- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- 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.
Let’s see. Making tobacco illegal means the black market will florish. And then the government can’t regulate the quality. Kinda what we already have with Cannabis. A lot of countries legalize Cannabis so that buyers can be sure it is of proper quality and not mixed with dangerous substances. Yes, smoking is bad and that’s why it should be expensive in order to discourage people from smoking. And a lot of public spaces should be smoke-free as well so that non-smokers are affected by smokers as little as possible. Banning something completely can go fully in the opposite way, just look what the Prohibition back in the US did with regards to Alcohol.
I don’t like this argument. Every time you ban something there will black market for it. But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work. Similarly with weed, if it’s less accessible, it means less consumption.
The issue is those that still consume have to operate in an unregulated environment
Incorrect
But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work.
Yes, but the black market has serious sides effects. You have to compare the disadvantages of allowing people who want to smoke to smoke, damaging their own health vs the black market funding cartels, mafias, and/or other criminals, causing problems for everyone.
At least smoking sensibly should be banned then. Because it bothers everybody. So if my windows are open and my neighbor smokes in his balcony I could make a lawsuit against him.
Lemmites normally: smoking is bad and should be banned.
UK government: ok then.
Lemmites now: YO WHAT THE FUCK.
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.
How kind of the government to decide that people born after 2008 have fewer freedoms than those born before it!
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.
Prohibition is never good, removing individual freedom is never good. I can see the point for some of these restrictions, to provide a safe basis for other people around (because we can’t ask people to simply be nice), but more than that… meh.
I will not be up in arms to defend smoking rights, but that’s probably not the way to do it.
Chalk up another imminent failure for the war on drugs
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.
Hooray, I hate freedom. /s
That is quite the ban.
Education is the answer - not bans.
We don’t need less freedom.why not people born after 2026 or not just increase education about the topic? why limit the freedoms of people already born?
2008+18=2026.
2008 is chosen so that effective immediately, no one new will be allowed to smoke, but those who were previously allowed to smoke can continue.
Making the date 2026 means it takes 18 years to go into effect. There isn’t a good reason to wait.
The alternative would be banning smoking outright, which would be coercive to those who are addicted to something that was legal when they started. This policy is a timely but fair way to outlaw something.
Banning smoking out right makes it more tempting for teens. Oh it’s naughty not allowed we want it more. Drug dealers will take over, kids are already a profit mill for them
Of all the things they could choose to focus so vehemently on, of all the things wrong in this world, this simple vice deserves so much attention.
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…
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.
Imagine if they did the same for alcohol :)
I’m not even a regular smoker, but sure as fuck the day will come when I would kill to have a cigarette.
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.
I spent a few months in South Korea and packs of smokes there were like 2 bucks and change (Seoul and Gwangju). In USA a decent pack of 72s is like 8 -10 bucks, federal tax is a buck and change per pack with state taxes being 2$+ per pack. That means that on average the consumer is paying nearly 40% in taxes to the government. Black market smokes ABSOLUTELY will provide good margins, selling without tax at taxed price or greater will net black market sellers nearly double their money on each sale which is significantly greater than a lot of the easier to sell drugs. Hell when I sold weed before it got legalized I typically made 25-30% mark up unless I sold pennyweight but then it was a hassle. In the 90s when taxes were hiked on tobacco people were selling black market cartons for less than stores could with tax and making money hand over fist, it happened because of a tax HIKE not a ban! And YOU think smoking is shit, I think smoking crack rocks is shit but people still love it. Not advocating for shit here, just pointing out that there has, is, and will be a black market for tobacco and just about everything else. I have bought illegal moonshine, tax free darts off an old head, and various illicit substances without giving my genocidal gov a penny for it! Of course now I pay tax on weed I buy legally… But I’m getting old and don’t want to take as many risks when there’s a legal alternative.
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
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.
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.
You choose to smoke. If someone wants to buy sawdust to put into their bread separately that’s fine. regulations are to stop a market from poisoning the base product, if the product is poison then it’s on the consumer.
Things that you choose to consume aren’t the same as utilities.
Mkay but food isn’t a utility, and neither are cigarettes/cigars/vapes/etc, so I don’t really understand what you’re getting at here
End of the day it’s a question of personal freedoms
Im all for that, honestly, but lets include all the drugs
If the free market is so great where are the free market roads, or the free market fire fighters, or the free market court systems, or the free market affordable health care?
… okay… so let’s mix in local government, taxes, and legal systems?
I don’t even know what to say
Oh no, not the free market!
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.
