Gransnet forums

News & politics

Ban New Smokers

(15 Posts)
HollyDaze Tue 24-Jun-14 13:42:11

Delegates at the British Medical Association (BMA) annual conference voted in favour of a motion to prohibit smoking to anyone born after 2000.

Public health doctor Dr Tim Crocker-Buque said it was essential to protect the young as 80% of smokers took up the habit when they were teenagers and "almost all" had taken up the habit by the time they were in their early 20s.

He said introducing the legislation would help to "denormalise" smoking, adding: "It is time to play the tobacco end game."

Dr Stephen Watkins, a public health specialist and member of the BMA's council - its governing body - backed the idea, saying it made no sense to allow smoking and ban drugs such as heroin.

But Dr Yohanna Takwoingi, an ear, nose and throat specialist from the West Midlands, spoke out against the motion at the conference in Harrogate.

He said: "It is a headline grabbing initiative that would bring ridicule to the profession."

He added it would only encourage young people to take up smoking as it would become a "forbidden fruit".

I'm not sure how they would actually enforce this but it was more the comments from those reading the article that made me think:

The illegality of drugs doesn't stop people from taking them but does create a huge criminal underworld. I bet the organised crime gangs are rubbing their hands in glee at this idea. Plus smoking causes less damage to society than alcohol, which would surely be next on the list to ban

So doctors say this thing; I have this to say about them setting a health example: Anyone working for the NHS should have a BMI in the normal range or suffer a reduction in salary until they have slimmed down. How can all of the huge nurses be setting a good example for the children? It normalises being fat. The fat must go from the NHS!

Ha ha ha haaaa, so all that generation will be hit by a massive tax hike to make up for the short fall that smokers bring in. Genius, you couldnt make this up, these interfering busy bodies. Why dont they ban driving for everybody born after 2000 too, lates face it, polution from cars does infinately more damage!

Yeah, prohibition has worked so well across so many different drugs....I thought doctors where supposed to be intelligent. I understand the ideology of course, but ideology is far far away from reality. People have the right to make their choice, you have the right to make yours.No good comes from imposing your sensibilities upon those who have a different view....its called oppression.

And the most obvious one:

Given that the legal age for anyone to smoke is 18 in the UK, it is already banned for anyone born in the 21st century. How do they intend to enforce this? Video tag everybody as soon as they come of age? Given that the BMA is the trade organisation for doctors and medical students it frightens me to see such stupidity in print.

Who do you agree with on this?

Ana Tue 24-Jun-14 13:49:28

The legal age for smoking in the UK is actually 16.

I agree, though, that enforcing such a ban would be impossible.

janerowena Tue 24-Jun-14 13:57:05

If it had been April 1st...

Iam64 Wed 25-Jun-14 08:28:33

demonising smokers - irritates me.

obese health care professionals (usually nurses) irritate me

oh dear, better get a grip and cheer up grin

Kiora Wed 25-Jun-14 08:55:29

Iam grin your right to be irritated

Soutra Wed 25-Jun-14 09:17:33

I know smoking kills but so does excessive alcohol and few peiple beat up their wives or children because they were smoking or crashed their car killing others like drunk drivers. Demonising smoking doesn't seem even handed. And I am actually amused by signs in theatre warning that "There will be smoking"!! Actually DD tells me these are often e-cigarettes because of the fire hazard!

Agus Wed 25-Jun-14 09:34:41

I agree Iam and I am beginning to see more of this in the police force too.

GillT57 Wed 25-Jun-14 10:52:26

My DH was hectored and lectured about being pre-diabetic by a very fat practice nurse.

Agus Wed 25-Jun-14 11:08:17

This ban should please the MPs who use the Smoking Room at Westminster then, due to their DOB! Of course Westminster is exempt as it is classed as a place of 'residence'! One rule for them and, one rule for us!

janeainsworth Wed 25-Jun-14 11:31:20

<pedant alert>
I don't think it is illegal to smoke under the age of 16. It is just illegal to supply cigarettes to people under that age.

I don't think the police would be too thrilled if they had to patrol the bike sheds of all the schools in the country apprehending illicit smokers.

Ana Wed 25-Jun-14 11:56:18

And what about those born after 2000 who are already hooked - and we hear of cases all the time...

Iam64 Wed 25-Jun-14 12:38:39

Thin end of the wedge grin - it reminds me of the poem often quoted on here that begins - first they came for the……. smokers, then it'll be the obese/anorexic, and onwards and upwards until folks are demonised for any form of activity that could contribute to health problems. Will climbing, horse riding, cycling (especially on main roads), playing any form of sport etc etc be demonised.

I know I was a grump earlier, but I've been a long walk as a result of which I feel more cheerful. Well, all apart from my right foot, it's attendance tendons and the achilles tendon, all of which are inflamed, and have been for several months. So, the advice on the internet is the rest said foot. If I do nothing for a day, the foot feels a bit better, but the rest of me doesn't. confused

HollyDaze Wed 25-Jun-14 14:36:28

Iam64 - your post reminded me of the chap that was brought in to look into ecstacy usage and he ended up stating that people were more likely to die from a horse riding incident than from using ecstacy; he didn't last very long did he (not sure how true his comments were but I don't recall reading that he had a vested interest in ecstacy production).

I also recall 'them' wanting to stand outside McDonalds (and other fast food places) with scales to weight overweight people; I can't imagine why that one didn't take off grin

Iam64 Wed 25-Jun-14 18:54:16

Holly, I can vouch for horse riding being dangerous, though I never tried ecstasy. I know many younger folk who did, much to the anxiety of their parents. They're all now in their 30's, hard working, contented individuals, focussed on buying a home, having children - and keeping said children away from drugs grin

I had a very serous fall in my mid twenties, from a bad tempered horse who took a lot of pleasure in unseating his riders. Serves me right for thinking I could calm him down eh. But, there's a thought. I was in hospital for 5 days, endless X-rays etc, but their main worry was the concussion rather than the neck injury. I didn't get physio then (who knew it existed in 1974) but subsequently have had physio on the nhs for the residual problems in my neck. As we all know horse riding is dangerous, should we make folk who get chucked off, despite their best attempts to avoid this, pay for treatment.

I'm not defending those who indulge in excessive smoking, drinking, drug taking, and other health damaging practices. But, life is full of risks and dangers, its part of what makes us human to learn to negotiate our way through this. I don't support this idea, as I do wonder where it would lead us

HollyDaze Wed 25-Jun-14 21:09:01

I do agree with all you have said Iam64. I used to do Aikido and suffered quite a serious neck injury which required months of physio (and this was around 1980) - looking back, it was a risk I undertook but, to be honest, it never occurred to me that I'd end up beating myself up that bad lol

As you have said, once you start to hold one group accountable, where does it stop? Think of driving - the sheer number of accidents; will we all have to insure ourselves against accidents to cover the cost of medical treatment as we chose to drive?