Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics

Isn’t it daft to let a 50-year-old smoke but not someone aged 44?

UK - Transport - Coming & Going, traveling in London in 1976Smoking carriage, piccadily line underground. Smoking was allowed in certain carriages in trains until 9 July 1984. In the middle of 1987 smoking was banned for a six-month trial period in all parts of the Underground, and the ban was made permanent after the major King's Cross fire in November 1987. Coming and Going is a project commissioned by the Museum of London for photographer Barry Lewis in 1976 to document the transport system as it is used by passengers and commuters using public transp (Photo by In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images) Smoking on the underground
Smoking was allowed on the London Underground until 1987. Photograph: Barry Lewis/Corbis/Getty Images

I read Prof Chris Whitty’s article with interest (This new bill could wipe out smoking – the only losers would be those who profit from it, 16 April). I have the utmost respect for his medical expertise; I have none. I am a former smoker who started young. I do not oppose legislation to bring about behavioural change, in general. But the prospect in 30 years’ time of a 50-year-old having to buy cigarettes for a 44-year-old is a practical nonsense. Either ban smoking, or don’t – I can see no justification for the law in the future seeing a 50-year-old as competent to understand the risks of smoking and buy tobacco, but not a 44-year-old.

We know already from the war on drugs (among other things) that the end result of prohibition is a black market; this will be as true for cigarettes for younger generations as it is for recreational drugs now. How much police time and money will then be wasted trying to crack down on that market in the future?

As he is a doctor, I understand where Prof Whitty’s opinion stems from, and agree with the assessment that it will stop some young people from ever starting. What I fear is that eventually an unregulated black market selling cigarettes that are not subject to quality control and may have been adulterated will cause more deaths in the long run, both directly but also indirectly, as police time that could be better used is instead focused on tackling a problem of our own creation.
Torran Turner
Littleborough, Greater Manchester

• Your report says that some of the more libertarian members of the government such as Kemi Badenoch claim that restrictions on buying cigarettes are an infringement on personal freedom (Saving us from ourselves: how Britain is learning to accept the nanny state, 19 April).

Badenoch is part of a government that has just enacted the biggest assault on personal freedom in my lifetime by criminalising various forms of peaceful protest. Apparently you can now be charged with a public order offence for holding a placard or walking slowly along the public highway. The next step will be an arrest for looking at a policeman in a funny way.

Freedom of expression is a basic part of any human rights legislation. Freedom to smoke is not. But it’s interesting that Badenoch thinks it’s more important to defend the rights of smokers to try to force me to endure passive smoking than to stand up for my right to freedom of expression. It’s interesting what people who think they are libertarians are happy to defend and what they want to clamp down on. A future leader of the Conservative party? God help us all.
Dave Pollard
Leicester

• Simon Jenkins (19 April) says that the New Zealand smoking ban legislation was withdrawn due to unpopularity and a change of government. It was in fact vastly popular with the public (as it is in the UK), and repealing it was not in the National party’s election manifesto. The U-turn was brought about by pressure from lobby groups backed by the tobacco industry, and the insistence of the junior coalition partner New Zealand First.

He also plays down the ongoing impact of cigarettes in the UK. Although there has been a slow but steady decline since the 1970s, we recently heard how rates are rising among some groups. This ban would protect future generations from one of the leading causes of preventable death and illness. Concerns about authoritarianism and that spreading to other personal choices are scaremongering.
Richard Thorley
Exeter

• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.