UK moves to ban smoking for everyone born after 2008
(www.dw.com)
from 8oow3291d@feddit.dk to world@lemmy.world on 21 Apr 20:38
https://feddit.dk/post/21276857
from 8oow3291d@feddit.dk to world@lemmy.world on 21 Apr 20:38
https://feddit.dk/post/21276857
- 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
#world
threaded - newest
That is quite the ban.
Well there’s certainly no way this will create a black market, and become impossible to enforce!
There surely will become somewhat of a black market, but not in the same way as weed or harder drugs. Smoking doesn’t really give you a buzz except for the first few times, so people won’t go to the black market for the effect, but rather to keep the withdrawels at bay. It would seem incredibly silly to buy cigarettes like people buy weed, when all it really does for a first timer is taste horrible, make you cough, and if you actually manage to inhale, make you a bit dizzy. Sure, some people from 2009 and onwards will start to smoke, but it’ll be a whole lot less people than today.
You realize in the 1930s there was a black market for cigerettes when they weren’t even illegal, right?
Mafias had support from the people, because mobs supplied booze, which WAS illegal. They made so much money from that, they started robbing cigerette trucks. Then selling legal cigerettes, at full cost, simply because the people trusted the mob over the government.
Sure, but a lot has changed since then, and while that totally could happen, I’m doubting it’ll be widespread in any way.
“yeah, but, nah, trust me bro”
would have been a better response. At least build your conclusion from something. You’re responding to someone giving a historical example.
“Times are different” just means it could be worse or better. It doesn’t conclude which or to what degree. You didn’t say anything.
1930s didnt have overwhelming evidence that smoking was stupid, addictive, and disastrously dangerous to your health.
Smoking doesnt produce the same euphoria and consistency of drugs on the current blackarket. The juice wont be worth the squeeze. Financially, there wont be enough “consumers” for a cigarette black market.
I think you misunderestimate how addictive cigerettes are. My friends mom goes through $80 worth of cigerettes every 2-3 days.
How much is a packet there?
About $8, but she smokes 5-8 packs a day.
Holy shitballs.
Is she just smoking nonstop the whole day?
I’ve seen her laying on the couch, asleep, sits up, eyes not open, reaches in the drawer, lights her own hair on fire, sits there on fire, smoking an unlit cigerette as the rest of us scramble to put her out.
That's hardcore. Are any other substances involved?
I can’t see how this is even possible for a couple, much less one person.
I GREW UP IN A HOUSE OF CHAIN SMOKERS, my older sister and brother and both parents.
Are you sure about this or just guestimating?
Right,but theyre not banning it for people like her… theyre banning it for people born after 2008. Is your mom 18 years old?
Are you claiming that minors don’t smoke because it’s not legal? That’s what you’re going with?
God youre annoying.
Youre just looking to be combative. Youre cool dude, so cool, just so so cool that you should go back to reddit. So fucking cool how you intentionally need to argue the most braindead niche “uhm actually” talking point you can muster.
You can just not respond next time mate. When you type out a comment like this; just go “nah” and hit “discard” next time.
Also, your entire point rests on “they won’t do it because it’s bad for them AND illegal”.
Have you ever been a teenager? Something that they are told “your too young to do that” is like crack for them. It’s not “niche” to consider this major factor of how people get addicted early in life.
Real question- is that volume or branding? Depending on where you are/what brand, that might be a 1.5-2 pack a day habit of higher quality smokes; not unheard of for a typical heavy smoker. If you’re spending that much on ass-end packs that cost you $6/ea, that’s pushing 4 packs a day, which is like legendary status few can achieve anymore.
Oh, I thought you were replying to thr other message. Still, it’s just below here, where I said she smokes 5-8 packs a day.
She also has this bag of loose tabacco where she rolls her own. She uses that when she can’t afford marlborrow.
Cigarette companies add things to make them more addictive, including chemical flavorings and extra nicotine. It doesn't negate what you said, but enhances it.
There already is a big, thriving black market for cigarettes in the EU country I’m in, simply due to high tobacco taxes. I can only assume the same will be true for other places that tax similarly. Are you really saying that an outright ban won’t result in a greater unmet demand, and thus more customers shopping at the black markets? It sounds unlikely to me that black market dealers will close up shop, because of a ban on the legal sale of cigarettes. The black market is already banned, but that’s not exactly stopping them.
I think it might be different nowadays. We know now that smoking causes cancer. Also the world is in color, which makes not smoking more enjoyable.
There’s a huge black market for tobacco products here in Australia and it’s completely legal, simply having the tax on it so high has led to massive smuggling operations, black market cigarettes in many convenience stores, and a fire bombing epidemic of those same convenience stores for carrying competitors black market cigs. It doesn’t even need to be illegal. Just too expensive.
Yup, a local substance plug sells cigarettes in addition to other goods and services, the cigarettes are less than the shops.
That must explain the reason for having the “T” in ATF then.
No no no. You’re missing the H.
Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
They’re number one in the hood, G!
Mate, you got no fucking clue. This will create entire new organised crime markets.
Exactly.
Maybe at first, yeah. But in 50 years, when almost nobody under 60 smokes and it’s prohibited everywhere, who would go out of their way to start this particular habit?
As a lifelong smoker, one of the hardest hurdle to quitting is going out, having a couple of drinks, then seeing other people smoke and resisting the urge to go buy an easily available pack.
They don’t give you a buzz right now. You think prohibition liquor was just as safe as what was produced afterwards, what with all those ridiculous safety regulations gone?
OMG so many dead people from radiator gin.
Do you remember being a teenager? You’re describing something that is extremely addictive AND the government is banning you from trying it because you were born too late. This is just asking for a shit show. I’d rather the cigs be guaranteed not to contain lead (or whatever). Forcing a black market just removes all regulation on the vice. Each year that market will get larger. It’s literally a guaranteed increase of demand in the black market over time.
I really think the methods used in the US to reduce smoking really need to be duplicated in other countries. The US literally has like one good thing that we got right somehow. In comparison to Asia or a lot of Europe I never see people smoking.
Vapes are a whole different story. But, even before vapes were a thing the US really did a good job at making smoking socially unacceptable through multiple policies.
We literally have examples of methods that work well AND methods that don’t. Outright bans never work with vices.
It can’t be taken 1:1. Vices being banned in the past was typically because they provided pleasure in lieu of productivity, not some external reason. Therefore making those bans inherently tyrannical to habitual users and certain non-users, incentivizing disobedience.
But this time, it’s being banned for a group that’s not habitually using already, meaning extraordinary reasons would require them to become habitual in the first place. And smoking is typically not very pleasant at the start to begin with, so there’s little incentive to start. And, unlike in the past, it’s no longer cool or uncontroversial to smoke. And of course there’s the knowledge that it will give you cancer and cut your lifespan.
There’s just not much vice left, so even if 1% slips through the cracks with an underground market, there isn’t the room for growth that sustains or spreads an illegal market like for eg. recreational drugs, which is why those bans need to be enforced to perfection to work, which is why they never work.
There are so many ways for people to harm themselves that we don’t need to ban because they come with severe risk to the person, so they self regulate. The only reason smoking needs that ban is because of how widespread smoking was, and so even if way less people start smoking than before, that’s still way too many people. A ban just needs to be successful at getting far less people to start, not absolutely halt every single usage, and eventually it will fade from culture on it’s own.
I wouldn’t be suprised if smoking turns into one of those things that old people do, not cool at all
I never understood the “banning doesn’t work” argument. The reason we banned heroin and methamphetamine is because use was rampant without prescriptions. You’d have to be stupid to think that meth at Walmart wouldn’t cause an increase in usage.
… regardless, in this situation prohibition would be effective. Vapes are superior nicotine delivery systems. After years of trying to quit, I transitioned from tobacco in less than a week. Not having the fear of death hanging over me is an indescribable relief.
Lmao. It’s okay to criminalize millions of people to achieve our health goals!
As effed up as the US is I’m so glad I don’t live in the UK. What a dystopian government and the British people consistently roll over for it. It’s funny to watch them, of all people, call us apathetic.
Who is this fantasy person who told you anyone is going to criminalize people for buying cigarettes?
It’s incredibly clear if you bothered to read the article, that the retailer selling cigarettes to someone under the permitted age will recieve a fine. No one is going to prison for this. It will not be a criminal offence. The buyer won’t even face any consequenses, except maybe for having their smokes confiscated.
As someone pretty addicted to nicotine, im sort of for it cause i hate how much of my life its consumed, but at the same time… iunno it’s a landmine of an issue.
i knew which corner stores to get smokes at before i was 18.
the process regardless is very simple:
they need to look at an ID for the camera but that’s all
also, once I became an adult smoking wasn’t that fun anymore and i quit
What enforcement? Anyone born after 2008 would be at most 17. Not sure about British law, but assuming majority is at 18, they weren’t supposed to smoke anyway. It creates no black market that doesn’t already exist.
You realize this law keeps rolling, right? So today, a 17 year old is ineligable because he’s not 18. But a year from now that same 17 year old is now 18, but becomes ineligable because they aren’t 19. And when they turn 19, they aren’t 20. And 10 years from now the 17 year old today would be 27, ineligable because he’s not 28.
That’s how it creates a black market.
Like a ladder that is being constantly pulled up.
But wouldn’t those people just vape instead? Which is not healthy, but is still healthier than tobacco.
It’s not. It’s just too new to have studies confirmed. These kids that are in their early 20s may have been vaping since as young as 14, but that still 8 years at most, and that’s stretching it in both directions.
I would say those studies won’t come out until they’re in their 70s, or maybe already dead.
Vaping will cause cancer just the same as cigerettes. You’re inhaling unnatural addictive chemicals. In the case of nicotine, it’s artificially added to some/most vapes. We know how bad that stuff is. A vape is nothing more then an unnatural liquid chemical compound, which is then burned and smoked. Tobacco is a leaf, vapes are a liquid. In both cases they add a shitload of unhealthy compounds.
Hell, at this point WATER is unhealthy! Tons of microplastics in all water.
The unhealthiness of the chemicals in cigarette smoke is not subtle. I would be surprised if the vapes turned out to be just as unhealthy.
Using “unnatural” as the main adjective to argue for something being unhealthy is a huge red flag for pseudoscience. Unnatural is not a synonym for dangerous.
As an example, the 100% natural chemicals in even ecologically grown cigarettes are perfectly capable of being extremely dangerous.
Combustion in and of itself creates a lot of bad shit, tobacco or otherwise. The smoke from the paper itself is harmful.
Not just chemicals, but a lot of particulates.
We’ve been scrutinizing vapes for decades. If there was any noticeable health complications from vaping, we would know.
“But we didn’t know cigarettes caused cancer until like the 70’s!”
That’s because the concept of writing stuff down on a clipboard is astonishingly new
Only healthier if you avoid the additives. Shit like essential oils and flavorings does not belong in your lungs.
Exactly!
I'm not sure about the oils, but the cadmium and lead aren't great.
How I wish there was a proper standardization of formulation and safe limits, because some of the vape juice I’ve seen are mostly made in-house and often included unwanted unlisted additives and ingredients.
Come to Australia. A legit carton of fags is about 90% tax, and dodgy darts are outselling them. Vapes are prescription-only. No doctor will prescribe it, and no pharmacy will dispense it. So vapes are effectively banned too.
The black market is huge.
At the current exchange rate, a 20 pack goes for £25 GBP:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db1e784c-0aa2-48e3-b002-e1e7f954d755.jpeg">
Why will no doctor prescribe them? They are much healthier than smoking. And all the patient has to do is say they’re trying to quit smoking.
Same reason people in the UK think cocaine is safer then cannabis, public stigma.
Please tell me this is a joke. Is it because all you Europeans roll your joints with tobacco?
The UK has this weird thing about cannabis, while treating cocaine as a drug of “productive” people. It is getting better (the UK has a 48% of people supporting legislation, one the lowest in the western world but moving towards the positive) the media is not helping the stigma however:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35820327/super-strength-cannabis-crimewave-britain-streets/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c14v430m62xo
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cannabis-farm-king-charles-plas-glynllifon-north-wales-b2955026.html
Holy smokes! That's more than double the local plug! Roll up jimpson weed or rabbit tobacco (or questionable adulterated weed) is probably what locals here would do.
Surely this won’t establish avenues for kids to get harder drugs once they get the black market vapes!
Vapes are not banned under the law.
Oh no. Whatever will we do. No smoking in public places or around me but people will still smoke at home nowhere near me.
Truly it will be unbearable.
So terrible.
Good. It’ll cut down healthcare costs
That’s probably what this is about. The UK has universal healthcare, which means poor health costs them more money. I wish Americans would understand this.
This won’t solve anything, it will only create a black market and the vape industry will gain new customers.
The UK is on a wave of embracing ideas that have already proven to be failures at other places and other times, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they instituted Prohibition.
Unfortunately it’ll also cut down tax revenue.
Don't worry, poor people taxes will be raised elsewhere.
Hard unnuanced bans on vices never work and it’s insane that people think that this time it will.
You say that it’ll cut down on healthcare costs but how much will now be spent on enforcement? Tobacco use was already out of style and smoking seen as obnoxious and uncool but now it’ll be seen as a mysterious and forbidden thing. Look at cannabis use among youth in Canada after legalisation if you want an example. People will continue to smoke tobacco but now that tobacco will all be unregulated black market stuff bought from some sketchy guy who can offer you any number of other unregulated, untested and more dangerous drugs
People who live longer get other age related illness.
It’s not ethical but sure to relatively quick deaths and a lifetime of paying way more tax than non smokers there is an argument to be made that smokers are cheaper for the healthcare system than non smokers.
Well. This will create an underground for buying cigs. Hopefully though it kills smoking forever. I vape myself but used it to get off cigs. Young kids in America at least hate both, some are still doing it but the stigma is vaping/smoking bad.
Younger generations aren’t even into drinking. It’s trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
How young? That hasn’t been my experience with plenty of teens and young adults I’ve been around who vape all the time or go looking for cigs while drinking
Pre-teens
Yes. It will kill it forever. Just like illegal drugs and guns in the US!
Can’t possibly make much of a difference when full carton can allready buy you a small family car.
Now, this is a good thing, but I can’t help but imagine in 2099, a 90yr old begging their friends to sell them a pack
Better they buy regulated weed, in edibles, oil, or otherwise.
Lol I see your an optimist when it comes to uk recreational
I mean, I do not think they will, just that that would be less bad.
Vaping is still legal. Why wouldn’t he just get his nicotine high from a vape?
Same reason my smoker friend tells me he hates vaping: “it just hits different”
But having to use a shitty black market for cigarettes every day would surely motivate most of them to try to learn to love the vape.
The black market would then only be supported by irredeemable vape haters. Who got hooked on cigarettes while never in their life being able to buy them legally. Which doesn’t seem like a big market to me - so might not be big enough to be profitable.
Black market encompasses all unregulated sales, most of which is just people selling to people they know, word of mouth etc.
UK is trying to make cigarettes cool again
<img alt="" src="https://pawb.social/pictrs/image/302288ba-0cce-4c3d-8336-c20d601de019.jpeg">
What about those who were assembled rather than born. Frankenstein’s monster would be allowed?
Yes, as well as those that were manifested or summoned.
Yes. His life has been hard enough, he deserves it.
Vape free? Lmao I vape in so many places with my pen style that I’m not supposed to, never get busted.
You know that just makes you an
antidote(lol) antisocial asshole, right? A ban is absolutely stupid, for sure. But it’s entirely reasonable for people to not want to be around vape smoke of any variety. Not to mention, some people might not want to be around it for, you know, medical reasons.My craphole town allows it in public offices because "it doesn't stink."
That’s because it doesn’t stink and it’s harmless
Vape odors make me want to fucking puke
Doubt
Nicotine vaping is fucking harmless! Fact! And whatever bs scientific paper you qoute that was sponsored by big tobacco I will ignore. As a former almost 2 pack a day smoker, I feel the best I have in years.
dude.
Did they look at Australia and the colossal failure trying the same thing, and thought “but we will be different”?
What do you mean? As far as I am aware, Australia has not created such a generational ban law yet, so how can it be a failure?
Terribly sorry, I got my down under nations mixed up. It was New Zealand that tried.
theguardian.com/…/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk…
Hmm the biggest problem with it there was that a new government suddenly overturned it despite not having campaigned on the issue at all.
I don’t know if you can take lessons from such a random act.
The article seems to imply the cause was the industry lobby. But really, what could be done differently? If that was indeed the cause, it will be applied to any kind of anti-smoking measure.
It was really dead on arrival, and a prohibition is already stupid hard doing one with a moving age gate… yeah.
I think you are thinking of New Zealand. The push didnt fail because it was tough, it failed because one of the political parties currently in power ( New Zealand First) has Phillip Morris lobbyists so far up its ass they are breathing for two.
New Zealand First had the law reverted and then Casey Costello, who is Associate Health Minister, gave tax breaks to companies offering “heated tobacco products” which is only Phillip Morris.
Lifted a ban on vapes without removable batteries so Phillip Morris could release their HTP
And the only thing in this blatent corruption scandel that they got in the neck was the handling of some fudged numbers and dodgy conclusions that Miss Costello says she “had no idea where they came from”
Fucken corupt basterds the lot of them
Yes, I got the nation wrong, it was New Zealand.
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.
Hooray, I hate freedom. /s
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.
You’ll never make it uncool to light something on your face on fire and then take a deep drag from it.
I sometimes feel like people get so caught up on the word “prohibition” that their arguments bend towards addiction enabling at a societal scale. Smoking is beyond crazy when you look at the stats (using USA for convenience, but similar for other countries)
The problem is simple: cigarettes are a massive drain on the health system, directly and indirectly. The solution should be just as simple: buying cigarettes forfeits your rights to health care treatments for the damage caused. You get some palliative care but we save the lung transplants for people who aren’t killing themselves.
If you think that’s too harsh then you should stomach the cost of prohibition, policing and black markets. No matter how shitty, costly and dangerous it may be I promise that it will save lives and money if it’s a barrier to even a fraction of smokers.
You can make every single argument you used for unhealthy eating. Especially since its the leading cause of death in the United States yet no one is talking about banning oreos. Regulate the industry and inform the population to make better choices but a ban just a uncalculated reaction. We’ve literally seen it with prohibition and the drug war and it ultimately doesn’t work. You can’t just say that the black market won’t be as costly because you have no idea what will actually happen. Global smoking trends have been going down. Let’s just continue to do what has been proven to work.
Also denying ppl healthcare based on their bad health habits is facist…
Exactly. Following that logic, joggers should be barred from getting synthetic knees in later life.
This is all ideal rhetoric for some more neoliberal budget cuts to healthcare systems.
Yet accidents or acts of violence while under the influence, involving other people and getting them killed needlessly.
Comments in here really trying to argue for big tobacco, just because they don’t like the word “ban”. Edgy contrarians.
A lot of what has been coming from the UK government has been shit, but this is just plain GOOD. There’s no reason anyone should be smoking. This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers. “Education” alone clearly hasn’t worked well enough.
I agree. I don’t like being denied things, but some things need to be legitimately more regulated or made illegal way more often. This would never fly in the US, big tobacco has way too many people in their pocket.
Kk now do alcohol next. Good luck.
So for context, I actually drink, more than I probably should. I have a well stocked home bar, and trying or inventing new cocktails is almost a hobby for me and my partner.
I also come from a country with a veeeeeeery ingrained alcohol culture.
I’d still vote for an alcohol ban. Yes this is hypocritical when looking at my current habits. I don’t really have a point here, beyond saying that, even if banning alcohol is unrealistic, drinking alcohol being gone from the world is still a good idea in principle, the same as with tobacco.
More like you are falling for yet another blanket ban as a viable solution to anything. Younger gens are significantly less into smoking and drinking? Oh, I know! Let’s turn it miles more enticing by making it a taboo!
cancer sticks. we need to rename the entire category to ‘cancer sticks’. force people to ask for their fav cancer sticks brands, “Yeah can I have a pack of Camels…” employee looks blankly… “Uh can I have camel cancer sticks please?”
I say this and I struggle with tobacco and know if every time I purchased it I was confronted even more than the labels and black wrappers etc., it would give me pause.
That might work for the first year, but after that, you’d likely go back to not giving a shit. If someone already knows cigarettes cause cancer, do you really think renaming them ‘cancer sticks’ would lead to a significant change?
Worse yet, the proposal could backfire by turning the morbid name into an in-group joke or even a badge of defiance.
I think it would wear on the person over time.
Am a person who’s quit 12 times. Grew up in a fam of chainsmokers and swore I’d never smoke…
Big tobacco is definitely the problem. Tobacco itself wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for industrial-scale cultivation and processing. If a smoker had to personally grow everything they planned on smoking, they’d break the habit pretty fucking quick.
Well, a good thing drugs were banned a long time ago, so that no-one who was born after the 70’s can become drug abusers.
Prohibitions don’t work. People aren’t arguing for “big tobacco”, lol, they’re using common sense.
Regulation works, prohibition doesn’t. Even heavy regulation. However a complete ban will not. Not with substances. My evidence; literally any history from anywhere. Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.
This is vastly different. Alcohol prohibition took alcohol away from people. This law does not. No-one who is currently smoking is being banned from doing so.
It also doesn’t have to work 100% to be a good idea. This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.
It’s not vastly different. It’s gonna have the same exact issues.
They tried in NZ.
It will absolutely create a massive new black market. And think about how many nowadays start smoking before theyre legally allowed to buy cigarettes. Practically every single smoker there is. Kids smoke because “it’s cool”. It’s gonna be infinitely cooler when smokes are also illegal. And the Armenian fellow smuggling the ciggies in is not going to have qualms about selling cartons to teenagers.
Heavy regulation can work. Complete bans just don’t.
Perfection is not the aim. Fewer people will be smoking tobacco over time. Smoking also has an easy alternative like vaping available.
It is also much easier to make alcohol at home than cigarettes.
Prohibition failed for multiple reasons. I’d suggest you look into it.
There really isn’t heavier irony available. I’ve literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.
Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That’s why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?
Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.
We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn’t the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that’s regulation, not prohibition.
Vicelaws don’t work and they’re harmful to society. It’s so ironic you’re telling me to read up on this when you can’t even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don’t believe in crime or science.
Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you’re going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I’m talking about are more like Portugal’ s. (Just stronger)
OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.
Are you really implying that people banning a substance doesn’t reduce the amount of people using it?
I can literally go to a pub and see a whole pub full of people drinking and smoking.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
The aim isn’t to stop everyone, no sensible person would suggest that.
Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.
Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn’t take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.
Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.
When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You’ve no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It’s the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.
So either you’re a prude and pretend there’s a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it… or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.
I’ve had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.
You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.
Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren’t doing blow on the tables doesn’t mean that there isn’t at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you’re too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn’t mean they’re not everywhere.
Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It’s always “I don’t care” and getting upset because you realise there literally isn’t anything to back up your side and you’ve been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I’ve had people spit in my face and go “You’re stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!” because they got so upset they couldn’t name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.
I’m tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I’ve been having with “experts” like you for years so why don’t you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the “do your own research” guy, but yeah, please do.
Start here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization
www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0955395924002573
moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/…/Justice - Post 1.pdf
Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:
youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702
He’s the author of “Good Cop, Bad War”, one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)
What is this? Good news? On my timeline!!! In this economy!!!
RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY DOOMSCROLLING?
I think this is mostly good, because raising the cigarette each year will mean children who never smoked, didn’t get the addiction can’t get it just because its cool.
Do I think there should be more of a focus on limiting the sellers and distributors as opposed to the addicted consumers? Yes. Is this happening? According to the dotpoints yes.
Does the “smoking will remain legal inside the house” mean new 18 year olds can smoke inside there house? Idk, without big tobacco, and limiting the smoking market overall health will improve.
I mean I got into it when I was 14 just because it was cool. It being a thing that wasn’t allowed to me was part of the allure.
All you’d have to do was find a hobo who was willing to buy you some.
This is great. I hope the rest of Europe also introduces similar legislation. I’m a big fan of this ever since they did the same down under (was it New Zealand actually?) And it’s easy to pass because you the smokers of legal age don’t care. Underage smokers can get fucked. That’s a nice little bonus IMO.
Oh yes, we had this on our books… Then the current bunch of cunts (not the good kind); removed it to make more tax money. Absolute idiocy!
We had world leading legislation, but duck the future generations aye.
A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.
Smokers are taking away my freedom to breathe clean air
No, they aren’t.
I hate smoking. I hate the smell when assholes smoke near my house.
Those people aren’t all smokers.
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
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.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2848267f-e9a0-4e4c-968d-ba9123f093f7.gif">
Incorrect
Sounds a bit ageist - rather than upping the age by 1 year, why not up it by 5? That way the people imposing the law get to live under it.
Admittedly, you’ll see diehards growing their own, and a black market quickly forming which are the main issues. Then again, the fact a black market exists for fentanyl doesn’t mean banning it was a bad idea!
It seems a little arbitrary that they can deny rights to a voting tax-paying 27 year old that they give to a 28 year old.
Can they ban Capricorns from riding motorcycles? It’s actually for their own good, those things are dangerous!
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.
Exactly this. On top of being liberticideand hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it’s extremely hard to enforce.
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.
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.
… public space…
Yes, public spaces too.
This makes me want to smoke.
I don’t smoke, but this is stupid.
You can’t save people from themselves.
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.
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.
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?
Right along with your personal freedoms, what a great deal
Isn’t that discrimination based on birth ?
“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.
… thats the whole point… addiction doesn’t care
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 :)
You’ve obviously never been a nicotine addict. Nothing you said here would have stopped me from getting my drug, before I quit
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.
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.
I know. People already sell illegally imported cigarettes too, but I don’t think it’s nearly as problematic in the same way the black market for other drugs is.
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.
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…