Ah yes, because making drugs illegal has worked so well in the past.
Read the article for fucks sake.
They’re not making the drug illegal, just cigarettes. People who want nicotine still have other options.
It’s like how no one goes out of their way to make/sell pure ethanol, because you can still buy beer or vodka.
That’s still prohibition… it’s flat out dumb. A kid isn’t smoking a $10 cigar…
Smoking is redundant today. Kids are getting enough cancer from the environment already.
It’s not redundant. Harms compound. It’s not like people max out their carcinogenic index or something. 🙄
So we would eliminate smoking the same way we eliminated drug use…by making it illegal.
/S if necessary
I’m generally pro legalization of drugs, but will say this is likely to be much more effective than the war on drugs ever was.
You don’t outlaw possession, just the sales age. You’ll see significantly fewer new starters as time goes because after 20 years 40 year olds that can buy wont be bothered to support fresh 18 year olds looking to start a new habit or whatever. The ones that really want to start can buy from abroad without any form of punishment.
I think it’s different because I don’t think anyone turns to their first cigarette looking to try and attain some new feeling. It’s usually one of those things like… My friends were so I grabbed one from them and blah blah.
I would say I’m for the progressive increase in age, and I wrestle with my own hypocrisy seeing that I support legalizing other drugs. But maybe that’s rooted in the basis that I’ve never had a pothead or dude on shrooms negatively impact me. Cigarettes however–littered everywhere, get smoke in your face, etc
people could easily say they hate the smell of weed - is that a good reason to outlaw?
I keep thinking of the rat experiments where rats in cages took drugs until they died but happy rats in rat societies turned away from drugs.
I think people take drugs, including cigarettes, to cope. If they didn’t need to cope with terrible conditions, they wouldn’t use the drugs (except a few outliers). To me, taking away people’s cope is punching down.
We can’t get rid of tobacco like we can quaaludes or some synthetic drug. It’s going to be available to people. The question is do you want to create a huge black market for it (where people can easily lace cigarettes with fentanal, bonus? ), or do you want to address the reasons that people chain smoke?
deleted by creator
Is there any evidence to suggest a gradual ban actually prevents a black market?
It’s worth noting that even the happy rats would go get the occasional hit, they just weren’t dependent on the drugs. They did it for fun once in a while, not frequently as an escape from reality. This is how healthy people enjoy drugs.
That doesn’t change the end result though. Addiction is the result of profound despair, not the cause of it. Giving people hope and support keeps them from needing to escape.
I think people want to do things they are not allowed to. They will go through the effort to find a way. In a lot of states that legalized Marijuana, its use went down after legalization. Once it was normalized, some people lost interest. I think the opposite happens when you make it illegal, you’re basically making it cool again. This isn’t just drug use, it’s with a lot of things, if you forbid it, people will suddenly want that thing more than they did before. Religion comes to mind. Authoritarian countries that want to stamp out a religion or all religion often cause a religious resurgence. There’s nothing quite like being told you can’t do something to make you want to do it or visa versa. People are naturally oppositional.
Yeah, lots of bad faith comparisons to drug legalization. People outright against age-gated laws. So I guess that means it’s ok for 4 year olds to drive around?
deleted by creator
few hours ago
Smoking’s already dramatically fallen out of popularity with younger people, being replaced by vaping. So I don’t think it really matters what they do at this point - smoking’s a dinosaur waiting to die.
Although vaping is far more popular and at least better than smoking, it’s still actively bad for health. I’d be interested to see how a similar policy to ban vapes would go over in the west like they’re trying in Taiwan.
Fast food, alcohol, motorcycles, and Instagram are also bad for your health. I’m not sure how vaping compares. Vaping is definitely easier to demonize.
We get it, you vape.
I actually don’t vape. I just see a vice that seems relatively harmless and I don’t think we should demonize it. Even if vape people are annoying.
actively bad for health
Interesting turn of phrase. What is “actively bad for health”, really? Experts seem to be pretty convinced that as bad as Vaping might be, it’s not as bad as alcohol. And we in the US know what happens when you try to ban alcohol. I have Prohibition to thank for the incredible Whiskey industry of today.
Yeah the only thing raising the smoking age will do is make smoking cool again.
Everything about smoking is cool. Especially the part where it devastates your body before killing you in the most terrible way possible, drowning in your own fluids. Kinda hoping on the world ending so I can say fuck it and pick it up again.
Smoking kills. If you’re killed, you’ve lost a very important part of your life.
-Brooke Shields
From someone who has smoked and quit, I was really blind sided by how addictive nicotine was. People talk about adults and what they put in there body but nicotine really is a different monster
I never felt the same buzz after my first cigarette, it felt like I was fucking drunk after my first smoke lol.
After that I was basically just chasing the dragon, I was smoking about 15-30 cigarettes a day for about 1-2 years. Never again.
What I don’t see is why smoking should be the main nicotine delivery device when it can easily be done without the cancerous smoke.
Isolated nicotine is apparently not cancerous. We just choose to enforce the continued coupling of nicotine and cancer, and refuse to permit alternatives that decouple if from cancer if their dosage isn’t pitiful.
“Either get the weak alternatives, or the cancerous ones.”
The moderate non-cancerous alternatives are illegal.
Or do it like Germany: make vaping extremely expensive so people go back to smoking. Stupid.
Absolutely obscene and short sighted what the German government have done. Everything is taxed per ml, even if it has no nicotine in it. As you say it’s cheaper to actually smoke.
So are you for or against Sunak’s proposal?
He should also star making crimes illegal so that they can live in a society without crime /s.
Finally something sensible from this guy. Last week it was all big auto lobby nonsense.
That’s gonna work splendidly since underage people would never dare to smoke!
Ehhhhhh, you make it permanently harder for a generation and eventually, barring a political change, you need to find an 80 year old to boot cigarettes for you from that one shop down the road that still caters to a rapidly shrinking audience.
Not to say that this is a good idea or one with which but long-term, it could work. (Or at least reduce smoking to a relatively minor few.)
Eventually stores will just stop selling them. Why stock cigarette when you only sell 10 packs a month.
I think it’s a great idea. People will create a black market for them, but it will be really small and die out.
It’s not like you really get anything from it like you do from alcohol or other drugs.
It’s not like you really get anything from it like you do from alcohol or other drugs.
Similar ehhhhhh as earlier.
There are moments when a cigarette gives you an amazing or just right, feeling, for lack of a better word. In reality you’re just sating a self inflicted addiction, but it can feel great to do so.
I don’t think it’s a good trade, that’s why I no longer smoke, but I understand the simple pleasure. Even if in the long, medium, heck, often even short term that pleasure has stupid costs.
deleted by creator
It’s still gonna slowly reduce use. And that’s better than nothing.
I don’t agree with this type of stuff let people do whatever they’re going to do freedom is more important
To me, you have the right to throw a punch. That right ends, however, at the tip of my nose.
I have no issue with smokers. I have a massive issue with the huge clouds of noxious smoke they produce. They also seem to be extremely oblivious to the effects they have on those around them.
It’s akin to a drunk getting their cock out and pissing in the faces of people walking down the street.
I have no issue with nicotine use (so long as the additional health costs are covered by the taxes on it). I do have an issue with smokers, and their ability to ruin the day of those around them.
I assume you would prefer to see stricter legislation/enforcement about smoking in public versus outright sales bans, correct? I can totally get on board with that.
100%
I would, however, such a ban would be harder to implement and enforce. Also, most setups where the smoke would not affect the public also risk a massive increase in exposure for those close to the smoker. (E.g. if you can’t let smoke outside, then some people will effectively hotbox their house and children). We apparently cant currently enforce the 5m rule around entrances to buildings a more complex set of rules could easily become toothless.
I’ll admit I have a personal bias. Incidental exposure to the smoke from someone 20-40+ meters away is enough to mess up my lungs and set me coughing for around a day.
I’d maybe even add a ban for in-home use around children under a child abuse clause. Very hard to enforce of course but I can think of some meaningful ways to make it not worth the risk for most people.
I’m also quite biased in the opposite direction. I just quit (4 months) vaping and have had some strong opinions that my own stupid choices should be mine alone. I draw a hard line when my choices become your consequences.
But frankly, us both being biased in opposite directions and still agreeing on potentially meaningful bans just tells me that it should be easier to get done in a way that might actually be effective.
One thing that concerns me is how a ban might impact the homeless population. It’s already basically illegal to be homeless in many places and the rates of smokers among the homeless is probably significantly higher. It could end up being yet another thing enforcement uses to harass people.
Would you be comfortable banning perfumes, cologne, scented beauty products and air fresheners. I’m allergic to all of those things.
Hell yeah, sounds like a great idea.
If they are producing problematic exposure to a large number of people, for the benefit of only a few, yes I would.
It gets a lot more difficult however to figure out where to draw the line. In terms of noise, smoking is like someone letting off flashbangs. It’s obviously antisocial and problematic, particularly in a close environment. However , how should we handle loud music? Obviously playing music loud enough to vibrate windows at 3am is a problem, but below that is a murky zone where it’s difficult to agree on what’s problematic or not.
The equivalent to this, in smoking terms is vaping etc. It still produces something with a negative effect, but with a far lower problem potential. While I would personally prefer not to be exposed to vaping smells either, the balance is a lot less obvious. I accept that it would do more harm (to our personal freedoms etc) than good adding vapes to a ban.
There should be some rules on smell production, but it’s the sort of thing that is difficult to write into regulations. It’s currently impossible to write a quantitative test into law. All would be subjective, and so prone to problems.
Fuck yes. I hate walking into a room to be slapped with someone’s 36 spray morning routine. Thanks, I love having a headache all day.
Yes actually, those also ruin the air quality. I’m by no means allergic to them but oh man do i power walk away from those smelly areas in the mall
An allergy reaction just isn’t the same as cell damage done by the incomplete charred remains from cigarette smoke.
One of them is a water gun and the other is a uranium cell up your arse
Fuck off, let me breathe and don’t ruin my air quality. Cigarettes ruin the air quality of 15 meters around them depending on wind it also is small enough particulates to go through n95 masks. F U C K. O F F
you have the right to leave the area all the same
I don’t know if that’s feasible given that adults are adults after all. But maybe just restrict the sale of cigarettes and make it so burdensome to sell them in shops so most don’t even bother. And do the same for vapes. Vapes are ridiculously easy to buy so stick them in the same locked cabinet that other nicotine products go in and ban all advertising and signage.
just restrict the sale of cigarettes and make it so burdensome to sell them in shops so most don’t even bother
I think that might help. Increasing friction for an activity makes it less likely to happen (like when your TV remote is in another room).
And do the same for vapes. Vapes are ridiculously easy to buy so stick them in the same locked cabinet that other nicotine products go in
That needs a bit more differentiation, no? After all, there are vapes without nicotine. I would also differentiate between single-use vapes (just ban these, wtf) and refillables. They’re also (most probably) much less unhealthy compared to smoking tobacco.
In my country (Germany), vapes are only available in shops, and most sadly only offer single-use vapes. Cigarettes were (are?) also sold in vending machines, on streets or in bars. So from my point of view, vapes are already harder to buy than cigarettes. What situation did you have in mind?
All in all, I think it would make sense to make access to these things harder / price higher based on how harmful they are, and how addictive they are.
ban all advertising
All for it!
I loathe Sunak, his political party and their ideals… but this is pretty good actually Maybe he’ll manage to do a single worthwhile thing
Imagine turning 18 (or whatever the smoking age is in the UK) and starting to smoke during the year this rule takes effect. Then, every year from that point forward, you’d have to wait for your birthday to start smoking again.
It is 18.
But this law will be designed to target current 14 year olds. In theory they will never legally be allowed to smoke.
If you’re smoking now, this will not affect you.
Oh, the horror!
It’s DOB not age.
Or just… don’t smoke?
I don’t and never have, but this doesn’t make the proposed rule less ridiculous.
Most people who “start smoking” don’t just pick up a pack and BOOM addicted. It’s a psychological conditioning over many months or even years that leads to full on addiction. It starts with a drag or two off a friends cig, then it’s a pack purchased for weekend partying, then it’s “I’ll have a cig with my coffee”, then it’s “I smoke half a pack a day”. A public awareness campaign coupled with the “one more year” approach to smoking laws would basically eliminate all new young smokers. Vaping on the other hand is actively being pushed onto kids. Kids don’t want actual tobacco anymore.
Thanks, I’m well aware of these issues. My point is that they should just prohibit what they think should be prohibited, and that they should do so for everyone, not just those that sit below an arbitrary age threshold. The sole point of this proposal is to pass laws selectively so that they don’t affect age groups with whom they would be unpopular, and I don’t think this is how laws should be passed.
We must save people from themselves! Don’t let them make any decisions since they could make bad ones!
I’d be more sympathetic if the harm was self contained. It isn’t, so your choices should automatically come with restrictions.
So should we limit how much food one is allowed to buy because it’s a drain on the NHS? How about banning alcohol, because alcoholism creates innumerable problems for people other than the alcoholic in question as well? Hell, might as well make them apply for home-cooking licenses so we make sure they don’t give their relatives salmonilla this holiday, otherwise how can we know your grandma can trust you to cook for her? Can’t trust you OR her to make their own decisions without
daddy’syour figurative abusive husband’sthe government’s approval. Cor, blimey!Fuck it, might as well hold people’s hands their entire lives, wouldn’t want them to make mistakes and possibly even grow and become better people would we? No wouldn’t want that, better round down the edges of life until it’s barely worth living, that’ll do the trick.
Trash take. The “bad decision” in this case is severely detrimental health effects, including painful forms of death, that put a tax burden on the rest of the general public with increased health care costs.
No u. The “bad decision” resulting in “honk and blarg [Variables for generic bullshittery]” is moot, the decision to imbibe in a substance is the decision of the imbiber alone, you are not their daddy, you have no authority to decide what is “in their best interest.”
Also, that whole “The NHS is an excuse for the government to further intrude on bodily autonomy, something which they seem more than willing to do with this abortion horseshit, as well as fingerprints not being covered by the 1a, not having the ability to do drugs unapproved by the state (the ones they sell are fine though, want a drink?), etc” thing is something I haven’t thought about before. “Higher taxes” is one thing, but tbh I don’t want free healthcare that comes at the price of more of my civil liberties.
deleted by creator
Yeah I don’t think so.
