Delegates at the British Medical Association annual conference have voted in favour of a motion to prohibit smoking to anyone born after 2000. This would mean that even when people born in 2000 or later reach the age where they are allowed to buy cigarettes will no longer be able to due to being born in this century. Therefore this would mean a whole generation of potential new smokers would not be able to smoke which would eventually lead to the UK phasing out smoking for all generations.

 

Read the full BBC News article

 

It's a very interesting suggestion but would it really be possible to achieve something like this?

That sounds great!

 

But the Uk does make a lot more int axes than it loses in the NHS through smoking so I'm not sure they'd do it!

In an ideal world this would be great but I'm sure there will be so much opposition that the motion would never go through. I'd say most people my age have (or are at least expected to have) tried a cigarette so as long as this attitude sticks around I can't see this idea becoming a reality.

*.* That's one hell of a headline grabber. Bit impractical in reality though.

Sounds great on paper, but it would just open the door for new crimes like illegal usage/selling to thrive, plus the 'rebellious' aspect of smoking would be raised, just like there is for underage drinking/illegal drugs, which in some cases would raise the appeal for some younger people as it's 'cool and dangerous' etc.

Edited June 25, 201411 yr by Chez Wombat

#QTWTAIN

 

It's a dreadful idea. Prohibition hasn't exactly WORKED OUT FAB for anything else. Not to mention - what right does the government have to tell someone that because they were born after a certain year they have no right to ingest a substance? It's ludicrously invasive. The harmful effects are well known enough by this point.

I can't see this working at all. If kids can't get cigarettes legally then they'll find other ways to have a smoke. For example, paying older people to buy cigarettes for them, which probably happens right now (how else will under 18s get them? and there are many who do underaged smoking, just ask my brother who goes to a public school and sees kids smoking outside the gates). And of course there'll be an increased black market, which means the government will get less tax from cigarette purchases, so less money for the NHS to spend on treating people with smoking related problems.

 

What needs to happen is to educate young people about the dangers and try to reduce peer pressure to do smoking. I realise that this is already being tried, and of course it will be impossible to persuade everyone, but it's better than trying to totally ban it. I would still ban smoking in public places and in cars with children.

Cigarettes are different to other drugs where bans have been attempted and failed. Cannabis has obvious effects which are seen as desirable, as does alcohol. Who on Earth would start smoking if it took that much effort to get hold of a packet?

 

Despite that, I'm not sure it'd work. I'd love it to, but I can't see it.

Yeah it would probably not actually WORK, but the idea is one I would definitely be on board with.

I wouldn't oppose this but it is hugely impractical. It'd end up like weed, we'd have cigarette dealers and smoking would become more "cool" due to the fact it'd be like a dark area of rebellion to explore and probe. I don't smoke and never will, but I agree with Tyron that it's ridiculously controlling to completely ban a substance. As much as cigarettes have proven negative effects, everyone knows that and it's there choice if they want to risk that. Smoking should be banned in public places, around children etc. but it's just too controlling imo to ban it totally.

Cigarettes are different to other drugs where bans have been attempted and failed. Cannabis has obvious effects which are seen as desirable, as does alcohol. Who on Earth would start smoking if it took that much effort to get hold of a packet?

 

Despite that, I'm not sure it'd work. I'd love it to, but I can't see it.

 

Do we not still have the rebellious young lot who will try anything if it's not allowed? Plus they could easily be the same ones who have older relatives still smoking and might give them a go while they're young and easily addicted.

 

This would be one hell of a policy, to stamp this awful practice out for good but yeah, I cannot see how it'd be implemented and enforced, never mind the arbitrary cut off. If people are wanting to destroy their bodies, we should let them have the right, as long as they don't destroy others with them.

Sounds like an ageist policy to me. While ageism is largely directed towards the older, it's singling out an age group, and would be presumably illegal.

 

Very unrealistic. If you want to discourage it, target reasons for young people NOT to take it up - expensive, have a holiday instead, smell and taste like an ash tray (not attractive), will give you as miserable lifestyle when you get older (and you could otherwise still be fit), your kids might have to watch you slowly die at a young age and be orphaned. My (smoking) parents are in worse health than my (non-smoking) grandparents were at their age, and it impacts now on my (non-smoking) life in a big way.

 

And of course, hit the manufacturers where it hurts. In the wallet.

It's a dreadful idea. Prohibition hasn't exactly WORKED OUT FAB for anything else. Not to mention - what right does the government have to tell someone that because they were born after a certain year they have no right to ingest a substance? It's ludicrously invasive. The harmful effects are well known enough by this point.

 

It would be no different to prohibited drugs. The "freedom" excuse is just silly. When a product is dangerous and is known for killing people, you can ban it.

 

The "2000 and over" rule is smart, because you realistically can't ban cigarettes for people who are ALREADY smoking, because it is very hard for those people to stop and it's kind of "vital" to some of them (stress reasons, etc.), so it would be stupid to ban it completely. But I'm all for the idea of banning it for people who haven't tried it, or at least haven't developped an addiction yet. A generation free of smoking? Yay.

 

And I don't think people would smoke illegally like they do take drugs illegally. Smoking is most of the time a public affair, if you have to hide to do it, it won't appeal half as much to young people. It's not like other drugs who have second effects that can be "enjoyable". There will be no point for them to smoke behind close doors. :lol:

Edited June 26, 201411 yr by Hayzayy

Sounds like an ageist policy to me. While ageism is largely directed towards the older, it's singling out an age group, and would be presumably illegal.

 

It's not ageism. As I said, it's about being realistic: a ban would be too harsh for those who are already smoking (addiction is hard to fight and it takes more than a ban to end it), but a ban can prevent young people to fall into smoking. They have the temptation but not the addiction. So targeting people who are 14yo and under at the moment is about being fair/efficient to everyone.

 

If you want to discourage it, target reasons for young people NOT to take it up - expensive, have a holiday instead, smell and taste like an ash tray (not attractive), will give you as miserable lifestyle when you get older (and you could otherwise still be fit), your kids might have to watch you slowly die at a young age and be orphaned.

 

As if any of those wole discourage young people. Don't you think they already know all of that?

 

I wouldn't oppose this but it is hugely impractical. It'd end up like weed, we'd have cigarette dealers and smoking would become more "cool" due to the fact it'd be like a dark area of rebellion to explore and probe.

 

As pointed out by others, smoking has no "enjoyable" effects like weed or most drugs. So much effort for something that doesn't get you high? It will sound boring to the kids.

And yes it might be seen as "cool" for kids, but if they have to avoid public spaces and hide to smoke, it will be useless to be "cool".

Edited June 26, 201411 yr by Hayzayy

It would be no different to prohibited drugs. The "freedom" excuse is just silly. When a product is dangerous and is known for killing people, you can ban it.

 

The "2000 and over" rule is smart, because you realistically can't ban cigarettes for people who are ALREADY smoking, because it is very hard for those people to stop and it's kind of "vital" to some of them (stress reasons, etc.), so it would be stupid to ban it completely. But I'm all for the idea of banning it for people who haven't tried it, or at least haven't developped an addiction yet. A generation free of smoking? Yay.

 

And I don't think people would smoke illegally like they do take drugs illegally. Smoking is most of the time a public affair, if you have to hide to do it, it won't appeal half as much to young people. It's not like other drugs who have second effects that can be "enjoyable". There will be no point for them to smoke behind close doors. :lol:

It very much IS different to prohibited drugs - we don't say 'right, anyone born after 1995 isn't allowed to take ecstasy, but anyone born before 1995 can go nuts'. And it's not like a ban has stopped smoking under 18 either, despite them not being allowed to do it in public.

 

Just because it's dangerous doesn't give a government the moral right to ban it any more than it does for other drugs, and it's ludicrously utopian to think smoking would stop with a ban just because it isn't as potent as other drugs (hello? you need tobacco half the time for marijuana anyway) - at worst you end up with the unintended consequence that if someone really wants to be cool they go for a harder drug, because hey, they're both illegal anyway.

 

With drugs like, say, heroin, which are so dangerously addictive that it is practically impossible for anyone to eve lose the addiction, there is a case for a ban - but that's a very rare exception. Anything else and it is perverse. The 'government knows best for you' mantra has wreaked absurd damage in the past in social policy, and current smoking policy becomes unjust if it goes any further.

It's not ageism. As I said, it's about being realistic: a ban would be too harsh for those who are already smoking (addiction is hard to fight and it takes more than a ban to end it), but a ban can prevent young people to fall into smoking. They have the temptation but not the addiction. So targeting people who are 14yo and under at the moment is about being fair/efficient to everyone.

As if any of those wole discourage young people. Don't you think they already know all of that?

 

I'm not disputing the desirability of preventing smoking I'm disputing that under a technicality of law it's ageism, and ageism is illegal. You have to prove you're old enough to buy cigarettes already, but once an adult I don't see how any government can possibly differentiate between someone who's say 30 and able to decide for themselves (but be illegal) while it's still legal for someone who's 31. The ageism law is there to prevent discrimination in jobs and so on, I find it hard to believe that the tobacco companies wouldn't successfully challenge any attempt to bring this proposal in under it.

 

Knowing something vague that might happen to you when you're old is one thing, 15-year-olds have never worried about being 55, everyone over 30 is old to them. Knowing that you might die in 5 or 10 years from it (there's lots of cancer about) or get passed over by Mr or Miss Right cos you stink of fags all the time, is perhaps something that schools need to address. Not everyone will listen, but every little effort helps - and people CAN give up later in life with a bit of enouragement anyway...it's worth trying.