UK Prime Minister to create ‘smokefree generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009

h_ramus, 1 month ago

The intention is meritable. As usual, Tories misunderstand how to achieve the stated objective. They’ll be creating a secondary market whereby those born before 2009 will supply cigarettes to those born after 2009… for a fee of course. Party of business and entrepreneurialship.

Also, drinking yourself into a stupor seems to be socially acceptable in the UK whilst the cost is much larger.

theguardian.com/…/tories-failure-to-tackle-alcoho…

Cigarettes were already heavily taxed in the UK anyway. The relative share of smokers is much lower compared to places like France.

worldpopulationreview.com/…/smoking-rates-by-coun…

If the goal is to improve everyone’s well-being, is this the best way to achieve it?

Squizzy, 1 month ago

The goal is have less smokers. Is your argument that there will be a secondary market booming in no time or that it wont affect that many people?

gimpchrist, 1 month ago

How about you just ban additives and allow native people to grow roll and sell tobacco as they used to back before colonization? The natives, as far as I know, weren’t putting formaldehyde in their tobacco, so removing all the additives and allowing natural cigarettes to be sold by a group who were completely oppressed wouldn’t be a bad fucking idea

guy, 1 month ago

This article is about the UK. People of the UK are the natives; didn’t colonize themselves

hakase, 1 month ago

Britain has been colonized at least five times: by the Celts, then by the Romans, then the Saxons, then the Norse, and finally by the Norman French, and those are only the ones we know about.

The only lands that haven’t been colonized at some point in their history are Antarctica and recently settled islands like Iceland and some of the Pacific Islands.

guy, 1 month ago

Well yeah. I just meant in the modern wave of colonisation, where there is still a distinct and clear divide between native and new population left over

radiant_bloom, 1 month ago

I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body. That said, we need to do a better job keeping children off of those substances (and all the other ones that aren’t legal for adults, but should be)

( Exception for things like antibiotics, which endanger everyone else if you abuse them. Other drugs should be regulated like alcohol : no sale to minors, restrictions on activities like driving when under the influence. Maybe the age should also be 21 or 25 instead of 18 )

On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried 🤷🏻‍♀️

activistPnk, 1 month ago

I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body.

A couple other comments seem to imply this a full-blown prohibition as well. To be clear, my interpretation is that this is not a total prohibition. From the article:

The government is set to introduce a historic new law to stop children who turn 14 this year or younger from ever legally being sold cigarettes in England, in a bid to create the first ‘smokefree generation’.

So IIUC, there is no possession or consumption offense, and anyone at any age can grow their own or import¹ it. They’re just making it inconvenient to acquire by controlling commerce. That inconvenience will certainly add to the cool factor of kids who become the resourceful hookup.

¹ I suppose they will be able to carry it into the country, but probably legit mail order shops will be controlled. Not sure.

On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried

IIRC, the smoking ban in restaurants and bars started in CA or NY, then swept around the world from there. Then NY supposedly banned smoking near outdoor bus stops or something. Not sure if that experiment spread.

bungle_in_the_jungle, 1 month ago

South Africa was trying this when I moved away about 15 years ago. If you wanted to smoke you had to sit in separate closed off area in restaurants (for example).

No idea what the ultimate outcome of that was though.

Edit: According to smokefreeworld.org:

The adult smoking rate declined from 27.1 percent in 2000 to 18.2 percent in 2012

awwwyissss, 1 month ago

That was my thought too. Ban it in public spaces so the rest of us don’t have to breath that toxic shit, but if people want to spend money to kill themselves at home then let them. But don’t cover their related health expenses.

radiant_bloom, 1 month ago

I disagree about the health stuff, but I’m French, so I’ve always taken is as a given that we pay (almost) every healthcare expense through taxes. If you ask me, that’s just the cost of freedom 🤷🏻‍♀️

shortwavesurfer, 1 month ago

I don’t live in the UK but I would not support this anywhere because making something banned makes people want to use it and creates a black market. I would absolutely support raising the minimum age you are allowed to consume it at. But not a complete ban.

bungle_in_the_jungle, 1 month ago

I’ll happily pick a side as a kid who grew up in a house constantly full of smoke and a parent who’s a total mess at least partially because of this. Good. It’s about time some serious steps were taken. Not to mention the effects of second hand smoke.

JillyB, 1 month ago

Didn’t New Zealand try this and eventually walk it back?

porous_grey_matter, 1 month ago

A different government came in and cancelled it to fund tax cuts