6 ms·
UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes
- DeveloperOne 6mo agoCensorship and restrictions for regular people.
- jmye 6mo agoWhat, specifically, does banning buying cigarettes have to do with “censorship”? Or are we just saying words now, because they seem emotive?
- KetoManx64 6mo agoLook at the root of censorship and then do a Google search. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
- allears 6mo agoI totally agree that tobacco is a harmful substance. I'm not sure if I agree that a government should try to legislate citizens' habits.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Pooge 6mo agoIncluding for heroin or other hard drugs?
- BLKNSLVR 6mo agoI look at it, not as legislating people's habits, more as a private company wants to sell these things in our country, but there is a clear, measurable negative effect on society as a result (and in the case of cigarettes there is no positive effect whatsoever that may offset the negative). I would call that an easy ban. You can't sell that shit here legitimately. I'm a little surprised the attempts haven't been more widespread. I wonder what possible gap there is for things that can be illegal to sell, but you can buy them from international sellers and use them in the privacy of your own home? (and health insurance won't cover related complications).
- inheritedwisdom 6mo agoIn the US I tend to agree (given the current pay to live system is constructed) but in the UK with single payer insurance this seems more palatable. I’m curious if a “free society / libertarian” middle ground would be limiting access to NHS for those that choose to continue to use known harmful substances. I’d posit that many would object to that the way “death panels” were politicized when the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed though.
- TheChaplain 6mo agoIt depends? AFAIK healthcare in UK is tax funded, and smoking with its long list of damages to the body, takes a portion of that taxpayer money which could be used on something underfunded, like mental healthcare.
- bombcar 6mo agoThis is the country that legislates butter knives and naughty words.
- joe463369 6mo agoDo you live in the United Kingdom?
- theshrike79 6mo agoAmericans want to legislate bathrooms. You can still get addicted to nicotine, they're just banning a very specific delivery mechanism.
- stevenalowe 6mo agoI cannot fathom the twists of logic necessary to justify such a specific and arbitrary prohibition
- cineticdaffodil 6mo agoI think its an attempt to cut back on health system costs, disguised as well meaning measure. Up next alcohol bans. One might not even numb oneself while beeing a slave to the "allways right" generation vampire.
- rorylawless 6mo agoYes, the government has concocted a dastardly conspiracy to cut health system costs by reducing access to a known cause of illness.
- cineticdaffodil 6mo agoIf only we could impprison them all. Beeing in prison reduces almost all life risks, even that of incarceration.
- Pooge 6mo agoAlcohol was always an important cultural symbol (drinking wine as a Christian, for example). This is not the case for tobacco, especially highly artificial one. Tobacco is inherently bad for one's surrounding as well.
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agohttps://keepitsacred.itcmi.org/tobacco-and-tradition/traditional-tobacco-use/?utm_source=copilot.com https://keepitsacred.itcmi.org/tobacco-and-tradition/traditi...
- Pooge 6mo agoSo my point stands; it's not a cultural symbol like alcohol is for Europeans.
- Muromec 6mo agoIt's an interesting experiment and we have all the time we need to see the results.
- TheChaplain 6mo agoI mean drugs are also banned, and how does that work out?
- bdangubic 6mo agoif you get caught buying/using/… you go to prison
- kakacik 6mo agoI dont think you can hide with smoking cigarettes almost anywhere, the stink is far too strong, characteristic abd outright repulsive. Also, you normally dont go to jail by using drugs... what a clueless comment
- bdangubic 6mo agocut up a line of coke at a public place, preferably next to a police officer and see how that works out for you :)
- t-3 6mo agoThat's possession rather than use, usually being high is not a crime in and of itself.
- tastyfreeze 6mo agoCannabis is a way stronger smell and it is used everywhere regardless of the laws against it.
- wlkr 6mo agoSomewhat related HN discussions from a while back when New Zealand sought to do the same [1] [2]. Worth noting that it was later scrapped [3]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33970717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33970717 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33967454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33967454 [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-sm...
- pkulak 6mo agoWow, lots of libertarian absolutists up this morning. Guys, that's all well and good as a philosophy, but you need to integrate your views into the world around you too. When you live in a society that has _decided_ to collectively shoulder health care costs, and assume responsibility for everyone's health, you also may need some ground rules. I know it sucks, because _you_ may have just been born there and you don't really have a choice in what society you live, so that means care needs to be taken, but it doesn't mean there can never be any cost-of-entry.
- tt24 6mo ago> When you live in a society that has _decided_ to collectively shoulder health care costs Look, I found the problem!
- pkulak 6mo agoDemocracy is the problem?
- tt24 6mo agoTo a large extent yes, but more specifically the decision to collectively shoulder healthcare costs is the problem.
- noplacelikehome 6mo agoWhy is it a problem? Why should the ability to afford healthcare determine your ability to access it? I'm genuinely curious as to why you think it's reasonable for the less financially well off to die.
- tt24 6mo agoWhy should I ever have to pay for someone else’s healthcare lol, that seems wild to me
- roenxi 6mo ago
- BLKNSLVR 6mo ago... and nothing of value was lost.
- mellosouls 6mo agoThe article here just links to the BBC report that was discussed here at the time: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed (172 points, 413 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47847240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47847240
- threepts 6mo agoThey also permanently banned coke,meth and other drugs since the inception of law, guess how that turned out? "The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 8.7% of people aged 16 to 59 years (around 2.9 million people) reported using any drug in the last 12 months for the year ending (YE) March 2025; there was no statistically significant change compared with YE March 2024" I believe limiting people's liberty is an ineffective option opposed to education.
- klodolph 6mo ago> guess how that turned out? My guess is that significantly fewer people use drugs than would have used drugs if they were not banned. > "The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 8.7% of people aged 16 to 59 years (around 2.9 million people) reported using any drug in the last 12 months for the year ending (YE) March 2025; there was no statistically significant change compared with YE March 2024" Are there some significant changes to policy during that time period? I don’t see how this factoid is related to whatever argument you are trying to make.
- amiga386 6mo agoThey're pointing out that 2.9 millon people take drugs (extrapolating from the people surveyed), and law says that should be zero. This law will attempt to ban cigarettes. Estimate how many people will buy them and smoke them illegally. The number will not be zero.
- vially 6mo agoThe number does not have to be zero for this to still have a net positive effect on society.
- KetoManx64 6mo agoHow many people's lives have been ruined due to them getting caught with drugs? Your "net positive" just focuses on using force to make people not have self agency to what they do to their bodies. You know what would really solve crime and drug abuse issues? If we just gave people lobotomies at the age of 16. They will all be nice and complacent and due what they're told by the state.
- tt24 6mo agoThis is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of this just doesn’t make sense.
- WarmWash 6mo agoWe can just tax the rich to cover the cost of our personal decisions. Which is their fault anyway because I wouldn't have gotten diabetes if they didn't shove that junk take out food down my throat.
- tastyfreeze 6mo agoNow to take the last logical step like Canada and suggest assisted suicide to the high cost patients.
- BLKNSLVR 6mo agoOnly those who have become high cost patients due to choosing to put themselves at risk for years.
- tastyfreeze 6mo agoAdmittedly I have only read of Canadian Healthcare, but, that is not what I have read. Terminal patients and the elderly are offered death as a treatment. Cancer patients are the most common. About 5% of deaths in Canada are from the MAID program.
- fontain 6mo agoI assume you’re being sarcastic but just in case: the goal of single payer healthcare isn’t to spend the least amount of money on healthcare. The goal of single payer healthcare is to guarantee everyone a minimum quality of life. You can believe that the minimum quality of life includes the option to engage in unprotected sex and sky diving.
- baggy_trough 6mo agoEntirely absurd and unacceptable, like so much coming out of the UK these days.
- shevy-java 6mo agoI never smoked in my life so one would assume I would be in favour of this. The health data is clear. At the same time I can not stand governments constantly interfering into regular people's life. I think at some point there has to put a stop to this - the idea that governments can control people like little slaves is just outrageous, even if the alleged use case is logically compelling or appears to be that way. By the same token governments can say "you can only use the internet if you ID". Also, as some point out this is "liberty" - well, I don't see how a restriction can be about "liberty" at all. It is the opposite of it; having a use case that seems logical still does not make a strategy about it good.
- trebligdivad 6mo agoIt's going to make for an interesting future age verification problem; For a few years it'll be easy, because it's still only going to be asking people under say 25 for proof; but then in a few decades it's going to be people trying to figure out if there customer is over 40 say.
- BLKNSLVR 6mo agoAll legit customers will be long dead by then.
- nmeofthestate 6mo agoTrue, but I think most people get addicted to smoking when young, and are less likely to just decide to start smoking at 40, especially when vaping is an option.
- vikaveri 6mo agoWhy would it be difficult? ID says 2009 or later and you can't buy? I would imagine checking age for tobacco becomes easier
- keybored 6mo agoI get the apparent logic of phasing cigarettes into unlawfulness over decades. But considering this is so one-sided in terms of curtailing liberty for one generation,[1] it would have been interesting if they also got a privilege that us oldies are cut off from. Just as a perk to offset things. But whatever could that be? Twenty-year 5% discount on vegetables? [1] But this youngest generation also gets the privilege of never having easy access to cigarettes.
- t-3 6mo ago> [1] But this youngest generation also gets the privilege of never having easy access to cigarettes. Being an island, it's probably slightly easier to control smuggling, but if there's money to be made, people will be smuggling in cartons. Anyway, getting an older person to buy cigs isn't difficult, and they're still legal for the majority of the population. I doubt smoking will become immediately attractive, but if the ban sticks around, probably in a decade or so tobacco will be a niche hipster rebellion, then become poser-cool, then totally normalized again.
- notrustincloud 6mo ago"being an island" doesnot, in fact, make it easier to inhibit smuggling. One reason, the sheer number of small, unstaffed seaports and the volume of small fishing vessel traffic does in fact make it easier for unobserved ingress of materials under the guisd of small commercial and noncommercial fishing and small to midsize shipping. (see Scotland as major import of currently illicit drugs and undocumented refugees) Adding another globally common and less regulated substance to the list of extrajudicial desireables simply equals a performance bonus and being low aquisition risk (already shipping other goods from places that grow tobacco and make cigs) as an incentive for the already very profitable and active operators of these networks. From my perspective this would simply make being a smuggler easier and more profitable and be a value uplift for corrupt enforcement and a net reduction in collectable taxes... moving the revenue from comsumption tax books to black market coffers.
- t-3 6mo ago
- ChrisArchitect 6mo ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47847240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47847240
- ikidd 6mo agoCowardly way to legislate.