I don't drink alcohol or enjoy sunbathing and rarely eat fried foods - I don't think there's anything I enjoy that's more important than not dying from cancer or giving someone else a serious respitory illness.
Would you really cut out everything that gives you enjoyment if it were shown to increase your risk of dying of cancer (you will, of course, still die of something)? And if you did then what would be left to make your life worth living in the first place?
Different people have different ideas about where to draw the line between having more years in their life versus more life in their years, and as adults that should be their choice to make. Who are you to assume that just because you draw the line in a certain place everyone should do the same?
I find this to be a bit of a strange question. Surely there are many life-enhancing things in your life and in most people's lives that aren't capable of causing cancer? I don't see how birdwatching or studying a particular period of history could be a class 1 carcinogen. But more than that, surely it's our relationships with others that really make life worth living? I can't imagine that the love of your (general you) family and friends could cause cancer in any sense, because it's an abstract concept.
When I was at my lowest ebbs in terms of mental health, the things that were life-affirming to me were more conceptual, like nature carrying on regardless of what was happening in my own life. Giving up charcuterie for eg doesn't really seem like a big deal to me in that context - like I wish that it wasn't a carcinogen, but as someone who grew up not thinking that they would still be around at my current age it matters more to me to give myself the best chance possible of a longer and healthier life, because there have been many times where I thought I might not wake up in the morning let alone see the next year.
Smoking is something that directly negatively affects the health of other people via passive smoking. It's not a purely private habit that doesn't significantly affect others - if it was then I wouldn't feel the way that I do. There are plenty of adult vices that I personally dislike that don't have the same direct negative effect on others and therefore I feel much more libertarian on, for example cocaine use. Cocaine turns people into utter tools but people around them don't get cancer from passive coke use (although ofc the cocaine trade itself is not exactly an ethical industry).
Well said, Pomona! I think that the older I get the more I find that things per se do not giver but a passing joy. I loved milk, but when milk caused me serious pain every day? Suddenly I found myself remarkably able to quit. I too imagine that if any of my favorite foods were significantly increasing the odds that I, or my loved ones, would die an early painful death I would find myself very able to quit.
In the end, it doesn't seem horrible to restrain myself or others a little for the common good. I rather feel that half the problem with my country is that some people absolutely refuse to restrain themselves at all for the common good. And the irony is that if no one in their community protects the common good they all lose out. In my area, we are pretty community oriented and willing to help each other out. Those small sacrifices end up coming back to one.
I'm also not trying to suggest that I don't also enjoy small material pleasures - only tonight at the supermarket I was rejoicing at the apparent return of the Kinder Maxi King to UK supermarkets - but their ephemeral nature is part of the pleasure. From my own experiences of sometimes having less than nothing, there's always a new thing that you can take pleasure in even if you have to stop something you were currently enjoying. I miss being able to have a Stowford Press* on a sunny afternoon, but I don't miss it more than I enjoy all the other things that bring me pleasure.
I think that even outside of a Christian framework, the kind of lasting happiness that comes from the house built on the rock vs that built on the sand still works because it's our relationships with each other and our communities and the planet that make life worth living even without a supernatural aspect to all of that. I hope that makes sense as a metaphor at least.
*a variety of hard/alcoholic cider, for those wondering!
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Why? I mean, I guess it’s clear that I’d find it problematic if proposed here in the US, but what the UK does is up to the UK.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Why? I mean, I guess it’s clear that I’d find it problematic if proposed here in the US, but what the UK does is up to the UK.
Because I believe it’s wrong on general principle. One more place where people have rights taken away, and one more attempt to destroy longstanding cultural traditions. And I’m totally fine with people in the UK or anywhere else being troubled/saddened by what is done in the US (or anywhere else). In my view, the rest of the world was perfectly fine and right to be concerned/unhappy with the US enacting Prohibition in the early 20th century. And of course I welcome global criticism of Trump and sympathy with us who have to live under him (and DeSantis here in Florida—sainted Erin, pray for us!), even if he were not affecting the rest of the world at all.
Heck, I completely disagree with the position, but I think that posters here from outside the US are perfectly right to have opinions/concerns about the US not banning tobacco. Or about our laws on marijuana, etc.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
Yeah. But I think for me, the point is less about actual injustices that will come about in the real world, but rather that...
...this law introduces an entirely new category of victimless crime, accompanied by some rather conspicuous double standards that seem to have more to do with appeasing popular sympathies than with delineating rational exemptions.
God damn those nasty old grocers who sell cigarettes! Those are the guys who sell the fags that Aunt Debbie blows into your kid's face when she babysits! Lock 'em all up! What? Oh, heavens no, we're NOT gonna lock Aunt Debbie up!! What do you take us for, tyrants??
Which I don't think is really a good set of standards to have as a precedent for legal policy. And when it gets down to the level of the bootlegger/buyer dichotomy outside the smoke shop, we're pretty much in the same realm as "Arrest the kid selling bags of coke in the park across from the stock exchange, but let the brokers snort the afternoon away."
Now, just to be clear, I am not on some mad-dog libertarian crusade against all victimless-crime laws, eg. I don't want hard drugs legalized next week. But it seems to me that if a substance is bad enough that we should be arresting vendors just for selling a small amount to someone who may or may not actually be the final user, then we should also apply similar sanction to the people who are using the substance in such a way that actually causes direct harm to others.
Victimless crime? I think that can apply to other behaviour the law declares to be an absolute offence.
The classic example in UK law is being pulled over for what a police officer saw as careless driving (even though no one has been hurt). Then failing a breathalyser test. Or refusing to take it. Guilty as charged!
There may be other examples but I remember a good deal of protests from civil liberties folks about the dangers of making law that determined an absolute crime. Something to do with “mens rea” (guilty mind) IIRC.
I get the point of principle. But I reflect on the breathalyser law re drunk driving. The death rate from car driving accidents halved in the UK after the breathalyser law was introduced and I reckon that’s a good thing.
So back on point.
The death rate from smoking-related cancer is huge in the UK. If this law does something to reduce it, even long term, then that also seems like a good thing.
I can see that the law, morality, and concepts of freedom are all somewhat muddled together here and I’m not sure there is any possible absolute entangling of that muddle.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
By all means pray about civil liberties issues in the UK, but I would venture that arresting grannies for opposing genocide might need to be higher up the list than stopping people selling poisons to others.
Two permanent classes of people are created: those who can and will continue to be able to buy cigarettes, and those who can’t and will never be able to buy cigarettes.
I'm not clear about the interpretation of "permanent" here. Under this law, there will eventually be only one class of people - those who cannot legally be sold cigarettes.
Permanent in the sense that nothing will allow a person to move from one class to the other class. Whichever side of the relevant date you fall on, that’ll determine the class you’re permanently a member of.
Ah - a more person-centric perspective. (I suppose "We the people…" is a big clue.) Ordinary people are something of an afterthought in English law.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over and checks the age on their drivers licenses. [amended version]
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
It seems rather more likely that the cigarettes, having been obtained illegally, would be confiscated. (And they would be evidence.) Under the law, it's Jim who offends, and who may be fined as a result.
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
Interesting point.
I suppose it might be a defence if the person who sold them to you (who is the one potentially committing an offence) could demonstrate that they were for the use of someone born before 2009, and not for your own use. This doesn't sound too different from collecting a medical prescription for a controlled substance on behalf of someone else, which I believe to be possible, on the provision of personal information about the person you're collecting it for, a valid ID, and whatever else is required.
Overturning this law would require it to be repealed, which can only be done by Parliament. And which one of the party leaders has pledged to do if he becomes Prime Minister. (No prizes for guessing who.)
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Why? I mean, I guess it’s clear that I’d find it problematic if proposed here in the US, but what the UK does is up to the UK.
Because I believe it’s wrong on general principle. One more place where people have rights taken away, and one more attempt to destroy longstanding cultural traditions.
It could also be said that the situation in many countries across the world, of vast numbers of people over the years suffering chronic disease and death as a consequence of their addiction to a harmful substance, is down to the abuse of long-standing cultural traditions by imperialists and tobacco companies, for profit. Let alone the vast numbers of people whose rights were abused by imperialists and tobacco companies in order to produce the stuff in the first place.
It could also be said that the situation in many countries across the world, of vast numbers of people over the years suffering chronic disease and death as a consequence of their addiction to a harmful substance, is down to the abuse of long-standing cultural traditions by imperialists and tobacco companies, for profit. Let alone the vast numbers of people whose rights were abused by imperialists and tobacco companies in order to produce the stuff in the first place.
This.
And they continued to sell and market it when they knew how highly addictive and harmful it was.
In the UK cigarette packets must have big notices on them saying things like "smoking kills". Over many years the people that make and market these things have quite willingly and happily made money* from illness and death, building on and developing an attitude in the general population that smoking is normal and acceptable. Successive governments have worked against this gradually (which is the only way to force such a "sea change") to get us to the current position and the new law is more of the same. As posters above have pointed out Prohibition was a sudden legislation-only action which failed. In this case there has been a combination of small legislation changes and public education which is successfully taking the population on a journey from "smoking is OK" to "it isn't". I applaud this approach.
By the way I think that this particular legislation was started by the last Conservative Government and taken on by Labour and all parties (except one) support it.
* I'm well aware that pension schemes and other investments have benefitted from tobacco sales and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that I am a beneficiary of this.
I'm by no means an expert on the Tobacco and Vapes Act but I thought the deal was that it was never going to be legal for a person born after X date to buy cigarettes. So in your Jim and Bob scenario, so long as the person who does the actual buying is old enough, he's free to share his purchase with a younger adult as smoking itself is not illegal.
Is it two thirds of tobacco users die from it? And that comes not from misuse, but normal use. Any other comparable poison would be banned, I think.
I had a hard time finding percentages, and I looked for the UK, the US, and Canada -- the sites tend to give absolute numbers (XXX many people died of lung cancer last year) or increased chances (your chances of getting lung cancer increase by XX% if you smoke). But I did find this from Action on Smoking and Health, a UK charity: "About half of all life-long smokers will die early, losing on average about 10 years of life."
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
By all means pray about civil liberties issues in the UK, but I would venture that arresting grannies for opposing genocide might need to be higher up the list than stopping people selling poisons to others.
Both are good to pray for. It’s not like we can only pray for one thing.
Is it two thirds of tobacco users die from it? And that comes not from misuse, but normal use. Any other comparable poison would be banned, I think.
I had a hard time finding percentages, and I looked for the UK, the US, and Canada -- the sites tend to give absolute numbers (XXX many people died of lung cancer last year) or increased chances (your chances of getting lung cancer increase by XX% if you smoke). But I did find this from Action on Smoking and Health, a UK charity: "About half of all life-long smokers will die early, losing on average about 10 years of life."
What I wish I had be told before I smoked, was not so much that I *might* die of cancer (as opposed as dying of what in preference: heart attack, stroke, dementia - you are going to die of something ?) but that I had a 50 percent change of chronic lung disease.
When you are young you take more risks, you feel immortal but there’s a big difference between dying a bit younger what feels like a million years in the future, and coin toss your lungs will be fucked for half your life.
Overturning this law would require it to be repealed, which can only be done by Parliament. And which one of the party leaders has pledged to do if he becomes Prime Minister. (No prizes for guessing who.)
I’m guessing someone not in Labour. Well, if he’s otherwise awful, it might be a silver lining in my view. But there might be a shift in society years from now on this issue. I hope there is, but no idea when it might happen.
In any case, I seem to be the odd man out on this issue, and I don’t have more to add to this that I (and some others, though not many of us) haven’t already said. Peace be with everyone on the thread.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Sorry but frankly it's none of your fucking business. The public health measures the UK brings in don't concern you.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Sorry but frankly it's none of your fucking business. The public health measures the UK brings in don't concern you.
Sorry, but it is, and they do, because I’m a human being on planet Earth. I addressed this above. You can be concerned (wherever you are—I actually thought you were in New Zealand) about matters anywhere else, too, including the US—as I said above, even though I would not agree, you can be concerned that the US hasn’t adopted those kinds of measures.
And there’s no need to be rude.
Peace be with you, regardless of our disagreement.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Sorry but frankly it's none of your fucking business. The public health measures the UK brings in don't concern you.
Sorry, but it is, and they do, because I’m a human being on planet Earth. I addressed this above. You can be concerned (wherever you are—I actually thought you were in New Zealand) about matters anywhere else, too, including the US—as I said above, even though I would not agree, you can be concerned that the US hasn’t adopted those kinds of measures.
And there’s no need to be rude.
Peace be with you, regardless of our disagreement.
I don't care if I'm rude towards someone who has already shown rudeness by inserting themselves into a situation that doesn't concern them. I don't care what other countries do about smoking - it has nothing do with me and I don't concern myself with other places' public health legislation whether I agree with it or not. You can take your peace elsewhere because I don't accept it.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And yet the hypothetical posited by @Leorning Cniht is certainly not impossible.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Sorry but frankly it's none of your fucking business. The public health measures the UK brings in don't concern you.
Sorry, but it is, and they do, because I’m a human being on planet Earth. I addressed this above. You can be concerned (wherever you are—I actually thought you were in New Zealand) about matters anywhere else, too, including the US—as I said above, even though I would not agree, you can be concerned that the US hasn’t adopted those kinds of measures.
And there’s no need to be rude.
Peace be with you, regardless of our disagreement.
I don't care if I'm rude towards someone who has already shown rudeness by inserting themselves into a situation that doesn't concern them. I don't care what other countries do about smoking - it has nothing do with me and I don't concern myself with other places' public health legislation whether I agree with it or not. You can take your peace elsewhere because I don't accept it.
Okay. We disagree on all of this, of course. Take care.
Overturning this law would require it to be repealed, which can only be done by Parliament. And which one of the party leaders has pledged to do if he becomes Prime Minister. (No prizes for guessing who.)
I’m guessing someone not in Labour. Well, if he’s otherwise awful, it might be a silver lining in my view. But there might be a shift in society years from now on this issue. I hope there is, but no idea when it might happen.
It's Farage. Cloud's have a silver lining. Meteors don't. Guess which Farage in power is closer to? And making it easier for people to get rich poisoning people is not a silver lining anyway.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
And on what planet does "there aren't many of this sort of people" translate in to a sensible argument. I'm sure you're not making a case for ignoring minorities here.
I'm by no means an expert on the Tobacco and Vapes Act but I thought the deal was that it was never going to be legal for a person born after X date to buy cigarettes. So in your Jim and Bob scenario, so long as the person who does the actual buying is old enough, he's free to share his purchase with a younger adult as smoking itself is not illegal.
From section 2 of the Act in question:
(1) It is an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, any of the following on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009—
(a) a tobacco product;
(b) a herbal smoking product;
(c) cigarette papers.
Sorry but frankly it's none of your fucking business. The public health measures the UK brings in don't concern you.
Given how often developed nations look at each other for benchmarks and ideas, this is simply not true. If the UK can phase in a ban on smoking, maybe the US can as well. Or maybe some US states -- I can easily imagine leaders in California looking at ways they might adapt this legislation for use here.
I'm by no means an expert on the Tobacco and Vapes Act but I thought the deal was that it was never going to be legal for a person born after X date to buy cigarettes. So in your Jim and Bob scenario, so long as the person who does the actual buying is old enough, he's free to share his purchase with a younger adult as smoking itself is not illegal.
From section 2 of the Act in question:
(1) It is an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, any of the following on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009—
(a) a tobacco product;
(b) a herbal smoking product;
(c) cigarette papers.
Yup. Someone who buys cigarettes and shares them with a younger adult, knowing that they're too young to buy them legally, is likely to be considered to be buying them on the younger adult's behalf, regardless of whether the younger adult directly or indirectly reimburses them for the purchase. (When doing something "on behalf of" another person, it doesn't appear to be relevant whether any money changes hands.)
My guess is that it is still legal for an adult born after 2008 to grow tobacco for their own use, providing they declare it and pay the duty. And it might be legal for them to smoke tobacco products they come across, having been abandoned or forgotten about.
The majority of smokers start young, and many do so before they're old enough to buy cigarettes legally. The primary aim, health-wise, seems to be to make it much harder to *start* smoking, rather than impacting all those people for whom smoking has already become a habit. It would clearly be desirable to reduce this too, but it would be much more contentious. (Gradually reducing smoking is also rather less drastic economically, both for governments and tobacco companies.)
In this respect, I think it's quite reasonable to look at the aims and think about how it might be possible to achieve something similar in other countries and jurisdictions, given the variety of legal frameworks that exist.
Rehashing arguments about the right of human beings to be allowed to continue to do something that they've done for a few hundred years seems as futile as ever.
Smoking kills. It also impacts on people other than the smoker. Free choice means taking on the consequences of your choice. So if a smoker becomes ill should they get health care for it? Not too long ago the consequences were hidden by the tobacco companies and I can understand why people took up smoking and I have some sympathy for the situation they find themselves in. Today it is well known what will happen if you smoke so anyone who makes that free choice gets none.
It's not just the health of the consumers; it's the suppliers. The way the big tobacco companies tried to suppress evidence that smoking causes cancer was frankly evil (a word I don't use lightly); and their tactics have been directly adopted by global heating denialists.
Yes. In the UK, the Institute of Economic Affairs estimates that the Treasury benefits to the tune of £14.7 billion per annum from smoking at its current levels. That’s not just tax revenue from sales. There is a massive net saving on the payment of long term benefits (state pensions et al), even after taking into account increased NHS charges.
The personal risk of very painful terminal illness, chronic disability and a much foreshortened life are the personal costs to smokers.
And the Treasury benefits massively from the addiction.
Those are the facts. Even after knowing them I still found it a real struggle to give up.
Personal freedom issues? I’d rather my grandchildren were spared the costs of exercising such freedom. And anyone else in their generation.
Yes. My mum tried to give up several times, but started again. She died at 71, I think the estimate then was she'd lost 10 years, but now now I think it's more. I suppose I'm free to take ketamine, jolly good.
Action on Smoking and Health see it differently but they include costs which the Treasury would see as not measurable public sector costs, unlike the IEA forecast. I don’t quibble with the ASH contention that there are massive social costs.
Whichever you choose to see as most significant, smoking is bad news.
Comments
I find this to be a bit of a strange question. Surely there are many life-enhancing things in your life and in most people's lives that aren't capable of causing cancer? I don't see how birdwatching or studying a particular period of history could be a class 1 carcinogen. But more than that, surely it's our relationships with others that really make life worth living? I can't imagine that the love of your (general you) family and friends could cause cancer in any sense, because it's an abstract concept.
When I was at my lowest ebbs in terms of mental health, the things that were life-affirming to me were more conceptual, like nature carrying on regardless of what was happening in my own life. Giving up charcuterie for eg doesn't really seem like a big deal to me in that context - like I wish that it wasn't a carcinogen, but as someone who grew up not thinking that they would still be around at my current age it matters more to me to give myself the best chance possible of a longer and healthier life, because there have been many times where I thought I might not wake up in the morning let alone see the next year.
Smoking is something that directly negatively affects the health of other people via passive smoking. It's not a purely private habit that doesn't significantly affect others - if it was then I wouldn't feel the way that I do. There are plenty of adult vices that I personally dislike that don't have the same direct negative effect on others and therefore I feel much more libertarian on, for example cocaine use. Cocaine turns people into utter tools but people around them don't get cancer from passive coke use (although ofc the cocaine trade itself is not exactly an ethical industry).
In the end, it doesn't seem horrible to restrain myself or others a little for the common good. I rather feel that half the problem with my country is that some people absolutely refuse to restrain themselves at all for the common good. And the irony is that if no one in their community protects the common good they all lose out. In my area, we are pretty community oriented and willing to help each other out. Those small sacrifices end up coming back to one.
I think that even outside of a Christian framework, the kind of lasting happiness that comes from the house built on the rock vs that built on the sand still works because it's our relationships with each other and our communities and the planet that make life worth living even without a supernatural aspect to all of that. I hope that makes sense as a metaphor at least.
*a variety of hard/alcoholic cider, for those wondering!
So...
It's the year 2049. Jim and Bob were born in Dec '08 and Jan '09, respectively. Bob gives Jim money to buy him smokes, and then just as Jim is handing the smokes to Bob, a police officer comes over,
So, if I'm understanding the law correctly, the consenting adult Jim will be punished for buying the cigarettes for consenting adult Bob, but Bob himself will be free to smoke the cigarettes that Jim gave him?
Related question: A long time ago, I used to pick up groceries for a friend's elderly mother from time to time. She used to smoke (Lambert & Butler, as I recall), and so I'd often pick up a packet of cigarettes with her other essentials. As I understand the new UK law, if I was born in 2010, for example, then in 30 years time, I would be unable to purchase cigarettes for my housebound smoker parent. They would have to find a similarly antique but active friend to buy their tobacco for them.
Dealing with the Jim and Bob question, I seriously doubt a policeman will be able to tell the one-month difference in age.
Not sure about a younger generation buying a housebound older generation cigarettes.
Not even for a parent or grandparent? And even though @Leorning Cniht said he did just that for a friend’s mother?
Right. My scenario was that the policeman sees Jim handing the smokes to Bob, and makes the logical assumption that it's bootlegging(*).
(*) "Bootleging" being the term we used for an older person buying alcohol for an underaged person.
But if you're born in 2010 your parent is much less likely to be a smoker anyway, and also more likely to be active into old age.
I am very happy to be corrected by those familiar with the UK legal system in a way that I am not, but my understanding is that given the difference between the US’s constitutional framework and the UK’s parliamentary framework, courts in the UK don’t have the kind of authority to strike down an act of Parliament that American courts have to strike down, on constitutional grounds, an act of Congress or of a state legislature.
Someday, somehow, at least. Fingers crossed and prayers ascending.
Because I believe it’s wrong on general principle. One more place where people have rights taken away, and one more attempt to destroy longstanding cultural traditions. And I’m totally fine with people in the UK or anywhere else being troubled/saddened by what is done in the US (or anywhere else). In my view, the rest of the world was perfectly fine and right to be concerned/unhappy with the US enacting Prohibition in the early 20th century. And of course I welcome global criticism of Trump and sympathy with us who have to live under him (and DeSantis here in Florida—sainted Erin, pray for us!), even if he were not affecting the rest of the world at all.
Heck, I completely disagree with the position, but I think that posters here from outside the US are perfectly right to have opinions/concerns about the US not banning tobacco. Or about our laws on marijuana, etc.
Yeah. But I think for me, the point is less about actual injustices that will come about in the real world, but rather that...
...this law introduces an entirely new category of victimless crime, accompanied by some rather conspicuous double standards that seem to have more to do with appeasing popular sympathies than with delineating rational exemptions.
God damn those nasty old grocers who sell cigarettes! Those are the guys who sell the fags that Aunt Debbie blows into your kid's face when she babysits! Lock 'em all up! What? Oh, heavens no, we're NOT gonna lock Aunt Debbie up!! What do you take us for, tyrants??
Which I don't think is really a good set of standards to have as a precedent for legal policy. And when it gets down to the level of the bootlegger/buyer dichotomy outside the smoke shop, we're pretty much in the same realm as "Arrest the kid selling bags of coke in the park across from the stock exchange, but let the brokers snort the afternoon away."
Now, just to be clear, I am not on some mad-dog libertarian crusade against all victimless-crime laws, eg. I don't want hard drugs legalized next week. But it seems to me that if a substance is bad enough that we should be arresting vendors just for selling a small amount to someone who may or may not actually be the final user, then we should also apply similar sanction to the people who are using the substance in such a way that actually causes direct harm to others.
Victimless crime? I think that can apply to other behaviour the law declares to be an absolute offence.
The classic example in UK law is being pulled over for what a police officer saw as careless driving (even though no one has been hurt). Then failing a breathalyser test. Or refusing to take it. Guilty as charged!
There may be other examples but I remember a good deal of protests from civil liberties folks about the dangers of making law that determined an absolute crime. Something to do with “mens rea” (guilty mind) IIRC.
I get the point of principle. But I reflect on the breathalyser law re drunk driving. The death rate from car driving accidents halved in the UK after the breathalyser law was introduced and I reckon that’s a good thing.
So back on point.
The death rate from smoking-related cancer is huge in the UK. If this law does something to reduce it, even long term, then that also seems like a good thing.
I can see that the law, morality, and concepts of freedom are all somewhat muddled together here and I’m not sure there is any possible absolute entangling of that muddle.
By all means pray about civil liberties issues in the UK, but I would venture that arresting grannies for opposing genocide might need to be higher up the list than stopping people selling poisons to others.
Ah - a more person-centric perspective. (I suppose "We the people…" is a big clue.) Ordinary people are something of an afterthought in English law.
It seems rather more likely that the cigarettes, having been obtained illegally, would be confiscated. (And they would be evidence.) Under the law, it's Jim who offends, and who may be fined as a result.
I suppose it might be a defence if the person who sold them to you (who is the one potentially committing an offence) could demonstrate that they were for the use of someone born before 2009, and not for your own use. This doesn't sound too different from collecting a medical prescription for a controlled substance on behalf of someone else, which I believe to be possible, on the provision of personal information about the person you're collecting it for, a valid ID, and whatever else is required.
It could also be said that the situation in many countries across the world, of vast numbers of people over the years suffering chronic disease and death as a consequence of their addiction to a harmful substance, is down to the abuse of long-standing cultural traditions by imperialists and tobacco companies, for profit. Let alone the vast numbers of people whose rights were abused by imperialists and tobacco companies in order to produce the stuff in the first place.
This.
And they continued to sell and market it when they knew how highly addictive and harmful it was.
By the way I think that this particular legislation was started by the last Conservative Government and taken on by Labour and all parties (except one) support it.
* I'm well aware that pension schemes and other investments have benefitted from tobacco sales and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that I am a beneficiary of this.
I had a hard time finding percentages, and I looked for the UK, the US, and Canada -- the sites tend to give absolute numbers (XXX many people died of lung cancer last year) or increased chances (your chances of getting lung cancer increase by XX% if you smoke). But I did find this from Action on Smoking and Health, a UK charity: "About half of all life-long smokers will die early, losing on average about 10 years of life."
Both are good to pray for. It’s not like we can only pray for one thing.
What I wish I had be told before I smoked, was not so much that I *might* die of cancer (as opposed as dying of what in preference: heart attack, stroke, dementia - you are going to die of something ?) but that I had a 50 percent change of chronic lung disease.
When you are young you take more risks, you feel immortal but there’s a big difference between dying a bit younger what feels like a million years in the future, and coin toss your lungs will be fucked for half your life.
Not bitter about my chronic asthma in any way ….
I’m guessing someone not in Labour. Well, if he’s otherwise awful, it might be a silver lining in my view. But there might be a shift in society years from now on this issue. I hope there is, but no idea when it might happen.
In any case, I seem to be the odd man out on this issue, and I don’t have more to add to this that I (and some others, though not many of us) haven’t already said. Peace be with everyone on the thread.
Sorry but frankly it's none of your fucking business. The public health measures the UK brings in don't concern you.
Sorry, but it is, and they do, because I’m a human being on planet Earth. I addressed this above. You can be concerned (wherever you are—I actually thought you were in New Zealand) about matters anywhere else, too, including the US—as I said above, even though I would not agree, you can be concerned that the US hasn’t adopted those kinds of measures.
And there’s no need to be rude.
Peace be with you, regardless of our disagreement.
I don't care if I'm rude towards someone who has already shown rudeness by inserting themselves into a situation that doesn't concern them. I don't care what other countries do about smoking - it has nothing do with me and I don't concern myself with other places' public health legislation whether I agree with it or not. You can take your peace elsewhere because I don't accept it.
Okay. We disagree on all of this, of course. Take care.
It's Farage. Cloud's have a silver lining. Meteors don't. Guess which Farage in power is closer to? And making it easier for people to get rich poisoning people is not a silver lining anyway.
And on what planet does "there aren't many of this sort of people" translate in to a sensible argument. I'm sure you're not making a case for ignoring minorities here.
From section 2 of the Act in question:
@Pomona @ChastMastr your exchanges above are getting personal. Take it to hell or desist please.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I am wholly happy to desist.
Given how often developed nations look at each other for benchmarks and ideas, this is simply not true. If the UK can phase in a ban on smoking, maybe the US can as well. Or maybe some US states -- I can easily imagine leaders in California looking at ways they might adapt this legislation for use here.
My guess is that it is still legal for an adult born after 2008 to grow tobacco for their own use, providing they declare it and pay the duty. And it might be legal for them to smoke tobacco products they come across, having been abandoned or forgotten about.
The majority of smokers start young, and many do so before they're old enough to buy cigarettes legally. The primary aim, health-wise, seems to be to make it much harder to *start* smoking, rather than impacting all those people for whom smoking has already become a habit. It would clearly be desirable to reduce this too, but it would be much more contentious. (Gradually reducing smoking is also rather less drastic economically, both for governments and tobacco companies.)
In this respect, I think it's quite reasonable to look at the aims and think about how it might be possible to achieve something similar in other countries and jurisdictions, given the variety of legal frameworks that exist.
Rehashing arguments about the right of human beings to be allowed to continue to do something that they've done for a few hundred years seems as futile as ever.
There goes free choice. I'm also appalled.
The personal risk of very painful terminal illness, chronic disability and a much foreshortened life are the personal costs to smokers.
And the Treasury benefits massively from the addiction.
Those are the facts. Even after knowing them I still found it a real struggle to give up.
Personal freedom issues? I’d rather my grandchildren were spared the costs of exercising such freedom. And anyone else in their generation.
Yes. My mum tried to give up several times, but started again. She died at 71, I think the estimate then was she'd lost 10 years, but now now I think it's more. I suppose I'm free to take ketamine, jolly good.
Action on Smoking and Health see it differently but they include costs which the Treasury would see as not measurable public sector costs, unlike the IEA forecast. I don’t quibble with the ASH contention that there are massive social costs.
Whichever you choose to see as most significant, smoking is bad news.