|
I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I doubt that issuing a 'law' like this will have any worthwhile effect. I think most smokers learn the habit in their teens, at a time when they are in the mood to resist authority. Provided they are made well aware of the health dangers, and they don't inflict passive smoking on other people, they should be allowed to damage their own health as they see 'fit'. Noticing the ludicrous cost of a packet of fags these days I am surprised that alone doesn't discourage some of them.
But that brilliant vaping idea looks pretty silly now, with the spinoff effect of throwaway vapes littering the streets.
|
|
"Provided they are made well aware of the health dangers"
Don't think knowledge of the risks will ever stop (some) teenagers doing anything otherwise they wouldn't ride e-scooters, play on railway lines, carry knives etc. etc.
Teenagers are never going to be ill, obese, need a pension, have mobility issues or any of the other things that become possibilities as you age.
Edited by Chris M on 06/10/2023 at 21:25
|
|
As far as I know, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, crack and crystal meth have been banned for many years, that has stopped people using them hasn't it?
|
|
I don't think those supporting this approach really think shops will be checking ID for tobacco. It's just a way of slowly bringing a ban in without long-term smokers getting upset about it.
Amongst younger people, it's been largely replaced as a vice by vapes and energy drinks.
It's a shame it's dangerous and antisocial, really, as it's a wonderful hobby.
|
|
|
As far as I know, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, crack and crystal meth have been banned for many years, that has stopped people using them hasn't it?
Not stopped them, but the majority of people don't use them.
|
As far as I know, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, crack and crystal meth have been banned for many years, that has stopped people using them hasn't it?
Not stopped them, but the majority of people don't use them.
To varying degrees, they all also have a 'hit' associated with them and (with the exception of cannabis) physical withdrawal symptoms.
There is only a tiny hit from nicotine in tobacco and no physical withdrawal at all.
|
|
The intention is not to criminalise smoking, just to gradually increase the legal age for buying tobacco. Anyone old enough to buy cigarettes now would still be able to in the future. Today's 14 year olds, born after 1st January 2009, would never be able to legally buy tobacco products no matter how old they were. Don't know whether it would be an offence for someone to buy for a younger person. What about couples living together with an age difference?
Edited by martin.mc on 08/10/2023 at 02:55
|
The intention is not to criminalise smoking, just to gradually increase the legal age for buying tobacco. Anyone old enough to buy cigarettes now would still be able to in the future. Today's 14 year olds, born after 1st January 2009, would never be able to legally buy tobacco products no matter how old they were. Don't know whether it would be an offence for someone to buy for a younger person. What about couples living together with an age difference?
It would be an offence to buy for a younger person - just as it is now. Not sure what couples living together with an age difference have to do with it??
|
|
<< Not sure what couples living together with an age difference have to do with it?? >>
Seems clear to me - OK for the older one to buy, perhaps not the younger one. But once stuff has been bought legally, it can be offered to anyone else on the premises, so no change there ....
|
Seems clear to me - OK for the older one to buy, perhaps not the younger one. But once stuff has been bought legally, it can be offered to anyone else on the premises, so no change there ....
That's my take too.
Proposal is a restriction on supply rather than consumption.
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, crack and crystal meth have been banned for many years, that has stopped people using them hasn't it?
Not stopped them, but the majority of people don't use them.
No one said they did, we don't need to be told that.
The point I made is that legislation is not completely effective, as the experience of Prohibition in the USA showed: some people will conform, but enforcement is never 100% successful and a black market is created which enriches criminals (e.g. present drug dealers, Al Capone et al years ago.)
|
There is only a tiny hit from nicotine in tobacco and no physical withdrawal at all.
Do your research. Nicotine is addictive thus there will be withdrawal.
Just one website, plenty more
www.verywellmind.com/what-to-expect-from-nicotine-...7
|
There is only a tiny hit from nicotine in tobacco and no physical withdrawal at all.
Do your research. Nicotine is addictive thus there will be withdrawal.
Just one website, plenty more
www.verywellmind.com/what-to-expect-from-nicotine-...7
I've done my research, not least a first person empirical study. By withdrawal, I mean physical sickness.causes by the absence. It is by no means easy to stop smoking, but it doesn't cause any physical sickness at all, quite the opposite from day one.
|
There is only a tiny hit from nicotine in tobacco and no physical withdrawal at all.
Do your research. Nicotine is addictive thus there will be withdrawal.
Just one website, plenty more
www.verywellmind.com/what-to-expect-from-nicotine-...7
I've done my research, not least a first person empirical study. By withdrawal, I mean physical sickness.causes by the absence. It is by no means easy to stop smoking, but it doesn't cause any physical sickness at all, quite the opposite from day one.
Have you never worked or lived with someone quitting smoking? No need to do a scientific study.
|
|
Prohibition always works with no consequences doesn't it?
Drugs , they made a law and that was the end of the matter wasn't it?
Americans banning booze..that worked perfectly didn't it?
Ignore history and you're condemned to repeat it. Our politicians of all parties are really REALLY stupid.
|
|
|
There is only a tiny hit from nicotine in tobacco and no physical withdrawal at all.
Do your research. Nicotine is addictive thus there will be withdrawal.
Just one website, plenty more
www.verywellmind.com/what-to-expect-from-nicotine-...7
I've done my research, not least a first person empirical study. By withdrawal, I mean physical sickness.causes by the absence. It is by no means easy to stop smoking, but it doesn't cause any physical sickness at all, quite the opposite from day one.
Have you never worked or lived with someone quitting smoking? No need to do a scientific study.
I smoked cigarettes for 30 years and then decided to stop, which I did, just like that, without any problems,
Everyone is different, most of my friends and family members who smoked in the 1960s/70s/80s and 90s have also given up, none had physical problems (other than putting on a few pounds).
Edited by galileo on 09/10/2023 at 13:41
|
|
|
|
|
The point I made is that legislation is not completely effective, as the experience of Prohibition in the USA showed: some people will conform, but enforcement is never 100% successful and a black market is created which enriches criminals (e.g. present drug dealers, Al Capone et al years ago.)
Here in Australia the tax on tobacco has been greatly increased to reduce consumption. As Galileo pointed out this creates an opportunity for criminals and they have moved in:
www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/melbourne-oakleigh-...6
www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-09/vic-tobacco-fires-r...0
|
|
You cannoy buy tobacco products for underage people, but there is nothing in law to say you cannot "give" a cigarette or two to someone who can't buy them legally themselves.
|
|
Laws banning things like drugs, alcohol, tobacco, guns, prescription drugs etc etc will all create a criminal opportunity for illegal supply.
That all these "banned" products can be obtained on a black market does not make a ban pointless. It will significantly reduce their use or incidence.
If drugs were freely available from the local sweetshop, would hard drug use increase. If guns could be bought in the local DIY shed would gun ownership increase. To both the answer IMHO is "yes".
Guns have the very real threat of being used to harm and kill others and the ban is absolutely right. Drugs are somewhat different in that damage is self inflicted and impact mainly (but not only) the user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
