· 173 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 22, 2026 at 11:31 AM

UK lawmakers approve lifetime smoking ban for today's under-18s

Posted by Infodataplace

🚩 Report this post

173 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
OzzAlone Apr 22, 2026 +282
Prohibition always works
282
Grapes-RotMG Apr 22, 2026 +31
Is this necessarily the same thing tho? It sounds like today's adults would be grandfathered in while this stops future generations, who shouldn't be on the stuff yet anyway, from partaking later on. It's not like previous famous attempts which stripped it away from everyone who already got hooked.
31
ChesterComics Apr 23, 2026 +19
I definitely didn't have someone older buy me alcohol when I was underage. There definitely won't be any older people buying tobacco for underage people to take advantage of a newly formed black market. We already have kids who are underage and smoke. It's good in theory but history has proven that prohibition doesn't work.
19
themagicbong Apr 23, 2026 +7
I feel like every highschool has a handful of kids that graduate but still hang around the same areas/outside or near the school itself that buy tobacco for the current students lol.
7
caligaris_cabinet Apr 23, 2026 +3
Don’t even have to hang around. Plenty turn 18 in their senior year.
3
Athinira Apr 22, 2026 +9
It's just a slower ramp up. Eventually it will essentially be the same. Also, young people aren't known for their will to bend to authority. You'll see them find ways to smoke stuff (read: whatever they can) really fast.
9
traumalt Apr 23, 2026 +3
Cocaine is illegal, and yet there’s new users of it every day.  Safe to say this ban won’t do anything. 
3
FatsDominoPizza Apr 22, 2026 +122
What do you mean by work? Is it going to eradicate 100% tobacco use? Of course not. Are some people going to make a bit of money from smuggling? For sure. But is this going to slow down the rate of new users? How could it not? And ultimately that's the goal. Let perfect not be the enemy of good.
122
Matyz_CZ Apr 22, 2026 +53
It seems to be a philosophical question: is the decreased rate of new users outweigh the increased rate of mafia and all the criminality tied to smuggling? Do people need more thing they can be persecuted for?
53
Naxirian Apr 22, 2026 +2
Only around 8% of the British population smoke anymore anyway. It has been on a downwards trend for years and is generally viewed as deeply unattractive here.
2
BeratnasGILF420 Apr 22, 2026 +13
How easy is it to get vapes over there? Because here in Australia smoking rates were declining and people were switching to vapes, until the government cracked down hard on vapes and massively increased the taxes on tobacco. And now we have a massive black market for both with actual tobacco mafia "wars"
13
i_sell_you_lies Apr 23, 2026 +8
It's wild that they couldn't have seen that coming from 1000000km away
8
BeratnasGILF420 Apr 23, 2026 +6
There are probably microbes in the methane seas of Titan that could have predicted this outcome
6
SwagginsYolo420 Apr 23, 2026 +3
The tobacco companies have been the number one faction lobbying against vaping. They even bought out most vaping companies (which governments never should have permitted) and greatly en-shittified and ruined them. Driving up the cost, limiting availability, and making riskier products. In the US there are even vaping bans in many public places, which make no logical sense. Smoking was justifiably banned due to genuine second-hand smoke risks. But there's zero second-hand health risks for vaping. Such bans are basically tobacco-company-funded propaganda. Which has worked, the general public has been whipped-up into irrational anti-vaping fervor. Almost entirely due to being duped by tobacco companies.
3
613codyrex Apr 23, 2026 +3
It’s crazy how much tobacco and nicotine use was way done because people discovered smelling like an ashtray was not good. Only for big tobacco to figure out that vapes get people addicted to nicotine in similar or higher amounts and since vape legislation was slow to evolve kids are getting addicted to those instead of gross cigarettes. we were so close.
3
Valenle91 Apr 23, 2026 +1
Don’t know where you get your stats from but there is a huge vaping population here. Just go out on a night in Manchester and most of the busy streets are full of smoke and vape clouds.
1
FatsDominoPizza Apr 22, 2026 -10
Do you think banning heroin or meth was a mistake?
-10
Ryanthecat Apr 22, 2026 +41
Considering the “war on drugs” has been a monumental failure, illegal drugs significantly increase crime and unsafe usage, and those drugs you mentioned are now killing en masse due to fentanyl, yeah I’d say so.
41
Shadowholme Apr 22, 2026 +4
As a smoker myself, I have to agree with this particular ban. Most other illegal drugs are harmful only to the user. Smoking harms everyone around us. I personally try to minimise other people's exposure to my second hand smoke, but it is impossible to prevent it getting to everyone - and a lot of smokers aren't as considerate as I am. I made my choice and the consequences are my own - the people around me did not.
4
MuchConnection5541 Apr 23, 2026 +1
As a smoker myself im glad i can still buy tobacco to use with weed, weed is banned but obviously ill get it from my dealers and i dont wanna slow down smoking tobacco, ever since i was younger I’ve thought 60 or 70 is a good age to live to so self infliction used to reduce my life expectancy has been something i think about alot, where i live they dont allow euthanasia so gotta make ends meet somehow, just my opinion and no one can take that away from me.
1
Ryanthecat Apr 22, 2026
As OC mentioned, prohibition is historically a terrible strategy. There is also an extraordinary gap between banning something outright and taking steps to making it less impactful to the community. Continue to make smoking less accessible (increase minimum purchase age, increase taxes, etc.), ban smoking indoors outside of private domicile, ban smoking in public settings outside, etc. Beyond prohibition never working, I personally believe removing personal choice because something is “bad” is a slippery slope.
0
Shadowholme Apr 22, 2026 +7
You realise that 'increasing the minimum purchase age' is \*exactly\* what they are doing? They are increasing it by one year, every year. So minimum age is 18 now, 19 next year and so on... But laws are \*always\* about removing personal choice because something is bad. You don't have the choice to kill someone because it is deemed to be bad. You don't have to choice to take anything that you want because it is bad. You don't have the choice to drink and drive because it is bad. Society is built on the restriction of personal freedoms for the sake of the community as a whole.
7
Essaiel Apr 22, 2026 +3
We are talking about the UK though?
3
Ryanthecat Apr 22, 2026 +6
That’s correct, I can read just fine. Are you under the impression these don’t apply to every nearly every country on the planet?
6
HaveAVoreyGoodDay Apr 22, 2026 +9
Cigarettes, although not good for one's health long term, don't lead to dysfunctional addicts in the streets.
9
FrozenDickuri Apr 22, 2026 +2
Lol  really didn’t think this through, did you?
2
Academic-Ad5585 Apr 22, 2026 +5
It absolutely was.
5
Matyz_CZ Apr 22, 2026 +6
Since I'd vote for legalizing and controlling every virtually every substance known to man, yeah. I am not from America and drug criminality might look a bit different here, but I'd say it would be less harmful for those who want to destroy their healthy if they were using correct substances and not some dubious laced shit they buy from street dealers. Also having these properly taxed could help fighting consequences of drug use, saving money spent on the somewhat useless fight.
6
Ziazan Apr 22, 2026 +7
is it going to make it an even more unhealthy and unregulated thing to consume for those that still choose to? yes. are they still going to choose to? yes.
7
Lain_Staley Apr 22, 2026 +47
There is something disturbing about a lifetime ban being imposed on a demographic not yet legally able to contest such legislation. 
47
FatsDominoPizza Apr 22, 2026 +61
You were not even born when heroin was banned.
61
JamesIsntClever Apr 22, 2026 +5
That rules so hard.  There's no comeback or retort to this comment.  People want to be mad about a law that doesn't affect them at all on behalf of people it will help and you shut it down flawlessly Bravo 
5
ubiquitous_archer Apr 22, 2026 +11
Except heroin wasn't banned for only a specific group of people, so not really the same thing.
11
adamkex Apr 22, 2026 +6
To be fair the guy could be secretly immortal or very very old
6
Mysterious_Camel_717 Apr 22, 2026 +17
Ok but we banned other things because they were unhealthy, and there’s a lot of people currently addicted to it. Outright banning in all at once is impossible. So the next best thing is to ban new users and let the current ones die out. I get your point, but imo that’s not enough to poopoo this regulation. We make plenty of other decisions for kids that affect them their entire lives, from mandatory vaccines to bike helmets and school curriculums. You gotta steer society into a certain direction (and away from cigarettes is a good one imo), and it starts with the youth
17
Lain_Staley Apr 22, 2026 -6
The politicians that implement this don't have to face reprisal from whom it impacts.  Put simply: Politicians could not pass legislation banning it for the entire populace without losing their career.
-6
JammyJPlays Apr 22, 2026 +9
Well no shit. People are addicted to smoking, so banning it outright isn't possible. In terms of 'not facing reprisal', there isn't a discussion to be had... Smoking is undeniably bad, so what argument would there be for banning it for a group who aren't already addicted? Will it have much effect in the first few years? Probably not, you'll still have the young adults buying for their underage peers. But over time as the age increases it will certainly reduce those numbers, reducing the long term addiction. Cigarettes don't exactly have the same 'appeal' as current illegal drugs so I don't imagine there will be as much demand on a black market product once the addictions and habits die down.
9
takesthebiscuit Apr 22, 2026 +5
Not really this is a singular use case. Getting folk off smoking is worth the small challenge of different ages living under different rules And in realty it’s not that rare it happens when pensions change all the time
5
dizzguzztn Apr 22, 2026 -2
200 people a day die to smoking related illness, 25% of all cancer cases in this country are smoking related. I dont agree that prohibition is the best way to tackle things but honestly I dont even see an argument for cigarettes. Its not like you gain any benefit whatsoever especially when you first start its something you suffer through due to social pressure.
-2
Lain_Staley Apr 22, 2026 +8
>Its not like you gain any benefit whatsoever especially when you first start This was never a question about the benefits. Otherwise you risk going down: What is alcohol's purported benefit in comparison to nicotine? Shouldn't alcohol be banned?
8
evilparagon Apr 22, 2026 -11
Just keep in mind, you are directly saying “I believe children should have a right to get lung cancer in the future.” Why are you defending the worst possible position and acting like this is a matter of oppression?
-11
Lain_Staley Apr 22, 2026 +12
What's the minimum age for cigarettes?
12
evilparagon Apr 22, 2026 +1
In the UK? Looks like it’ll be 18 years today, 19 next year, 20 in 2028, and so on. Today’s British 17 year olds will never be able to legally purchase cigarettes in Britain. That’s a good thing.
1
Lain_Staley Apr 22, 2026 +5
Just wanted verification. Now to address your previous statement: >you are directly saying “I believe children should have a right to get lung cancer in the future.    **I am directly saying that future adults, 18 years or older, should have a right to get lung cancer in the future.**   It is up to a country's education and Media at that point. Taxation undoubtedly tipping the scales as well.
5
evilparagon Apr 22, 2026 -4
> I am directly saying that future adults, 18 years or older, should have a right to get lung cancer in the future. And that is exactly why your argument is stupid. Nicotine isn’t like sugar causing diabetes, it is far more nefarious with far less benefits. Nicotine even has negative effects on bystanders, with secondhand smoke stunting the growth of children or inducing asthma attacks in others. A total ban would be great, but politically unpopular. This is the next best thing and you’re mad about it because you think getting cancer is a right.
-4
Lain_Staley Apr 22, 2026 +4
>with secondhand smoke stunting the growth of children or inducing asthma attacks in others.  Smoking is already extremely limited in public spaces, correct? ----- “Children should be protected” is not the same claim as “the state may permanently remove a legal choice from future adults.” Those are two different arguments.
4
evilparagon Apr 22, 2026 +7
Smoking isn’t limited enough. The UK has similar laws to Australia, and I can say that smoking is still pervasive enough to be a problem here in Aus. Especially in unpoliced areas where people literally smoke below no smoking signs. Smokers have a ridiculous level of entitlement. Unsurprising that a group of people that makes things worse for other people with their habits has no regard for other people.
7
slowwlight Apr 22, 2026 +3
God I despise people who are against personal choice so much. At this stage I will partake in whatever the f*** I want regardless of legality thanks, as long as it aligns with my personal moral values, and I hope laws like these push more people to feel the same way. F****** morons
3
JJCB85 Apr 23, 2026 +6
“I think I should be allowed to own a handgun, because of my personal choice. It aligns with my personal values to have one, so it should be fine and nobody else’s business” The U.K. last had a mass school shooting in 1997, there hasn’t been one in nearly three decades since we (mostly) banned guns. Sometimes it’s worth giving up a little “personal choice” if you can measure the benefit in kids’ lives. Or maybe your absolute personal choice is more important to you. That is a logically consistent position plenty of people hold, after all. Not sure it’s fair to call people who reasonably disagree “morons” who you “despise” though. Appreciate that smoking isn’t the same thing as guns, but the principle applies.
6
Red_Redditor_Reddit Apr 24, 2026 +1
>Or maybe your absolute personal choice is more important to you. It is more important to me. It's why I support people having rights and freedoms.
1
morfanis Apr 23, 2026 +4
That would be all fine, if it didn’t cause a social burden on other people. Smoking increases public health spending, takes hospital beds, causes passive health issues, etc.
4
monoville_music Apr 23, 2026 +1
So does alcohol
1
Inside_Field_8894 Apr 24, 2026 +1
And generates billions in tax duty
1
DzoQiEuoi Apr 22, 2026 +2
As a non smoker I don’t care if other people smoke. I do care if my neighbourhood is being run by an organised crime gang.
2
alex3494 Apr 23, 2026 +1
Alcohol prohition incoming!
1
RiPPeR69420 Apr 22, 2026
Works great for anyone who is corrupt, has money, and has the right political connections. And anyone who owns shares in foreign tobacco companies. Not so great at actually eliminating the thing that is being prohibited. In fact, you can probably expect smoking to increase amongst the youth, after a long and consistent downtrend over the past few decades. Same thing happened when the UK went to the US model with regards to drugs. Before that, NHS knew exactly how many drug users there were. Dozens of them. Because you could get a prescription from a doctor, which was enough of a pain in the ass most people didn't bother (and watching a long term heroin user shit themselves turns most people off), and the drugs were c**** enough at a p******* that dealers couldn't compete on price or quality.
0
bluehelmet Apr 22, 2026 +1
Well, no, but this seems to be very likely to work well in reducing tobacco consumption.
1
HatCat5566 Apr 22, 2026 -18
Calling a ban for minors prohibition is misleading.
-18
destuctir Apr 22, 2026 +22
It’s not a ban for minors, it’s a lifetime ban starting today. Anyone not already 18 will never be able to legally buy them.
22
HatCat5566 Apr 22, 2026 +59
Misleading title. This is about tobacco use, not specifically smoking. This is a huge difference - I teach HS and smoking is almost dead, but vaping, especially with teen girls at my school, is on a massive rise.
59
moschles Apr 23, 2026 +3
Giant clouds of strawberry and various melon flavors.
3
HatCat5566 Apr 23, 2026 +3
HS bathrooms are suddenly all smelling like a fruit stand
3
RedditIsADataMine Apr 22, 2026 -27
How is the title misleading though?  You smoke tobacco. You dont vape tobacco. Quite clear smoking and tobacco can be used interchangeably here for the most part?
-27
HatCat5566 Apr 22, 2026 +4
because it's not just a smoking ban - it's a nicotine ban. It's like saying I ban weed for kids but only write an article about they can't buy joints. it's a vaping ban too. i just think it's interesting the title (and sub title of stub it out) is purely cig related when the bill is much broader than that AND teens have a huge problem with vaping. >LONDON, April 22 (Reuters) - Children in Britain who are 17 or younger, ‌and anyone born in the future, will never be able to legally buy cigarettes after lawmakers approved new stricter restrictions on smoking. >The Tobacco and Vapes Bill raises the legal age for buying tobacco by one ​year, every year, starting with people born on or after January 1, 2009, meaning ​affected age groups face a lifetime ban. >The law, which is due to receive ⁠royal assent next week, also tightens controls on vaping, including banning sales of vaping ​and nicotine products to under‑18s and restricting advertising, displays, free distribution and discounting.
4
RedditIsADataMine Apr 22, 2026 +16
Nope, you've misunderstood.  It's making vaping the same as smoking law right now. No one <18 can buy. In other words, 3 years down the line 18 year olds won't be able to buy cigarettes. But 18 will be able to buy vapes.  More information that makes this clearer:  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-tobacco-and-vapes-bill-creating-a-smoke-free-uk-and-tackling-youth-vaping/tobacco-and-vapes-bill-creating-a-smoke-free-uk-and-tackling-youth-vaping
16
HatCat5566 Apr 22, 2026 +10
thanks for the clarification, i did indeed misunderstand
10
RedditIsADataMine Apr 22, 2026 +8
You're welcome! Have a lovely evening. 
8
dj92wa Apr 22, 2026 +2
This is incorrect. You can vaporize leaf using a dry herb vaporizer. Vaping is not the same as combustion and smoking. You can also ingest tobacco by way of chewing or using those little packets you slip under your gums. Plenty of places allow chewing but won’t allow smoking etc. “Smoking” and “tobacco” are not interchangeable in the slightest.
2
RedditIsADataMine Apr 23, 2026 +1
I said "interchangeable here". As in the context of the headline. Smoking has a lifetime ban for under 18's. Vaping doesn't.  It's possible to use a dry herb vaporiser to vaporise tobacco leaf yes. But everyone understands when we're talking about vaping, we're talking about liquid containing nicotine. 
1
Wotsiiit Apr 22, 2026 +26
Can't wait to get bothered by police for vaping while looking young
26
Candymuncher118 Apr 22, 2026 +2
Vapes are not included in the rolling van, they're just being raised to 18
2
Steam_O Apr 22, 2026 +4
Wait so under 18s can never smoke, ever? Idgi
4
adamkex Apr 22, 2026 +8
Yeah, basically they raise the minimum age of smoking each year by one every year. In 60 years from now you'll have pensioners who aren't allowed to smoke.
8
Steam_O Apr 22, 2026 +4
That seems wild to me idk why lol
4
OphioukhosUnbound Apr 23, 2026 +6
Because it's a parody of governments controlling things that really aren't anyone else's business. (With socialized medicine there's some argument for "we're footing the bill", but (a) smoking reduces lifetime costs of medical care, (b) it's not a reasonable balance of removing individual agency (c) you could directly tax it to compensate instead of \[as was already done\]
6
PositiveNo7994 Apr 22, 2026 +93
Nice of them to give drug dealers another market to profit from
93
HatCat5566 Apr 22, 2026 +50
I disagree with this take. While some minors will indeed seek out drug dealers for nicotine, making the barrier of entry much higher (and risk and difficulty of use) will absolutely lower teen use imo. The average kid who gets hooked on vaping isn't some h******* nicotine lover, they just do it because it's super easy to get and no one cares. Making it harder to get and less present (advertising etc) will deter a bunch of kids who are on the fence. I've worked with hundreds of kids hooked on nicotine as a teacher and school counselor. The VAST majority aren't kids who would ever seek out a drug dealer, at least at this point in their life. Just bored teen girls mostly who do it for social reasons or to stay skinny.
50
OinkMcOink Apr 22, 2026 +11
Honestly, I want to try weed in my country where it is illegal just to see what it's about but I haven't much luck, I know people who might get me some but I don't really want them to get in trouble and it's not like I'm going to randomly meet a dealer.
11
__Yakovlev__ Apr 22, 2026 +1
Might as well just take a vacation to Amsterdam then.
1
PositiveNo7994 Apr 22, 2026 +16
I mean it's not a case of disagreeing. It will unlock a new black market, we already have them in Belgium due to the crazy tax on it.
16
Flangepacket Apr 22, 2026 +8
Right, of course. There is always some ying to the yang, but the move will have an overarching net benefit towards lowering teen and then adult habitual smoking - and should be celebrated first and hole poked second imo
8
NotAnnieBot Apr 23, 2026 +2
I’m a bit confused as to how a black market could be successful in these conditions given the vast majority of adults don’t have a premium, at least within the next 10-20 years or so. Like any smuggler can be undercut by asking your older friends to buy you a few packs of cigarettes. In the US in colleges no one under 21 is paying a significant enough premium for alcohol to justify a black market because as long as there is one 21 year old they know, it’s enough to get alcohol at basically market price.
2
adamkex Apr 22, 2026 +1
The difference is that you're making addicts pay more rather than restrict access to a new group who aren't addicted. These are fundamentally two different things because life continues as normal for current addicts.
1
MuchConnection5541 Apr 23, 2026 +2
Taking away freedoms, the start of controlling has begun imagine turning 18 in the future and cant make your own decisions on what you wanna buy
2
Valenle91 Apr 23, 2026 +1
As someone who was and remembers being young, those kids aren’t seeking out dealers. They are seeking out classmates who have already sought out the dealers and purchasing from them. This ban does nothing to stop it as they were already breaking the law to get the vapes in the first place. All this does is make it so they must continue to break the law into adulthood to get vapes. A 30 year old going to jail for vaping is absolutely absurd. This does nothing to curb underage smoking/vaping.
1
Caprikaa Apr 22, 2026 -2
I love this so much! Thank you for this take! That's what I've always thought too, and honestly, I wish more countries would follow this route.
-2
adamkex Apr 22, 2026 +2
The big difference between the majority of drugs and tobacco is that you get a significant kick out of snoring cocaine over smoking a cigarette. If you already aren't addicted it's never really worth smoking tobacco. Why smoke a cigarette when you could smoke weed if both are illegal?
2
Tealc420 Apr 22, 2026 +2
Because you can smoke a cigarette in public and at work
2
adamkex Apr 23, 2026 +3
Why would you ever do that if you're not addicted?
3
Valenle91 Apr 23, 2026 +1
Because smoking nicotine won’t impair you for the rest of the night whereas snorting cocaine and smoking weed will. At that point, you can no longer drive but you can still be responsible after vaping or smoking. That’s the difference.
1
adamkex Apr 24, 2026 +1
Correct, absolutely pointless thing to smoke
1
Timanious Apr 22, 2026 +7
Another brick in the wall.
7
monostere0 Apr 22, 2026 +4
Can’t have any ciggies if you don’t eat yer meat!!
4
ThePickleConnoisseur Apr 23, 2026 +6
The US tried this with alcohol once. It didn’t end well
6
Itisd Apr 22, 2026 +11
Smoking is dumb, but banning it for just some people is even dumber. Let adults make their own decisions.
11
-Atmosphere-7927 Apr 22, 2026 +3
In the far future, no one will be able to portray Gandalf in a movie unless they were born after 2008. At least if they film in England, the country where that story is from.
3
Light_Storm2000 Apr 22, 2026 +9
Letting the government make criminals out of people and control their personal lives is never good. People should be fighting against this.
9
beck_is_back Apr 23, 2026 +4
Like people were fighting online safety bill??? 🤣 Let's face it, today's society is spineless. People care only about themselves these days and lawmakers know that, that's why we're getting more and more of those ridiculous laws passed.
4
Light_Storm2000 Apr 23, 2026 +1
Right, those safety bills actually make us less safe.
1
Valenle91 Apr 24, 2026 +1
It’s not that society is spineless, it’s that it’s damn near impossible to fight parliament. It is generally hard for UK citizens to directly "fight back" against enacted Acts of Parliament due to the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which makes Parliament the supreme legal authority. While citizens can oppose proposed legislation and challenge actions taken under it, they cannot challenge the legality of primary legislation passed by Parliament in court. They’ve also enacted more laws against protesting. I fear the UK no longer lives under a democracy as the people get no say other than which party they vote into office.
1
aholetookmyusername Apr 22, 2026 +10
My (New Zealand) government had similar legislation in the pipeline but ditched it after an election caused a change of government. I don't smoke, I detest the stuff in fact, but I'm glad the outright ban is gone, as I believe all drugs should be legal and taxed+regulated according to harm, and tobacco prohibition goes against that belief.
10
heatisgross Apr 23, 2026
They aren't banning nicotine, just banning this harmful mode of ingesting it. No reason to inhale cancer air when you can just get something edible or topical.
0
aholetookmyusername Apr 24, 2026 +1
I still don't think it should be banned, but I appreciate the distinction and the perspective you've presented. I shall reconsider my opinion as a result.
1
Itisd Apr 22, 2026 +7
Smoking might not be a particularly smart life choice to make, but Prohibition of smoking is absolutely stupid. Yeah it's unhealthy, but so are many other perfectly legal things. Let adults decide what they want to do. Prohibiting something based on an increasing age limit also sends the mixed message that it mustn't be that bad if the older people are allowed to do it still. 
7
Healthy-Career-427 Apr 22, 2026 +6
Ultra-processed foods? Air Pollution? Synthetic clothing? The whole f****** world being thrown into chaos by some c\*nts with mental issues? Less jobs? Illegal immigration? Nah, its those damn cigarettes. They're creating robots. No hobbies, no vices, nothing to make them human. Just brainwashed flesh robots with restrictions that will work every single day for their basic needs: sleep, shitty food and rent.
6
ronweasleisourking Apr 22, 2026 +17
Vape free for 10 months here. Best decision I've made in years
17
noopdles Apr 22, 2026 +20
now smoking is going to make you look even more cool 😎 and sophisticated
20
DzoQiEuoi Apr 22, 2026 +18
Adults should be able to consume unhealthy products if they want to.
18
pinkfootthegoose Apr 22, 2026 +7
Great way to make a blackmarket and encourage organized crime syndicates
7
usually_fuente Apr 22, 2026 +2
Does this apply to cigars? Because if it does, that is just beyond nanny state ridiculousness.
2
RomGon3 Apr 23, 2026 +2
Next they gonna ban alcohol too. This is so damn stupid. Let adults decide what to do with their bodies Banning tobacco is so dumb. Just put insane heavy taxes on it and keep tjem available to whoever is willing to pay the prices for it.
2
Richiematt262 Apr 22, 2026 +2
Why does everyone jump to drugs dealers and not that they'll just ask someone they know who's older buy them some
2
Major-Assumption539 Apr 22, 2026 +3
I’m eagerly awaiting the future headlines about how terribly this ends up working
3
Zoidberg0_0 Apr 22, 2026 +6
The mafia was looking for another revenue stream. Good lookin out.
6
lemons_of_doubt Apr 22, 2026 +3
30 years from now. >S:"How old are you?" A:50 S:"Let's see some id... This says your only 47!" A;**This is bullshit!!**
3
evilparagon Apr 22, 2026 +1
And? The point of such a law is to reduce uptake. If someone is born in 2010 and in 2057 they try to buy cigarettess, they’re not going to be ID’d, they’d “slip through the cracks” meanwhile most other people their age would simply have never taken up smoking. But someone born 2020, who would be 37 in 2057, would be ID’d because they couldn’t just pass as being 50. Today’s babies would have an even harder time getting cigarettes than today’s teenagers, and that’s also good.
1
Ann-AndyUK Apr 22, 2026 +1
jeezusfeckinchristonabike, please stop calling politicians 'lawmakers' ~ this damned stupid American nonsense term is spreading thanks to lazy journalism and is very irritating
1
Skysr70 Apr 23, 2026 +6
wdym "nonsense" they literally make the laws, as opposed to politicians in other sectors uninvolved with lawmaking
6
toughtacos Apr 22, 2026
It’s Reuters, not the BBC. Reuters is a global news agency whose content is repackaged and redistributed globally, so it makes sense to use «lawmakers» as that’s clearer and more understandable than «MPs».
0
deafeningb8 Apr 22, 2026 -3
Could actually reduce smoking long term if enforced well. Again, If enforced well.
-3
Broken_Reality Apr 22, 2026 +13
Impossible to enforce. Just like the way drugs are illegal and are still used by many. Prohibition never works it just makes criminals money and makes people criminals by addiction. We should be decriminalising things and helping treat people (which costs less than criminalising them) and not making more things illegal.
13
Frogblood Apr 22, 2026 +13
Smoking is decriminalised and people are treated to get over the addiction, still tonnes of people smoke and it's a massive strain on the health service. This legislation isn't aimed to stop everyone younger than 18 right now smoking. It's aiming to reduce the number who do by making it difficult to start, reducing the load of health related conditions on the NHS.
13
Broken_Reality Apr 25, 2026 +1
But it is getting less so as time goes on and less people smoke.
1
_ElLol99 Apr 22, 2026
They could just tax them and use that money to fund the NHS. Prohibition is just such a stupid strategy.
0
Frogblood Apr 22, 2026 +2
They already do, doesn't offset the cost of the chronic health conditions smoking causes.
2
KatoBytes Apr 24, 2026 +1
It does actually. Billions in tax, duties, etc
1
TheOlddan Apr 22, 2026 +6
The point is these people aren't addicted yet, cutting them off before the majority have any contact at all will reduce uptake. Sure, ome will seek it out through friends or family or whatever, but many wont and they'll be better off for it in the long run.
6
FernandoMM1220 Apr 22, 2026 +1
how is it impossible? if you see someone smoking just arrest them lol
1
Status-Bluebird-6064 Apr 22, 2026 -2
what you mean, just enforce it lol its not like there are like 420 countires around Britain where they could just buy it and smuggle it in I am sure the "just enforce it lol" wont be another excuse for undignified and annoying searches like at the airports, I am sure that their drug enforcement and border/immigration police needs more cash and enforcing mechanisms
-2
PositiveNo7994 Apr 22, 2026 -6
Nah, every single illegal substance is still highly used.
-6
ViciousNakedMoleRat Apr 22, 2026 +11
Certainly not as heavily as cigarettes today.
11
CumGuzlinGutterSluts Apr 23, 2026 +1
Ooooh time to learn how to grow and cure tobacco
1
MachineMindless549 Apr 23, 2026 +1
我希望中国也能进行跟进
1
davethegreat_19 Apr 23, 2026 +1
i don't understand. Like they're banned permanently even they turnt more than 18 years old?
1
Ravenblade727 Apr 24, 2026 +1
I assume this is because of the burden on the NHS. These might be the sorts of decisions we need to make to be able to keep it in a post-Brexit world.
1
dorkyitguy Apr 22, 2026 +2
People talk about moving from the US to the UK because things are crazy here. There’s no way I’d move to the UK. You guys are just as messed up as we are. Between your p*** bans, age verification, and now this you’re going to need government approval to sneeze soon (you could get someone else sick!)
2
5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi Apr 22, 2026 +1
>You guys are just as messed up as we are. Your President is a pedophile that threatened to invade multiple allies and is currently in a war f****** over the globe for no real reason. He was also voted in by a plurality. I think we're doing quite a bit better, thanks.
1
dorkyitguy Apr 22, 2026 +5
I’m actually choosing option c - none of the above 
5
Berty_Puddlebottom Apr 22, 2026 +2
Everyone knows the eastern european supermarket sells untaxed tobacco under the table right?
2
drinkun Apr 22, 2026 +1
Of all the problems the UK has, this isn't one of them
1
fonduelovertx Apr 22, 2026 +1
Next: housing. To own a house, you need to be born before 2008. This prohibition is creating a bad precedent.
1
DecembersDragons Apr 22, 2026 -17
The hell's wrong with the UK? 
-17
jack5624 Apr 22, 2026 +6
In general the population is very pro nanny state politices, but enforcement is very week. So you end up with a bunch of laws that exist on paper but not in reality.
6
benoxxxx Apr 22, 2026 +5
Nanny state
5
ValleyFloydJam Apr 22, 2026 +2
Making good decisions, bastards.
2
HatCat5566 Apr 22, 2026 -2
Lots of things. Banning nicotine for minors isn't one of them.
-2
_ElLol99 Apr 22, 2026 +2
Except those people will grow up to not be minors anymore
2
splitter82 Apr 23, 2026
A lot of histrionics here. This is about banning a toxic and health damaging way of ingesting a drug you can get in other forms. I wish this had been in place when I was younger. Would have saved me years of trying to defeat a shitty habit and made the damage to my health so much less. Of course I’d have been whinging like a lot of the other people here.
0
Rare_Pirate4113 Apr 22, 2026 -11
Great news. But doesn’t go far enough, should just make tobacco illegal full stop, and make nicotine illegal 12 months after
-11
jack5624 Apr 22, 2026 +6
Yeah, and ban alcohol while you are at it /s
6
NotAUserNamm Apr 22, 2026 +2
That worked out great with weed, cocaine, lsd and ecstasy. You never see any of those around anymore because they are illegal hurr durr
2
Rare_Pirate4113 Apr 22, 2026 +2
The idea that a law should only exist if it 100% wipes out what it is designed to make illegal is stupid. Mirder is illegal but people still do it, should that law therefore be abolished?
2
NotAUserNamm Apr 22, 2026 +2
What a stupid argument comparing murder to black market substances as if they are in any way equal. Making stuff illegal that many people enjoy, because there are people that do, it creates an incentive for increased criminal activity. Prohibition a 100 years ago gave rise to organized crime and the war on drugs gave rise to the cartels and all the murder and mayhem that came with that. Now you are going to have gangs competing over cigarettes as well. Just stupid
2
_ElLol99 Apr 22, 2026 +1
Funny comparison considering how many murders are related to the war on drugs.
1
InformedTriangle Apr 22, 2026
I don't necessarily agree with banning it, but in the UK (and other countries with public healthcare) I feel like purchasing cigarettes should be taxed to the point a pack is like 100$+ with all the proceeds going to paying for the healthcare costs associated with it. (i know they're already highly taxed, but it needs to be more.
0
RedBreadRetention Apr 23, 2026 +1
This seems like a fair compromise honestly. Like yeah, you can smoke if you want, but considering how you're destroying your own body and those of people around you and drawing disproportionately from the NHS what you put in, it's only fair if you foot the bill.
1
Good-Ad6352 Apr 22, 2026 -3
People seem to miss the point. For now this wont do much at all. But then in 5 years. Suddenly anyone who looks under 23 isnt allowed to smoke and im assuming will be fined if they do. Thn in 10 years. Now anyone under 27. Cigarette sales will decline besides black market. But under 27 is starting to become obvious. Then 15 years. 20 25 and so on. Cigarettes will become harder to come by, illegal to smoke and tobacco isnt an easy plant to grow necessarily. This is a long term plan and i personally am in favour. Its not gonna be immediate. But itll positively affect health
-3
JEDtheGamer45 Apr 23, 2026 +1
It will also decline smoking of most other substances as well. People will just buy edibles instead rather than go through the hassle of smoking the substance. Plus, still get the (scientifically neutral) health benefits.
1
MrLime93 Apr 23, 2026 +1
And they should do it with alcohol too, right?
1
New_Combination_7012 Apr 22, 2026 -10
The Tories will reverse this when they get back in power the same way National did in NZ.
-10
jack5624 Apr 22, 2026 +10
It was originally the Tories proposal under the previous government
10
Boop0p Apr 22, 2026 -12
I've always been in favour of this, however when I saw it pop up in the news in the past day or two my immediate reaction was "ban vaping too". If the only reason we allow vaping is to help people stop smoking, why should people who theoretically never smoked anyway need vapes?
-12
Meta2048 Apr 22, 2026 +9
Progress is incremental.  Smoking cigarettes is significantly worse for you than vaping. Also, you can't outlaw everything that is bad for people.  People like vices, and if you ban something that is too popular people don't stop doing it, they just form a black market and it becomes less safe.  See prohibition in the US.
9
SpudsBuckley223 Apr 22, 2026 +3
Why do you feel the need to control other people?
3
Initial-Return8802 Apr 22, 2026 -1
Why have you been in favour of it? A black market will pop up, probably getting the cheapest cigarettes they can and fakes of large brands so now you have a younger population smoking entirely unregulated cigerettes from god knows where and probably worse carcinogens Meanwhile, how the f*** is this meant to be enforced? If a 30 year old comes up to me in a bar and asks for a cigarette in 10 years time am I supposed to ID him? Say no? Am I liable for giving one to him?
-1
5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi Apr 22, 2026 +1
>how the f*** is this meant to be enforced? Literally the same way any age check is carried out?
1
Boop0p Apr 22, 2026 +1
"It's too hard, let's not bother" isn't a valid reason for not doing something.
1
Broken_Reality Apr 22, 2026 +3
How well is making drugs illegal working? It isn't. So that's how this new ban will work, poorly. Other countries that have decriminalised drugs are do far better with them that we are. So this cigarette ban will not work either. "It's never worked before so lets try the same thing again" Isn't a valid reason either.
3
RLZT Apr 22, 2026 +5
Also making cigarettes expensive as f*** is already a good strategy long term, young people may smoke a cig or two at a party but a-pack-a-day chronic smokers are already quite rare in younger generations, vaping is a much bigger problem
5
Soul-Burn Apr 22, 2026 +1
It does ban vaping too
1
DzoQiEuoi Apr 22, 2026 -1
If they’ve never been allowed to smoke they won’t be addicted to nicotine so there’ll be no need to check ids in future. We can safely assume that anyone buying cigarettes is old enough.
-1
[deleted] Apr 22, 2026 -1
[deleted]
-1
Danne660 Apr 22, 2026 +1
"The law, which is due to receive ⁠royal assent next week, also tightens controls on vaping, including banning sales of vaping ​and nicotine products to under‑18s and restricting advertising, displays, free distribution and discounting."
1
← Back to Board