65
UK lawmakers approve lifetime smoking ban for today's under-18s
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
65 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2056 readers
1054 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good on the UK... for once...
It seems the minimum age will slowly increase, basically meaning anyone under 18 now and anyone born in the future will be unable to smoke cigarettes.
There will be the classic "black market hurr durr" people like when other drugs were banned, but evidence always shows it's better overall.
So the idea is that we want to legalize marijuana because its totally unreasonable for the government to tell us what we can put in our body, but also ban tobacco because "its bad." Is that about the size of it?
Both are bad for you. Ideally the UK would spend on education and people would just choose themselves not to smoke, but I guess they would rather ban it and keep the population dumb.
Tobacco is considerably worse.
In any case, this doesn't appear to criminalize possession, which is the usual sticking point for people against drug prohibition.
That isn't really a claim you can make without support of any kind.
https://dailymontanan.com/2024/06/26/the-science-is-clear-marijuana-is-safer-than-tobacco/
Not a single source in that article actually quantifies the difference that you just described as "significant". Want to try again? Or do you just want to admit that you said a thing that seemed like it was true and then googled it for the first time when I asked you to?
I think the main point here is: why does this matter even if its true?
Either the state is in charge of forcing you not to buy things that are unhealthy or it isn't. If it is then there is no reason not to also ban Marijuana for the same reason even if it is "less bad" than tobacco. No one is arguing that its good for you. Why not bad refined sugar and caffein and thousands of other things that are bad for you?
Holy fucking shit, did you not read even the first three paragraphs of the link
You're absolutely right, time to abolish the FDA and go back to heroin cough syrup over-the-counter.
Imagine having such a childishly boolean view of the world.
Do you know what the word "quantify" means? Maybe look it up before you reply?
You know that the UK doesn't have the "FDA" right?
Hilarious perspective from a person that forgot what country we are talking about.
I'm sorry that you don't understand that, when arguing from principle, the principle can be applied to various real-world examples to demonstrate absurdity? Your argument was explicitly about "the state", conceptually, not Britain specifically.
Since your own grasp on the English language is tenuous, considering your Dunning-Kruger moment above, I think this conversation is over.
*unable to legally purchase
They will continue to smoke and vape. I guarantee it. Their activity will simply be criminalized. Which isn't good for anyone.
The evidence shows people will find a way and prohibitions aren't effect and mostly results in inferior and sometimes dangerous product being sold in place of what should be highly regulated and consistent.
Existing people will, but making something harder to get will reduce smokers. It will also fade out of culture through the generations.
Why do people always think it has to be immediate benefits or none at all?
Harder to legally get*
That doesn't actually make it harder to get...
Exactly and would just be another product to continue the drug dealer child profit mill