My fear is how much the government will increase other taxes to make up the difference in revenues. It’s long been the case that tax income from smoking is far higher than the cost to the NHS of smoking-related disease. And if fewer people smoke, and therefore live longer, then that will mean a far higher pensions bill. Are all the anti-smoking brigade here happy to have to work well into their seventies and/or pay a good deal more tax to compensate the treasury for its eradication?
And, of course, once the precedent is set then they can - and will - come for anything else that they can deem too unhealthy for people to decide to do for themselves. Maybe they’ll ban alcohol, or fried foods, or sunbathing, or something you enjoy even though it’s known to have negative health impacts. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out for I was not a smoker………
It’s long been the case that tax income from smoking is far higher than the cost to the NHS of smoking-related disease.
I'd like to see some stats on this.
Back when smoking was far more common, I could quite believe this. But my understanding was that the numbers of people smoking have dropped quite drastically. Certainly, almost all the people I knew who used to smoke have either died or stopped. I seriously don't know anyone who smokes.
And, of course, once the precedent is set then they can - and will - come for anything else that they can deem too unhealthy for people to decide to do for themselves. Maybe they’ll ban alcohol, or fried foods, or sunbathing, or something you enjoy even though it’s known to have negative health impacts. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out for I was not a smoker………
I see no evidence at all for this kind of scaremongering. Smoking is on a very different level to these other things, in that it is, of itself, harmful to the human body. It doesn't matter how little you smoke, it's simply not good for you (or those around you). And then there is the additional factor of how easy it is to become addicted.
Yes - too much sunbathing isn't good for you; too much alcohol isn't good for you; too much fried food isn't good for you. But they are nowhere near as damaging to the body as smoking (except in pretty extreme circumstances) and they are nowhere near as addictive.
In addition, I have seen no evidence anywhere that "they" are planning such extreme bans.
I am baffled by the horrified reaction to a bill seeking fewer deaths due to lung cancer, and fewer illnesses caused by passive smoking. Smoking is a selfish habit that only does harm. I don't want to protect harmful and anti-social behaviour.
And I’m baffled that you find some negative reactions baffling. I can certainly understand disagreeing with those negative reactions, but surely it’s not baffling that some people balance societal interests and personal freedom differently from how you balance them.
And, of course, once the precedent is set then they can - and will - come for anything else that they can deem too unhealthy for people to decide to do for themselves. Maybe they’ll ban alcohol, or fried foods, or sunbathing, or something you enjoy even though it’s known to have negative health impacts. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out for I was not a smoker………
This. Prohibition of alcohol in the US was stupid and wrong. We don’t need to do it again.
I’m going to point out that a ban that includes pipe tobacco and cigars is not the same thing as dealing with cheap, additive-filled cigarettes. And fine tobacco and cigars do have a good—people genuinely enjoy them the way that people enjoy fine wines. It’s not my thing, and one should not do it in excess any more than alcohol or marijuana, and it should be done in appropriate places, but that’s not the same thing as telling adults that they’re not allowed to have it at all.
Sorry, I grew up with terrible smokers, both of whom died of cancer, and I’ve never smoked and don’t plan on it. But I stand with 500 years in Europe (and far longer in the American continents, with the First Peoples) of people enjoying tobacco. I stand with the Hobbits and their pipe-weed, with Puddleglum and the Marsh-Wiggles and their muddy tobacco, with Holmes and his pipe, with the real people I have known over the decades who enjoy a good cigar every now and then, and all the others.
I’m not sure what else I can add here. This may be at an impasse. I hope the law does not go through, or that it’s struck down or modified to allow adults, in some way, to continue to enjoy this pleasure.
Some people enjoy shooting up heroin. We try to minimise the harm it does but we don't make it legal to sell it. Other people enjoy the wind in their hair motorbiking down the open road. We still make them wear a helmet.
And, of course, once the precedent is set then they can - and will - come for anything else that they can deem too unhealthy for people to decide to do for themselves. Maybe they’ll ban alcohol, or fried foods, or sunbathing, or something you enjoy even though it’s known to have negative health impacts. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out for I was not a smoker………
This. Prohibition of alcohol in the US was stupid and wrong. We don’t need to do it again.
I’m going to point out that a ban that includes pipe tobacco and cigars is not the same thing as dealing with cheap, additive-filled cigarettes. And fine tobacco and cigars do have a good—people genuinely enjoy them the way that people enjoy fine wines. It’s not my thing, and one should not do it in excess any more than alcohol or marijuana, and it should be done in appropriate places, but that’s not the same thing as telling adults that they’re not allowed to have it at all.
Sorry, I grew up with terrible smokers, both of whom died of cancer, and I’ve never smoked and don’t plan on it. But I stand with 500 years in Europe (and far longer in the American continents, with the First Peoples) of people enjoying tobacco. I stand with the Hobbits and their pipe-weed, with Puddleglum and the Marsh-Wiggles and their muddy tobacco, with Holmes and his pipe, with the real people I have known over the decades who enjoy a good cigar every now and then, and all the others.
I’m not sure what else I can add here. This may be at an impasse. I hope the law does not go through, or that it’s struck down or modified to allow adults, in some way, to continue to enjoy this pleasure.
Hobbits aren't real, and using fictional characters to defend causing more deaths due to smoking seems wildly insensitive. Being an adult doesn't give someone the right to harm others via passive smoking, and unless smoking is totally banned there's no way to totally prevent that.
My fear is how much the government will increase other taxes to make up the difference in revenues. It’s long been the case that tax income from smoking is far higher than the cost to the NHS of smoking-related disease. And if fewer people smoke, and therefore live longer, then that will mean a far higher pensions bill. Are all the anti-smoking brigade here happy to have to work well into their seventies and/or pay a good deal more tax to compensate the treasury for its eradication?
And, of course, once the precedent is set then they can - and will - come for anything else that they can deem too unhealthy for people to decide to do for themselves. Maybe they’ll ban alcohol, or fried foods, or sunbathing, or something you enjoy even though it’s known to have negative health impacts. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out for I was not a smoker………
But smoking doesn't just impact the smoker, passive smoking causes serious harm to others. Fried food and sunbathing does not, although arguably alcohol does via drunk people behaving badly. Sunbathing is also not inherently unhealthy, unless you specifically meant trying to get a tan rather than just lying in the sun - sunbathing while wearing appropriate sun protection (both sunglasses/hat etc and sunscreen) is fine. I don't drink alcohol or enjoy sunbathing and rarely eat fried foods - I don't think there's anything I enjoy that's more important than not dying from cancer or giving someone else a serious respitory illness.
I am baffled by the horrified reaction to a bill seeking fewer deaths due to lung cancer, and fewer illnesses caused by passive smoking. Smoking is a selfish habit that only does harm. I don't want to protect harmful and anti-social behaviour.
And I’m baffled that you find some negative reactions baffling. I can certainly understand disagreeing with those negative reactions, but surely it’s not baffling that some people balance societal interests and personal freedom differently from how you balance them.
It is baffling to me that some people are so wedded to personal freedom that it's worth letting people die of horrible, totally preventable illnesses.
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
I grew up as one of those children, as I've said above.
We could ban cars and no one (children or otherwise) would ever get run over, too.
I am baffled by the horrified reaction to a bill seeking fewer deaths due to lung cancer, and fewer illnesses caused by passive smoking. Smoking is a selfish habit that only does harm. I don't want to protect harmful and anti-social behaviour.
And I’m baffled that you find some negative reactions baffling. I can certainly understand disagreeing with those negative reactions, but surely it’s not baffling that some people balance societal interests and personal freedom differently from how you balance them.
It is baffling to me that some people are so wedded to personal freedom that it's worth letting people die of horrible, totally preventable illnesses.
How is a prohibition on selling tobacco products to anyone born after 2008 going to appreciably change the effects of second-hand smoke now, especially if what has been said here about the very small number of young people in Britain who smoke is accurate? People born before 2009 will continue to be able to purchase tobacco products and to smoke. The approach seems to be predicated on waiting for smokers born before 2009 to gradually die out. Meanwhile, there will still be lots of second-hand smoke, and among those who’ll be subjected to it will be the children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews of people who will continue to be able to buy cigarettes.
If the goal is to reduce the harms caused by second-hand smoke, then it would seem to make much more sense to ban smoking in public places—workplaces, stores, restaurants, bars, etc. That has, as I understand it, significantly reduced the effects of second-hand smoke in the US.
The approach of banning sales in perpetuity to anyone currently under 18, on the other hand, would seem to be a singularly ineffective of way of dealing with the problem of children or adults being exposed to second-hand smoke.
How many people in the UK die every year because of smoking?
How much does it cost the NHS to provide for health care of smokers?
Isn't the idea to reduce smoking year by year as smokers quit voluntarily or involuntarily
The UK's smoking ban is not like the US prohibition of alcohol. It does not take anything away from current users. They will not be criminalized. Hopefully, a black market will not develop. It is aimed at phasing smoking out in the long run.
Isn't smoking in the UK at historical lows anyway? With the ban in place, it will likely take 60 years before it is completely eliminated, but youth smoking will be eliminated much sooner. Smoking among youth is already extremely low (source). Seems to me the proposed law would give the desire to eliminate it all together the right push.
Sorry for the double post, but I missed the edit window.
I would add that a number of US states prohibit smoking in a car if a child or minor is in the car. (Exact ages vary.) That’s another option likely to be more effective than prohibiting anyone born after 2008 from buying cigarettes.
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
So, then, you favour a total ban on smoking, including in the home, @Pomona?
Not saying that's the wrong position, in fact, as I indicated on the last page, if one is going to argue that smoking is so bad it should be illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after 2008, it seems logical to just go the whole nine yards and ban it completely, or at least anywhere around children.
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
So, then, you favour a total ban on smoking, including in the home, @Pomona?
Not saying that's the wrong position, in fact, as I indicated on the last page, if one is going to argue that smoking is so bad it should be illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after 2008, it seems logical to just go the whole nine yards and ban it completely, or at least anywhere around children.
In principle, yes, banning burning tobacco (there is already a ban on chewing tobacco, IIRC) is reasonable and proportionate. However, as the example of prohibition in the US shows, taking away something people are habituated to is likely to provoke a political backlash and a black market in a way that merely not letting people become habituated to it won't. It's the art of the possible.
It is the art of the possible, but it raises the question if this is what’s deemed possible, what’s the goal?
The problem I’m having here is framing the prohibition on sales to anyone born after 2008 as a public health measure. If the goal is improving public health, there are better, faster and less drastic ways to approach it that have been shown elsewhere to be both possible and effective.
From what I’ve seen so far, I have a hard time viewing this legislation as anything other than moralizing with public health window dressing, along the lines of “We think smoking is a vice, but we can’t outlaw it outright, because too many people are addicted and we don’t want the burden of so many people going cold turkey at once, nor do we want the political backlash from them. So we’ll just ban it for those who aren’t old enough to have started smoking yet, and eventually this vice will die out.”
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
I grew up as one of those children, as I've said above.
We could ban cars and no one (children or otherwise) would ever get run over, too.
But that isn't answering the question I asked. If you're in favour of banning smoking around children rather than banning it generally, how would you police that?
Cars have obvious beneficial uses, smoking doesn't. It's not difficult to see why they are not similar issues - but actually I would be in favour of more car-free environments in general, in favour of active transit (walking, cycling etc) and mass transit where that isn't possible. However, there are circumstances where private car ownership is necessary - but there is never a time when smoking is necessary.
The problem I’m having here is framing the prohibition on sales to anyone born after 2008 as a public health measure. If the goal is improving public health, there are better, faster and less drastic ways to approach it that have been shown elsewhere to be both possible and effective.
Sorry for the double post, but I missed the edit window.
I would add that a number of US states prohibit smoking in a car if a child or minor is in the car. (Exact ages vary.) That’s another option likely to be more effective than prohibiting anyone born after 2008 from buying cigarettes.
But how is that policed, especially in rural areas? Preventing someone from buying the cigarettes in the first place would surely be more effective.
It is the art of the possible, but it raises the question if this is what’s deemed possible, what’s the goal?
The problem I’m having here is framing the prohibition on sales to anyone born after 2008 as a public health measure. If the goal is improving public health, there are better, faster and less drastic ways to approach it that have been shown elsewhere to be both possible and effective.
From what I’ve seen so far, I have a hard time viewing this legislation as anything other than moralizing with public health window dressing, along the lines of “We think smoking is a vice, but we can’t outlaw it outright, because too many people are addicted and we don’t want the burden of so many people going cold turkey at once, nor do we want the political backlash from them. So we’ll just ban it for those who aren’t old enough to have started smoking yet, and eventually this vice will die out.”
I mean, when a vice is a class 1 carcinogen that also harms other people around those using said carcinogen (unlike, say, UV-based tanning or eating hot dogs) I don't think the public health aspect is merely window dressing. You can't be a moderate smoker in the same way that you can be a moderate drinker when passive smoking exists.
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
So, then, you favour a total ban on smoking, including in the home, @Pomona?
Not saying that's the wrong position, in fact, as I indicated on the last page, if one is going to argue that smoking is so bad it should be illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after 2008, it seems logical to just go the whole nine yards and ban it completely, or at least anywhere around children.
Imo it should be illegal to smoke or vape around children, no argument from me there. However, policing it would be very difficult. I think banning people from getting cigarettes in the first place would be more effective - after all we don't allow the sale of heroin, which was at one point an over-the-counter drug. Personally I would be all for a total ban on tobacco sales.
The problem I’m having here is framing the prohibition on sales to anyone born after 2008 as a public health measure. If the goal is improving public health, there are better, faster and less drastic ways to approach it that have been shown elsewhere to be both possible and effective.
Such as?
Such as examples I’ve already given, like banning smoking in public places—workplaces, stores, restaurants, bars, etc.
Sorry for the double post, but I missed the edit window.
I would add that a number of US states prohibit smoking in a car if a child or minor is in the car. (Exact ages vary.) That’s another option likely to be more effective than prohibiting anyone born after 2008 from buying cigarettes.
But how is that policed, especially in rural areas?
It’s policed exactly the same as any other regulation about driving. It would probably be easier to police than, say, the requirement that seat belts be worn because it’s easier to see from outside the car that someone is smoking and that there’s a child in the car.
Preventing someone from buying the cigarettes in the first place would surely be more effective.
Not when most people aren’t prohibited from buying cigarettes.
Under this legislation, only a subset of the population would be prohibited from buying cigarettes, and according to what’s been said in this thread, only a very small percentage of that subset is likely to smoke cigarettes anyway. It will be decades before that subset grows to a substantial majority of the population.
It is the art of the possible, but it raises the question if this is what’s deemed possible, what’s the goal?
The problem I’m having here is framing the prohibition on sales to anyone born after 2008 as a public health measure. If the goal is improving public health, there are better, faster and less drastic ways to approach it that have been shown elsewhere to be both possible and effective.
From what I’ve seen so far, I have a hard time viewing this legislation as anything other than moralizing with public health window dressing, along the lines of “We think smoking is a vice, but we can’t outlaw it outright, because too many people are addicted and we don’t want the burden of so many people going cold turkey at once, nor do we want the political backlash from them. So we’ll just ban it for those who aren’t old enough to have started smoking yet, and eventually this vice will die out.”
I mean, when a vice is a class 1 carcinogen that also harms other people around those using said carcinogen (unlike, say, UV-based tanning or eating hot dogs) I don't think the public health aspect is merely window dressing.
It’s window dressing because banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2008 will do very little to protect anyone from second-hand smoke now. The children (and grandchildren) of smokers will be just as vulnerable to second-hand smoke after this legislation goes into effect as they were before it went into effect, and that will remain the case for years if not decades.
If this legislation was really about public health, then it would be structured to actually make a discernible difference to public health now. It would target the problems it seeks to solve—exposing others, particularly children, to second-hand smoke—by preventing, or attempting to prevent, that exposure from happening.
I don't think this policy will only work in the long term is actually an objection. At the least, it's refreshingly different from policies that only work in the short term.
I don't think this policy will only work in the long term is actually an objection.
I’d say it’s not an objection if the goal is to ultimately eliminate smoking.
I think it is an objection if the goal is to improve public health by protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke, because it isn’t an effective way to achieve that goal.
Again, the ban on tobacco products for those born after 2008 is much different than the way prohibition worked in the US. The prohibition of alcohol eliminated its use for everyone, but the ban on tobacco products will only affect those who are not yet old enough to be smoking. It will be a gradual elimination of the product for those underage. Sure, there will be some begging for tobacco, maybe even some under the table sales, but it will not be by licensed retailers. Since the market for tobacco is already small. it will not explode and become out of control.
The problem I’m having here is framing the prohibition on sales to anyone born after 2008 as a public health measure. If the goal is improving public health, there are better, faster and less drastic ways to approach it that have been shown elsewhere to be both possible and effective.
Such as?
Such as examples I’ve already given, like banning smoking in public places—workplaces, stores, restaurants, bars, etc.
That's already the case here. Been banned for a couple of decades now. You appear to be saying that what's already been done is faster than taking additional measures.
I don't think this policy will only work in the long term is actually an objection.
I’d say it’s not an objection if the goal is to ultimately eliminate smoking.
Which is the case. The aim is to create a smoke-free generation (and future generations).
I think it is an objection if the goal is to improve public health by protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke, because it isn’t an effective way to achieve that goal.
I introduced the point about children and passive smoking, in response to ChastMastr's libertarian argument.
I have no problem at all with underage people not being allowed to buy tobacco.
…
Again, this is about telling adults what to do, in the privacy of their own homes, not children.
What about the life-long effects on children of growing up in a home where adults smoke?
Why is it OK for children being allowed to smoke passively, but not actively?
Protecting children from harm in the privacy of their own home is not within the scope of this bill. Doublethink raised the point about the difficulty of directly addressing that kind of issue. A gradual decline in passive smoking everywhere is a side-effect of this law, not the primary aim.
The interesting aspect of this bill, when it is enacted, is that it won't make it an offence for adults to smoke, it will make it an offence to sell tobacco products (including cigarette papers) to “a person born on or after 1 January 2009”, which is a creative way of using legislation to address a public health issue.
My apologies, @Arethosemyfeet and @pease for not knowing/remembering that it’s already the case. If I had ever known that, perhaps my memory was skewed by recent time in a part of Europe where it’s not as much the case, or at least didn’t appear to be.
In any event, I’ve done what I’ve sometimes criticized others for doing—commenting on legislation or politics in another country without fully understanding the context. Mea culpa!
It still strikes me as an odd and problematic approach. But I should remind myself it’s neither my circus nor my monkeys.
It still strikes me as an odd and problematic approach. But I should remind myself it’s neither my circus nor my monkeys.
More broadly, I don't think the general principle is that bad - that instead of criminalising the possession or use of psychoactive substances consumed "recreationally", legislation should concentrate on controlling their sale. It's hard to have much sympathy for those who profit significantly from the sale of what they have long known to be highly harmful and addictive products.
In this regard, I have a feeling that many Hobbits (and maybe Marsh-wiggles) grow their own tobacco, for their own consumption, which I believe would continue to be permitted. (As long as they pay the relevant duty.) Not sure about Gandalf.
NB It's strange that the meaning of "recreational use" is typically broad enough to encompass enjoyment, self-medication and addiction.
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
I grew up as one of those children, as I've said above.
We could ban cars and no one (children or otherwise) would ever get run over, too.
But that isn't answering the question I asked. If you're in favour of banning smoking around children rather than banning it generally, how would you police that?
Cars have obvious beneficial uses, smoking doesn't. It's not difficult to see why they are not similar issues - but actually I would be in favour of more car-free environments in general, in favour of active transit (walking, cycling etc) and mass transit where that isn't possible. However, there are circumstances where private car ownership is necessary - but there is never a time when smoking is necessary.
How enforcing smoking around children specifically would be done, I don’t know, but it sure as hell beats banning it for adults, for the reasons I’ve already given, and that others have given.
It still strikes me as an odd and problematic approach. But I should remind myself it’s neither my circus nor my monkeys.
More broadly, I don't think the general principle is that bad - that instead of criminalising the possession or use of psychoactive substances consumed "recreationally", legislation should concentrate on controlling their sale. It's hard to have much sympathy for those who profit significantly from the sale of what they have long known to be highly harmful and addictive products.
I can see that. What I find odd and problematic (at least from an American legal perspective) is prohibiting sale to some adults but not all adults, and doing so solely on the basis of a characteristic beyond anyone’s control—the date on which they were born. It strikes me as arbitrary (again from an American legal perspective) that someone born on December 31, 2008, will be able to buy tobacco products, while someone born on January 1, 2009, will be permanently prohibited from doing so. I can’t help but see that as discriminatory.
I would argue that we do discriminate on grounds that are out of people's control such as ability or age. (Re ability, pardon my general summary of a very precise law, but for example one can decline to hire anyone for a job in the US if they cannot do the job with reasonable accommodation where reasonable is defined by cost.)
As far as discriminating permanently by age, people used to think that going to a bar and drink and hang out was a part of adulthood. However I have never been able to smoke at a bar in Texas* because smoking was outlawed in indoor Texas public spaces about 18 months before I could legally drink at a bar. Someone who is 18 months older than me could have had that grand experience for reasons utterly outside my control or theirs. The reasoning there is the same as the reasoning here.
At first I thought that my spouse was a perfect example of someone who was only a few months older than me but could smoke. Actually I got the date wrong so he didn't fit, but really? He didn't fit because he's asthmatic and his asthma is very triggered by smoke. If I were smoking at a bar, he couldn't afford to go spend much time at that bar whether or not he was smoking. Relevantly sons would never be able to legally own tobacco if they lived in the UK, but they would have another right that many of us lack. They would have a right to expect their peers not to smoke near them. That may not be a right you (general you) value, but reducing the assumptions that we should all deal with nicotine smoke everywhere we go would be fabulous..
*Just fine with me since I don't smoke but that's beside the point
As far as discriminating permanently by age, people used to think that going to a bar and drink and hang out was a part of adulthood. However I have never been able to smoke at a bar in Texas* because smoking was outlawed in indoor Texas public spaces about 18 months before I could legally drink at a bar. Someone who is 18 months older than me could have had that grand experience for reasons utterly outside my control or theirs. The reasoning there is the same as the reasoning here.
No, I don’t think it is, because the law prohibiting smoking in bars applies to everyone, regardless of age.
For the reasoning to be the same/the scenarios to be comparable, the law would have to have the result that someone 18 months older than you is still permitted to smoke in bars, while you are not permitted to smoke in bars
I can see that. What I find odd and problematic (at least from an American legal perspective) is prohibiting sale to some adults but not all adults, and doing so solely on the basis of a characteristic beyond anyone’s control—the date on which they were born. It strikes me as arbitrary (again from an American legal perspective) that someone born on December 31, 2008, will be able to buy tobacco products, while someone born on January 1, 2009, will be permanently prohibited from doing so. I can’t help but see that as discriminatory.
As I understand it, the current change of the full retirement age in the US to 67, which is gradually coming into effect, depending on the year of one's birth, suggests to me that there isn't an inherent problem with this.
@ChastMastr and how would you police a ban on smoking around children if smoking in the home or in the car is fully legal for adults in general?
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
I grew up as one of those children, as I've said above.
We could ban cars and no one (children or otherwise) would ever get run over, too.
Don't threaten me with a good time. We depend too much on the damned things.
Joking, but as someone who hasn't owned a car in years and is pretty happy with that lifestyle choice, it's a rather pointed joke.
I don't drink alcohol or enjoy sunbathing and rarely eat fried foods - I don't think there's anything I enjoy that's more important than not dying from cancer or giving someone else a serious respitory illness.
Would you really cut out everything that gives you enjoyment if it were shown to increase your risk of dying of cancer (you will, of course, still die of something)? And if you did then what would be left to make your life worth living in the first place?
Different people have different ideas about where to draw the line between having more years in their life versus more life in their years, and as adults that should be their choice to make. Who are you to assume that just because you draw the line in a certain place everyone should do the same?
I can see that. What I find odd and problematic (at least from an American legal perspective) is prohibiting sale to some adults but not all adults, and doing so solely on the basis of a characteristic beyond anyone’s control—the date on which they were born. It strikes me as arbitrary (again from an American legal perspective) that someone born on December 31, 2008, will be able to buy tobacco products, while someone born on January 1, 2009, will be permanently prohibited from doing so. I can’t help but see that as discriminatory.
As I understand it, the current change of the full retirement age in the US to 67, which is gradually coming into effect, depending on the year of one's birth, suggests to me that there isn't an inherent problem with this.
Aside from this being a comparison of apples to kumquats, there isn’t a single full retirement age in the US. What I think you’re referring to is the age at which one can draw full Social Security benefits. Social Security is the primary income source for around 50% of retirees here.
I’m 65. I retired on “full retirement” 5 years ago, because where I worked, 30 years=“full retirement,” and I had 34+ years. I could have started drawing Social Security sooner, with would involve a penalty, but chose to hold off until I’m 67.
But gradually moving the age at which something happens isn’t the same as as saying “you and people younger than you can never do it, but people older than you can continue to do it.”
The issue here to me is not about all people dealing with nicotine smoke everywhere, but trying to prevent adults from smoking anywhere.
As already pointed out, the law does not make it an offence for people born after 2008 to smoke when they are adults.
I was going to ask about this. Does this mean that the law would prohibit a person born on January 1, 2008, from buying cigarettes at a retail establishment, but he or she could give money to an older sibling or friend to buy cigarettes for them?
As others have said the logic behind the legislation is it is intended to stop people from starting to smoke. It doesn’t take away anything from people who are already able to smoke, and are smoking.
In time, however, given that no new smokers are starting, smoking will be eliminated. I think it’s being done this way because a flat-out outright ban would face too much opposition, and would be too difficult for people who are already “committed“ smokers.
Aside from this being a comparison of apples to kumquats, there isn’t a single full retirement age in the US. What I think you’re referring to is the age at which one can draw full Social Security benefits. Social Security is the primary income source for around 50% of retirees here.
…
But gradually moving the age at which something happens isn’t the same as as saying “you and people younger than you can never do it, but people older than you can continue to do it.”
I was just trying to address your point about whether treating people differently, on the basis of their year of birth, would be unfairly discriminatory under US law, which doesn't appear to be the case.
I think it comes down to whether such a law is broadly acceptable to the adult population, which does appear to be the case in the UK.
The issue here to me is not about all people dealing with nicotine smoke everywhere, but trying to prevent adults from smoking anywhere.
As already pointed out, the law does not make it an offence for people born after 2008 to smoke when they are adults.
I was going to ask about this. Does this mean that the law would prohibit a person born on January 1, 2008, from buying cigarettes at a retail establishment, but he or she could give money to an older sibling or friend to buy cigarettes for them?
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
The argument in the “Yes Prime Minister” series i.e that smokers provide financial benefit to society by indulging in a painful form of voluntary euthanasia, was not new to me. I did a study in the early 1970s and realised just that. It set me on the course to quit smoking! I thought “Yes, I’m socially conscientious, but not that socially conscientious.”
Serious point. The truth that information is not in itself enough to stop addiction is borne out by my own experience. Even though I knew that and was motivated, it still took me several years more to finally quit the weed.
Which is why I figure education is not enough and legislation is necessary. One can argue about “what legislation” of course. And bearing in mind the nature of the UK legislation, the effect of reducing the cost benefit to the state will be gradual. I can see the Treasury reluctantly buying that argument.
Certainly, almost all the people I knew who used to smoke have either died or stopped. I seriously don't know anyone who smokes.
That is true for me, too. Decade by decade, the number of smokers I know has decreased, as older smokers die and younger smokers quit. I don't know anyone now who smokes. Our village shop sells cigarettes, so there must be smokers here, but I don't know any.
Anti-smoking legislation and education, has seen rates in Scotland drop from 52% in 1974, to 28% in 2003 and it's now about 15%. Although the legislation so far has clearly worked, a new approach is needed to reduce rates still further.
Aside from this being a comparison of apples to kumquats, there isn’t a single full retirement age in the US. What I think you’re referring to is the age at which one can draw full Social Security benefits. Social Security is the primary income source for around 50% of retirees here.
…
But gradually moving the age at which something happens isn’t the same as as saying “you and people younger than you can never do it, but people older than you can continue to do it.”
I was just trying to address your point about whether treating people differently, on the basis of their year of birth, would be unfairly discriminatory under US law, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Yes, I know you were. But you were doing it by failing to compare like with like, by making a comparison that is easily distinguishable from a legal standpoint. A law saying “those who did have to wait x years to do y must now wait x+2 years to do y” is quite different from a law that says “going forward, there will be a permanent bifurcation where those born before x date can continue to purchase y, while those born after x date will never be allowed to purchase y.”
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
I was just trying to address your point about whether treating people differently, on the basis of their year of birth, would be unfairly discriminatory under US law, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Yes, I know you were. But you were doing it by failing to compare like with like, by making a comparison that is easily distinguishable from a legal standpoint. A law saying “those who did have to wait x years to do y must now wait x+2 years to do y” is quite different from a law that says “going forward, there will be a permanent bifurcation where those born before x date can continue to purchase y, while those born after x date will never be allowed to purchase y.”
In what way? The question of whether or not people are being treated differently, according to their year of birth, is essentially the same in both cases. As I understand it, the principle of anti-discrimination legislation is that people are not treated differently, in relation to some protected characteristic. The degree to which they are treated differently doesn't appear to be particularly relevant. And while age may well be a protected characteristic in US law, it doesn't appear that year of birth is.
As I understand it, the principle of anti-discrimination legislation is that people are not treated differently, in relation to some protected characteristic. The degree to which they are treated differently doesn't appear to be particularly relevant.
In UK law it is - discrimination can be legal if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". I'm less familiar with the US legal systems but I have a vague recollection that there are standards for examining discrimination cases (strict scrutiny?) that still permit discrimination where there is a compelling governmental interest, though I'm sure @Nick Tamen will be able to explain more precisely how that work.
I was just trying to address your point about whether treating people differently, on the basis of their year of birth, would be unfairly discriminatory under US law, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Yes, I know you were. But you were doing it by failing to compare like with like, by making a comparison that is easily distinguishable from a legal standpoint. A law saying “those who did have to wait x years to do y must now wait x+2 years to do y” is quite different from a law that says “going forward, there will be a permanent bifurcation where those born before x date can continue to purchase y, while those born after x date will never be allowed to purchase y.”
In what way? The question of whether or not people are being treated differently, according to their year of birth, is essentially the same in both cases.
No, it’s not, because the nature of the discrimination is different. In one case the age at which something can be done moves up by a few years, but everyone will still be able to do it. In the other, people born after a certain date will permanently be legally unable to do something that people before that date can legally continue to do. That will not change by just getting a few years older. Two permanent classes of people are created: those who can and will continue to be able to buy cigarettes, and those who can’t and will never be able to buy cigarettes.
As I understand it, the principle of anti-discrimination legislation is that people are not treated differently, in relation to some protected characteristic.
I’ve tried to be careful to be clear I’m speaking from a US legal perspective—why legislation like that under discussion might be successfully challenged as unconstitutional here. In the US, you wouldn’t just be considering federal or state anti-discrimination legislation; you’d also have to consider the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all persons equal protection of the law.
And while age may well be a protected characteristic in US law, it doesn't appear that year of birth is.
The year of birth would be relevant here because it’s what creates the permanent distinction between two groups, older and younger, who are not treated equally.
As I understand it, the principle of anti-discrimination legislation is that people are not treated differently, in relation to some protected characteristic. The degree to which they are treated differently doesn't appear to be particularly relevant.
In UK law it is - discrimination can be legal if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". I'm less familiar with the US legal systems but I have a vague recollection that there are standards for examining discrimination cases (strict scrutiny?) that still permit discrimination where there is a compelling governmental interest, though I'm sure @Nick Tamen will be able to explain more precisely how that work.
Under equal protection jurisprudence, there are levels of scrutiny, with “strict scrutiny” as the highest level, applying in cases involving “protected classes,” and “rational basis” as the lowest. There’s also “intermediate scrutiny,” and some courts have used what appear to be additional intermediate levels.
“Rational basis” is similar to what you describe as the UK standard—discrimination of a non-protected class doesn’t violate the equal protection clause if the government can demonstrate an appropriate governmental interest and a rational basis for treating groups differently.
“Strict scrutiny,” on the other hand, requires a showing by the government of a compelling governmental interest, as well as a showing that the legislation in question is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling governmental interest, and that the governmental interest couldn’t be achieved by other means.
Legislation like that being discussed here would not, I don’t think, trigger strict scrutiny (though I can easily imagine lawyers making a case that it should.) I think the question is whether it would require only a rational basis, or whether intermediate scrutiny (requiring a showing by the government of furthering an important governmental interest by means substantially related to that interest) would be required. And I can easily imagine this being a case by which creative plaintiffs could try to create new law.
Two permanent classes of people are created: those who can and will continue to be able to buy cigarettes, and those who can’t and will never be able to buy cigarettes.
I'm not clear about the interpretation of "permanent" here. Under this law, there will eventually be only one class of people - those who cannot legally be sold cigarettes.
Two permanent classes of people are created: those who can and will continue to be able to buy cigarettes, and those who can’t and will never be able to buy cigarettes.
I'm not clear about the interpretation of "permanent" here. Under this law, there will eventually be only one class of people - those who cannot legally be sold cigarettes.
Permanent in the sense that nothing will allow a person to move from one class to the other class. Whichever side of the relevant date you fall on, that’ll determine the class you’re permanently a member of.
Comments
And, of course, once the precedent is set then they can - and will - come for anything else that they can deem too unhealthy for people to decide to do for themselves. Maybe they’ll ban alcohol, or fried foods, or sunbathing, or something you enjoy even though it’s known to have negative health impacts. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out for I was not a smoker………
I'd like to see some stats on this.
Back when smoking was far more common, I could quite believe this. But my understanding was that the numbers of people smoking have dropped quite drastically. Certainly, almost all the people I knew who used to smoke have either died or stopped. I seriously don't know anyone who smokes.
I see no evidence at all for this kind of scaremongering. Smoking is on a very different level to these other things, in that it is, of itself, harmful to the human body. It doesn't matter how little you smoke, it's simply not good for you (or those around you). And then there is the additional factor of how easy it is to become addicted.
Yes - too much sunbathing isn't good for you; too much alcohol isn't good for you; too much fried food isn't good for you. But they are nowhere near as damaging to the body as smoking (except in pretty extreme circumstances) and they are nowhere near as addictive.
In addition, I have seen no evidence anywhere that "they" are planning such extreme bans.
This.
This. Prohibition of alcohol in the US was stupid and wrong. We don’t need to do it again.
I’m going to point out that a ban that includes pipe tobacco and cigars is not the same thing as dealing with cheap, additive-filled cigarettes. And fine tobacco and cigars do have a good—people genuinely enjoy them the way that people enjoy fine wines. It’s not my thing, and one should not do it in excess any more than alcohol or marijuana, and it should be done in appropriate places, but that’s not the same thing as telling adults that they’re not allowed to have it at all.
Sorry, I grew up with terrible smokers, both of whom died of cancer, and I’ve never smoked and don’t plan on it. But I stand with 500 years in Europe (and far longer in the American continents, with the First Peoples) of people enjoying tobacco. I stand with the Hobbits and their pipe-weed, with Puddleglum and the Marsh-Wiggles and their muddy tobacco, with Holmes and his pipe, with the real people I have known over the decades who enjoy a good cigar every now and then, and all the others.
I’m not sure what else I can add here. This may be at an impasse. I hope the law does not go through, or that it’s struck down or modified to allow adults, in some way, to continue to enjoy this pleasure.
Hobbits aren't real, and using fictional characters to defend causing more deaths due to smoking seems wildly insensitive. Being an adult doesn't give someone the right to harm others via passive smoking, and unless smoking is totally banned there's no way to totally prevent that.
But smoking doesn't just impact the smoker, passive smoking causes serious harm to others. Fried food and sunbathing does not, although arguably alcohol does via drunk people behaving badly. Sunbathing is also not inherently unhealthy, unless you specifically meant trying to get a tan rather than just lying in the sun - sunbathing while wearing appropriate sun protection (both sunglasses/hat etc and sunscreen) is fine. I don't drink alcohol or enjoy sunbathing and rarely eat fried foods - I don't think there's anything I enjoy that's more important than not dying from cancer or giving someone else a serious respitory illness.
It is baffling to me that some people are so wedded to personal freedom that it's worth letting people die of horrible, totally preventable illnesses.
@ChastMastr I notice that you haven't responded to this. If banning smoking completely is the only way to actually prevent smoking around children, is it not worth it? That's not an adult making a free choice but a child who has no choice. Personally I don't care about adult smokers' feelings either way, but I do care about those exposed to passive smoking and especially children who have no choice.
I grew up as one of those children, as I've said above.
We could ban cars and no one (children or otherwise) would ever get run over, too.
If the goal is to reduce the harms caused by second-hand smoke, then it would seem to make much more sense to ban smoking in public places—workplaces, stores, restaurants, bars, etc. That has, as I understand it, significantly reduced the effects of second-hand smoke in the US.
The approach of banning sales in perpetuity to anyone currently under 18, on the other hand, would seem to be a singularly ineffective of way of dealing with the problem of children or adults being exposed to second-hand smoke.
How much does it cost the NHS to provide for health care of smokers?
Isn't the idea to reduce smoking year by year as smokers quit voluntarily or involuntarily
The UK's smoking ban is not like the US prohibition of alcohol. It does not take anything away from current users. They will not be criminalized. Hopefully, a black market will not develop. It is aimed at phasing smoking out in the long run.
Isn't smoking in the UK at historical lows anyway? With the ban in place, it will likely take 60 years before it is completely eliminated, but youth smoking will be eliminated much sooner. Smoking among youth is already extremely low (source). Seems to me the proposed law would give the desire to eliminate it all together the right push.
Wish we could do the same in the US.
But, then, laws can always change.
I would add that a number of US states prohibit smoking in a car if a child or minor is in the car. (Exact ages vary.) That’s another option likely to be more effective than prohibiting anyone born after 2008 from buying cigarettes.
So, then, you favour a total ban on smoking, including in the home, @Pomona?
Not saying that's the wrong position, in fact, as I indicated on the last page, if one is going to argue that smoking is so bad it should be illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after 2008, it seems logical to just go the whole nine yards and ban it completely, or at least anywhere around children.
In principle, yes, banning burning tobacco (there is already a ban on chewing tobacco, IIRC) is reasonable and proportionate. However, as the example of prohibition in the US shows, taking away something people are habituated to is likely to provoke a political backlash and a black market in a way that merely not letting people become habituated to it won't. It's the art of the possible.
The problem I’m having here is framing the prohibition on sales to anyone born after 2008 as a public health measure. If the goal is improving public health, there are better, faster and less drastic ways to approach it that have been shown elsewhere to be both possible and effective.
From what I’ve seen so far, I have a hard time viewing this legislation as anything other than moralizing with public health window dressing, along the lines of “We think smoking is a vice, but we can’t outlaw it outright, because too many people are addicted and we don’t want the burden of so many people going cold turkey at once, nor do we want the political backlash from them. So we’ll just ban it for those who aren’t old enough to have started smoking yet, and eventually this vice will die out.”
But that isn't answering the question I asked. If you're in favour of banning smoking around children rather than banning it generally, how would you police that?
Cars have obvious beneficial uses, smoking doesn't. It's not difficult to see why they are not similar issues - but actually I would be in favour of more car-free environments in general, in favour of active transit (walking, cycling etc) and mass transit where that isn't possible. However, there are circumstances where private car ownership is necessary - but there is never a time when smoking is necessary.
Such as?
But how is that policed, especially in rural areas? Preventing someone from buying the cigarettes in the first place would surely be more effective.
I mean, when a vice is a class 1 carcinogen that also harms other people around those using said carcinogen (unlike, say, UV-based tanning or eating hot dogs) I don't think the public health aspect is merely window dressing. You can't be a moderate smoker in the same way that you can be a moderate drinker when passive smoking exists.
Imo it should be illegal to smoke or vape around children, no argument from me there. However, policing it would be very difficult. I think banning people from getting cigarettes in the first place would be more effective - after all we don't allow the sale of heroin, which was at one point an over-the-counter drug. Personally I would be all for a total ban on tobacco sales.
It’s policed exactly the same as any other regulation about driving. It would probably be easier to police than, say, the requirement that seat belts be worn because it’s easier to see from outside the car that someone is smoking and that there’s a child in the car.
Not when most people aren’t prohibited from buying cigarettes.
Under this legislation, only a subset of the population would be prohibited from buying cigarettes, and according to what’s been said in this thread, only a very small percentage of that subset is likely to smoke cigarettes anyway. It will be decades before that subset grows to a substantial majority of the population.
It’s window dressing because banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2008 will do very little to protect anyone from second-hand smoke now. The children (and grandchildren) of smokers will be just as vulnerable to second-hand smoke after this legislation goes into effect as they were before it went into effect, and that will remain the case for years if not decades.
If this legislation was really about public health, then it would be structured to actually make a discernible difference to public health now. It would target the problems it seeks to solve—exposing others, particularly children, to second-hand smoke—by preventing, or attempting to prevent, that exposure from happening.
I think it is an objection if the goal is to improve public health by protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke, because it isn’t an effective way to achieve that goal.
That's already the case here. Been banned for a couple of decades now. You appear to be saying that what's already been done is faster than taking additional measures.
I introduced the point about children and passive smoking, in response to ChastMastr's libertarian argument. Protecting children from harm in the privacy of their own home is not within the scope of this bill. Doublethink raised the point about the difficulty of directly addressing that kind of issue. A gradual decline in passive smoking everywhere is a side-effect of this law, not the primary aim.
The interesting aspect of this bill, when it is enacted, is that it won't make it an offence for adults to smoke, it will make it an offence to sell tobacco products (including cigarette papers) to “a person born on or after 1 January 2009”, which is a creative way of using legislation to address a public health issue.
In any event, I’ve done what I’ve sometimes criticized others for doing—commenting on legislation or politics in another country without fully understanding the context. Mea culpa!
It still strikes me as an odd and problematic approach. But I should remind myself it’s neither my circus nor my monkeys.
In this regard, I have a feeling that many Hobbits (and maybe Marsh-wiggles) grow their own tobacco, for their own consumption, which I believe would continue to be permitted. (As long as they pay the relevant duty.) Not sure about Gandalf.
NB It's strange that the meaning of "recreational use" is typically broad enough to encompass enjoyment, self-medication and addiction.
How enforcing smoking around children specifically would be done, I don’t know, but it sure as hell beats banning it for adults, for the reasons I’ve already given, and that others have given.
As far as discriminating permanently by age, people used to think that going to a bar and drink and hang out was a part of adulthood. However I have never been able to smoke at a bar in Texas* because smoking was outlawed in indoor Texas public spaces about 18 months before I could legally drink at a bar. Someone who is 18 months older than me could have had that grand experience for reasons utterly outside my control or theirs. The reasoning there is the same as the reasoning here.
At first I thought that my spouse was a perfect example of someone who was only a few months older than me but could smoke. Actually I got the date wrong so he didn't fit, but really? He didn't fit because he's asthmatic and his asthma is very triggered by smoke. If I were smoking at a bar, he couldn't afford to go spend much time at that bar whether or not he was smoking. Relevantly sons would never be able to legally own tobacco if they lived in the UK, but they would have another right that many of us lack. They would have a right to expect their peers not to smoke near them. That may not be a right you (general you) value, but reducing the assumptions that we should all deal with nicotine smoke everywhere we go would be fabulous..
*Just fine with me since I don't smoke but that's beside the point
For the reasoning to be the same/the scenarios to be comparable, the law would have to have the result that someone 18 months older than you is still permitted to smoke in bars, while you are not permitted to smoke in bars
And it is indeed fabulous--since, as you mention,
with which I heartily agree.
The issue here to me is not about all people dealing with nicotine smoke everywhere, but trying to prevent adults from smoking anywhere.
As already pointed out, the law does not make it an offence for people born after 2008 to smoke when they are adults.
Don't threaten me with a good time. We depend too much on the damned things.
Joking, but as someone who hasn't owned a car in years and is pretty happy with that lifestyle choice, it's a rather pointed joke.
Would you really cut out everything that gives you enjoyment if it were shown to increase your risk of dying of cancer (you will, of course, still die of something)? And if you did then what would be left to make your life worth living in the first place?
Different people have different ideas about where to draw the line between having more years in their life versus more life in their years, and as adults that should be their choice to make. Who are you to assume that just because you draw the line in a certain place everyone should do the same?
But it does make it an offence for anyone to sell those adults tobacco. The point is to prevent those adults from smoking, anywhere.
I’m 65. I retired on “full retirement” 5 years ago, because where I worked, 30 years=“full retirement,” and I had 34+ years. I could have started drawing Social Security sooner, with would involve a penalty, but chose to hold off until I’m 67.
But gradually moving the age at which something happens isn’t the same as as saying “you and people younger than you can never do it, but people older than you can continue to do it.”
I was going to ask about this. Does this mean that the law would prohibit a person born on January 1, 2008, from buying cigarettes at a retail establishment, but he or she could give money to an older sibling or friend to buy cigarettes for them?
In time, however, given that no new smokers are starting, smoking will be eliminated. I think it’s being done this way because a flat-out outright ban would face too much opposition, and would be too difficult for people who are already “committed“ smokers.
I think it comes down to whether such a law is broadly acceptable to the adult population, which does appear to be the case in the UK.
Purchasing tobacco products on behalf of a person born on or after 1 January 2009 will also be an offence. As will giving them tobacco products for free, *if* the purpose in doing so is to promote the product, or if doing so will have the effect of promoting the product.
The argument in the “Yes Prime Minister” series i.e that smokers provide financial benefit to society by indulging in a painful form of voluntary euthanasia, was not new to me. I did a study in the early 1970s and realised just that. It set me on the course to quit smoking! I thought “Yes, I’m socially conscientious, but not that socially conscientious.”
Serious point. The truth that information is not in itself enough to stop addiction is borne out by my own experience. Even though I knew that and was motivated, it still took me several years more to finally quit the weed.
Which is why I figure education is not enough and legislation is necessary. One can argue about “what legislation” of course. And bearing in mind the nature of the UK legislation, the effect of reducing the cost benefit to the state will be gradual. I can see the Treasury reluctantly buying that argument.
Certainly, almost all the people I knew who used to smoke have either died or stopped. I seriously don't know anyone who smokes.
That is true for me, too. Decade by decade, the number of smokers I know has decreased, as older smokers die and younger smokers quit. I don't know anyone now who smokes. Our village shop sells cigarettes, so there must be smokers here, but I don't know any.
Anti-smoking legislation and education, has seen rates in Scotland drop from 52% in 1974, to 28% in 2003 and it's now about 15%. Although the legislation so far has clearly worked, a new approach is needed to reduce rates still further.
Thanks.
In UK law it is - discrimination can be legal if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". I'm less familiar with the US legal systems but I have a vague recollection that there are standards for examining discrimination cases (strict scrutiny?) that still permit discrimination where there is a compelling governmental interest, though I'm sure @Nick Tamen will be able to explain more precisely how that work.
I’ve tried to be careful to be clear I’m speaking from a US legal perspective—why legislation like that under discussion might be successfully challenged as unconstitutional here. In the US, you wouldn’t just be considering federal or state anti-discrimination legislation; you’d also have to consider the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all persons equal protection of the law.
The year of birth would be relevant here because it’s what creates the permanent distinction between two groups, older and younger, who are not treated equally.
Under equal protection jurisprudence, there are levels of scrutiny, with “strict scrutiny” as the highest level, applying in cases involving “protected classes,” and “rational basis” as the lowest. There’s also “intermediate scrutiny,” and some courts have used what appear to be additional intermediate levels.
“Rational basis” is similar to what you describe as the UK standard—discrimination of a non-protected class doesn’t violate the equal protection clause if the government can demonstrate an appropriate governmental interest and a rational basis for treating groups differently.
“Strict scrutiny,” on the other hand, requires a showing by the government of a compelling governmental interest, as well as a showing that the legislation in question is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling governmental interest, and that the governmental interest couldn’t be achieved by other means.
Legislation like that being discussed here would not, I don’t think, trigger strict scrutiny (though I can easily imagine lawyers making a case that it should.) I think the question is whether it would require only a rational basis, or whether intermediate scrutiny (requiring a showing by the government of furthering an important governmental interest by means substantially related to that interest) would be required. And I can easily imagine this being a case by which creative plaintiffs could try to create new law.
I'm not clear about the interpretation of "permanent" here. Under this law, there will eventually be only one class of people - those who cannot legally be sold cigarettes.