|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 5, 2023 12:33:24 GMT
The idea is that it is hard to ban something that people are already using and addicted to.
So introduce a ban that only affects those not currently using the product and hence not addicted to it.
All makes sense. Good idea - sometimes the party you don't generally support can get something right at which times that should be acknowledged.
Totally sensible as I have said before for the UK to copy an idea working overseas rather than reinventing the wheel. Lets hope an intelligent government soon takes a good look at the Dutch Criminal Justice system reforms over the last twenty or so years and copies that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 5, 2023 12:40:24 GMT
All it will do is create a black market, with no quality control, no health warnings, no standards and no tax.
It is a policy doomed to failure.
Either ban it properly, or don't.
Seems to me existing policy works because fewer and fewer people smoke anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Oct 5, 2023 12:54:48 GMT
The war on drugs is going so well it's obvious that big government is the way forward.
At last a government policy that will benefit organised crime.
I see no downsides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 5, 2023 13:10:40 GMT
I think this is an example of legislation for the sake of legislation, it's ridiculous. Raising the age at which someone can by tobacco will not stop someone buying tobacco. Most tobacco bought and smoked these days is illicit under the counter contraband anyway, all this legislation will do is to make tobacco smuggling more profitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 5, 2023 13:19:09 GMT
Given that tobacco is addictive, it would be very hard to ban tobacco for existing smokers. Therefore phasing in a ban seems sensible. Sensible too to copy sensible ideas from others - you dont always have to reinvent the wheel. How else would you organise a tobacco ban? How is the ban on Marijuana going?. Every year we get calls to legalises consumption of Weed in part because it is impossible to police a ban... is there some cunning plan that I am missing? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Oct 5, 2023 13:21:41 GMT
I think this is an example of legislation for the sake of legislation, it's ridiculous. Raising the age at which someone can by tobacco will not stop someone buying tobacco. Most tobacco bought and smoked these days is illicit under the counter contraband anyway, all this legislation will do is to make tobacco smuggling more profitable. I don't think that's true any more. Tobacco prices on the continent are now so close to UK prices it's not worth the bother of smuggling it in. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Oct 5, 2023 13:28:03 GMT
Given that tobacco is addictive, it would be very hard to ban tobacco for existing smokers. Therefore phasing in a ban seems sensible. Sensible too to copy sensible ideas from others - you dont always have to reinvent the wheel. How else would you organise a tobacco ban? How is the ban on Marijuana going?. Every year we get calls to legalises consumption of Weed in part because it is impossible to police a ban... is there some cunning plan that I am missing? It has worked brilliantly in Canada. Weed is now so cheap and readily available the black market in it has virtually disappeared. Rather than have to mix with criminals you can have quality controlled weed delivered to your door in under 45 mins at around a third of the price here. As a bonus a multi-billion dollar industry now pays tax. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 5, 2023 13:29:09 GMT
13% of people aged 18-24 smoke. Many will then be addicted for live, suffer serious health consequences and cost the taxpayer a fortune.
Lets see if we can at least half that number.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 13:33:52 GMT
I think that smoking is reducing year in year out, this is just a Tory ploy to steal the headlines from a natural occurrence, just like halving inflation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 15:32:59 GMT
Speaking as a non smoker, I would on the face of it say it won't affect me.
However, my brother is totally addicted to tobacco and can't really go an hour without a fix. I respect his right to smoke although I hate the second hand smoke.
This policy is very restrictive and smacks of state control.
The state has been happy to take £10 billion in tax from smokers, how will they replace that income?
No, the liberal in me says that people should be allowed to smoke themselves to death, if they so wish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 16:02:59 GMT
This should have been done decades ago. The cost of smoking to the NHS is astronomical. But it is really amusing that this flies in the face of Tory, none interference by the state. What other 'freedoms' are they likely to take from us? This is why the NHS is bad. It is political and dictates how we live our lives. Also, a Labourite is in no position to lecture the country on freedoms. The issue here is that this government is not Conservative. The freedom to choose should be an integral part of conservatism. It's the Socialists who deny people a choice. What freedoms have Labour taken from you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 16:04:37 GMT
You can see what this idea has done, clever move by Sunak it's got the likes of Dappy and Red Rum in agreement. Rishi taking some big nanny state ideas coming from the Nu Labour handbook to help swing himself some voters.  Do you think this is important enough to get anyone to vote for the Conservatives? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 5, 2023 19:05:25 GMT
I think that smoking is reducing year in year out, this is just a Tory ploy to steal the headlines from a natural occurrence, just like halving inflation. If smoking rates are decreasing, even less need for nanny state nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 5, 2023 19:18:13 GMT
Its a policy for imbeciles - you have 2 brothers - one is 15 and one 14 - one can smoke all of their lives and one cannot - even when they are pensioners.. In what fucking world is that sensible?  Nothing to stop the elder bro offering (buying) smokes to (for) the younger. The good thing about this (should it be adopted), is that the added inconvenience of buying tobacco products will discourage more people from smoking. Personally, I’d ban smoking in all public places and spaces — wading through smokers and clouds of tobacco smoke at the entrance to a pub is very unpleasant. I don’t see how such legislation will increase the current tobacco black market — but a total ban on smoking definitely would… |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Oct 5, 2023 19:29:53 GMT
Its a policy for imbeciles - you have 2 brothers - one is 15 and one 14 - one can smoke all of their lives and one cannot - even when they are pensioners.. In what fucking world is that sensible? Nothing to stop the elder bro offering (buying) smokes to (for) the younger. The good thing about this (should it be adopted), is that the added inconvenience of buying tobacco products will discourage more people from smoking. Personally, I’d ban smoking in all public places and spaces — wading through smokers and clouds of tobacco smoke at the entrance to a pub is very unpleasant. I don’t see how such legislation will increase the current tobacco black market — but a total ban on smoking definitely would… The law would stop the elder brother buying tobacco for his sibling. In the same way it prohibits buying alcohol for under 18s. |
|
