Sunkist
Senior Member
Yup! I know somebody famous way back said something similar- A. Lincoln, M. Twain, can't place who it was.
UK bans sale of cigarettes to future generations.
- Thread starter Aunt Bea
- Start date
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Yes, people will find a way around it. But does that mean that everyone who might smoke would? No. There are always people who want to circumvent the law for personal gain, but that doesn't negate common sense laws and define national health policy.
As for becoming a Communist country, I think that's blowing it out of proportion. Our governments pass all kinds of legislation, that's part of their job. We all live with restrictions, it's just that we accept them as common sense. I think such claims are simply scare tactics.
As for your final line - again, it's an exaggeration. But yes, I am happy there is a body (our governments) that oversee's policy and enacts laws that support them. Again, we live with rules that control how we live every day. When it comes to smoking, the change in law isn't being enacted "because they can", it has solid evidence to back up the simple truth that smoking tobacco is a poor choice, both for individuals, our services, and organizations. We're on the road to a total ban for all, and that isn't going to change.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
Lots of things are addictive. Lots of things aren't the cause of 5.8m deaths every year worldwide. Lots of things don't cost the NHS £2.5bn every year.
And honestly, what's good about smoking? It's not like it's offering anything back other than tax revenue. Health and life is far more important than money. IMO
Last edited:
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
I agree with you. And nobody's nose better be on my personal property (patio) except my own, unless they're invited here - and in that case, during their stay, I don't smoke.
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
Re the OP: Good!
As a former smoker, I quit nearly fifty years ago, I can say honestly that smoking was an addiction I genuinely enjoyed. I loved that first cigarette in the morning, the ones I lit while driving, and of course the ones shared over a drink or two. At the time it felt deeply satisfying.
But eventually reality caught up with me. I began noticing shortness of breath. More and more places were banning smoking. And I understood that if I kept going, this “lifelong habit” would come with lifelong consequences. So I quit. Cold turkey. It was three miserable weeks, and then slowly, very slowly, the craving faded. It never disappeared entirely, but it loosened its grip.
At the same time, I have a lingering concern about the steady expansion of government authority into personal behavior. Some regulations seem broadly sensible, speed limits, for example, have an obvious public safety rationale. Others feel more debatable, such as mandatory seat belts, motorcycle helmet laws, (I never needed laws for this anyway, I always wore a helmet when I had a motorcycle and a seat belt in my car, long before either became mandatory.) or sweeping smoking bans. The pattern that worries me is the gradual normalization of government deciding how individuals should conduct themselves in private matters. Over decades, the boundaries shift, often subtly, and people become accustomed to deeper and more intrusive forms of control over personal choices.
Trish
SF VIP OAP
When I started working, people smoked everywhere - in the workplace, on trains and buses, in restaurants, cinemas, supermarkets ... parents with children, a baby in one hand and a cigarette in the other. It was normal.
When the 2007 smoking in public places ban came into force, smokers were furious. Gradually though, it became normal.
These days, it would be unthinkable for someone to smoke in the workplace or any indoors public space. I worked with people who, although initially outraged at not being allowed to smoke at work, later said that it actually helped them to quit.
From Cancer Research UK (the most recent statistics I could find online):
Over-legislation is certainly not something I would welcome but, sometimes there might actually be a ban which makes sense and, to me, the smoking ban does make sense. The ban due to come in next January, is not aimed at existing adult smokers, it is aimed at young people, those born on or after 1 January 2009 who, hopefully, will have no interest in smoking.
When the 2007 smoking in public places ban came into force, smokers were furious. Gradually though, it became normal.
These days, it would be unthinkable for someone to smoke in the workplace or any indoors public space. I worked with people who, although initially outraged at not being allowed to smoke at work, later said that it actually helped them to quit.
From Cancer Research UK (the most recent statistics I could find online):
Smoking rates in the UK have fallen significantly since the introduction of smoke-free laws in 2007, dropping from approximately 25% of adults (roughly 10 million+ people) in 2007 to around 10.6%–11.9% of adults (approximately 5.3 to 6.4 million people) as of the latest data in 2024–2025. This represents a reduction of nearly 2 million smokers within the first decade after the ban, with the decline continuing to the present day.
Over-legislation is certainly not something I would welcome but, sometimes there might actually be a ban which makes sense and, to me, the smoking ban does make sense. The ban due to come in next January, is not aimed at existing adult smokers, it is aimed at young people, those born on or after 1 January 2009 who, hopefully, will have no interest in smoking.
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
Then tobacco products will still be available in stores for purchase by existing adult smokers born before January 1, 2009?
Edited: Never mind, I found confirmation of a yes to my question on AI. I should have checked there first. Thanks.
Last edited:
Trish
SF VIP OAP
Existing smokers (born before 1 January 2009), will still be able to legally buy and smoke cigarettes and tobacco products. The proposed law is not to criminalize smoking, possession or use of tobacco by today's adults.
There will be increased funding to help current smokers who wish to quit but, it will remain their choice whether to do so, or not.
As I understand it, there will be a gradual increase, beginning 2027, when the legal age for buying tobacco (currently 18) will raise by 1 year every year, so those born after the cut-off date will never reach legal age. It's a generational ban designed to stop the next generation (and thereafter) from starting to smoke in the first place, not removing the right for today's adults.
I hope that, for younger generations, not smoking will become the norm, just like not smoking in indoor public places became the norm for our generation. One day, generations to come may look back and smoking will be something people did in the old days.
Last edited:
I think it's a great plan. I think America should copy it.
I wish smoking had been against the law for my age group when I began smoking. We were just starting to know how dangerous it was, but even with the most dire health warnings I probably would have smoked, wrongly believing that when I got old (say 30) I would quit. Young people don't really believe they'll ever be old and they have no idea of how hard it would be to quit.
I smoked for 25 years and that entire time I tried to quit almost every weekend. When I finally quit I was truly miserable, depressed and crying for a year and now, 30 years later, I'm still not as happy as I used to be. Smoking can permanently change your brain.
I wish smoking had been against the law for my age group when I began smoking. We were just starting to know how dangerous it was, but even with the most dire health warnings I probably would have smoked, wrongly believing that when I got old (say 30) I would quit. Young people don't really believe they'll ever be old and they have no idea of how hard it would be to quit.
I smoked for 25 years and that entire time I tried to quit almost every weekend. When I finally quit I was truly miserable, depressed and crying for a year and now, 30 years later, I'm still not as happy as I used to be. Smoking can permanently change your brain.
RambleTamble
Senior Member
- Location
- U.S.
I just took my dog for a walk to the park. We stopped at a bench up on a hill with a nice view overlooking the park. I look down and there's a frickin' cigarette butt.
That's my problem with smokers... too many of them are inconsiderate.
That's my problem with smokers... too many of them are inconsiderate.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
While I think we should all be vigilant, in this case I don't worry about government control at all. The law makes perfect sense to me, and I accept it might feel draconian for those already addicted to tobacco. But a ban, such as it is, affects more than smokers. It protects non-smokers. The most obvious example is that it is illegal in the UK to smoke in a vehicle if anyone under the age of 18 is inside. This, clearly, is to protect children.
I grew up in a family of smokers. Both parents smoked, both siblings smoked. It was a time when smoking was normal. Back then, being a non-smoker in social circles made you an outlier, and outsider even. My parents used to smoke while we were in the car, long or short journeys. As a child, I simply accepted it. Now I can appreciate it's a bad idea. Then consider restaurants, public transport, long haul flights, doctor's waiting rooms, hospitals, trips to the mall..... it goes on and on. It's strange to think about now, but there was a time when I remember there being smoke everywhere.
Governments are not isolated entities. They represent the people. They don't get to do whatever they want. If we have a belief in our process of democracies, then I don't really see an issue. The thing is, sometimes governments - representing all - might do something that we as individuals don't like. I think this gets forgotten, and a selfish-gene kicks in.
I sincerely believe that if we had a society where we had no laws in place, it'd be a hell on earth. I think people ignore the fact that we live in a society, that others have the right to avoid smoking, that the greater good is served by people making tough decisions that may alienate some. When it comes to smoking, I can't think of a good reason we should continue to allow it everywhere we go. As a non-smoker, smoking was unavoidable, taking the choice out of my hands. Is that really better than the laws we have today?>
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
I use certain supplements (one being Folate) but I take no supplements indiscriminately. My doctor has approved the ones I use, based on my health needs, and he monitors my blood work every 6 months.
Nevertheless, the FDA warns that dietary supplements can be harmful, particularlywith indiscriminate use, and potentially have dangerous interactionswith medications.
Some supplements (specifically for weight loss, sexual enhancement, and bodybuilding) have been found to do far more harm than good.
Over 20,000 emergency room visits in the U.S. annually are attributed to adverse side effects from dietary supplements, particularly those for weight loss or energy.
Even so, over half of U.S. adults (roughly 57.6%) take dietary supplements, and many continue to use them despite FDA warnings.
Applying some of the logic I've been reading, maybe supplements should be banned. Maybe they're already working on it.*
*05/03/26 - Edited to add this: See post 167
Nevertheless, the FDA warns that dietary supplements can be harmful, particularlywith indiscriminate use, and potentially have dangerous interactionswith medications.
Some supplements (specifically for weight loss, sexual enhancement, and bodybuilding) have been found to do far more harm than good.
Over 20,000 emergency room visits in the U.S. annually are attributed to adverse side effects from dietary supplements, particularly those for weight loss or energy.
Even so, over half of U.S. adults (roughly 57.6%) take dietary supplements, and many continue to use them despite FDA warnings.
Applying some of the logic I've been reading, maybe supplements should be banned. Maybe they're already working on it.*
*05/03/26 - Edited to add this: See post 167
Last edited:
The thing about supplements and also alcohol, mentioned before, - is that they are not automatically harmful in any quantity
so nobody is suggesting banning them altogether.
Other things like, say, heroin, are banned altogether - there is no benificial or even neutral no-harm amount
Cigarettes are in same category - but because so many people are already addicted, just banning them would not be realistic or possible or fair.
so UK is taking this incremental approach - bit like the way people under 18 cannot buy alcohol - but next level up.
so nobody is suggesting banning them altogether.
Other things like, say, heroin, are banned altogether - there is no benificial or even neutral no-harm amount
Cigarettes are in same category - but because so many people are already addicted, just banning them would not be realistic or possible or fair.
so UK is taking this incremental approach - bit like the way people under 18 cannot buy alcohol - but next level up.
I won’t argue that smoking is the strongest example of government overreach into personal behavior. Still, the broader pattern feels hard to ignore, especially with the recent pressure on First Amendment. People are losing jobs over jokes, and in some cases even facing charges for repeating well known phrases online. That kind of reaction makes a lot of people uneasy about where the boundaries are shifting.
As for the second point you raised, it increasingly feels as though the government’s priorities are drifting away from the concerns of ordinary people. Just to pick a few examples: I don’t remember anyone clamoring to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” Meanwhile, we’re carrying a $40 trillion national debt, yet the East Wing was torn down to make room for a $400 million ballroom, the Kennedy center was renamed, and it looks like were getting an Arch in Washington. Add in another conflict in the Middle East, or talk of acquiring Greenland, Cuba, or Venezuela, and it becomes harder to believe these ideas are coming from the public’s wish list.
I could go on, but the overall impression is that the government and the people are no longer reading from the same page, and in some cases, not even the same book.
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
And you know this?
Senator Dick Durbin reintroduced the "Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2026" (S. 3677) in January 2026, requirng manufacturers to register all products, ingredients, and labels with the FDA. Opponents argue it acts as a "Trojan Horse" to eventually allow the FDA to target and remove products such as dietary supplements.
According to AI:
Obesity costs the U.S. healthcare system nearly $173 billion annually, with additional economic impacts exceeding $1.4 trillion, including medical care, lost productivity, and other related expenses.
Cigarette smoking costs the United States over $600 billion annually, which includes healthcare spending, lost productivity, and premature deaths related to smoking.
Will the causes of obesity be banned? If you are fat (call it what it is), you should not be allowed to buy/make/consume cookies, cake, ice cream, pizza, pastas, sodas, alcohol, just for a start. Limit how much of anything you can purchase. No more scooters provided in markets. No special parking permits since walking is good for you.
My mother used to say, "There is nothing worse than a reformed sinner." That is true, IMO. I was fat most of my adult life. Lost over 70 lbs and have kept if off for 18 years. How? NO sweets, NO alcohol, NO pastas or rice. And I do mean NONE! Although last month I did have some ice cream and now I am up two pounds so done with that.
Don't even get me started on alcohol!
When I was still working, my fat supervisor brought a VIP to visit our ICU. I was just stepping out for my break (yes, smoke break outside), and we walked to the elevators together. As we stepped onto the elevator, she said, "When are you going to stop smoking, such a nasty habit." With the VIP standing there with us. I replied, "When are you going to lose weight?" End of that conversation. Later, I received an email from her stating how embarrassed she was from my comment. I emailed her back about her comment. End of those remarks thereafter.
Where does government control end? Because if it's okay to control smoking, then it should also be okay to control food intake.
Edited to add: And energy usage, internet, medical care, what music you listen to, which programs on TV you watch. Where you live (15 minute cities come to mind).
Obesity costs the U.S. healthcare system nearly $173 billion annually, with additional economic impacts exceeding $1.4 trillion, including medical care, lost productivity, and other related expenses.
Cigarette smoking costs the United States over $600 billion annually, which includes healthcare spending, lost productivity, and premature deaths related to smoking.
Will the causes of obesity be banned? If you are fat (call it what it is), you should not be allowed to buy/make/consume cookies, cake, ice cream, pizza, pastas, sodas, alcohol, just for a start. Limit how much of anything you can purchase. No more scooters provided in markets. No special parking permits since walking is good for you.
My mother used to say, "There is nothing worse than a reformed sinner." That is true, IMO. I was fat most of my adult life. Lost over 70 lbs and have kept if off for 18 years. How? NO sweets, NO alcohol, NO pastas or rice. And I do mean NONE! Although last month I did have some ice cream and now I am up two pounds so done with that.
Don't even get me started on alcohol!
When I was still working, my fat supervisor brought a VIP to visit our ICU. I was just stepping out for my break (yes, smoke break outside), and we walked to the elevators together. As we stepped onto the elevator, she said, "When are you going to stop smoking, such a nasty habit." With the VIP standing there with us. I replied, "When are you going to lose weight?" End of that conversation. Later, I received an email from her stating how embarrassed she was from my comment. I emailed her back about her comment. End of those remarks thereafter.
Where does government control end? Because if it's okay to control smoking, then it should also be okay to control food intake.
Edited to add: And energy usage, internet, medical care, what music you listen to, which programs on TV you watch. Where you live (15 minute cities come to mind).
Last edited:
Sunkist
Senior Member
Good for you, for speaking up ^ !!!!!
Yes, I heard that "nasty habit," stuff all the time I smoked and whenever anyone said it to me I was always tempted to counter it with a mention of one their nasty habits, usually something they were unaware of. I also got tired of hearing how much smoking cost the government and the minute I quit smoking and lost my 110lb figure it was all about how much obesity cost the government.
They never ever look at how much money the government saves in Social Security when we smokers/overeaters die early.
Still people need food and many people eat sweets all their life with no health effects. Smoking is different because, unlike food it could be completely eliminated from our society and no one would be hurt.
Far from benefitting the wealthy 1%, it will cause a huge evil company to fail. Which is probably why America won't ever consider it.
They never ever look at how much money the government saves in Social Security when we smokers/overeaters die early.
Still people need food and many people eat sweets all their life with no health effects. Smoking is different because, unlike food it could be completely eliminated from our society and no one would be hurt.
I agree with everything you've said here, Rich, but I don't think this ban on sellling cigarettes to the newest generation fits with those other things. It's not anyone's vanity project, it won't benefit the oil industry, it's not a power play -- It's just something that would save millions of lives without harming a soul.
Far from benefitting the wealthy 1%, it will cause a huge evil company to fail. Which is probably why America won't ever consider it.
Been There
Well-known Member
- Location
- Florida
I think this is a good idea and effort to at least curtail some of the smoking. In the Marines during the mid 80’s, a survey was taken to find out what percentage of Marines were smokers. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but I believe 5000 surveys were sent out and around 4200 were returned with about 78% that were surveyed reported being a smoker.
Their goal was to get the number under 50%, but I don’t remember all of the resources that were used to accomplish this task, however, it seems to me that the President’s wife, Nancy Reagan, was leading the charge. I’m not sure if any other branches of the military participated in this program or not. I also remember that smoking had been suspended in basic training, but I don’t remember if the suspension was lifted later or not.
I wish I had more information, but that was years ago and I wasn’t involved in the program.
Their goal was to get the number under 50%, but I don’t remember all of the resources that were used to accomplish this task, however, it seems to me that the President’s wife, Nancy Reagan, was leading the charge. I’m not sure if any other branches of the military participated in this program or not. I also remember that smoking had been suspended in basic training, but I don’t remember if the suspension was lifted later or not.
I wish I had more information, but that was years ago and I wasn’t involved in the program.
jimintoronto
Well-known Member
I did a google search for "Are US military members allowed to smoke tobacco on their base "? here is the link I found.
Smoking in the United States military - Wikipedia
The rates of smoking in the US military is MUCH higher than in the civilian population of the USA. Military regulations do NOT allow smoking INSIDE any US military buildings. JIMB>
RambleTamble
Senior Member
- Location
- U.S.
...
Been There
Well-known Member
- Location
- Florida
There is No Smoking in any government building or office in the U.S. I remember when smoking was suspended in boot camp. The men that had just recently enlisted had no idea, until they got to the island. Some of our smokers had withdrawal symptoms.
That's a pretty cruel, cold turkey method at a time when the young troops are already going through a really rough time.
When I quit smoking, my husband was still active duty and I was using the military pharmacy, where every single time I went in with my RX for nicotine patches, I would have to hear whining about how costly they were for the poor military. I would say, surely they aren't as expensive as a patient with lung cancer, but they didn't see it that way. The pharmacy budget being separate from the surgery budget.
I don't know what it costs now, but at that time, a carton of 10 packs of their cheapest cigarettes cost $5.00. It was as if they wanted us to smoke.
I just checked. These days a carton of Marlboros on base costs between $60 and $70. Downtown as they say is between $57 and $102 depending on what state you're in.
Last edited: