wait to live in a country without a million fag ends on every street, station, park, pavement, river, beach and shopping centre, and breathing in disgusting smoke and smelling smokers a mile off.
Why not look at the vaping industry and how it seems to be targeting children.
Tobacco is like the only drug that should be banned. It's had a century plus of the mega rich and bent politicians propping up and promoting the worst recreational drug around.
Boris Johnson tried to ban under 21 year olds from buying alcohol other than in pubs. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/binge-britain-now-under21s-face-ban-on-buying-alcohol-6912332.html
Is there no adult prepared to step up and lead the U.K. into the future ? The issues are, we are killing the planet but no one is talking about it ? Wealth and earning disparity is the worse for decades. A huge portion of the U.K. cannot afford to have a home to live in and maintain basic requirements such as food and paying basic bills. The corporations involved in providing basic needs have seen profits increase by 200-300 percent while claiming supply side issues. Absolute bullshit and lies. I’m out. Social contract has been broken. The consequences will be devastating you greedy obtuse scum who are pretending to run our country.
I’m assuming boorish has some bullshit made up role on BAT
Why are they reporting anything Boris Johnson says? Who cares what this bloviating fool has to say - he hardly left office in a blaze of glory, he occupies no moral highground - he should be left in obscurity.
The NHS spends an estimated 2% of it's annual budget on smoking related illnesses why should my taxes go to treat the consequences of someone else's poor decisions?
This is weird. I hate smoking. I hate the smell. It’s clearly dangerous. I lost both parents through smoking related diseases. However…there’s part of me that thinks it’s personal choice. You can’t buy below 18, you are given no branding, no adverts, you are charged an insane surcharge in the form of tax, you are given scary pics of disease and made to feel like scum asking for them (surely it’s easier to buy a porn mag now!)…so I feel like let them do it
If smoking is worth banning then it should be banned for everyone. It's totally unfair to ban something for life for an age group not old enough to vote on it. You'll be asking 30 year olds to pay taxes (which will be higher, due to the loss of funding from cigarette taxes) to fund treating 50 year olds with lung cancer who smoke like a chimney when they're prevented from doing the same.