Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36173645)

Is his point not that they are (within a reasonable margin of error) pretty much the same across the whole spectrum?

It doesn’t require anything more than someone who favours banning but not the other to consider why the same doesn’t apply and what the difference is. If your point would be that it’s not as addictive then fine. But I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss the comparison as whataboutery.

(For the declaration I don’t smoke but do enjoy the odd beer, rum or glass of wine)

---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------



I think there’s something in the fact very many people can enjoy drinking in moderation in a way that isn’t often found in smokers. Growing up I knew of far more adults who smoked 20 or 30 a day, those still alive now paying the price in terms of their health, than would sit and drink to excess daily or even weekly.

That’s not to say there aren’t people who do, or that their addictions haven’t caused the same or worse financial, social or health impacts.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36173647)

Not sure there are people who only smoke when they they drink, there’s those who smoke <= 10 a day, then you get to my level at about 20 a day and then you can move up the scale to 40/60 a day. Although I don’t know many in that last bracket


One thing this will most likely lead to is an increase in the production/consumption of counterfeit cigarettes and the lovingly known as ‘fag houses’

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36173654)

Someone said on the news smokers bad health costs more than the money cigarettes bring in.


I remember walking in to the Holiday camp bar the day before the ban i could see the wall on the other side.


the following day I could see the wall outside the window.


The trouble is some (not all) smokers think they have a god given right to smoke anywhere, once where I worked we had a fire alarm and the second they got out they stopped to light up, and stopped people evacuating.


The evacuation was due to a suspected gas leak, the company had a no smoking on site, especially during a drill.


they all got written warnings.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36173613)

You have to be 18 already, so anyone born in 2009 could not buy them until at least 2027 atm.

Also, its a ban on buying them, not smoking them (if someone else buys them for you).

I expect many will just turn to vaping as well, which doesnt seem that much better.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36214695)

Link
Not going to be a simple question of whether somebody is 18 years old or not, but when they became 18 years old.
Also some restrictions on vaping.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36214696)

It’s certainly more complicated to enforce than the usual ‘no under 18s’ restrictions, however any retailer that’s consistently following the ‘Challenge 25’ principle shouldn’t get caught out, initially at least.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36214696)

It’s certainly more complicated to enforce than the usual ‘no under 18s’ restrictions, however any retailer that’s consistently following the ‘Challenge 25’ principle shouldn’t get caught out, initially at least.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36214699)

Even with "Challenge 25", the check is to see if they're over 18, nothing more. An assumption of being over 18 can be made if they definitely look over 25.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36214712)

What's really frightening is back in the 60's. My then doctor told to smoke menthol cigarettes to help with my hayfever. I never did but still