FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Children borne post 2008 - lifetime ban buying tobacco
Children borne post 2008 - lifetime ban buying tobacco
Jump to: Newest in thread
Children aged 17 or younger will face a lifelong ban on buying cigarettes, as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill clears Parliament.
House of Commons and Lords have settled on a final draft of the "landmark" legislation, external that aims to stop anyone born after 1 January 2009 from taking up smoking by making it illegal for shops to sell them tobacco, to create a smoke-free generation.
If the aim is about the health of the population, alcohol and ultra processed foods can still be purchased
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's no evidence that ultra processed foods cause harm in and of themselves. Not helping in the gathering of evidence is that no two people can agree on the definition of "ultra processed foods". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Presumably their duty free allowance will remain the same, so they can buy it cheaper abroad and enter the UK with it? "
Why presume that? Minors have no alcohol or tobacco allowance at the moment, it's a trivial thing to legislate the same for a rising age.
Perhaps there is an EU rule that would make this "ageist"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?"
They already have to ask for ID if the person looks like they might be under 18. It won't be difficult to ask for ID from older people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Wasn’t this proposed in New Zealand and then dumped? There seems to be a lot of countries cherrypicking bad ideas from other places going on.
I imagine this will be as successful as cannabis being illegal, meaning it will be available everywhere on the black market. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?"
And progressively by 2084 nobody under the age of 75.
Leading to eventually nobody able to buy tobacco.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As a non smoker I am all for this. I think the medical benefits should be clear to anyone. I have absolutely no doubt that the tobacco industry will act true to form and will do everything they can do gut the law just as they did in New Zealand. I think they will succeed because they will play it is a freedom issue and hope to get Reform wound up about it and use them as the avenue to do their bidding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 2 weeks ago
|
While vaping is growing, the problem has evolved not been fixed. So I like the ban, had family members die viciously of smoking related Lung Cancer and Emphysema. But it's not a complete solution yet again. Government bottled it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I remember the furore surrounding the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants.
If this happens I think it's great.
How will the tax revenue be replaced I wonder? 🤔"
Agreed that it would be great. It's impractical because most people begin smoking well below 18. People will still smoke, but buy black market (super easy, because anyone older can buy it, which will create a much higher market for the illegal imports). This will reduce tax significantly but keep many of the same levels of health problems. How will it be enforced for a 21 y.o French smoker?
At the very least, they would need a very, very, very harsh disincentive for black market supply (including within families and friend groups). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I remember the furore surrounding the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants.
If this happens I think it's great.
How will the tax revenue be replaced I wonder? 🤔"
If it works the way it's supposed to work, and that's a big IF, this should improve the health of the people and reduce our NHS spending indirectly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I remember the furore surrounding the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants.
If this happens I think it's great.
How will the tax revenue be replaced I wonder? 🤔
Agreed that it would be great. It's impractical because most people begin smoking well below 18. People will still smoke, but buy black market (super easy, because anyone older can buy it, which will create a much higher market for the illegal imports). This will reduce tax significantly but keep many of the same levels of health problems. How will it be enforced for a 21 y.o French smoker?
At the very least, they would need a very, very, very harsh disincentive for black market supply (including within families and friend groups)."
Will it be illegal to smoke or just illegal to buy tobacco or supply it to under age people?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I remember the furore surrounding the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants.
If this happens I think it's great.
How will the tax revenue be replaced I wonder? 🤔
If it works the way it's supposed to work, and that's a big IF, this should improve the health of the people and reduce our NHS spending indirectly."
I look forward to that Utopia |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Usually when the UK does something stupid that nobody else is doing our politicians like to claim that we’re “leading the world”, but oddly nobody else seems to follow our example.
This time we’ve been beaten to it by the Maldives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Usually when the UK does something stupid that nobody else is doing our politicians like to claim that we’re “leading the world”, but oddly nobody else seems to follow our example.
This time we’ve been beaten to it by the Maldives."
I genuinely don’t get why you think it is stupid. The societal health benefits to reduced levels of smoking are blatantly clear. The reduction in smoking availability has been a consistent focus through multiple governments across decades. This is another step on an arc that we all know is inevitable.
Will it stop everyone smoking? Clearly not. Will there be a black market? Very likely. Will that lead to the same amount of smoking as currently exists? Very unlikely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth? "
By act of parliament, which is supreme. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Will it be illegal to smoke or just illegal to buy tobacco or supply it to under age people?
"
There's only a point attacking supply. You cannot really realistically go after smokers. Same as any drug. And what happens in 10 years, when a 25 y.o. comes from overseas with their own cigarettes?
It would be amazing if smoking were abolished, but the hurdles are huge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth?
By act of parliament, which is supreme."
Acts of Parliament can and do get struck down. I don't know of any other precedent which places a lifetime prohibiton on a legal activity that only applies to people born after a certain date. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ydaz70Man 2 weeks ago
Rotherham /newquay |
"Presumably their duty free allowance will remain the same, so they can buy it cheaper abroad and enter the UK with it?
Why presume that? Minors have no alcohol or tobacco allowance at the moment, it's a trivial thing to legislate the same for a rising age.
Perhaps there is an EU rule that would make this "ageist"?"
but they wouldn't be minor's |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ydaz70Man 2 weeks ago
Rotherham /newquay |
Make no difference if everywhere is same as here are local shop doesn't sell tobacco products because local mini Mart sells it cheaper than he can buy it for and no I'd checks there as said black market will be rubbing it's hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth?
By act of parliament, which is supreme.
Acts of Parliament can and do get struck down. I don't know of any other precedent which places a lifetime prohibiton on a legal activity that only applies to people born after a certain date."
Parliament is sovereign. It can legislate anything and a court cannot prevent any law from being enacted, should parliament will it.
Precedent and enforceability is another matter entirely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Presumably their duty free allowance will remain the same, so they can buy it cheaper abroad and enter the UK with it?
Why presume that? Minors have no alcohol or tobacco allowance at the moment, it's a trivial thing to legislate the same for a rising age.
Perhaps there is an EU rule that would make this "ageist"?but they wouldn't be minor's "
It's easy to legislate anything. Including "for the purpose of nicotine out tobacco sale and consumption, "minor" is defined as anyone born on or after XX/YY/ZZZZ, or who wears a blue t-shirt on Tuesdays". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth?
By act of parliament, which is supreme.
Acts of Parliament can and do get struck down. I don't know of any other precedent which places a lifetime prohibiton on a legal activity that only applies to people born after a certain date.
Parliament is sovereign. It can legislate anything and a court cannot prevent any law from being enacted, should parliament will it.
Precedent and enforceability is another matter entirely."
Yes, Parliament can pass a law based on arbitrary birth dates — but that doesn’t make that law immune from challenge. Courts can still test whether that discrimination is justified and laws do get repealed / amended on that basis. For me there is something fundamentally wrong with a law that creates a permanent class of adults who are denied a liberty that other adults retain, based purely on a birth cohort. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think the idea is a good one.
I can't see the point of saying that because it won't stop everyone there's no reason to try and stop it at all "
But this is different because it only applies to a certain set of people. Surely a law should apply to everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 2 weeks ago
|
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth? "
We already have such rules for retirement. There is no one age to start getting a state pension. It's a sliding scale. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth?
We already have such rules for retirement. There is no one age to start getting a state pension. It's a sliding scale. "
But that's a difference in thresholds. Eventually everyone gets a state pension once they reach that threshold. This is a discriminatory law which is permanent and in place whether you're 18 or 80. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 2 weeks ago
|
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth?
We already have such rules for retirement. There is no one age to start getting a state pension. It's a sliding scale.
But that's a difference in thresholds. Eventually everyone gets a state pension once they reach that threshold. This is a discriminatory law which is permanent and in place whether you're 18 or 80."
But I started at 16 to pay NI with a pension date of my 65th birthday, it's since been changed twice on me, with no option to pay more NI instead. An example of government power to enforce a date on anyone they choose via legislation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth?
We already have such rules for retirement. There is no one age to start getting a state pension. It's a sliding scale.
But that's a difference in thresholds. Eventually everyone gets a state pension once they reach that threshold. This is a discriminatory law which is permanent and in place whether you're 18 or 80.
But I started at 16 to pay NI with a pension date of my 65th birthday, it's since been changed twice on me, with no option to pay more NI instead. An example of government power to enforce a date on anyone they choose via legislation. "
I was assured I'd get my state pension at 60 when I started work. I finally received it at 66.
Various laws have always been applied differently to different age groups |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *CExeCouple 2 weeks ago
Hong-Kong/Exeter |
If only they'd thought of banning things before. Banning firearms ownership in Mexico has seen virtually no gun violence in recent decades. We know that kids have never smoked or d*unk underage, and that drugs are a thing of the past....
A moronic policy that's more about headlines than actual outcomes. Education is what's needed; when it's done properly, it works as the almost 100% compliance with seatbelts shows. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from being almost impossible to police, I can't see how this idea holds water legally. How can one adult UK citizen be held to a different law than another adult UK citizen based on an arbitrary date of birth?
We already have such rules for retirement. There is no one age to start getting a state pension. It's a sliding scale.
But that's a difference in thresholds. Eventually everyone gets a state pension once they reach that threshold. This is a discriminatory law which is permanent and in place whether you're 18 or 80.
But I started at 16 to pay NI with a pension date of my 65th birthday, it's since been changed twice on me, with no option to pay more NI instead. An example of government power to enforce a date on anyone they choose via legislation. "
Yes, the pension age thing shows government can shift goalposts based on date of birth, but it's still tied to a threshold everyone eventually reaches.
This law doesn’t just move a threshold—it creates a lifetime prohibition for one group and not another |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Parliament is sovereign. It can legislate anything and a court cannot prevent any law from being enacted, should parliament will it.
Precedent and enforceability is another matter entirely.
Yes, Parliament can pass a law based on arbitrary birth dates — but that doesn’t make that law immune from challenge. Courts can still test whether that discrimination is justified and laws do get repealed / amended on that basis. "
UK parliament can simply legislate to make anything legal, even if challenged. Nothing can stop a determined parliament. Except Royal Assent (in theory). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Parliament is sovereign. It can legislate anything and a court cannot prevent any law from being enacted, should parliament will it.
Precedent and enforceability is another matter entirely.
Yes, Parliament can pass a law based on arbitrary birth dates — but that doesn’t make that law immune from challenge. Courts can still test whether that discrimination is justified and laws do get repealed / amended on that basis.
UK parliament can simply legislate to make anything legal, even if challenged. Nothing can stop a determined parliament. Except Royal Assent (in theory)."
In the short term, yes. But you can't see a scenario where an ECHR ruling effectively forces change by bringing legal and political pressure? Belmarsh maybe? Or ID cards? Or prisoner voting? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Parliament is sovereign. It can legislate anything and a court cannot prevent any law from being enacted, should parliament will it.
Precedent and enforceability is another matter entirely.
Yes, Parliament can pass a law based on arbitrary birth dates — but that doesn’t make that law immune from challenge. Courts can still test whether that discrimination is justified and laws do get repealed / amended on that basis.
UK parliament can simply legislate to make anything legal, even if challenged. Nothing can stop a determined parliament. Except Royal Assent (in theory).
In the short term, yes. But you can't see a scenario where an ECHR ruling effectively forces change by bringing legal and political pressure? Belmarsh maybe? Or ID cards? Or prisoner voting?"
Political pressure is possible. But legally, parliament is absolutely sovereign. There is zero legal pressure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Presumably their duty free allowance will remain the same, so they can buy it cheaper abroad and enter the UK with it?
Why presume that? Minors have no alcohol or tobacco allowance at the moment, it's a trivial thing to legislate the same for a rising age.
Perhaps there is an EU rule that would make this "ageist"?"
My prescription is based on the law change is to be to make it illegal to sell tobacco in the UK, for people born from the specified date. It shouldn't matter what they purchase abroad, subject to foreign laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Parliament is sovereign. It can legislate anything and a court cannot prevent any law from being enacted, should parliament will it.
Precedent and enforceability is another matter entirely.
Yes, Parliament can pass a law based on arbitrary birth dates — but that doesn’t make that law immune from challenge. Courts can still test whether that discrimination is justified and laws do get repealed / amended on that basis.
UK parliament can simply legislate to make anything legal, even if challenged. Nothing can stop a determined parliament. Except Royal Assent (in theory).
In the short term, yes. But you can't see a scenario where an ECHR ruling effectively forces change by bringing legal and political pressure? Belmarsh maybe? Or ID cards? Or prisoner voting?
Political pressure is possible. But legally, parliament is absolutely sovereign. There is zero legal pressure."
If you're saying that courts can't invalidate an Act of Parliament, then I agree - but that wasn't my claim.
If it were purely political, then government would ignore all the the court rulings which declare a law to be incompatible with rights. But in reality, those rulings trigger formal legal obligations and structured responses. That's more than just politics - it's legal pressure leading to change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you're saying that courts can't invalidate an Act of Parliament, then I agree - but that wasn't my claim.
If it were purely political, then government would ignore all the the court rulings which declare a law to be incompatible with rights. But in reality, those rulings trigger formal legal obligations and structured responses. That's more than just politics - it's legal pressure leading to change."
Yes... Legally parliament cannot be overruled or challenged should they stand firm. However, political pressure (civil unrest, trade sanctions, threat of being voted out, etc.) could force parliament to change their minds. But that is political.
Law effectively breaks down when it bumps into sovereignty - it becomes political and other pressure at that point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?
And progressively by 2084 nobody under the age of 75.
Leading to eventually nobody able to buy tobacco.
"
That's the idea but prohibition has never worked and will never work.
Once the Genie is out of the bottle there's no putting it back in.
We've been fighting the war on drugs for over 40 years and the world is flowing with drugs.
You might as well regulate it, make it as safe as possible and make some cash by taxing it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?
And progressively by 2084 nobody under the age of 75.
Leading to eventually nobody able to buy tobacco."
"That's the idea but prohibition has never worked and will never work.
Once the Genie is out of the bottle there's no putting it back in.
We've been fighting the war on drugs for over 40 years and the world is flowing with drugs.
You might as well regulate it, make it as safe as possible and make some cash by taxing it."
Prohibition doesn't work if you ban a thing and provide no alternative. Banning tobacco might well work because there are nicotine vapes available, and people will use those instead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?
And progressively by 2084 nobody under the age of 75.
Leading to eventually nobody able to buy tobacco.
That's the idea but prohibition has never worked and will never work.
Once the Genie is out of the bottle there's no putting it back in.
We've been fighting the war on drugs for over 40 years and the world is flowing with drugs.
You might as well regulate it, make it as safe as possible and make some cash by taxing it.
Prohibition doesn't work if you ban a thing and provide no alternative. Banning tobacco might well work because there are nicotine vapes available, and people will use those instead."
Yeah I can see sense in what your saying, I just think there'll be a black market for tobacco tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Prohibition doesn't work if you ban a thing and provide no alternative. Banning tobacco might well work because there are nicotine vapes available, and people will use those instead."
"Yeah I can see sense in what your saying, I just think there'll be a black market for tobacco tbh."
You're right. There absolutely will be a black market. But as long as it's not seen in public, that won't matter as the youth will never see smoking so they'll never want to take up the habit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If it does some good for future health situation fine by me. The black market will probably profit.
Can't say I seen many young people smoking, vaping and nitrous oxide gas seem the current trend.
And what about . When I was a teen was as popular as trad ciggies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
How will the tax revenue be replaced I wonder? 🤔
By fining the remaining smokers for littering. We'd solve all our economic issues if that was enforced now. "
Come on, now.
Smoking related litter doesn’t count as real litter, despite being so prevalent. Ask most smokers or, better still, watch how they dispose of their detritus! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Only our governments would come with something so unimplementable, complex and sat on the fence trying to somehow balance what's good for you versus your freedoms and getting it so wrong....why not just do a a normal ban if fags are that bad. Or just leave it alone.
They must've spent millions of our money with all the different rules and laws on tobacco sales over the years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
How will the tax revenue be replaced I wonder? 🤔
By fining the remaining smokers for littering. We'd solve all our economic issues if that was enforced now. "
Great idea but you would need something that would put the Stasi to shame to implement it in any meaningful way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Only our governments would come with something so unimplementable, complex ..."
The new law is that anyone whose ID says they were born after 2008 can't buy tobacco. What's complex or unimplementable about that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?"
Exactly and some 25 year olds look 35, especially with facial hair, utter nonsense from the Nanny State. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?"
"Exactly and some 25 year olds look 35, especially with facial hair, utter nonsense from the Nanny State."
They just ask for ID, like they already have to. I don't know about you, but I feel confident I could look at a date of birth and figure out if the number representing the year is larger than 2008 or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?
Exactly and some 25 year olds look 35, especially with facial hair, utter nonsense from the Nanny State.
They just ask for ID, like they already have to. I don't know about you, but I feel confident I could look at a date of birth and figure out if the number representing the year is larger than 2008 or not."
Small corner shops want to make a living and an immigrant running a shop ain't going to ask a 40 year old who looks 50 for ID for tobacco.
If you truly believe this is going to happen then you need to stop wanking in the bedroom and get out into the real world as you have no real life experience |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I understand this correctly, it would be illegal for a 25 year old to buy tobacco products in 2034. How the hell are they going to police this at retail level?
"
They will have undercover operatives wearing hidden cameras and microphones..
..targetting shop keepers who are too lax to act in the national interest who waive the trust vested in them by society and fail to bother with a challenge, or else let the matter go when the smoker says that they forgot their ID.
This will only work if eveyone fully realises the importance of upholding the law instead of two fingers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The easiest viable way to do this in practical terms might be a photo ID smoking licence, potentially that gets scanned against a specific packet every time one is purchased.
The technology is simple and could be funded by those using the system. It's an interesting precedent to set, though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The easiest viable way to do this in practical terms might be a photo ID smoking licence, potentially that gets scanned against a specific packet every time one is purchased.
The technology is simple and could be funded by those using the system. It's an interesting precedent to set, though."
On the surface, that is a good idea.
However, will it stop someone with a licence buying products, either for others, or to sell on illegally for profit?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The easiest viable way to do this in practical terms might be a photo ID smoking licence, potentially that gets scanned against a specific packet every time one is purchased.
The technology is simple and could be funded by those using the system. It's an interesting precedent to set, though.
On the surface, that is a good idea.
However, will it stop someone with a licence buying products, either for others, or to sell on illegally for profit?
"
Specific packets would be tied to the ID. Not foolproof, but a significant barrier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The easiest viable way to do this in practical terms might be a photo ID smoking licence, potentially that gets scanned against a specific packet every time one is purchased.
The technology is simple and could be funded by those using the system. It's an interesting precedent to set, though.
On the surface, that is a good idea.
However, will it stop someone with a licence buying products, either for others, or to sell on illegally for profit?
Specific packets would be tied to the ID. Not foolproof, but a significant barrier."
It seems an awful lot of trouble and expense for the state to be going to. Does it not have better things to be doing than monitoring the whereabouts of cigarette packets?
Whenever I step outside of my city centre workplace I can smell all over the place. Why does anyone think a cigarette ban would be more effective than the cannabis ban?
In theory placing the burden on cigarette buyers to pay for their own ID app makes sense (in the context of some stupid new legislation), but I’m doubtful it fits with the government agenda, which is to increase the number of things that require ID, and then offer a universal government ID as the solution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...government agenda, which is to increase the number of things that require ID, and then offer a universal government ID as the solution."
A universal government ID would solve many, many problems. It would also introduce risks that many find unpalatable. When these risks are articulated, though, it seems as if the vast majority of people are already willing to (and) wear(ing) them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's no evidence that ultra processed foods cause harm in and of themselves. Not helping in the gathering of evidence is that no two people can agree on the definition of "ultra processed foods"."
There are hundreds of studies that that now show processed and especially ultra processed foods are one of the main causes of poor health in the western world.. any food that is not single ingredient is processed... Ultra processed are those foods that are generally more chemical than farmed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Children aged 17 or younger will face a lifelong ban on buying cigarettes, as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill clears Parliament.
House of Commons and Lords have settled on a final draft of the "landmark" legislation, external that aims to stop anyone born after 1 January 2009 from taking up smoking by making it illegal for shops to sell them tobacco, to create a smoke-free generation.
If the aim is about the health of the population, alcohol and ultra processed foods can still be purchased
"
Black market will be lucrative |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's no evidence that ultra processed foods cause harm in and of themselves. Not helping in the gathering of evidence is that no two people can agree on the definition of "ultra processed foods"."
"There are hundreds of studies that that now show processed and especially ultra processed foods are one of the main causes of poor health in the western world.."
Yes there are, but none of them have been peer reviewed. For those papers that have been peer reviewed, they focus one one specific ingredient or ignore the cohort's lifestyle.
"any food that is not single ingredient is processed... Ultra processed are those foods that are generally more chemical than farmed. "
But that's just your definition, and quite a poor one at that. Are you really saying that a carrot is unprocessed, but if I dip it in honey it becomes processed because it's not a single ingredient any more? How are you defining "generally more"? How are you defining "chemical"? Does the presence of dihydrogen monoxide, which is in almost all shop bought foods, make something ultra processed? Is salt "ultra processed", since it's a chemical that isn't farmed?
And that's before we get to the fact that a lot of researchers into UPFs will disagree with your definition because it doesn't match theirs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
