172

MPs to vote on smoking ban for those born after 2009 (www.bbc.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Plans to stop young people born since 2009 ever smoking are being debated and will be voted on later.

Rishi Sunak's bill aims to create the UK's first smoke-free generation in a major public health intervention.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill would ensure anyone turning 15 from this year would be banned from buying cigarettes, and also aims to make vapes less appealing to children.

A number of Tory MPs have told the BBC they won't back the bill.

The BBC understands that Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch is considering voting against the plans.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 37 points 7 months ago

I don't smoke and am completely against smoking. But this sounds like wishful thinking that has the potential to backfire spectacularly. There is a reason why many jurisdictions are deregulating banned substances. It helps to prevent the black market for concentrated and adulterated versions of the banned substance. It also helps people with addiction to seek treatment without worry of prosecution. Perhaps they should invest in better education than go for bans.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 32 points 7 months ago

I’m all about personal choice and laws like this conflict me.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 14 points 7 months ago

Same. Normally I'd say "keep it legal" but smoking has significant second-hand effects, unlike something like motorcycle helmets for example (which I do not think should be legally mandated). I'm very torn on this one.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 7 months ago

I find the second hand effects argument a difficult one to swallow when we deal with car pollution, industrial waste, microplastics, and so much more on a minute to minute basis. Anyone who lives in a city has essentially no reasonable expectation of overly clean air.

Public spaces are just that—public—and there should not be an expectation of being insulated from every harmful output by your fellow citizens, within reason. I’d take the errant cigarette waft over a bus station fart any day.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

when we deal with car pollution, industrial waste, microplastics, and so much more

I'd support banning or heavily penalizing those things too, FWIW.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 7 months ago

Don’t get me wrong, I want a clean world too, but what replaces the things we ban? Do we go back to horses (and all the animal cruelty that includes), or does someone foot the bill for everyone to get electric vehicles with charging stations that are 100% renewable?

Same with cigarettes—I’m ok with banning them in a world with free mental healthcare, humane working conditions, and stress relief spaces on every public block. Since that isn’t the world we live in though…I’m going to continue to defend people’s ability to reduce their stress with 5 minutes of nicotine, even if it is at the detriment of their own health. Some lives are so hard that extending them isn’t desirable—so the goal becomes to make the best of the time you have.

Seems silly to restrict or punish people for that reality, especially when nothing is being done to address the root causes of why people want to smoke in the first place.

[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I find the second hand effects argument a difficult one to swallow when we deal with car pollution, industrial waste, microplastics, and so much more on a minute to minute basis.

'Everyone else is hurting you, so it should be okay for me to hurt you, too!'

It's 2024, and there are people who unironically think that two wrongs make a right.

The damage done by secondhand smoking is not an argument, it's a proven fact. It has been for decades.

overly clean air

You think that air can be too clean?

This reminds me of how smokers will try to exercise, start coughing because their lungs are clogged and trying to process the increase in oxygen, then using that to claim that exercise is bad for you.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 7 months ago

As a motorcycle rider: not wearing your helmet has significant second-hand effects on those who see your brains smeared across the highway.

You're also far more likely to take a rock to the face and become a danger to those around you before you crash without a helmet.

In other words: it's not just a personal choice and absolutely should be legally mandated

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

I don’t see any benefits to smoking but we can say that about many things. I’d like to live in a smoke free world but once we go down the path, we run into the issue where to start banning everything on health concerns.

I like being able to go out to eat and it be smoke free but I wish the market had decided that.

load more comments (19 replies)

[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago

If you ride without a helmet, you're too dumb to get a licence

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

I smoke a lot. It's basically the only vice I can do anymore, so I enjoy it.

I wouldn't want anyone else to take it up though.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] FierySpectre@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Even motorcycle helmets have a significant secondary psychological impact for bystanders... The difference between seeing someone slide and seeing a human crayon go splat is huge.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 7 months ago

I don't like these laws.

If you're going to ban it, ban it from being sold on the grounds that it poses a danger to the buyer.

If someone wants to grow their own, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it, except sell it.

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Get fucked prohibitionists.

There will come a time when humanity wins the war on drugs, and everyone has the bodily autonomy to put what drugs they want in their own body.

And when that day happens... will you see drug users persecuting people for not being high?

Will you see prisons built for those who dare stay sober?

Will people be given felonies for being straight edge?

Will drug users militarize the police and erode our constitutional rights in a vain quest to enforce thier way of life on others?

because we are not them.

You should feel fortunate we seek justice, not retribution.

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

Governments banning drugs just creates dangerous black markets and criminals instead of doing their job of establishing and regulating markets with medical support for addicts. Arresting drug users for using drugs is similar to arresting people for eating Doritos because some people overeat them. You can do it, but it's not going to stop people from eating Doritos it just means more people will suffer making and distributing the Doritos. Nobody is going to force you to eat the Doritos, and if you're eating too many you'll benefit by talking to a doctor not a judge.

[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I love it when people who don't do drugs act like they're somehow superior beings because of it. "I don't need drugs, and neither should anyone else! 😤" Stfu Karen, doing drugs is about the most human thing we humans do, and you drink coffee you insufferable human paraquat.

[-] aDuckk@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Meanwhile they can't function without their morning coffee otherwise it's Tylenol time to manage the headaches, meds for all the disorders we get living in a society, and a dozen dopaminergic compulsions required to compenate for this and that.

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

How about just remove cigarettes from grocery stores, gas stations, and all other stores where people go to buy things other than cigarettes.

Regulate tobacco like some states regulate alcohol. Have a state store and that's the only place you can buy tobacco and make it heavily taxed.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 18 points 6 months ago

Prohibition does not work.

If they are serious about combatting smoking, they should medicalize it and treat it like an addiction.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 3 points 6 months ago

Cigarettes don't get you drunk or high, I'm not sure it won't, especially since current adults won't be affected (in theory)

They probably just don't really care if it does or not tbh. They just want to try out the age-specific ban and the public response.

[-] xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 7 months ago

Smoking does cost society money. Where medical care is subsidised by the public; we sure should prevent people from making money of selling self destructive stuff.

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago

People shouldn't have to be treated like children just because there's public healthcare. People should be allowed to smoke, do drugs, and eat cheeseburgers if they want to.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

IIRC in the US, it's revenue-positive for the government. Smokers tend to die earlier, and on average don't collect various old-age benefits, and that outweighs the costs.

googles

This was from 1989, so inflation will have changed the dollar values, but I doubt that it's changed qualitatively:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c11584/c11584.pdf

Our simulations suggest that each median-wage male smoker in the 1920 birth cohort roughly "saves" the Social Security system $20,000, and each median-wage female smoker saves $10,000.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago

Now do driving after 65. Voting? 😇

[-] capem@startrek.website 4 points 7 months ago

Remember: it's always good to prohibit the drugs that you personally don't do.

[-] Landsharkgun@midwest.social 2 points 6 months ago

Yes, this seems like something Britain would do.

Look, FFS, start doing synthetic nictotine products already. Tobacco is inherently cancerous, cigarettes are localized pollution... get rid of those by all means but let people have their recreational nicotine. Put it in beer for all I care.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Conservatives would never agree to this. Even if it'd objectively the right thing to do.

[-] pathief@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's a very liberal use of the word "objectively".

load more comments

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024

172 points (96.2% liked)

World News

39000 readers

2359 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.