Sinn Féin at war on smoking?
Friday, July 19, 2024 at 11:05 Two months ago the government in Ireland announced plans to raise the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 21.
It’s not as extreme as a generational ban (raising the age of sale by one year every year until no adult can legally purchase tobacco), but it’s still problematical.
One, young adults are still being discriminated against. Two, there will be similar unintended consequences including an increase in black market sales.
Despite that the policy has received very little scrutiny in Ireland and there has been even less media or public debate on the issue.
(I appeared on several TV and radio stations but I seemed to be the lone voice publicly opposing the measure.)
Anyway, on July 4 minister for health Stephen Donnolly introduced the second stage of the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill 2024 (aka the 'smoking 21 bill') with these words:
The purpose of this measure is not to further regulate tobacco products but to begin to eliminate them from our lives and the lives of our children. It is, to use the public health term, an "endgame measure", signalling the beginning of the end of tobacco in our country.
The big surprise however was not the policy but the fact that it was opposed by Sinn Féin. According to the Irish Examiner:
Sinn Féin will not be backing the Government’s bill to raise the smoking age to 21, the Dáil heard yesterday.
The proposed bill was called unreasonable and unenforceable by the party’s spokesperson for health, David Cullinane ...
“The idea that an 18-year-old can join the Defence Forces, buy a vape or buy alcohol, but cannot buy a cigarette is unreasonable, and probably more importantly unenforceable,” he said ...
He added that if the bill is passed it would push more trade into the “tobacco black market”.
Where have I heard those arguments before?!
Sadly, much as I would like to reach out to Sinn Féin to congratulate them on their stance, I'm not sure the party would welcome an approach from a UK-based smokers' rights group, so we are keeping our distance.
But here's the interesting thing.
In Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill – first minister and Sinn Féin vice president – has taken a completely different position, actively welcoming the UK government's plan to raise the age of sale of tobacco not just to 21 but by one year every year.
Curiously, I seem to be the only person who has noticed this because to the best of my knowledge no-one else has commented on it, but it does seem odd, and inconsistent for a party that wants a united Ireland.
To add to the confusion, Sinn Féin last week called for their MPs – who refuse to take their seats in Westminster – to be given speaking rights in the Dáil.
In the unlikely event that were to happen, would they oppose one another en bloc, like warring tribes, on this issue?
Meanwhile it's been said that the only reason the Irish Government isn't pushing for a UK-style ban on the sale of tobacco is because a ‘smokefree generation’ plan is precluded by EU law. Allegedly.
My guess is this will be addressed when the EU's next Tobacco Products Directive is introduced in 2027 (or thereabouts), but we'll just have to wait and see.
Back in Dublin parliamentarians are now enjoying a long summer recess and the Dáil won't resume until September 18, following which the smoking 21 bill will go before the Committee on Health which includes not only David Cullinane but also his Sinn Féin colleague Seán Crowe.
Although they are heavily outnumbered by TDs and senators whose parties support the policy, it will be interesting nevertheless to hear what they have to say.
Watch this space.
Reader Comments (2)
The republic also has a written constitution that may pose a problem as there is an equality before the law clause that could be problematic. And the only way to amend that would be a referendum and we have seen how spectacularly the government down south have lost referendums recently. In regards to EU law what happens if other countries Germany etc object? Will be interesting to see.
Responding to Matt's comment, the constitutional clause on equality before the law represents a principle and it has not been written on the constitution for it to be amended to suit the politicians of each time with their plans - it is them who should abide to the constitution instead of looking to amend it to adapt it to say what they want to do. The constitution does not exist to be amended every time those whom it restricts and limits cannot violate it and exert themselves. The constitutional document is a cornerstone and should guide our actions and when it obstructs them this shows that they are not the right ones.
The minimum smoking age might as well be raised to 21 without any loss of liberty for the people of a nation.
People aged from 18 to 21 years old usually find what they will do for a living after finishing school. They take up their aim in life, which cannot be to smoke and take advantage of that freedom or any other form of freedom, which encourages people to become criminals which happens when taking advantage of one's freedom.
Between 18 and 21 years of age young people decide whether to go to university or what else to do, if that would not be starting to smoke which had to wait until they become 21, then those who don't really need to smoke but could vape instead for example would not smoke. That is what the anti-smoking activists want to get out of their anti-smoking campaign. But what they actually do is different and much worse by promoting the generational smoking ban in England. With that they intend to eliminate smoking and extort the whole custom instead of effectively controlling the smoking rate by raising the age limit to 21 and balancing the minimisation of the smoking rate against the needs of society and its members which ultimately means the individual needs of each person.
Anti-smoking activists' objectives will have been fulfilled by raising the smoking age to 21 to control who smokes to what is necessary and avoid more people than needed to be smoking. They don't have to kill smoking completely with a generational tobacco ban like they are supporting and they are guilty of. What they are interested in is balancing the smoking rate according to the needs of society and its members against its minimisation. So they should raise the smoking age to 21 in the UK instead of pursuing the enforcement of a generational smoking ban. They should do that instead of being fanatic and wanting to eliminate smoking from the face of the Earth through extortion, because the other half of the map consists of America where smoking belongs.
If you get my point, raising the age limit to 21 would ensure that only those who needed to smoke would smoke, and the rest wouldn't. That is the solution of striking the correct balance for the fanaticism expressed against smoking by anti-smoking proponents and what they propose.