True, but I doubt the quality pipe tobacco will survive this legislation.
UK Tobacco Ban On The Way
- Thread starter beerandbaccy
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
I think Gawith will continue to sell tobacco in the UK under these new restrictions. If Gawith only sold to the UK market then I could see there being a problem, but they sell worldwide. I believe they'll concentrate on the international market more but still sell what they can in the UK. That's if any of this happens. New Zealand are all ready repealing a similar law. It's literally a clusterfuck waiting to happen.
20 years fom now, outside a supermarket:
"excuse me mate, are you an old age pensioner? You are? Oh, that's great. The reason I ask is because I'm only 37 years old and I want to buy some cigarettes, but they won't sell them to me because i'm not 38. Could you do me a massive favour and go in and buy me a pack of Marlboro? They cost £2067, here's the money. Cheers mate
"
This. Exactly this. Everybody’s seen the wizard of Oz right?
Actually, I haven't. Just read a synopsis somewhere. Maybe I should watch the actual thing.
“pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!”. I.e. this shambolic “ban” will only enrich the criminal element and serve no real purpose aside from political brownie points.
See also the “fireworks ban” in Hawaii. The YouTube video for 4th of July will bring tears to your eyes.
Actually, enriching the criminal element is one of the primary political purposes behind many policies...as well as cultivating the criminal element. The "system" thrives on crime, chaos, conflict and crises...and is itself run by an elite, organized criminal element.
Last edited:
Well and also get credit for the natural decrease in smoking that is happening now. You know mainly because despite the evidence people are kind of intelligent and can weigh risk and reward all by themselves. And for many people the damage caused by cigs outweighs the rewards, but hey pass a law and when people look at the timeline your law looks like it had an effect.
I keep forgetting the term for intentionally passing a law to take credit for the natural ebbs and flow of trends. One example is passing very strict laws about crimes that just got past their peak.
No problem there--we can just redefine what constitutes "quality." It's a little like redefining what constitutes "a female," with the notable absence of the irresistible urge to light oneself on fire when the social media debates are in full throttle.
Well, of course it is. Can't have any freelance competition from us lowly commoners!
Now I get what they say about you!!! You're too kind.
I think you mean obnoxious, but you can blame auto-correct for that and I won't question it.
See how
I like certain blends very much, but I do have various baccies around the flat. All proper pipe baccy. But if it gets difficult I have a jar of cigar buts. I think I have 2 years of smokes left.
see even the computers know it. That's why you'll be one of the few that skynet leaves alone.
It's an absolute nonsense. Politicians of yore like Harold Wilson and Anthony Wedgewood-Benn will be turning in their graves. Rubbish, boo, get off, bloody interfering MPs.
I find it odd that in a political landscape where we are moving towards legalisation of cannabis, we are at the same time moving towards a ban on tobacco. It's absurd. But smokers have always been a docile bunch. Oh, they might talk big when there's talk of a new restrictive law on the horizon, but when it is finally implemented they've always complied without protest.
Tobacco is the poison that governments actually can legislate against without much backlash. Alcohol is the real menace, but no one wants a repeat of the Prohibition era. Moreover, the number of non-drinkers are considerably fewer than the number of non-smokers - meaning legislators see the value of alcohol as social lubricant, as well as for relaxation. The few teetotallers out there can be safely ignored.
Tobacco, on the other hand, is different. There is a significant amount of non-smokers in society, and many who do smoke are trying to quit. And to a non-smoker, the same arguments of relaxation and social lubrication simply won't stick. "I don't need it - why should you?" I know that mindset very well, because I was a teetotaller until my late 20s, abstaining from tobacco and alcohol. Only once I opened up to the pleasures of alcohol did I really see how it could have value. I still drink with moderation, have never been drunk, and I treat it like most pipe smokers treat their pipe smoking - a relaxing hobby. But non-smokers tend to see all smokers as addicts. Of course, non-drinkers, including myself when I was one, tend to see all drinkers as addicts in the same measure - but that is a minority opinion that is summarily dismissed by most people for how preposterous it is.
If the government was serious about its efforts to "healthify" society, the main thing they should be concerned with ought to be alcohol. Alcohol kills, both directly and indirectly - so many deaths and crippling injuries, in both traffic and social situations, could have been avoided if alcohol was not part of the equation. But that is hardly addressed by legislation. There are no images of cirrhosis or horrible car crashes on bottles of beer, wine or whiskey. There is no neutral packaging, no talk of banning flavours, etc. But smokers can be targeted, because they are all addicts and should be grateful for being helped to kick the habit.
I am conflicted as to the possible ways of saving the tobacco industry - and when you read that sentence, you can see where part of the problem lies. "Saving the tobacco industry? They are evil!" There's no similar association to "the alcohol industry", because that's not considered a monolith. Be that as it may, pipe smoking has been granted a pass so far because that's only a minority of smokers, and typically do not appeal to young smokers. So on the one hand, I would like for pipe smoking to remain relatively obscure, and maybe they won't notice us. On the other hand, silent minorities are the easiest to oppress, and the writing is on the wall, even for us. So perhaps promotion is the only thing that can save us.
Tobacco is the poison that governments actually can legislate against without much backlash. Alcohol is the real menace, but no one wants a repeat of the Prohibition era. Moreover, the number of non-drinkers are considerably fewer than the number of non-smokers - meaning legislators see the value of alcohol as social lubricant, as well as for relaxation. The few teetotallers out there can be safely ignored.
Tobacco, on the other hand, is different. There is a significant amount of non-smokers in society, and many who do smoke are trying to quit. And to a non-smoker, the same arguments of relaxation and social lubrication simply won't stick. "I don't need it - why should you?" I know that mindset very well, because I was a teetotaller until my late 20s, abstaining from tobacco and alcohol. Only once I opened up to the pleasures of alcohol did I really see how it could have value. I still drink with moderation, have never been drunk, and I treat it like most pipe smokers treat their pipe smoking - a relaxing hobby. But non-smokers tend to see all smokers as addicts. Of course, non-drinkers, including myself when I was one, tend to see all drinkers as addicts in the same measure - but that is a minority opinion that is summarily dismissed by most people for how preposterous it is.
If the government was serious about its efforts to "healthify" society, the main thing they should be concerned with ought to be alcohol. Alcohol kills, both directly and indirectly - so many deaths and crippling injuries, in both traffic and social situations, could have been avoided if alcohol was not part of the equation. But that is hardly addressed by legislation. There are no images of cirrhosis or horrible car crashes on bottles of beer, wine or whiskey. There is no neutral packaging, no talk of banning flavours, etc. But smokers can be targeted, because they are all addicts and should be grateful for being helped to kick the habit.
I am conflicted as to the possible ways of saving the tobacco industry - and when you read that sentence, you can see where part of the problem lies. "Saving the tobacco industry? They are evil!" There's no similar association to "the alcohol industry", because that's not considered a monolith. Be that as it may, pipe smoking has been granted a pass so far because that's only a minority of smokers, and typically do not appeal to young smokers. So on the one hand, I would like for pipe smoking to remain relatively obscure, and maybe they won't notice us. On the other hand, silent minorities are the easiest to oppress, and the writing is on the wall, even for us. So perhaps promotion is the only thing that can save us.
Last edited:
Moderation in all things is healthy. I'm grateful that my new consultant in spinal injuries (a boy! Not sure he shaves yet!) has in his his assessment of me noted "smokes for recreation", which I find quite fair.
Alcohol has been a cultural thing, not so much now. It was common, pre-WWI, for manual workers to drink half a pint of beer in a pub on the way to work - in great part because of the nutritional content, it was breakfast. The generations who fought in WWI and WWII would drink beer at lunchtimes; life is too short not to, they'd learned. Times change, one funeral at a time.
Personally, I would prefer if government got out of people's faces; regulate the greedy and malicious, leave the rest of us alone.
Alcohol has been a cultural thing, not so much now. It was common, pre-WWI, for manual workers to drink half a pint of beer in a pub on the way to work - in great part because of the nutritional content, it was breakfast. The generations who fought in WWI and WWII would drink beer at lunchtimes; life is too short not to, they'd learned. Times change, one funeral at a time.
Personally, I would prefer if government got out of people's faces; regulate the greedy and malicious, leave the rest of us alone.
The governement will never get out of your face and regulate the greedy and malicious...who do you think runs for office most the time? Narcissistic psychopaths are not very good at self regulation.