- Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
- This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
- Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
- The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
- The bill will expand the UK’s indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children’s playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
- Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
- Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
- Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people’s homes
- Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
- Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
- People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program
Going to get down voted to hell and back for this I expect, but hey, different opinions generate discussion right?
This is good legislation for the environment, for non-smokers, for the NHS, and has zero negative impact on smokers. The ONLY parties I see really hurt by this are tobacco companies, since retailers make minimal margins on tobacco.
The constant use of the word freedom in the thread comments just seems odd to me. This isn’t a question of freedom, and the comments mostly seem to ignore the paradox of tolerance as it applies to antisocial activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance. Individual freedoms have limits and must end at the boundary of another persons personal space and freedoms. That’s why smoking is banned in confined public places.
Its all very well to say tax the shit out of it and fund the NHS, but that will feel pretty shit when your parent/partner/child has to wait for an operation because the queue is full of smokers who are entitled to that spot by having paid for it. Which also veers dangerously close to creating paid tracks within the public national health service.
I’ve had to breathe enough cancer sticks waiting at a bus stop because I could not leave because of heavy rain, that I don’t care if it works or not to make people stop smoking, as long as it works enough to make people stop smoking in places where other people may be around.
I can drink a beer in a place full of people without bothering anyone, but no one can smoke without making those surrounding them breathe it.
As long as it reduces the chances of an obnoxious asshole spreading their toxic fumes to the grandma who has to sit at the bus stop and can’t move away because it’s raining, I’m fine with it.Will there be a black market and other issues? Maybe. Not the best way to do it? Ok. Someone figure out a better way. In the meantime, ban it is.
Sometimes you have to go with the “this is why we can’t have nice things” method.
Just ban smoking in public places. I don’t want people blowing smoke at me when I’m walking down the street or when I’m siting outside drinking coffee. If they want to smoke in their apartment or their car it’s their business. It would be easier to fight people smoking in the street than check what age every smoker is.
in their apartment
No! This is a huge problem in itself unless they have their own house. The smoke gets into the hallways and into other apartments as well, and it’s fucking awful. Even just smoking on the balcony the smoke gets inside neighboring apartments, having lived through that. I have asthma and everyone smoking inside apartments deserves a kick to the shin
Shitty neighbors are a separate issues. It’s up to the landlords and residents to solve this.
The common solution around here has been the apartment complexes banning smoking not only inside but also on the premises outside completely, so it’s getting better these days
Plus affecting children and the family
Exactly this. On top of being liberticide and hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it’s extremely hard to enforce.
Ban smoking anywhere that is not your home, problem solved
Maybe, but if you have a drink, it doesn’t force me to also be having a drink just by being nearby.
The healthcare costs are collectively borne by the public, no matter where you smoke. And indirect damage for kids and others in the same household should also not be underestimated.
-
All healthcare costs are borne collectively. Being obese increases healthcare costs. Extreme sports increase healthcare costs. Alcohol increases costs. Why ban smoking for that reason but not the other?
-
So “save the children” is ok in that context? We don’t trust parents now and should be banning things that can hurt kids? Like porn, social media or sugar?
What the UK did is a step in the right direction. You can’t argue that this is only valid if they ban the other things you listed as well. You need to start somewhere. Norway for example went a different route and increased taxes on alcohol and sugar to reach a healthier population
I’m not saying it’s all or nothing. I’m saying that banning things that raise healthcare costs is silly. Lots of people do things that raise healthcare costs. I don’t think that smokers should be punished for raising healthcare costs while I’m allowed to practice high risk sports. It’s unfair.
What Norway did is completely different as it still leaves it up to people. You promote good habits, not criminalize bad ones.
Yeah I think the route of Norway makes more sense. Prohibition failed historically multiple times. I think education and factful discussions (pros/cons) without irrational condemning drugs would actually be a sustainable long term solution for addiction (because let’s face it, it’s mostly about unhealthy addiction).
Just legalise all kinds of substances without e.g. ads and other measures that effectively reduce the issue. And give proper education early (ideally from long term addicts, so that it’s believable and properly shows the issues).
We see with weed, opiates and currently growing cocaine where uncontrolled markets go and promote addiction…
I doubt that this will be much different with tobacco in a prohibited future…
-
Cigarette smokers are actually supporting pension plans because they die fast and cheap before they see benefits.
They don’t die cheap if they’re treated for cancer several years before the final breath. Billions are lost to society annually as a result. Cancer treatment is largely futile, yet it’s overly expensive. The revenue from tobacco tax is far from sufficient to cover that.
This seems like a much more reasonable, enforceable, and frankly more effective approach. It also seems more in line with respecting personal freedoms to do things even that harm yourself so long as no one else is being harmed.
I am a tankie - literally as far from a libertarian as you can get - and even I am struck by the seeming lack of concern over stripping away the freedoms of one demographic in particular. Honestly I’d prefer to see cigarettes banned outright than to say some people can buy them while others can’t. Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.
Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.
Exactly, how will they enforce it in like 10-20 years? Police will stop and check everyone who’s looking too young to smoke? Some young looking guy in his 30 will have to show his ID to cops all the time? Right now it’s working because shop owners enforce it, parents enforce it and you can generally spot kids when they are hanging out. Parents don’t usually buy cigarettes for their kids but what if a 30 year old will buy cigarettes for their friend or spouse that’s 29 and can’t legally smoke?
The law just makes it illegal to purchase, not illegal to consume.
Still dumb though.
I didn’t realise people actually self-identified as tankies. That’s really interesting. Thank you for broadening my conceptions.
Smoking IS banned in public places. Has been since 2006 in Scotland and 2008 across the whole of the UK.
Pretty sure it’s only banned in indoor public spaces. Outdoor locations like bus stops and the like seem to still be fair game.
Removed by mod
… public space…
Yes, public spaces too.
You understand what public means right?
So you want to regulate… what people… animals… do outside… in nature… our natural habitat… the area with the most air flow imaginable… and that’s still a problem… get over yourself
Yes, totally.
A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.
Smokers are taking away my freedom to breathe clean air
No, they aren’t.
I hate smoking. I hate the smell when assholes smoke near my house.
Those people aren’t all smokers.
You must have never walked around a busy street or a public transport station.
Fr. I’m about as antismoking as it gets, but roping it off as a privilege only allotted to the older generations is about the stupidest thing you could possibly due right now with the currently volatile state of youth culture in the UK. It’s just another drop in the bucket for future gen Z Reform voters.
Keep stirring the pot guys, I’m sure there will be absolutely no snowballed consequences lol
I wish this ban was in effect when my stupid cunt of an adolescent brain thought starting smoking would be a good idea.
And also this freedom to increase your chances of lung cancer for litterally no reason at all doesn’t only affect the smoker, but everybody in the general area of said smoker. What about their freedom to breathe clean air.
The world changes, handle it. Older generations took away younger generation’s freedom to have a perspective on any kind of affordable housing.
I don’t think taking away their freedom to make an objectively dumb and pointless choice for their health and finances moves the needle on the scale of problems we are facing.
Why is my freedom to build bombs in my basement being overridden?
Oh that’s right, because laws are ultimately created based on relative perceptions of risks and social acceptance of the populace (generally, in a democratic society, there are a lot of exceptions here).
Note for my FBI agent : I’m not building bombs in my basement, I’m using that as an example of why we have laws at all.
Well to be honest, there is an argument for letting you build bombs in your basement. A bullet is effectively a bomb. Plenty of people make their own bullets/shells. Should they be forced to buy those from a company?
There is nuance to just about everything.
Laws should be restricted to protecting people from other people, not from themselves.Sure there is an argument for letting me do anything, but when you keep persuing and reducing the argument, it eventually boils down to “Why do we even have laws at all?”
The answer to that question is “because we as a society decided to.” By their very nature, laws created by people are arbitrary and intangible, their only actual effect is derived from society’s willingness to actually enforce them.
If the laws were actually agreed upon by the people… but they aren’t. And most are really to protect businesses, not people.
But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all. Laws should protect people’s rights. Like the right to not get murdered. But that’s not what this is.
But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all.
Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.
Maybe you came in on a side thread. The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others. It’s still a super large list. But your right to snoke in you basement isn’t on it. Your right to murder is.
It has nothing to do with using it or not. Just who it impacts directly.People smoking in their basements present a fire hazard, major issue if you live with other people.
People smoking (at all) creates second-hand smoke, which harms the people that come into them, or their spaces (like say, a contractor, or first responders, utility technicians…)
People who smoke end up using more critical and limited medical resources because of their habits.
I’m not as daft as to say that smoking harms to the same degree as outright murder, but it’s equally stupid, if not more so, to say that smoking (even in your basement by yourself) harms no one else.
Also…
The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others.
Who decided what rights should be considered for laws?
I’ll give you a hint; it’s not some universal property of the universe, nor a divine command.
At some point in time, the society I live in established that murder is against the law, and that is the sole reason I’m not allowed to murder anyone. My “right” to murder was just as valid as my “right” to smoke in my basement until there was a law created that defined (or changed) those “rights”.
So, back to my still very relevant comment from earlier…
But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all.
Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.
Plenty of people make their own bullets/shells
For very, very small definitions of “plenty”.
Sure, in that example, plenty is small. But who decides how small a group has to be to be allowed to take their rights away when they have committed no crime.
If a law is passed making what they’re doing illegal and they continue to do it, then they are committing a crime.
You really wrote that right? So don’t like someones rights. Justify taking them away because you wrote a law to make what they were doing a crime. It wasn’t a crime until you decided it was okay to take their rights away. So they hadn’t committed a crime when you made the law.
“Rights” are just things that aren’t outlawed. Do you have a right to commit murder, and are upset that the government has outlawed it?
A bullet isn’t even remotely “effectively a bomb.”
But the things you use can also be made into a bomb just by putting them in a pipe instead. Where is the line? Who decides?
Lots of things are made from the same ingredients. That doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Sure but how do you plan to make a law that makes it illegal to make bombs in your basement?
That’s already a law in many places.
But you’ve never had that freedom. Do you really not see the difference between taking away freedom that people have had for thousands of years and a hypothetical that nobody has ever had?
People who were not permitted to buy tobacco and vape products are not losing a freedom they had either.
Regardless, laws are written and removed constantly throughout our lifetime. It’s not legal for me to park where I used to, it’s not legal for me to bring a big bottle of orange juice or a tube of toothpaste on a plane anymore. The fact that things can become illegal or legal is a necessary consequences of having laws that can be changed.
Also, you could legally make your own explosives right up until there was a law passed that made it illegal. There isn’t some universal property that says humans aren’t allowed to make explodey shit.
Yes, they literally are losing that freedom. Just because it may come later in life, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Just remember that laws are not inherently moral or ethical. What people do in their own time in their own space is their own business, as long as they’re not doing it in a way that puts other people in danger. This is purely about control and you’re just wolfing that boot down.
What people do in their own time in their own space is their own business, as long as they’re not doing it in a way that puts other people in danger.
Smoking does put other people in danger. So does driving, or skipping vaccines.
Just remember that laws are not inherently moral or ethical.
Yes… That’s kinda my whole point. The sole basis for a law is if people decide to enact it and then enforce it.
Just because it may come later in life, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You understand that if we change laws, then things that were previously legal will become illegal and vis versa? This avenue of argument ends in “Laws can never be created, removed, or changed.”
Their freedom to do something without any significant benefit costs a lot of money for healthcare. Money I pay as taxes.
This is a stupid decision. Prohibition has never worked. Instead there will be more illegal, unsafe and unregulated cigarettes that the newer generations will smoke which will be more harmful while at the same time losing tax revenues and an increase in policing costs.
A better solution will be just to tax the shit out of these products and fund healthcare with it.
Prohibition is never good, removing individual freedom is never good. I can see the point for some of these restrictions, to provide a safe basis for other people around (because we can’t ask people to simply be nice), but more than that… meh.
I will not be up in arms to defend smoking rights, but that’s probably not the way to do it.
Comments in here really trying to argue for big tobacco, just because they don’t like the word “ban”. Edgy contrarians.
A lot of what has been coming from the UK government has been shit, but this is just plain GOOD. There’s no reason anyone should be smoking. This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers. “Education” alone clearly hasn’t worked well enough.
This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers.
Well, a good thing drugs were banned a long time ago, so that no-one who was born after the 70’s can become drug abusers.
Prohibitions don’t work. People aren’t arguing for “big tobacco”, lol, they’re using common sense.
Regulation works, prohibition doesn’t. Even heavy regulation. However a complete ban will not. Not with substances. My evidence; literally any history from anywhere. Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.
Perfection is not the aim. Fewer people will be smoking tobacco over time. Smoking also has an easy alternative like vaping available.
It is also much easier to make alcohol at home than cigarettes.
Prohibition failed for multiple reasons. I’d suggest you look into it.
I’d suggest you look into it.
There really isn’t heavier irony available. I’ve literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.
Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That’s why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?
Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.
We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn’t the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that’s regulation, not prohibition.
Vicelaws don’t work and they’re harmful to society. It’s so ironic you’re telling me to read up on this when you can’t even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don’t believe in crime or science.
Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you’re going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I’m talking about are more like Portugal’ s. (Just stronger)
OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.
Are you really implying that people banning a substance doesn’t reduce the amount of people using it?
I can literally go to a pub and see a whole pub full of people drinking and smoking.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
The aim isn’t to stop everyone, no sensible person would suggest that.
Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.
Removed by mod
Yes, parties without drugs do not exist. Youre right.
Removed by mod
OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.
Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn’t take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.
Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.
When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You’ve no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It’s the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.
So either you’re a prude and pretend there’s a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it… or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.
I’ve had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.
You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren’t doing blow on the tables doesn’t mean that there isn’t at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you’re too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn’t mean they’re not everywhere.
Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.
Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It’s always “I don’t care” and getting upset because you realise there literally isn’t anything to back up your side and you’ve been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I’ve had people spit in my face and go “You’re stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!” because they got so upset they couldn’t name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.
I’m tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I’ve been having with “experts” like you for years so why don’t you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the “do your own research” guy, but yeah, please do.
Start here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002573
https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/Justice - Post 1.pdf
Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:
https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702
He’s the author of “Good Cop, Bad War”, one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)
Prohibition is not the same as banning them for people born later than 2008 in any sense of the word.
We’re talking about banning for people who will never be able to buy cigarettes, not people who were able to and were later denied this.
With prohibition you’re conveniently missing the fact enforcement was poor and loopholes existed. Plus you were denying people alcohol who already drank.
Along with this was the fact that public support was not in favour.
I think you’ll find a lot of people support a blanket ban on smoking.
Also stop using the argument of appealing to authority.
Finally, I’m talking a pub full of people and you’re talking about one guy on blow. Yeah, seems like less people are using drugs than taking drugs. Obvious , right?
I’m not a prude. I’d support legalisation of certain drugs and decriminilisation of others. It depends purely (for me) on how damaging they are but they wouldn’t be for me to decide. I firmly believe though that drug users don’t belong in prison at all.
Edit: To make me belive this prohibition shit you’d have to convince me that prohibition fails when public support is high. Perhaps like a majority Islamic country where I would assume people support the banning of alcohol.
It seems to me like it works there fine.
Removed by mod
Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.
This is vastly different. Alcohol prohibition took alcohol away from people. This law does not. No-one who is currently smoking is being banned from doing so.
It also doesn’t have to work 100% to be a good idea. This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.
It’s not vastly different. It’s gonna have the same exact issues.
They tried in NZ.
This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.
It will absolutely create a massive new black market. And think about how many nowadays start smoking before theyre legally allowed to buy cigarettes. Practically every single smoker there is. Kids smoke because “it’s cool”. It’s gonna be infinitely cooler when smokes are also illegal. And the Armenian fellow smuggling the ciggies in is not going to have qualms about selling cartons to teenagers.
Heavy regulation can work. Complete bans just don’t.
More like you are falling for yet another blanket ban as a viable solution to anything. Younger gens are significantly less into smoking and drinking? Oh, I know! Let’s turn it miles more enticing by making it a taboo!
This x100. All it’s liable to do is make them feel more oppressed during a time when so many young people already feel zero control over their futures and state of the world, and vote for the first politician who promises to reverse this when they turn voting age.
Gee, I wonder which candidate that would be.
Vapes have been banned in México for a while and that doesn’t stop anyone really lol
Kk now do alcohol next. Good luck.
So for context, I actually drink, more than I probably should. I have a well stocked home bar, and trying or inventing new cocktails is almost a hobby for me and my partner.
I also come from a country with a veeeeeeery ingrained alcohol culture.
I’d still vote for an alcohol ban. Yes this is hypocritical when looking at my current habits. I don’t really have a point here, beyond saying that, even if banning alcohol is unrealistic, drinking alcohol being gone from the world is still a good idea in principle, the same as with tobacco.
So should we ban all food that isn’t a specially designed slurry that meets all necessary nutritional values?
No maybe just active poisons.
But again: I know this is unrealistic.
All food contains dangerous substances, a lot also contains addictive substances. If you are going to be an obsessive puritan then almost nothing is safe to eat.
I agree. I don’t like being denied things, but some things need to be legitimately more regulated or made illegal way more often. This would never fly in the US, big tobacco has way too many people in their pocket.
Dear god, is today the day I see Lemmy turn into Helen Lovejoy - “won’t somebody think of the kids!”
Big tobacco is definitely the problem. Tobacco itself wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for industrial-scale cultivation and processing. If a smoker had to personally grow everything they planned on smoking, they’d break the habit pretty fucking quick.
Removed by mod
cancer sticks. we need to rename the entire category to ‘cancer sticks’. force people to ask for their fav cancer sticks brands, “Yeah can I have a pack of Camels…” employee looks blankly… “Uh can I have camel cancer sticks please?”
I say this and I struggle with tobacco and know if every time I purchased it I was confronted even more than the labels and black wrappers etc., it would give me pause.
That might work for the first year, but after that, you’d likely go back to not giving a shit. If someone already knows cigarettes cause cancer, do you really think renaming them ‘cancer sticks’ would lead to a significant change?
Worse yet, the proposal could backfire by turning the morbid name into an in-group joke or even a badge of defiance.
already happened : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette)
Ah, case in point lol.
I think it would wear on the person over time.
Am a person who’s quit 12 times. Grew up in a fam of chainsmokers and swore I’d never smoke…
Then you don’t know how people work
yeah I can’t even figure out how your face works lol, people are probably beyond me
Smoking sucks and I’m glad I’ve never done it, but I’m worried that this will push even more people to the far right because they will feel patronized as fuck.
Also not sure if a flourishing black market is much better. Seems like an enormous source of income for organized crime which might not be the best thing.
Imo it would be much better to only ban it at places where there are a lot of people and do proper education in schools so that children actually understand why it’s a terrible idea.
I think people should be allowed to harm themselves with drugs of they want. Maybe I’m a radical.
Smoking is bad, but prohibition of drugs just drives them underground and denies freedom. Bad call UK
I honestly don’t think this will lead to a massive black market like some people seem to think. I don’t see big profit margins that would make cigarettes an attractive thing to sell illegally. You can only make them so expensive if you can just find someone older to buy them for you for the normal price.
Besides, smoking is pretty shit really. There aren’t going to be loads of people willing to go through the hassle of getting cigarettes illegally when all they do is stink and give you cancer. Especially when the people who can’t buy them will mostly be people who haven’t had a chance to get addicted yet.
I think this will work and be a net positive in the long run.
Lemmites normally: smoking is bad and should be banned.
UK government: ok then.
Lemmites now: YO WHAT THE FUCK.
I don’t smoke, but this is stupid.
You can’t save people from themselves.
Of course you can. Over time fewer and fewer people will smoke.
The number of smokers have been going down for a long time now.
Right along with your personal freedoms, what a great deal
Where’s my personal freedom as a non smoker?
Because obviously, most smokers don’t give a two sh*ts about other people
Freedom works both ways
It’s like arguing people should be free to drive drunk.
How? Drunk driving presents a clear and present danger, someone smoking on the roof or in their yard or in dinner alley isn’t a threat to anyone.
Its nothing like that at all
No one is making it illegal to be a non smoker, and banning some people from purchasing it doesn’t stop people from smoking around you. So congrats you gained nothing and lost nothing but a freedom.
Personal freedom to pollute the bloodstream of a child before it is born, personal freedom to cause lung disease in people who have to live around smokers.
Banning drunk driving is another attack on personal freedoms?
Banning drunk driving is a false equivelance. A better analogy would be banning alcohol.
… pick a topic
Whatever we are doing to not turn into a shithole like America seems to be working.
From what I’ve heard, it absolutely isn’t. The uk is just as authoritarian and backwards, the only thing it has doing for it is a lack of weapons (apparently to an absurd extent).
UK based here. sorry to tell you that your sources of information are really poor.
deleted by creator
Because of awareness, social stigma, and government bans on tobacco propaganda advertising, not government sales bans.
Look at the middle east and south asia, smoking is bigger than ever, it’s like the US in 60s, but worse.
If people want to smoke, government bans won’t stop them. Yes, being easy and legal to get makes more people likely to get it, but you won’t achieve zero smoking by banning it, you’ll just increase black market sales.
Is the illegal sale and organized crime that comes with it worth the reduction of legal consumers?
It feels like you’re saying that this legislation is stupid because some people will smoke anyway. And I think that’s not a fair argument. I don’t think anyone claims that this will get rid of smoking entirely, much like outlawing murder will not get rid of all murders. But I do think this will reduce the number of smokers born after 2008.
If you reduce the number of opportunities someone has to start smoking, you will reduce the number of smokers. At least, this makes intuitive sense to me. I don’t have any data to back it up. But neither do you, so we’re tied there I guess. Or do you? I’m happy to change my mind on this.
We all know that banning drugs means that people will stop using them. Or so.
I’m imagining the last person alive to be eligible to smoke going on a grand journey to the last place selling the last pack of smokes in the country. I think this law is so ass backwards and does nothing about addressing people’s concerns including the comments made in here.
Healthcare concern? Tax it, a single use isn’t going to put a strain on the healthcare system. Make sure lifetime smokers have paid in more than their fair share.
Age limit? What’s the current UK view on alcohol? You can’t just cherry-pick drugs and regulations if you’re trying to make sense.
Vape and smoke indistinguishable? Sure, but lets add additional tax onto ANYTHING that creates pollutants. It being illegal in cars is kinda ironic and hilarious. Especially from those living near industrial sites with bad water and smog effects, has the government made sure those companies are paying their fair share or restricting what they release because of the children?
I’m all for people’s opinions and ideas shared, I just don’t like governments that target civilian freedoms more than corporate profits when they’ve had the chance for the past hundred years. Let the people decide, local jurisdictions banning areas and businesses opting out are completely fine with me. Playing this weird game of “sorry you were born a day too late to be eligible” is weird. Ban it all or not, let the cards lay. Too much wiggle room/cost for enforcement for this to be anything useful and will probably just be thrown out at a later date wasting everyone’s time.
