alphacyberrangerSunak proposes raising smoking age every year to create 'smoke-free' generation
AutoTL;DRThis is the best summary I could come up with:
Addressing the annual Tory party conference today, Mr Sunak also promised to restrict the availability of vapes under plans to “put the next generation first”.
Read More:Rishi Sunak confirms northern leg from Birmingham to Manchester will be scrappedSunak says nobody wants an election - the truth is he can’t risk one | Beth Rigby
Ministers have faced repeated calls to ban vapes to help protect children and reduce the significant environmental impact of the single-use products.
It commissioned a review, published last June and led by Dr Javed Khan, which made a series of recommendations, including increasing the legal age for buying tobacco.
Cancer Research UK’s chief executive Michelle Mitchell said: “Raising the age of sale on tobacco products is a critical step on the road to creating the first ever smoke-free generation.”
“Future generations of adults who are considered old enough to vote, pay taxes, drive a car and drink alcohol are going to be treated like children and denied the right to buy a product that can be purchased legally by people a year older than them.”
The original article contains 665 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Gradually_AdjustingPunishing the symptom, great idea
In a physical health perspective, smoking is the cause, or contributing factor, to a lot of problems. In what perspective is smoking a symptom?
I take the view that smoking is a behavior that is largely impacted by socioeconomic factors. To put it plainly, it’s something you mostly see among the poor.
Future smoking prevalence by socioeconomic status in England: a computational modelling study
Background The difference in smoking across socioeconomic groups is a major cause of health inequality. This study projected future smoking prevalence by socioeconomic status, and revealed what is needed to achieve the tobacco-free ambition (TFA) by 2030 in England. Methods Using data from multiple sources, the adult (≥18 years) population in England was separated into subgroups by smoking and highest educational qualification (HEQ). A discrete time state-transition model was used to project future smoking prevalence by HEQ deterministically and stochastically. Results In a status quo scenario, smoking prevalence in England is projected to be 10.8% (95% uncertainty interval: 9.1% to 12.9%) by 2022, 7.8% (5.5% to 11.0%) by 2030 and 6.0% (3.7% to 9.6%) by 2040. The absolute difference in smoking rate between low and high HEQ is reduced from 12.2% in 2016 to 7.9% by 2030, but the relative inequality (low/high HEQ ratio) is increased from 2.48 in 2016 to 3.06 by 2030. When applying 2016 initiation/relapse rates, achievement of the TFA target requires no changes to future cessation rates among adults with high qualifications, but increased rates of 37% and 149%, respectively, in adults with intermediate and low qualifications. Conclusions If the current trends continue, smoking prevalence in England is projected to decline in the future, but with substantial differences across socioeconomic groups. Absolute inequalities in smoking are likely to decline and relative inequalities in smoking are likely to increase in future. The achievement of England’s TFA will require the reduction of both absolute and relative inequalities in smoking by socioeconomic status. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplementary information.
it’s something you mostly see among the poor.
It is, until it isn’t.
Okay.
I’m just sorta reading what the researchers said. Did I misread it? Are they wrong?
no shot they read it
Not saying that I agree with RS's policy proposal but what is wrong with targeting smoking cessation especially amongst the poor? If poor people quit smoking, that's better for their health, the health of those around them/who live with them (secondhand smoke), and their wallets.
I don’t have a problem with the intended result, but I would rather see an approach that is reformative rather than punitive or prohibitive, since those methods tend to create dark markets; in my town quite recently, illegal cigarettes worth more than a small home were seized from a single shop. I come from America, where we have had issues with prohibition-style laws, so I feel that I see where it leads.
I would rather see community funding for smoking cessation resources and support groups, education initiatives in schools, and broader policies aimed at decreasing the underlying wealth inequality that drives the behavior.
So don’t get me wrong, I fully support this kind of measure.
But there’s potentially an argument to be made that there is an issue (or more likely multiple issues) that isn’t being addressed properly that is leading people to choose to smoke. It’s well known to be harmful, addictive, and frankly doesn’t have many upsides. What that bigger issue could be is kind of up for debate- is it a failure of the education system or health system not doing enough to educate people about the harm and risks? Is it a mental health issue leading people to choose self destructive behaviors or possibly a conscious or subconscious attempt to self medicate those issue? Is it a societal issue like peer pressure, portrayals in the media, people emulating role models, or just plain old rebellion? Is it due to regulations or enforcement being too lax?
Whatever it is, there may a root cause that isn’t being sufficiently addressed that makes people choose destructive behaviors like smoking, which makes smoking a symptom of that bigger issue. And what other vices are those same factors pushing people towards? Maybe addressing those kinds of underlying issues the right way might do more good than just getting people to stop smoking, maybe we’d kill 2 birds with one stone and also make headway on other substance abuse issues, or gambling addictions, etc.
Now again, I’m totally in support of this kind of regulation. Sometimes you need to treat the symptoms before/while to treat the underlying disease. But we need to be sure we’re looking at it from both angles.
DessertStormsIn what perspective is smoking a symptom?
Any perspective that isn't being deliberately obtuse (if you cared you'd have looked it up and seen for yourself all of the evidence that exists, but it's easier to go the "personal responsibility" route and ignore the societal and economical factors, because acknowledging those makes you too uncomfortable)..
So is drinking.
I guess we ban alcohol too, huh. Oh wait, we tried that.
You must be one of the, “I don’t like it so neither should anyone else” people.
“we tried that” do you know who sunak is?
Most countries have set a legal age for drinking alcohol.
What a weird take. Nobody is punishing people who smoke.
to create ‘smoke-free’ generation Of course, not counting the smoke, ash, and other toxic oxidized chemicals that will be kicked up by gas and diesel vehicles with his scrapping the HS2 Manchester line. What a fucking idiot. “Oh no, we brexited ourselves so hard that we’re poor now and can’t afford to build infrastructure that would stand to enrich multiple cities for hundreds of years!”
Such classic conservatives.
doublejay1999This is the smoking ban thread
bob_lemonI mean, Sunak is a complete and utter bellend and cancelling half of HS2 is a ridiculous and nonsensical move.
But I think that the good old idiom about broken clocks might just apply here. Smoking bans are a good thing.
Yes, I love it when people buy things from black markets too.
Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.
Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.
The proposal is to raise the legal smoking age every year. Meaning each yearly increase, this hypothetical 47yo will also age a year and so will be able to smoke forever
Not if he wanted to pick up smoking one year before legal age. So he will be chasing that legal age forever and can’t smoke even if he’s 68
That isn’t how time works.
Are you saying that time advances at a different rate to human aging? 1 year to the earth is how many years to a human?
Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.
This is the real answer right here - this is just another poverty tax/punishment.
I don't smoke, never have, but I know why people smoke, and it's now (that it's no longer seen as "cool") almost exclusively to try and relieve a tiny bit of the mountain of stress that existing in the world today (especially as part of a marginalised group) brings, and there are a million better ways to reduce the need to smoke, and improve the health outcomes of smokers (eventually, hopefully, to the point where they are able to reduce smoking or stop altogether).
Sunak is looking for a quick "win" for headlines and distraction, not to actually help people live healthier better lives. Why target the source of the problem when you can slap a band aid on it and bask in your own glory for a couple of days before your next bit of corruption is exposed?
Counterpoint: A lot of people that smoke want to stop smoking. A lot of people would more easily stop smoking if it was banned or not so easily available.
Also from the title of the article it seems that this would never apply to people that already smoke legally. The idea is that you set a minimum age and then you increase it every year. Meaning that in 100 years smoking is banned for everyone. But nobody was never banned from smoking when they were legal before. They were just never allowed to. So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.
So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.
right, just like how it being illegal prevents young people from drinking and smoking weed... 🙄🙄🙄
Do you really disagree that it reduces the amount of young people consuming those substances?
Yes, For example, youth cannabis use halved in Canada after legalization. Also, when I was in HS, people were smoking even though it’s illegal under the age of 18. People would just buy cigarettes from reserves and sell them to each other. If made illegal, people will just find other means to get it.
Prohibition doesn’t work but better education does.
Calling him smooth brained is looking past the fact that it’s just plain corruption. He has interests in the oil industry, and they are against public rail. Hold him to account for what he is, a criminal.
Honestly he’s more corrupt than Boris Johnson which is saying something.
Of course. Why else would a billionaire want the job of leading a country?
uisAt least nobody can outcorrupt Putin. Fuck him, fuck UR.
It’s mind numbing that people keep voting for them.
Well recent polling would suggest that they no longer will be voting for them.
Didn’t literally no one actually vote for him?
He’s still an MP, so those in his riding would have voted for him, and the Tory party members voted for him, and the rest of the country voted for members of his party that include Lettuce Head and BoJo, so they did vote for a numbskull from his party to be in power.
The fact that I have no idea what her name is but still know exactly who you’re talking about when you say Lettuce Head is endlessly amusing to me.
It’s hard to believe so many people vote for them
IllecorsI see angry wankers want to moan for the sake of moaning.
Eliminating smoking is a goos thing! I’ll take my wins whenever possible, doesn’t happen all that often.
But but there are other things that are also bad and if one proposal doesn’t solve everything it is complete trash!!!
First and foremost, people have the right to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes as long as it isn’t harming innocent bystanders.
Arguably more importantly, the proposed ban is worryingly dystopian.
Finally, agreeing with anything Sunak does is unforgivable. And in this case would reflect neo-liberal sympathies.
mriormroThey’re literally cancer sticks…
I guess we should allow people to sell antifreeze as both an industrial chemical and a soft drink. Steak, people have the right to quickly and painfully kill themselves as well.
Humans have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Banning it will only allow the black market to swell to an unimaginable size
These are cigarettes. Engineered to be as addictive as possible. We aren’t talking about hand rolled stogies here
They absolutely are talking about any form of tobacco…hell track and trace in the EU has effectively destroyed the nasal snuff industry in Germany…a form of tobacco that has no deaths on its hands… literally. This is just ignorance being used in the name of “think of the children” hell that’s one of the main things everyone keeps bringing up in this thread.
Meanwhile, smoking has been on a sharp decline for decades, is no longer a mass killer…while obesity is and alcoholism has grown 10 fold, so much so that they created a new label called social drinkers because it would put a massive amount of the population into alcoholic territory.
Sir_KevinBy that logic we should continue slavery. Aren’t you worried someone’s going to purchase one of your children on the black market!?
Slaves don’t grow on trees though
Moving the goalposts or something like that?
You can imagine it, it would be less than the amount that is currently being smoked.
Not necessarily. People could actually start smoking more because tax free cigarettes are astronomically cheaper
Are people smoking less weed now it’s legal in many US states?
Where do you think tax free cigarettes are going to come from?
They are either domestic bootlegs or imports. If cigarettes were actually fully banned, organized crime groups would begin mass cigarette smuggling and manufacturing operations. Sounds ridiculous, but it’s true
People don’t enjoy or need smoking that much, so no.
And my first question?
OtterFirst and foremost, people have the right to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes as long as it isn’t harming innocent bystanders.
That’s the thing with smoking though, second hand smoke is a big problem, especially for vulnerable people
Indoors maybe. People really have a warped idea of how much smoke they’re inhaling in outdoor scenarios, unless they’re literally blowing it in your face from centimetres away it’s not doing anything.
AnamanaI’m surprised they can still walk around outside, when there are cars everywhere
Whataboutism.
You may not know it because you’re a smoker (smokers noses are completely and irreparably fucked), but normal people can tell a cigarette was lit in a 10 meter radius, even on a windy day.
Hell, I can still smell smoke strongly enough to make me breath lightly because of how bad it smells even if the smoker is gone. That shit lingers.