- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- world@quokk.au
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- world@quokk.au
- europe@feddit.org
- 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
You must log in or # to comment.
Smoking is bad, but prohibition of drugs just drives them underground and denies freedom. Bad call UK
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.
Yup this is not the path forward. Education is. Assistance is. Bans are stupid.
My country, Sweden, is fighting a war on drugs. Believe we have the highest drug related mortality in Europe. So currently drugs are winning the war on drugs.
Not only that, but every single party is in favour of more restrictions on drugs, yet these cunts are in parliament doing cocaine at work. Rules for thee, not for me kind of situation.
These draconian prohibitive policies are never helpful. You’d think we’d have learned that given how our prisoner rehabilitation system works, but alas. We’re ruled by idiots and sociopaths.
Banning it just creates a black market for it. Better to keep it legal and regulate it than outright ban it. Let people do what they want at home.
I believe in freedom, I don’t smoke but others can choose to smoke but there should be rules but the too many rules and if the rules are too strict people will rebel
The thing is, by smoking you’re not just hurting yourself.
If I had a nickle for evey behavior that harms a third party but is explicitly legal because it makes a rich dude richer I’d own my own tobacco company. And beyond that the black markets that would rise if they ban it wont care what reason they said they used.
We should legalise all drugs.
Nicotine can stay legal, but smoking anything should still be banned. Not because its a drug, but rather cause its detrimental to the health of anyone around you.
You can fuck up your own life, I don’t care, but smoking hurts a lot more people than just yourself.
And no, only smoking in your own backyard doesn’t work either. Anyone that’s ever lived next to a smoker knows that the smog doesn’t care about your imaginary borders.
This is a fun one. I’m with you but I was friends with a recovering addict once and his exception was they should stay illegal what we should focus on is de-criminalization.
Your friend has an understandable perspective. In any case we should make sure that people don’t feel the need to use drugs in the first place. In my experience drug use is an act of desperation, even when people are sort of exploratory about it and not necessarily addicted to anything.
This is ridiculous. popup vape shops that sell tobacco too, are laughing at these rules and laws, it’s profit to them. You can get served from 12yo old in them shops, so now teens can resell it on. Bypassed supermarket laws
I’m not sure about banning smoking outside of hospitals. The hospital near me doesn’t allow smoking by the entrances but has a designated smoking zone.
I’m not a smoker, but I’m thinking of when my grandma was dealing with my grandpa in the intensive care unit. She was already stressed to the gills with family and husband stress. I wouldn’t want her to have to deal with nicotine withdrawal, too (or finding alternative methods of nicotine use).
On the other hand, there was an asshole smoking right at the hospital entrance last time I was there. Screw that guy.
Grandpa was in the hospital for emphysema due to a lifetime of smoking. He left the hospital and quit smoking. I don’t think Grandma ever quit, even with full-on dementia. So, mixed feelings about old folks smoking near hospitals.
But there is no withdrawal here, cause it’s about never starting.
No matter how much time passes, my grandmother will never have been born after 2008 [edit: and so will be allowed to buy cigarettes].
It’s OK, nobody born after that will be able to afford them.
There’s a reason vapes got popular, and part of that is a pack of 20 ciggies costing £15+.
So now everyone smells of either fruit salads or weed.
Oh yes, we have seen how effective prohibition laws are working. Good luck with that one. And to all of you four-eyed, I have never smoked and never will.
Actually prohibition drastically increases price, perceived risk, and social acceptability all of which decrease usage. If you mean that prohibition doesn’t make everyone stop using that would be a duh. Society would greatly benefit from decreased usage alone due to decreased medical productivity and deaths…
The most famous “failed” prohibition on this side of the water in the US initially decreased alcohol usage to 30% of its former usage immediately prior to prohibition. Eventually it rose to ~60% but didn’t recover to anything like prior levels until prohibition was ended.
There is another notable factor though. This allows all current addicts to continue consuming their legal fix which can be sold at the corner store but incentivizes all these multitudes of legal avenues to shut out new customers or be shut themselves. These new customers those born from 2008-2017 will initially be a small market for any black market sales probably poorly served unlike the market created by prohibition. If less of these folks initially get hooked early there is statistical reason to believe far fewer of them ever will. By the time those born in 2018-2027 reach maturity between 2036-2045 many of the older folks will be dead and the generation above them will have a much lower prevalence of smoking.
A good move in my opinion. Not sure how enforced it will be but phasing out cigarettes full stop is a good idea.
Now we should be clamping down on vapes. Tax them more, ban advertising, hide them from sale and put them in the same blank packaging as cigs.
In my opinion, they should ban the sweet flavours and only allow menthol, tobacco or mint flavours but not sure how that would fly.
So… answer me this. Why? Why should anyone be able to tell us what we can and can’t do in our own homes, if it isn’t impacting anyone else?
Because it isn’t just your body in your home. It is the entire healthcare system that has to deal with the impacts of smokers. It is the neighbors who have to smell it from your house. It is the kids of parents who are smokers.
Not bothered about what people do in their own homes, moreso what they do in public. Vape isn’t a pleasant smell and we don’t know the impacts of second hand vapour
Okay, but what you suggested wasn’t focused on what they do in public. It was on the product itself.
Phase out allowing smoking in public, fine, that fits what you are saying. But raising taxes on them and such would mean there is someone who can no longer smoke in their own home because it is now too expensive.
I personally hate cigarettes and such. But I don’t think I or anyone should be doing things to stop others from enjoying what I hate if it doesn’t impact me. It’s just none of my business.
Ever lived next to someone that was smoking at home? The smoke doesn’t care about property borders and will find its way into neighboring apartments and yards.
The only way to smoke without bothering anyone is if you live somewhere in the woods in bumfuck nowhere.
Once your law covers all eventualities regarding this, its so convoluted that banning is the better option.
Even if they’re smoking at home, the enormous costs to the healthcare system caused by smokers every year are a burden on the shoulders of everyone in society.
Maybe so, but they are terrible for you and there shouldn’t be incentive to do it. Vapes are very cheap, this is partly why they’re so popular with children. Maybe it they were a bit pricier then people would think twice. Can also put tax towards public health service.
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.
This. Furthermore, because the date is fixed, a decade from now, only middle aged people will smoke in public. I really doubt if youngsters find it appealing at that time, to adopt a habit associated with the elderly.
middle aged people
associated with the elderly
Oof, right in my middle-aged bones
You’ve obviously never been a nicotine addict. Nothing you said here would have stopped me from getting my drug, before I quit
You are looking at it from the perspective of someone who is already addicted, not from the perspective of an entire population of people who have never had access to legal cigarettes. This isn’t for people who are already addicted. This is to achieve fewer people from becoming addicted.
Yes, statistics show most smokers start smoking before the age of 16, so obtaining cigarettes legally isn’t stopping them. But the sheer number of smokers dropped when it became harder to find places to smoke after bar/restaurant/public area bans. It’s interesting looking at the trends of smokers over time. Adult use in the US has held a VERY consistent downward trend since the 1970s, holding around the same slope for 50 years. However, youth use dropped significantly right around the time cities and states implemented smoking bans in bars/restaurants/public areas. That is correlation, not necessarily causation, so I am not claiming it as fact.
I will say it is absolutely jarring to travel to Europe from the US. I travel a lot, and going from a city where very few people smoke (well, they smoke, just not tobacco) to almost any city in Europe is a shock to my nose. It doesn’t stop me visiting Europe every year, but man it does make walking on the streets there less enjoyable.
I believe in the freedom to choose what I do with .you body. Period.
But governments will continue to allow nicotine delivery devices like vapes and pouches.
They should be banning nicotine as a controlled drug. Take nicotine out and people will see no reason to smoke or vape. It’s been government sanctioned addiction for over 100 years.
I started smoking when I was 14. Smoked a pack a day for a while, smoked my last in my thirties.
The point of a rolling ban isn’t meant to make you quit, it’s to stop people from starting and it will work. Not for everyone, but for a lot of people it will.
Its taking away personal freedoms and works against a free market. Keep the government out of your personal choices.
Where’s your line between “keeping the government out of your personal choices” vs. “regulations that keep us safe”? Like, I’m sure you’re ok with regulations that keep poisons like lead, arsenic, etc. out of consumable goods, right?
I kinda agree with the other commenter that said all drugs should be legalized, but also, I’ve had close personal experiences with how addictive and harmful nicotine is, so I can also understand why it would be the target of bans.
Things that you choose to consume aren’t the same as utilities.
Oh no, not the free market!
Im all for that, honestly, but lets include all the drugs
deleted by creator
Fun fact, Eric Garner was killed for illegally selling cigarettes. He was selling loosies outside of drug stores and owners had repeatedly complained about him doing that.
Ok. I’m stretching the definition of fun here. And, to be clear, I also don’t think there will be a huge black market for cigarettes with this law, just that there already is one, kind of.
Eric Garner was killed for being black and inconveniencing the cops. The loosies were just the thing that put him on the radar.
I know. People already sell illegally imported cigarettes too, but I don’t think it’s nearly as problematic as the black market for other drugs is.
Imagine if they did the same for alcohol :)
“UK mandates teenagers must shop with their local drug dealer for tobacco products”
Might as well buy some weed or pills whilst you’re there, “save a trip”
Meh, as a teenager I never would have purchased something from my dealer that didn’t get me high. It’d be a complete waste of money with my perspective back then. You’d already have to be addicted to be desperate enough to buy cigs from a dealer.
Lmfaooooooooo how do you think the teenage vaping epidemic came to be? Every store wasn’t checking ID? Kids been buying nic from dealers for years now
… thats the whole point… addiction doesn’t care
Were you addicted to cigarettes before you tried a cigarette? The point being made is that if a kid has to go to a drug dealer to get a drug, they aren’t going to buy cigarettes in the first place. They’ll get addicted to a different drug, which might not be any better.
I’m so happy to see vaping receive the similar treatment as smoking. I still don’t know why people thought it was acceptable to blow fumes into others faces. Even had it while carrying my kid. Some people…
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
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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
… public space…
Yes, public spaces too.
You understand what public means right?
Yes, totally.
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
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?
… pick a topic
Banning drunk driving is a false equivelance. A better analogy would be banning alcohol.
Where’s my personal freedom as a non smoker?
Because obviously, most smokers don’t give a two sh*ts about other people
It’s like arguing people should be free to drive drunk.
Freedom works both ways
Whatever we are doing to not turn into a shithole like America seems to be working.
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.
No way the police are going to use this to further harass young people, especially from racialized communities.
And no way this will create pathways to link marginalized youth with organised crime and such.
Right? As if boomers don’t have enough privileges lmaooo
Either ban smoking across the board or fuck off.
