The Tories have lost the plot - Propose Cigarette ban

[Webzcas]

Sorry to hear about your dad Chopley you have my condolences and I completely understand where you are coming from, especially like myself having lost a parent as a direct cause of smoking. My mum smoked 60 a day and died from bladder cancer at the age of 64, which was caused by her smoking.

Like you, we tried to encourage her to give up, but she was hooked and needed it not just for the nicotine addiction but the habit it forms and as a social crutch.

Being an ex smoker myself, I however do differ with you on the proposed banning of tobacco by stealth. Personally I think it is a disgusting habit, you stink like an ashtray for one, as does everyone around you who you subject to your smoke.

Passive smoking is a very real live issue, which in turn can and does seriously damage the health of those subjected to it. Roy Castle is a famous victim of it here in the UK. He never smoked one cigarette throughout his life, but playing in clubs up and down the country meant he was subjected to smoke filled environments all the time.

The introduction of the indoor smoking ban was IMO a very positive thing. Also society as a whole has demonised smoking to the extent that it is now viewed negatively by most. Again this is a good thing IMO.

However, I strongly believe banning it is not the correct approach. Continuing to increase the taxable levy on it each year as well as concerted health campaigns making the public all too aware of the damage it causes is the way forward.

Also like yourself, my dad found packets of cigarettes throughout the house, hidden in various places for weeks after my mum's death. He was forever trying to get her to give up, but alas was not to happen.

Bear in mind our parents grew up in a different generation where smoking was deemed as a 'cool' and acceptable pastime. Completely the opposite to today.

 

[goatwack]

It's a vice - it's supposed to be bad for you yet enjoyable.

Drinking and smoking are the things young people do for the most part as it makes them feel cooler and more 'adult'.

And whilst many may be able to pack in the smokes, of equal or greater concern is the free pass borderline alcoholism seems to get. Yet no mention of banning that it seems....

All that'll happen is the black market to thrive, with cig imports of varying quality - hardly conducive to alleviating smoking- related ailments, when you don't know what's in these things.

Clearly there'll be those that partake to a greater or lesser degree, like with anything in life. 60 a day is certainly a lot, that much is true.

Smoking is bad for you, and therein lies part of its appeal. And I think as it becomes effectively taboo, there'll always be an uptake of new generations puffing away, for that very reason. There is no logic or magical mystery behind it, it's just 'cool'. You'd entrust them to figure it out eventually that it really isn't it.

And how will they acquire tobacco for their, erm, 'other' recreational vice? Blunts are great and everything, but they only go so far peeps

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Sorry to hear about your dad Chopley you have my condolences and I completely understand where you are coming from, especially like myself having lost a parent as a direct cause of smoking. My mum smoked 60 a day and died from bladder cancer at the age of 64, which was caused by her smoking.

Like you, we tried to encourage her to give up, but she was hooked and needed it not just for the nicotine addiction but the habit it forms and as a social crutch.

Being an ex smoker myself, I however do differ with you on the proposed banning of tobacco by stealth. Personally I think it is a disgusting habit, you stink like an ashtray for one, as does everyone around you who you subject to your smoke.

Passive smoking is a very real live issue, which in turn can and does seriously damage the health of those subjected to it. Roy Castle is a famous victim of it here in the UK. He never smoked one cigarette throughout his life, but playing in clubs up and down the country meant he was subjected to smoke filled environments all the time.

The introduction of the indoor smoking ban was IMO a very positive thing. Also society as a whole has demonised smoking to the extent that it is now viewed negatively by most. Again this is a good thing IMO.

However, I strongly believe banning it is not the correct approach. Continuing to increase the taxable levy on it each year as well as concerted health campaigns making the public all too aware of the damage it causes is the way forward.

Also like yourself, my dad found packets of cigarettes throughout the house, hidden in various places for weeks after my mum's death. He was forever trying to get her to give up, but alas was not to happen.

Bear in mind our parents grew up in a different generation where smoking was deemed as a 'cool' and acceptable pastime. Completely the opposite to today.

Thanks for your condolences Webzcas, it's nearly six months since my dad has his fall and I still think about him, many times, every single day, I know it will be a slow process. I'm sorry to hear you lost your mum at a relatively young age too - it sucks.

As for my position on this issue, I'd be the first to admit it's somewhat incongruous, especially given my stance on drug prohibition in general, namely that it causes more harm than good, by handing over the manufacture, quality control, and distribution of potentially dangerous substances to criminal networks.

I also entirely take on board what goaty says above with regards to alcohol, it's hard to coherently rail against smoking whilst not addressing the elephant in the room that is alcohol. Let's face it, if alcohol were discovered tomorrow, it'd be banned outright. (As would tobacco.)

Obviously my feelings on smoking are quite personal as well, but at the same time, I've always, my entire life, thought it was such a strange and pointless activity, both unusually and perniciously addictive, and terribly harmful.

Like I said, I come from a background where nearly everyone smoked, and I can remember it always making people ill. You know, hacking coughs, bronchitis, that sort of thing. I also always hated the smell and the general 'debris' - (ash, cigarette butts, overflowing ashtrays, packaging, those little foil slips etc) - of smoking, and because smoking was allowed, almost everywhere, it was just something that was constantly present.

It never even remotely appealed to me at school, even though there were those who smoked and it would have been easy for me to do so. I just didn't see the point, didn't see the upside.

When me and my friends were old enough to get served in the pub (16-17) it was part and parcel of going out, you'd come home stinking of cigarette smoke, and even though none of us smoked, we'd sometimes feel like we'd smoked half a pack of fags ourselves!

So yes, much has been done since then, smokers now can't effectively force everyone to smoke along with them just because they're occupying the same space as other people, smoking itself has been entirely deglamourized and holy crap it's expensive too! Therefore you can indeed make the case that it's something that's on the way out anyway, especially as it seems to have been replaced by vaping, certainly amongst the young.

But then, that being the case, why not just get rid of it entirely in the fashion that Sunak proposes? I think we'd all agree that we're not denying future generations anything worthwhile or beneficial to them in any way whatsoever, and them not being able to smoke will save those who might have taken up the habit and become addicted from spending shitloads of money on something that is pretty likely to cause them all sorts of horrible illnesses and perhaps even ultimately their untimely death.

Also when it comes to passive smoking, whilst I can entirely avoid it pretty easily now, in a way I couldn't in the 1990s, there are going to be those who live in households where others smoke, and will just continue to be subjected to it - over time, that will get fixed too. (Smoking is unique in the world of drug use, in that the simple act of partaking in it, actively harms those around you.)

Prohibition for future generations doesn't make these problems go away entirely, but I think that as the market for legal cigarettes slowly dwindles as the current clientele literally dies off (often hastened by smoking itself, as happened to my dad), there won't be much of a black market to fill the gap. We're not talking about, say, cocaine, whereby the ONLY way to buy it for anyone is illegally, so there's a profitable black market there for dealers. I just don't see it when we're talking about small numbers of younger people who can't buy them legally, having never been exposed to them, so won't want to explore other avenues for acquisition, at least in the main.

For me, Sunak's proposal treads the line pretty well, it doesn't take away the rights of any existing smokers who wish to continue to do so, but also draws a line in the sand and says, 'You know what, no more, as a society, we're done with this now'.

 

[paul7388]

Thanks for your condolences Webzcas, it's nearly six months since my dad has his fall and I still think about him, many times, every single day, I know it will be a slow process. I'm sorry to hear you lost your mum at a relatively young age too - it sucks.

As for my position on this issue, I'd be the first to admit it's somewhat incongruous, especially given my stance on drug prohibition in general, namely that it causes more harm than good, by handing over the manufacture, quality control, and distribution of potentially dangerous substances to criminal networks.

I also entirely take on board what goaty says above with regards to alcohol, it's hard to coherently rail against smoking whilst not addressing the elephant in the room that is alcohol. Let's face it, if alcohol were discovered tomorrow, it'd be banned outright. (As would tobacco.)

Obviously my feelings on smoking are quite personal as well, but at the same time, I've always, my entire life, thought it was such a strange and pointless activity, both unusually and perniciously addictive, and terribly harmful.

Like I said, I come from a background where nearly everyone smoked, and I can remember it always making people ill. You know, hacking coughs, bronchitis, that sort of thing. I also always hated the smell and the general 'debris' - (ash, cigarette butts, overflowing ashtrays, packaging, those little foil slips etc) - of smoking, and because smoking was allowed, almost everywhere, it was just something that was constantly present.

It never even remotely appealed to me at school, even though there were those who smoked and it would have been easy for me to do so. I just didn't see the point, didn't see the upside.

When me and my friends were old enough to get served in the pub (16-17) it was part and parcel of going out, you'd come home stinking of cigarette smoke, and even though none of us smoked, we'd sometimes feel like we'd smoked half a pack of fags ourselves!

So yes, much has been done since then, smokers now can't effectively force everyone to smoke along with them just because they're occupying the same space as other people, smoking itself has been entirely deglamourized and holy crap it's expensive too! Therefore you can indeed make the case that it's something that's on the way out anyway, especially as it seems to have been replaced by vaping, certainly amongst the young.

But then, that being the case, why not just get rid of it entirely in the fashion that Sunak proposes? I think we'd all agree that we're not denying future generations anything worthwhile or beneficial to them in any way whatsoever, and them not being able to smoke will save those who might have taken up the habit and become addicted from spending shitloads of money on something that is pretty likely to cause them all sorts of horrible illnesses and perhaps even ultimately their untimely death.

Also when it comes to passive smoking, whilst I can entirely avoid it pretty easily now, in a way I couldn't in the 1990s, there are going to be those who live in households where others smoke, and will just continue to be subjected to it - over time, that will get fixed too. (Smoking is unique in the world of drug use, in that the simple act of partaking in it, actively harms those around you.)

Prohibition for future generations doesn't make these problems go away entirely, but I think that as the market for legal cigarettes slowly dwindles as the current clientele literally dies off (often hastened by smoking itself, as happened to my dad), there won't be much of a black market to fill the gap. We're not talking about, say, cocaine, whereby the ONLY way to buy it for anyone is illegally, so there's a profitable black market there for dealers. I just don't see it when we're talking about small numbers of younger people who can't buy them legally, having never been exposed to them, so won't want to explore other avenues for acquisition, at least in the main.

For me, Sunak's proposal treads the line pretty well, it doesn't take away the rights of any existing smokers who wish to continue to do so, but also draws a line in the sand and says, 'You know what, no more, as a society, we're done with this now'.

Without going into ins and outs of the wrongs of smoking the government plan will never work.

There is still a larger number of youngsters who still buy cigarettes and always will. They might even class themselves as non smokers.

But especially in large cities amongst the young more are smoking green than ever before. And guess what they mostly roll joints and buy tobacco mainly cigarettes. And as people have smoked many different types of illegal cannabis products for many years hardly think it will stop anytime soon.

Also the age you can legally buy anything means nothing these days. Not sure about IOM but here have you saw the amount of young teenagers smoking vapes that they cannot buy until 18. Most young girls about 14 seem to constantly be puffing away on vapes. My own granddaughters (well sort of they are the partners granddaughters) are 14 and 16. They vape non stop and so does every pal they have. Would say the youngest goes through a full vape a day. And I'd say they are probably doing more harm to themselves the amount they vape than if they actually smoked 10 fags a day.

 

[goatwack]

Tobacco lobbyists have been trying to demonize vaping for at least the last decade, with hit-pieces galore in attempt to prohibit their use.

And whilst far from perfect, I'd wager their potential harmful effects to be negligible at best.

All relative I'm sure, but by and large, they're really not what's going to cause the downfall of Western civilization. Only real differences are in the eliquid 'base', which would be PG (Propylene Glycol- harsher throat-hit) and VG (Vegetable Glycerin- bigger 'clouds', more flavour, mellower).

Most liquids comprise of a mixture, mostly 50/50 or 70/30. There can be health aggro with certain brands' effect on the lungs, as not all vape companies use the best ingredients let's just say. It's still not an exact science, with many brands from China and the U.S. etc.

Compare that to cigarettes which are a known health problem, laden with the likes of tar, acetone, and everyone's favourite, cyanide.

You'll find just as many studies proclaiming vapes to be harmless, though they tend to fall on deaf ears as it's easier to conflate vaping with smoking, because that liquorice waft offends someone's feelings.

Cigarette prohibition for future generations' health is one thing, but in regards to vapes, you'd just as easily remove nicotine from all products and problem solved right? Yet even in that scenario, ministers will fawn over some quack's findings that even imitating the 'act' of smoking without nicotine should lead to an outright vaping ban.

Because let's face it, vaping's next on the chopping block.

When that day arrives however, I'd expect all manner of Chinese eliquids and vaping devices to take their place, as vapers continue unabashedly, including kids. As the 'scene' is very open-source there'll also be many just rigging up their own mods and sub-ohms, it's not that difficult.

Provided the Government don't decree cotton to be punishable by death, that is

 

[slot_zombie]

The main issue with vapes is possibly the strength of the disposable ones that the kids go for (God that's one powerful nicotine hit... lovely flavours though) - nicotine is a vasoconstrictor and can harm the circulation amongst other things. The "smoke" itself is fairly harmless though, it appears.

I do big clouds, low nicotine.

 

[goatwack]

Yes, that's one of the main things overlooked.

The disposable vapes, or anything vaguely resembling the performative motion of 'normal', traditional smoking are known as 'lung-to-mouth' devices, and as such the liquids needed for them would be nicotine-heavy.

The typical range for these liquids is 18-20mg of nicotine, and usually heavier towards the PG side.

They're the most commonly used combination, used by kids and adults alike (although you can get 0,3,6, 10 and 12mg variants too).

The other type of vaping is using the 'box-mod' devices, where it's more about making huge plumes of vapour, from which a whole sub-culture of 'cloud-chasers' were borne. That's called 'direct-to-lung' vaping.

The liquids used for these devices are VG-heavy, so often 70/30 VG-PG. Yet they'll almost certainly be no more than 3mg of nicotine, 6 at most.

For all the fact that non-smokers and non-vapers couldn't give a flying monkey's about either types of vapes being outlawed, it's certainly worth noting that box mods are effectively harmless, and could easily be used with no nicotine.

The cigarette-y type devices, aka mouth-to-lung vapers will definitely be impacted with a nicotine reduction. It'd be like smoking Silk Cut ashtray rollies - ain't no enjoyment to be had there.

The Government could absolutely remove nicotine from all vaping juices and that'd be job done. After all, of all the kids vaping, many would have not even smoked. They're by far most concerned about the flavours, rather than getting a non-inhaled-properly nicotine hit.

Wouldn't expect any government body to consider these things in any capacity however, but still

 

[TheAddict]

When you're on route to wrestle and another dumbass at yet another bus stop your chad, none bus wanker, rollie smoking self happened to be walking past, is sucking on a vape.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

The Government could absolutely remove nicotine from all vaping juices and that'd be job done. After all, of all the kids vaping, many would have not even smoked. They're by far most concerned about the flavours, rather than getting a non-inhaled-properly nicotine hit.

Here’s the thing, nicotine in its pure form has been shown by many studies to be beneficial to health.

It has been shown to increase levels of alertness, improved concentration and memory and can reduce anxiety. It has also been found by some studies that nicotine prevents aggregation of a protein linked to Alzheimer’s.

As far as its addictive properties are concerned, it’s on a similar level to caffeine…something that’s also been shown to have similar health benefits in moderation.

 

[goatwack]

Seems that the grandstanding and "Won't somebody think of the children!" government proposals have taken a bit of a back seat to money, greed and influence. Who knew?

Tax cuts, becoming re-electable and not alienating a third of your voting base have taken precedence, with a few sweet nothings whispered by the Tobacco industry too I'd imagine ?

Expect Sunak & co to follow suit, as politicians seem to ape each other's behaviours on the regular. Well, that and one look at the spreadsheet of projected revenue losses, back in the real world...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[09237653]

prohibition never works, weed is illegal but yet you can still smell it on every street corner, banning smoking will just create another black market lining the pockets of criminals while cancelling a ton of tax take at the same time and also increasing NHS and pension costs as more people will live longer.

 

[TheAddict]

Think the 30g amber leaf has going up 50 odd pence every few months for quite a while now. Went bought some yesturday, even took an extra £2, but it had increased by £2.20.