I would disagree with this, it doesn’t do anything in the short term, but in a decade when the minimum age to smoke is 28 you are looking at a very different picture.
Realistic fake ID’s are as rare as rocking horse pop so they can already be discounted, not many under 18’s have friends who are 30 so that really gets cut back and dodgy cashiers can be dealt with by enforcement if you really want to.
I would argue that this isn’t about gaining votes, it’s about banning smoking but not losing votes. Not many people would vote for you based on doing this, but if you went with an outright ban I would cost you an election (even if you weren’t already going to lose).
I mean, it doesn’t matter at what age people will be able to buy it. Or if they will be able to buy it at all. Cannabis, cocaine etc etc seem to be everywhere, and you can’t legally buy that anywhere.
Fundamentally, prohibition doesn’t seem to work very well. It’s all well and good saying that cigarettes will eventually be banned from sale. But that will probably just force it into the black market, which might actually increase health risks, as we currently see with drug use.
There needs to be a much higher focus on just stopping people from picking it up in the first place, rather than just banning it. Same goes with vaping, which is becoming a massive problem in it’s own right. Initially a great thing to help people quit smoking. Now most people that vape never smoked.
one element which has come to mind - which could get messy
Are venues expected to Police smokers?
take the example of a Wetherspoons pub (other venues are available). They currently have an approved smoking area outside but within the pub to enjoy a drink.
the current legal age to purchase tobacco is 18 and so those on the fringes of 18 probably are not given a second look by the landlords.
fast forward 10 years will these same late teenagers still be offered a “blind eye” look by the management for smoking in their establishment as it is clear they are under age.
my gut is saying some venues will but the majority won’t - or at least those that don’t care and welcome anyone providing they are spending money will be known as the places to go.
unless the ban on sales is followed up on conditions upon licences on venues (and this doesn’t have to be a pub or restaurant, but extend to any venue bowling alleys, bingo halls, cafes etc) which face fines for permitting smoking to those under age, then the smoking culture may well remain to the population who choose to smoke.
ie if by removing the legal opportunity to purchase tobacco, and indeed smoke it at a venue (I am not talking in the park, or walking along the street but within a business) it is further reducing the attractiveness of smoking
(the solution/loop hole to this of course is for venues to not provide smoking areas, instead asking all smokers to go outside into public space and so removing the obligation upon the venue to police it)
I think I would prefer it if somehow they could do what they did with drinking when I was a teenager (dark ages)
Every town had a pub that was known as the ‘under age pub’ where we could all get served (providing we were not taking the mickey too excessively). We knew it, parents knew it, police knew it. Therefore, everyone knew where we were and we did not effect anyone else.
If there are only a few venues where people can get away with it then hopefully thats where they all go - leaving the rest of us to enjoy ourselves smoke free (pious ex smoker )
And then we just have to get rid of those vapes - especially single use ones
In fact if the Govt want to do something useful then lets ban anything single use (less than a certain time usage window) (obv exceptions for healthcare items etc)
That’s what this does. It at least (in the long term) reduces ease of access, rates are already dropping and younger people generation by generation by have taken it up less just through a general societal atmosphere around it. Then there was challenge 21 developed into think 25, and the raising to 18.
Eventually, demand will reduce beyond economic viability to sell for the majority, except perhaps in a few specialist locations akin to current cigar shops… but I don’t see the same sentiment held towards cigarettes as there is for cigars. Fewer places will sell, harder to get, more will quit (many will die off en route to this).
The black market element will be negligible.
Good luck with that. Like a lot of things it will remain illegal to sell or supply, but not use. The duty bind will be in reporting those you see supplying though, so if a bar worker witnesses the giving they may be obligated to report that. I don’t see it happening due to practicality and risk to the worker.
However, for Joe public, I’m not convinced of the severity of offence to actually cause any meaningful consequences.
The only enforcement in public places I can see is probably a fine from a plain clothes checking the place out - once a few are handed out, people become wary and that reduces. But I could see a distinction between someone bringing their own and being given them on site.
absolutely - I am not suggesting it, but highlighting the an issue, with a potential solution. I agree it is unworkable solution, but one all the same…yet without it makes the shifting age restriction a joke as people carry on
This is the only policy I could get behind quite quickly. 76,000 less deaths a year potentially.
As an ex smoker, it’s the only habit I’ve ever regretted starting. I do vape, yes it’s “safer” than inhaling puolonium-210/tar, but have never been happy with the huge uptake in kids.
Currently only 5 deaths in the UK through vaping, which is a huge difference compared to cigarettes.
You can currently take your children to Wetherspoons, is there any expectation that you won’t let your 14 year old smoke in the smoking area? Is this enforced by the bar staff? I would say the answer is no.
no but those smoking at 17 could easily look of legal age and given this hypothetical pub situation most will be 18 anyway to be served so the chance of catching someone for little benefit isnt there
if however it becomes part of their licence to stop underage smoking (as in 10 years time a 17 year old will be obviously underage) in the same way they are for drinking there becomes an interest for the venue - but realistically this won’t happen they’ll simply close the smoking area to force the smokers off site (ie on the kerb of the front door) and thus no longer their responsibility and no breach of licence
of course the answer is no - but your applying today’s rules to a situation today.
i am suggesting that “tomorrows” ruling on smoking may have higher expectation in a hypothetical situation. if the Govt are so keen to make smoker harder then the suggested rule would make sense to put in place, however i cannot see any venue accepting that responsibility
I can see a blurry bottle with some blue banding on the label - blue tending to be be associated with non-alcoholic drinks.
Personally I’m not ok with ‘yah booing’ cadets. Not that keen on it with staff - for me the only people who should be ‘outed’ are those who are hypocritical about rules - happy to enforce them on others, happy to ignore rules for themselves.
I don’t think this post is booing that cadet. Not even close. It’s suggesting irony that the person in charge of the org is in an environment where people are not following the basic rules he’s set, or at least agreed with.
Same as if I see photos of cadets standing up on coaches whilst on the motorway, or otherwise obviously not got a seat belt on. I’ve got nothing against them, but the staff should know better, especially to be uploading the photos of such infractions.
)