@pease Free choice is an urban myth? Seriously? Freedom is what western liberal democracies are founded on.
I always thought modern liberal democracies were based on having laws that placed limits on those in power.
Amen.
The law’s passed now, so personally I just hope that there will be a huge black market and that, like Prohibition in the US, the law will get undone someday.
@pease Free choice is an urban myth? Seriously? Freedom is what western liberal democracies are founded on.
I always thought modern liberal democracies were based on having laws that placed limits on those in power.
Amen.
The law’s passed now, so personally I just hope that there will be a huge black market and that, like Prohibition in the US, the law will get undone someday.
But why not hope that people just decide not to smoke anyway? I can understand wanting a particular law to be repealed, but hoping for an active black market is a bit different - especially as black market cigarettes are frequently even more dangerous due to contaminants or using adulterants. Hoping for a huge black market specifically would suggest actively wanting people to keep smoking, which is a bit of a strange response. Surely you can dislike the law while also still hoping that people quit smoking?
The law’s passed now, so personally I just hope that there will be a huge black market and that, like Prohibition in the US, the law will get undone someday.
I don't see where this "huge black market" will come from. In Year 1, there won't be enough 18 year old would-be smokers to create much of a black market, especially as most will probably be able to cadge cigarettes off slightly older friends or family members. In year 2 the number will have doubled, but still be small. Over time the numbers will edge up, and there will no longer be slightly older friends who can still legally buy cigarettes, but we are at least a decade away from the sort of numbers which could create a black market, and two decades away from the sort of numbers which could create a "huge" black market.
I don't see where this "huge black market" will come from.
A good-sized black market in cigarettes already exists in the UK, according to the BBC, as there is plenty of incentive to skirt the high UK excise tax on tobacco. It's linked to international criminal organizations, human trafficking, and forced labor. Some black market cigarettes contain "human excrement, dead flies and asbestos".
Yes, I have to say, @ChastMastr , black markets almost always involve organized crime and a lot of very evil type criminals running it. Wishing for a large black market to arise seems... problematical at best.
I don't see where this "huge black market" will come from.
A good-sized black market in cigarettes already exists in the UK, according to the BBC, as there is plenty of incentive to skirt the high UK excise tax on tobacco. It's linked to international criminal organizations, human trafficking, and forced labor. Some black market cigarettes contain "human excrement, dead flies and asbestos".
I don't see where this "huge black market" will come from.
A good-sized black market in cigarettes already exists in the UK, according to the BBC, as there is plenty of incentive to skirt the high UK excise tax on tobacco. It's linked to international criminal organizations, human trafficking, and forced labor. Some black market cigarettes contain "human excrement, dead flies and asbestos".
Yes, I have to say, @ChastMastr , black markets almost always involve organized crime and a lot of very evil type criminals running it. Wishing for a large black market to arise seems... problematical at best.
Yes, I don’t want that at all. Yikes!! 😱
I want the law to be overturned someday and for people to be able to choose to enjoy tobacco. I don’t want a bad black market of the kind described above at all. (Indeed, one reason (among many) for desiring the full legalization of marijuana is to get it wholly away from organized crime… but marijuana would likely be its own thread…)
So yes, if that’s what a black market on tobacco would mean (or already means), then I rescind that statement completely. I was just thinking of people secretly importing and selling the tobacco which was previously legal, not any of that other stuff, or with the horrible things mentioned above. Yikes!
I don't see where this "huge black market" will come from.
A good-sized black market in cigarettes already exists in the UK, according to the BBC, as there is plenty of incentive to skirt the high UK excise tax on tobacco. It's linked to international criminal organizations, human trafficking, and forced labor. Some black market cigarettes contain "human excrement, dead flies and asbestos".
I wasn't clear. I know about the existing black market, created by the high excise tax. I meant that I didn't think that the new legislation in the OP would create a "huge black market" or, indeed, significantly increase the existing black market. The numbers impacted initially will be small, and although they will grow, it will take some years for them to increase.
Let’s assume the law is successful. What will be next for the same treatment? It has to be currently legal but bad for you.
The increase in tax on sugary drinks has not stayed their popularity. It is a money earner for the government. Are people of a certain age only going to be able buy no sugar drinks? What if you are allergic to the sweeteners? Some restaurants in the UK do not serve full fat drinks anymore.
Let’s assume the law is successful. What will be next for the same treatment? It has to be currently legal but bad for you.
The increase in tax on sugary drinks has not stayed their popularity. It is a money earner for the government. Are people of a certain age only going to be able buy no sugar drinks? What if you are allergic to the sweeteners? Some restaurants in the UK do not serve full fat drinks anymore.
It sounds like you have just explained why banning sugary drinks wouldn't be nearly as appealing as banning smoking. I wouldn't assume any other similar bans would follow but besides being bad for you they would also have to not be widely popular.
@pease Free choice is an urban myth? Seriously? Freedom is what western liberal democracies are founded on.
I always thought modern liberal democracies were based on having laws that placed limits on those in power.
Amen.
The law’s passed now, so personally I just hope that there will be a huge black market and that, like Prohibition in the US, the law will get undone someday.
But why not hope that people just decide not to smoke anyway? I can understand wanting a particular law to be repealed, but hoping for an active black market is a bit different - especially as black market cigarettes are frequently even more dangerous due to contaminants or using adulterants. Hoping for a huge black market specifically would suggest actively wanting people to keep smoking, which is a bit of a strange response. Surely you can dislike the law while also still hoping that people quit smoking?
Re “Surely you can dislike the law while also still hoping that people quit smoking?”
I hope that people who don’t genuinely want to smoke, the people who don’t see it as a pleasure in their lives that they are glad to have, quit smoking. As I’ve said, there are at very least cigar and pipe smokers (some of whom I know personally) who are quite enthusiastic about it, don’t do it nonstop but as a pleasure from time to time, and don’t want to quit, and I say more power to them.
But the purpose of this new law is not to get people to quit...but to prevent them starting in the first place. I'm struggling to see why this is such a terrible thing.
Let’s assume the law is successful. What will be next for the same treatment? It has to be currently legal but bad for you.
The increase in tax on sugary drinks has not stayed their popularity. It is a money earner for the government.
Unlike smoking, sugar isn't inherently bad for you, unless consumed in excess.
The sugar tax is a levy in the UK on the production and importation of soft drinks containing added sugar. On introduction in 2018, it had the intended effect of reducing the amount of sugar in soft drinks available for sale (as producers reformulated their products). In the first year, according to one study, this had the desired effect of reducing sugar intake - by about 11g per day for adults, and by about 5g per day for children.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that governments find the idea of taxing their way to public health appealing. (But there's a limit to what can be achieved by taxation alone.)
Note that there is already a cap of 5g per 100ml on the maximum amount of sugar allowed in soft drinks. In 2028, this limit will be reduced to 4.5g per 100ml, and the levy itself will be extended to cover more drinks.
But the purpose of this new law is not to get people to quit...but to prevent them starting in the first place. I'm struggling to see why this is such a terrible thing.
I think I’ve pretty much said my piece on this, several (hundred? Million?) times, but again I’m going to say, treating adults like adults who can make their own decisions is a big part of it. And future adults who might want to enjoy cigars or pipes, for example, should get to. I hope they can.
Obviously neither side seems to be convincing the other here.
But the purpose of this new law is not to get people to quit...but to prevent them starting in the first place. I'm struggling to see why this is such a terrible thing.
And future adults who might want to enjoy cigars or pipes, for example, should get to. I hope they can.
So you keep saying, but I can’t remember the last time I saw someone smoking a pipe, and cigars are very rare nowadays as well. My dad was a pipe smoker and he died at the age of 61 over four decades ago. Pipe smoking was very much enjoyed by people (men usually) of that generation and very rare in people younger than that, so I suspect most of the regular pipe smokers are now dead
But the purpose of this new law is not to get people to quit...but to prevent them starting in the first place. I'm struggling to see why this is such a terrible thing.
And future adults who might want to enjoy cigars or pipes, for example, should get to. I hope they can.
So you keep saying, but I can’t remember the last time I saw someone smoking a pipe, and cigars are very rare nowadays as well. My dad was a pipe smoker and he died at the age of 61 over four decades ago. Pipe smoking was very much enjoyed by people (men usually) of that generation and very rare in people younger than that, so I suspect most of the regular pipe smokers are now dead
Couldn't help noticing that David Hockney, who has just died aged 88, was often seen with a cigar in his hand.
Or a cigarette.
He famously kept 2,000 snouts at home “for emergencies”.
It wasn’t until the early 2000s, when the campaign started to ban smoking in pubs, that Hockney really started putting his shoulder behind it as an inalienable right. He staged a protest at the Labour conference circa 2005, flanked by posters saying “Death comes to us all”
There are/were a number of creative people who found ciggies necessary for their work. Stephen Fry for example. Their work was to them more important than any impact on their health.
I continue to use paints etc. for my model aircraft which are considered harmful as the modern alternatives just don't give the same results.
Mrs RR stays away from the workshop/studio until the extractor fan has done its job!
To me the issue is always that of causing harm to others. I might be happy to take the risk for myself, but if it's something where exposure is harmful to someone else then it's not just my own health involved.
David Hockney was a wealthy man and could access the best healthcare - making old age despite smoking is not very surprising.
It's getting tough to be a teenager in the UK. I see it is moving to ban social media for anyone under 16. Probably could be a thread of its own if it has legs.
There are/were a number of creative people who found ciggies necessary for their work. Stephen Fry for example. Their work was to them more important than any impact on their health.
It’s a myth that tobacco helps you concentrate or is a stress reliever. Due to the addictive nature of nicotine, if you’ve not had a smoke for a while you become more restless and/or irritable, so having a smoke gives the illusion of having a calming effect
'so having a smoke gives the illusion of having a calming effect'.
Hmmm ... as these guys are addicted, the calming effect is not an illusion.
But it would be better of course not to be addicted. Malcolm Guite, one of my favourite Christian poets, has a selection of pipes in the bower where he writes. And the poems and ballads keep coming!
I read the article, but there's nothing in it about where he writes. Did you mean to send me somewhere else?
No, the info about where he writes is gleaned from his 'Poet's Corner' columns in the 'Church Times'. Perhaps 'bower' was the wrong word and 'shed' more accurate. But it was how I remembered it. Sorry!
Comments
Amen.
The law’s passed now, so personally I just hope that there will be a huge black market and that, like Prohibition in the US, the law will get undone someday.
But why not hope that people just decide not to smoke anyway? I can understand wanting a particular law to be repealed, but hoping for an active black market is a bit different - especially as black market cigarettes are frequently even more dangerous due to contaminants or using adulterants. Hoping for a huge black market specifically would suggest actively wanting people to keep smoking, which is a bit of a strange response. Surely you can dislike the law while also still hoping that people quit smoking?
The law’s passed now, so personally I just hope that there will be a huge black market and that, like Prohibition in the US, the law will get undone someday.
I don't see where this "huge black market" will come from. In Year 1, there won't be enough 18 year old would-be smokers to create much of a black market, especially as most will probably be able to cadge cigarettes off slightly older friends or family members. In year 2 the number will have doubled, but still be small. Over time the numbers will edge up, and there will no longer be slightly older friends who can still legally buy cigarettes, but we are at least a decade away from the sort of numbers which could create a black market, and two decades away from the sort of numbers which could create a "huge" black market.
A good-sized black market in cigarettes already exists in the UK, according to the BBC, as there is plenty of incentive to skirt the high UK excise tax on tobacco. It's linked to international criminal organizations, human trafficking, and forced labor. Some black market cigarettes contain "human excrement, dead flies and asbestos".
Yes, I don’t want that at all. Yikes!! 😱
I want the law to be overturned someday and for people to be able to choose to enjoy tobacco. I don’t want a bad black market of the kind described above at all. (Indeed, one reason (among many) for desiring the full legalization of marijuana is to get it wholly away from organized crime… but marijuana would likely be its own thread…)
So yes, if that’s what a black market on tobacco would mean (or already means), then I rescind that statement completely. I was just thinking of people secretly importing and selling the tobacco which was previously legal, not any of that other stuff, or with the horrible things mentioned above. Yikes!
I wasn't clear. I know about the existing black market, created by the high excise tax. I meant that I didn't think that the new legislation in the OP would create a "huge black market" or, indeed, significantly increase the existing black market. The numbers impacted initially will be small, and although they will grow, it will take some years for them to increase.
The increase in tax on sugary drinks has not stayed their popularity. It is a money earner for the government. Are people of a certain age only going to be able buy no sugar drinks? What if you are allergic to the sweeteners? Some restaurants in the UK do not serve full fat drinks anymore.
It sounds like you have just explained why banning sugary drinks wouldn't be nearly as appealing as banning smoking. I wouldn't assume any other similar bans would follow but besides being bad for you they would also have to not be widely popular.
They are often more dangerous to the health of the smokers than regular cigarettes.
Re “Surely you can dislike the law while also still hoping that people quit smoking?”
I hope that people who don’t genuinely want to smoke, the people who don’t see it as a pleasure in their lives that they are glad to have, quit smoking. As I’ve said, there are at very least cigar and pipe smokers (some of whom I know personally) who are quite enthusiastic about it, don’t do it nonstop but as a pleasure from time to time, and don’t want to quit, and I say more power to them.
The sugar tax is a levy in the UK on the production and importation of soft drinks containing added sugar. On introduction in 2018, it had the intended effect of reducing the amount of sugar in soft drinks available for sale (as producers reformulated their products). In the first year, according to one study, this had the desired effect of reducing sugar intake - by about 11g per day for adults, and by about 5g per day for children.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that governments find the idea of taxing their way to public health appealing. (But there's a limit to what can be achieved by taxation alone.)
Note that there is already a cap of 5g per 100ml on the maximum amount of sugar allowed in soft drinks. In 2028, this limit will be reduced to 4.5g per 100ml, and the levy itself will be extended to cover more drinks.
I think I’ve pretty much said my piece on this, several (hundred? Million?) times, but again I’m going to say, treating adults like adults who can make their own decisions is a big part of it. And future adults who might want to enjoy cigars or pipes, for example, should get to. I hope they can.
Obviously neither side seems to be convincing the other here.
Peace be with everyone here in whatever side.
So you keep saying, but I can’t remember the last time I saw someone smoking a pipe, and cigars are very rare nowadays as well. My dad was a pipe smoker and he died at the age of 61 over four decades ago. Pipe smoking was very much enjoyed by people (men usually) of that generation and very rare in people younger than that, so I suspect most of the regular pipe smokers are now dead
Cigars, however, are another matter.
https://wanderlux.com/best-cigar-lounges-london/
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g186217-Activities-c20-t101-England.html
Oh, and I totally forgot about hookahs/shishas.
https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/10-of-the-best-shisha-lounges-to-visit-in-the-uk-6710868/
https://londontourpackage.com/best-shisha-lounges-in-london/
Or a cigarette.
From the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2026/jun/13/david-hockney-smoking-paris-metro-freudian
For most of his smoking life, his only foes were doctors, telling him to stop - he outlived four of them.
Much as I like him and his work, I don't agree with him. His rattly chest in interviews shows he couldn't have been comfortable.
I continue to use paints etc. for my model aircraft which are considered harmful as the modern alternatives just don't give the same results.
Mrs RR stays away from the workshop/studio until the extractor fan has done its job!
David Hockney was a wealthy man and could access the best healthcare - making old age despite smoking is not very surprising.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
It’s a myth that tobacco helps you concentrate or is a stress reliever. Due to the addictive nature of nicotine, if you’ve not had a smoke for a while you become more restless and/or irritable, so having a smoke gives the illusion of having a calming effect
Hmmm ... as these guys are addicted, the calming effect is not an illusion.
But it would be better of course not to be addicted. Malcolm Guite, one of my favourite Christian poets, has a selection of pipes in the bower where he writes. And the poems and ballads keep coming!
Yup! He's local to us and well-known Hobbit-like idiosyncratic character in Cambridge and our Anglican community. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Guite
Well worth exploring.
No, the info about where he writes is gleaned from his 'Poet's Corner' columns in the 'Church Times'. Perhaps 'bower' was the wrong word and 'shed' more accurate. But it was how I remembered it. Sorry!
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/19-june/comment/columnists/malcolm-guite-poet-s-corner