‘Violation of personal freedom’: Readers divided over ‘landmark’ smoking ban for people born after 2008

KThe passage of the Tobacco and Electronic Cigarette Bill in Parliament, a move to create a “smoking-free generation”, has sparked strong debate among them. Independent readers.

The legislation, which will ban anyone born after 2008 from legally purchasing cigarettes, has been described by ministers as a groundbreaking public health intervention. But our community is divided on whether it strikes the right balance between protecting health and protecting personal freedom.

In a survey of readers, 40 percent said the move would restrict individual choice too much, while the remaining 60 percent supported the policy; however, a quarter agreed that implementation would be difficult.

Many questioned how the policy would work in practice. Concerns ranged from sanctions falling on tradesmen to the potential for increased smuggling and black market activities. Others pointed to the significant tax revenue from tobacco and the broader economic consequences of people living longer.

A recurring theme was justice. Some readers argued that the law created unequal rights between generations and suggested that the government should either completely ban smoking or not ban it at all.

There were also doubts about the motivations behind the policy; some argued that the policy was motivated by revenue concerns rather than public health. Some also made comparisons with alcohol and questioned why similar restrictions were not implemented there.

At the same time, some acknowledged their health status but were still uncomfortable with the restriction of individual choice.

Here’s what you need to say:

A generational loophole for buying cigarettes

I do my best to make sure none of my kids smoke, but if they do, I want to be around in 2069 when my then-60-year-old son needs his 62-year-old sister to buy him cigarettes.

SeanF

Who checks this?

So… who controls this? Tradesman? What happens when it turns violent? What about all that nice tax revenue? Smoking causes billions more in taxes than it costs. What about people who live longer, who need longer to retire? What about the extra medical care resources that long-term chronic diseases require and must be paid for? What about smuggling and criminal gangs?

To call this bill ‘designed’ is an abuse of language.

9Diamond

Either ban it outright or don’t ban it

I hate smoking. I don’t actually drink that much. I have no objection to the smoking ban. I’m not sure how I feel about a law that bans a certain age from having the right to choose – either ban it completely or don’t. It’s all about taxes. Let the older generation die and they figure out how to replace the income.

Celestial Killer

Personal preference despite known harms

There is no doubt that smoking is harmful to health. In my case it’s a habit as much as anything else, and I should know better since I lost my mother to lung cancer nearly 30 years ago. We also need to consider that the global population has quadrupled in the last century, from about 2 billion to nearly 8 billion, and that while the Hippocratic oath is incredibly honorable, it is actually part of what is destroying this planet. I miss my mother so much, but she said she didn’t want to grow old anyway (she was 81 now and was very grumpy about everything that was going on, I know that).

I also have experience teaching English to some executives of British American Tobacco when I lived in Rome in the early 2000s. They were very smart guys and we had a lot of laughs, but they were also incredibly sarcastic and had a ruthless attitude towards their work. Tobacco companies are a lot like the oil industry; because no matter what legislation any government tries to pass, they will always find a way to sell their products.

The funny thing was that I had already started listening to Zappa’s songs. You are what you are When I came across this article (now nearing its end) he described smoking as his ‘food’, so he had a pretty skinny body. Unlike most other rock stars, he did not use alcohol or drugs, which, as we all know, caused many deaths. My point is, ultimately we all have to make a choice, good or bad.

Antmanbe

Illiberal

This move to ban smoking is fundamentally illiberal and an infringement on personal freedom. I like to smoke a cigar occasionally, maybe every 2-3 months. I am not addicted. It’s my choice, it’s my right, and it doesn’t do me any harm. I strongly oppose the idea that the government has the right to restrict an adult’s free choices regarding actions that affect only him or her. This is a dark day for British freedom.

paul

Why not ban it outright?

If they really cared about stopping people from smoking, then they would outright ban the sale of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, and make it illegal to smoke in public places or indoor spaces where children are present.

They won’t do this because they collect around £10bn in tax from tobacco sales each year.

I am an occasional smoker and as long as it is still possible to buy nicotine gum, I would welcome a complete ban.

CScarlett

Smoking rates have already decreased significantly

In 1950, almost a lifetime ago, around 82 per cent of British men (including Richard Doll) smoked.

His first publication that year on the link between lung cancer and smoking convinced him and several others to kick the habit, and since then, the smoking rate has fallen by 14 percent of men, so far. Fewer women smoke, but it’s just as bad for them.

It would be better for everyone if no one smoked, but I am not a big fan of these bans. Smoking rates in the UK are currently lower than in most countries and are in decline. The terrible and, in my opinion, quite harmful habit of vaping is another story.

Rock of the North

Personal freedom with shared responsibility

If someone wants to smoke and vape, that’s fine by me, as long as no one else breathes in the poison or endures littering. Producers should also be expected to bear sanitation and waste disposal costs.

A similar approach needs to apply to alcohol; Producers are expected to bear the financial burden of any crime and antisocial behavior that occurs, as well as healthcare costs. Tougher penalties will be given to those who commit crimes and engage in antisocial behavior while under the influence.

TalkingSense

Risk of increasing crime and black markets

That is, effectively creating a Class C drug for those born in 2008 and earlier. I’m sure drug dealers have their eyes wide open in anticipation of greater profits, as anyone who wants to smoke marijuana and needs tobacco as a filler will need extra service provision from them to provide this. What is a gain for crime, a gain for health, is a loss for public order. Moreover, I don’t think it’s the government’s job to decide what we eat, drink, smoke, inject, or lather our skin with. Provide warnings ONLY where appropriate. All to save lives… so let’s ban motorcycles from now on, shall we? Or maybe dogs… or how about we ban breeding so no one survives or dies in the first place? I don’t understand for a second what the obsession with banning smoking is when parliament has time to legislate when there are hundreds of other more pressing things than interfering with people’s own lifestyle choices.

euroguy29

I want to share your opinions? To log in or register simply click ‘sign in’ or ‘sign up’ in the top right corner. Once you sign up, you can comment on the day’s top stories to showcase your views.

Want your voice to stand out? Independent Bonus Subscribers have priority in featured comments. Subscriber Here.

Be sure to follow our community guidelines, which you can find at. Here. For a complete guide on how to comment, Click here.