- 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
A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.
Fr. I’m about as antismoking as it gets, but roping it off as a privilege only allotted to the older generations is about the stupidest thing you could possibly due right now with the currently volatile state of youth culture in the UK. It’s just another drop in the bucket for future gen Z Reform voters.
Keep stirring the pot guys, I’m sure there will be absolutely no snowballed consequences lol
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.
You must have never walked around a busy street or a public transport station.
Their freedom to do something without any significant benefit costs a lot of money for healthcare. Money I pay as taxes.
deleted by creator
Why is my freedom to build bombs in my basement being overridden?
Oh that’s right, because laws are ultimately created based on relative perceptions of risks and social acceptance of the populace (generally, in a democratic society, there are a lot of exceptions here).
Note for my FBI agent : I’m not building bombs in my basement, I’m using that as an example of why we have laws at all.
Well to be honest, there is an argument for letting you build bombs in your basement. A bullet is effectively a bomb. Plenty of people make their own bullets/shells. Should they be forced to buy those from a company?
There is nuance to just about everything.
Laws should be restricted to protecting people from other people, not from themselves.Sure there is an argument for letting me do anything, but when you keep persuing and reducing the argument, it eventually boils down to “Why do we even have laws at all?”
The answer to that question is “becuase we as a society decided to.” By their very nature, laws created by people are arbitrary and intangible, their only actual effect is derived from society’s willingness to actually enforce them.
If the laws were actually agreed upon by the people… but they aren’t. And most are really to protect businesses, not people.
But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all. Laws should protect people’s rights. Like the right to not get murdered. But that’s not what this is.
But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all.
Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.
Maybe you came in on a side thread. The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others. It’s still a super large list. But your right to snoke in you basement isn’t on it. Your right to murder is.
It has nothing to do with using it or not. Just who it impacts directly.People smoking in their basements present a fire hazard, major issue if you live with other people.
People smoking (at all) creates second-hand smoke, which harms the people that come into them, or their spaces (like say, a contractor, or first responders, utility technicians…)
People who smoke end up using more critical and limited medical resources because of their habits.
I’m not as daft as to say that smoking harms to the same degree as outright murder, but it’s equally stupid, if not more so, to say that smoking (even in your basement by yourself) harms no one else.
Also…
The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others.
Who decided what rights should be considered for laws?
I’ll give you a hint; it’s not some universal property of the universe, nor a divine command.
At some point in time, the society I live in established that murder is against the law, and that is the sole reason I’m not allowed to murder anyone. My “right” to murder was just as valid as my “right” to smoke in my basement until there was a law created that defined (or changed) those “rights”.
So, back to my still very relevant comment from earlier…
But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all.
Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.
A bullet isn’t even remotely “effectively a bomb.”
But the things you use can also be made into a bomb just by putting them in a pipe instead. Where is the line? Who decides?
Lots of things are made from the same ingredients. That doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Sure but how do you plan to make a law that makes it illegal to make bombs in your basement?
That’s already a law in many places.
Plenty of people make their own bullets/shells
For very, very small definitions of “plenty”.
Sure, in that example, plenty is small. But who decides how small a group has to be to be allowed to take their rights away when they have committed no crime.
If a law is passed making what they’re doing illegal and they continue to do it, then they are committing a crime.
You really wrote that right? So don’t like someones rights. Justify taking them away because you wrote a law to make what they were doing a crime. It wasn’t a crime until you decided it was okay to take their rights away. So they hadn’t committed a crime when you made the law.
“Rights” are just things that aren’t outlawed. Do you have a right to commit murder, and are upset that the government has outlawed it?
But you’ve never had that freedom. Do you really not see the difference between taking away freedom that people have had for thousands of years and a hypothetical that nobody has ever had?
People who were not permitted to buy tobacco and vape products are not losing a freedom they had either.
Regardless, laws are written and removed constantly throughout our lifetime. It’s not legal for me to park where I used to, it’s not legal for me to bring a big bottle of orange juice or a tube of toothpaste on a plane anymore. The fact that things can become illegal or legal is a necessary consequences of having laws that can be changed.
Also, you could legally make your own explosives right up until there was a law passed that made it illegal. There isn’t some universal property that says humans aren’t allowed to make explodey shit.
Yes, they literally are losing that freedom. Just because it may come later in life, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Just remember that laws are not inherently moral or ethical. What people do in their own time in their own space is their own business, as long as they’re not doing it in a way that puts other people in danger. This is purely about control and you’re just wolfing that boot down.
What people do in their own time in their own space is their own business, as long as they’re not doing it in a way that puts other people in danger.
Smoking does put other people in danger. So does driving, or skipping vaccines.
Just remember that laws are not inherently moral or ethical.
Yes… That’s kinda my whole point. The sole basis for a law is if people decide to enact it and then enforce it.
Just because it may come later in life, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You understand that if we change laws, then things that were previously legal will become illegal and vis versa? This avenue of argument ends in “Laws can never be created, removed, or changed.”
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.
Removed by mod
… public space…
Yes, public spaces too.
You understand what public means right?
Yes, totally.
deleted by creator
Shitty neighbors are a separate issues. It’s up to the landlords and residents to solve this.
deleted by creator
Plus affecting children and the family
This seems like a much more reasonable, enforceable, and frankly more effective approach. It also seems more in line with respecting personal freedoms to do things even that harm yourself so long as no one else is being harmed.
I am a tankie - literally as far from a libertarian as you can get - and even I am struck by the seeming lack of concern over stripping away the freedoms of one demographic in particular. Honestly I’d prefer to see cigarettes banned outright than to say some people can buy them while others can’t. Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.
Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.
Exactly, how will they enforce it in like 10-20 years? Police will stop and check everyone who’s looking too young to smoke? Some young looking guy in his 30 will have to show his ID to cops all the time? Right now it’s working because shop owners enforce it, parents enforce it and you can generally spot kids when they are hanging out. Parents don’t usually buy cigarettes for their kids but what if a 30 year old will buy cigarettes for their friend or spouse that’s 29 and can’t legally smoke?
The law just makes it illegal to purchase, not illegal to consume.
Still dumb though.
Exactly this. On top of being liberticide and hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it’s extremely hard to enforce.
Ban smoking anywhere that is not your home, problem solved
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.
Yeah I think the route of Norway makes more sense. Prohibition failed historically multiple times. I think education and factful discussions (pros/cons) without irrational condemning drugs would actually be a sustainable long term solution for addiction (because let’s face it, it’s mostly about unhealthy addiction).
Just legalise all kinds of substances without e.g. ads and other measures that effectively reduce the issue. And give proper education early (ideally from long term addicts, so that it’s believable and properly shows the issues).
We see with weed, opiates and currently growing cocaine where uncontrolled markets go and promote addiction…
I doubt that this will be much different with tobacco in a prohibited future…
-
Cigarette smokers are actually supporting pension plans because they die fast and cheap before they see benefits.
Smoking IS banned in public places. Has been since 2006 in Scotland and 2008 across the whole of the UK.
I’ve had to breathe enough cancer sticks waiting at a bus stop because I could not leave because of heavy rain, that I don’t care if it works or not to make people stop smoking, as long as it works enough to make people stop smoking in places where other people may be around.
I can drink a beer in a place full of people without bothering anyone, but no one can smoke without making those surrounding them breathe it.
As long as it reduces the chances of an obnoxious asshole spreading their toxic fumes to the grandma who has to sit at the bus stop and can’t move away because it’s raining, I’m fine with it.Will there be a black market and other issues? Maybe. Not the best way to do it? Ok. Someone figure out a better way. In the meantime, ban it is.
Sometimes you have to go with the “this is why we can’t have nice things” method.
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!
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.
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.
Right along with your personal freedoms, what a great deal
Personal freedom to pollute the bloodstream of a child before it is born, personal freedom to cause lung disease in people who have to live around smokers.
Banning drunk driving is another attack on personal freedoms?
… pick a topic
Banning drunk driving is a false equivelance. A better analogy would be banning alcohol.
Whatever we are doing to not turn into a shithole like America seems to be working.
From what I’ve heard, it absolutely isn’t. The uk is just as authoritarian and backwards, the only thing it has doing for it is a lack of weapons (apparently to an absurd extent).
UK based here. sorry to tell you that your sources of information are really poor.
Where’s my personal freedom as a non smoker?
Because obviously, most smokers don’t give a two sh*ts about other people
Freedom works both ways
It’s like arguing people should be free to drive drunk.
How? Drunk driving presents a clear and present danger, someone smoking on the roof or in their yard or in dinner alley isn’t a threat to anyone.
No one is making it illegal to be a non smoker, and banning some people from purchasing it doesn’t stop people from smoking around you. So congrats you gained nothing and lost nothing but a freedom.
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?
“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”
Weed or pills are better than smoking, I am glad that the youth is steered in the right direction
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
Were you addicted to cigarettes before you tried a cigarette? The point being made is that if a kid has to go to a drug dealer to get a drug, they aren’t going to buy cigarettes in the first place. They’ll get addicted to a different drug, which might not be any better.
Lmfaooooooooo how do you think the teenage vaping epidemic came to be? Every store wasn’t checking ID? Kids been buying nic from dealers for years now
Well there’s certainly no way this will create a black market, and become impossible to enforce!
Surely this won’t establish avenues for kids to get harder drugs once they get the black market vapes!
once they get the black market vapes!
Vapes are not banned under the law.
i knew which corner stores to get smokes at before i was 18.
the process regardless is very simple:
- ask for a pack of camels
- present your legitimate id saying you’re 16 or whatever
- ??? thanks
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.
Right, but the idea is that most people under 18 haven’t already started smoking because it’s illegal and inconvenient. So you just keep that ball rolling for anyone who hasn’t started.
You think people under the age of 18 don’t smoke? When I was in 6th grade (so 12 years old) I used to make about $100 a week selling cigerettes individually for $1 per cigerette. This was in the mid 90s, so adjusted for inflation that would be like $270 a week today.
And all I did was walk up and down the sidewalks, and find half smoked cigerettes. Stole individual cigerettes from adults packs. And bought them from vending machines.
I don’t smoke, and never did, but it was easy money selling stolen cigerettes to 12 year olds. The only reason I ever stopped is I grew up. It would be a LOT more suspicious seeing a 42 year old today walking the halls of a school trying to peddle cigerettes to kids.
Plus, teens today see cigerettes as old guard. They’re all about vapes today.
Which is getting off topic. The point is, teenagers smoke. Teenagers drink. None of it is legal. Yet it always happens in every generation.
The only thing the youth of today do anything different from literally every generation before them, is they aren’t having sex with each other. Which makes me glad I’m 42, and was young 30 years ago.
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.
- People downvoting in their feels, but you aren’t wrong.
Their weird hang up over ‘unnatural’ chemicals is complete nonsense.
Vapes don’t produce smoke but vapor, i.e. nothing “burns”. And inhaling smoke is by far the most harmful aspect of using cigarettes.
Not saying nicotine or vaping is harmless, but I’d be very surprised if vaping turns out to be as dangerous as smoking.
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.
unnatural addictive chemicals
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.
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.
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 having their smokes confiscated.
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.
Mate, you got no fucking clue. This will create entire new organised crime markets.
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.
Exactly.
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.
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
In the states, it already seems like it is. Vaping is an all-generations hobby still
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
5-8 packs a day.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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:
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/
I think a lot of it is because pharmacies and doctors didn’t want this thrust upon them.
This was an amendment to a really shitty vape ban bill which blew the whole black market up further than it was. The whole thing should never have been passed.
Lucky country policy
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.
no doctor will prescribe it
Ha this tracks with my mate getting knocked back on this by our GP, who is also a medcan AP. He said go see another doctor for that.
I actually suggested it to him because he needs to give the fucking things up. This might be why, he mightn’t want to prescribe it.
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.
Oi cunt, 'ave you got a loicense for them cigarettes?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
Im all for that, honestly, but lets include all the drugs
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.
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
Smoking sucks and I’m glad I’ve never done it, but I’m worried that this will push even more people to the far right because they will feel patronized as fuck.
Also not sure if a flourishing black market is much better. Seems like an enormous source of income for organized crime which might not be the best thing.
Imo it would be much better to only ban it at places where there are a lot of people and do proper education in schools so that children actually understand why it’s a terrible idea.
raze nazi england to the ground, salt the earth that nothing can grow there again
That is quite the ban.
I’m not sure about banning smoking outside of hospitals. The hospital near me doesn’t allow smoking by the entrances but has a designated smoking zone.
I’m not a smoker, but I’m thinking of when my grandma was dealing with my grandpa in the intensive care unit. She was already stressed to the gills with family and husband stress. I wouldn’t want her to have to deal with nicotine withdrawal, too (or finding alternative methods of nicotine use).
On the other hand, there was an asshole smoking right at the hospital entrance last time I was there. Screw that guy.
Grandpa was in the hospital for emphysema due to a lifetime of smoking. He left the hospital and quit smoking. I don’t think Grandma ever quit, even with full-on dementia. So, mixed feelings about old folks smoking near hospitals.
