Smoking ban planned in Kings Speech

[Amity Island]

Under the proposed law, those born on or after 1 January 2009 would be banned from buying tobacco or cigarettes.

This will effectively raise the age of tobacco sale by one year every year, the Government said, to prevent this and future generations from ever taking up smoking in the first place.

New laws on oil, smoking and football in Charles III’s first King’s Speech - live

Seven pieces of legislation will be carried over into the next parliamentary session

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Martin.A]

This has been the case in New Zealand since the start of this year but they're saying it's too early to guage its effect. One of the main criticisms is that it will end up creating a black market.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

This has been the case in New Zealand since the start of this year but they're saying it's too early to guage its effect. One of the main criticisms is that it will end up creating a black market.

It feels un-Conservative. I wonder if it'll be one of the bills that eventually just disappears.

 

[Martin.A]

It feels un-Conservative. I wonder if it'll be one of the bills that eventually just disappears.

Maybe, although this is what the Institute for Government report says:-

Sunak’s plan faces some opposition, with critics arguing it is ‘nanny statist’ and will promote the black market. But it has been welcomed by Labour and some Conservatives, including former health minister Sajid Javid. Polling indicates that 71% of British adults support it, and only 17% oppose it.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Sure, I think many support it (at least that it seems a sensible thing to try). Though I think they're also changing (or proposing to change) the tax on vapes which feels wrong. (Not that vaping is safe, but it seems way safer than inhaling burning tobacco. Banning disposable ones seems sensible enough.)

I still think there's a decent chance they'll call a GE before Jan 2025 in which case a few of these bills could conveniently run out of time.

 

[Amity Island]

Sunak’s plan faces some opposition, with critics arguing it is ‘nanny statist’ and will promote the black market.

I find it bizarre.

It's only seen as a ban because they've made cigarettes available in the first place, making billions in tax in the process and creating serious illness and disease for those who smoke and those around them that don't smoke.

Making something "available" isn't the same as recommending it.

Cigs would never make it into the shops had someone invented them today.

 

[nonethewiser]

So many lives lost to smoking over many d3cades, any ban or measures to reduce rate of people smoking gets big thumbs up from me

 

[Amity Island]

So many lives lost to smoking over many d3cades, any ban or measures to reduce rate of people smoking gets big thumbs up from me

Just as an aside. From what I've read, smoking is a hangover from what was originally done as medicinal use from times long past. Used in indigenous tribes and the like. This takes us where we are today, smoking for the toxic parts of the smoke plus a bit of nicotine.

 

[Burylancs]

Under the proposed law, those born on or after 1 January 2009 would be banned from buying tobacco or cigarettes.

This will effectively raise the age of tobacco sale by one year every year, the Government said, to prevent this and future generations from ever taking up smoking in the first place.

New laws on oil, smoking and football in Charles III’s first King’s Speech - live

Seven pieces of legislation will be carried over into the next parliamentary session

www.independent.co.uk

How are they going to replace the tax lost on the sale of cigs etc ?
How will it be policed ? In ten years time will people over 25 have to show proof of age ?

 

[Amity Island]

How are they going to replace the tax lost on the sale of cigs etc ?
How will it be policed ? In ten years time will people over 25 have to show proof of age ?

Will the lost tax be offset by improved health and less NHS use?

The thing is, taxing something that is known to be lethal is hardly ethical. A bit like taxing gambling outlets etc which is another dire habit for many.

 

[Dishevelled]

How will it be policed ? In ten years time will people over 25 have to show proof of age ?

Maybe you'll only be able to get ciggies from the pharmacy with a prescription?

 

[Dishevelled]

Will the lost tax be offset by improved health and less NHS use?

The thing is, taxing something that is known to be lethal is hardly ethical. A bit like taxing gambling outlets etc which is another dire habit for many.

But isn't it more ethical to highly tax something that's bad for you than something that's good for you?

High tax on ultra-processed foods and low tax on fresh foods.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

In ten years time will people over 25 have to show proof of age ?

Presumably, yes. I'm sure they'll have carefully worked out plans in the proposed bill.

 

[Dishevelled]

Presumably, yes. I'm sure they'll have carefully worked out plans in the proposed bill.

 

[Amity Island]

But isn't it more ethical to highly tax something that's bad for you than something that's good for you?

I get the thinking, but for me at least, taxing something lethal is a lose/win situation. A lose for those who are killed or made ill, a win perhaps for the governments coffers. Taxing things that are good for health and society is a win/win.

 

[nonethewiser]

Just as an aside. From what I've read, smoking is a hangover from what was originally done as medicinal use from times long past. Used in indigenous tribes and the like. This takes us where we are today, smoking for the toxic parts of the smoke plus a bit of nicotine.

Maybe not times long past.

Both own & wife's parents could remember time when menthol cigarettes were recommended by drs to help with coughs from chest infections, talking about as late as 1950s here.

But isn't it more ethical to highly tax something that's bad for you than something that's good for you?

That already exists doesn't it?

We are born free but taxed to death as saying goes.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Taxing things that are good for health and society is a win/win.

Not if you choose to tax something that you want to encourage. You risk discouraging it by increasing its cost. (Which is a problem if you want to "close loopholes". Sounds like an obviously good thing, but many of the "loopholes" are measures deliberately introduced to encourage some behaviour so you risk discouraging that behaviour. Which might make sense overall but it's a balance.)

 

[indio02]

One of the main criticisms is that it will end up creating a black market.

For sure but if it stops a % of young people from starting coz they can't be arsed to jump through the hoops then that's got to be a positive.

 

[Amity Island]

Not if you choose to tax something that you want to encourage. You risk discouraging it by increasing its cost.

I can't think of many thinks that aren't taxed. I don't agree with selling things known to be highly deadly and making tax off it.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I can't think of many thinks that aren't taxed. I don't agree with selling things known to be highly deadly and making tax off it.

ISAs spring to mind. That's a deliberate case where something would normally be taxed, but there's an exemption.

Another is corporation tax where you allow companies to claim against it (for R&D activities, for example, because you want to encourage R&D).

I think it makes perfect sense to tax the activity of vaping less than the act of smoking tobacco, since it looks like vaping is less harmful. I'm not sure whether that reduced tax should be zero or not.

I see tobacco tax as seeing this thing that you really can't practically ban in the short term, so you want to discourage it. It seems logical to discourage it socially (make it less convenient by banning it inside pubs and restaurants and so on) and taxing it rather heavily. I agree if it (or alcohol) were a new thing it would likely just not be allowed, but that's not where we are.