General UK Politics VI It's A (Honey) Trap!

Status
Not open for further replies.
:confused:

If you're going to ask for i.d. from a 65-year-old then why not someone of 18? They both look similar to people of around the same age. Set a lower age limit and enforce it.

Because the point isn't the edge cases, the point is to stop young people starting smoking, the actual date of the cut off is arbitrary, the important thing is the further down the road you get from that cut off point the possible it is to hide the fact that a young smoker is underage. No-one is going to care about the 65 year old smoking when the cut off is 66, but whenthe cut off is 66 the 18 year old who purchases for himself and his 16 & 17 year old mates nolonger happens (assuming smoking even lasts that long).

I really don't get why people (not saying you personally) are upset about this, no-one who legally smokes now will be banned from smoking and surely we all agree that young people starting smoking is a bad thing.
 
Like driving. there's always been a start date and it's easy to apply and enforce.

I'd tobacco was supplied by one official organisation based on licenses issued by date of birth it would be easy to enforce.

Enforcing the current legal age for smoking is already difficult, this will be a nightmare
I

Not really, you just ask someone their date of birth, the cut off is a fixed date so you don't have to work out when eg.18 years back from today's date is. Proof of Age ID has a D.O.B on it by definition anyway.

besides which the actual cut off date is arbitrary, other than at the very beginning I doubt anyone will care about the exact ages, I'd be very surprised to see a prosecution involving say a 24 year old when the cut is 25 for example, but an 18 year old, or mature looking 16 year old will be obvious.

Also, it doesn't even have to be about enforcement, the vast majority of people obey the law.
 
I'm of the opinion that people should be able to use whatever substances they want, as long as they don't harm others when doing so

True enough, but tobacco smoking is one of the few ways you can consume a legal product while doing harm to those around you. It's less so these days, since smoking in pubs, restaurants and other indoor areas is now illegal, but it would be great to see the back of other people's filthy habits.
 
True enough, but tobacco smoking is one of the few ways you can consume a legal product while doing harm to those around you. It's less so these days, since smoking in pubs, restaurants and other indoor areas is now illegal, but it would be great to see the back of other people's filthy habits.
And pricing should be adapted to the load on medical and other services.
 
True enough, but tobacco smoking is one of the few ways you can consume a legal product while doing harm to those around you. It's less so these days, since smoking in pubs, restaurants and other indoor areas is now illegal, but it would be great to see the back of other people's filthy habits.

I think people forget just what public smoking was like, my asthma would play up for days after I went to pub, one of my abiding memories of childhood is that when my Mum had her fortnightly night out at bingo with her sister she'd come home and our whole house would smell of smoke from her clothes and coat. We bought our first flat from a family of smokers & every surface had a thin patina of tar, I remember when we went to redecorate the living room taking a clock off the wall and it's two AA batteries remaining there, stuck to the wall!
 
And pricing should be adapted to the load on medical and other services.

I believe the cost of treating smoking related diseases and the fact smokers die earlier means that currently smokers are through associated taxes subsiding the medical care for the rest of us.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. I am in favour of taxing what I consider can lead to undesirable and unpleasant behaviour things like smoking, drinking and private education.
 
I believe the cost of treating smoking related diseases and the fact smokers die earlier means that currently smokers are through associated taxes subsiding the medical care for the rest of us.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. I am in favour of taxing what I consider can lead to undesirable and unpleasant behaviour things like smoking, drinking and private education.

My understanding is that was basically a joke in Yes Prime Minister.

The greater morbidity tends to counteract the shorter lifetime
 
I think people forget just what public smoking was like, my asthma would play up for days after I went to pub, one of my abiding memories of childhood is that when my Mum had her fortnightly night out at bingo with her sister she'd come home and our whole house would smell of smoke from her clothes and coat.

I came back late from a works do where much alcohol was consumed. My then wife was asleep and I could smell the stink from my clothes. So went straight to the washing machine, stripped to my boxers, took my good leather belt off my jeans and draped it round my neck. Just closed the washer door and heard a gasp as my then wife saw me in boxers and belt and said “WTF kind of works do did you go to?”
 
My understanding is that was basically a joke in Yes Prime Minister.

The greater morbidity tends to counteract the shorter lifetime
There are differing figures as you would expect but the government seems to say smoking brings in ~£10bn. The cost of smoking according to the NHS is around ~£3.6bn to cover both the NHS costs and social care..

Then in my opinion it gets very dodgy with anti smoking groups attributing around ~£13bn in lost productivity from fag breaks and dying before retirement age.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom