Doctors to vote on cigarette sale ban for those born after 2000

[The Don]

Doctors are to vote on whether to push for a permanent ban on the sale of cigarettes to anyone born after the year 2000 in an attempt to protect the next generation of children from the deadly effects of smoking.

If the motion is passed at the British Medical Association's annual representatives' meeting on Tuesday, the doctors union will lobby the government to implement the policy in the same way it successfully pushed for a ban on lighting up in public places and on smoking in cars carrying children, after votes in 2002 and 2011.

Tim Crocker-Buque, a specialist registrar in public health medicine, who proposed the motion, said the idea was that "the 21st-century generation don't need to suffer the hundreds of millions of deaths that the 20th-century generation did".

"Cigarette smoking is specifically a choice made by children that results in addiction in adulthood, that is extremely difficult to give up," he said. "80% of people who smoke start as teenagers. It's very rare for people to make an informed decision in adulthood. The idea of this proposal is to prevent those children who are not smoking from taking up smoking."
source: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/23/doctors-vote-cigarette-sale-ban-children-born-2000

I'm really not sure what I think on this. Obviously smokings bad and it causes nothing but problems, but it's not as if it will be hard to still get cigarettes and will only open up a huge black market for them. Also if it's only banned for people under a certain age they can just get older people to buy them instead. I think instead they should do more to raise awareness about the dangers of smoking (even though people are already aware) and perhaps follow in other countries footsteps such as Australia's, by using plain packaging for cigarettes rather than have designs on them as I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) it's been shown to have a positive effect.

[iBlueBox]

I think thats regulation gone a bit too far. Though I do hate smoking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In the 1950s to the 1970s, the government in this country got out of control and started meddling in economic matters with all sorts of rules and regulations imposed which made it very difficult to do business, hence the Winter of Discontent. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher and her government were elected to office to shake the state out of what were private issues and freedom, at least economically, was greatly restored.

Well today in 2014 - whether it's cigarettes, sugar, internet regulation, free speech, freedom of protest - it's clear that the jackboot of the state is now on our necks in terms of social issues. The problem is, where is our Mrs Thatcher who will free us from the interference of the state?

This is not the remit of the government.


Australia's, by using plain packaging for cigarettes rather than have designs on them as I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) it's been shown to have a positive effect.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/plain-packaging-has-backfired-in-australia-dont-bring-it-to-the-uk/

Apparently not so.

In any case, plain packages are a great help for the black market. But then are idiot politicians capable of processing that obvious fact?

[FlyingJesus]

I hope it happens so I can make lots of money selling cigarettes to children

[Hannah]

I hope it happens so I can make lots of money selling cigarettes to children

This^

ATM it's about 50p per cigarette, so inflation will cause that to rise.

GET ALL THE LUNCH MONIES!

[Samantha]

Some people who were born after 2000 are already smoking now, so perhaps making a later year ban (say from 2005 as I don't think too many 8/9 year olds smoke and then go from there. I don't mind if they ban them or not, but won't it look like there's one law for a certain set of people then another for others? For example, when someone who was born after 2000 turns 18, can they not go buy cigarettes as the legal age is 18?

[Yawn]

idk i think it will cause more problems and too many obvious loopholes

at the same time i think its gd to eventually phase them out entirely but meh its tricky obviously

[sex]

n no nooooooooo

[Kardan]

Some people who were born after 2000 are already smoking now, so perhaps making a later year ban (say from 2005 as I don't think too many 8/9 year olds smoke and then go from there. I don't mind if they ban them or not, but won't it look like there's one law for a certain set of people then another for others? For example, when someone who was born after 2000 turns 18, can they not go buy cigarettes as the legal age is 18?

Isn't it already illegal for 14 year olds to smoke?

And isn't the whole idea of this law to eventually try and restrict smoking to the older generations. So even in 2018, if you're 18, you can't buy them.

I think it's a great idea on paper, but surely it won't work.

[Hannah]

Isn't it already illegal for 14 year olds to smoke?

And isn't the whole idea of this law to eventually try and restrict smoking to the older generations. So even in 2018, if you're 18, you can't buy them.

I think it's a great idea on paper, but surely it won't work.


The funny thing is, you get 12 year olds standing on shop corners asking people to buy them cigarettes - this will just raise to older people asking others to by them cigarettes, even if they are over 18.

It's going to happen, whether they like it or not.
If anything, making them more difficult to come by may even make it more appealing to those of younger ages. :|

[Samantha]

Isn't it already illegal for 14 year olds to smoke?

And isn't the whole idea of this law to eventually try and restrict smoking to the older generations. So even in 2018, if you're 18, you can't buy them.

I think it's a great idea on paper, but surely it won't work.

Yeah it's illegal, but people get others to buy them like what will happen with this law. Yeah it's to restrict which I get, but it seems a little off, I don't disagree with it though fully as I think it could help, but not by much.

[Matt]

Just because they ban people who were born after 2000 from buying them, doesn't mean they won't get their hands on them. It would also make tobacco and cigarettes sales on the black market go through the roof wouldn't it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just because they ban people who were born after 2000 from buying them, doesn't mean they won't get their hands on them. It would also make tobacco and cigarettes sales on the black market go through the roof wouldn't it?

Well exactly, but we're talking about politicians and 'experts' here: common sense doesn't come into it.


I think it's a great idea on paper, but surely it won't work.

Would banning gay sex to prevent STDs/HIV be a great idea 'on paper' too, even if it surely wouldn't work?

[Kardan]

For the 87th time, I'm not entirely sure how you can compare HIV/Aids to smoking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

For the 87th time, I'm not entirely sure how you can compare HIV/Aids to smoking.

Because, as usual, this goes back to principle. Unlike others in this thread, you haven't come out and stated how taken aback you are at the thought that the state could impose such a draconian law banning everyone born after 2000 from smoking, all you have done is come out and say that it looks like a good idea to you on paper - which I take it you think so because it would potentially save lives - but that you perhaps wouldn't pursue it because the policy would be unworkable. In short, you're not opposed to the policy in principle but only on practicality grounds.

My irk with you is that you don't appear to have any underlying principles when it comes to issues like this, and would ask that instead of pretending - as so many of you do - that you'd support draconian laws and measures to 'save lives', that instead you come out and state what your *true* intentions and beliefs are which is simply this: you don't like smoking on a personal level and would like to see it banned on that concern and that concern alone. Public health isn't really your concern, and I wish you would be more honest in what your reasons really are which to me are spookily authoritarian. If you are going to use state power and force for public health reasons (so you and your side so often claim) on one issue, then what is stopping you from using them on other public health issues? I don't think you care at all about public health, this is all about "I don't like X so i'll ban it".

Of course you won't admit this, because we all know that (including yourself) "ew, ick I don't like that" isn't a good enough reason for banning something via the power and force of the state. Unless you're an authoritarian, something which i'm suspecting you are at heart.

[Yawn]

i think the biggest loophole is, as i read in another article about this, that most people start smoking b4 they can legally buy cigs anyway, mostly due to peer pressure at school. obviously these people who have relied on others' obtaining the cigs for them in the past when they were underage will just continue relying on others even once they are banned to their age group.

*shrugs* despite the big loopholes i think it would significantly reduce the number of people that start smoking

[-:Undertaker:-]

i think the biggest loophole is, as i read in another article about this, that most people start smoking b4 they can legally buy cigs anyway, mostly due to peer pressure at school. obviously these people who have relied on others' obtaining the cigs for them in the past when they were underage will just continue relying on others even once they are banned to their age group.

*shrugs* despite the big loopholes i think it would significantly reduce the number of people that start smoking

But why is that your business anymore than it is my business what you might allow inbetween your legs on a friday night? And vice versa.

[!:random!:!]

tbf I don't like smoking but this will cause up roar

[Yawn]

But why is that your business anymore than it is my business what you might allow inbetween your legs on a friday night? And vice versa.

it not my business at all. i like the occasional cigarette and i hate nothing more than ppl nagging smokers that they're killing themselves lol

nonetheless we all know its in every1s best interests to entirely phase out smoking but i also agree with ur concerns about where we draw the line i.e. junk food and alcohol. its tricky but smoking seems easier to target and i think thats because its more addictive...obviously u have alcoholics and fatties addicted to bad food but those are less socially accepted and have more of a stigma anyway its not as common.

[-:Undertaker:-]

it not my business at all. i like the occasional cigarette and i hate nothing more than ppl nagging smokers that they're killing themselves lol

nonetheless we all know its in every1s best interests to entirely phase out smoking but i also agree with ur concerns about where we draw the line i.e. junk food and alcohol. its tricky but smoking seems easier to target and i think thats because its more addictive...obviously u have alcoholics and fatties addicted to bad food but those are less socially accepted and have more of a stigma anyway its not as common.

But again, why is it your business to 'target' a particular vice of a group of people at all? Y'know, it reminds me of the very same persecution that gay people faced from the state years back - justified (by the state) with health concerns and mental health concerns. It's one thing disagreeing with a particular vice that can lead to serious health complications (as both smoking and gay sex do on a large scale) but it is another thing to get the jackboots out and stamp that activity out via the force of the law. Most of us have a favourite vice, it ought to be each to their own.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, always remember that.

[Alkaz]

I paid £9.99 for 20 the other day in WHSmith :'(

Anyway, they say that generally if your parents were smokers when you were young, there is a higher chance the child will smoke as they get older. Surely you should be targeting the parents of those kids, born since 2000 about the dangers of smoking, especially around children and the impact it would have on them for the future.