- 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
If people over 18 can buy it then that’s fine. I do think under 18 is too young for cigs. Way to ruin your lungs. Though I am wary of how totalitarian the UK is becoming especially for young people - no phones, no social media. Prohibition and banning people turns us into North Korea, China, and Russia. It’s a fine line to cross. However, we definitely do need tighter regulations for certain things. But I think the gov is diving in head first instead of finding a more nuanced approach with things. This feels more like it’s about control and policing society rather than making a healthy and happier society.
A blanket ban is much more reasonable in the UK where health care is publicly funded than in some place like the US. Someone may think they deserve the right to smoke if they feel like it, but that doesn’t go well with the idea that someone should also get healthcare for free when their bad decision results in the natural health consequences.
Banning something that’s highly addictive is almost certainly going to lead to a black market. But, maybe that’s better than the alternative? It doesn’t sound like it though. Australia’s cigarette black market has not only resulted in black market cigarettes, it has also resulted in gang wars over territory to sell those illegal cigarettes.
It seems to me like high taxes are a better idea. If someone wants to kill themselves slowly and inconvenience anybody around them while they indulge their disgusting addiction, make them pay everybody for that privilege. But, if it’s just super high taxes, that’s also going to result in a black market. Apparently in the UK nearly 90% of the cost of a cigarette is taxes already. Maybe they could have an effect with different tax levels for different ways of obtaining cigarettes. For example, a convenience store could have the highest tax rates, serving people who were truly desperate. Or, you could order from a heavily regulated delivery retailer that would deliver a monthly supply. Maybe a low-ish tax rate if you were ordering only 20 cigarettes per month through this site, and a high rate if you were ordering 60+, but not as high as the corner store rate. That would encourage people to keep their consumption low, and discourage them from buying extra cigarettes on top of their regular monthly supply.
A ban doesn’t sound like it will work. In particular a ban that only affects some people based on a lottery on when they were born. Especially if that lottery means they’ll never legally be able to do something that someone born days earlier who might be part of their friend group can legally do. I don’t think that’s ever going to work out. If they wanted to ramp up the age, it would make sense to either make it slower or faster. If it were slower, (like, people born in 2008 could legally start smoking at 20, 2010 -> 21, 2011 -> 22, etc.) then people might decide to follow the law and then realize that they don’t actually want to smoke when their year comes up. Or make it faster so at first it’s people born in 2008 and after who can’t legally smoke, then people born in 2005 or earlier, then 2000 or earlier. If you’re a smoker and you want to avoid that ban, you’ll know it’s coming and have time to try to quit before your year rolls around. Then it’s not just generation 2008 that has fewer rights, it’s just that their year came up first.
Chalk up another imminent failure for the war on drugs
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.
Honest ignorant question: What would happen if you ban the products and not the act?
You never get charged for smoking, but you can have the cigarettes seized. No imports and no factories.
We used to drink beer for breakfast in this country and now you’re asking to give the officers reason to stop and search you to check if you’ve bought the cigarettes from a legitimate place?
Smoking is bad, but prohibition of drugs just drives them underground and denies freedom. Bad call UK
I tend to agree, but if they are only making it illegal for the population that isn’t addicted, not many are going to go out of their way to get black market tobacco and become addicted. It isn’t a prohibition for those already sucked in by big tobacco, which would 100% lead to underground exchanges. But for the rest, I feel like there’s better drugs if you’re looking for a good time
cool shit
I believe in freedom, I don’t smoke but others can choose to smoke but there should be rules but the too many rules and if the rules are too strict people will rebel
The thing is, by smoking you’re not just hurting yourself.
This is ridiculous. popup vape shops that sell tobacco too, are laughing at these rules and laws, it’s profit to them. You can get served from 12yo old in them shops, so now teens can resell it on. Bypassed supermarket laws
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.
Banning it just creates a black market for it. Better to keep it legal and regulate it than outright ban it. Let people do what they want at home.
In Canada they tax it so much that like 70% of the price is taxes. First Nations people do not have to pay the tax however (seems fair they invented it). As such it’s allegedly become a cash cow for HA and other organized crime because the feds can’t close down native smoke shops on native land -unless they’re selling to minors.
Yup this is not the path forward. Education is. Assistance is. Bans are stupid.
My country, Sweden, is fighting a war on drugs. Believe we have the highest drug related mortality in Europe. So currently drugs are winning the war on drugs.
Not only that, but every single party is in favour of more restrictions on drugs, yet these cunts are in parliament doing cocaine at work. Rules for thee, not for me kind of situation.
These draconian prohibitive policies are never helpful. You’d think we’d have learned that given how our prisoner rehabilitation system works, but alas. We’re ruled by idiots and sociopaths.
We should legalise all drugs.
Nicotine can stay legal, but smoking anything should still be banned. Not because its a drug, but rather cause its detrimental to the health of anyone around you.
You can fuck up your own life, I don’t care, but smoking hurts a lot more people than just yourself.
And no, only smoking in your own backyard doesn’t work either. Anyone that’s ever lived next to a smoker knows that the smog doesn’t care about your imaginary borders.
This is a fun one. I’m with you but I was friends with a recovering addict once and his exception was they should stay illegal what we should focus on is de-criminalization.
exception was they should stay illegal what we should focus on is de-criminalization
Drug cartel propaganda
Legalise and regulate everything so the industry isn’t controlled by violent criminal organisations. Decriminalisation is their wet dream
Your friend has an understandable perspective. In any case we should make sure that people don’t feel the need to use drugs in the first place. In my experience drug use is an act of desperation, even when people are sort of exploratory about it and not necessarily addicted to anything.
Oi cunt, 'ave you got a loicense for them cigarettes?
Lmaoooooo
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.
But there is no withdrawal here, cause it’s about never starting.
No matter how much time passes, my grandmother will never have been born after 2008 [edit: and so will be allowed to buy cigarettes].
It’s OK, nobody born after that will be able to afford them.
There’s a reason vapes got popular, and part of that is a pack of 20 ciggies costing £15+.
So now everyone smells of either fruit salads or weed.
Oh yes, we have seen how effective prohibition laws are working. Good luck with that one. And to all of you four-eyed, I have never smoked and never will.
Actually prohibition drastically increases price, perceived risk, and social acceptability all of which decrease usage. If you mean that prohibition doesn’t make everyone stop using that would be a duh. Society would greatly benefit from decreased usage alone due to decreased medical productivity and deaths…
The most famous “failed” prohibition on this side of the water in the US initially decreased alcohol usage to 30% of its former usage immediately prior to prohibition. Eventually it rose to ~60% but didn’t recover to anything like prior levels until prohibition was ended.
There is another notable factor though. This allows all current addicts to continue consuming their legal fix which can be sold at the corner store but incentivizes all these multitudes of legal avenues to shut out new customers or be shut themselves. These new customers those born from 2008-2017 will initially be a small market for any black market sales probably poorly served unlike the market created by prohibition. If less of these folks initially get hooked early there is statistical reason to believe far fewer of them ever will. By the time those born in 2018-2027 reach maturity between 2036-2045 many of the older folks will be dead and the generation above them will have a much lower prevalence of smoking.
