- 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.
Well there’s certainly no way this will create a black market, and become impossible to enforce!
There surely will become somewhat of a black market, but not in the same way as weed or harder drugs. Smoking doesn’t really give you a buzz except for the first few times, so people won’t go to the black market for the effect, but rather to keep the withdrawels at bay. It would seem incredibly silly to buy cigarettes like people buy weed, when all it really does for a first timer is taste horrible, make you cough, and if you actually manage to inhale, make you a bit dizzy. Sure, some people from 2009 and onwards will start to smoke, but it’ll be a whole lot less people than today.
You realize in the 1930s there was a black market for cigerettes when they weren’t even illegal, right?
Mafias had support from the people, because mobs supplied booze, which WAS illegal. They made so much money from that, they started robbing cigerette trucks. Then selling legal cigerettes, at full cost, simply because the people trusted the mob over the government.
There’s a huge black market for tobacco products here in Australia and it’s completely legal, simply having the tax on it so high has led to massive smuggling operations, black market cigarettes in many convenience stores, and a fire bombing epidemic of those same convenience stores for carrying competitors black market cigs. It doesn’t even need to be illegal. Just too expensive.
Yup, a local substance plug sells cigarettes in addition to other goods and services, the cigarettes are less than the shops.
1930s didnt have overwhelming evidence that smoking was stupid, addictive, and disastrously dangerous to your health.
Smoking doesnt produce the same euphoria and consistency of drugs on the current blackarket. The juice wont be worth the squeeze. Financially, there wont be enough “consumers” for a cigarette black market.
I think you misunderestimate how addictive cigerettes are. My friends mom goes through $80 worth of cigerettes every 2-3 days.
Real question- is that volume or branding? Depending on where you are/what brand, that might be a 1.5-2 pack a day habit of higher quality smokes; not unheard of for a typical heavy smoker. If you’re spending that much on ass-end packs that cost you $6/ea, that’s pushing 4 packs a day, which is like legendary status few can achieve anymore.
Oh, I thought you were replying to thr other message. Still, it’s just below here, where I said she smokes 5-8 packs a day.
She also has this bag of loose tabacco where she rolls her own. She uses that when she can’t afford marlborrow.
Right,but theyre not banning it for people like her… theyre banning it for people born after 2008. Is your mom 18 years old?
Are you claiming that minors don’t smoke because it’s not legal? That’s what you’re going with?
God youre annoying.
Youre just looking to be combative. Youre cool dude, so cool, just so so cool that you should go back to reddit. So fucking cool how you intentionally need to argue the most braindead niche “uhm actually” talking point you can muster.
How much is a packet there?
About $8, but she smokes 5-8 packs a day.
5-8 packs a day.
I can’t see how this is even possible for a couple, much less one person.
I GREW UP IN A HOUSE OF CHAIN SMOKERS, my older sister and brother and both parents.
Are you sure about this or just guestimating?
Holy shitballs.
Is she just smoking nonstop the whole day?
There already is a big, thriving black market for cigarettes in the EU country I’m in, simply due to high tobacco taxes. I can only assume the same will be true for other places that tax similarly. Are you really saying that an outright ban won’t result in a greater unmet demand, and thus more customers shopping at the black markets? It sounds unlikely to me that black market dealers will close up shop, because of a ban on the legal sale of cigarettes. The black market is already banned, but that’s not exactly stopping them.
Cigarette companies add things to make them more addictive, including chemical flavorings and extra nicotine. It doesn’t negate what you said, but enhances it.
Sure, but a lot has changed since then, and while that totally could happen, I’m doubting it’ll be widespread in any way.
“yeah, but, nah, trust me bro”
would have been a better response. At least build your conclusion from something. You’re responding to someone giving a historical example.
“Times are different” just means it could be worse or better. It doesn’t conclude which or to what degree. You didn’t say anything.
I think it might be different nowadays. We know now that smoking causes cancer. Also the world is in color, which makes not smoking more enjoyable.
That must explain the reason for having the “T” in ATF then.
No no no. You’re missing the H.
Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
They’re number one in the hood, G!
Mate, you got no fucking clue. This will create entire new organised crime markets.
Maybe at first, yeah. But in 50 years, when almost nobody under 60 smokes and it’s prohibited everywhere, who would go out of their way to start this particular habit?
As a lifelong smoker, one of the hardest hurdle to quitting is going out, having a couple of drinks, then seeing other people smoke and resisting the urge to go buy an easily available pack.
Exactly.
Do you remember being a teenager? You’re describing something that is extremely addictive AND the government is banning you from trying it because you were born too late. This is just asking for a shit show. I’d rather the cigs be guaranteed not to contain lead (or whatever). Forcing a black market just removes all regulation on the vice. Each year that market will get larger. It’s literally a guaranteed increase of demand in the black market over time.
I really think the methods used in the US to reduce smoking really need to be duplicated in other countries. The US literally has like one good thing that we got right somehow. In comparison to Asia or a lot of Europe I never see people smoking.
Vapes are a whole different story. But, even before vapes were a thing the US really did a good job at making smoking socially unacceptable through multiple policies.
We literally have examples of methods that work well AND methods that don’t. Outright bans never work with vices.
Outright bans never work with vices.
It can’t be taken 1:1. Vices being banned in the past was typically because legislators saw them as productivity drains, despite the pleasure it provided. Therefore making those bans inherently tyrannical to habitual users and certain non-users, incentivizing disobedience.
But this time, it’s being banned for a group that’s not habitually using already, meaning extraordinary reasons would require them to become habitual users in the first place. And smoking is typically not very pleasant at the start to begin with, so there’s little incentive to start. And, unlike in the past, smoking is no longer present everywhere. And of course there’s the knowledge that it will give you cancer and cut your lifespan.
There’s just not much enjoyment left, so even if 1% of those affected by the rolling ban slip through the cracks with an underground market, there isn’t the room for growth that sustains or spreads an illegal market like for eg. recreational drugs. Which is why those bans need to be enforced to perfection to have a chance to work, which they never do, and which is why they never work.
There are so many ways for people to harm themselves that we don’t need to ban because they come with severe risk to the person, so they self regulate. The only reason smoking needs that ban is because of how widespread smoking was, and so even if way less people start smoking than before, that’s still way too many people. A ban just needs to be successful at getting far less people to start, not absolutely halt every single usage, and eventually it will fade from culture on it’s own.
EDIT: Slight corrections. But kinda wild to get overly downvoted for the thing pretty much everyone else is saying in this thread, just with a little more in-depth analysis. Come out and tell me where I’m wrong, I don’t think you can.
I wouldn’t be suprised if smoking turns into one of those things that old people do, not cool at all
In the states, it already seems like it is. Vaping is an all-generations hobby still
I never understood the “banning doesn’t work” argument. The reason we banned heroin and methamphetamine is because use was rampant without prescriptions. You’d have to be stupid to think that meth at Walmart wouldn’t cause an increase in usage.
… regardless, in this situation prohibition would be effective. Vapes are superior nicotine delivery systems. After years of trying to quit, I transitioned from tobacco in less than a week. Not having the fear of death hanging over me is an indescribable relief.
They don’t give you a buzz right now. You think prohibition liquor was just as safe as what was produced afterwards, what with all those ridiculous safety regulations gone?
OMG so many dead people from radiator gin.
Lmao. It’s okay to criminalize millions of people to achieve our health goals!
As effed up as the US is I’m so glad I don’t live in the UK. What a dystopian government and the British people consistently roll over for it. It’s funny to watch them, of all people, call us apathetic.
Who is this fantasy person who told you anyone is going to criminalize people for buying cigarettes?
It’s incredibly clear if you bothered to read the article, that the retailer selling cigarettes to someone under the permitted age will recieve a fine. No one is going to prison for this. It will not be a criminal offence. The buyer won’t even face any consequenses, except maybe having their smokes confiscated.
Come to Australia. A legit carton of fags is about 90% tax, and dodgy darts are outselling them. Vapes are prescription-only. No doctor will prescribe it, and no pharmacy will dispense it. So vapes are effectively banned too.
The black market is huge.
At the current exchange rate, a 20 pack goes for £25 GBP:
no doctor will prescribe it
Ha this tracks with my mate getting knocked back on this by our GP, who is also a medcan AP. He said go see another doctor for that.
I actually suggested it to him because he needs to give the fucking things up. This might be why, he mightn’t want to prescribe it.
Holy smokes! That’s more than double the local plug! Roll up jimpson weed or rabbit tobacco (or questionable adulterated weed) is probably what locals here would do.
Why will no doctor prescribe them? They are much healthier than smoking. And all the patient has to do is say they’re trying to quit smoking.
Same reason people in the UK think cocaine is safer then cannabis, public stigma.
Please tell me this is a joke. Is it because all you Europeans roll your joints with tobacco?
The UK has this weird thing about cannabis, while treating cocaine as a drug of “productive” people. It is getting better (the UK has a 48% of people supporting legislation, one the lowest in the western world but moving towards the positive) the media is not helping the stigma however:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35820327/super-strength-cannabis-crimewave-britain-streets/
I think a lot of it is because pharmacies and doctors didn’t want this thrust upon them.
This was an amendment to a really shitty vape ban bill which blew the whole black market up further than it was. The whole thing should never have been passed.
Lucky country policy
Oh no. Whatever will we do. No smoking in public places or around me but people will still smoke at home nowhere near me.
Truly it will be unbearable.
So terrible.
i knew which corner stores to get smokes at before i was 18.
the process regardless is very simple:
- ask for a pack of camels
- present your legitimate id saying you’re 16 or whatever
- ??? thanks
they need to look at an ID for the camera but that’s all
also, once I became an adult smoking wasn’t that fun anymore and i quit
As someone pretty addicted to nicotine, im sort of for it cause i hate how much of my life its consumed, but at the same time… iunno it’s a landmine of an issue.
Surely this won’t establish avenues for kids to get harder drugs once they get the black market vapes!
once they get the black market vapes!
Vapes are not banned under the law.
But wouldn’t those people just vape instead? Which is not healthy, but is still healthier than tobacco.
Only healthier if you avoid the additives. Shit like essential oils and flavorings does not belong in your lungs.
I’m not sure about the oils, but the cadmium and lead aren’t great.
Exactly!
How I wish there was a proper standardization of formulation and safe limits, because some of the vape juice I’ve seen are mostly made in-house and often included unwanted unlisted additives and ingredients.
It’s not. It’s just too new to have studies confirmed. These kids that are in their early 20s may have been vaping since as young as 14, but that still 8 years at most, and that’s stretching it in both directions.
I would say those studies won’t come out until they’re in their 70s, or maybe already dead.
Vaping will cause cancer just the same as cigerettes. You’re inhaling unnatural addictive chemicals. In the case of nicotine, it’s artificially added to some/most vapes. We know how bad that stuff is. A vape is nothing more then an unnatural liquid chemical compound, which is then burned and smoked. Tobacco is a leaf, vapes are a liquid. In both cases they add a shitload of unhealthy compounds.
Hell, at this point WATER is unhealthy! Tons of microplastics in all water.
The unhealthiness of the chemicals in cigarette smoke is not subtle. I would be surprised if the vapes turned out to be just as unhealthy.
unnatural addictive chemicals
Using “unnatural” as the main adjective to argue for something being unhealthy is a huge red flag for pseudoscience. Unnatural is not a synonym for dangerous.
As an example, the 100% natural chemicals in even ecologically grown cigarettes are perfectly capable of being extremely dangerous.
Combustion in and of itself creates a lot of bad shit, tobacco or otherwise. The smoke from the paper itself is harmful.
Not just chemicals, but a lot of particulates.
We’ve been scrutinizing vapes for decades. If there was any noticeable health complications from vaping, we would know.
“But we didn’t know cigarettes caused cancer until like the 70’s!”
That’s because the concept of writing stuff down on a clipboard is astonishingly new
Vapes don’t produce smoke but vapor, i.e. nothing “burns”. And inhaling smoke is by far the most harmful aspect of using cigarettes.
Not saying nicotine or vaping is harmless, but I’d be very surprised if vaping turns out to be as dangerous as smoking.
- People downvoting in their feels, but you aren’t wrong.
Their weird hang up over ‘unnatural’ chemicals is complete nonsense.
What enforcement? Anyone born after 2008 would be at most 17. Not sure about British law, but assuming majority is at 18, they weren’t supposed to smoke anyway. It creates no black market that doesn’t already exist.
You realize this law keeps rolling, right? So today, a 17 year old is ineligable because he’s not 18. But a year from now that same 17 year old is now 18, but becomes ineligable because they aren’t 19. And when they turn 19, they aren’t 20. And 10 years from now the 17 year old today would be 27, ineligable because he’s not 28.
That’s how it creates a black market.
Like a ladder that is being constantly pulled up.
Right, but the idea is that most people under 18 haven’t already started smoking because it’s illegal and inconvenient. So you just keep that ball rolling for anyone who hasn’t started.
You think people under the age of 18 don’t smoke? When I was in 6th grade (so 12 years old) I used to make about $100 a week selling cigerettes individually for $1 per cigerette. This was in the mid 90s, so adjusted for inflation that would be like $270 a week today.
And all I did was walk up and down the sidewalks, and find half smoked cigerettes. Stole individual cigerettes from adults packs. And bought them from vending machines.
I don’t smoke, and never did, but it was easy money selling stolen cigerettes to 12 year olds. The only reason I ever stopped is I grew up. It would be a LOT more suspicious seeing a 42 year old today walking the halls of a school trying to peddle cigerettes to kids.
Plus, teens today see cigerettes as old guard. They’re all about vapes today.
Which is getting off topic. The point is, teenagers smoke. Teenagers drink. None of it is legal. Yet it always happens in every generation.
The only thing the youth of today do anything different from literally every generation before them, is they aren’t having sex with each other. Which makes me glad I’m 42, and was young 30 years ago.
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
Plus affecting children and the family
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
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.
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.
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.
I didn’t realise people actually self-identified as tankies. That’s really interesting. Thank you for broadening my conceptions.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
… 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.
I think people should be allowed to harm themselves with drugs of they want. Maybe I’m a radical.
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.
We all know that banning drugs means that people will stop using them. Or so.
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.
the black market in france wich is simply the product of high tax on tobaco is estimate at 4 billion euro. So you think britain will not have the issue with a practie that is well spread there ? i think u are delusional
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.
yeah like any drugs ???
I think this will work and be a net positive in the long run.
It wont, and the gov shouldnt have a word on those
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.
Their freedom to do something without any significant benefit costs a lot of money for healthcare. Money I pay as taxes.
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 “becuase 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.
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.
Smoking is bad, but prohibition of drugs just drives them underground and denies freedom. Bad call UK
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.
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?
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
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.
It’s like arguing people should be free to drive drunk.
Its nothing like that at all
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Oi cunt, 'ave you got a loicense for them cigarettes?
Lemmites normally: smoking is bad and should be banned.
UK government: ok then.
Lemmites now: YO WHAT THE FUCK.
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.
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
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!”
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
