Smoking to be banned by 2030

Why don’t they just raise the age at which you can buy cigs a year every year?

That way there will be no steady stream of new customers to replace the ones that are dying,

 

Has anyone asked how the country can afford this? Where will we get the revenue lost from the taxing of tobacco?

From a personal point of view I'm happy for smokers to be taxed heavily, just as I'm happy for drinkers to be heavily taxed (for the record I don't smoke but I do drink)

 

The tax on 20 cigs is 82%, a 20 a day smoker will pay just below £3000 in tax, the U.K. Has an estimated 8 million plus smokers, do the maths.

 

I think you have a general American misconception there that anyone who airs a liberal opinion is a "commie".
I'm not aware of any "commies" that post on here.
P.S.. Socialists aren't commies either despite what the Republican Party would have you believe.

 

That's me knackered then.
I'm tired of breathing in car fumes. Lazy people driving less than a mile or 2 to Oakwell?
Don't get me started about animal agriculture being the single biggest pollutant on a damaged planet..
I have a cheeky ***, away from my dogs, non smokers & especially children..
Sorry, but no apologies..

 

I’m uncomfortable with a total ban tbh.
Ban it in public spaces by all means and I’m not averse to make it difficult for smokers to light up with limited public places where you can light up and criminal offence if you expose other people especially kids in enclosed spaces including your car and home etc.
Education is the way to go for the foreseeable future until it’s the most slight minority that do smoke .

 

When someone dies of passive obesity or passive alcoholism, you’ll have a point.

 

Imposing your own views of what people should eat, drink or smoke is not liberal or tolerant.

 

Is imposing bans on people taking drugs liberal or tolerant ?
The USA keep banging on to the rest of the world for being nanny states but impose drug bans isn’t that being nanny state ?
I think if a country or people recognise that food, drugs, alcohol or other substances are having an effect on its citizens and take action it’s not being nanny state .
It’s imposing majority of citizens rights to not be or limit exposure from substances that wrecks their or their fellow citizens lives.

 

I was referring to your rush to the "commies" slur. The first port of call of the hard right in your country. Anything that smacks of social responsibility is instantly labelled "commie".
Personally I don't believe smoking should be banned as long as it is restricted to areas that don't harm or inconvenience others.
Neither do I believe lead in the drinking water, polluting the environment with fossil fuels and removing environmental legislation should be allowed unfettered. That would be classed as commie thinking by Donald and his fellow nutjobs too.

 

As a former smoker myself and knowing how addictive they are, I have sympathy for
anyone who finds it difficult to stop. I smoked Benson and Hedges and swopped to
a lower tar brand ( Silk Cut) and gradually managed to wean myself off cigs over time,
a few years ago.

I really don't mind anyone smoking in the open air but I have to say, I don't like breathing in
other people's smoke. Following the ban in our pubs,restaurants and public places in the U.K.
I was not happy when loads of diners started lighting up in the various bistros the last time I was in
Lake Garda.

 

Stupid idea,i look forward to seeing how they are going to police that one. Wonder where the government will recoup the duty from.

 

Passive alcoholism isn't as obvious as passive smoking, but it definitely exists. Ask the kids or partner of an alcoholic. You can also look at knock-on effects if they hold a responsible job.

I'm not talking about people who like a couple of beers, or maybe one more than they should, but proper functioning alcoholics, or dysfunctional alcoholics.

 

This and the electrification of cars is going to knock a big hole in what the treasury collects. I wonder what they will tax instead.

 

Oh I know at least one, he wanted to slaughter a good percentage of the population to get his outdated dogma in play.
Nice bloke.

 

I am very similar. Smoked from 16 to 44, never tried to stop for fear of failing until i started with an e-cig and have never touched them since, although my addition to nicotine is as strong as ever on the e-cig. No idea if it is better for me but it feels it.

I must say I do look back now and find it hard to believe that smoking indoors was allowed until the last 10 years. Seems ridiculous now but I remember smoking in the office until as recently as 15 years ago.

I am in Dubai on business this week and they are still fine with smoking here in public places and its horrible. There is a bar in the mall underneath our hotel and you can smell the smoke from 10 paces away from the door. I come out stinking of smoke. When my colleague and I have gone to a restaurant we get asked "table for 2? Smoking or non smoking?" Its like going back in time and makes me realise how bad it was when we did the same at home.

I don't miss smoking one iota and wish fervently that I had never started. But ban it completely? - nah, not for me. 11 quid a pack and rising, and not in public places, I think we have it pitched about right.

 

I agree with the sentiment, but if they put many more barriers in the way it’s just going to fuel gangs and smuggling, for that reason it shouldn’t be “banned”.

 

The cost of treatment on the NHS for each case of smoking related cancer and other health issues is how much exactly? (treatment is estimated at ~£30k per person with cancer). Around 100,000 people per year die from smoking related cancer. Then factor in the time off work, benefits, etc. If you are going to "Do the maths", then actually do the maths and don't just look at one part of the equation.

 

I'm for the ban myself i think as I haven't heard anything that makes it a good reason not to. However, figures I saw was that smokers contribute about 12bn in taxes to economy and smoking related illnesses estimates are between 2bn and 6bn... so either way they're paying in a lot more than they're taking out.

Doesn't mean it is right though.