47
Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 1 day ago by UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TommySoda@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

The only thing this will accomplish is creating a black market just like every other drug. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense from a public health stand point and it will definitely save lives that were cut short from smoking related health conditions. But as we've found out with literally every drug in existence no matter how hard of a drug it is, the moment it isn't legal it gets replaced by a black market with a mountain of new issues.

[-] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 3 points 15 hours ago

it will definitely save lives that were cut short

Sorry for being pedantic, but it will do no such thing.

The lives rhat have already been cut short - they'll continue being cut short. That time isn't something a magic wand nor a ban on sale can fix.

This type of ban won't even try to deal with the existing smokers. The only thing it tries to do is stop the new geberation from becoming smokers by taking away access.

Which will probably work, but it's a stopgap - not a solution.

I'd argue a policy of prevention, of raising prices, of limiting the amount of cancer-causing chemicals and of clearly defining and educating people about tapering off (including perhaps cigarrettes of differing nicotine levels like the vapes) would work better than saying "time's up, young-uns 2008 onwards can't get cigs".

I'd also argue a better approach would be a school lesson where kids try a puff of cigarette smoke, hopefully hate it for life, and never think about trying it again. Banning stuff just makes it seem cool and I think this rebellious aspect is what gets most high school kids into the addiction.

Accessibility doesn't help, but cigs are already illegal to sell to under-18s but we all know how effective that is at preventing teenagers developing the addiction. Altering the rule a bit doesn't get rid of the problem of it not being properly enforced.

[-] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago

Idk if it’s really helpful to the convo but As someone who quit smoking less than a year ago after 10+ years I wanna say raising the price won’t help people not smoke. The amount of money I threw at my smokes was just someothing I always budgeted in and it just kinda fucks over poor people who are gonna smoke no matter what. I don’t think this full ban is really gonna do much for already existing smokers. Of course if the cost of selling cigarettes was more than the profit we could get somewhere but at the end of the day every industry would benefit from ditching profit based economics. Thats why I’m a leftist I guess

[-] idlesheep@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

I think it can be banned if you also don't criminalize it and implement some kind of harm-reduction system.

This way being caught with a cigarette won't land you in jail. At most you'll be fined (though ideally confiscation should be enough). And if you want to quit there are resources.

Heavy penalties should only be for trafficking, which you can achieve by stipulating an amount that counts as trafficking.

[-] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Why not everybody

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

They are cowards who do not want to face the consequences of their actions.

But you cant avoid them forever prohibitionists...

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 16 points 1 day ago

The idea is to prevent addiction forming in newer generation. Rather then banning those they have already developed addiction.

The minimum age has been rising for a couple of years.

This is actually a manifesto promises so has fairly high support. (Unlike almost everything else the gov has done).

[-] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

fuck that, as someone who is addicted and wants to stop but can't.... JUST BAN THE SHIT

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk -3 points 1 day ago

If you're in your late 70s. You have an excuse. But are not likely to think as you do. But if so. Sorry you were fooled by such arsehole Corporations lieing about their own research for decades.

If younger. Then you grew up knowing how dangerous smoking was. Even if you failed to believe the government telling you so. You have no excuse for makeing the choices you did.

And most of us who made those dumb choices do not expect others to take responsibility for them. Even if we find/found stopping hard. In nearly 60 years. Absolutely every government in my lifetime. Has reduced the excuses of the generations forward to fall for the stupidity. Including my father who gave up in his late 60s after cancer. But knew full well how dumb his smoking was when I was a toddler.

You are entitled to your opinion. But everyone else is also entitled to consider you pathetic. For thinking the government is responsible for fixing your own stupidity.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago

But everyone else is also entitled to consider you pathetic. For thinking the government is responsible for fixing your own stupidity.

So, you also think we should abolish drunk driving laws?

[-] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 0 points 15 hours ago

Smoking cigarettes isn’t dangerous to everybody in your vicinity only to second hand smoke and it’s kinda disingenuous to pretend the danger to society from the two is comparable. And like I said I smoked for over 10 years and I’m gen z. Society makes it look cool but I should have listened to my mom the whole time.

[-] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 1 points 19 hours ago

oh shut the fuck up. you're a useless sack of shit

[-] doleo@lemmy.one 4 points 1 day ago

I agree, let's ban everybody instead of smoking.

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
47 points (92.7% liked)

World News

40342 readers
576 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
jackmarxist@lemmy.ml
zephyreks@lemmy.ml
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml