5 ms·
The U.K. Smoking Ban Is Illiberal
- busterarm 7mo agoLiberalism left UK politics decades ago and their voters practically begged for it.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- clutter55561 7mo agoThis is stupid. Smoking has high social negative externality. It causes cancer to the smoker and to others around the smoker. Who pays for the treatment of those affected? All tax payers. Want to die? Die fast, not in a way that waste everyone’s money, and don’t take others with you.
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoIn the UK it is forbidden to smoke in public places and the revenue from taxes on cigarettes is several times what the healthcare service spends on smoking-related illnesses. So I'd say things are already exactly as you wish.
- greggoB 7mo ago> the revenue from taxes on cigarettes is several times what the healthcare service spends on smoking-related illnesses. I'd be interested to see this - you have a source you can link for it?
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoGoogle is still around: revenue is at £8 billion (Office for Budget Responsibility) and in decline, and NHS spending is at £2.6 billion in England, which is by far the bulk of the UK (NHS England).
- Dumblydorr 7mo agoExtraordinary claims require evidence, not snarky Google mentions. Spending amounts are for what specifically? Do those 2.6 billion account for second and third hand smoke? For smoking in pregnancy leading to problems?
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoI didn't make any extraordinary claims... Most of the price of a pack of cigarettes in the UK is tax. It is fairly well known that revenue is higher than cost to healthcare service (NHS, which is funded via general taxation), and data are public and very easily found. My previous comment with data was indeed literally the result of two Google queries (revenue amd cost) and were from official sources, which I mentioned. You don't like the data? Fine. You want to do your own detailed research and enlighten us? Fine. I didn't comment to be cross-examined to death...
- greggoB 7mo ago[flagged]
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoI provided data although I commented that they were easily available because "what's your source" is the usual lazy retort. This is hostile cross-examination, not discussion. I suggest you read the guidelines before saying things like "this is HN" (although you are right that this is a commom behaviour here).
- greggoB 7mo ago"In 2024, smoking cost the public finances in England £16.5bn, more than double the £6.8bn raised through tobacco taxes." [0] "The NHS’s expenditure on smoking-related health issues remains high, corroborated by the reported £20. 6 billion cost to public finances in the UK in 2022, with approximately £2. 2 billion attributed to the NHS" [1] It seems NHS spending is only a part of the story. Also note that I'm only quoting cost to public finances, the overall societal costs are cited as being much higher. [0] https://ash.org.uk/key-topics/the-economic-impact-of-smoking https://ash.org.uk/key-topics/the-economic-impact-of-smoking [1] https://themaplesrehab.com/how-much-money-does-the-nhs-spend-on-quitting.html https://themaplesrehab.com/how-much-money-does-the-nhs-spend...
- armada651 7mo ago> So I'd say things are already exactly as you wish. Except, you know, the "don't take others with you" part. That is a crucial, fundamental part of liberalism that people often skip over. Everyone only seems to remember the "I have the freedom to do whatever I want" part and skip over the "until that freedom impedes the freedom of others" part.
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoAbsolutely, which is why smoking in public, offices, bars, restaurants, etc is banned...
- hackable_sand 7mo agoSo it logically follows that you don't have the right to sell cigarettes Good job everyone!
- fancyfredbot 7mo agoShocking. They'll be banning cocaine and heroin next!
- watwut 7mo agoWait till you hear about trans issues there.
- kelseyfrog 7mo ago> I vehemently insist on the right of my fellow humans to smoke. You still have the right to bodily autonomy. What sellers don't have is the right to sell something that kills their clients and has obvious consequences en mass. Just grow your own tobacco, cure it, process it, and roll your own cigarettes. Think of it like building your own Linux distro. You always had that ability, but didn't exercise it. Now you can.
- cucumber3732842 7mo agoActing like "well we're not banning it, we're just regulating it to the point that it's a non starter for 99.99% of people effectively acomplishing the same thing" isn't a ban is just calling people stupid with extra steps.
- justsomehnguy 7mo ago> Just grow your own tobacco, cure it, process it, and roll your own cigarettes. Just grow your own grapes, ferment them, distill them, and bottle your own whiskey. Just raise your own cattle, slaughter them, butcher them, and prepare your own steak. Just raise your own cows, milk them, pasteurize the milk, and produce your own cheese.
- vrganj 7mo agoYeah, or... don't. But don't expect other people to make everything easy for you. If you really want to, you can. Laziness is not an excuse.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoThere's no natural right to be sold a product. It simply doesn't exist in reality, not part of the universe, and antithetical to natural law. I could demand you sell me your clothes. Just as absurd.
- card_zero 7mo agoDo you think property rights exist in reality? This quality of naturalness is tricky for me to get to grips with, but property rights are very basic, so they surely are part of the universe, right? The point of this question is that I own my clothes, but the government does not own the tobacco. Unless you think the government owns everything.
- quickthrowman 7mo agoCigarettes exist solely to keep people smoking, they’re an insidious product. It’s a corporation weaponizing addiction to profit while causing cancer and COPD. You’re either addicted, or you aren’t. There are no pleasurable psychoactive effects, only relief from nicotine withdrawal. Humans are better off without tobacco, or cigarettes at least. This solution at least lets the current addicts maintain their addiction, but there are much safer ways to get nicotine these days if you want it, lozenges, vapes, pouches.
- dusted 7mo agoI always thought it was an elegant and respectful solution. Instead of harassing existing addicts into quitting, ease out of general addiction by forbidding those who haven't yet had the opportunity to get addicted, yes, of course some will still be, but it will be vastly fewer than when it's illegal. It's different from weed in that, while it makes you look cool, it's simply nowhere near as fun..
- Gud 7mo agoNowhere near as fun and 10 times as addictive. Although I do love to smoke pot, after all these years, Nikotine was a decade long habbit I wanted to quit for as long but couldn’t. Although I don’t want to undersell the addictiveness of weed, like many people do, it is still psychologically very easy to form an addiction.
- Scroll_Swe 7mo agoDont really care. Not in the UK but in Sweden. Smoking is already banned in restaurants, on train platforms, mostly all in public. With health care being tax funded in regions, I dont want to pay for smokers bad health. "oh but do you want to tax or prohibit unhealthy foods!!??" Yes, first remove all drinks with sugar or heavily tax them. Not needed. Zero sugar drinks only. 2nd - price hike on snacks, chips, nuts, chocolate, "pick n mix" candy, sugar candy 3rd - BMI based health. Want any help for pain, surgery, whatever and your BMI is over 25? Lower it and you get it. Do you smoke? Stop. Do nicotine? Stop. Any hard drugs? Stop.
- mrbukkake 7mo agoyes very swedish response, aggressively conformist and narrow minded
- cindyllm 7mo ago[dead]
- Scroll_Swe 7mo agoI assume you are american, must be very blackpilling to visit Sweden. Imagine living in a functional democracy and society where things work like public transport and holidays. https://youtu.be/xrTTIYd2OyY?si=3ZVicQxgxzXhu4s9&t=27 https://youtu.be/xrTTIYd2OyY?si=3ZVicQxgxzXhu4s9&t=27
- troad 7mo agoNot OP, but I'm not American, have been to Sweden (and lived most of my life in countries with better public healthcare than Sweden), and I also think yours is an aggressively conformist take. I'm not sure what value it is meant to be adding to the overall conversation. Save it for Reddit next time.
- busterarm 7mo agoDespite being supposedly secular societies, their protestant tendencies are quite strong. Many find it stifling. American but speak Danish and almost moved there a couple of times.
- calvinmorrison 7mo agoI love smoking
- calvinmorrison 7mo agoI love smoking cigarettes.
- camgunz 7mo agoThis is a particularly lazy article. I expected Friedersdorf to engage at least perfunctorily with drug laws or seatbelt laws, but no, just a bunch of trying to troll the libs. Here's something else that's argument-destroying: the ban doesn't apply to the people born after 2009, it applies to anyone trying to sell them tobacco or vapes. This falls under the aegis of regulation (can't sell heroin either) and applies to all sellers regardless of race, age, sex, etc, so it's not even discriminatory. Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet. But finally, Friedersdorf talks about the dignity of making choices and dealing with the consequences. I'd love to see him make this argument to people dying slowly of COPD and emphysema, people with mouth, throat, and lung cancer, people who will die before meeting their grandkids, etc. Just, chilling detachment from humanity.
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoA pack of cigarettes in the UK has a huge warning that smoking kills/causes cancer/etc with a shocking picture of a potential actual outcome, too. That's in addition to all the public campaigns about the risks of smoking. The argument that smokers were victims who didn't know hasn't held any water for decades...
- vrganj 7mo agoThey're addicts. Whether they know it's bad or not is irrelevant. If you ever struggle with addiction, you'll know that decision making is no longer well-reasoned or thought through. Such is addiction.
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoNo, the addiction is irrelevant because you need to go over and ignore the anti-smoking campaigns and what's on the packs to become an addict in the first place. That's the point. It is a personal decision to start and it is a personal decision to continue (although it is of course not easy to stop once you are "addicted")
- 7mo ago
- cumshitpiss 7mo ago[dead]
- ls612 7mo agoOf all the illiberal things that the UK has been doing the past few years this of all things is what is a bridge too far for the Atlantic? Apologies for the lack of decorum but lol. lmao even.
- erelong 7mo agoPersonally I find it embarassing the U.K. is doing this but it's not surprising Was pretty surprised to see the U.S. bump up smoking age to 21 These efforts seem like the opposite of progress and promote irresponsibility and dependence
- busterarm 7mo agoIf they're trying to ban things that cause cancer, eating pussy is surely next.
- thrance 7mo agoI disagree wholeheartedly. > I vehemently insist on the right of my fellow humans to smoke. And I vehemently insist on the right of my fellow humans to live a healthy life. My Grandpa died of an horrific lung disease directly linked to his decades of smoking. I was robbed of decades of his company, all so a few fucks could make a quick buck. I sincerely believe that selling tobacco to someone can and should be compared to murder. No one would argue that banning murder is illeberal: the right to a long, safe and healthy life is the best of all negative freedoms. Smoking is a small positive freedom we would all fare much bettter without.