395

UK introduces a bill that would eventually make the purchase of cigarettes illegal (apnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

The UK has introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, aiming to make it illegal for future generations to buy cigarettes. The bill proposes gradually raising the minimum smoking age, so those born after January 1, 2009, will never be able to purchase tobacco legally.

It also includes restrictions on vape flavors and packaging to prevent youth addiction and bans smoking in certain outdoor spaces, though pub beer gardens are exempt.

Supported by the Labour Party's majority, the legislation seeks to create a “smoke-free U.K.” and combat smoking-related deaths.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] cynar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I personally support this plan. Smoking in the UK has already plummeted. A lot of smokers have moved to vaping. Unfortunately, those left are often the ruder ones. Limiting where they cam smoke, or reduce expire for everyone else is a big dead for me.

Additionally, it's not banning nicotine, it's banning cigarettes. Vapes have changes the balance on that one. They are less damaging, and cause far less issues with passive smoking. This acts as a pressure relief valve, rather than a blanket nicotine ban. Also, at no point will an existing (legal) smoker go from legal to illegal.

The vape issue definitely needs fixing. A number have found advertising to younger users is a good money maker. Limiting the options here l, without an outright ban would help reduce the harm to children. It wouldn't significantly affect ex smokers who moved to vaping.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago

Prohibition has been such a huge success. The only option is expanding it! \s

[-] viralJ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I guess the difference between the prohibition in the US and this bill, is that the alcohol prohibition banned it to everyone at once. People who were used to drinking or down right alcoholics had a strong incentive to obtain alcohol from somewhere, so there was a market for the underground moonshine producers. This bill isn't targeting people who are already addicted to nicotine, but rather aims at preventing people developing the addiction in the first place, so I can imagine the market for underground tobacco growers or smugglers will be much smaller and less profitable. I am optimistic that this approach will be more successful than the 20s in America, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[-] watty@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago

This is literally an idea I had when I was 16 years old. I was pretty dumb when I was 16.

[-] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 73 points 2 days ago

Do you know what I'd like to see?

Instead of banning them, ban the extraction of profit on producing and selling them. Turn them into an entirely recreational market. I'd love to see the outcome of trying that.

[-] john89@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

I like the way you think.

Capitalists would rather there be a ban so that proles don't realize how much they're getting f**ked.

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml 57 points 2 days ago

Pushing an entire business into black market over time... Who in their right mind approved this?

[-] PlasticLove@lemmy.today 30 points 2 days ago

Won’t somebody think of the poor struggling businesses.

Where would society be without those good old death stick sellers who hid decades of research into health risks and marketed to children. Cornerstone of society and they’re trying to ban it? Savages.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 43 points 2 days ago

More like prohibition doesn't work

[-] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 26 points 2 days ago

It'll work for the majority of people. You won't be able to do it out in public.

If you want to get cancer in your own house go ahead.

The truth is they put a huge burden on public services. Mainly the health service but also they create insane amounts of litter.

If vaping is still an option then most people will just do that.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 10 points 2 days ago

If you want to get cancer in your own house go ahead.

I agree with the sentiment of both you and the person I originally applied to. Smoking is a blight and I wish it would go away. I simply don't think prohibition is the way to do it.

Mainly the health service but also they create insane amounts of litter

Vaping also creates an insane amount of litter. I wish vaping would go away just as much as I do cigarettes.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] john89@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

Are you stupid? It's not about the "businesses" and their well-being. It's about the effect that black markets have on society.

People are going to get their drugs whether they're legal or not. If you paid attention in history class and reality, you'd know that prohibition and the war on drugs does not solve the issue.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 27 points 2 days ago

Exactly. Smoking was dying off due to vaping until all these countries got a stick up their ass over it and decided to either outright ban vapes or put ridiculous regulations on them. This is why everyone uses disposables in the US now and toss their lithium batteries in the trash every couple days.

[-] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago

vaping was much worse because people blatantly use them indoors and wherever else they shouldn't. And due to them not needing to light up they just constantly puff on them between every three breaths. It's fucking awful being in a queue or walking behind someone vaping.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago

Supported by the Labour Party's majority, the legislation seeks to create a “smoke-free U.K.” and combat smoking-related deaths.

vaping was much worse

Why?

because people blatantly use them indoors and wherever else they shouldn't

I don't know if that really makes them worse than premature death.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

People who don't like cancer and want to take the insane pressure these death sticks put on the health service.

Who in their right mind supports mega corps selling addictive cancer causing products to young people?

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago

The point is prohibition doesn't work. I would prefer no young person ever try cigarettes, or nicotine in any form. But I don't think that's realistic.

[-] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It works really well for kids. They aren't even trying to ban it for adults.

Raising the age from 16 to 18 had a massive effect when I was young.

This will most likely dramatically decrease smoking in young people and that's great.

It's not 100% or nothing.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] john89@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago

🥱

More black markets aren't the solution.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago

Yah, banning drugs works great. And doing it in the most cowardly way possible really elevates that.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Not here in the USA! With Trump, we're going to recycle cigarettes into baby clothes and we'll be using PTFE to bond the fibers together for a strong cancer healthcare company.

[-] olympicyes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Sort of related but I saw that black plastic spatulas and other black plastic items contain toxic flame retardants because black plastic items are made from recycled e-waste.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It's the gallium dopants that get me excited for more. 😂

[-] fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

MACA - Make America Cancer Again

load more comments

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024

395 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38969 readers

2136 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.