A draconian law is one with an excessively harsh punishment, typically death. The punishment in the case of the Tobacco and Vapes Act is typically a fine, while the consequences of starting smoking when young are typically chronic conditions and early death. It's a law firmly aimed at extending healthy life.
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.
I'm intrigued that you appear to have found depriving the Treasury of income a more compelling argument for giving up smoking than reducing the net cost to society. But this looks like being on a personal level, a case of what you saw as being more significant, which is fair enough.
A more general argument based on ignoring significant costs (to society) because they're not measurable is harder to sustain.
Oh I read the ASH stuff as well. But on a personal level I was pretty pissed off by the idea that the Treasury benefitted from my voluntary euthanasia moves. And was happy to do so.
Later, when I realised the strength of the addiction despite my best intentions, I became even more pissed off with the tobacco companies!
Thanks, Barnabas62. I've continued thinking about this, and vaguely recall other smokers I've known saying that being pissed off about the benefit to the Treasury can be quite a helpful motivation. Which continues to suggest that, when it comes to overcoming addiction, what matters is what works.
As a mad tangent on motivation. After several unsuccessful attempts, I finally remembered that prayer might be a good thing. I’d just been reading the story of Naaman the Syrian who on the instructions of Elisha, washed himself seven times in the Jordan. So I got the idea that I should pray for help seven times.
At first it seemed very silly. But I persevered and the silliness wore off. I became very engaged. So much so that after seven times I embarked on the 8th.
Then I got in my head this reminder. “I said seven.” Said sorry Lord. Had a good chuckle at my own ridiculousness. Haven’t smoked since.
As a mad tangent on motivation. After several unsuccessful attempts, I finally remembered that prayer might be a good thing. I’d just been reading the story of Naaman the Syrian who on the instructions of Elisha, washed himself seven times in the Jordan. So I got the idea that I should pray for help seven times.
At first it seemed very silly. But I persevered and the silliness wore off. I became very engaged. So much so that after seven times I embarked on the 8th.
Then I got in my head this reminder. “I said seven.” Said sorry Lord. Had a good chuckle at my own ridiculousness. Haven’t smoked since.
That's an amazing, inspiring story.
I gave up when I became pregnant with our first son. Without that strong motivation I don't think I'd ever have given up.
It's a law firmly aimed at extending healthy life.
Except it doesn’t - it just extends life. There’s no guarantee that the last ten or so years will be pleasant or healthy.
My nan spent the last decade of her life racked with Alzheimer’s, slowly but surely losing her memories and knowledge of everything that she was and had been. The last few years must have been terrifying for her - not knowing where she was (in a care home full of other “confused” older people) or who anyone was or where her family had gone (to the extent that she remembered she had one) or what was happening to her. Any time someone tells me that smoking will shorten my life by ten years, all I can think of is the possibility that it might save me from suffering the same hell.
Oh, and the single biggest factor that affects whether you get that evil, incurable, brain-destroying disease? AGE. The longer people live, the more likely they are to get it - according to the NHS the likelihood doubles every five years after 65. By 85 a third of the population may well have it. And for all its evils it’s still only one form of dementia. The longer we keep people physically healthy (or as physically healthy as older people are on average, anyway - it’s not like many of them are running marathons or playing full back for the local rugby club), the more likely we make it that they’ll lose their minds. Personally, I’d rather live a few years less but keep all my marbles to the end.
And besides, we’ve already got more old people than we can afford to look after. People living ten years longer, many with degenerative brain conditions or other health issues, coupled with the loss of tobacco tax revenues to the treasury will inevitably mean everyone having to work far further into old age before being eligible for a pension. Who wants to be forced to be a wage slave almost to the age of 80? And where are the extra jobs going to come from anyway, especially in an age when AI is taking over loads of jobs from humans? I feel like we’re running headlong into a dystopian nightmare where everyone lives at a greatly reduced standard of living categorised by massive unemployment for the masses while the rich elites get richer than ever through their AI - run companies. And you all want to make them live in that dystopia for longer?
What we know about healthy people who live a long time versus unhealthy people who die early of disease is that basically - it’s not just a shorter lifespan it’s a longer period of poorer health before you die.
So if you die of smoking related disease in your sixties you have probably had a decade or more of chronic illness beforehand. If you die at a hundred, there is a good chance you’ve only been in poor health for a handful of years.
Also, smoking raises your chance of getting dementia and getting it earlier - specifically vascular dementia. Basically anything that compromises your circulation increases the risk of vascular dementia. (And impotence, and amputations etc)
I would also point out that lots of people live with disability without becoming suicidal, some from birth. Most people know what dementia is, most people who are diagnosed with it don’t immediately throw themselves off cliffs. What this tells us is human adaptation and adjustment is a far more resilient psychological system than most people realise. We are exceptionally poor at judging how we will feel about future changes to our circumstances.
From a quality of life perspective, I invite you to consider that infants don’t know what is going on or where they are - their quality of life life depends primarily on how well their needs are met and they experiences moments of joy in interaction and recognise the familiar. The day to day experience of my mother, who has advanced dementia, is not unlike that.
It's a law firmly aimed at extending healthy life.
Except it doesn’t - it just extends life.
…
The longer we keep people physically healthy (or as physically healthy as older people are on average, anyway - it’s not like many of them are running marathons or playing full back for the local rugby club), the more likely we make it that they’ll lose their minds.
An incontinent argument. As the Alzheimer's Association points out:
The greatest known risk factor for Alzheimer’s and other dementias is increasing age, but these disorders are not a normal part of aging. While age increases risk, it is not a direct cause of Alzheimer's.
Getting dementia is not healthy - it is not a normal (or healthy) part of aging. The idea that there is something called "physical health" that is unrelated, and can be considered completely separately, from something called "mental health", is just another indication of how broken and dysfunctional our societies have become, how hostile to humanity they are.
I feel like we’re running headlong into a dystopian nightmare where everyone lives at a greatly reduced standard of living categorised by massive unemployment for the masses while the rich elites get richer than ever through their AI - run companies. And you all want to make them live in that dystopia for longer?
I take it as being self-evident that we are heading for a dystopian nightmare. But this is conflating a number of issues. One core catalyst of this dystopia is the enabling and promotion of inequality. It's one of the primary risk factors to the health of society.
As Jengie Jon put it, we are all being interlocuted by society as a financial pot of money to be mined. The period of our lives we call "old age" just extends the period that our existence can be exploited for financial gain. Keeping people alive is big business, and one in which there is plenty of room for expansion, provided that longevity, in itself, continues to be prioritised by societies.
If there is any meaning to be found in "old age", it's up to us to find it, nurture and sustain it.
I've been going round and round in circles trying to figure out what I feel about this issue.
I hate the thought of anybody having the power to control someone else's behaviour so can sympathise with those people who feel this legislation takes us into the realms of Nanny state.
However it also seems to me that smoking has a far more immediate detrimental effect on others than other things.
Both my parents were heavy smokers and as result of passive smoking I suffered for years with chest issues.
I've also had close family members who were alcoholics which caused considerable stress to me but I think on balance the smoking was the greater cause of damage in my life.
Our choices can and do affect others!
There are different rates of duty for different tobacco products.
But couldn't there, instead, be different rates according to the nicotine content -nicotine being the very addictive compound that some smokers find so difficult to give up?
I've heard that genetic engineering has produced tobacco plants with very low levels of nicotine. And there are some methods of removing nicotine from tobacco (akin to the removing of alcohol from beer etc).
There are different rates of duty for different tobacco products.
But couldn't there, instead, be different rates according to the nicotine content -nicotine being the very addictive compound that some smokers find so difficult to give up?
I've heard that genetic engineering has produced tobacco plants with very low levels of nicotine. And there are some methods of removing nicotine from tobacco (akin to the removing of alcohol from beer etc).
And if they could do that and use that to make quality cigars and pipe tobacco, then perhaps people in the future could continue to enjoy those (and the relevant culture could continue) with less or even no nicotine, and the UK ban might be lifted.
Removing nicotine from tobacco isn't equivalent to removing alcohol from beer because, while nicotine is addictive, it's not the main source of harm with smoking (especially passive smoking) whereas alcohol is the primary cause of harm in beer.
Yes, I love the smell of a posh cigar being smoked. And I have fond memories of my grandfather occasionally smoking his pipe. -But his wife hated it!
And I'm grateful I never took up the habit of cigarette smoking.
But I've often thought if I had a terminal diagnosis with only weeks to live I might buy an expensive cigar or 2. But I would have to smoke it in my shed as Mrs Vole would not approve!
Removing nicotine from tobacco isn't equivalent to removing alcohol from beer because, while nicotine is addictive, it's not the main source of harm with smoking (especially passive smoking) whereas alcohol is the primary cause of harm in beer.
True. I was thinking more of the processes that can remove chemicals from certain products -something I know hardly anything about, of course!
Removing nicotine from tobacco isn't equivalent to removing alcohol from beer because, while nicotine is addictive, it's not the main source of harm with smoking (especially passive smoking) whereas alcohol is the primary cause of harm in beer.
But it would mean that people could enjoy it without the addictive issues, not that I think there are many chain-smoking pipe/cigar enthusiasts.
Or mimicking Arthur Koestler when he and his wife faced the loss of dignity.
Content warning. The wikipedia section on his final years suggests that he faced the loss of capacity due to Parkinson's, and also leukaemia, while his wife faced the loss of Arthur Koestler (she was only 55, and "believed to be healthy"). It illustrates some of the complexities and ambiguities of people's end of life.
…I've heard that genetic engineering has produced tobacco plants with very low levels of nicotine. And there are some methods of removing nicotine from tobacco (akin to the removing of alcohol from beer etc).
And if they could do that and use that to make quality cigars and pipe tobacco, then perhaps people in the future could continue to enjoy those (and the relevant culture could continue) with less or even no nicotine, and the UK ban might be lifted.
As Leorning Cniht has already pointed out, the law also applies to herbal smoking products, which don't contain tobacco. And as Arethosemyfeet points out, its the smoke that's the problem.
Removing nicotine from tobacco isn't equivalent to removing alcohol from beer because, while nicotine is addictive, it's not the main source of harm with smoking (especially passive smoking) whereas alcohol is the primary cause of harm in beer.
Indeed. And for many people, at least part of the reason for drinking beer or smoking tobacco are the effects of the psychoactive substances - alcohol or nicotine. Both of these are addictive, and harmful, in their own right, but both remain legal for adults to consume.
It's worth bearing in mind that Vaping Products Duty is going to be introduced in the UK from 1 October 2026:
Vaping Products Duty (VPD) is a new excise duty on vaping products.
The duty will apply to vaping liquid which contains nicotine and either or both glycerine and glycol or any liquid that is intended to be vapourised by a vape and is not a medical or tobacco product.
It will be charged on vaping products that are produced in, or imported into, the United Kingdom.
VPD will be charged a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 millilitres of vaping liquid, regardless of how much nicotine is contained in the product.
The stated policy objective is as follows:
The government is committed to reducing the affordability and appeal of vaping products, particularly among young people and non-smokers, while maintaining the financial incentive for smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives.
Looking at it one way, the overall aim is to reduce the inhalation of smoke.
Looking at it another way, the UK government is less concerned with people being addicted to nicotine (or alcohol), at least in the short to medium term, as the continued consumption of these products can presumably be justified in terms of the net cost/benefit to society. Whether the long-term aim is to reduce nicotine consumption to a negligible level is another question. (Contrasted with adjusting the level of duty on nicotine to minimise the net cost or maximise the net benefit, depending on how you look at it.)
It looks like we're going to have to wait a while longer for a coherent approach to addiction.
Marijuana is still illegal in the UK. Even if it isnt smoked, it still presents a hazard - its not physically addictive, but it can trigger and worsen psychosis in those who are susceptible.
If I lived in a country where it was legal, I would still think you would be well advised not to try it until after 25 when your brain development is mostly completed.
Marijuana is still illegal in the UK. Even if it isnt smoked, it still presents a hazard - its not physically addictive, but it can trigger and worsen psychosis in those who are susceptible.
If I lived in a country where it was legal, I would still think you would be well advised not to try it until after 25 when your brain development is mostly completed.
I assume at some point it will become legal, though how the UK smoking ban will affect it, I don’t know.
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?
Why are we singling out smokers?
People that don't exercise? They're in poor health, and it's their own fault. No healthcare for them? People who eat lots of red meat and processed foods? No healthcare for you? Skiiers, mountain climbers, parachutists and hang-gliders? Your risks are unacceptable. No healthcare for you.
Encouraging people not to smoke as part of public health seems perfectly reasonable. Claiming that it is imperative that they don't smoke because it costs the rest of us money is, I think, rather less reasonable.
Whether it actually costs the rest of us money is open to debate. As you say, IEA says no, ASH says yes. A quick look through ASH's figures indicates that they are clearly a deliberate lie (in the "grab any cost that has ever looked through the window of a tobacconists, and associate that cost with smoking" sense), whereas the IEA deliberately only includes direct costs, which serves the narrative that it wishes to present.
But it would mean that people could enjoy it without the addictive issues, not that I think there are many chain-smoking pipe/cigar enthusiasts.
Doesn't that depend on what people are enjoying about the smoking? If it's all about the taste and flavour, then that's one thing, but if what you enjoy is the stimulant effect of the nictoine, then taking the nicotine out doesn't really leave you with the same thing, does it?
The same goes for alcohol-free beer: under the (false) assumption that alcohol-free versions of good beer exist, and taste the same, the extent to which that makes an acceptable substitute would depend on the extent to which you enjoy the taste of beer vs the effects of the alcohol vs a combination of the two.
Marijuana is still illegal in the UK. Even if it isnt smoked, it still presents a hazard - its not physically addictive, but it can trigger and worsen psychosis in those who are susceptible.
I assume at some point it will become legal, though how the UK smoking ban will affect it, I don’t know.
If there's any consistency in the legal approach (which is a big if) I would guess that smoking it won't be legalised, but that other (recreational) oral use may eventually be allowed.
I note that skunk is considered to be more harmful in relation to psychosis, etc.
I still think one of the key points is that any choice I make that affects someone else's wellbeing is debatable.
My parent's smoking as I said above had a detrimental impact on my own lung health 😬
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?
Why are we singling out smokers?
People that don't exercise? They're in poor health, and it's their own fault. No healthcare for them? People who eat lots of red meat and processed foods? No healthcare for you? Skiiers, mountain climbers, parachutists and hang-gliders? Your risks are unacceptable. No healthcare for you.
Encouraging people not to smoke as part of public health seems perfectly reasonable. Claiming that it is imperative that they don't smoke because it costs the rest of us money is, I think, rather less reasonable.
Whether it actually costs the rest of us money is open to debate. As you say, IEA says no, ASH says yes. A quick look through ASH's figures indicates that they are clearly a deliberate lie (in the "grab any cost that has ever looked through the window of a tobacconists, and associate that cost with smoking" sense), whereas the IEA deliberately only includes direct costs, which serves the narrative that it wishes to present.
Passive smoking exists in a way that passive processed meat doesn't. Although I personally wouldn't seek to deny smokers healthcare, smoking does directly affect others in a way that very few habits do.
Marijuana is still illegal in the UK. Even if it isnt smoked, it still presents a hazard - its not physically addictive, but it can trigger and worsen psychosis in those who are susceptible.
If I lived in a country where it was legal, I would still think you would be well advised not to try it until after 25 when your brain development is mostly completed.
I assume at some point it will become legal, though how the UK smoking ban will affect it, I don’t know.
The general cultural view of marijuana in the UK and in a lot of Europe is quite different to that of the US. There hasn't been a popular movement towards legalisation in the same way. It's not generally seen as something a respectable adult could partake in along the lines of a glass of wine - I disagree with that (especially with edible forms which don't cause the same lung problems as smoking marijuana) but it's generally associated with teenage antisocial behaviour rather than adult relaxation.
Removing nicotine from tobacco isn't equivalent to removing alcohol from beer because, while nicotine is addictive, it's not the main source of harm with smoking (especially passive smoking) whereas alcohol is the primary cause of harm in beer.
But it would mean that people could enjoy it without the addictive issues, not that I think there are many chain-smoking pipe/cigar enthusiasts.
But it would still cause harm via passive smoking. Smoking anything does that.
Removing nicotine from tobacco isn't equivalent to removing alcohol from beer because, while nicotine is addictive, it's not the main source of harm with smoking (especially passive smoking) whereas alcohol is the primary cause of harm in beer.
But it would mean that people could enjoy it without the addictive issues, not that I think there are many chain-smoking pipe/cigar enthusiasts.
But it would still cause harm via passive smoking. Smoking anything does that.
Which is why I think people being able to smoke in their own homes, as long as it is not around children and only around other consenting adults, or smoking rooms, or smoking bars, particularly for people who appreciate good cigars or pipes, would be the best solution. But obviously we disagree on this, and it seems like this is a divide that cannot at present be bridged.
(I should point out that I'm mainly focusing on people being able to appreciate fine pipes and cigars. I'm inclined to think that cigarettes, especially with various chemicals and things, are in somewhat of a different category. Again, I don't think many people chain-smoke pipes or cigars, nor (despite advertising) do they seem to treat cigarettes the way one does a fine wine or liqueur or cocktail. This may not be relevant to some/many in this thread, but to me this makes a difference.)
Anyway, I don't really have more to add here--I personally think the issues I and others on our "side" are enough good reason to have not passed this law, but I think the gap is presently unbridgeable. Peace be with everyone here, and I think I'll move on to other threads now.
Removing nicotine from tobacco isn't equivalent to removing alcohol from beer because, while nicotine is addictive, it's not the main source of harm with smoking (especially passive smoking) whereas alcohol is the primary cause of harm in beer.
But it would mean that people could enjoy it without the addictive issues, not that I think there are many chain-smoking pipe/cigar enthusiasts.
But it would still cause harm via passive smoking. Smoking anything does that.
Which is why I think people being able to smoke in their own homes, as long as it is not around children and only around other consenting adults, or smoking rooms, or smoking bars, particularly for people who appreciate good cigars or pipes, would be the best solution. But obviously we disagree on this, and it seems like this is a divide that cannot at present be bridged.
(I should point out that I'm mainly focusing on people being able to appreciate fine pipes and cigars. I'm inclined to think that cigarettes, especially with various chemicals and things, are in somewhat of a different category. Again, I don't think many people chain-smoke pipes or cigars, nor (despite advertising) do they seem to treat cigarettes the way one does a fine wine or liqueur or cocktail. This may not be relevant to some/many in this thread, but to me this makes a difference.)
Anyway, I don't really have more to add here--I personally think the issues I and others on our "side" are enough good reason to have not passed this law, but I think the gap is presently unbridgeable. Peace be with everyone here, and I think I'll move on to other threads now.
Sorry, I'm failing to see what any of that has to do with my comment. I was purely commenting on the efficacy of reducing the nicotine content of tobacco in order to reduce harm to smokers. As multiple people in this thread have pointed out, the main harm from smoking isn't the nicotine anyway. You (general you) don't have to be a chain-smoker to cause damage from smoking, smoking a cigar or a pipe is just as harmful.
I also would be happy to see alcohol face the same legal penalties as tobacco, a cocktail or fine wine is just as harmful as vodka (and indeed is worse in terms of calories and sugar content).
Under UK law iirc, you can't consent to being harmed by another person - so you couldn't make a case for an adult consenting to passive smoking.
I also would be happy to see alcohol face the same legal penalties as tobacco, a cocktail or fine wine is just as harmful as vodka (and indeed is worse in terms of calories and sugar content).
Yes, as you can imagine, and as I’ve suggested earlier, I disagree with bringing back Prohibition anywhere 1,000,000%. 😮
@ChastMastr I don't agree with all the ways in which the law in that area (wrt consenting to being harmed) is interpreted - iirc it's based on preventing an abusive partner claiming that the abused partner consented to the abuse. Which I agree should not be a valid legal defence, but I would agree with you that the argument gets extrapolated onto legal positions that it doesn't really belong. However - when healthcare is paid for out of the public purse you (general you) do have to focus on getting a healthier population. Naturally that results in some compromises when it comes to individual freedoms. Public health matters because we live in a society, not just a group of individuals. It's akin to vaccines and herd immunity - everyone needs to do their bit. For things outside of an NHS remit, I would not have such strong opinions on it.
I wouldn't argue in favour of Prohibition type laws - I don't think all restrictions on alcohol has to look like that. But right now England has a sugar tax but no minimum pricing on alcohol (the other UK nations do have minimum pricing on alcohol) - so a can of Aldi own-brand G&T or Aperol spritz copycat costs less than a can of non-diet soda. I think the "sodafication" of alcohol and making it more appealing (and often a lot cheaper) to young people is extremely harmful. I think that sometimes that can apply to cocktails - not all cocktails, but think of how something like a Lemon Drop or a Bellini is marketed as not "really" alcohol, or how normalised alcohol at brunch is (which is essentially breakfast!). Making alcohol unappealing to young people is important imo.
Which is why I think people being able to smoke in their own homes, as long as it is not around children and only around other consenting adults, or smoking rooms, or smoking bars, particularly for people who appreciate good cigars or pipes, would be the best solution. But obviously we disagree on this, and it seems like this is a divide that cannot at present be bridged.
Depends what you mean by "best". I don't think that what you suggest is unreasonable in itself, but it would be costly and complex to enforce a law that affects what people do in their own homes and that distinguishes between people who are consenting, people who are addicted, and anyone in their vicinity. In that respect, it wouldn't make for a good piece of legislation.
(I should point out that I'm mainly focusing on people being able to appreciate fine pipes and cigars. I'm inclined to think that cigarettes, especially with various chemicals and things, are in somewhat of a different category.
It's the smoke in smoke that's harmful. The toxic substances that are generated by burning many forms of matter. The distinction you make doesn't seem significant.
Again, I don't think many people chain-smoke pipes or cigars, nor (despite advertising) do they seem to treat cigarettes the way one does a fine wine or liqueur or cocktail. This may not be relevant to some/many in this thread, but to me this makes a difference.)
An explicit appeal to this kind of elitist argument is at least novel, these days.
But right now England has a sugar tax but no minimum pricing on alcohol (the other UK nations do have minimum pricing on alcohol) - so a can of Aldi own-brand G&T or Aperol spritz copycat costs less than a can of non-diet soda.
Maybe they could get rid of the sugar tax. I didn’t know there was one.
The UK has an excise tax on sugar in soft drinks, and a long-standing excise tax on alcohol. These days, both are cast in health terms, although the tax on alcohol predates this policy objective by several hundred years. The sugar tax has led to a significant reduction of sugar in the formulation of soft drinks. Meanwhile, the Institute of Alcohol Studies suggests that:
Increasing the price of alcohol is one of the most effective and cost-effective ways of reducing population level alcohol consumption and subsequent harm, and duty increases are a key mechanism to do this.
This may well be the case at the population level, but doesn't address its effect on different demographics. It's worth bearing in mind that the primary reason so many governments have introduced an excise tax on alcohol over the years is that it remains an effective way of generating revenue, because it tends to be price inelastic. (Increasing the price by 10% reduces demand by less than 10%). From wikipedia:
Overall, the demand for alcohol beverages is price inelastic, which implies that excise taxes on alcohol are effective to generate tax revenues. Beer is the least elastic and beer is the preferred beverage by binge drinkers and heavy drinkers, accounting for a sizable percentage of all alcohol consumed. There also can be substitution among beverages, with most studies finding that each beverage is a positive substitute for others. An increase in taxes on wine will induce a shift in legal consumption toward beer or spirits as relative prices change.
I suspect that taxing addictive substances remains popular with governments, because of the tendency to price inelasticity, while being able to claim that they are addressing associated health issues.
Making alcohol unappealing to young people is important imo.
Rather unsurprisingly, consumption of alcohol rises with real income. There are clearly some sectors of society that are likely to be less affected by minimum pricing (ie anyone who can still afford it), but if has a significant effect on demand among young people, it might still be worthwhile.
I get the sense that what used to be called a “sin tax” is now done as a “health tax,” possibly because the people making and marketing those taxes to the public believe less in sin and more in biological health as “The most important thing.” Regardless, I really don’t like them using this kind of thing (in either case) as a form of social engineering with the aim of long-term changes to society—and I include this law which I consider draconian. I’d prefer more taxes on tobacco than limiting it to people born before a certain year, or banning it outright. Hopefully at least some people can get it by going over to mainland Europe and bringing it back—or for their friends—and since they didn’t buy it in the UK, no laws would be broken.
It is perfectly possible for governments, and the law of the land, to act to shape the kind of country its population wants to live in. We want to live in a country where people don't die in needless pain from car crashes, smoking or metabolic diseases. Feel free to live somewhere else if that isn't you.
Naturally that results in some compromises when it comes to individual freedoms.
This is, in its sheer earnest banality, one of the more terrifying comments I’ve read here for a long while. So much evil towards individuals has happened because of people who think “the good of society” (as defined by them) is more important than individual freedoms. Authoritarianism doesn’t magically become ok if it’s “for our own good”.
Naturally that results in some compromises when it comes to individual freedoms.
This is, in its sheer earnest banality, one of the more terrifying comments I’ve read here for a long while. So much evil towards individuals has happened because of people who think “the good of society” (as defined by them) is more important than individual freedoms. Authoritarianism doesn’t magically become ok if it’s “for our own good”.
Amen. You said it better than the reply I was composing (to @ThunderBunk above), so I’ll just leave my “amen” there.
But removing a terrible, lethal and highly addictive substance - which should never have been marketed in the first place - from sale isn't authoritarianism imo.
You wouldn't put crack cocaine on sale in every high street shop with a sales campaign to go with it. Or would you?
But removing a terrible, lethal and highly addictive substance - which should never have been marketed in the first place - from sale isn't authoritarianism imo.
Which one? Tobacco, alcohol, sugar, fatty food…..
The thing about getting rid of the number one cause of “preventable” death is, all you do is promote something else to that status. And then suddenly that thing is in the firing line. Then the next, and the next. Until eventually we’re only allowed out of our ultra-safe padded rooms for the mandatory two hours exercise every day, and all we’re given to eat is some plant-based food substitute with exactly the right amount of nutrients according to some scientist somewhere. For Our Own Good.
Comments
A draconian law is one with an excessively harsh punishment, typically death. The punishment in the case of the Tobacco and Vapes Act is typically a fine, while the consequences of starting smoking when young are typically chronic conditions and early death. It's a law firmly aimed at extending healthy life.
Free choice is an urban myth.
I'm intrigued that you appear to have found depriving the Treasury of income a more compelling argument for giving up smoking than reducing the net cost to society. But this looks like being on a personal level, a case of what you saw as being more significant, which is fair enough.
A more general argument based on ignoring significant costs (to society) because they're not measurable is harder to sustain.
Oh I read the ASH stuff as well. But on a personal level I was pretty pissed off by the idea that the Treasury benefitted from my voluntary euthanasia moves. And was happy to do so.
Later, when I realised the strength of the addiction despite my best intentions, I became even more pissed off with the tobacco companies!
As a mad tangent on motivation. After several unsuccessful attempts, I finally remembered that prayer might be a good thing. I’d just been reading the story of Naaman the Syrian who on the instructions of Elisha, washed himself seven times in the Jordan. So I got the idea that I should pray for help seven times.
At first it seemed very silly. But I persevered and the silliness wore off. I became very engaged. So much so that after seven times I embarked on the 8th.
Then I got in my head this reminder. “I said seven.” Said sorry Lord. Had a good chuckle at my own ridiculousness. Haven’t smoked since.
That's an amazing, inspiring story.
I gave up when I became pregnant with our first son. Without that strong motivation I don't think I'd ever have given up.
Except it doesn’t - it just extends life. There’s no guarantee that the last ten or so years will be pleasant or healthy.
My nan spent the last decade of her life racked with Alzheimer’s, slowly but surely losing her memories and knowledge of everything that she was and had been. The last few years must have been terrifying for her - not knowing where she was (in a care home full of other “confused” older people) or who anyone was or where her family had gone (to the extent that she remembered she had one) or what was happening to her. Any time someone tells me that smoking will shorten my life by ten years, all I can think of is the possibility that it might save me from suffering the same hell.
Oh, and the single biggest factor that affects whether you get that evil, incurable, brain-destroying disease? AGE. The longer people live, the more likely they are to get it - according to the NHS the likelihood doubles every five years after 65. By 85 a third of the population may well have it. And for all its evils it’s still only one form of dementia. The longer we keep people physically healthy (or as physically healthy as older people are on average, anyway - it’s not like many of them are running marathons or playing full back for the local rugby club), the more likely we make it that they’ll lose their minds. Personally, I’d rather live a few years less but keep all my marbles to the end.
And besides, we’ve already got more old people than we can afford to look after. People living ten years longer, many with degenerative brain conditions or other health issues, coupled with the loss of tobacco tax revenues to the treasury will inevitably mean everyone having to work far further into old age before being eligible for a pension. Who wants to be forced to be a wage slave almost to the age of 80? And where are the extra jobs going to come from anyway, especially in an age when AI is taking over loads of jobs from humans? I feel like we’re running headlong into a dystopian nightmare where everyone lives at a greatly reduced standard of living categorised by massive unemployment for the masses while the rich elites get richer than ever through their AI - run companies. And you all want to make them live in that dystopia for longer?
So if you die of smoking related disease in your sixties you have probably had a decade or more of chronic illness beforehand. If you die at a hundred, there is a good chance you’ve only been in poor health for a handful of years.
Also, smoking raises your chance of getting dementia and getting it earlier - specifically vascular dementia. Basically anything that compromises your circulation increases the risk of vascular dementia. (And impotence, and amputations etc)
And thanks, Marvin the Martian; nice try… An incontinent argument. As the Alzheimer's Association points out: Getting dementia is not healthy - it is not a normal (or healthy) part of aging. The idea that there is something called "physical health" that is unrelated, and can be considered completely separately, from something called "mental health", is just another indication of how broken and dysfunctional our societies have become, how hostile to humanity they are.
I take it as being self-evident that we are heading for a dystopian nightmare. But this is conflating a number of issues. One core catalyst of this dystopia is the enabling and promotion of inequality. It's one of the primary risk factors to the health of society.
As Jengie Jon put it, we are all being interlocuted by society as a financial pot of money to be mined. The period of our lives we call "old age" just extends the period that our existence can be exploited for financial gain. Keeping people alive is big business, and one in which there is plenty of room for expansion, provided that longevity, in itself, continues to be prioritised by societies.
If there is any meaning to be found in "old age", it's up to us to find it, nurture and sustain it.
I hate the thought of anybody having the power to control someone else's behaviour so can sympathise with those people who feel this legislation takes us into the realms of Nanny state.
However it also seems to me that smoking has a far more immediate detrimental effect on others than other things.
Both my parents were heavy smokers and as result of passive smoking I suffered for years with chest issues.
I've also had close family members who were alcoholics which caused considerable stress to me but I think on balance the smoking was the greater cause of damage in my life.
Our choices can and do affect others!
Dignitas extended? Or mimicking Arthur Koestler when he and his wife faced the loss of dignity.
I’ve seen two loved ones die very painfully over a long period of time from smoking related illnesses. Believe me, you really don’t want to go there.
But couldn't there, instead, be different rates according to the nicotine content -nicotine being the very addictive compound that some smokers find so difficult to give up?
I've heard that genetic engineering has produced tobacco plants with very low levels of nicotine. And there are some methods of removing nicotine from tobacco (akin to the removing of alcohol from beer etc).
And if they could do that and use that to make quality cigars and pipe tobacco, then perhaps people in the future could continue to enjoy those (and the relevant culture could continue) with less or even no nicotine, and the UK ban might be lifted.
And I'm grateful I never took up the habit of cigarette smoking.
But I've often thought if I had a terminal diagnosis with only weeks to live I might buy an expensive cigar or 2. But I would have to smoke it in my shed as Mrs Vole would not approve!
True. I was thinking more of the processes that can remove chemicals from certain products -something I know hardly anything about, of course!
But it would mean that people could enjoy it without the addictive issues, not that I think there are many chain-smoking pipe/cigar enthusiasts.
As Leorning Cniht has already pointed out, the law also applies to herbal smoking products, which don't contain tobacco. And as Arethosemyfeet points out, its the smoke that's the problem.
Indeed. And for many people, at least part of the reason for drinking beer or smoking tobacco are the effects of the psychoactive substances - alcohol or nicotine. Both of these are addictive, and harmful, in their own right, but both remain legal for adults to consume.
The stated policy objective is as follows: Looking at it one way, the overall aim is to reduce the inhalation of smoke.
Looking at it another way, the UK government is less concerned with people being addicted to nicotine (or alcohol), at least in the short to medium term, as the continued consumption of these products can presumably be justified in terms of the net cost/benefit to society. Whether the long-term aim is to reduce nicotine consumption to a negligible level is another question. (Contrasted with adjusting the level of duty on nicotine to minimise the net cost or maximise the net benefit, depending on how you look at it.)
It looks like we're going to have to wait a while longer for a coherent approach to addiction.
If I lived in a country where it was legal, I would still think you would be well advised not to try it until after 25 when your brain development is mostly completed.
I assume at some point it will become legal, though how the UK smoking ban will affect it, I don’t know.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Why are we singling out smokers?
People that don't exercise? They're in poor health, and it's their own fault. No healthcare for them? People who eat lots of red meat and processed foods? No healthcare for you? Skiiers, mountain climbers, parachutists and hang-gliders? Your risks are unacceptable. No healthcare for you.
Encouraging people not to smoke as part of public health seems perfectly reasonable. Claiming that it is imperative that they don't smoke because it costs the rest of us money is, I think, rather less reasonable.
Whether it actually costs the rest of us money is open to debate. As you say, IEA says no, ASH says yes. A quick look through ASH's figures indicates that they are clearly a deliberate lie (in the "grab any cost that has ever looked through the window of a tobacconists, and associate that cost with smoking" sense), whereas the IEA deliberately only includes direct costs, which serves the narrative that it wishes to present.
Doesn't that depend on what people are enjoying about the smoking? If it's all about the taste and flavour, then that's one thing, but if what you enjoy is the stimulant effect of the nictoine, then taking the nicotine out doesn't really leave you with the same thing, does it?
The same goes for alcohol-free beer: under the (false) assumption that alcohol-free versions of good beer exist, and taste the same, the extent to which that makes an acceptable substitute would depend on the extent to which you enjoy the taste of beer vs the effects of the alcohol vs a combination of the two.
If there's any consistency in the legal approach (which is a big if) I would guess that smoking it won't be legalised, but that other (recreational) oral use may eventually be allowed.
I note that skunk is considered to be more harmful in relation to psychosis, etc.
My parent's smoking as I said above had a detrimental impact on my own lung health 😬
Passive smoking exists in a way that passive processed meat doesn't. Although I personally wouldn't seek to deny smokers healthcare, smoking does directly affect others in a way that very few habits do.
The general cultural view of marijuana in the UK and in a lot of Europe is quite different to that of the US. There hasn't been a popular movement towards legalisation in the same way. It's not generally seen as something a respectable adult could partake in along the lines of a glass of wine - I disagree with that (especially with edible forms which don't cause the same lung problems as smoking marijuana) but it's generally associated with teenage antisocial behaviour rather than adult relaxation.
But it would still cause harm via passive smoking. Smoking anything does that.
Which is why I think people being able to smoke in their own homes, as long as it is not around children and only around other consenting adults, or smoking rooms, or smoking bars, particularly for people who appreciate good cigars or pipes, would be the best solution. But obviously we disagree on this, and it seems like this is a divide that cannot at present be bridged.
(I should point out that I'm mainly focusing on people being able to appreciate fine pipes and cigars. I'm inclined to think that cigarettes, especially with various chemicals and things, are in somewhat of a different category. Again, I don't think many people chain-smoke pipes or cigars, nor (despite advertising) do they seem to treat cigarettes the way one does a fine wine or liqueur or cocktail. This may not be relevant to some/many in this thread, but to me this makes a difference.)
Anyway, I don't really have more to add here--I personally think the issues I and others on our "side" are enough good reason to have not passed this law, but I think the gap is presently unbridgeable. Peace be with everyone here, and I think I'll move on to other threads now.
Sorry, I'm failing to see what any of that has to do with my comment. I was purely commenting on the efficacy of reducing the nicotine content of tobacco in order to reduce harm to smokers. As multiple people in this thread have pointed out, the main harm from smoking isn't the nicotine anyway. You (general you) don't have to be a chain-smoker to cause damage from smoking, smoking a cigar or a pipe is just as harmful.
I also would be happy to see alcohol face the same legal penalties as tobacco, a cocktail or fine wine is just as harmful as vodka (and indeed is worse in terms of calories and sugar content).
Under UK law iirc, you can't consent to being harmed by another person - so you couldn't make a case for an adult consenting to passive smoking.
Not legally, no. Again, I hope someday the laws on this change.
@Pomona said
Yes, as you can imagine, and as I’ve suggested earlier, I disagree with bringing back Prohibition anywhere 1,000,000%. 😮
I wouldn't argue in favour of Prohibition type laws - I don't think all restrictions on alcohol has to look like that. But right now England has a sugar tax but no minimum pricing on alcohol (the other UK nations do have minimum pricing on alcohol) - so a can of Aldi own-brand G&T or Aperol spritz copycat costs less than a can of non-diet soda. I think the "sodafication" of alcohol and making it more appealing (and often a lot cheaper) to young people is extremely harmful. I think that sometimes that can apply to cocktails - not all cocktails, but think of how something like a Lemon Drop or a Bellini is marketed as not "really" alcohol, or how normalised alcohol at brunch is (which is essentially breakfast!). Making alcohol unappealing to young people is important imo.
How about the US introduces one? Or at least stops subsidising corn syrup production. Seems like a better idea.
Depends what you mean by "best". I don't think that what you suggest is unreasonable in itself, but it would be costly and complex to enforce a law that affects what people do in their own homes and that distinguishes between people who are consenting, people who are addicted, and anyone in their vicinity. In that respect, it wouldn't make for a good piece of legislation.
It's the smoke in smoke that's harmful. The toxic substances that are generated by burning many forms of matter. The distinction you make doesn't seem significant.
An explicit appeal to this kind of elitist argument is at least novel, these days.
The UK has an excise tax on sugar in soft drinks, and a long-standing excise tax on alcohol. These days, both are cast in health terms, although the tax on alcohol predates this policy objective by several hundred years. The sugar tax has led to a significant reduction of sugar in the formulation of soft drinks. Meanwhile, the Institute of Alcohol Studies suggests that: This may well be the case at the population level, but doesn't address its effect on different demographics. It's worth bearing in mind that the primary reason so many governments have introduced an excise tax on alcohol over the years is that it remains an effective way of generating revenue, because it tends to be price inelastic. (Increasing the price by 10% reduces demand by less than 10%). From wikipedia: I suspect that taxing addictive substances remains popular with governments, because of the tendency to price inelasticity, while being able to claim that they are addressing associated health issues.
Rather unsurprisingly, consumption of alcohol rises with real income. There are clearly some sectors of society that are likely to be less affected by minimum pricing (ie anyone who can still afford it), but if has a significant effect on demand among young people, it might still be worthwhile.
Not subsidizing corn syrup sounds better than introducing a special tax, yes.
I have no idea how to respond to this, at least not in a Purgatorial way.
This is, in its sheer earnest banality, one of the more terrifying comments I’ve read here for a long while. So much evil towards individuals has happened because of people who think “the good of society” (as defined by them) is more important than individual freedoms. Authoritarianism doesn’t magically become ok if it’s “for our own good”.
Amen. You said it better than the reply I was composing (to @ThunderBunk above), so I’ll just leave my “amen” there.
But removing a terrible, lethal and highly addictive substance - which should never have been marketed in the first place - from sale isn't authoritarianism imo.
You wouldn't put crack cocaine on sale in every high street shop with a sales campaign to go with it. Or would you?
Which one? Tobacco, alcohol, sugar, fatty food…..
The thing about getting rid of the number one cause of “preventable” death is, all you do is promote something else to that status. And then suddenly that thing is in the firing line. Then the next, and the next. Until eventually we’re only allowed out of our ultra-safe padded rooms for the mandatory two hours exercise every day, and all we’re given to eat is some plant-based food substitute with exactly the right amount of nutrients according to some scientist somewhere. For Our Own Good.