• UK doctors call to ban the purchase of cigarettes to anyone born after 2000 - until smoking is compl
    139 replies, posted
Medical experts have called for a permanent ban on selling cigarettes to anyone born in this century in a bid to eradicate smoking from Britain entirely. [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589712/Doctors-call-total-ban-sale-cigarettes-born-2000.html[/url]
Ambitious.
Except that will never likely happen because tobacco, as well as alcohol, is a huge ressource of funds for governments.
It's not going to work
[QUOTE=ADT;44361456]Except that will never likely happen because tobacco, as well as alcohol, is a huge ressource of funds for gouvernments.[/QUOTE] In the UK it is a drain, due to the NHS. Sure it brings in some cash, but the cancers smoking causes cost too. In all honesty, as much as I would love for smoking to just vanish, it's not going to happen. Edit: Seems I was wrong with the costs, in that it does actually bring in more than it costs. My bad. Still, current trends affect future costs, so it's pretty hard to predict.
Because history shows that prohibiting something that you can grow in your backyard is definitely practical.
For those wondering, treatment for smoking costs the NHS £2bn per year, the revenue in tax from the sale of cigarettes is £10bn per year Sources: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm[/url] [url]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cigarette_tax_receipts_v_cost_of[/url]
[QUOTE=Terminutter;44361467]In the UK it is a drain, due to the NHS. Sure it brings in some cash, but the cancers smoking causes cost a lot more.[/QUOTE] Also a lot of state-funded quitting programmes
"hurrr lets ban something when safer alternatives are coming online! that way we create an illicit market which increases demand for the more dangerous alternative! HURDURUDHRUHDUR!" Australian Paradox 101 - Banning the safer alternative, creates an illicit market for the more dangerous one. It's not a hard thing to understand, yet time and time again, we have a bunch of damned fools who blindly rush forward on mere studies of the effects of an item on an individual body, and not studying how outlawing things would effect those to-be contraband items in the criminal underworld. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Yuskolov123;44361488]Also a lot of state-funded quitting programmes[/QUOTE] so stop funding those types of programs
As much as I dislike smoking, I don't agree with this. I'm typically on the "let people do what they choose, assuming it doesn't affect any others" side of the argument.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;44361566]As much as I dislike smoking, I don't agree with this. I'm typically on the "let people do what they choose, assuming it doesn't affect any others" side of the argument.[/QUOTE] It does affect others, though.
[QUOTE=Asgard;44361618]It does affect others, though.[/QUOTE] And outlawing tobacco all together is just going to promote the use of paper-cigs, and most likely have other things cut into dime-bags of tobacco that'll eventually be sold like marijuana. Don't outlaw, don't restrict, just promote and subsidize the much-safer alternatives. Instead of running campaigns about, "OH MY GOD YOU'LL GET BLACK LUNGS" promote a campaign stating how much cheaper E-Cigs are, and how they allow you to smoke indoors freely. You are not going to win by pissing on people's shoes, you win by having that person make a rational decision on their own, while still allowing them to keep their vices.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44361661]And outlawing tobacco all together is just going to promote the use of paper-cigs, and most likely have other things cut into dime-bags of tobacco that'll eventually be sold like marijuana. Don't outlaw, don't restrict, just promote and subsidize the much-safer alternatives. Instead of running campaigns about, "OH MY GOD YOU'LL GET BLACK LUNGS" promote a campaign stating how much cheaper E-Cigs are, [B]and how they allow you to smoke indoors freely. [/B] You are not going to win by pissing on people's shoes, you win by having that person make a rational decision on their own, while still allowing them to keep their vices.[/QUOTE] I've seen a lot of places, including doctors surgeries, with this sign: [img]http://www.mydoorsign.com/img/lg/K/No-Smoking-Electronic-Cigarettes-Sign-K-9873.gif[/img]
I don't understand why people think e-cigs are a free pass to smoke in non-smoking areas. Many of the juices still have nicotine and it doesn't solve the second hand smoke and addiction issues.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44361661]And outlawing tobacco all together is just going to promote the use of paper-cigs, and most likely have other things cut into dime-bags of tobacco that'll eventually be sold like marijuana. Don't outlaw, don't restrict, just promote and subsidize the much-safer alternatives. Instead of running campaigns about, "OH MY GOD YOU'LL GET BLACK LUNGS" promote a campaign stating how much cheaper E-Cigs are, and how they allow you to smoke indoors freely. You are not going to win by pissing on people's shoes, you win by having that person make a rational decision on their own, while still allowing them to keep their vices.[/QUOTE] Not everyone agrees that they are as safe as people say, there is a good chunk of people who think they should be treated exactly the same as normal cigarettes. Personally I disagree but I will admit that all I know about them is what I've heard from people who are probably just as uninformed as me.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;44361857]I've seen a lot of places, including doctors surgeries, with this sign: [IMG]http://www.mydoorsign.com/img/lg/K/No-Smoking-Electronic-Cigarettes-Sign-K-9873.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] which is stupid, electronic cigarettes are less dangerous because it's vapour and not smoke, not to mention there are far fewer chemicals. why would you treat them the same?
Electronic Cigarettes are traditionally still restricted under many no-smoking laws. It's either they're just ignored and no one cares or they're treated just the same as smoking tobacco. I know most places here in Philadelphia will tell you to leave the premise if you use them indoors or even get on your back if you're outside but near a door.
A lot of kids born after 2000 already smoke
It would be like a goldmembership for RL.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44361965]which is stupid, electronic cigarettes are less dangerous because it's vapour and not smoke, not to mention there are far fewer chemicals. why would you treat them the same?[/QUOTE] They're new enough that many people are still uneducated about them. I myself personally know of a few folks who still assumed that electronic cigarettes gave off second hand smoke containing nicotine and such, and not watervapor like they actually do emit. It's more of a problem of education.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44362035]A lot of kids born after 2000 already smoke[/QUOTE] I don't think that the idea is to stop everyone born after 2000 from smoking entirely. It's just to discourage people from starting by making it more difficult until eventually it stops being a thing.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44361965]which is stupid, electronic cigarettes are less dangerous because it's vapour and not smoke, not to mention there are far fewer chemicals. why would you treat them the same?[/QUOTE] Because it's still a heavily addictive substance. E-cigs have been found not to help people quit in any fashion, but rather just serve to enable the addiction.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44362080]Because it's still a heavily addictive substance. E-cigs have been found not to help people quit in any fashion, but rather just serve to enable the addiction.[/QUOTE] its addictive so you ban it? why not ban alcohol as well, that's also quite carcinogenic.
[QUOTE=ADT;44361456]Except that will never likely happen because tobacco, as well as alcohol, is a huge ressource of funds for governments.[/QUOTE] I don't get why people say that. If people don't buy cigs, wouldn't they buy other things instead? (things that would be taxed too)
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44362087]its addictive so you ban it? why not ban alcohol as well, that's also quite carcinogenic.[/QUOTE] Drinking in public is already illegal. Also, cigarette smoke/vapor actively affects other people.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;44362092]I don't get why people say that. If people don't buy cigs, wouldn't they buy other things instead? (things that would be taxed too)[/QUOTE] Other things aren't as highly taxed as cigarettes.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44362102]Drinking in public is already illegal. Also, cigarette smoke/vapor actively affects other people.[/QUOTE] Drinking in public being illegal is a social/cultural thing, it has nothing to do with your health. I don't know if I disagree with electronic cigarettes being banned indoors, but I don't think it should be treated the same way as cigarettes in general when it comes to legality.
[QUOTE=Asgard;44361618]It does affect others, though.[/QUOTE] So does driving a car, and we haven't banned cars.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44362102]Drinking in public is already illegal. [/QUOTE] Not in the UK afaik. There are certain areas where the police have the power to confiscate booze or ask you to close it up, and you're not allowed to on TFL buses, but you can take a crate of beer down the beach, bottle of wine down the park or whatnot, as long as you don't litter.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44362087]its addictive so you ban it? why not ban alcohol as well, that's also quite carcinogenic.[/QUOTE] Because Facepunch likes to bandwagon on hating tobacco while other stuff (especially weed) is perfectly fine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.