Buying cigarettes to become illegal at all ages

[patman post]

I quit smoking 19 years ago, but the fact remains that 97% of the purchase costs of tobacco products is tax, and smokers pay a lot more in tax than they impose in extra health costs.
The OBR estimates that tobacco duties levied on purchases of cigarettes, hand-rolled tobacco, cigars and other forms of tobacco in 2023-24 will raise £10.4 billion.

The OBR estimates that tobacco duties levied on purchases of cigarettes, hand-rolled tobacco, cigars and other forms of tobacco in 2023-24 will raise £10.4 billion.
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/tobacco-duties/

In 2022, the estimated gross cost of smoking to public finances was £20.6bn in the UK. 
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/

From Action on Smoking and Health (ASH): figures show the cost of smoking to society totals £17.04bn for England each year.
It's estimated that to provide paid-for care to meet needs would cost society a further £14bn, this is not included in the overall £17bn figure
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated

The costs are not only for the NHS, but include lost productivity and clean-up and costs, in addition to extra welfare costs...

[Borchester]

It would help if they banned non smokers.

I gave up smoking years ago and never felt any desire to start again. Except when some sad bastard said, so, you kicked the big C and made it sound as though I was injecting Detol into my eyeballs.At such times I am reminded of Montgomery who told Churchill that he neither drank nor smoked and was a 100% fit, whereupon the great man replied, F@@@ off Monty, you are a dreary little fucker in any language

[srb7677]

This is where most smokers turn to the subject of booze, the big difference as we know is that there is no safe level for smoking, and it costs the NHS a lot.

I quit smoking 19 years ago, but the fact remains that 97% of the purchase costs of tobacco products is tax, and smokers pay a lot more in tax than they impose in extra health costs. So if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the NHS would risk losing much more money than it saves. And then all those ex-smokers living longer will greatly increase the cost of pensions.

Of course, it is peoples lives and health we are talking about so we should be discouraging smoking as much as possible regardless of costs. But we should not pretend people giving up will save us money. With more people drawing pensions for longer and no longer paying vast amounts of tax on their tobacco purchases because they are not buying it anymore, we will lose more than we save. Especially in the short term.

This reality needs to be understood and recognised so that we can have a debate about how the reduced tax take and increased pension expenditure is paid for.

Personally I also have a problem with different laws for different people. If tobacco is to be banned entirely it should be banned for all adults, not just some of them. The government could announce that the sale of tobacco in this country will be outlawed from January 1st 2030, whilst providing on prescription in the meantime products designed to help people quit - patches, gum, whatever.

This latter is a more sensible idea, giving current smokers time to get used to the idea of tobacco being no longer available, whilst making the products that might help them quit accessible and affordable to all.

[Streetwalker]

I think the idea is that if someone has been kept away from smoking til the age of 35 they ain't going to start. I think it has to happen, we have friends whose children have never smoked and have started vaping!! It's madness.

That's a fair point and the plan will eventually run its course to the conclusion of a no smoking society but I still see a few problems for those smokers around the curve . 
Most of the people I know that smoked have now given up , a few have gone on the vape . Maybe its just one of those policies that they know will work because the process is already in motion through people in recent years becoming more aware of the health implications 

[Nick]

That may work in the early years of the plan but what happens  years down the line , are you going to be asked for ID if you look less than 35 ,45, 50?

I think the idea is that if someone has been kept away from smoking til the age of 35 they ain't going to start. I think it has to happen, we have friends whose children have never smoked and have started vaping!! It's madness. 

[Streetwalker]

They could use the pub guide: if you look less than 25 then you'll be asked for ID.

That may work in the early years of the plan but what happens  years down the line , are you going to be asked for ID if you look less than 35 ,45, 50? 

[Nick]

Bus passes and prescriptions are issued age proven . Buying 20 Silk Cut can't be unless of course Labour are going to enforce ID cards (watch this space ) .

They could use the pub guide: if you look less than 25 then you'll be asked for ID. 

[Streetwalker]

Bus passes and prescription charge cut-offs work. It's just about jettisoning our stick in the mud tendencies and being flexible...

Bus passes and prescriptions are issued age proven . Buying 20 Silk Cut can't be unless of course Labour are going to enforce ID cards (watch this space ) . 

[Nick]

This is where most smokers turn to the subject of booze, the big difference as we know is that there is no safe level for smoking, and it costs the NHS a lot. 

[patman post]

This master plan will see in the years to come a 40 year old being legally allowed to buy fags but a 35 year old not able to
Dont think it will work somehow

Bus passes and prescription charge cut-offs work. It's just about jettisoning our stick in the mud tendencies and being flexible...

[Borchester]

Of course it wont work. Imagine the situation which will eventually arise where a 33 year old can buy fags but his 32 year old mate cannot. The former will simply buy them for the latter making an utter farce of the law. And we are creating two different categories of adults in the eyes of the law which surely cannot be a good thing.

And clearly he has no idea about how this will manifest itself for retail workers. Currently we have a think 25 policy for age restricted products where the minimum age to legally purchase is either 16 or 18. What this means is that if we think someone could be under 25 we have to ID them. This is because someone underage might sometimes look over 18 but they are unlikely to look over 25.

This stupid new idea will drive a horse and cart through that. When the age limit is into the 30s are we really going to have to enforce a think 45 policy?

I think Fishy Rishi must have dreamed this idea up in the midst of some sort of brain fart over breakfast one day.

And in the midst of a housing crisis, a cost of living crisis, a climate crisis, a debt crisis, etc, etc, is this silly idea the best thing he can come up with?

The guy manages to make even Keir Starmer look both credible and interesting in comparison. And my god, that takes some doing.

If you could take all the combined charisma of both Sunak and Starmer, turn it into dynamite, and ignite it, there wouldn't be enough to blow a bee's knees off

Well true, but most of the time a politician does not need much in the way of charisma, just the modest competence of a decent office manager. That said, if it were a competition between Starmer, Sunak and a brick then I reckon that charisma wise, the first two would probably lose out

[srb7677]

This master plan will see in the years to come a 40 year old being legally allowed to buy fags but a 35 year old not able to
Dont think it will work somehow

Of course it wont work. Imagine the situation which will eventually arise where a 33 year old can buy fags but his 32 year old mate cannot. The former will simply buy them for the latter making an utter farce of the law. And we are creating two different categories of adults in the eyes of the law which surely cannot be a good thing.

And clearly he has no idea about how this will manifest itself for retail workers. Currently we have a think 25 policy for age restricted products where the minimum age to legally purchase is either 16 or 18. What this means is that if we think someone could be under 25 we have to ID them. This is because someone underage might sometimes look over 18 but they are unlikely to look over 25.

This stupid new idea will drive a horse and cart through that. When the age limit is into the 30s are we really going to have to enforce a think 45 policy? 

I think Fishy Rishi must have dreamed this idea up in the midst of some sort of brain fart over breakfast one day. 

And in the midst of a housing crisis, a cost of living crisis, a climate crisis, a debt crisis, etc, etc, is this silly idea the best thing he can come up with?

The guy manages to make even Keir Starmer look both credible and interesting in comparison. And my god, that takes some doing.

If you could take all the combined charisma of both Sunak and Starmer, turn it into dynamite, and ignite it, there wouldn't be enough to blow a bee's knees off

[Streetwalker]

This master plan will see in the years to come a 40 year old being legally allowed to buy fags but a 35 year old not able to 
Dont think it will work somehow 

[Borchester]

Illegals will be thrown overboard and replaced with woodbines.

You will make a fortune growing tobacco leaf

The guy has lost his fucking mind

Probably not.

Tobacco is easy enough to grow in the UK, but it is a sod to cure and only fit for cigars and pipes.

I have done it and smoked it, but only because my arse was out of my trousers at the time

[johnofgwent]

Illegals will be thrown overboard and replaced with woodbines.

You will make a fortune growing tobacco leaf

The guy has lost his fucking mind