I get the impression that young people are asked for ID if they look under 25 anyway. It’s rare for people over that age to start smoking (graph is EU28 from 2017):
I’d be more concerned about vaping TBH.
2 Likes
Is it his attempt at drumming up some big fat donations from the tobacco industry
Is there not already a law which says you have to prove age to buy smokes,as with alcohol?
New Zealand have managed this kind of phased ban.
1 Like
Yeah but if that comes in 25 becomes 26 etc. And yes smoking rates have fallen hugely but as they’re still being sold, there’s still a healthy (ironic) market. Know anywhere that’s stopped selling them?
And there will absolutely be a black market.
Here’s Hawaii on 4th July. Fireworks (retail / domestic) are illegal in Hawaii:
1 Like
Good if it is, but I doubt it. You and me are too long in the teeth to expect anything else.
Stuff like this only goes one way.
It’s about playing the numbers game. Kids will try something out of curiosity but generally they will keep doing it because they think it makes them look grown-up. I can remember Richard Doll saying that anti-smoking campaigns failed because they were aimed at kids rather than the 18-23 year old groups that they aspire to.
Smoking drops year on year for a variety of reasons but generally it is because it no longer appears something that is glamorous. When is the last time you saw anyone taking snuff?
Ironically at a wedding a few weeks ago, mad stuff and before anybody asks, it wasn’t white.
What made a massive difference was banning smoking in pubs. Killed tens of thousands of family businesses and made a big dent in the number of people who smoked. I still have no idea why a pub can’t have a thumping big warning sign outside that says SMOKING PUB and all the staff have to smoke to work there. Seems so obvious. But no, ban ban and ban.
On a civil liberties point, why not have a scheme which allows you to buy tobacco, but by joining you can’t use the NHS for smoking related illness? I think I’m right in saying that’s pretty much everything except breaking a bone? OK, a little hyperbole there but you get the idea. Although memory serves correct that there’s a Yes Minister sketch about we can’t ban smoking because it pays for the NHS.
Will be drinking soon. After dogs and fireworks obviously. Then we can live in bubble wrap till we’re potentially 100 watching people jump off Beachy Head out of sheer fucking boredom.
I did smoke, haven’t (properly) for 24 years. Had a few wobbles in the early days I admit and I think it took about 10 years to no longer crave them. I do see it as a worrying step to stop an adult doing something that potentially (Grandma lived to 80 and smoked all her life and died of nothing to do with it) kills you but does no harm to anybody else (outdoors, pick up your litter etc)
Thoughts?
Rishi hasn’t seen this.
When that was filmed (in the 70s) what was the smoking rate? About 50%? And it’s now about 10% and falling?
1 Like
Political news distortion pick on smoking again. Whilst we cant manage a youth club finances. All intended to be announced now around the HS2 balls up to conflate and confuse from simply £Billions of waste. Its aright we are kicking the cunt out of smokers again later this week, why don’t you come along for the show, oh that HS2, oh what nonsense…exactly.
3 Likes
Not just a Yes Minister sketch, it’s been part of the argument for years that the drop in tax revenue would be notable…although I dont really know how significant it has been over the last 40 years.
According to a quick google search tobacco duties this year are expected to raise £10.4bn - about 1% of all tax receipts and equivalent to 04% of national income.
This has actually been a tack by the tobacco industry. Philip Morris produced a report in the early 2000s in which they claimed that smoking was great for the Czech economy because it raised taxes and killed off people who would otherwise be drawing pensions and using healthcare.
Still a valid amount of tax though. You have to admit (well you don’t) that it does actually seem to be a policy that’s well intended. The reasons not to do it (for a government) eloquently explained by Humpy.
Don’t know about your circle of friends / colleagues but I’d put it at <2% for mine. There is a social aspect here though. Should we leave that for an international break or something?
Agreed.
Start a similar scheme for anyone over 16 stone.
Sign a waiver to say they don’t visit McDonalds 4 times a week or else they don’t get their heart restarted.
1 Like
The issue is they aren’t doing it at the moment, so how will increasing the age each year make any difference?
Scum. Making such massive changes without an election. No one voted for him or his rubbish.
With this level of incompetence and/or lying too:
4 Likes
Interesting
1 Like
The NHS are already doing some stuff along these lines believe it or not.
In my case I have kidney issues and had a little dip / wobble in the last couple of months (better now). So the topic of pre-emptive transplant was discussed. Within that conversation general health, fitness etc. was covered. If you’re overweight it’s very possible transplant will not be approved. Similarly, they might not even put people on dialysis which is the last straw in keeping someone alive. The outcomes are just not considered value as the success rate dips significantly. I’m not sure how that works when stuff gets super critical but it all sounds pretty brutal and ruthless.
I’ve also read a story that someone was recently rejected for a liver transplant. Self confessed alcoholic and not overweight at all, but his health overall was not considered good enough to be worthy of the transplant, despite stopping drinking. He’s been given something like 6 months.
So, some really difficult and ruthless decisions are made every day already.
So I’m not sure how the policy decisions being suggested here are “balanced” shall we say. It could get extended to the extreme (you’re not entitled to any dementia treatment because you played rugby for example) but it also potentially cuts out opportunities for success simply because people have been assessed on past failures rather than their current situation.
Personally I’d prefer a whole raft of front end type things such as regular health checks, education on diet etc. maybe looking at why McDonalds(shit food in genera) is so affordable and so on. Only after that is n place and working would the policies suggested above gain any traction with me personally.
1 Like
Interesting listen, thanks. Was concerned because I didn’t know they did substantive stuff instead of clickbait.
However, what I’m wondering now is how much of it is confirmation bias for me, and how much of it actually makes sense at all. It’s just mind-boggling because it’s just throwing away the future of this country.
I’ve read another comment elsewhere that they should really just have started building it from the North down. That makes a lot more sense.
1 Like