I responded to this when Clive Bates tweeted it.
I can see the theory behind it - because total banning is fraught with problems when it involves removing something that people have already got. If you want to ban tobacco, the only solution to this is to ban it for all potential users and naturally phase it out as existing users "reach the end of retirement" (LOL).
In practice, of course, a ban will not prevent people born after 2000 any more than a 16+ and later 18+ ban prevented under 16's/18's from obtaining tobacco and flouting the law. Most of us started smoking at an age when we weren't legally allowed to purchase it - the only way this proposal will differ is that, as time goes on, it will be increasingly harder for the 15 year olds to convince a shop worker that they are old enough (as the age limit reaches 30+) - but that's assuming the shopkeeper cares and that the individual doesn't have some other means of obtaining their tobacco, which will get a lot easier once they're adults (if I were a 30 year old married to a 35 year old and both smoked, but only my spouse could buy tobacco, he would just buy for the both of us).
I just imagine the ludicrous situation in the future when a shopkeeper has to ID an OAP to check they're really 81, not 80!!
