12 ms·
Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
- Canada 6mo agoThis is the kind of action that really requires a referendum.
- rafram 6mo agoI completely disagree. Obviously people individually want to smoke - nicotine makes them feel good! - and there's a good chance they would vote to preserve that "right," but smoking is bad for society and we would unambiguously be better off if it didn't exist. One of the principal jobs of government is to stand for the good of the collective against individual selfishness.
- pocksuppet 6mo agoThe collective just means the majority of individuals. That's why there should be a referendum.
- noduerme 6mo agoI hate how British people say "agreed" as if it implies "was" and "to". And lots of other things it implies, such as who, when and why.
- thinkingemote 6mo agoI think it's short for "agreed upon"
- noduerme 6mo agoWell they're English, they invented the language. I don't know why they're trampling on it.
- tjwebbnorfolk 6mo agoHow do you feel about the word "okay"? The word can mean anything. Must drive you nuts.
- foldr 6mo agoI don't think there's anything peculiarly British about that usage. It's easy to find examples of Americans doing the same thing, e.g.: >The report, in an op-ed from commentator David Ignatius, cites a senior US official as saying that “the framework is agreed” and the parties are now “negotiating details of how it will be implemented.” https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/washington-post-says-framework-agreed-for-hostage-truce-deal-hamas-israel-to-cede-control-of-gaza-in-2nd-phase-of-deal/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/washington-post...
- bcjdjsndon 6mo agoAlcohol costs the UK 4-5x more than smoking. Coincidentally, it's the upper classes drug of choice. Must be a coincidence though
- LtWorf 6mo agoSitting in a room with someone drinking doesn't give you cancer.
- cheeseomlit 6mo agoJust ban smoking indoors then
- LtWorf 6mo agoIt gives you cancer outdoors too!
- pixl97 6mo agoAs the US found out, alcohol is very very hard to ban because it is very very easy to make.
- AlexandrB 6mo agoWeed and tobacco are also very easy to make. They literally grow on trees[1]. [1] Technically, herbaceous plants.
- pixl97 6mo agoReally in the case of tobacco, (almost) no one is going to grow it. It's a massive pain in the ass when most people are addicted to the nicotine. Synthetic nicotine in vapes are what would be black marketed these days.
- pixel_popping 6mo ago
- joegibbs 6mo agoDrinking has been decided to be totally fine though, no need to ban that - probably because it's unfashionable to smoke, and the kind of people who come up with these laws find it uncouth. It will also be ridiculous in a few years when the UK inevitably decides to legalise marijuana - totally fine to smoke a joint, but don't you dare put any of that tobacco in it!
- adjejmxbdjdn 6mo agoDrinking doesn’t affect others as direct as smoking does. Most of the indoor smoking bans in the U.S. have been based entirely on the fact that second hand smoke affects the employees who are forced to be there. Further, drinking has a far deeper cultural resonance, so smoking is clearly the lower hanging fruit. And it’s not like the UK has not been taking action against drinking. For example, they’ve imposed minimum alcohol taxes which have been directly linked to lower consumption.
- gcanyon 6mo agoDrinking affects others much more than smoking does, it's just that it doesn't affect random strangers. In a study of the harms of various substances, alcohol came out on top by a mile for the damage it does to the family and others close to the drinker. I should qualify the above: it doesn't affect random strangers as often as second-hand smoke does. But drunk driving and drunk violence are a thing, and both can affect anyone.
- joegibbs 6mo agoNobody was ever attacked on the street by a tobacco-addled stranger at 3 in the morning though. Besides, they're not banning indoor smoking, they're banning it entirely - including vaping and other nicotine products.
- techteach00 6mo ago"Ranked by drug experts on damage to user, impact on crime, and socioeconomic effects" 1. Alcohol 2. Heroin 3. Crack Cocaine 4. Cocaine 5. Tobacco I think these laws are bizarre morality rituals. Evidence doesn't conclude it has anything to do with public health when you see how vicious alcohol is.
- awakeasleep 6mo agoIm curious how the industry allowed this. Seems like a tremendous amount of lobbying money would oppose it. There must be real story there, somewhere.
- amriksohata 6mo agothis
- luizfzs 6mo agoThe real story may be that even despite heavy lobbying, they are trying to do something that has the potential to benefit the population, with the added benefit of reducing some of the load on health care system caused by this. As we know, smoking can cause lots of problems, including for babies if the mother smokes during pregnancy.
- walthamstow 6mo agoThe cigarette lobbyists are not what they used to be. A pack is £15+ of mostly tax, beige green colour, and has gruesome health warning images. They "let" all that happen. I assume all the ones who were young enough to have worked tobacco at its peak are now working for Meta, OpenAI or Flutter.
- afavour 6mo agoAre you in America? I only ask because this mindset, that lobbyists are capable of squashing any law they dislike, is not internationally universal. Not to say lobbyists don’t have an effect in the UK, they do. But the US has a particularly egregious setup.
- Cytobit 6mo agoThere is no country in the world where the ultra wealthy don't weild influence over the government.
- xyzal 6mo agoOnly in America, where markets magically solve all issues.
- pech0rin 6mo agoThis is insanely dumb. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. So if people want to do it anyway who cares. I understand the cafe and indoor space bans but not allowing anyone to do it seems stupid. I don’t smoke but UK has really gone off the deep end recently with social controls, what is the point?
- LtWorf 6mo agoHeroin is bad as well and it's forbidden on account of that.
- tonyedgecombe 6mo agoIt's insanely dumb in the same way prohibition was insanely dumb in the US during the twenties.
- halfdan 6mo agoI, a non-smoker, would like to not walk through clouds of smoke.
- alchemism 6mo agoThat's what I say when I breathe car exhaust. Why cannot all combustion engines be removed from society for my health preference?
- gcanyon 6mo agoThere are two separate issues here: 1. will this work (will the UK stop smoking) 2. is this something the UK government should be doing Setting aside 1 and looking at 2, it seems silly to me to point out that other things (alcohol) that cause problems and are not being restricted. You take the wins where you find them, and the government isn't a magical force that can impose its will on the people arbitrarily. This is obviously the government responding to the general sense of the people (perhaps putting its thumb on the scale). The UK doesn't support cigarettes, so the law gets passed. If someone has a public opinion poll there showing less than 50% support for this, I'd love to see it.
- squigz 6mo agoFrom the government's perspective, this may (or may not) be silly. But putting that aside, if a citizen supports banning cigarettes for people born after a certain date, but not alcohol, that certainly seems hypocritical to me.
- brador 6mo agoWe know the dangers of second hand smoke. Someone drinking near you does not impact your health.
- Ylpertnodi 6mo agoYou've probably never been out on a Friday night in the Uk.
- comrade1234 6mo agoAre they going to continue selling cigarettes and vapes for people born before that date. I've always found the career as a prohibition smuggler a somewhat romantic notion so at some point I may be able to take it up.
- tgv 6mo agoAh yes, smuggling lung cancer. How romantic.
- MiiMe19 6mo ago> Stop doing things that hurt you !! You need to live your life like a min-max optimization for max lifespan. !! You haven't done your government mandated hour of exercise today, enjoy 30 days in prison !!
- tgv 6mo agoThis wasn't even about that. It was about selling cigarettes to others, pretending to be a romantic rebel. And freedom isn't absolute. There's no need to exaggerate 1984 style just because smoking is banned. You don't even have to stop smoking. You just can't start.
- MiiMe19 6mo agoYou WILL get your state mandated 1 hour of exercise everyday and you will eat your state mandated five servings of vegetables. You will not go outside for more than an hour a day to prevent skin cancer. If you were born after 2010, you will eat the state mandated bug-based red meat replacement. You don't even need to stop eating meat, you just can't start.
- hackable_sand 6mo agoBro what
- threepts 6mo agonext thing you know they'll also ban murder for people born after 2008 UK becomes the safest country in the world, peace forever
- BigTTYGothGF 6mo agoMurder is one of the first things that most governments ban.
- Sweepi 6mo agoThey ban buying cigarettes, not nicotine in general, correct? In that case, I would compare it to making catalytic converters mandatory in new cars in the 1970s. You still can pickup nicotine consumption, but with xx % less carcinogens :)
- alsetmusic 6mo agoAs a former smoker (who quit for seven years and regrets taking it up again), and as a present-day vape user, wtf. This is a clear restriction on liberty. It may be stupid that I do it. Just like many stupid decisions (junk food included), it ought to be my right to decide how to live. Cut off production so cigarettes are no longer made or imported. Don't block me from them while letting others have them. (Not in UK) It'd be kinda funny to see an early 1900s / USA-style mafia / gangster resurgence of bootleggers over cigs in the UK. Much lower stakes, but black markets are a thing. Edit: added "while letting others have them"
- Sweepi 6mo ago>This is a clear restriction on liberty. So is banning the sale of leaded gasoline.
- reassess_blind 6mo agoThe head rush of the first leaded gasoline inhale in the morning used to beat any cigarette, too.
- plqbfbv 6mo ago> This is a clear restriction on liberty. ... Just like many stupid decisions (junk food included), it ought to be my right to decide how to live. I guess that liberty was plenty abused on every non-smoker in a non-smoking area, that ended up coughing in clouds of smoke anyway. Smoking affects everyone around you whether you want it or not, and while you may smoke for 50 years and end up being perfectly healthy, some may get cancer from it, even for a very small dose.
- rcxdude 6mo agoThere's already some pretty comprehensive bans on smoking in places where it could affect other people. I don't really encounter cigarette smoke in my day-to-day life.
- 6mo ago
- neogodless 6mo agoYou can kind of tell when people think about only themselves or the community when they present arguments for things like smoking and vaccination. "I don't want to be controlled" is a perfectly valid argument, and I prefer humans can make choices for themselves and have reasonable autonomy when it does not have a negative affect on others. Vaccination and smoking affects people around you. Drinking does too - in certain cases, but much less directly, in most cases. For example, drinking and operating vehicles is already illegal. Drinking and punching someone is already illegal!
- xienze 6mo ago> I prefer humans can make choices for themselves and have reasonable autonomy when it does not have a negative affect on others. How far do you want to take this? Your choice of diet may have a negative effect on others by way of having to pay for additional medical care.
- neogodless 6mo agoIs taking concepts to logical extremes a good way to govern? (No.) But are you saying we don't care if things have negative effect on people? If we go to extremes, well then obviously everyone should have 100% autonomy? Oops that doesn't work. So, this is the hard part - you have to find balance, compromise, a reasonable middle ground. That's always going to be the hard part. Not black or white, but the grey areas.
- jollyllama 6mo agoYou're not going far enough. We need to mandate exercise.
- amriksohata 6mo agoKinda pointless the government looking muscular on this when the real issue has moved on anyway to vaping, access to weed etc. The industry lobbying wont come after the govt anyway so no blocks right, as they are getting profit from elsewhere
- subjectsigma 6mo agoNatural consequence of socialized medicine. If I’m paying for your healthcare then I (and by extension the state) get a say in basically every aspect of your life. Time to ban alcohol, marijuana, Tylenol, fatty foods, sugar, candles, campfires, fireworks, food coloring, bicycles, playgrounds, cars, cell phones, and anything else that might be harmful
- mytailorisrich 6mo agoIn the UK tobacco is heavily taxed and those taxes bring in more money than the cost on the healthcare service.
- falcor84 6mo agoInteresting - do you have a link about the financial accounting around this?
- nephihaha 6mo agoI do not have the specific info/ref to hand, but at one point some years ago, smoking brought in something of the order of nine times as much into the NHS as it spent on smoking related illnesses. I was very surprised by this.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6mo agoEven so, the NHS's goals are rightly such that greatly reducing the harm done by smoking is preferred over keeping this revenue. Unlike a tobacco company that would not factor harms external to the organisation into the profit and loss calculation.
- mytailorisrich 6mo agoIf you google it, revenue is at £8 billion (Office for Budget Responsibility) and in decline, and NHS spending is at £2.6 billion in England, so the bulk of it (NHS England).
- 6mo ago
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- josefritzishere 6mo agoSomeone is not learning from history.
- olalonde 6mo agoWhat about tourists and foreigners? Most smokers can't go more than a few hours without smoking... This will surely lead to a large black market.
- forinti 6mo agoWill this market be significant? This would surely affect a very small percentage of visitors.
- olalonde 6mo ago22% of the global population are smokers according to Wikipedia. It's probably lower for younger generations but still significant.
- jblezo 6mo agoEasy: anyone who cannot submit to the law of a country should not go there.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- olalonde 6mo agoIt will probably be a bit of both: a large black market and a decline in foreign visitors, international conferences, and similar events.
- crvdgc 6mo agoI didn't find anything particular, but in general it should apply to anyone under the jurisdiction. I think it's illegal to drink underage in the US, even if the person is a tourist and they are allowed to drink by their own country's law.
- mock-possum 6mo agoWhy not just get your nicotine fix via one of the handful of other delivery methods which are not banned? Or just find a local black market doggie hookup, same as you would for any other illegal substance? If you’re a pothead who can’t make it through your day without a smoke, then god knows you’ll find a connect - and if you’re addicted to cigarettes, I’m pretty sure you won’t have much trouble getting your fix.
- flowerthoughts 6mo agoIn a few years, they'll realize that the savings from public health care now requires an an even higher amount of money poured into the police, customs and justice systems to enforce it. Because suddenly, there are these weirdos trying to sell it in dark places. Who could anticipate that? But that's for another government to deal with, of course. Not our problem. Oh, and the future government will be happy to announce they are giving funding that will go to new jobs! I propose a ban on people that use bans as a brain-less cheap way of fixing complex issues.
- rt56a 6mo ago> an even higher amount of money poured into the police Given the massive cost smoking imposes on the health sector, I find it hard to believe that's remotely possible.
- jpfromlondon 6mo ago2B if you tease the reality out of the oft misreported figure, and the annual rake from smoking is 8-10B so it is profitable to maintain it.
- xyzal 6mo agoThis enforcement costs argument is wrong. The point is not to enforce such a ban, it's to signal where the collective consensus is.
- d--b 6mo ago<sarcasm> Oh yeah, banning people who can't vote yet, genius. I think next we should ban them from eating butter, and you know, riding mountain bikes. Just protecting them you know. What about us? Oh us, we're addicted, so... Well, you just can't take that away from us, can you? I mean there would be riots. But the kids, they wouldn't know what they're missing, right? </sarcasm> This is such a weird law. I doubt this would be constitutional in France. You can't just pass a law that affects some people but not others. It's against the principle of equality.
- dnel 6mo agoI've been accosted outside enough shops to buy underage smokers a pack of cigs to know how well this will work.
- techteach00 6mo agoHopefully vaping will still be legal? They do distinguish the difference between inhaling burnt matter vs inhaling a heated aerosol, yes? Of course not. The only thing government and private enterprise seems good at these days is taking things away from people. Logic be damned.
- LazyMans 6mo agoAlthough much less harmful than smoke, nicotine is still not harmless to the cardiovascular system. If the goal is public health, it makes sense to move the needle a little further and try to keep people off nicotine entirely. Alcohol is another story, we're not ready to remove that yet.
- lokar 6mo agoI think it’s the combination of health impact and addiction
- causalmodels 6mo agoAfter alcohol, are we going to stop people from having multiple sexual partners in their lifetime? Because if public health is the goal, that would solve a lot of problems. It is fine to attempt to improve public health, but not at the cost of giving people a life worth living.
- rafram 6mo agoIf alcohol is what gives you "a life worth living," that's extremely concerning.
- techteach00 6mo agoNicotine is less harmful than sugar. Not even close. Ban sugar. Ban everything. Safety nausea.
- bill_joy_fanboy 6mo agoUK has public/socialized healthcare. If you are a smoker, you are much more likely to be a burden on this system. Makes sense to ban these types of activities if the costs of them are socialized rather than individualized.
- mystraline 6mo ago"My body, some distant governments choice"
- QuiEgo 6mo agoHistory has shown prohibition can be… problematic. Just tax it very very heavily and apply education / social pressure?
- nutjob2 6mo agoSee the problems with the Australian system, which is basically what you describe.
- HDBaseT 6mo agoExactly this. Australia (and the States) tried to impose ever increasing tax and restriction on smoking and over the last few years, smoking has reached critical mass, with more people smoking, cheaper smokes, and smokes becoming more available AND less regulated. Previously a 20 pack was around $40-60 at most smoke shops, then the illegal darts started to come in, they were priced as low as $6 or $8 for the cheapest 20 pack. They become rampant and barely anyone purchased genuine smokes. In fact, these illegal smoke stores were exactly like real smoke shops, proper business, proper storefront and everything. Excluding the prices, you couldn't tell you were buying illegal products.
- jellyfishbeaver 6mo agoCan anyone attest if young people are actually taking up cigarettes again? I was talking with a friend that teaches teenagers and she was explaining how many students that once were getting in trouble for vaping/pouches have now turned on to cigarettes. Completely boggles my mind - I thought the newer generation had a much stronger aversion to physical cigarettes.
- hackerInnen 6mo agoJust from my subjective view and observation, I'd say yes. It feels like a lot more people (younger than 30 roughly) smoke more than people around my peer group (mid 30s). I could be totally wrong tho, but at least that's what it feels like. It feels like "all of them" smoke. Either vape or real cigarettes and quite a few of them using cigarettes
- OkayPhysicist 6mo agoAt least in my younger brother's social circles, cigarettes are considered the inferior, but sometimes more available, good. They're hooked on nicotine via vapes, but it's sometimes easier to get a hold of cigarettes. That doesn't mean they smoke nearly as many cigarettes as we'd be used to seeing from a smoker pre-vapes, since once they can refill/buy another disposable vape they'll preferentially use those.
- Fornax96 6mo agoI do volunteer work at a youth organization in the Netherlands. Recently smoking has become a lot more popular. Nearly all kids between 18 and 25 smoke here. There is also a very clear group effect. People start smoking because others are doing it.
- Jamesbeam 6mo agoThat will for sure go well. Funding the "biggest threat the UK ever faced" according to Phil Mykytiuk, who has spent a decade mapping tobacco crime gangs in the north of England with a customer base of 10-11 million potential customers and rising every year, will surely cut heavily into their profits… It gets tiresome to buy a new house every week because the dry wall is full with cash, again. "Yo, psst, want to buy some Lucky Strikes? You know what will go really well with that? This white widow super cheese, and if you feel tired I also got some soap for you, first line on the house." "You’re afraid your parents might smell it? I can get you a discount on this perfume, smells like Aventus but way cheaper." - "Mykytiuk, though, believes the multiple layers of crime behind cheap, illegal tobacco are escaping scrutiny, allowing crime gangs – emboldened by the lack of deterrent – to expand their power base right under the noses of enforcement. Having witnessed Kurdish tobacco gang members invest heavily in property and high street businesses here in the UK, he’s now seeing evidence of them moving into cannabis farms. “But forget drugs,” he says. “Drugs are yesterday. The big thing is tobacco. These gangs are becoming the most capable criminals in this country. Right now it’s the biggest threat we’ve ever faced.” https://www.vice.com/en/article/criminal-gangs-are-making-billions-selling-illegal-tobacco-from-derelict-shops/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/criminal-gangs-are-making-bi...
- rafram 6mo ago> He is new in post as a trading standards manager at Bolton Council in Greater Manchester but worked for 10 years on a tobacco enforcement team at nearby Rochdale Council. Props to this Vice reporter (in 2022) for snagging an interview with a municipal staffer in a suburb of Manchester, I guess. I’m sure he’s a very busy man. But he doesn’t exactly seem notable (try Googling his name) and I’m not really sure what this is supposed to prove in the absence of any corroborating reporting.
- Jamesbeam 6mo agoI am interested in your thought process. If I got you right, you’re doubting his credibility as a source after he was vetted by a journalist, because he is talking about organised crime openly and not having a website or a Substack with half a million followers? Maybe the BBC from November last year is a more credible source for you? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx99ple17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx99ple17o
- Markoff 6mo agoDo they plan to introduce social media ban as well for people born after 2010?
- hackerInnen 6mo agoA ban for people born before 2010 would be reasonable
- kpmcc 6mo agoThis is good and all, but they should probably also restrict the advertising of nicotine products in this country. Coming here from the states, I was astounded that you can advertise Zyn like nicotine pouches in tube stations and around in public.
- draw_down 6mo ago[dead]
- ottah 6mo agoPeople should have the right to make bad decisions, because with a population of millions of individuals you can not accurately decide what is a bad decision and what is just a less bad decision.
- jollyllama 6mo agoI don't necessarily have a problem with it, but this is just stealth micro-pensions. Expect tobacco purchases by Gen-X'ers and Millenials to skyrocket over the next few decades.
- oompydoompy74 6mo agoPeople have been smoking tobacco for 12,000 years. How about nanny states fuck off and let people do what they want with their body. I would be happy for regulation of additives that tobacco companies adulterate their products with, but I should be able to smoke any plant I want.
- burnt-resistor 6mo agoI defend to the death individual choice but I'm also okay if the healthcare system wants a surcharge for voluntary lifestyle choices that cause first-, second-, and third-order health problems. That a universal healthcare system exists should never be used to rationalize universal, Orwellian deprivation of rights and invasive control of what people can do with their bodies or how to live. "No" to discrimination, collective punishment, and removal of liberty, but I'm okay with costs for voluntary choices. It's hard to say if smoking weed (blunts or the useless nonfiltration of a bong) is worse than smoking cigarettes because of the lack of filter, but I'd probably try filtered atomization (not necessarily vaping) rather than breathing in ash and tiny smoke particles that destroy lung capacity. To each, their own.
- harrisoned 6mo ago"Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal" — Demolition Man, 1993
- puelocesar 6mo agoThis is dumb. Brazil was able to extremely reduce tobacco consumption “just” with education and banning advertising. It blows my mind how no other country in the world wants to follow their example on this. Are they too proud to copy a third world country? Even when it’s doing some things better?
- foldr 6mo agoA quick Google search suggests that Brazil and the UK have similar levels of smoking in the adult population. So the UK's already succeeded in reducing smoking consumption. The aim of this legislation is to eventually eliminate it.
- clickety_clack 6mo agoI think that banning smoking in public places makes sense because you are impacting other people. I think banning things for kids makes sense because it’s a big wide world and it’s our duty to protect them. I’m not a fan of banning the things that a grown adult can do when it only affects them personally, however much I despise smoking. Since when have people decided that giving up personal liberty is fine. If you want to look 15 years older with gross teeth, horrible smell and die at 60, it’s kind of up to you.
- slibhb 6mo agoIt's sad that the UK, which invented liberal philosophy, is increasingly accepting of paternalism. It's important that people have an inviolable personal sphere inside which they can live their lives as they see fit. That includes making decisions of which society disaproves. Moreover, essentially all behavior plausibly has "diffuse negative externalities". We should be very careful about adopting that ("harms others in diffuse ways") as a reasonable standard for banning some behavior.
- ramesh31 6mo agoThe real answer would be to ban all commercial cultivation and sales, but keep personal consumption legal. It's the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry that systematically hooks people through advertising, not the plant. Something tells me not many folks will be growing tobacco plants in their basement to get a fix.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- burnt-resistor 6mo agoIt's been this way for over 60 years. Big Mommy tells you how to live.
- negura 6mo agowe now have empirical evidence of where liberalism leads us: to an amoral, predatory marketplace. which profits from exploiting people who are helplessly addicted to poisons like nicotine, processed foods and alcohol. how much worse does it need to get before we go back to the drawing board?
- slibhb 6mo agoLiberalism has led us to almost unbelievable prosperity. The fact that it has some downsides does not suggest that we have to "go back to the drawing board"
- deleted 6mo ago
- EgorKolds 6mo agoIf anything, I think it will only increase the number of young people smoking.
- nkapias 6mo agoFirst I've heard of generational ban was in a hundred years old novel from Jack London (maybe an autobiography ? can't remember the name). It certainly was about alcohol, maybe he mentioned tobacco as well, anyway the idea and debate certainly aren't new. I find bewildering that such concepts are tried only centuries later, and wonder how it comes to be possible. Is it that we can finally enforce them, or that the lobbying have been gradually weakened, or enough data to drive decision, etc. ?
- scoofy 6mo agoMy main problem with this is the "do as I say not as I do" intergenerational conflict. It just seems completely absurd to me that a government thinks it's acceptable to treat a generation unable to vote differently from the generations who can. It's really an absurd unfreedom and a kind of tyranny. Why not just pass a law that says people born after 2008 have to pay higher taxes, and work longer hours for less pay? People should be equal under the law.
- Daviey 6mo ago> Why not just pass a law that says people born after 2008 have to pay higher taxes, and work longer hours for less pay? People should be equal under the law. We already do this, the UK State Pension age is currently rising from 66 to 67 for those born on or after April 6, 1960. This change affects, for example, those born between April 1960 and March 1961, who will have a pension age of 66 plus a set number of months. When I was young, it was 65 for men and 60 for women (from the 1940s until 2010)
- OkayPhysicist 6mo agoSee, that at least affects a big enough swath of voters that they could, if mattered to them, vote everyone involved out. This smoking ban is specifically designed to not affect a single voter.
- Daviey 6mo agoI can't agree with this. When they become voters, if enough people of that age bracket wanted to reversed it then they could elect a party that has it in their manifesto. For example, some parties have a cannabis pledge and not enough people have wanted it as yet. My son is 16, and will be impacted by this ban. He is constantly exposed to the temptation to smoke and vape. As a responsible parent, I want to do everything I possibly can to protect him and not become addicted. We know that nearly all smoking starts before 26. - ~90% of daily smokers first tried cigarettes by age 18 - ~95% had their first cigarette by age 20-21 (American Lung Association) - 98% first smoked by age 26 (National Cancer Institute) So the probability of starting smoking after 21 is roughly 2-5%. If someone hasn't started smoking by 21, they almost certainly never will. The brain's decision-making capacity isn't fully mature until ~25. People are getting hooked before they're neurologically equipped to properly evaluate the risk. People do not start smoking when they are grown-ass-adults. We owe our young people this protection, and I am a liberal. But to take your point to full conclusion, Brexit was decided by the people that it impacts the least. And, "Since the Brexit referendum, 4+m voters have died (mainly Leavers), while almost 5m have reached voting age (overwhelmingly Remain), There is now a 1.6m majority for Remain - without anyone needing to change their minds". - https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/anti-brexit-britain-has-reached-the-point-of-return/ https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/anti-brexit-britain-has-reache... - June 2023
- kkarakk 6mo agoJust like that - Smoking just got infinitely more cool among UK youth
- insane_dreamer 6mo agoSmoking is clearly harmful, but I'm not sure about laws that criminalize adults from deciding what they want to do with their own bodies. Health care costs are a factor, but I don't know about the UK but in the US these days, junk food and sodas probably incur more health care costs through obesity, than smoking. What I do favor of is making cigarettes highly inaccessible -- i.e., restrict the sale to a very limited number of licensed locations, impose high taxes so they're very expensive. If it's still fairly widespread, raise the taxes even more. I think we should do the same with Coke /Pepsi/etc.
- burnt-resistor 6mo agoExactly. This ageist, discriminatory, paternalistic prohibition will create crime and a black market and won't solve much of anything.
- rglover 6mo ago[dead]
- cmxch 6mo agoInteresting to see them do this when the original study in Singapore did not (initially) enact the ban. Did they just follow on from New Zealand?
- rayiner 6mo agoHow is this constitutional lol. Especially the age discrimination aspect.
- Xiol 6mo agoThe UK doesn't have a constitution.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- asdefghyk 6mo agoMaybe growing kits , for sale will grow? ie seeds , and other useful / needed growing accessories .... reply
- mrandish 6mo agoSo, then some day in the distant future a 66 year-old guy standing outside a store will be asking a 67 year-old guy to buy him a pack of smokes.
- snvzz 6mo ago[dead]
- rvz 6mo agoBans are surely going to work for sure. /s
- moaning 6mo ago[dead]
- NoPicklez 6mo agoThis is a good thing. Maybe I could sit here and debate the pros and cons, supposed crap about my liberties, is the age bracket the right way to go about it. But this is a good thing, there is nothing good about cigarettes no matter which way you argue it, or compare it to anything else.
- whattheheckheck 6mo agoBuckle up for more legally enforceable parental guidance for how you should live your life to serve the state
- NoPicklez 6mo agoShould we completely stop smoking? Yes. There is absolutely nothing about it that is good for us or anyone near those smoking. Its not just how you life your life to the state, its for your own health and those around you. Your life will be marginally better without cigarettes.
- whattheheckheck 6mo ago100% agree. What else follows from this line of thinking and will people have the power and ability to protect those activities when the next one comes. Yes the slippery slope is real. Look at the encroachment of surveillance capitalism. Sociopaths take an inch they take a mile and tell you its for your own good
- know-how 6mo ago[dead]
- baggy_trough 6mo agoThis is an obscenity.
- tsoukase 6mo agoSmoking is debilitating, so is alcohol, drugs and gambling. Since the last >100 we see a trend to gradually restrict them, one by one, albeit inconsistently. Smoking was a casual habit in the 60s, next it was banned indoors and now before a certain age. In the (not too) distant future it might me totally banned next to its cousin, cannabis. Tldr, the decision is not surprising but expected, following the trend.
- gloosx 6mo ago[dead]
- taylorius 6mo agoAs the saying goes - "Alcohol is an excellent servant, but a terrible master." The same could be said for Metrics. So much is measurable these days, and we love to watch the chart go up or down. If it hasn't been measured, it doesn't exist. And the bureaucrats conjure reality with nothing but a spreadsheet and the flourish of a rubber stamp.
- perilunar 6mo agoI have a slightly different take on this. Tobacco is a product that is sold by producers who know it is both highly addictive and extremely bad for their customers' health. That should be illegal. But it should not be illegal for people to consume (as long as they don't harm others via second hand smoke). The principle is simple: harming other people deliberately is wrong. (Harming yourself is merely stupid). So I would ban the manufacture and sale of tobacco, but make it perfectly legal to grow your own. Smoke as much as you want. Just don't harm others.