ListNook

donttellyourmum 10 hr ago +312

They've mostly moved onto vapes haven't they.

312

Budget-Turnover3231 10 hr ago +147

They are thinking about banning vapes too, already banned disposable vapes. Now they banned vaping in cars with kids, near hospitals and playgrounds.

147

nana_3 10 hr ago +60

In Aus we banned vapes and they’re literally everywhere. You can’t get a half decent reliable vape mod any more or juice with a trustworthy dose of nicotine, but you can get china’s finest c**** shit disposable with who knows how much nicotine at every corner store with no ID and no questions asked. They haven’t banned smoking - it just has ridiculous taxes to make it obscenely expensive. But since the vape black market has taken off it seems the tobacco black market has grown from borderline nonexistent to basically unavoidable. We didn’t used to have tobacconists getting bombed or set on fire by organised crime, but it’s not very unusual the last few years.

60

donttellyourmum 8 hr ago +1

No I believe they banned disposable vapes and tobacco/nicotine based vapes... but yeah I'd say the same tobacconists that are importing in cartons of illegal cigarettes to avoid duty are probably not phased by a few disposable vapes on the side.

1

Dawn_of_an_Era 9 hr ago +1

The US is similar. There is only one allowed disposable, the NJOY Daily, and it only has tobacco and menthol flavors. All of the rest (Geek Bar, Lost Mary, any fruity flavor, etc.) are not FDA authorized and are thus illegal, but every gas station still carries them

1

Squeekazu 8 hr ago +1

The illegal sale of tobacco is [pretty crazy here in Aus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_tobacco_wars)! Not sure if it’s like that over there. Bear in mind a packet of tailored branded cigarettes can cost upwards of 50 bucks here if you’re not buying the Chinese cigarettes.

1

Richard__Cranium 8 hr ago +1

I swear the Geek Bars and other disposable vapes found at gas stations also have way more nicotine than they claim as well. Much easier to keep people mega addicted. Thank God I somehow finally quit recently but damn do I still crave it.

1

ToastedCrumpet 8 hr ago +1

The current vapes are still seen as disposable by most, and the plastic cartridges and lithium batteries still litter the streets everywhere. They also said they wouldn’t be banned near hospitals so as not to deter those trying to quit smoking

1

Greedy-Mechanic-4932 8 hr ago +1

How do they police nationwide bans except in certain small areas? Some sort of electric ring fence?!

1

Bugsmoke 8 hr ago +1

In Wales at least you’re already not allowed to smoke on hospital grounds, although you’re right and I’ve never seen it enforced outside of the odd member of staff telling a smoker to do it elsewhere

1

Zeikos 10 hr ago +17

That's an hell of a slippery slope argument. Banning disposable vapes is a no brainer. It's the worst example of planned obsolescence I have ever seen, they were made without a way to recharge them just to sell more of them. Forbidding passive exposure is good too, it might not as bad as tobacco smoke but I'd rather not have kids and sick people exposed to nicotine. If vapes having to stay is a precondition to phase out tobacco I am all for it. Vapes have their dangers, the fact that they're seen as safe is an issue. It causes more teens tonstart smoking - and that should be addressed, but it shouldn't be used as an argument to keep tobacco around imo.

17

Bugsmoke 10 hr ago +12

Most of them have just added a charge port and they’re similarly disposable in reality

12

brixton_massive 8 hr ago +1

From a vaper, once you're in the habit of buying replacement cartridges, your battery bits end up lasting a very long time. That and it's cheaper to buy the cartridges over a brand new with battery, so the ban has made a difference.

1

Zeikos 8 hr ago +1

In the sense that the port is just for show?

1

filipha 8 hr ago +1

Ban that no one reinforces is not a ban. There has been a very long ban for smoking at bus stops yet I see people smoking under those bus stops all the time. I see even the bus drivers smoking at those when they’re at the end of their route.

1

Themanorhouse 9 hr ago +5

They haven’t banned disposable vapes. They banned single use ones. So now the small vapes have a charging port and can change heads. Guess what they cost the same as they used to so people still throw it away and buy a new vape rather than the juice heads for it. So they haven’t banned anything. Vapes are advertised like perfume everywhere it’s a disgrace.

5

GoldMountain5 9 hr ago +1

Vape manufacturers anticipated this and put dummy usb ports onto disposable vapes.

1

somthingorother654 8 hr ago +1

Yea they banned them and created a massive underground unregulated black market, everyone knows " a guy" selling disposable flavoured vapes and there are hundreds of online websites that sell them now , and you have no idea wtf is in them.... great job 😐

1

mrBenelliM4 8 hr ago +1

I remember that episode from IT Crowd where they looked like rebel eastern europeans talking because the building changed their smoking policy.

1

yungsausages 10 hr ago +9

That’s included in the ban, tobacco and vapes

9

nullstring 10 hr ago +6

I'm sure that would be included as part of the ban.

6

donttellyourmum 9 hr ago +1

Not by my reading of the article? What did it say on your reading - I was reading that cigarettes, cigars or tobacco could not be purchased by people born after 2008.

1

woodzopwns 9 hr ago +1

Yeah ive seen kids as young as (looked like) 12 vaping on the main street in Brighton, even higher nicotine content and infinitely more addictive with flavours etc

1

slowdownbabyy 10 hr ago +108

Bros born in 2007 🗣️🚬💨

108

Few_Yam_686 9 hr ago +17

Everyone in 2008 is also technically chill

17

BloodyRightNostril 8 hr ago +1

They’re doing it backwards?

1

doshe002 11 hr ago +395

Legally banned from smoking, and economically banned from ever owning a home. Cruel world.

395

iwannabeanudist 10 hr ago +26

In Australia we are almost economically banned from smoking. A 20 pack costs $40AUD!

26

celem83 9 hr ago +10

Not far behind you. 20 in the UK costs 29-35 aud

10

Cutsdeep- 9 hr ago +5

B+h 20s 60 bucks

5

Prus1s 9 hr ago +1

40?! Is that a joke? 😄 I need proof to believe it! I don’t smoke, but that price is egregious! Think most I’ve seen in EU is around the €10 mark.

1

DecadentHam 8 hr ago +1

Absolutely true. That's why the black market has exploded in the last few years.

1

Prus1s 7 hr ago +1

Did a check on the web and it’s crazy 😄 Overall it’s a good thing I guess, but damn would be hard enforce something like this in France.

1

DaddyD00M 7 hr ago +1

22-25 euro for a pack in ireland

1

Dofolo 10 hr ago +85

Given what smoking costs per package, they may be able to save up for a house now tho.

85

MidnightChimp 10 hr ago +17

There are vastly cheaper options if you just roll your own ones

17

Bugsmoke 10 hr ago +17

Even that’s crazy expensive now though. It’s near enough £30 for a 30G packet and only going up.

17

spud8385 9 hr ago +7

I remember paying £2.50 for a 12.5g packet back in my smoking days 20 years ago, and a fiver for a pack of 20. The new prices are crazy, how do people even afford to smoke nowadays

7

eastkent 8 hr ago +1

I used to get on the Sally ferry at Ramsgate, drive to Belgium from Dunkirk, and buy baccy in two ounce packs for £1.80 each. It was a while ago though...

1

Schwiliinker 10 hr ago +9

Sounds like way too much work tbh. At least as someone who doesn’t smoke

9

Sirlacker 10 hr ago +8

I mean it's a pain in the arse when you don't have the hang of it, but before I quit I could roll my own pretty quickly. I was a drivers mate when I was younger and one of the drivers could somehow roll one with one hand, whilst steering with the other. How the f*** they did that is beyond me. Just a pain in the arse when it's windy and you didn't preroll any.

8

whyshouldiknowwhy 10 hr ago +3

I’ve seen scrotes cycling down the pavement rolling ciggs as they go. Impressive bike handling and paper wrangling given the wind from travelling and the shite state of our council pavements

3

MacAoidh83 9 hr ago +3

Yeah I used to be able to roll a cig one-handed whilst riding a skateboard. Now, admittedly, my elbow joint aches in damp weather sometimes but ask me if it was worth it! It wasn’t.

3

Schwiliinker 10 hr ago +1

That is ludicrous haha

1

accidentalfritata 8 hr ago +1

In my prime I could roll a cig in about 6 seconds from pulling the paper out, I miss it more than smoking these days. I'll still roll them for other people when I can

1

sdh1987 10 hr ago +1

Vastly cheaper and vastly better tasting. Either way they’re not gonna get me a house though.

1

Not_A_Clever_Man_ 10 hr ago +2

Everyone I know in the UK that smokes rolls their own. Factory rolls are for going out. But most nicotine addicts just vape now, its far far cheaper.

2

Im2dronk 8 hr ago +1

I've noticed i dont smoke nearly as much since i started rolling my own. It feels more like a leasure thing instead of having to have a cig hanging out of my mouth when driving/working. Not to mention getting a really spot on roll just feels good. Even better when you put some keef in it.

1

jfk1000 9 hr ago +1

Same is true for houses btw.

1

Drew_Ferran 8 hr ago +1

Or just don’t and save money?

1

Schuesseled 8 hr ago +1

If you buy 100,000 disposable vapes, you can glue them together into a house

1

Plazmuh 9 hr ago +3

Imagine if they stopped buying avocado on toast too.

3

matt95110 8 hr ago +1

Are you ever one pack of smokes away from your dream home?

1

IHaveTwoOranges 8 hr ago +1

Not smoking is a cruel fate?

1

antman1983 10 hr ago +2

Most hardware is becoming prohibitively expensive too so they can't even escape grim reality without selling a kidney.

2

TurnaboutAdam 10 hr ago +32

This is pretty insane for Northern Ireland where someone could literally walk across the street and legally buy a pack when they can’t elsewhere.

32

animatedradio 10 hr ago +39

This was introduced in NZ with our last govt. Our current govt immediately scrapped it lol. It’ll be interesting to watch what happens with the tobacco lobbies.

39

ZielonaKrowa 10 hr ago +12

Well if Farage ever wins an election I can imagine it’ll be the same

12

ValleyFloydJam 10 hr ago +2

If there's something stupid to do he will do it, the same if he can do anything racist or sexist.

2

MageLocusta 9 hr ago +1

He would scrap the ban, and then berate anyone that tries to ask for increased NHS funding to help people with lung or throat cancer. Let's all be honest. This is the real reason why the ban's in place. Not just to ensure that people can still be forced to work as essential workers during the next pandemic, but also as an excuse to keep putting in less funding than what the NHS genuinely needs.

1

arcanehornet_ 11 hr ago +132

On paper, it’s a net positive for society and the planet, although people will just buy cigarattes anyway, like every restricted substance in history.

132

lerpo 10 hr ago +62

But it will limit the avaliability and gives an "ending point" of this current generation of young smokers being the last. And I'm sure the rule will be to ID anyone buying a packet at some point so it will stop people buying them at a certain age. If it stops 80 percent of a certain generation smoking, the positive knock on effect for the NHS having to deal with health issues will be night and day in the future. And the knock on of that generation not smoking, and therefore their kids not picking up the habit/second hand smoke is a positive.

62

Chowdaaair 10 hr ago +11

This used make sense to me. But where I live, the taxes on smokes have gone up so much, that almost everyone I know smokes black market cigs now, which they somehow can just easily order online.

11

sloggo 10 hr ago +20

I think you’re missing the point of the post which is essentially “prohibition doesn’t work” - people like their vices. Reducing access is one thing, making it outright illegal is another. I know with heavy taxes the illegal trade in Australia is already booming, I imagine that, already established, trend will just increase with a multiplier if access is removed entirely. I’m not really a smoker - will smoke the occasional joint - but I kinda agree with the prohibition doesn’t work crowd. I think we’re pretty close to the sweet spot already of limiting access and making it expensive and difficult and socially taboo right now, without going so far that it feels like the law trying to impose morality on the populus.

20

TheWhomItConcerns 9 hr ago +1

Prohibition does, or at least *can* absolutely work if thoroughly and thoughtfully implemented though. In the 50s, for example, Japan had a massive methamphetamine issue and the government cracked down hard on it, and their comparative rates of meth use dropped substantially and have stayed much lower ever since.

1

sloggo 9 hr ago +1

“Stayed much lower ever since” maybe isnt totally representing the situation accurately, while true. They had 2nd and 3rd meth epidemics later too. Never reached the same population saturation as the first 50s epidemic but still very high. The first one was a situation where it was legal and basically handed out by the government so the saturation was naturally much higher. The later epidemics were in an “it’s already illegal” setting so large portions of the population simply weren’t in the demographic this time. The crackdown pushed production and distribution in to the hands of yakuza, which is similar to other prohibition events - and their release from jail brought about the 2nd epidemic. Also it seems japans success with prohibition there in the 50s is seen as “historically anomalous” and people point to other contextual factors (like japans economic boom kicking in) as having a helping hand in that, more so than just “thoroughly and thoughtfully implemented crackdown”.

1

TheWhomItConcerns 8 hr ago +1

>“Stayed much lower ever since” maybe isnt totally representing the situation accurately, while true. They had 2nd and 3rd meth epidemics later too. Never reached the same population saturation as the first 50s epidemic but still very high. I mean, it's hard to say because we don't have a window into an alternate timeline - for all we know, if the government hadn't have done anything, it's base rate could have remained become even worse and had far worse peaks. However, there is generally a consensus among historians that the government's prohibition had a substantial and swift effect on consumption rates. >Also it seems japans success with prohibition there in the 50s is seen as “historically anomalous” and people point to other contextual factors (like japans economic boom kicking in) as having a helping hand in that, more so than just “thoroughly and thoughtfully implemented crackdown”. Well how many historical instances are there of a sudden and thoroughly implemented prohibition? At least in democratic countries, it's often very difficult to implement prohibitions due to there being a lack of political will due to industrial and social backlash. Even prohibition in the US, which was a complete shit show, still caused a drastic reduction in alcohol consumption which took literal decades before it returned to what it was pre-prohibition. Another example, is that the CCP implemented sweeping policies which were *extremely* successful in nearly eliminating opium consumption in what was basically several years. I'm also not making any claims about whether bans are ethical or whether their subsequent consequences are better or worse; I'm just saying that bans absolutely can work when implemented well. This idea that "Bans don't work because people will just get their drugs elsewhere" simply isn't true - I mean, it's true in the sense that bans won't literally eliminate 100% of consumption, but that also isn't really their point or what anyone expects to happen.

1

WTFwhatthehell 10 hr ago +8

More realistically it will just create 2 classes of adult citizens where one is criminalised for what the other can do legally. A government never ignores a precedent to their advantage so expect more laws that privilege the elderly voting bloc over young people. Edit: they were so upset at someone disagreeing with their desire to create a set of 2nd class citizens that they had a mental breakdown and blocked me.

8

Agreeable_Band_9311 10 hr ago +6

Why not ban alcohol then too.

6

spud8385 9 hr ago +3

Because we live in a democracy and no way in hell is a party with banning alcohol on their manifesto getting into power. This smoking ban however does seem to have broad support.

3

thator 10 hr ago +8

Harder to enforce, you can make alcohol from a lot of food products bought in supermarkets, tobacco is harder to grow in quantities in UK.

8

WTFwhatthehell 10 hr ago +7

Years ago had a friend who loved to play with rules. Didn't smoke but a lot of his friends did. Grew a modest amount of tobacco plants. Went through the whole process of growing and drying it. Made sure it was all legal. Called up the appropriate UK tax office to pay the duties. They got to the point where they were asking him how many tons he needed to pay for and when he said it was about half a kilo they were just like "... it will generate more than a kilo of paperwork to process this"

7

Errohneos 8 hr ago +1

Well now that sounds like a "them" problem now doesn't it? Don't write bad policy and this wouldn't happen.

1

TheWhomItConcerns 9 hr ago +1

In how many (non-Muslim) countries is there an even remotely strong will to ban alcohol? It's deeply intertwined with culture, cuisine, nightlife, and tradition - to ban alcohol in the vast majority of Western countries would cause riots and those politicians would be immediately removed from office by whatever means necessary. There are some countries where smoking has a strong cultural presence, but in most Western countries, it already has a relatively negative stigma attached to it, and it doesn't have any substantial consequences for any other practice, tradition, or industry. It's a phenomenon which is pretty well isolated to a small demographic, and to the rest of society, it's at best an annoying nuisance. That's not to mention that alcohol is functionally impossible to ban in the modern age. As long as someone has access to of yeast, grains, sugar, milk, honey, tree sap or fruit, they have access to alcohol - people literally make this shit in high security prisons. Yeast is literally in the air all around us - it would genuinely be easier to ban wood than to ban alcohol.

1

Embarrassed_Quit_450 8 hr ago +1

Health wise it'd be a good idea. However it's not as easy. Drinking has been around for thousands of years and is deeply ingrained in many cultures. Smoking is a much more recent filthy habit.

1

Only_Jackfruit_6905 10 hr ago +1

When did a ban prevent something from being done?

1

lerpo 10 hr ago +9

By that logic, let's make all crime legal and remove the drinking age limit because it doesn't prevent it fully... Only because a few people get around a ban, it doesn't mean it's not a net positive overall. What a bizarre strawman argument lol

9

Yomamma1337 10 hr ago +8

It’s not bizarre or a straw man, you just invented your own straw man. Smoking is a consensual activity, meaning anyone that does so does it out of their own choice. Most crime is not consensual, as it involves a non-consenting party getting hurt. By banning a substance, you are creating a monetary incentive for drug dealing, which can and does cause non-consenting people to get hurt.

8

eriverside 10 hr ago +1

But the UK has nationalized healthcare. When people smoke and develop illnesses due to smoking they are driving up costs to tax payers and putting undue pressure on the health system. So I'm not too convinced about the victimless or no consequence to others claim.

1

eriverside 10 hr ago +2

Depends where you draw the line. Is the objective 100% elimination? 80%? 50%? 5%? 100% is not realistic. Therefore that's not the objective. 80% is very optimistic, possibly the long term target. 50% is very realistic. Anything less is probably a failure. 5% is measurable but on the whole, not worth the effort. So, when did banning things work? Gun in Canada and elsewhere. You still have guns, but very few.

2

lordm30 10 hr ago +1

I'm sure it does, but anyway, even if this ban doesn't prevent one single person from smoking, when all people who can smoke legally today are dead (in 60 years or so), the country can ban all tobacco products from being sold, since there will be no one to whom they can sell legally.

1

Unlikely_Ad6219 10 hr ago +1

The law is not the appropriate tool to use though. If someone wants to hit their hand with a hammer that should not be illegal. They should be given help, but it’s not a crime. The law’s place in society is not to prevent me from doing stupid things that harm myself and don’t harm others.

1

lerpo 10 hr ago +5

People have been given help for decades and it's not worked. I agree with you fully on your points, if we lived in a country where "self inflicted" medical issues like smoking, obesity and things would be something you have to pay out of pocket to get treated for. Unfortunately the NHS foots the bill for smokers causing themselves these issues. So I'm fine with this. It will save a fortune in medical issues in a few generations. Smoking also has the second hand smoke / unborn children victims to add to the discussion. It's not just a simple "they smoke, it only hurts them". It hurts others around them, and the NHS

5

A_wild_so-and-so 9 hr ago +1

>People have been given help for decades and it's not worked. Smoking in the UK has decreased from about 50% of the population in the 1970s to around 10% of the population today. That's "not working" in your eyes? The truth is there are people who won't be satisfied until tobacco is completely illegal. Maybe learn a lesson about prohibition and continue to focus of education and taxes to support health systems.

1

Unlikely_Ad6219 9 hr ago +4

I’d argue that it has worked to some extent, but l let’s say it didn’t, it’s still not the law’s place to make stupid harmful activities to self illegal. Then you end up with moralistic laws, and prohibition. This is not what you want in a society. The cost is hard, it should be borne by the sellers and buyers of these harmful goods. It’s the same deal with alcohol, it’s a carcinogen, it’s arguably worse for society as a whole, it results in health complications that clog up the nhs. But alcohol also should not be banned. The law has a special place in society, and it needs to be used in certain situations, but not to prevent people from taking dangerous substances and harming themselves.

4

No_Branch_5083 10 hr ago +2

>The law’s place in society is not to prevent me from doing stupid things that harm myself and don’t harm others. Second hand smoke harms others. The impact on the health service of smoking related illnesses harms others. The colossal amount of litter and plastic waste from discarded cigarattes harms the environment.

2

lordm30 10 hr ago +2

You are harming others by using up valuable healthcare resources when you inevitably get totally preventable diseases because of decades long smoking.

2

sweetno 9 hr ago +1

This is mostly to reduce NHS load. The smokers take too much healthcare budget for entirely preventable conditions. The processed foods ban has the same logic.

1

Unlikely_Ad6219 9 hr ago +1

Are they making processed foods illegal? Are they bringing back alcohol prohibition? The law is not the tool for this.

1

sweetno 8 hr ago +1

I refer to the attempts like [this](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-scraps-high-sugar-food-from-school-menus). Given how many health complications smoking and ultra-processed foods give, esp. in children, with life-long consequences, in a public healthcare state, the government has full right to fight this uphill battle. Of course, if healthcare is made a responsibility of individuals, that would be another matter entirely. (There is an argument involving infectious diseases that it can't be.) Unfortunately, a hospital bed is a finite resource, and spending it on a person who deliberately ruined their health well knowing in advance, from the said young age, of the consequences, seems like a waste.

1

Sheeplenk 8 hr ago +1

Lol, as if the NHS is going to be around long enough to benefit from this.

1

lerpo 8 hr ago +1

Thats not an argument though? You can't dress an opinion as fact. Because it is here now, and this helps make sure that the savings are there to keep it going as long as possible.

1

TheWhomItConcerns 9 hr ago +8

I know that people on Listnook like to believe that bans, fines, and regressive taxes don't work, but it's just simply not the case. I mean sure, I'm sure there will always be *some* people who will do it, but the intent is merely to *reduce* it as much as possible - literally no one is under any illusion that a ban will eliminate 100% of smoking anymore than that making murder illegal will eliminate 100% of murder. Even looking at prohibition in the US, as people often point out, the general consensus is that the overall consumption of alcohol *did* sharply decrease, and even after prohibition was ended, it took decades for it to reach pre-prohibition levels. That's not to say that prohibition is good or that the consequences which came after it weren't worse, but this common sentiment of "bans don't work because people will just find an illegal way to procure it" is just reductive and facile.

8

DrKlitface 10 hr ago +3

I think for sure some will, but since it's a ban on only cigarettes, not other forms of nicotine, I think it's more likely that people just use other (slightly less harmfully) sources like e-cigs

3

WIZZZARDOFFREESTYLE 11 hr ago +17

Like, forever?

17

Mortensen 11 hr ago +4

Yes, already exists like this in some other countries I believe

4

DentistCertain3897 10 hr ago +20

NZ tried and backtracked on it.

20

MelodicSpark098 10 hr ago +22

Correction. New Zealand implemented it and the current government stripped it back along with almost every other social policy

22

DentistCertain3897 10 hr ago +3

Was it effective though? Or did prohibition not work for the millionth time?

3

cr1zzl 9 hr ago +3

It wasn’t super controversial tbh. A lot of people supported it. And then a right-wing government came in and scrapped it.

3

Every-Pollution413 10 hr ago +5

It was way, way too early to say. The tobacco industry lobbied against it, as in literally forked over fistfuls of cash to politicians, and NZ lawmakers all folded like f****** jello and repealed the law.

5

Konstiin 8 hr ago +1

What’s the difference? One person says they backtracked and you say they stripped it back, doesn’t seem like you’re correcting them.

1

Scary-Landscape123 11 hr ago +61

Surely this won't create a black market and incentivise bootleg ciggies

61

BasculeRepeat 10 hr ago +44

Google "Australia cigarettes black market" for some interesting context. Gov increased taxes on cigarettes and now 60+% of cigarettes sold are black market. Tax revenue has plummeted and organised crime is profiting.

44

thisIsNotMe25 10 hr ago +7

Not to mention the gang wars. Google 'tobacco wars Australia' . All the gangs are burning down each other's businesses. It's in the news here most days. The 'American candy store' up the road from me was set alight a few weeks ago.

7

lordm30 9 hr ago +2

Did smoking rates decrease?

2

A_wild_so-and-so 9 hr ago +1

Smoking rates have been decreasing across the globe in developed nations. Even smoking friendly countries like Japan and China have seen decreases in smoking rates. The US broadly does not have any anti-smoking levels at the national level, and smoking rates have decreased. Draconian laws like this are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Education and taxing to supplement health costs works to reduce smoking, and doesn't enable criminal enterprise in the meantime. But anti-smoking lobbyists won't be satisfied until smoking is completely prohibited, so have fun with that.

1

IdeaReceiver 9 hr ago +3

Soooo much. Black Market she's aren't friends upon or likely to have someone report you or anything, but it's a massive cultural impact teaching nobody smoke anymore that anybody who does gets extra glared at got going the extra mile just to f*** up everybody's breathing. The organised crime is a serious problem we'd love to not have, but the tax income flowed well for many years and keeps prices high enough that common smoking just isn't a thing anymore. We all live longer for it!

3

spektre 10 hr ago +16

There's a black market for everything that's banned. Does this mean everything should be legalized to get rid of the black market?

16

BornWithWritersBlock 10 hr ago +11

That already exists with high tax on them. This is another barrier and I'm all for it.

11

WhateverIsFrei 10 hr ago +48

Let's be honest, if health impacts of tobacco were widely known at the time it got popular, it would've been illegal from the start. Zero benefits, cancer for you and everyone around.

48

Dofolo 10 hr ago +24

When the same was discovered for asbestos it was basically banned worldwide (at least in the west), I guess the tobacco lobby had more money than the asbestos one \^\^

24

PrincessNakeyDance 10 hr ago +17

The asbestos industry fought like hell and had been covering up the dangers for more than half a century. Also asbestos is not as banned as you think it is.

17

GingerSpencer 9 hr ago +2

The use of ACMs have been banned completely for decades. It is as banned as we think it is. It was not proactively removed due to the abundance of it, but if there is risk of it being disturbed it’s to be removed by a professional in a safe and controlled manner.

2

polar_nopposite 9 hr ago +1

Eliminating asbestos also didn't lead to withdrawal symptoms in everyone who was using it, so there's that.

1

Impossible-Ground-98 10 hr ago +4

what hurts me the most is that it's affecting people around. Who knows how many issues I will have from spending my childhood smoking.

4

Drew_Ferran 7 hr ago +1

Look at how that ended up with alcohol.

1

JeffSergeant 8 hr ago +1

Sounds great when you're talking about 16 year olds, but in 24 year's time are we really going to have 39 year olds banned from buying tobacco for their parents? Or 38 year olds banned from accepting a tesco delivery that their 41 year old spouse ordered? Move the age up to 21 and let grown adults smoke whatever they want.

1

existential_chaos 8 hr ago +1

It’s pathetic to think someone will be telling a 38 year old no based on when they were born. They’re gonna need to try and track down some pensioners to buy them for them, lol.

1

Andress1 10 hr ago +25

I'm born before 2008 but surely this is a bad idea. People should make their own decisions, and not discriminate based on date of birth

25

Asteroidhawk594 8 hr ago +1

Problem is that smoking itself is a learned habit. Like it’s a major thing that is a strain on health systems. Also the hazards of second hand smoke.

1

123rig 9 hr ago +4

Think it’s a way to reduce pressure on the NHS. I don’t have the facts but I’m sure smoking related disease/illness is a significant amount of the reasons people are in hospitals and using resources. I think smoking is way easier to ban than alcohol as well. I think banning alcohol would’ve too large a hit on the economy in the UK.

4

DOG-ZILLA 9 hr ago +1

As bad as alcohol is, smoking is something many people do multiple times a day and cumulatively it’s a disaster for health and a much harder to quit as it’s so addictive.

1

GrumpyOik 10 hr ago +10

I'm a little sceptical of all the "waste of time, this wont work" answers and how many are encouraged by the tobacco industry. There was a great deal of these sort of argument when the ban on tobacco advertising and plain packaging were introduced. Somehow the "wont work" has coincided with a 20-30% reduction in young people smoking in countries where the measures were brought in.

10

Comprehensive_Try770 10 hr ago +23

This won't achieve anything - people who want to smoke will smoke, this just makes it more rebellious and daring. If anything the elites have just shot themselves in the foot by overstretching their attempt to control people. This will just galvanise the younger generation in favour of the mounting sense of institutional betrayal.

23

glassmania 8 hr ago +1

Prohibition has never historically worked.

1

GetRekt9420 9 hr ago +1

In 30 years time cashiers are gonna be IDing 40 year olds to check if their before or after 2008

1

I_R0M_I 8 hr ago +1

Needs to apply to vapes too.

1

BungerColumbus 8 hr ago +1

This will have the same effect the alcohol prohibition in the US had between 1920 to 1933

1

existential_chaos 8 hr ago +1

Exactly my point. It’s just gonna create a black market the same way Prohibition in America made alcohol a main income source for criminals. If people want it, they’ll get it.

1

Nicovtin 8 hr ago +1

The more restrictions you put on something the more curiosity it will bring but government is not ready to find a simple way to educate people of the nation what damage it does. I'm not from UK neither Australia but this is my perspective and we need to find a way to prevent this so people make conscious decision to quit doing harmful things not to put restrictions to generate more curiosity which eventually increases sales and black marketing.

1

bender3600 10 hr ago +6

Because drug prohibitions have worked so welll in the past.

6

scottishdrunkard 9 hr ago +5

I’ve seen 10 year olds smoking just a couple of years ago. Trust me, it won’t stop them.

5

dmk_aus 10 hr ago +5

The world continues to gather more evidence that banning drugs/cigarettes/booze etc. doesn't work and society benefits more for regulation, taxation and harm minimisation action. The world then ignores this information and tries banning it anyway.

5

lordm30 9 hr ago +2

Banning them works, criminalizing posession and consumption doesn't.

2

Daily_Heroin_User 11 hr ago +7

That’s totalitarian bullshit. What’s next you can never buy candy, sugary drinks, unhealthy foods? Everyone just has to be a complete health nut by force of law?

7

lordm30 9 hr ago +4

Well no, not necessarily, but then you can pay your own healthcare bills when you get smoking related disease that could have been preventable. Is that a better alternative?

4

ValleyFloydJam 10 hr ago +2

Not smoking and being a health nut are pretty different, Also it aims to stop new smokers, why would you be pro creating new smokers.

2

deyterkourjerbs 10 hr ago +3

Are seatbelts totalitarian bullshit?

3

RezzleG 10 hr ago -2

Not really the same thing - there is 0 benefit to smoking unless you want to speedrun life. As a former smoker myself and a father of 4, I'm all for the government at least trying to restrict cigarettes for future generations, whether effective or not, I don't understand why anyone would have an issue with it

-2

Daily_Heroin_User 10 hr ago +12

There are a lot of things that are bad for you that the government doesn’t need to get involved with. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What benefit does Coca Cola have? It’s just sugar. Empty calories. How about Skittles? How about McDonald’s? And tons of people die from diet related issues. People should be free to make their own decisions in life. Remember “My body my choice”? This is just a dystopian Big Brother nightmare.

12

rcanhestro 8 hr ago +1

you can say the same thing about alcohol, or even betting, both are addictions, add nothing to people's life, and yet also legal.

1

RezzleG 8 hr ago +1

No you can't say the same. Alcohol, unlike cigarettes, has scientifically led and government approved safe guidelines and is equally nowhere near as addictive. I'm not even sure why you bought betting up. Completely irrelevant

1

rcanhestro 8 hr ago +1

i bought up betting exactly because you bought up the addictive behaviour.

1

kiwiboy22 10 hr ago +2

man NZ was nearly there with this kind of legislation, I hope this goes well for the UK

2

BuffK 9 hr ago +2

New Zealand did this, then National reversed it because they're in bed with the tobacco industry. What sort of sick f*** do you have to be to reverse it? All the hard works done by that point.

2

Accomplished_Bowl489 9 hr ago +2

NZ shoulda been the first

2

Nisabe3 9 hr ago +2

Prohibition works 100%...

2

CaterpillarHot2263 9 hr ago +1

Glad to see that UK are doing what the gutless National Party of New Zealand wouldn’t do because they decided to kowtow to New Zealand First and cancel it here.

1

noodlecrap 8 hr ago +1

People have a right to consume tobacco products. This is insane.

1

eggyal 8 hr ago +1

What is this right you mention? If you mean, it's legal for people to consume tobacco products... then I agree - unless/until the law is changed (such as here). Or are you suggesting people have some sort of inalienable right to consume tobacco products, similar to widely recognised human rights like the right to life etc?

1

Randohumanist 8 hr ago +1

There are zero benefits for smoking. Why would anyone want to waste thousands on something so pointless. Ex smoker here.

1

Street_Anon 8 hr ago +1

Prohibition won't work, it will just create a black market for it and nothing more.

1

FriendlyNeighburrito 8 hr ago +1

Thts not how it works. Thats how you create parallel markets, idiots.

1

[deleted] 11 hr ago +1

[deleted]

1

Ripest_Golden_Kiwi 10 hr ago +6

The tax revenue from tobacco each year is about £6.8 billion, but the costs are £1.82 billion to the NHS, £13.9 billion in social care costs to local authorities, and apparently £26.7 billion in lost economic activity but idk what that means really.

6

GFYSR 10 hr ago +9

“Lost economic activity” = smoke breaks

9

Indie89 10 hr ago +2

The mistake is always assuming the costs will disappear with the tax revenue. If this country has taught me one thing in 30 years that we will definitely lose the revenue and keep the costs, but likely more as we now need to police it.

2

Ripest_Golden_Kiwi 10 hr ago +1

That’s fair, but on balance it’s probably better to end the source revenue now, than try keep it going because of the cost of having not ended it sooner right?

1

suvlub 10 hr ago +4

On the other hand, cancer treatment is expensive and they have publicly funded healthcare.

4

MobiusNaked 10 hr ago +1

We should be encouraging smoking to reduce the pension and care home costs /s

1

Omotai 9 hr ago +1

New Zealand did this several years ago and ended up repealing the law over concerns about creating black markets for cigarettes and the loss of tax revenue.

1

Scare_D 9 hr ago +1

While they are at it, they should ban vape too

1

brushfuse 9 hr ago +1

Let them eat vapes.

1

WetIce 8 hr ago +1

Prohibition never works. Especially partial prohibition. God, the UK is a shitshow.

1

caraduc 8 hr ago +1

Ban smoking for everybody, I can't leave this shit and everybody sells it to me

1

NedShah 8 hr ago +1

Does that mean no legal weed ever reaching the UK?

1

5norkleh3r0 8 hr ago +1

I gave up 5 years ago, best thing I ever did, started when I was at school age 13. Back then in 1989 it was 78p for 10 Benson & Hedges and a box of matches, the matches were 6p. I have a stent in my heart because of smoking, I’m fully in favour of this ban

1

leaponover 8 hr ago +1

NZ was set to do this first but new prime minister axed it due to the money lost in taxes.

1

Porthos1984 8 hr ago +1

Low key this is about not importing tobacco anymore.

1

harrison1984 8 hr ago +1

Fantastic! Now when’s this coming to Canada! This is a great start and needs to happen! Finally country’s are realizing how horrible smoking and vaping is and glad they’re getting rid of them for the next generation

1

Beautiful_Plenty_736 8 hr ago +1

This should be fun to watch lol

1

playertd 8 hr ago +1

Laws moving way too slow, they're all vaping now and much more than when smoking was popular.

1

ProfessorFunky 8 hr ago +1

I look forward to seeing the unintended consequences for this that will appear over subsequent years. Feels like it will be a slow acting, highly predictably, self-face slap. It’ll make an excellent case study in twenty years time. At a guess: * expansion of black market supply of tobacco based products * health issues due to poor quality control and c**** knockoff versions on said black market * increase in organised crime linked to tobacco products * no substantial effect on already squeezed smoking population I don’t smoke, and I think people should stop, but I also object to removal of freedom to choose as long as it doesn’t directly affect someone else (even if the choice is a bad one).

1

larfaltil 8 hr ago +1

We've never, ever banned anything successfully. Why do we keep trying? You can buy drugs on any street corner. All we're going to achieve is a market for organised crime to fill.

1

Aggravating_Loss_765 8 hr ago +1

Because prohibition and bans work riiight... :)

1

Glittering-Lynx6991 8 hr ago +1

Seems enforceable.

1

im_ilegal_here 8 hr ago +1

Not popular opinion but doesn't matter: some people say they enjoy smoking, can be true, for me but only for some cigarettes, cigars. The normal tabaco consumption is a compulsion that doesn't have any benefits. Anyway, from this to make it forbidden is something else.

1

UK moves to ban smoking for everyone born after 2008

💬 Send a Message

178 Comments