Smoking Ban

cambsno

cambsno

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,999
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
In NZ - for anyone born after 2008!

www.bbc.co.uk

New Zealand to ban cigarettes for future generations

No New Zealander born after 2008 will be able to buy tobacco under proposed new health laws.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Good or bad? On the one hand it should mean people don't start smoking so will in the end, have a smoke free country. But as we all know, drugs are illegal and people still take them so will that lead to bad quality cigarettes which could cause short term harm as well - and drive this underground, with cigarettes basically becoming a new 'drug' ? Making this something for gangs to exploit and potentially causing more harm?
 
Bad. Full Stop.

1. The government are overstepping the mark.
2. This will fuel the black market and criminal gangs just like drugs.
3. The government are overstepping the mark.

Over the last couple of years we're seeing western governments taking over more and more control over our lives. We need to STOP this NOW!

We're even talking about mandatory vaccines here!!
 
Last edited:
I think it's a good move.

Tobacco is just (if not more in some cases) dangerous than any illegal drug. It should be treated the same.

I think smoking should be banned in all public places and in any property where children live.
 
Sky said:
I think it's a good move.

Tobacco is just (if not more in some cases) dangerous than any illegal drug. It should be treated the same.

I think smoking should be banned in all public places and in any property where children live.
Click to expand...
Driving is dangerous.
Cycling is dangerous.
Sports is dangerous.
Alcohol can be dangerous.
Gambling can be dangerous.
Hiking can be dangerous.
Crossing the road is dangerous.

It's not for the government to control everything we do.

Banning Tobacco is not going to stop people smoking just like banning drugs didn't stop people taking drugs.
 
I'm all for compromise.

Smoking should be permitted provided the smoker is wearing an airtight helmet that doesn't let any of the polutant escape.

Then the smokers will be happy, those around them will be happy and the undertakers will be even more happy! :naughty:
 
I think it's a worthy aim approached clumsily. Ban it outside private premises, that's all.
Personally I think something similar with booze needs to be done. Alcohol causes equal if not more damage one way or another but is taxed far less, and leads to plenty of violence including against hospital/emegency services trying to help the boozed up. I once had to wait in A&E for 5 hours through the night with a heavily bleeding headwound, unable to be seen because they were full up with drunks (on a Saturday night) (I had collapsed and cracked my head open at home thanks to whooping cough causing a blackout)
 
Seems a very good move. Social pressure and rising prices together with restrictions on where you can smoke have reduced the level of smoking to a small hard core.
There is probably not much more that can be done to stop the remaining smokers.

However an out right ban on the present younger generations aged 14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products, seem sensible, as it stands a fair chance of success of preventing a high proportion of them ever becoming addicted to nicotine. While leaving those older generations and their habit to eventually die out.
In this process it will eventually be illegal to sell tobacco products to any one. Manufacturing and growing tobacco will become illegal.
Tobacco and nicotine products can then join the other class A drugs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Terrywoodenpic said:
Tobacco and nicotine products can then join the other class A drugs.
Click to expand...
Class A drugs. Which continue to enter the country and are still sold illegally to many people including teenagers. Many of the drugs are of poor quality with fillers of unknown ingredients and affects.

Terrywoodenpic said:
Manufacturing and growing tobacco will become illegal.
Click to expand...
Growing Maruijana is illegal


It's all well and good thinking that something should be banned because you think it's bad, but be careful what you wish for. Before you know it the government will be banning something you like doing.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Seems a very good move. Social pressure and rising prices together with restrictions on where you can smoke have reduced the level of smoking to a small hard core.
There is probably not much more that can be done to stop the remaining smokers.

However an out right ban on the present younger generations aged 14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products, seem sensible, as it stands a fair chance of success of preventing a high proportion of them ever becoming addicted to nicotine. While leaving those older generations and their habit to eventually die out.
In this process it will eventually be illegal to sell tobacco products to any one. Manufacturing and growing tobacco will become illegal.
Tobacco and nicotine products can then join the other class A drugs.
Click to expand...
But we hear arguments about legalising some off these drugs, reducing the underworld activity and possibly protecting the user but it being at least good quality drugs rather than being cut with junk.

I think it has it merits but I would love to see research on what they think will actually happen as I do think it is wishful thinking that it will go away (just look at drug use)?
 
British governments have a surprisingly good record on improvements to our general health.

However, the one thing they've never got to grips with is drug misuse. I'm against all criminalisation of drugs because the only people it benefits are the criminals in the supply chain. I would like to see all drugs supplied through the existing pharmacies, using a robust track and trace system. This is to ensure that we know who those drugs are going to. All drugs should be consumed only on specially licenced premises and never anywhere that a person less than 18 years old is present.

You'll never stop people using drugs but you can control the consequences to some extent, if you really want to.
 
I see a lot of fake ID's with birth dates in 2006 / 2007 becoming available.
 
Perhaps the time has come for there to be 'premium' paid via NI to cover the additional cost of healthcare for those that smoke (drink alcohol?) ?

Afteral such a leagl requirement would bring focus to the fact that many (all?) smokers will have to a lesser or greater degree an impact on their health at some point in later life. The teenage invincibility/live forever is but a myth, the damage done today will have a cost tomorrow!

Yes, the NZ changes to be put into place sound draconian but if their government see no other way to 'create change', them so be it!
 
Box Brownie said:
Perhaps the time has come for there to be 'premium' paid via NI to cover the additional cost of healthcare for those that smoke
Click to expand...
From the web.

In 2020/21, tobacco duty tax receipts in the United Kingdom amounted to approximately 9.96 billion British pounds, compared with 9.29 billion pounds in the previous financial year

How much does smoking affect the NHS?
It is estimated that smoking related health issues are costing the NHS approximately £6 billion per year in hospital admissions, GP consultations and prescriptions, as well as any operations or other treatments needed for smoking-related diseases.

In 2020/21, tax receipts from alcohol duties in the United Kingdom amounted to approximately 12.12 billion British pounds, compared with 12.1 billion in the previous year. Wine duties accounted for the highest share of tax receipts, and amounted to 4.59 billion pounds in 2020/21.

How much does alcohol cost the NHS?
The latest figures estimate that alcohol costs the NHS around £3.5 billion each year,

Perhaps I should quit smoking and take up drinking seems less harmful :D
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
Yes, the NZ changes to be put into place sound draconian but if their government see no other way to 'create change', them so be it!
Click to expand...
NZ also had a zero Covid policy. It's taken them nearly 2 years to realise that was a pipe dream and have abandoned it, costing their economy dearly.
 
Last edited:
TBH if they are serious about this, the date should be moved a lot further forward.
Those 16+ year old's that are smoking now will find a way to continue.
If they had said banned from say 2016
Its highly unlikely that that 5 year old's are smoking, and won't even ( probably) be tempted
 
ecoleman said:
Driving is dangerous when done dangerously.
Cycling is dangerous when done dangerously.
Sports is dangerous when done dangerously.
Alcohol can be dangerous when taken dangerously.
Gambling can be dangerous When ?.
Hiking can be dangerous when done dangerously.
Crossing the road is dangerous when done dangerously.

It's not for the government to control everything we do.

Banning Tobacco is not going to stop people smoking just like banning drugs didn't stop people taking drugs.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.. Smoking is dangerous ALL the time, not just to you but to anyone close enough to breathe in the chemicals.
One year after banning smoking in public places in Scotland there was 17% reduction in heart attacks and an 18 per cent fall in childhood asthma cases. That's just one year!
 
Cobra said:
From the web.

In 2020/21, tobacco duty tax receipts in the United Kingdom amounted to approximately 9.96 billion British pounds, compared with 9.29 billion pounds in the previous financial year

How much does smoking affect the NHS?
It is estimated that smoking related health issues are costing the NHS approximately £6 billion per year in hospital admissions, GP consultations and prescriptions, as well as any operations or other treatments needed for smoking-related diseases.

In 2020/21, tax receipts from alcohol duties in the United Kingdom amounted to approximately 12.12 billion British pounds, compared with 12.1 billion in the previous year. Wine duties accounted for the highest share of tax receipts, and amounted to 4.59 billion pounds in 2020/21.

How much does alcohol cost the NHS?
The latest figures estimate that alcohol costs the NHS around £3.5 billion each year,

Perhaps I should quit smoking and take up drinking seems less harmful :D
Click to expand...

So actually everyone giving up will cost us around 4bn a year! We would have to cut other services or raise tax?

Also what about the net cost - it may cost 6bn to treat smoking related issues but what is the saving of hip replacements, dementia care and all the other things that affect people, who would have died of a smoking related disease by then. Not to mention the saving in pensions etc... Maybe saving that 6bn of smoking cost could actually cost a lot more!
 
cambsno said:
So actually everyone giving up will cost us around 4bn a year! We would have to cut other services or raise tax?

Also what about the net cost - it may cost 6bn to treat smoking related issues but what is the saving of hip replacements, dementia care and all the other things that affect people, who would have died of a smoking related disease by then. Not to mention the saving in pensions etc... Maybe saving that 6bn of smoking cost could actually cost a lot more!
Click to expand...
Ah! what a wonderful idea that you present......................smoking as a method population control ;)

I further wonder if there are also stats on the impact on smoking affecting fertility and what of the impact on the foetus by the mother smoking and the secondary smoking by the newborn > infant > child > in a smoking household :thinking:
 
ecoleman said:
Driving is dangerous.
Cycling is dangerous.
Sports is dangerous.
Alcohol can be dangerous.
Gambling can be dangerous.
Hiking can be dangerous.
Crossing the road is dangerous.

It's not for the government to control everything we do.

Banning Tobacco is not going to stop people smoking just like banning drugs didn't stop people taking drugs.
Click to expand...
Cycling isn't dangerous.

Not cycling is more dangerous than cycling. I'd add hiking to that. Also some sports.
 
Gambling can be dangerous When ?.
Click to expand...
Clearly you've never had to tell the wife you lost all the money

Steep said:
Fixed that for you.. Smoking is dangerous ALL the time, not just to you but to anyone close enough to breathe in the chemicals.
One year after banning smoking in public places in Scotland there was 17% reduction in heart attacks and an 18 per cent fall in childhood asthma cases. That's just one year!
Click to expand...

Smoking may be dangerous but that's up to the smoker. All the other activities that you say are only dangerous if done dangerously is a crock of ***. You don't have to be driving dangerously be be involved in an accident. The same goes for cycling. Many sports are dangerous by their very nature; Skiing, Rugby and by the way footballers act, football.

It really doesn't matter if smoking is dangerous or not what people should be worried about is the over reaching governments whether that be in NZ or here in the UK. If that doesn't concern people then I'm shocked.
 
ecoleman said:
Sorry not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...
My point is that not cycling is more dangerous than cycling. :cool:

Obesity, heart attack, diabetes, joint problems, pollution. That'll do for a start.

Are there any health benefits of smoking?
 
Far from "over reaching", recent British governments have starved law enforcement agencies of funds.

David Cameron inherited 172,000 personel in 2011 but by 2018 the tories had wittled that down to 150,000. Things were sufficiently bad that they had to recruit another 10,000 over the following 3 years - thus replacing the cadre of experienced officers lost in the previous 8 years with newly trained, hastily recruited staff with too few old hands to support them. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/303963/uk-police-officer-numbers/)

Bad as that is, the loss of more than 33% of local enforcement staff (the people who protect consumers, employees, tenants and children) simply encourages the nastiest elements in British commerce who feel free to thumb their noses at the laws designed to protect the poor and the weak from cheats, bullies and fraudsters. ( https://www.unchecked.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-UKs-Enforcement-Gap-2020.pdf )

The fantasy that Britain is turning into some fascist police state, because we have rules to protect the vulnerable, would be worth a laugh if only it weren't so absurd.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Clearly you've never had to tell the wife you lost all the money



Smoking may be dangerous but that's up to the smoker. All the other activities that you say are only dangerous if done dangerously is a crock of ***. You don't have to be driving dangerously be be involved in an accident. The same goes for cycling. Many sports are dangerous by their very nature; Skiing, Rugby and by the way footballers act, football.

It really doesn't matter if smoking is dangerous or not what people should be worried about is the over reaching governments whether that be in NZ or here in the UK. If that doesn't concern people then I'm shocked.
Click to expand...

Smoking IS dangerous not just to the smoker but to anyone near the smoker there's no 'may' about it.
You don't have to be driving dangerously to be involved in an accident but somebody does.
People smoke because they are addicted to it, they get addicted because of the chemicals put into the cigarettes specifically to get them addicted. It is because government did not reach far enough in the beginning that smoking has become the health problem that it has. If it needs to be banned then so be it, should have been done decades ago.
If you really want to be concerned about government over reaching, look no further than Westminster enacting laws that make it illegal to protest against them.
 
ecoleman said:
Probably not but it’s the choice of the smoker
Click to expand...

Did you read the part of my first reply where I pointed out the 18% drop in childhood asthma in the year following the public smoking ban?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Far from "over reaching", recent British governments have starved law enforcement agencies of funds.

David Cameron inherited 172,000 personel in 2011 but by 2018 the tories had wittled that down to 150,000. Things were sufficiently bad that they had to recruit another 10,000 over the following 3 years - thus replacing the cadre of experienced officers lost in the previous 8 years with newly trained, hastily recruited staff with too few old hands to support them. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/303963/uk-police-officer-numbers/)

Bad as that is, the loss of more than 33% of local enforcement staff (the people who protect consumers, employees, tenants and children) simply encourages the nastiest elements in British commerce who feel free to thumb their noses at the laws designed to protect the poor and the weak from cheats, bullies and fraudsters. ( https://www.unchecked.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-UKs-Enforcement-Gap-2020.pdf )

The fantasy that Britain is turning into some fascist police state, because we have rules to protect the vulnerable, would be worth a laugh if only it weren't so absurd.
Click to expand...
Well quite.

And look what happens when you leave safety controls up to companies. I think someone in Cameron's government called it a bonfire of regulations. Instead we got a tower block Roman candle, killing 72.
 
Steep said:
If you really want to be concerned about government over reaching, look no further than Westminster enacting laws that make it illegal to protest against them.
Click to expand...
I’m very concerned about it.

so let me get this straight. You’re happy for a government to ban smoking because YOU don’t like it but you’re unhappy about the government essentially banning public protest?

I realise it’s not the U.K. government banning smoking but you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll give it a try soon. Just as soon as they’ve enforced vaccines and made us all carry papers proving so.
 
So after smoking what will they ban next? Will we all have to be vegan because some say meat is bad for you, or will Brussels sprouts be banned to remove methane expulsion? smokers are a ‘dying’ breed, it is already being forced out by increased costs, I know more ex smokers than continuing smokers, forcing people’s hands might attract some to try it that may not have, who knows.


Ex 40 a day smoker btw, stopped in 1995 after approx 25 years.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Far from "over reaching", recent British governments have starved law enforcement agencies of funds.

David Cameron inherited 172,000 personel in 2011 but by 2018 the tories had wittled that down to 150,000. Things were sufficiently bad that they had to recruit another 10,000 over the following 3 years - thus replacing the cadre of experienced officers lost in the previous 8 years with newly trained, hastily recruited staff with too few old hands to support them. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/303963/uk-police-officer-numbers/)

Bad as that is, the loss of more than 33% of local enforcement staff (the people who protect consumers, employees, tenants and children) simply encourages the nastiest elements in British commerce who feel free to thumb their noses at the laws designed to protect the poor and the weak from cheats, bullies and fraudsters. ( https://www.unchecked.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-UKs-Enforcement-Gap-2020.pdf )

The fantasy that Britain is turning into some fascist police state, because we have rules to protect the vulnerable, would be worth a laugh if only it weren't so absurd.
Click to expand...
Yes I seem to recall people laughing when it was suggested we would have to carry papers proving covid vaccinations and more people laughed when it was suggested the government would mandate vaccines.
I was called a conspiracy theorist when I said to somebody that we would be locked down again before Christmas.
 
ecoleman said:
I’m very concerned about it.

so let me get this straight. You’re happy for a government to ban smoking because YOU don’t like it but you’re unhappy about the government essentially banning public protest?

I realise it’s not the U.K. government banning smoking but you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll give it a try soon. Just as soon as they’ve enforced vaccines and made us all carry papers proving so.
Click to expand...

No, I'm happy to a government to ban smoking because it kills people. If it only killed those who smoked I would not be worried but it kills people who don't smoke. Understand this, I know you do because it has been explained a million times, smoking kills people who do not smoke.
 
Cobra said:
How much does smoking affect the NHS?
It is estimated that smoking related health issues are costing the NHS approximately £6 billion per year in hospital admissions, GP consultations and prescriptions, as well as any operations or other treatments needed for smoking-related diseases.
Click to expand...


Maybe counterintuitive, but smokers cost less for a healthcare system over their lifetime than a non smoker on average. Although smokers cost more per year they do live quite a lot shorter lives and that balances the costs out, making them cheaper overall https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506


Im against this ban, just cause I don't think making any drug illegal actually helps anyone except criminals and countries with a more liberal approach tend to fair better.
 
ecoleman said:
No because it’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You only say it's only irrelevant, because you refuse to accept that smoking harms innocent people, it invalidates your argument.
 
The NZ ban will work because they are making cigarettes unavailable to people who have never smoked and so (in the main) will not miss it.
 
Not unavailable (any more than tobacco was unavailable to me at 14 when the legal age to buy it was 16 - I was never asked for ID and could have got an over 16 to buy the fags for me anyway), just harder to get.
 
Steep said:
.
Click to expand...
Steep said:
No, I'm happy to a government to ban smoking because it kills people. If it only killed those who smoked I would not be worried but it kills people who don't smoke. Understand this, I know you do because it has been explained a million times, smoking kills people who do not smoke.
Click to expand...
Are you still living in the 1970’s?
Where are all these smokers that are killing you?

which pubs or restaurants do you visit where people are smoking inside?
What workplace do you work in where everyone smokes around you?

I walk around town here and very rarely see people walking down the road smoking these days and the few that do really don’t bother me.
 
Steep said:
The NZ ban will work because they are making cigarettes unavailable to people who have never smoked and so (in the main) will not miss it.
Click to expand...
No it won’t work. People still take drugs and smoke weed.

At least tobacco products are regulated.
 
Last edited:
I ahve always believe that one day (not in my lifetime) smoking will be eradicated .... there isnt a plus side for it.... new zealand and australia seem to be forward in a lot of things and I say well dont..

PS I smoked quite heavy for 25 years... But havent had one for the last 25 yrs :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top