LONDON (AP) — Opponents of smoking got a breath of fresh air as Parliament passed a bill that will put cigarettes out of reach for future generations.
“The end of smoking, and the devastating harm it causes, is no longer uncertain — it’s inevitable,” Hazel Cheeseman, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said after a decades-long campaign in favor of legislation approved Tuesday.
Children born after Dec. 31, 2008, will be banned from ever buying cigarettes under the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
The legislation that needs approval by King Charles III — a formality — before taking effect will also allow the government to regulate tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, including flavors and packaging.
70
TheGermanMoses11 day ago
+97
Hazel Cheeseman sounds like a name I would make up on the spot in a panic.
97
SoftlySpokenPromises23 hr ago
+29
Sounds like a D&D character
29
vomitHatSteve23 hr ago
+4
I can only assume that is where The German Moses (1) is most often making up names in a panic
4
evenstevens28021 hr ago
+19
Snipers dream
19
keepittidy12 hr ago
+3
If you know, you know 😂
3
Implausibilibuddy21 hr ago
+7
She's close friends with Nelly Overall, Harriette Harriman and Bobbi Mortimer.
7
William_Dowling14 hr ago
+2
Fun fact: Gareth Cheeseman's daughter
https://youtu.be/qFuV9lBhgic?si=cWecYCf9GEp0s-cR
2
belortik22 hr ago
+1
It's like one of those tv tropes where someone makes up a name by looking around the room lol
1
unematti14 hr ago
+1
The parents were like the teenagers making their first email.
1
rock0head13220 hr ago
+12
Black market cigs the crime lords will love it
12
XenoGamer2722 hr ago
+39
Since they care about the kids health so much certainly an alcohol ban should be next
39
UpsetKoalaBear19 hr ago
+15
No, gosh. No one gets it.
Nicotine is one of the most studied substances in the world. It is probably one of the best stimulants we have.
Now, as a result, there a multitude of other ways to consume nicotine that do not involve inhaling tar and other substances inside a cigarette/from tobacco. They are an order of magnitude safer than a cigarette.
Alcohol, on the other hand, has no alternative method of consumption that is safer.
This act doesn’t ban whatever else like vapes or nicotine pouches (tobacco pouches are a different thing) specifically because of that.
As a result:
- Other nicotine based substances aren’t banned. Only cigarettes.
- There won’t be as much of an incentive for a black market like prohibition in the US at all unless someone wants to consume nicotine via the most harmful method out of a selection. (Australia made Vaping prescription only, hence it didn’t work there).
- Alcohol has no alternative methods of reproducing its effects.
Once people understand that, maybe this comparison would stop happening. It has no basis in reality.
This approach is unique. It's the first time a government has tried to ban the method (combustion) while leaving the molecule (nicotine) legal.
Their logic is that if a 14yo never starts the smoking ritual, they won't miss it. They'll only ever know the cleaner nicotine versions.
We genuinely don't know if this sort of “light” Prohibition works, it's never been tried on this scale.
This is literal harm reduction in practice.
If you promote the legalisation of drugs, this is quite literally what you want.
Because (if it works) it proves what advocacy groups have been saying for years which is that legalisation allows safer alternatives to be created.
15
ThedirtyNose19 hr ago
+12
What about jelly shots?
12
mr_birkenblatt18 hr ago
+2
Or butt chugging?
2
BTMarquis19 hr ago
Nicotine jelly shots sound delicious.
0
-ram_the_manparts-19 hr ago
+6
Indeed. I'm getting quite tired of trying to explain to people that nicotine itself, while extremely addictive, is about as harmful to your body as caffeine. Smoking leaves from an oak tree would be just as harmful as cigarettes.
Alcohol itself is a carcinogen, nicotine is not.
6
Embarrassed_Quit_45017 hr ago
+6
Inhaling burned organic matter is highly carcinogenic.
6
-ram_the_manparts-17 hr ago
+8
Yes! You get it!
What does that have to do with nicotine tho? Oh, right, tobacco has nicotine in it. Imagine tho if you could extract the nicotine out of it, or make it synthetically and use an method of delivery that doesn't use combustion. Hmmm
8
Embarrassed_Quit_4506 hr ago
+1
Well the issue here is that ethanol is the problem so you'd never be able to replace it. We still need to get rid of it healthwise.
1
-ram_the_manparts-6 hr ago
+1
Well yeah, I mean, I'm saying that nicotine itself is far less harmful than ethanol, physiologically, but nobody wants to ban beer. It might be about as, or slightly more harmful than caffeine. Definitely less harmful than standing outside in the sun for a while.
1
fat_pokemon17 hr ago
+2
About your second point....
Yea...
Australia is living proof otherwise, and they havn't even fully banned it yet.
2
UpsetKoalaBear16 hr ago
+10
No.
Australia has made vaping alternatives prescription only. As a result, in combination with high taxes, there is literally zero reason for anyone to attempt to get a vape or safer alternative.
Australia didn't give them that legal choice. That created the black market over there.
The UK is not doing that.
10
hyper_shock10 hr ago
We get it. You don't. This is a reference to the prohibition era.
Guess how well that turned out?
I say this as a teetotaller and a non smoker
0
UpsetKoalaBear10 hr ago
+1
No, it’s not. Did you read the comment?
Alcohol has no alternative means of consumption that isn’t harmful. Ethanol needs to be consumed and processed by the liver to create the effects of alcohol.
As a result, when alcohol was banned during prohibition, the only way to replicate the effects was by drinking moonshine or other drinks with dangerously high concentrations of alcohol.
How is this comparable?
Nicotine has alternative means of consumption that aren’t as harmful as cigarettes. The government is saying “enjoy your nicotine, just don’t smoke a cigarette.”
Nicotine pouches still are allowed, vapes are still allowed, the only thing it bans is tobacco.
1
unematti14 hr ago
Just because other methods are safer shouldn't drive your decision making on this. Getting kids addicted to nicotine, caffeine and similar stuff is bad.
As far as I know, just starting up later than your usual bed time will make me act exactly like I'm drunk(only the good parts, no hangover or poisoning myself). And it's been shown alcohol isn't safe in any consumption levels anyway.
0
UpsetKoalaBear8 hr ago
+1
Yes, addiction is bad in general. So the goal is harm reduction, which is what this does.
The goal of the this law is to separate the drug from the delivery system.
No one ever said that vapes are healthy. Instead, we're saying they don't cause the same level of damage.
> As far as I know, just starting up later than your usual bed time will make me act exactly like I'm drunk(only the good parts, no hangover or poisoning myself). And it's been shown alcohol isn't safe in any consumption levels anyway.
This is exactly why Alcohol is hard to regulate.
Alcohol is a poison. There is no clean way to get drunk.
With nicotine, we actually have the technology to separate the stimulant from the carcinogens.
We can have the nicotine without the tobacco. We can’t do that with a pint of beer.
That’s why tobacco is being singled out for a generational ban.
Just for context, tobacco is the only legal consumer product that kills you when used exactly as intended.
2/3rds of long term users die because of it. It is the single biggest cause of preventable illness.
1
TeslasAndComicbooks12 hr ago
-1
Except one night of drinking can lead to the death of other people. Alcohol consumption is significantly more problematic than nicotine.
-1
Munkeyz10 hr ago
+4
as can one day of driving while completely sober, it doesnt mean we should ban cars though.
4
baard4207 hr ago
+1
Maybe we should tho
1
imjustsurfin22 hr ago
+21
Prepare for a rise in (in)direct taxes in the UK - as c.60-70% of the price of a packet of cigarettes is tax. HMRC collects c.£8 billion a year in tobacco taxes.
The government will have to make up the revenue shortfall somehow.
21
evenstevens28021 hr ago
+18
Yes but the cost to the UK of smoking far outweighs that
£27.6 billion in lost economic productivity
£1.82 billion to the NHS
£13.9 billion in social care costs to local authorities
£332 million in fire-related costs
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-cost-of-smoking-to-society-in-england-dwarfs-tobacco-tax-revenue
18
imjustsurfin21 hr ago
+12
Agreed.
But the drop in revenue will happen long before the above savings materialise.
12
evenstevens28021 hr ago
+12
Why would it? People who can buy cigarettes now will still be able to buy them
12
imjustsurfin21 hr ago
+2
The %'age of current smokers quitting is rising each year - partly due to the ever-increasing price.
Since 2021 HMRC revenue from tobacco products has fallen from c.£10.5 billion to c.£8 billion. That's just in a 5 year period.
The savings, in my opinion, won't materialise for at least 10-20 years at best.
2
evenstevens28021 hr ago
But surely people quitting also decreases the amount of money it costs the country supporting smokers through illness
0
imjustsurfin21 hr ago
+1
Not necessarily.
I imagine that a number of those quitting will already have smoking-related health problems that may require medical treatment\\hospitalisation down the road.
There are still more than 6 million smokers in the UK.
1
Deervember23 hr ago
+123
It's weird everyone in the comments think children of the future are suddenly going to start growing their own tabacco or buying underground ciggys.
This is literally to stop kids of future from smoking.
Yes, children today will still be able to get other adults to buy it for them. But In 50 years time children won't be able to get 60 year olds to buy cigs for them, because the 60 year olds will still be born after 2008.
That's the point of this. Instead of banning the entire country from smoking and cigarettes overnight, it'll be phased out slowly.
I cannot believe the average person can't see this.
123
laughingmanzaq22 hr ago
+37
I think future conservative governments will poke holes in the ban… Almost certainly for cigars, possibly for pipe tobacco products.
37
vixxienz22 hr ago
+38
In New Zealand the next government completely reversed it.
38
Syphe16 hr ago
+6
Yeah because they are f****** idiots, I know, I live here, they are doing so bad in the polls the leadership has just had a vote on whether he keeps the job. Their entire platform is anti woke, and anti woke doesn't put money in people's pockets, unless they are already overflowing.
6
DatBoi7322 hr ago
+15
New Zealand actually were the first to think of this and made it law, but then they had an election and the conservative government that got voted in scrapped it immediately.
If/when the UK gets another further right-wing government, be it the Tories, >!or god forbid Reform!<, that definitely wouldn't be out of the question.
Even if most people agree that smoking is universally bad, there are probably at least some people who would be skeptical of making a nation basically a guinea-pig for a new type of anti-smoking policy.
I grew up around smokers and would never touch cigarettes myself, but I'm still somewhat skeptical of this approach, but then again I guess all the other approaches that could be taken (like a full on ban for all ages.) wouldn't be much better if not be much worse.
15
miscfiles20 hr ago
+2
If we were unlucky enough to get a Reform govt, they'd cancel this, bring back smoking in pubs/restaurants and probably put subsidised cigarette machines in every school...
2
BigBadJeebus21 hr ago
+30
prohibition just doesnt work though. they will just smuggle them from France.
30
fartonisto21 hr ago
+14
And then the local government will miss out on all of the tax revenue.
14
PhantasmologicalAnus21 hr ago
+11
That's happening big time in Australia and it's great to see the government's efforts thwarted. They have effectively lost control of the market and their revenue is down over 50% in the space of less than a decade. All because they kept trying to f****** stop people doing what they enjoy.
11
Few_Advisor353620 hr ago
+7
The best part of it is the cunts got greedy. Of course people will resort to c**** smuggled cigarettes when a regular packet costs over 60 bucks (for those not from australia, the government kept raising the tax on tobacco products).
7
PhantasmologicalAnus20 hr ago
+3
It's funny to watch the "authorities" say anything except, "we were wrong".
3
jugglerofcats22 hr ago
+18
> Instead of banning the entire country from smoking and cigarettes overnight, it'll be phased out slowly.
Exactly. And if you need proof, just look at how effective the marijuana ban has been. There's absolutely no one today who smokes illicit and unregulated weed on a daily basis recreationally because they simply can't find it for sale anywhere. This is the dawn of a new day!
18
Blenderhead3621 hr ago
+6
Also because, as the UK tobacco market gets grayer, less shelf space will be allocated and fewer companies will brother importing them.
6
PhantasmologicalAnus21 hr ago
+5
So people will just go around legal markets like they did here in Australia when the government tried to tax it out of existence. People will not stop liking nicotine in the future. Why can't people see this?
5
grathontolarsdatarod23 hr ago
+6
How are you supposed to push laws micro managing a population of individual choice if you have nothing to micromanage?
6
Im_ur_Uncle_21 hr ago
+7
How about letting people live their lives? Maybe some of us enjoy tobacco like others enjoy wine
7
PhantasmologicalAnus21 hr ago
+14
Why don't we put restrictions on fast food and alcohol, while we're at it? Everyone loves being told what they can and can't do with their own body.
14
Im_ur_Uncle_19 hr ago
+8
We should ban soda because even a little, tiny bit of fun is wrong.
8
-A-A-Ron-23 hr ago
+12
Listnook's response to this news is really eye opening and honestly depressing. Zero critical thinking, just the same old tired argument that a ban will create some black-market superpower. What kid, in 10-15 years time, is going to go to some dodgy dealer and buying f****** cigarettes of all things.
12
Few_Advisor353620 hr ago
+7
The same kids buying smuggled cigarettes and vapes in australia. You pay 15 bucks for packet of illegal cigarettes or buy the legal ones which are $60+ because the government thought they could just putting the tax on tobacco up. Vapes are illegal here yet theres no shortage of people using them. The illegal tobacco trade got so bad over the last few years that buildings have been fire bombed and people have been shot as a result of 2 crime groups trying to control the market. The government used to make 15 billion in tax from tobbaco, due to black market cigarettes it shrunk to 10 billion and counting. The government would tax the air we breathe if they could, its not about health its about greed (they claimed smokers cost the health system billions, it was only 2. So the other billions are for what exactly?).
7
tiboodchat21 hr ago
+19
Yes because it repeatedly has. There’s a reason countries are legalizing weed.
19
CactusBoyScout19 hr ago
+3
I think the actual result will be somewhere in between. Some black market will be created, but a substantial number of people will never take up smoking or will quit.
I used to smoke but NY’s cigarette prices convinced me to stop. And there is some black market here but I couldn’t be bothered seeking out a connection for something as lame as tobacco.
3
tiboodchat18 hr ago
+2
Yeah as an ex-smoker I totally get that. Here in Canada there’s a big black market too, driven by the hugely high pack prices. Like a 25 is almost 20$ nowadays. I do wonder if people wouldn’t seek them out because it’s illegal. I absolutely wish everyone would stop smoking so I’m really split on that subject.
2
Allo_Guvnor21 hr ago
+11
Cos prohibition doesn't work, regardless of how it's brought in? Seriously, look up how it has worked anywhere without a reversal or a black market popping up to fill the gap, cos I have been looking and so far found bugger all (as in, zero) examples of success.
11
hallerz8719 hr ago
-2
If the goal of this policy is to completely eliminate cigarettes from the UK, then fair enough. But its not. The goal is to significantly cut the number of people smoking, developing disease, and putting pressure on public services. This will be readily achieved by this policy.
-2
Allo_Guvnor17 hr ago
+1
Look up how that went for New Zealand mate, cos that's how it'll go in the UK if they try it. Mark my words.
1
External-Praline-45120 hr ago
-2
But there's other ways to consume nicotine that will remain easily accessible. It's not remotely the same as prohibition.
-2
BigBadJeebus21 hr ago
+15
It's not a listnook take, it's a history take.
We have hundreds of examples of prohibitions failing and literally zero for them working.
Just look at how many people continue to get drugs in Singapore despite a death sentence.
15
OppStoppa32720 hr ago
+1
True but to be fair Singapore doesn’t have thousands of bums doing to fent lean on public streets
1
PhantasmologicalAnus21 hr ago
+4
It's happened in Australia. Perfect example of the government going too far.
4
Thatchers-Gold23 hr ago
+12
If something’s related to the UK on listnook it’s important that a tagline is established immediately on why it’s bad
12
HolyFreakingXmasCake22 hr ago
+2
Did banning alcohol work out for the US? How about drugs?
2
larsvondank11 hr ago
+1
In Finland kids atm buy cigs, vapes and nicotine pouches from dealers. The market is large. What indicators do you see out there that would take this away in 10-15 years. I am interested.
1
sboxtf99919 hr ago
+5
The only weird and unbelievable thing is how people who are ok with the concept of “You, as a future adult, will never be legally allowed to buy this product because of your birth date.” exist.
What happened to “my body, my choice?”. It’s a huge breach of bodily autonomy, not to mention, it literally creates unequal adult rights by birth date. Two adults can be one day apart in age, but one is legally allowed to buy tobacco forever and the other is banned forever. That is a very awkward and nonsensical legal line.
And I say this as someone who hates smoking and smokers. Jesus christ.
5
takesthebiscuit23 hr ago
+2
Yeah maybe there will be a band of folk of like 10 years where this is weird that their 50 year old mate can buy and the 49 year old can’t
I suspect that peer pressure will get more folks to ~~quit~~ switch to vapes
2
Laura_Biden20 hr ago
+2
It won't work.
2
hayt8821 hr ago
+1
you expect the average person to think further ahead as their next paycheck?
Like if peope would be able to think long term the whole climate change debate wouldn't even exist.
1
-ReadingBug-7 hr ago
+1
We can see the point. There's another point. Black market availability will continue over that same 50 year time frame; it's not phasing out. In some countries, generations have experienced marijuana only as a black market product for more than 50 years at this point.
1
Senior-bud22 hr ago
+1
As a ex smoker I can verify nicotine is an extremely addictive substance for the slight buzz it gives smokers personally cannabis delivers a much more pleasant experience
1
El_Lanf21 hr ago
-2
The average person does (at least in the UK) but listnook's overly libertarian, pro-drug slant struggles with stuff like this. The policy has very positive polling even among adult and teen smokers. Most smokers wish they never started.
I think the weed smokers are probably the ones most against this as even though it remains illegal but very prolific, it's seen as also a step against eventual legalisation. I think Listnook also happens to be one of the most pro weed communities and sees legalisation as an inevitable civil liberty.
-2
alecww321 hr ago
+9
More power for the government!!! I love giving the government more power 🙃
9
Wonderful_Confusion423 hr ago
+9
Brings new meaning to “Smoke em if you got em”
9
oobakeep1 day ago
+12
NZ was so close but the incoming government not only axed the policy but softened its position.
12
DirectionInfinite18818 hr ago
+5
Nice idea in principle, but it was going to create other problems… for a start was going to shift it from something the government earnt tax revenue on to something controlled by the gangs and criminal groups
5
dod666612 hr ago
+2
That's a valid concern, but in those early years the customer base would be far too small for a proper black market to sustain itself.
The question is, many years down the track does that market become sustainable? It's hard to predict but, unlike cannabis which people buy to get high, the only reason to seek tobacco is to sustain an addiction.
I think the idea is significantly different than the blanket bans that have been tried and failed in the past, and we shouldn't assume that the results will be the same.
2
Amazing_Athlete_226519 hr ago
+3
And gave f****** tax breaks to Philip Morris. For shame.
3
PleasantWay723 hr ago
+14
Does this mean we can now pass laws that only apply to people born before 1970? They honestly shouldn’t be allowed to use social media since they didn’t grow up in the internet age and many don’t understand how to properly scrutinize what they see.
14
Acrobatic-Air672921 hr ago
+4
There could also be an upper age limit for politicians because they are from a different time
4
shamone_mofo21 hr ago
+14
But the Green party want to legalise drugs . How can you have a nice hit of heroin and crack without having a relaxing cigarette afterwards?
14
MrSkme10 hr ago
+6
No serious party wants people to do substances, but some look at the data and see that people still do substances even if it's illegal, but when it's illegal, it means
1. Stigma and harder for addicted people to get help and be honest
2. Unregulated market and products laced with unwanted substances
3. Sustains gigantic criminal organizations, where the money gets directed to stuff like more crime (instead of government regulated, where the money can go into things that benefit people)
And then it hits you. Maybe substance abuse is not the root of the problem, but a symptom of deeper ones, and keeping substances illegal is an attempt at a temporary patch (which has never had any success and been incredibly expensive) for these underlying problems and trying to fight the problem at the symptoms is always going to make them reappear, like Hercules chopping off the head of the hydra over and over.
6
UpsetKoalaBear9 hr ago
+3
You’re missing the point of this legislation.
It's the first time a government has tried to ban the method (combustion) while leaving the molecule (nicotine) legal.
We genuinely don't know if this works because it's never been tried on this scale. The governments experiment with this is unique.
This is literal harm reduction in practice.
3
ucantekne3415 hr ago
-5
Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but unlike cigerattes, drugs don't affect the people nearby when it's consumed.
So from ethical POV, drugs are fine no?
-5
unematti14 hr ago
+3
They do affect family of the addicted. See also: alcoholic parents. Also higher burden on the healthcare system.
I do agree that cigarettes are much worse than a weed brownie, and for people not involved in the decision, heroin is also better. Man, I hate smokers riding their bike on the same bike route right in front of me...
3
ProdoRock13 hr ago
+3
Unnecessary. Cigarette smoking has drastically reduced as is. The UK has other things to worry about but beyond that, I’m afraid that BANNING something will actually make it more alluring now. Why even put all this attention on cigarettes for the past weeks? Hardly anyone smokes anymore. This is isn’t the 1970s.
3
FuckSteveHuffman323 hr ago
+7
It's better to make it more expensive. Have a really high tobacco tax, and most people will stop smoking pretty fast.
7
Deervember23 hr ago
+15
It's already extremely expensive, a pack of 20 is around $26.
For an 18 year old that's 2 hours of minimum wage work.
This ban only affects people born after 2008, so if you're 17 today you won't be able to buy cigarettes ever. Which is not old enough to buy them anyway.
Everybody who's 18 and can buy cigs today, will still be able to buy them their whole lives.
This is just to stop future children from smoking, in 80 years time the only people able to buy cigs will be 98 year olds.
It's a far better way of banning smoking than ban it for the whole country overnight.
15
laughingmanzaq22 hr ago
+2
I think the government is naive to believe future conservative government won’t poke holes in the ban though… In particular for cigars..
2
UpsetKoalaBear16 hr ago
+1
Australia fucked up by making vapes prescription only. Thus the black market was a better option for people.
The UK is trying to avoid that situation.
Even with this ban, vapes and other nicotine products are still retail products.
1
FuckSteveHuffman318 hr ago
I find it hard to believe that people actually pay $26 for cigarettes, but if they do, it should be higher, imo. Cancer treatment is insanely expensive, so a ridiculously high tax actually makes sense. I don't want smokers to waste my tax money with their self-inflicted cancers and COPD. But at the same time, I think people should have the freedom to do what they want.
0
PhantasmologicalAnus21 hr ago
+7
LOL, they tried that here in Australia. The illegal importers are winning, hands down.
7
FuckSteveHuffman319 hr ago
+1
Worked here in Norway, though. Not sure why criminals are controlling sales in your country.
1
MattMcD197823 hr ago
+6
Cigarette's have an inelastic demand curve so higher prices won't make meaningful change.
6
Horseshoetheoryreal1 day ago
+18
Black Market profits goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr $$$$$$$$
18
sabo-metrics1 day ago
+28
By this logic, nothing can be illegal
28
ZazumeUchiha23 hr ago
+18
Making things illegal that have an extremely high demand is what's usually counterproductive and causing the black market to prosper. A substance that millions of people got addicted to over decades certainly counts for that.
18
Deervember23 hr ago
+9
But it's not being banned for them, just for people who are born after 2008, if you're born before 2008 you'll still be able to buy them.
There is not an extremely high demand for 17 year olds buying cigarettes. And those that do smoke will have not had decades of addiction.
9
GreaterAttack20 hr ago
+3
Do you seriously think that kids will just... not do something because of an arbitrary cut-off date? Since when did teenagers become so responsible?
A cohort of adults who cannot obtain something they want creates a market.
3
LittleHavera23 hr ago
I think the intent is to move people onto vaping, rather than banning tobacco products altogether. It's cigarettes that will be affected by this, not vapes.
0
InspectorDull591523 hr ago
+8
It's still a valid point
8
Horseshoetheoryreal23 hr ago
+8
They tried banned alcohol 100 years ago also, didn't go well.
8
PontiusPilatesss22 hr ago
+1
What profits? Kids are all about lip pillows these days.
1
[deleted]23 hr ago
-1
[deleted]
-1
ushade123 hr ago
+7
Curing it is a slightly more difficult endeavor…
7
umbrellajump21 hr ago
+1
I've seen mad men, you put it in a toaster or something
1
DogVacuum23 hr ago
+2
That’s how I get my heroin
2
Shot-Job-884123 hr ago
+1
I suspect people will start making their own legal cigarettes. I wonder how the tobacco companies will react to that.
1
TheOriginalMattMan23 hr ago
+6
The number of people who will actually grow their own will be so insignificant that they wouldn't waste the energy being worried about it.
6
queen-adreena22 hr ago
+1
Like when they outlawed murder and suddenly there was a boom in people hiring hitmen...
1
HuChemistry20 hr ago
Should we make Heroine legal to reduce profits for organized crime?
0
FeedbackOther521520 hr ago
+3
Yes, regulation is a far more effective means of regulation than an all out ban. There are countless examples of this throughout Western history.
3
takesthebiscuit23 hr ago
-1
Nonsense, they will turn to vapes
Cigarettes can still be legally sold in the uk, they just need to get an older mate to buy them
-1
EngineeringFilth22 hr ago
You think they won't target vapes at some point in the future? Prohibition has never worked, and still continues to not work.
0
takesthebiscuit21 hr ago
Ahh slippery slope… an obvious logical fallacy
The harm of vapes is not yet conclusive, but it is clear that’s it’s substantially less than tobacco
So no your argument has little weight against the tobacco legislation
0
CttCJim22 hr ago
Because kids are so adept at making contact in the black market.
0
Frostymagnum20 hr ago
+4
And soon no drinking and no talking
4
fitxa61 day ago
+4
wow… Would it be illegal for them to smoke or just purchase?
4
rubywpnmaster1 day ago
+14
Compulsory testing at your doctors office for nicotine. If they find some? Straight to jail.
14
FreezingRobot1 day ago
+16
The people who look in your window to see if you own a TV will now also look for ashtrays.
16
VomitShitSmoothie1 day ago
+8
Too much nicotine? Straight to jail. Too little nicotine? Also jail.
8
Soulsfarmer1 day ago
+9
And believe it or not. 0% nicotine levels?
Also jail.
9
HuChemistry20 hr ago
+1
Just purchase. Soon no one will be allowed to purchase cigarettes.
1
ushade123 hr ago
+4
…creating yet another black market. Brilliant.
4
Intruder31323 hr ago
+2
Decades overdue but good to see it coming in
2
MatttheJ23 hr ago
-7
Seriously. I'm surprised at the backlash and lazy comparisons to alcohol. There's literally no positive value to cigarettes being easily available.
Literally only a handful of people benefit from cigarettes and that's those who make money off them.
-7
DirectionInfinite18818 hr ago
+2
I thought prohibition didn’t work?
2
HuChemistry18 hr ago
-1
If alcohol was illegal, do you think there would be less underage drinking?
-1
DirectionInfinite18817 hr ago
+1
Well, im referring to the hypocrisy of those who promote these policies. Particularly referring to the previous left wing government in New Zealand that did this… they held a (failed) referendum seeing to legalise marijuana because prohibition didn’t work, but made a year later passed a law to make it illegal for anyone born after 2008 to purchase cigarettes.
1
bluops12 hr ago
+2
I very rarely see someone smoking cigarettes these days and when I do it's a 50/60 year old. Kids are mostly on vapes , I don't think this will have any major impact and those crying about the tax reasons, the government would have crunched the numbers to workout this wouldn't hurt them. I'm not a smoker but I come from a chimney family, it was horrible going over to smoker houses and I'm really glad it's dying out.
2
Walker548221 hr ago
+2
This is the natural end point of socialized medicine. You smoke, get COPD, and then every tax payer has to pay for it. Same deal with obesity, and alcoholism.
2
Far202616 hr ago
+1
Van a volver al opio
1
amberjnetgardner16 hr ago
+1
Sad the internet is that indecent.
1
HuChemistry16 hr ago
+2
> Sad the internet is that indecent.
?
2
Zanian1913 hr ago
+1
Imagine being a 100 year old in 2107. You'd make millions reselling.
1
PrincessNakeyDance13 hr ago
+1
What are they banning though? Purchasing tobacco? Smoking tobacco? Or nicotine itself?
1
HuChemistry11 hr ago
+1
> What are they banning though? Purchasing tobacco? Smoking tobacco? Or nicotine itself?
Purchasing
1
Ill_Wolverine_626512 hr ago
+1
Just cross the Channel, come to France, you'll be welcome.😏😁😉🇬🇧🇨🇵🚬🚬🚬🚬
1
HuChemistry11 hr ago
+1
Do you think France will ban cigs in the future?
1
TugJobTony11 hr ago
+1
Honestly I love Europe but they are way behind in the smoking rules compared to the US. Love Germany but Christ are there a ton of smokers everywhere. This is a great move for the UK.
1
Dave_thecollector7 hr ago
+2
Woot woot new black market to easily exploit. The gangsters alll thank you! 🙏 UK
Eaaaaasy money.
2
slvrsnt22 hr ago
-1
Dumbest shit ever !
-1
VarPadre22 hr ago
Don't worry kids, Organised Crime will step into the void and provide
0
hulalabright16 hr ago
+1
Can we do this in Australia next
1
Wambo741 day ago
-9
Good news for organized crime.
-9
vomitHatSteve23 hr ago
+2
Honestly, it probably wouldn't even have been if they hadn't set it to 2008.
The problem is that there are already a bunch of teenager who are addicted and will be smoking their entire lives. The fact that it was illegal didn't stop the kids who were doing it before, and now they'll just have to keep getting illegal cigs indefinitely
2
TheBatemanFlex1 day ago
+6
I mean if the number of cigarette smokers was decreased down to the number of weed smokers I’m sure they would still consider that a win.
6
HuChemistry20 hr ago
+1
Should we make Heroine legal to reduce profits for organized crime?
1
Inquisitive_regard1 day ago
-10
smoking is haram.
-10
HuChemistry20 hr ago
+1
Did you tell all your friends to quit?
1
CrustedTesticle17 hr ago
Good. Now do it worldwide.
0
whatisabot23 hr ago
-1
They can just go across the border to buy them if they want to.
-1
FISH_MASTER22 hr ago
+2
The famous land border the uk shares with nowhere (except NI)
2
HuChemistry22 hr ago
+1
> They can just go across the border to buy them if they want to.
Will other countries ban cigarettes? Philip Morris has called for a phase-out or ban on traditional cigarettes to accelerate its transition to a "smoke-free future"
1
macross198421 hr ago
-2
A step in right direction. I remember the time smoking was so accepted that smell of smoking was everywhere outside or inside and it was terrible for any nonsmokers forced to breath the poisonous air.
-2
libertarian_30819 hr ago
+2
Prohibition doesn't work
2
SpeedDaemon19691 day ago
-8
Good! It was hypocrisy to criminalize some habits to oppress minorities, while legitimizing the ones that the ruling class liked.
-8
sabo-metrics1 day ago
+8
So alcohol next?
8
Beerboy0123 hr ago
+3
Doubt it. Roughly 75% of young adults drink. Would be wildly unpopular. A majority of the youth drink in the UK unlike smoking. Most of the people outraged currently are those who it's not going to effect.
3
Comet79711 day ago
-7
Criminalizing cigarettes --> Legalizing black market cigarettes that have more heavy metals in them.
Rule of nature.
-7
[deleted]23 hr ago
+4
[deleted]
4
Comet797122 hr ago
+1
Ban on alchohol failed about a century ago for this exact reason. In the UK local mafias will party after this ban is imposed. A huge market opening up for them.
1
HuChemistry20 hr ago
+1
Should we make Heroine legal to reduce profits for organized crime?
1
rajine10522 hr ago
+1
How does this make black market sales legal?
1
[deleted]1 day ago
-10
[deleted]
-10
H3ssian21 hr ago
-1
New Zealand had plans to do this, until our current govt folded under pressure from Big T lobbyists, such a f****** shame! so glad to see the UK doing it right!
-1
Acrobatic-Air672921 hr ago
+1
Different government reversed it because they were against it. Nobody folded
1
teabaggins7619 hr ago
Wont people just go to Europe and buy em in bulk? Also yhe black market in vapes will be massive
0
UpsetKoalaBear16 hr ago
+3
Vapes aren’t banned. We aren’t following Australia.
This is only tobacco products.
Other nicotine products like vapes or pouches are still allowed.
175 Comments