• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Doctors vote for ban on UK cigarette sales to those born after 2000

S

straightrazor

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
149
Doctors have voted overwhelmingly to push for a permanent ban on the sale of cigarettes to anyone born after 2000

The motion passed at the British Medical Association's annual representatives' meeting on Tuesday means that the doctors' union will lobby the government to introduce the ban, in the same way it successfully pushed for a ban on lighting up in public places and on smoking in cars carrying children, after votes in 2002 and 2011.

Tim Crocker-Buque, a specialist registrar in public health medicine, who proposed the motion, said it represented an opportunity to make the UK the first country to eradicate cigarettes. "Smoking is not a rational, informed choice of adulthood," he said. "Eighty per cent of smokers start as teenagers as a result of intense peer pressure.

"Smokers who start smoking at age 15 are three times as likely to die of smoking-related cancer as someone who starts in their mid-20s."

The proposal was supported by Sheila Hollins, chair of the BMA's board of science, who said it would help "break the cycle of children starting to smoke" and be a step towards achieving the association's goal of a tobacco-free society by 2035.

A number of doctors spoke against the proposal. Yohanna Takwoingi from Birmingham said the number of 11 to 15-year-olds smoking had halved in 16 years. "Seeking a headline ban is a headline-grabbing initiative that may lead to ridicule of the profession," he said. He also said that alcohol should be banned if tobacco was.

But Crocker-Buque said: "Tobacco is not the same as alcohol and prohibition will not work in the same way. The vast majority of people who use alcohol do safely."

Other opponents said a ban would demonise the working classes and lead to a black market in the trade of cigarettes that would be potentially more dangerous than their legal equivalent.

Ahead of the vote, the proposal was condemned by the smokers' group Forest and the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, who both said that existing laws stopping children smoking should be enforced.

Simon Clark of Forest called the proposal "arbitrary, unenforceable and completely illiberal".

The motion was initially passed at the BMA's public health conference in February.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/24/cigarette-ban-british-medical-association
 
Not going to accomplish much. I think the comment towards the end about black market cigs is spot on, it will wind up becoming more dangerous than it currently is.

The only things that seem to reduce smoking are educating smokers and inconveniencing smokers enough so they no longer want to deal with it anymore. That’s the whole reason my wife and I quit, it got way too expensive and it was becoming a pain in the ass to smoke. Sure, I kicked and screamed while I was a smoker but now that it’s been almost 5 years since I have had nicotine, I’m happy with it in the end.

It’s hard for me to say that because it makes me feel like a hypocrite. On one hand I feel like people should be able to consume whatever they want without the government interfering but on the other hand, I’m happy the government interfered with my smoking because I wasn’t going to quit for the foreseeable future if they didn’t.
 
Hmm, good for them. As much as banning things doesn't normally work, inconveniencing smokers really has worked to decrease rates of smoking... so maybe this will have a positive impact. I mean, if both are illegal and expensive, I'm pretty sure people will pick up a cannabis instead of tobacco, which isn't a bad thing in my mind.

In the past governments have just had to consider losing the excise tax revenue which they depend on, so if the UK has gotten to the point where they can forsake this income--more power to them.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
I think this has merit and should be carried out.
Click to expand...

I definitely think it has merit as well. Part of me thinks it is a good idea but we have seen what prohibition tends to cause, even though this isn't 100% prohibition. I don't like the government telling people what that can and cannot ingest but from a public health standpoint if I was going to ban something it would be tobacco (as alcohol prohibition would never ever work, especially in the UK)
 
The alternative is banning it out right straight away and having a generation of smokers suffer withdrawal. At least this way there will be a gradual elimination.

It's silly to argue that banning cigarettes won't have a significant reduction in smokers. Sure a handful of people will continue to smoke via the black market but anyone who continues to smoke such a shitty drug with so little reward deserves to die early anyway.
 
^If you are going to argue the banning of cigarettes because they are dangerous its a slippery slope. Almost every drug we bluelighters use is illegal because it is deemed dangerous by some governmental authority. Cigarettes are shitty compared to other drugs. Legalizing other drugs would see many cigarette smokers popping a xanax or smoking some MJ instead when they get too stressed from life.
 
Mixed feelings.
I am hesitant to want to ban anything - even the tobacco that I detest.
I think reducing the rate of cancer is a good cause. But reducing freedom is not.
Then again, since tobacco has been legal forever, maybe other drugs will get more of a fair shake.
Heroin might just corner the market.
But probably not.
People will probably smoke more weed.
And drink more.
Alcohol is not so much healthier than tobacco.
More than anything, people will probably drink more caffeine to get energy.
That seems like a good trade-off to me. Health-wise, anyway.
But I would want all drugs legalized for adults. Even tobacco. Despite the fact that I FUCKING HATE IT.
Because I believe that it is - or should be - a fundamental freedom to put whatever we want to into our bodies.
(And did I mention that I don't like tobacco? So saying this was a bit hard. But I feel that I must go down this path.)
 
I highly doubt it will pass (too many elites who stand to lose a lot of money, who also have their fingers in backdoor politics), but we'll see...

Edit - Let's say it does end passing. What exactly will it solve? Absolutely nothing. Organized crime will jump in and begin selling it at astronomical prices. And just when you thought that this war on drugs couldn't get any worse... "This just in: More teenagers than ever before have begun smoking tobacco, which was banned in an effort to stop them, thanks to the idiots running the country."

As plain stupid and pointless as this may sound, at times I feel like I should get high as fuck just because it's illegal. Just to prove to the idiots who run the show that their war has solved nothing. And the only thing holding me back from actually doing it is that I don't wanna risk my health for a purely rebellious act (at least that's the way I see it).
 
Last edited:
It makes just as much sense to say that cocaine and heroin addicts will be replaced by cigarette addicts. I might take up smoking, just to be ridiculous.

This is certainly one way I see drug reform happening. You will have a clear dividing line to compare the effect of legal and illegal tobaccos.
 
Due to the enormous tax revenue cigarettes generate, which is over twice as much as the direct healthcare cost of smoking, this will not likely pass. However, the fact that virtually all current tobacco addicts will still be able to buy them while only potential future ones will be restricted it may due society good. Sure it will be a forbidden fruit thing and people will just sell their smokes to younger people at a mark-up but it would probably reduce smoking.

Also, since the black market tobacco will not have all the proprietary toxic additives, it is very likely they will actually be safer. Smoking dried animal shit is literally safer than many of these additives. It is difficult to think of something more toxic than polonium-210 for example.
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
Due to the enormous tax revenue cigarettes generate, which is over twice as much as the direct healthcare cost of smoking, this will not likely pass.
Click to expand...

I think we have a winner.

There's enormous revenue in legalising herb, I suspect it to be the root cause of marijuana liberalisation in the USA, coupled with the emergence of numerous legitimate medicinal uses over the last 20 years.
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
Due to the enormous tax revenue cigarettes generate, which is over twice as much as the direct healthcare cost of smoking, this will not likely pass. However, the fact that virtually all current tobacco addicts will still be able to buy them while only potential future ones will be restricted it may due society good. Sure it will be a forbidden fruit thing and people will just sell their smokes to younger people at a mark-up but it would probably reduce smoking.
Click to expand...


Many states in America rely so heavily on these taxes that there would be dire financial consequences if they were to actually ban tobacco outright. Kind of sad
 
weekend addiction said:
^If you are going to argue the banning of cigarettes because they are dangerous its a slippery slope. Almost every drug we bluelighters use is illegal because it is deemed dangerous by some governmental authority. Cigarettes are shitty compared to other drugs. Legalizing other drugs would see many cigarette smokers popping a xanax or smoking some MJ instead when they get too stressed from life.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that I want all drugs to be legalised. I don't. I have coped fine for over 20 years working in a black market and can only see mayhem if the majority of society were allowed unfetted access to harder drugs.

It is incorrect to argue that tobacco excises/taxes is higher than health costs. In Australia taxes collected from tobacco is approximately $6 billion where as health costs relating to smoking is well above $30 billion. I don't see why the rest of the world would be any different.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking
 
Smoking ban proposed for people born after 2000

Doctors in the United Kingdom have voted overwhelmingly to support moves to ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone born after the year 2000. Now the Australian Medical Association says it will examine the idea. Dr Becky Freeman from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health told News Breakfast the plan has some merit.

News Breakfast
Source: ABC News | Duration: 3min 22sec

Topics: smoking, health, australia, england, united-kingdom


With Video -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...nnovation_News|ProposedSmokingBanInUk_FBP|abc
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
Also, since the black market tobacco will not have all the proprietary toxic additives, it is very likely they will actually be safer. Smoking dried animal shit is literally safer than many of these additives. It is difficult to think of something more toxic than polonium-210 for example.
Click to expand...

Polonium isn't an additive - it's the result of growing tobacco with fertilisers containing apatite rock.
 
terrmos.gif
 
bit_pattern said:
Polonium isn't an additive - it's the result of growing tobacco with fertilisers containing apatite rock.
Click to expand...

I knew it came from the ultra-cheap fertilizer they used's synthesis. It is at least good news that no matter what the government says, black market smokes are almost guaranteed to be safer. Tobacco is actually the number one source of radiation exposure in humans due to the polonium content. It is always frustrating when someone actually believes that a drug like heroin or meth could actually be more toxic without someone literally adding a poison as a cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top