UK moves to ban smoking for everyone born after 2008
Posted by F0urLeafCl0ver@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 153 comments
Posted by F0urLeafCl0ver@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 153 comments
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
Smoking is awful. It's one of the most addicting and harmful habits to have.
That said, this bill is also highly restrictive in terms of personal freedoms, sets a bad precedent and discriminates based on age, making it highly undemocratic.
This isn't the way.
neoqueto@reddit
I don't smoke and I hate cigs. Ban in public spaces. Hell, even limit public health insurance for certain diseases if the person receiving healthcare is a smoker.
But don't keep banning shit.
SwitchMountain2475@reddit
Restricting access to healthcare isn’t the one. That’s utterly horrendous. It is already taxed at a high enough rate that smokers actually put more in than they take out.
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
That's a pandora's box and creates a precedent. Will you then take away health insurance from anyone with heart disease eating cholesterol-heavy foods? What about those drinking that have liver issues? Will you regulate how much sun a person with skin cancer can or should be exposed to?
As long as people pay taxes for health insurance, you can't deny them after the fact based on selective law making.
Minimum_Guitar4305@reddit
Remove the excise and additional taxes on smoking products too so? If the justification for those taxes is the additional health costs that smokers place on public systems that would be fair.
bnay66@reddit
I imagine the motivating factor here is that lung and throat cancer is such a burden on public health systems that it's not really a private impact from a private choice. A quick search shows lung cancer treatment costs £2.4B annually in the UK, which is actively taking away from other public services that affect people's quality of life. It's kind of like pooping in a lake** that you drink from - one poop won't ruin everything, but if nobody can stop anybody from pooping in the lake then eventually the lake will be ruined.
**The lake is public healthcare funding
remind_me_later@reddit
...then just ban those people from the lake. It shouldn't be the burden of others to shoulder the responsibilities of the reckless.
imrzzz@reddit
We won't talk about cars as a contributor to lung cancer.
I'd be happy to see them banned in any space where children breathe, right along with cigarettes and vapes.
DrFriendless@reddit
Sure, but if we allowed the cost to public systems to dictate policy we'd ban everything. Alcohol imposes a cost on health systems, driving cars imposes a cost on police services, shall we ban those too?
I'm not for smoking, and I'm happy for people who need treatment to lung cancer to pay for the cost of it, but I don't want to see it banned because the same rationale could be used to ban practically anything.
(Also note that here in Australia we've imposed such a tax on tobacco that we now have a massive illegal tobacco problem. Smoking won't just go away.)
bnay66@reddit
Fair enough. A further Google shows that the tax brings in about £8B and the amount I mentioned above is the cost on top of the tax. The argument then could be made to raise the tax, which is fair. Counter argument to that is homes that smoke often provide no place for kids to get away from secondhand smoke, though that could also be legislated by saying smoking can't happen in places with minors present.
More than a few ways to go about this, I guess.
DrFriendless@reddit
[This post is sort additional information, not a rebuttal of your very sensible comment.]
The tax has caused huge problems in Australia. The shops are popping up like weeds (two on the high street near me, where there never used to be any), and nobody I know smokes legal products.
That value of ~$10 billion leaves a lot of room to fund crime.
The uptick in this seems (to me) to coincide with the government's massive cock-up on vapes. Vapes were mostly unregulated, and very popular, so the government decided to regulate them by making them available for sale from pharmacies only. Which was weird because pharmacists didn't want to attract a clientele of smokers alongside their usual frail old ladies and sick people, not to mention having a huge lockable storage cabinet. So people started buying illegal vapes, funding the criminal networks.
In the light of that, and also my wide experience having watched all the episodes of Boardwalk Empire and The Wire :p, here's my analysis. When we ban a product people like, the market for that product is worth $X. What happens is that that $X then becomes available to fund a black market for the product. We save some amount $Y in expenses such as health care costs, but we incur some other amount $Z in increased enforcement costs and unforeseen consequences of opening up the black market. But of course $Z is unknown at the time and maybe only measured by anthropologists in the distant future.
I don't know how to get people to do what's best for them. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it pay tax.
[1] https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/indepth-13a-avoidance-and-evasion-of-taxes-on-tobacco-products/13a-5-estimates-of-illicit-cigarette-trade-in-australia [2] https://michaelwest.com.au/illegal-tobacco-trade-kingpin-arrested-long-live-king-tobacco/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_tobacco_wars
austin_8@reddit
I could be wrong on this so please correct me if someone knows better, but I believe smokers actually save money for public healthcare as the cost savings of there earlier deaths is higher than the expenses of their required treatments
Squashyhex@reddit
The trouble with banning substances is it will encourage blackmarket selling of them instead, which leads to an unregulated market that doesn't shy away from selling bad product, at which point you end up spending more money on policing, prisons and the like, while also spending more on the cases that do end up in hospital because they've been using dangerously produced cigarettes. You only have to look at the prohibition movements, and the current drug problem for proof
I_MakeCoolKeychains@reddit
Let's ban McDonald's too, ever seen super size me? After a month he was knocking on deaths door. Next let's ban booze! Wait that didn't work last time...i know let's ban personal vehicles, they produce heavy emissions in cities!
rexarlet@reddit
as a smoker i wish there was a law prohobits me from buying cigs when i was young.
u01728@reddit
In many places there are. Regions without a minimum smoking age are outliers these days.
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
There is. You shouldn't be able to buy cigs as a minor. If you were sold them as a kid, someone was breaking the law.
Once you're an adult, you're responsible for your own decisions. Unless you've grown up prior to the 80s, you should have known full well what the consequences are.
As a former smoker, I was well aware that what I was doing was bad, from the first cigarette, to the last. I have nobody else to blame for it than myself.
Evening_Grass_8073@reddit
If they passed a law making it illegal to eat human shit, would that be undemocratic? Or would that just be bettering humanity in the long term?
ViggoJames@reddit
It would if people born before 2008 could still eat it.
cwx149@reddit
Why is this different than "you have to be 18/21/X to buy alcohol/drugs"
That's effectively saying "people born before year X can't purchase it" already?
htownclyde@reddit
No, this kind of law says that people born after year X can never access it, even when they would have been old enough.
It's effectively a total ban on something with a carve-out for existing people.
noradosmith@reddit
But then that in itself would be unacceptable.
A vocal minority might protest the rights to cannibalism but overall most people would be like actually yeah maybe it isn't worth doing anymore
Own_Space_174@reddit
i mean there are people with that fetish who would be very upset. scat porn wouldnt exist if some weirdos were not into it.
why do we except goverments taking away our freedoms?
WoodenMango07@reddit
Totally disagree with you, smoking is one the most harmful habits someone could do to themselves. There is no benefits of having the personal freedom to become a smoker.
Starting at 2008 is good because this is a generation that has mostly not smoked yet, or at least legally, whereas if you ban if for everyone it becomes a problem for addicts
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
So is drinking. Or gambling. Or a miriad of other things. Severe alcohol consumption has massive health rammifications, and we somehow tolerate it as a society.
Regardless, my point isn't to compare which one is worse. My point is that we shouldn't regulate like this, because it doesn't work. Prohibition has demonstrated that people will continue to drink, whether it's legal or not. You just create underground, deregulated markets that further increase health hazards.
Additionally, it's not for the state to determine what harmful behavior you should or shouldn't do. Hitting my own skull with a brick is also bad for me, but there isn't a law preventing me from doing it.
Finally, if you ARE going to ban something, you must make sure the ban applies equally to all. If it doesn't (like in this case, it's only going to be illegal to SOME), it's discriminatory by nature.
splader@reddit
Gambling should absolutely be illegal worldwide. It's purely harmful and ruins so, so many lives.
Z3t4@reddit
They should say: "We're going to increase the taxes of tobacco and vaping liquids a 30% annually, and invest all proceeds on the NHS" and let nature run its course.
Sad_Evidence_9051@reddit
Hard disagree. Smoking is not a personal freedom. It’s a plague.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
If Canada ever bans tobacco and stops me from getting my cigars i will
get a chair
grab a rope
go to my attic
and then practice my nautical rope knots
because that would be some bullshit i tell ya hwat
It’s funny how the UK is destroying itself though, keep it up you right proper lads
SkezzaB@reddit
Yeah, a top 5 global economy really is destroying itself by *checks notes* attempting to stop new people picking up smoking.
Checks out.
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Yeah the UK has been doing badly for years now, infringements on individual rights are part of it.
SkezzaB@reddit
It is a human right to be able to smoke cigarettes tbf
How are those ambulance fees doing for you over in Canada?
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Yes it should be a right to use whatever decriminalized and legal substance you want without state interference.
Of all of Canada's actual problems, and genuine issues caused by government overreach and privatization, that is your go-to? Enjoy watching the NHS disintegrate from inside the glass house bruv.
SkezzaB@reddit
"Right to use whatever [...] legal substance you want"
Who do you think decides what's legal???
The government are saying that it's illegal for under 18s to use tobacco, are they following your rule then?
Also, the NHS has been "disintegrating" for decades, and yet its wait times have gone down recently, and more exciting things to come.
Nice try though bud
ParagonRenegade@reddit
Restrictions on harmful substances for people below the age of majority or consent is not the same thing as restricting all people from using them regardless of age. You know and understand that.
Sorry I'm not the government of the United Kingdom, guess I need to preface every idle thought because some idiot wants to play contrarian.
The NHS has deteriorated significantly from austerity. There's no "exciting things to come", the UK is declining and will probably elect a fascist government next time because of your incompetent and delusional leadership.
half-baked_axx@reddit
So tobacco will be banned but e-juice for your vape sprinked with notes of mercury, lead and cadmium and flavored with agents that release cancerous compounds when heated are totally okay. Got it
PokemonProfessorXX@reddit
Nicotine is a tobacco product, so vape juice would be banned too unless they start getting nicotine from potatoes or something.
Heavy metals are not present in e-juice. They have been found in the coils of cheap disposable vapes, which should be banned. The flavoring is just food grade concentrates, which are regulary heated in the process of making many other products. We know vaping can't be good for us, but there isn't any evidence yet of long term effects. Making your own coils and juice or buying them from highly reputable sources while properly maintaining your vape avoids almost all of the issues we have discovered so far.
tealc_comma_the@reddit
Food additives/products typically aren’t inhaled in large concentrations.
Balsty@reddit
Yeah I seriously doubt the amounts used for flavouring qualify as 'large concentrations', but you're welcome to supply some figures to back up that statement.
Wolfgung@reddit
Here ya go, cadmium blood concentration 60% higher than non smokers, 10% higher lead. The thing is vaping hasn't been around long and studies are only just being published, but it's clearly going to be bad.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39889940/
PokemonProfessorXX@reddit
This is a result of disposable vapes being muuuuuch more popular than box mods. There has been testing done on a by product basis where cadmium, mercury, lead, etc have only been found in chinese disposables. We need strict regulation on the materials used and required testing per product batch, not a complete ban on nicotine. Banning the products will only make these problems worse for the people who will continue to buy them off the black market.
scoobyisnatedogg@reddit
Exactly what I was going to say. Prohibition is never the way, but better regulation is.
cdojs98@reddit
ngl if I get priced out of smoking because it got safer (i.e. more expensive to produce) I'm not gonna be terribly butthurt about it. the withdrawal will suck but honestly, meh.
shit, I think I just realized I want to quit. unironically. huh
scoobyisnatedogg@reddit
Yeaaah I quit 7 years ago but took up smoking again last year due to extreme stress. Hoping to quit again within another year but will probably continue to vape. Good luck!
Bitter_Crab111@reddit
Australia banned box mods along with all non-prescription vapes.
Went from having a very regularly maintained mod with fresh coils, calculated nicotine dosages and unflavoured 90/10 VG/PG mixes... to whatever the fuck got smuggled in and flooded every city in the country.
Huge own goal by lawmakers.
imrzzz@reddit
Vaping has been around for 25 - 30 years.
If there were going to be heavy health-related negative consequences we would see them by now. And unlike cigarette-related illnesses, the observations on vaping wouldn't be buried in the basement... The opposite really, every perceived danger is already misinterpreted or overblown.
No-one in their right mind would ever tell a non-smoker to take up vaping, but used as an alternative to cigarettes or a pathway away from nicotine addiction, the harm reduction is undeniable.
As for getting kids hooked, the bubblegummy super-pretty vape industry is largely dominated by companies like Philip Morris (big tobacco) and we know how ethical they are.
Don't blame the vapes, blame the corporate predators.
just_one_more_gameee@reddit
Funny how you lot never come back to eat your own words after standing corrected.
ApedGME@reddit
Cause we like making rhetorical statements for the sake of it
Vivid_Maximum_5016@reddit
Or inhaled period
Anything you breathe into your lungs stays in your lungs forever.
imrzzz@reddit
That's.... not even close to true.
pittaxx@reddit
Flavouring additives aren't properly regulated and food flavourings aren't generally tested for temperatures where they get outright vaporised.
The entire industry of e-juice is a wild west as far as health is concerned, and we'll only know the consequences a decade from now...
NorthernerWuwu@reddit
Tomacco it is! (Actually, potmacco would totally work but the branding is awkward.)
NoodledLily@reddit
there's tons of evidence of long term negative effects. It's still far better than combustable tobacco.
but don't fool yourself that it's harmless.
at a minimum even if you think the below arent 'bad enough' studies show young ec use correlate w higher rates of combustable use which is undeniably horrible and deadly for you
idk if an age gate ban would work. doesnt stop under age drinking. maybe will lessen? but australia style massive costs do seem to work though.
just from 2 minutes of google
PokemonProfessorXX@reddit
The only article here that wasn't about youth was about cardiovascular damage. Nicotine itself is known to cause this damage, regardless of the delivery mechanism. Nobody is arguing that children or adolescents should be allowed to use these products. They are already banned in the UK for people under 18. This law would prevent anyone born after 2008 from ever using tobacco products, even after they are grown adults.
NoodledLily@reddit
there's a ton studying adults too. those are just relevant first that showed up in scholar search given the age gate and literally just the first results.
also to your op comment just because something is a fda safe food additive does not make it safe to inhale
"maintaining your vape avoids almost all of the issues we have discovered so far." is factually false
im done googling.
again it's way safer than cigarettes.
it does probably help some people transition to vape alone (though the combined use seems to correlate to even worse outcomes. sum > parts? or just they have worse life choices in general.. ).
but bottom line: vaping undeniably has negative health outcomes.
HeftyArgument@reddit
this is reddit, we're not allowed to say a single bad thing about vapes; the voracity of it's defenders somehow reinforces the notion that it's just as addictive as cigarettes
austin_8@reddit
You can’t seriously be this stupid, the act is literally called “The Tobacco and Vapes Bill”
HeftyArgument@reddit
case in point, didn't say anything about the bill, just that saying anything negative about vapes was not seen in a good light.
carry on.
austin_8@reddit
What? I certainly don’t vape and am not really against banning them, but entering a crusade about how vaping is unfairly treated separately from smoking, in response to a comment saying it’s stupid to ban smoking and not vaping, when both are clearly included shows a clear lack literacy.
wiiferru666@reddit
Someone always comes up with this Bullshit argument as if you magically have to solve all problems at the same time or none at all. Super low Iq take
OneMonk@reddit
Literally called the tobacco and capes bill. Christ.
WarColonel@reddit
Tell us you didn't read the article, which starts it's second paragraph with the title 'The Tobacco and Vapes Bill', without telling us you didn't read the article.
322955469@reddit
Every act of prohibition is an egregious violation of individual liberty. Mere disapproval of the majority can never justify using violence to prevent people from doing a fundamentally non-violent act. You aren't free unless you are free to do stupid shit that the majority of people disapprove of.
TheWitchWhoLovesCats@reddit
Then the rational thing to do would be to ban smoking in all public spaces - I’m allergic to tobacco smoke even outside, and that someone smokes while waiting for a bus or going down the sidewalk causes me harm. Ban smoking everywhere but private spaces and everyone happy
Own_Space_174@reddit
I agree, I am not allergic to smoke but I am allergic to dogs and think we need to do that same with them in public places.
maybe we could have one law that bans both in public places with an exception for those needed for a disability.
if you cant afford a yard for your pet to run and play in then you cant afford a pet.
TheWitchWhoLovesCats@reddit
Also allergic to dogs and I agree. The fact that they are allowed in some restaurants and mall centres is insane to me. Disability dogs are 100% justified of course.
ProsperArt@reddit
Not in the UK, but I have a local example of the potential pitfalls of that.
Where I live we have legal recreational marijuana, but smoking weed in public is illegal (public intoxication laws). On the surface, I don’t have a problem with this, but most landlords don’t want you yellowing the ceiling with smoke, so the vast majority of rental agreements have a no smoking clause—if you’re caught smoking on the property, you could be fined or even lose your home.
Effectively, your right to smoke pot is tied to your ability to buy a house.
Maybe rental agreements in the UK are different in this regard, but if not, you risk creating a weird class divide where lower class people are disproportionately punished.
austin_8@reddit
You shouldn’t have the right to smoke, he’s just saying the state just shouldn’t have the right to ban it in whole.
ProsperArt@reddit
What I’m saying is that a ban on public smoking is functionally a wholesale ban on smoking for the renting class. I think it’s fucked to ban something for the renting class and not landowners.
TheWitchWhoLovesCats@reddit
Wouldn’t that be solved with vaporising the weed? Or with the renter painting the ceiling after moving out?
In my country you’re supposed to deliver back the apartment painted as you got it in the first place
ProsperArt@reddit
Every no smoking rule I’ve seen is also no vaping, and if a rental agreement says “no smoking or vaping on the premises” painting the ceiling doesn’t suddenly negate that.
If you rented here and you wanted to smoke weed, you’d have to decide if you want to go outside and break the law or stay inside and break your rental agreement. If you own a house here, you don’t have to make that calculation.
Maybe smoking rules aren’t a standard part of rental agreements where you live. But where I live, it’s not uncommon to see people step out to the street to have a cigarette—because they don’t own their home.
You could fix this by adding legal renter’s protections that give them the right to smoke inside, but most rentals are apartments and the smoke would get trapped in the building, making things worse for asthmatic neighbors than simply smoking outside.
I get it, I have asthma, I think smoking is gross, but a full public ban would be unjust. The happy medium that balances public safety and personal freedoms is to ban smoking inside all public buildings, ban it a couple meters from the doors and windows of public buildings, and encourage/force private businesses to ban it too.
TheWitchWhoLovesCats@reddit
Where I live there are no rules on smoking for rentals. However, there’s a ban on public buildings and stuff like restaurants. However since it’s a pedestrian heavy country, it isn’t uncommon several people are smoking while they walk - I’ve had several allergies attacks due to that. Personally, I think they should keep the habit to their private spaces, or if what you say is implemented later, make a very specific designated smoking area in public, that’s low on traffic, like Japan does.
322955469@reddit
Sure, I'm fine with that. But that's not what this proposal does.
TheWitchWhoLovesCats@reddit
In that case we just… agree. The state should leave individuals the fuck alone and their ability to harm others should be kept to a minimum.
strangelyliteral@reddit
As someone also allergic to smoke, this is the answer. This rule is far too invasive and restrictive and arguably will make smoking cooler by making it transgressive for younger people.
felipeuno@reddit
Thank god someone can be reasonable here. I don’t smoke anymore and wish I’d never started but outright banning it in all cases just seems wrong. Banning it from public spaces could be fine but prohibition seems like Britain is once again overextending its governing powers.
noradosmith@reddit
So you think people should be free to drive without a seatbelt?
Cubusphere@reddit
Driving on public roads is a privilege. People are free to drive without a seat belt in the privacy of their home/property.
SurfiNinja101@reddit
I don’t consent to second hand smoke
HesitantMark@reddit
lol i thought you could only find this kinda guy in america
322955469@reddit
And what kinda guy is that exactly?
HesitantMark@reddit
liberty guy, freedom fetishist man
MouseJiggler@reddit
A man that understands the value of freedom, that is. Not a guarded toddler that needs a nanny.
imunfair@reddit
I'm all for freedom, but when I'm forced to smell your freedom, that's a problem.
HesitantMark@reddit
if you deregulate something, you're just changing who gets to control your freedom.
MouseJiggler@reddit
Free will and choice are not an illusion, but every choice has a price to pay for, whether in a regulated or deregulated society. You don't have to hand that control over. You can just do things, just don't be dumb about it. All this idiotic regulation will create is a thriving black market, so in some way - it's bigger deregulation than just leaving it as it is.
Personally - I'm quite happy about that black market growing, because cheap smokes will be more readily accessible than they are now.
HesitantMark@reddit
freewill and choice are real but this is just a choice between who you wanna buy smokes from. you want smokes so youll pay regardless.
322955469@reddit
I see, well I'm happy to educate you about our global presence. Of course there's no question that subservient bootlicking cowards like you are absolutely everywhere.
HesitantMark@reddit
the problem is that the boot just changes from a federal issued boot to a corperate one.
322955469@reddit
You're confused friend, I'm an anarchist not a libertarian. Corporations only exist because the state incorporates them, they are legal persons only because the state chooses to treat them that way. If I had my way the state would serve as an institutional leviathan, forcing all the other institutions to behave while leaving us individuals the fuck alone.
HesitantMark@reddit
my bad bro. i've met a lot of rich libertarians in the states who speak similarly.
davemee@reddit
I want to be free from paying for the healthcare costs of people who choose to make avoidable mistakes. I want to be free from their passive smoke, litter and temptation. There's freedom to but it must be considered alongside, not instead of, freedom from.
322955469@reddit
I know its counter intuitive but smokers actually cost the taxpayer less in the long run. The vast majority of any individuals healthcare costs ate incurred in old age and smokers die young. The tax payer may pay a little more when the smoker is alive but that pales in comparison to what they save when the smoker drops dead at 60.
SpreadsheetMadman@reddit
The world is also in a population crisis. Even if they retire and don't work, it's still better to have old people contributing to the economy than just having the population numbers fall off a cliff.
The UK has a lot of small towns that barely have any young people, so it's necessary to keep old people alive to hopefully make a reason to revitalize those areas. Otherwise there may be ghost towns in the future.
Soonhun@reddit
Keeping all historically inhabited places still inhabited is not objectively good on its own. Perhaps it is great for some vague sense of local pride but it does not provide much.
austin_8@reddit
That’s an understandable position, but the assumption that smokers cost public healthcare systems money is still a wrong one.
austin_8@reddit
This is comment, through implication, is misinformation. Smokers SAVE money for public healthcare as the cost savings of their earlier deaths is higher than the expenses of their required treatments. Most rigorous studies find smokers save public healthcare systems money on net, because they die substantially earlier and avoid the expensive, drawn-out costs of old age. Smokers do cost more per year while alive obviously, but the 10 year shortened lifespan more than offsets that. I do not support smoking and am fine with banning it as it is a nuisance, but you hold an incorrect assumption.
RoostasTowel@reddit
The list of things you would need to ban Is extremely long then...
Chance_Adeptness_832@reddit
Smoking is an inherently violent act. It damages the user and anyone else within the vicinity of the user.
austin_8@reddit
To be fair, I think 99% of people absolutely support banning any form of smoking in public or around other non consenting people, specifically children.
322955469@reddit
The point about damaging the user is irrelevant, individuals have absolute sovereignty over their own body, if smokers want to cover their lungs in tar that's their business and none of ours. As for second hand smoke, I'm absolute fine with a ban on smoking in public places, but not in the privacy of one's own home.
debasing_the_coinage@reddit
Oppose. Nobody wants to write this ban rationally for some reason. Yes, other forms of tobacco are dangerous, but cigarettes are way way more dangerous.
There are a couple reasons for this. Smoke is bad for you. Cigarette smoke contains high levels of carbon monoxide (and low levels of other chemicals like cyanide and formaldehyde) which put strain on the heart and are not produced by vaporizers. Lung cancer is more deadly than other cancers because lung tumors are almost never operable (you have to remove a "lobe", basically a third of the lung) and the lungs are very important. Cigarettes lead to higher levels of use because operant conditioning is stronger when the reward comes more quickly.
But noooo, the new puritans
DanoPinyon@reddit
Be a brave, freedumb lovin' MURRICAN risk-taker y'all! Y'all won't git no addiction to no nick-o-teen, no way, nuh-UH you wont! Will not! WILL NOT
A_wild_so-and-so@reddit
I like how you replied to a very reasonable stance about prohibited cigarettes while allowing other nicotine products with a dumb strawman about nicotine not being addictive. I like it because this is the level of intellectual rigor I'm used to dealing with when talking to anti-tobacco folks. You could pick up a history book and see that you're about a century too late to be a teetotaler supporter, but let's be honest, you're not that curious are you?
DanoPinyon@reddit
You're always the smartest person in the room, amirite?
A_wild_so-and-so@reddit
Only when I'm talking to you.
DanoPinyon@reddit
But we've never talked to each other.
You're really good at this.
dabeeman@reddit
believe it or not some people should be allowed to make choices the government says you shouldn’t.
DanoPinyon@reddit
I agree with you that it should be much, much, much easier for people to get addicted so predatory capitalists can make money off of them.
dabeeman@reddit
should the government say you can only buy vegetables and no meat because they think it’s healthier? or better for the environment?
DanoPinyon@reddit
The topic is addictive. Try to identify and stick to the topic, if you can.
dabeeman@reddit
no the topic is the government deciding what you can and can’t buy.
DanoPinyon@reddit
Nobody expects a trumper to have basic language skills expected of a 12-year-old.
SmugRapi@reddit
Insane to watch someone like you publicly have a schizo meltdown like this then check your profile and see you prattling on about trees and shit lmao
I guess some people really are in their own little world.
dabeeman@reddit
are you trying to say i’m maga? you would be very wrong if that’s the case.
DanoPinyon@reddit
Maybe it's just that your social skills, awareness of the world, and written rhetorical skills are exactly equivalent to the typical MAGAt, but gosh you're woke and have two moms and several trans friends. Sure, that's it.
jacksontwos@reddit
Why should big tobacco be allowed to sell vapes? All studies coming out about them are negative. Why should these companies be able to sell what we know to be garbage? And we know they target kids for it too. Whats the upside to nicotine addiction?
babyccino@reddit
Because we know banning drugs doesn't work from the whole history thing? Why not try prohibition of alcohol again while we're at it
Balsty@reddit
It's like everyone just forgets the danger associated with unregulated substances that arises from prohibition.
A_wild_so-and-so@reddit
Kids are gonna die from some shitty black market vapes because of this ban, I guarantee it.
austin_8@reddit
I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong, but that logic can’t hold without also being in support of a full ban of both fries and beer.
jacksontwos@reddit
If fries were harder to quit than heroin maybe.
onehalflightspeed@reddit
There is a fringe movement in the USA claiming that nicotine itself is good for you. A lot of people have taken up gum or patches without having ever smoked in their lives. I find it very odd
jacksontwos@reddit
A fringe movement of Americans believe literally everything.
mmixLinus@reddit
There is no freedom in being addicted
AlohaReddit49@reddit
I actually agree with you i think. If I wanna smoke i should be allowed to. If I'm not allowed to, than why are people allowed to drink alcohol for instance? I'm not a smoker, and I do drink from time to time. It just seems like a weird line to draw?
Granted a quick bing search is stating roughly 7-8 million people die from cigarettes every year, which is not even half as many depending on your source.
I've also argued forever that something being illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. Growing up, loads of people I knew were smoking Marijuana on the regular, would a cigarette ban actually stop people from smoking? Or would they just do it at home and there'd be a black market to get them in.
Rabsram_eater@reddit
You're pretty addicted to nicotine eh?
E5VL@reddit
This could have been New Zealand.
The law that would have created a smokefree generation in New Zealand was repealed under urgency by Parliament. This was back in 2024.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510439/smokefree-generation-law-scrapped-by-coalition-government
GerryAdamsSon@reddit
And it wouldn't have worked there either. Prohibition has never worked ever
E5VL@reddit
Urm. Probation does work if the people never actually start using it. The only people who smoke are the people who already smoke and if the people who smoke are getting older and less and less younger people are smoking because it is not seen as "cool" or "clean" and is becoming more and more expensive then probation does work. It was literally showing up in the data.
Sarah-himmelfarb@reddit
Do you comprehend that people can buy drugs under the table? All those kids who still know what vaping is can buy it from dealers. I’m sure many underage ones already were. Your ignorance about illegal drug dealing and buying is cute though
A_wild_so-and-so@reddit
Tell that to all the people who use cocaine, cannabis, meth, and heroin.
Coolenough-to@reddit
All this does is moves the cheese. The mouse will not stop seeking, as long as he remains a mouse.
There is a fundamental need that such habits fulfill in humans, always has been. Always will be. You take one method of fulfillment away, and they find another.
It is part of the nature of this that the methods are not healthy and there mere existance annoys non-users. The non-users are abosultely intolerant of the users because they do not have this same need within them. Since there fundamental values are different, they never see eye to eye. The 'problem' will never be solved. The conflict will never end.
Significant-Ad-7182@reddit
Labor government has been making moves that are seriously unpopular for months now, almost as if they want to lose the next election. They keep doubling down on unpopular decisions and I just don't understand why.
LChitman@reddit
Because they still have years left before the election. They're front loading all the unpopular stuff and probably hoping to be able to lower some taxes etc. in a few years. This tobacco/vapes thing probably won't factor into the election much
Kebab-Destroyer@reddit
The government appears to hate counterfeit tobacco, too. Anyway, here's a good way to bump up demand for it. Good job, government!
RoostasTowel@reddit
Also see the Australian tobacco laws that led to underground tobacco dominating the market so much the government is actually looking at lowering g taxes on it
Kebab-Destroyer@reddit
Lol
AllsWellThatsNB@reddit
You’re definitely right about human nature, but not all habits are created equal.
If smokers become capers they’re healthier than when they were smokers. If drinkers become potheads they’re healthier than when they were drinkers.
You can’t fight human nature, that’d be foolish. You can however redirect it.
dryuhyr@reddit
Everyone says that prohibition doesn’t work. And it doesn’t… completely. Some people will always find ways of circumnavigating the ban, and black markets will rise up.
But what doesn’t get mentioned as much is that prohibition works for a lot of people. If 20% of maybe-smokers will still find black market cigarettes, that still means we stopped 4/5 of people from smoking. That’s still a huge win since nicotine has zero redeeming value to our society.
The problem is that hardly anyone smokes anymore. It’s vapes, and other nicotine products that the youth are using en masse, and no cigarette ban is going to be effective unless it targets those as well. I can see an argument for allowing nicotine pouches and gums to exist, since we don’t have any real evidence that those are worse for you than, say, caffeine, but vapes put billions of charged particles into your lungs with every hit that turn into ROS and free radicals to damage your cells. In the coming decades we’ll uncover more research that shows health impacts from vaping, and then we’ll have to restart the same process as before, one nicotine product at a time.
For this to actually be much of a public good, it needs to include vapes as well.
AhegaoSuckingUrDick@reddit
The ban includes vapes too (it's even called 'Tobacco and Vapes Bill'), everything tobacco-based is banned.
SmugRapi@reddit
Lmfao yea right, as if. Prohibition has been tried a thousand and one times a thousand and one ways by a thousand and one governments and it hasn't worked literally even once. This will be no different.
Also, how the hell are you gonna enforce this anyways? You gonna have a cop in every back yard and on every balcony and in every shady corner making sure nobody underage is being naughty? Well, it's the UK, they just might try.
And besides that, is there even a single part of this ban that doesn't also apply to stuff like weed or alcohol? Isn't the UK slowly decriminalizing THC? You're gonna slowly decriminalize a former illegal drug while also issuing blanket bans on another and creating a two-tiered citizenry? Really? Ballsy, if nothing else.
But a better question is, how the hell are you gonna enforce this 10 years from now when you have to arrest a grown ass 27 year old man that works, pays his taxes, and is a generally contributing member of society for smoking a cigarette illegally as he stands next to his 28 year old pal doing just the same with no issue?
How's that gonna look? Not good, I bet.
imunfair@reddit
My main problem with smokers is they can't control themselves. I've lived in three different apartments and all of them had smoking rules and in every single one I had a neighbor that would smoke both cigs and weed.
First place I couldn't open my windows in the summer they smoked so frequently. Second place was less frequent but still several times a day. Third place the smoke would come in through gaps in my kitchen on a regular basis, filling the entire apartment and requiring me to air it out, and they occasionally smoked on the balcony too.
If you shoot heroin or something I don't care that's on you, as long as I don't have to smell your inconsiderate addiction.
DanoPinyon@reddit
There still exists all the other addictions the capitalists can make money off of: opioids, gambling, alcohol, etc
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
everythingscatter@reddit
As a high school teacher in the UK I can tell you that a vanishingly small number of teenagers smoke compared to 15 years ago, so the potential future profit made off cigarettes sales (directly or indirectly) from these people is low compared to previous generations.
They vape en masse and that is where the money is to be made, alongside everything else you mentioned. Plus the extraction of surplus value from them as workers, obvs.
eeeking@reddit
According to the ONS, under 10% of people in the UK use vapes:
SlightlySublimated@reddit
I'm 29. When I was a junior/senior in highschool there were maybe 10-20 kids who smoked cigarettes out of my entire school of 1400 students. I can say I was unfortunately one of them.
Then JUUL hit the scene and turned half the people I knew into nicotine addicts.
Vapes hit the reset button on a decades long anti-smoking campaign.
MultipleOrgasmDonor@reddit
I’m the same age, smoked since high school, have had the same experience. No matter who I’m with now, someone always has some form of nicotine on them. When I started it was kinda rare
Boognish_Chameleon@reddit
The thing that pisses me off is allowing vapes and also lumping cigars and pipes in with cigarettes. Like vapes and cigs are SO much worse for you there is no contest
austin_8@reddit
They aren’t allowing vapes?
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
ApedGME@reddit
Im a smoker, and its easily the worst decision I've ever made
TheAmazingBildo@reddit
Man what will I use to filter my heroin? See cotton makes you sick because of the toxin produced by bacteria that grows on it. But cigarette filters are the best. It’s honestly the only reason to buy cigarettes these days. Too expensive to smoke em. But a pack of cigarette filters will last you a month maybe too if you reuse em.