Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn08jy6w0l5o

by AndrewDucker • 3 months ago

173 409 3 months ago

bbc.co.uk

noduerme7• 3 months ago

I hate how British people say "agreed" as if it implies "was" and "to". And lots of other things it implies, such as who, when and why.

thinkingemote• 3 months ago

I think it's short for "agreed upon"

noduerme7• 3 months ago

Well they're English, they invented the language. I don't know why they're trampling on it.

tjwebbnorfolk• 3 months ago

How do you feel about the word "okay"? The word can mean anything. Must drive you nuts.

foldr2• 3 months ago

I don't think there's anything peculiarly British about that usage. It's easy to find examples of Americans doing the same thing, e.g.:

The report, in an op-ed from commentator David Ignatius, cites a senior US official as saying that “the framework is agreed” and the parties are now “negotiating details of how it will be implemented.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/washington-post...

bcjdjsndon3• 3 months ago

Alcohol costs the UK 4-5x more than smoking. Coincidentally, it's the upper classes drug of choice. Must be a coincidence though

LtWorf4• 3 months ago

Sitting in a room with someone drinking doesn't give you cancer.

cheeseomlit• 3 months ago

Just ban smoking indoors then

pixl973• 3 months ago

As the US found out, alcohol is very very hard to ban because it is very very easy to make.

AlexandrB5• 3 months ago

Weed and tobacco are also very easy to make. They literally grow on trees[1].

[1] Technically, herbaceous plants.

tim3333• 3 months ago

Also popular and part of the culture. Jesus turned water into wine but didn't pop out for 20 Marlboro.

afavour7• 3 months ago

I’d say cocaine is the upper class drug of choice. Regardless, alcohol is every classes drug of choice. The debate over whether the government is hypocritical or not kind of ignores the reality that British voters don’t want alcohol banned. So the government isn’t going to ban it. Which is broadly what you’d want a government to do!

olalonde6• 3 months ago

At least alcohol produces side effects that people enjoy. Smoking pretty much only has negative side effects once you get hooked.

dml2135• 3 months ago

Have you ever smoked? I feel like I only hear this sentiment from people that have never tried nicotine.

Nicotine absolutely produces effects that people enjoy. Smokers don't just do it because they want to smell bad and look cool.

nutjob25• 3 months ago

Alcohol is the deadliest and has the biggest social costs of any drug. Nicotine is second, heroin is a distant third.

Drugs that are largely harmless, like MDMA, are illegal with heavy penalties.

Drug policy is largely nonsense and rampantly hypocritical.

OkayPhysicist5• 3 months ago

MDMA is a lot more acutely dangerous than nicotine, and somewhat moreso than alcohol. If you drink too much, you'll vomit, and for the most part be fine. Obviously that not always true (I'm sure everyone knows at least one person who had to have their stomach pumped in college), but for the vast majority of users, their body's natural defense against being poisoned works fine.

An MDMA overdose, however, needs active, external cooling to ride out. We don't really have a natural safety valve for overconsumption.

That's not to say it should remain banned (I'm quite pro-legalization myself), but it's not entirely arbitrary to have MDMA banned versus other, less acutely dangerous drugs. Better examples of unjustifiably banned drugs are psychedelics such as LSD.

bcjdjsndon3• 3 months ago

Mdma is 100% proven to be neurotoxic... Ie it kills braincells.

NoPicklez4• 3 months ago

Upper classes drug of choice

You're joking me. It costs more in Australia for a pack of cigarettes than it does for multiple beers or even a bottle of decent wine.

Alcohol is not the upper classes drug of choice, its all classes drug of choice.

joegibbs3• 3 months ago

Drinking has been decided to be totally fine though, no need to ban that - probably because it's unfashionable to smoke, and the kind of people who come up with these laws find it uncouth. It will also be ridiculous in a few years when the UK inevitably decides to legalise marijuana - totally fine to smoke a joint, but don't you dare put any of that tobacco in it!

adjejmxbdjdn• 3 months ago

Drinking doesn’t affect others as direct as smoking does.

Most of the indoor smoking bans in the U.S. have been based entirely on the fact that second hand smoke affects the employees who are forced to be there.

Further, drinking has a far deeper cultural resonance, so smoking is clearly the lower hanging fruit.

And it’s not like the UK has not been taking action against drinking. For example, they’ve imposed minimum alcohol taxes which have been directly linked to lower consumption.

gcanyon2• 3 months ago

Drinking affects others much more than smoking does, it's just that it doesn't affect random strangers. In a study of the harms of various substances, alcohol came out on top by a mile for the damage it does to the family and others close to the drinker.

I should qualify the above: it doesn't affect random strangers as often as second-hand smoke does. But drunk driving and drunk violence are a thing, and both can affect anyone.

joegibbs3• 3 months ago

Nobody was ever attacked on the street by a tobacco-addled stranger at 3 in the morning though. Besides, they're not banning indoor smoking, they're banning it entirely - including vaping and other nicotine products.

techteach004• 3 months ago

"Ranked by drug experts on damage to user, impact on crime, and socioeconomic effects"

1. Alcohol 2. Heroin 3. Crack Cocaine 4. Cocaine 5. Tobacco

I think these laws are bizarre morality rituals. Evidence doesn't conclude it has anything to do with public health when you see how vicious alcohol is.

pixl973• 3 months ago

Nicotine is insanely addictive, so ya.

Alcohol is very difficult to ban as you can take almost any kind of sugar feedstock and turn it into alcohol.

tialaramex2• 3 months ago

Right. Booze is straight up naturally occurring, albeit rare. That's why you get drunk monkeys and other wildlife. The animal is like "Actually this moldy fruit is pretty good" - they did absolutely nothing to manufacture booze but here it is.

Sweepi7• 3 months ago

Newsflash: Its possible to consume "marijuana" w/o smoking it (just like nicotine!).

joegibbs3• 3 months ago

They're not banning smoking in general (which would be impossible anyway, what are they going to do, make it illegal to set something on fire and breathe it in?), they're banning nicotine products. I also really doubt that they will legalise weed and then say "but of course you're not allowed to smoke it, edibles only".

FatherOfCurses2• 3 months ago

Drinking has been declining on its own.

stevekemp• 3 months ago

Prohibition (of alcohol) wouldn't work, but over time the government has raised alcohol duty rates:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/alcohol-duty-rates

That cuts down on drinking, except for the alcoholics of course. Scotland also imposed a minimum price per unit on alcohol, in an attempt to further cut consumption:

https://www.gov.scot/policies/alcohol-and-drugs/minimum-unit...

Whether that works is an open question, but in the UK things like "the sugar tax" have a visible affect on consumer consumption rates of "bad things".

pjc502• 3 months ago

Tbh I'm worried that this is directionally bad and we're more likely to see a pointless crackdown on weed.

awakeasleep• 3 months ago

Im curious how the industry allowed this. Seems like a tremendous amount of lobbying money would oppose it. There must be real story there, somewhere.

amriksohata2• 3 months ago

this

luizfzs• 3 months ago

The real story may be that even despite heavy lobbying, they are trying to do something that has the potential to benefit the population, with the added benefit of reducing some of the load on health care system caused by this.

As we know, smoking can cause lots of problems, including for babies if the mother smokes during pregnancy.

walthamstow• 3 months ago

The cigarette lobbyists are not what they used to be. A pack is £15+ of mostly tax, beige green colour, and has gruesome health warning images. They "let" all that happen.

I assume all the ones who were young enough to have worked tobacco at its peak are now working for Meta, OpenAI or Flutter.

afavour7• 3 months ago

Are you in America? I only ask because this mindset, that lobbyists are capable of squashing any law they dislike, is not internationally universal.

Not to say lobbyists don’t have an effect in the UK, they do. But the US has a particularly egregious setup.

Cytobit3• 3 months ago

There is no country in the world where the ultra wealthy don't weild influence over the government.

xyzal3• 3 months ago

Only in America, where markets magically solve all issues.

cucumber37328429• 3 months ago

They probable have better margins on vapes so they don't care.

pech0rin• 3 months ago

This is insanely dumb. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. So if people want to do it anyway who cares. I understand the cafe and indoor space bans but not allowing anyone to do it seems stupid. I don’t smoke but UK has really gone off the deep end recently with social controls, what is the point?

LtWorf4• 3 months ago

Heroin is bad as well and it's forbidden on account of that.

tonyedgecombe• 3 months ago

It's insanely dumb in the same way prohibition was insanely dumb in the US during the twenties.

halfdan• 3 months ago

I, a non-smoker, would like to not walk through clouds of smoke.

alchemism2• 3 months ago

That's what I say when I breathe car exhaust. Why cannot all combustion engines be removed from society for my health preference?

rpdillon• 3 months ago

When they came for the smokers, I did not care, because I was not a smoker.

There's a general trend of trying to "optimize" society to remove all ills, and once you apply that logic, there's no clear stopping point. Once you ban sale of tobacco products, you can use that same logic to ban anything, from Cheetos to skydiving to motorcycles.

tgv4• 3 months ago

So [...] who cares.

I do. I prefer people not to get lung cancer, among other afflications. And for no benefit that I can think of.

I don't live in the UK, but I say: good to them, and boo to you, for your misanthropic attitude.

apetrov3• 3 months ago

i this context, "who cares" means "whose business". and the answer by the western society is that no ones but person in question.

bucketing ppl by birth year is literally a discrimination.

gcanyon2• 3 months ago

There are two separate issues here: 1. will this work (will the UK stop smoking) 2. is this something the UK government should be doing

Setting aside 1 and looking at 2, it seems silly to me to point out that other things (alcohol) that cause problems and are not being restricted. You take the wins where you find them, and the government isn't a magical force that can impose its will on the people arbitrarily. This is obviously the government responding to the general sense of the people (perhaps putting its thumb on the scale). The UK doesn't support cigarettes, so the law gets passed. If someone has a public opinion poll there showing less than 50% support for this, I'd love to see it.

mytailorisrich7• 3 months ago

I think it is also part of a trend. More and more control over people's lives, more and more bans.

Beyond whether something is "bad for you", the key aspect in a free society is whether the State should decide for you (we're entrusted with the right to vote, after all).

Demolition Man has turned out to be the most accurate prediction of the future regarding those issues among all the 90s movies. Quite interesting.

afavour7• 3 months ago

I see smoking as a separate category owing to the existence of second hand smoke. Smoking in a room with other people adversely affects those people. I think government is the correct body to be intervening in that scenario.

squigz7• 3 months ago

From the government's perspective, this may (or may not) be silly.

But putting that aside, if a citizen supports banning cigarettes for people born after a certain date, but not alcohol, that certainly seems hypocritical to me.

brador• 3 months ago

We know the dangers of second hand smoke. Someone drinking near you does not impact your health.

LeChuck• 3 months ago

Sure, maybe, arguably. Does it matter though? A world without smoking is still better than a world with smoking, right?

drcongo4• 3 months ago

Don't forget gambling. Though given that the gambling lobby were the only donor's to Starmer's leadership campaign that out-donated the pro-Israel lobbyists, I wouldn't bet on them doing something about it. Pun intended.

Edit: just realised I posted under the wrong comment. Doh.

FatherOfCurses2• 3 months ago

Incremental change isn't a thing? Focusing on one health area, which will certainly be a massive undertaking, instead of trying to wipe out all unhealthy things at the same time?

X0Refraction2• 3 months ago

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that they're a different degree of societal problem. I think there's quite a few people who drink on special occasions, but not every week or even every month (I'm one of them).

I think it's very rare though for a smoker to not smoke several a day. A friend of mine was that rare breed and would buy a 10 pack occasionally - usually on a Friday and it'd be gone by Monday - but that would maybe be once a month. I think every other smoker I've met though goes through that amount every day.

So it seems to me the average smoker is much more likely to become a burden on a nationalised health service than the average drinker. There's more to this of course, smoking to excess generally doesn't increase the chances of you getting into a fight like drinking does for some people, but social pressure counters that partially too.

larrik• 3 months ago

A minority of people who drink are addicted to alcohol.

Basically everyone who smokes/etc is addicted to nicotine.

They aren't the same at all.

panny• 3 months ago

But putting that aside, if a citizen supports banning cigarettes for people born after a certain date, but not alcohol, that certainly seems hypocritical to me.

Why does everyone on HN seem to have a hate boner for alcohol? The main problem there is car culture, not the alcohol.

In any case, the hypocritical part is where the UK, like many US states, has legalized marijuana for medical use and is well on its way to legalizing it for recreational use. Pipe tobacco at least smelled good. Cigarettes, not so much. But marijuana smells like a mix of stale cigarettes and body odor. AND the second hand smoke isn't just harmful, it can make you high along with the dirty smelling marijuana smoker. At least with nicotine, it sharpens your concentration. THC on the other hand makes you a lazy Cheeto eating couch potato with no future.

zbentley• 3 months ago

other things (alcohol) that cause problems and are not being restricted

Alcohol is heavily restricted, though. You can't sell it to minors, younger minors can't drink it in public, you can't sell/buy/make it above a certain proof, you can only resell it from authorized distributors, it is taxes, and so on.

Sure, banning cigarettes for a specific generation is a much more stringent restriction, but plenty of other restrictions exist.

noduerme7• 3 months ago

what if they told you your kids would never be allowed to have a drink?

owlcompliance2• 3 months ago

Big difference between banning something outright and regulating a substance.

subscribed3• 3 months ago

In the UK you can legally serve your 6 yo alcohol in your own or your friend's house.

What's heavily restricted is the sale and consumption in most public spaces.

noduerme7• 3 months ago

> the government isn't a magical force that can impose its will on the people arbitrarily

You must live in a democracy. If you ever lived in a country where the government curtailed freedoms by fiat, you'd understand that it can and it will. I happened to be living in Vietnam when the government just randomly decided one day that smoking would be banned everywhere, effective immediately. You might think that's simply putting a thumb on the scale; but you also haven't tried to visit the New York Times website from there and later found yourself in a room with officials asking for all your passwords. And clearly you're not familiar with the preferred way of clearing traffic jams, which is driving a jeep through a crowd of motorbikes while a guy with a long bamboo cane whacks anyone who's in the way.

Thumb on the scale my ass. Totalitarianism is control over the little things.

lokar9• 3 months ago

This seems really out of context

nerdsniper• 3 months ago

Is it possible to buy nicotine in Vietnam today? Is it de jure illegal but de facto widely available? Did everyone switch from cigarettes to vapes?

unethical_ban• 3 months ago

My suspicion is that alcohol is mind-altering in ways smoking is not, and has a large effect on social interactions in business and romance and coping with the drudgery of daily life.

Take away smoking from the next generation and they move to caffeine or vapes. Take away alcohol and there are revolutions and religious extremist revivals.

sir00100104• 3 months ago

Taking away smoking still solves the secondhand smoke issue.

subscribed3• 3 months ago

Americans tried to ban alcohol in the 20s, ended up propping up the organised crime.

The they later enacted the War on Drugs. They still pump billions into cartels and the federal forces.

neonstatic2• 3 months ago

Cigarettes are not incorporated into the UK culture the way alcohol is. Drinking at a pub is sacred to them.

pjc502• 3 months ago

People used to be able to smoke in pubs. But I agree it wasn't quite so culturally foundational.

I'm not going to lose sleep over the idea of a smoking ban, since it was already driven to the margins, but the implementation of it by age is really weird. Clearly a move to avoid annoying pensioners, like everything else.

azangru• 3 months ago

1. will this work (will the UK stop smoking)

What mechanisms do you foresee for it to fail? If stores stop selling cigarettes, the UK will have no other choice but to stop smoking them. I wonder what will come to replace them though. People have a peculiar tendency of forming addictive habits.

Regarding question 2, personally, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a nanny state.

shmel• 3 months ago

Right, because it totally worked with drugs. People just don't use them anymore. Weed is impossible to come by nowadays.

kjksf• 3 months ago

Prohibition did fail and US had to revert ban on alcohol.

The rules are made by politicians.

All it takes to change the rules is to rotate politicians.

Or enough public dissent that the same politicians are forced to revert the rules.

sailfast• 3 months ago

Is weed legal in the UK? Do people still smoke it?

This might play right into the hands of bootleggers and gangs but also into the Swedish / American nicotine pouch industry which is basically marketing straight at kids.

Also - vapes. Most folks don’t smoke cigarettes anymore. How does this control vaping?

OkayPhysicist5• 3 months ago

If they wanted to ban cigarettes, they should have banned cigarettes. The whole "let's pass a law that only affects people who can't vote" strategy applied here is tyranical.

mothballed6• 3 months ago

The US did the same thing with cockfighting. It was already illegal in all the states, but they passed a federal law binding on all states and territories to stop Puerto Ricans (who had no such law against it), who have no meaningful federal representation.

testing223215• 3 months ago

It’s the perfect way to phase it in. In ~80 years nobody will be able to smoke, but you never took the right away from someone that already had it.

A huge win for society

tim3333• 3 months ago

Alcohol is quite different to cigarettes. It's fun and part of the culture - most people drink and the country is full of pubs and restaurants serving it. You couldn't ban it without most of the country, including me, objecting.

Cigarettes on the other hand are not so popular. If you ask most smokers if they regret starting about 90% say yes. They mostly want to quit but are addicted. Quite different from booze.

mothballed6• 3 months ago

If you look at the US about 50% have ever smoked some form of tobacco at least once. Only 11-15% currently do.

For booze it's much 'worse.' Nearly 80% have ever drunk alcohol but 50% of them still do. A much higher rate of ongoing use.

Also note a very large portion of people that have ever smoked have had a nice cigar or pipe, smoked once in a blue moon is extremely unlikely to cause cancer or addiction. This likely represents a 'quiet' large portion of the statistic that have ever used tobacco. The loudest are the pack a day smokers who loudly proclaim everyone else will be like them and therefore everyone else should suffer restrictions that presume the same.

AngryData6• 3 months ago

They seem pretty popular in my neck of the woods.

andy99• 3 months ago

You seem to misunderstand the concept of liberal democracy.

ramblerman• 3 months ago

The UK doesn't support cigarettes, so the law gets passed. If someone has a public opinion poll there showing less than 50% support for this, I'd love to see it.

Isn't the impetus on the makers of this bill to show there is more than 50% support for this.

I'm not a fan of smoking but this isn't the governments job imo. Not to mention the odd precedent of do what I say not as I do, with different laws for different generations.

tim3333• 3 months ago

The Yougov poll I found has:

Would you support or oppose a law banning anyone born after 2008 from ever buying cigarettes or tobacco products?
Strongly support 34% Somewhat support 23%
Somewhat oppose 16% Strongly oppose 12% (https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20221214-abbaa-1)

I'm a non smoking Brit and figure maybe give it a go and see how it goes down?

Perhaps let young people who deeply want to smoke apply for some sort of smoking pass? You could do similar for other problem drugs too maybe. A lot of addictive drugs don't do much harm if prescribed - the NHS gave some fentanyl to help chill out which was good - but having illegal dealers causes no end of problems.

subscribed3• 3 months ago

Re 2 only:

Yeah, except for alcohol all the other drugs are heavily controlled (contrary to the medical or scientific evidence). Tobacco doesn't offer any benefits*

*yeah, I struggle to find significant benefits of alcohol, but there are some. There's nothing that would be beneficial in smoking.

comrade1234• 3 months ago

Are they going to continue selling cigarettes and vapes for people born before that date. I've always found the career as a prohibition smuggler a somewhat romantic notion so at some point I may be able to take it up.

tgv4• 3 months ago

Ah yes, smuggling lung cancer. How romantic.

MiiMe196• 3 months ago

Stop doing things that hurt you !! You need to live your life like a min-max optimization for max lifespan. !! You haven't done your government mandated hour of exercise today, enjoy 30 days in prison !!

threepts• 3 months ago

next thing you know they'll also ban murder for people born after 2008

UK becomes the safest country in the world, peace forever

BigTTYGothGF• 3 months ago

Murder is one of the first things that most governments ban.

Sweepi7• 3 months ago

They ban buying cigarettes, not nicotine in general, correct? In that case, I would compare it to making catalytic converters mandatory in new cars in the 1970s.

You still can pickup nicotine consumption, but with xx % less carcinogens :)

alsetmusic2• 3 months ago

As a former smoker (who quit for seven years and regrets taking it up again), and as a present-day vape user, wtf. This is a clear restriction on liberty. It may be stupid that I do it. Just like many stupid decisions (junk food included), it ought to be my right to decide how to live.

Cut off production so cigarettes are no longer made or imported. Don't block me from them while letting others have them. (Not in UK)

It'd be kinda funny to see an early 1900s / USA-style mafia / gangster resurgence of bootleggers over cigs in the UK. Much lower stakes, but black markets are a thing.

Edit: added "while letting others have them"

Sweepi7• 3 months ago

This is a clear restriction on liberty.

So is banning the sale of leaded gasoline.

reassess_blind3• 3 months ago

The head rush of the first leaded gasoline inhale in the morning used to beat any cigarette, too.

plqbfbv3• 3 months ago

This is a clear restriction on liberty. ... Just like many stupid decisions (junk food included), it ought to be my right to decide how to live.

I guess that liberty was plenty abused on every non-smoker in a non-smoking area, that ended up coughing in clouds of smoke anyway. Smoking affects everyone around you whether you want it or not, and while you may smoke for 50 years and end up being perfectly healthy, some may get cancer from it, even for a very small dose.

rcxdude3• 3 months ago

There's already some pretty comprehensive bans on smoking in places where it could affect other people. I don't really encounter cigarette smoke in my day-to-day life.

dranudin• 3 months ago

However, people born before 2008 smoking around you, affects you, as well. If they want to protect people they need to ban it for everybody..

voidUpdate2• 3 months ago

"it ought to be my right to decide how to live"

"Why is the government stopping me from murdering people and stealing from them? it's my right to decide how I live!"

neonstatic2• 3 months ago

This is a great argument. Let's use it to ban sugar and meat.

TheCoelacanth• 3 months ago

I think that a government should be able to ban murdering people but that it would very sketchy for them to ban it for some people and not others.

One of the most important foundations of democracy is that the law applies to everyone equally. If smoking is banned, it should be banned for everyone, not banned for some people and allowed for a privileged class who got here first.

MiiMe196• 3 months ago

You vill get your state mandated 1 hour of exercise and 5 servings of vegetables. You VILL eat only the state mandated bug based protein that our studies have shown to be 10% less likely of causing heart attacks than red meat. YOU VILL NOT spend more than 1 hour outside to prevent skin cancer.

FL33TW00D• 3 months ago

In a country with a national health system, why should you be able to internalize the benefit of smoking whilst externalizing the cost?

slibhb6• 3 months ago

You could use this logic to ban unhealthy foods, or restrict people from eating too much.

skipants• 3 months ago

pigouvian taxes are both a stronger disincentive and help cover externalized costs.

if this moves nicotine to the black market then the people/government will still pay the cost without receiving any taxes on it at all

alsetmusic2• 3 months ago

In a country with a national health system

I live in the USA where we are treated like crap by our system of government. I'd agree with you if we had national healthcare.

masfuerte• 3 months ago

The sin taxes more than cover the healthcare costs of the associated sins. It's the untaxed sins, greed and sloth, that are fucking the NHS.

mothballed6• 3 months ago

OK, so if you smoke you don't get national / socialized health care but don't have to pay the taxes that fund it either. Deal. It's enough to convince me to take up smoking.

rcbdev• 3 months ago

Then ban McDonalds. Ban cigarettes outright for all. Give federal funding to healthy alternatives. Raise tax on sugar 200%. Alcohol 500%. Use federal funds to make cities walkable. Give police the mandate to enforce more action on violent criminals. Fund unions. Fine employers where people work longer than 8 hours per day on average. Fine employers who do not grant mandatory 5 weeks vacation per year.

This is the world where the interests of the NHS is what counts for making the rules. Many countries implement at least some of these measures, to great success.

AngryData6• 3 months ago

Smokers cost less in medical care because they die of heart attack and stroke before they get old enough for age-related care, along with smoking disqualifying people from many common procedures. Plus the sin taxes they pay already bring in more revenue than their entire lifetime medical costs.

projektfu2• 3 months ago

It's a restriction on liberty but not an unjustified one. I agree that it gives cigarettes a "mystique" that they do not deserve to have one generation able to smoke if they like while another generation has to go outside the law to do so.

When I was a smoker, I used to decry places that were less liberal about where I was allowed to smoke, and places with high taxes. As a former smoker, I know that the high taxes have enabled a lot of people to stop, and the restrictions got to a point where smoking was less "cool" and more "pariah" behavior. These influences helped me stop.

If you didn't read "The Easy Way to Stop Smoking", go do so, and smoke/vape no more.

If everyone appreciated how little value they receive from tobacco/nicotine and how easy it really is to quit, there would be no market.

MiiMe196• 3 months ago

If I want to smoke in my own home I should be able to. Next up the government will ban reading hacker news for people born after 2012 because it incentivizes you sitting in your chair too much.

reassess_blind3• 3 months ago

People should be able to do things that provide them with little value. Over-eating and drinking alcohol seem to be some of the UK's favourites, far more than smoking.

ShellackGobln7• 3 months ago

A restriction on liberty? For a britbong? What a surprise.

fuzzfactor• 3 months ago

Kinda like being in a country where nobody born past a certain date can ever be a citizen.

Unless their ancestors were already citizens beforehand.

Which I guess could be considered a more generous concession.

JumpCrisscross3• 3 months ago

wtf. This is a clear restriction on liberty

The title is hyperbolic. It isn't a ban on smoking. It's a "ban on buying cigarettes." Commerce is being restricted, not consumption. If, presumably, you bring your own in from France, or someone bums one to you, it would appear you're free to smoke it.

That broadly seems to strike a fair balance. Banning purchases and sales, not possession or consumption.

scoofy6• 3 months ago

A lifetime ban on purchase is a ban. Don't be ridiculous.

NoPicklez4• 3 months ago

How is it that different for it being banned for underage vs banned for people born after 2008?

Its just that for one group is never becomes okay

neogodless2• 3 months ago

You can kind of tell when people think about only themselves or the community when they present arguments for things like smoking and vaccination.

"I don't want to be controlled" is a perfectly valid argument, and I prefer humans can make choices for themselves and have reasonable autonomy when it does not have a negative affect on others.

Vaccination and smoking affects people around you. Drinking does too - in certain cases, but much less directly, in most cases. For example, drinking and operating vehicles is already illegal. Drinking and punching someone is already illegal!

xienze• 3 months ago

I prefer humans can make choices for themselves and have reasonable autonomy when it does not have a negative affect on others.

How far do you want to take this? Your choice of diet may have a negative effect on others by way of having to pay for additional medical care.

neogodless2• 3 months ago

Is taking concepts to logical extremes a good way to govern?

(No.)

But are you saying we don't care if things have negative effect on people? If we go to extremes, well then obviously everyone should have 100% autonomy? Oops that doesn't work.

So, this is the hard part - you have to find balance, compromise, a reasonable middle ground. That's always going to be the hard part. Not black or white, but the grey areas.

jollyllama2• 3 months ago

You're not going far enough. We need to mandate exercise.

amriksohata2• 3 months ago

Kinda pointless the government looking muscular on this when the real issue has moved on anyway to vaping, access to weed etc. The industry lobbying wont come after the govt anyway so no blocks right, as they are getting profit from elsewhere

subjectsigma2• 3 months ago

Natural consequence of socialized medicine. If I’m paying for your healthcare then I (and by extension the state) get a say in basically every aspect of your life.

Time to ban alcohol, marijuana, Tylenol, fatty foods, sugar, candles, campfires, fireworks, food coloring, bicycles, playgrounds, cars, cell phones, and anything else that might be harmful

mytailorisrich7• 3 months ago

In the UK tobacco is heavily taxed and those taxes bring in more money than the cost on the healthcare service.

falcor84• 3 months ago

Interesting - do you have a link about the financial accounting around this?

Findecanor3• 3 months ago

You can not put a price on human suffering.

xyzal3• 3 months ago

Enjoy setting up a GoFundMe if you ever get cancer.

1828399393• 3 months ago

Let us look at the cancer survival rates in the US vs countries with socialized medicine. I know for a fact when the business elite of my Euro country gets cancer they fly to NY. They don't pay taxes either tho so I guess it works for them.

AlexandrB5• 3 months ago

The other natural consequence of socialized medicine is rationing. In Canada the waiting time for treatment is often months or years[1]. That GoFundMe might give you a higher survival rate.

[1] https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/more-than-23000-canadi...

foobiekr• 3 months ago

Tylenol is much less dangerous than, say, Advil. It’s only issue is one of overdose which is common to all drugs.

subjectsigma2• 3 months ago

I think you might be missing the point I was trying to make

GuinansEyebrows• 3 months ago

Natural consequence of socialized medicine.

improved health outcomes?

nephihaha2• 3 months ago

Don't worry they're working on banning most of those. The UK has a sugar tax and will ban fires (God forbid people are energy independent!)

You could throw in skate boards, pornography, slate roofs, criticising government policy and the policy, gluten, and chewing gum.

josefritzishere• 3 months ago

Someone is not learning from history.

olalonde6• 3 months ago

What about tourists and foreigners? Most smokers can't go more than a few hours without smoking... This will surely lead to a large black market.

forinti• 3 months ago

Will this market be significant? This would surely affect a very small percentage of visitors.

olalonde6• 3 months ago

22% of the global population are smokers according to Wikipedia. It's probably lower for younger generations but still significant.

jblezo• 3 months ago

Easy: anyone who cannot submit to the law of a country should not go there.

olalonde6• 3 months ago

It will probably be a bit of both: a large black market and a decline in foreign visitors, international conferences, and similar events.

crvdgc• 3 months ago

I didn't find anything particular, but in general it should apply to anyone under the jurisdiction. I think it's illegal to drink underage in the US, even if the person is a tourist and they are allowed to drink by their own country's law.

mock-possum• 3 months ago

Why not just get your nicotine fix via one of the handful of other delivery methods which are not banned? Or just find a local black market doggie hookup, same as you would for any other illegal substance?

If you’re a pothead who can’t make it through your day without a smoke, then god knows you’ll find a connect - and if you’re addicted to cigarettes, I’m pretty sure you won’t have much trouble getting your fix.

olalonde6• 3 months ago

For a lot of smokers, e-cigarettes and other alternatives don't cut it. But I agree there'll likely be a black market.

Symbiote• 3 months ago

They can bring it with them.

The law (as proposed) restricts sales and giving to someone else, not the smoking itself.

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/60034/documents/628...

flowerthoughts• 3 months ago

In a few years, they'll realize that the savings from public health care now requires an an even higher amount of money poured into the police, customs and justice systems to enforce it. Because suddenly, there are these weirdos trying to sell it in dark places. Who could anticipate that?

But that's for another government to deal with, of course. Not our problem. Oh, and the future government will be happy to announce they are giving funding that will go to new jobs!

I propose a ban on people that use bans as a brain-less cheap way of fixing complex issues.

rt56a• 3 months ago

an even higher amount of money poured into the police

Given the massive cost smoking imposes on the health sector, I find it hard to believe that's remotely possible.

jpfromlondon2• 3 months ago

2B if you tease the reality out of the oft misreported figure, and the annual rake from smoking is 8-10B so it is profitable to maintain it.

xyzal3• 3 months ago

This enforcement costs argument is wrong. The point is not to enforce such a ban, it's to signal where the collective consensus is.

d--b• 3 months ago

<sarcasm> Oh yeah, banning people who can't vote yet, genius.

I think next we should ban them from eating butter, and you know, riding mountain bikes. Just protecting them you know.

What about us? Oh us, we're addicted, so... Well, you just can't take that away from us, can you? I mean there would be riots. But the kids, they wouldn't know what they're missing, right?

</sarcasm>

This is such a weird law. I doubt this would be constitutional in France. You can't just pass a law that affects some people but not others. It's against the principle of equality.

dnel• 3 months ago

I've been accosted outside enough shops to buy underage smokers a pack of cigs to know how well this will work.

lokar9• 3 months ago

This lack of social consensus is the problem here. A national referendum would be better, as it provides a way to force people to consider the changes and decide.

apetrov3• 3 months ago

great idea, let's people without skin in the game to vote for whose who have.

techteach004• 3 months ago

Hopefully vaping will still be legal? They do distinguish the difference between inhaling burnt matter vs inhaling a heated aerosol, yes?

Of course not. The only thing government and private enterprise seems good at these days is taking things away from people. Logic be damned.

LazyMans• 3 months ago

Although much less harmful than smoke, nicotine is still not harmless to the cardiovascular system. If the goal is public health, it makes sense to move the needle a little further and try to keep people off nicotine entirely.

Alcohol is another story, we're not ready to remove that yet.

lokar9• 3 months ago

I think it’s the combination of health impact and addiction

causalmodels• 3 months ago

After alcohol, are we going to stop people from having multiple sexual partners in their lifetime? Because if public health is the goal, that would solve a lot of problems.

It is fine to attempt to improve public health, but not at the cost of giving people a life worth living.

techteach004• 3 months ago

Nicotine is less harmful than sugar. Not even close. Ban sugar. Ban everything. Safety nausea.

bill_joy_fanboy• 3 months ago

UK has public/socialized healthcare.

If you are a smoker, you are much more likely to be a burden on this system.

Makes sense to ban these types of activities if the costs of them are socialized rather than individualized.

AlexandrB5• 3 months ago

There are all kinds of activities/behaviors whose costs are socialized: obesity, driving, sitting around all day/not exercising, living in suburbs, gambling, engaging in sports (broken bones cost society!). That's kind of the point of a society though - to pay for socialized costs. If the goal is to make every individual pay for the consequences of their own decisions what's the point of public healthcare or insurance in general?

jstanley• 3 months ago

If the cost of having socialised healthcare is so severe maybe we should stop socialising healthcare before we start banning risky activities.

adolph• 3 months ago

I wonder what the cost/benefit analysis is for different addressable health outcomes. For example, under this justification could a government mandate a restricted calorie diet or enforce daily resistance training?

techteach004• 3 months ago

You're making my point by making sweeping deeply personal policy for people without first citing how much less dangerous vaping nicotine is vs using tobacco.

My question is why aren't you or the people making these policies interested? It's consequential stuff done ignorantly and recklessly.

Determine scientifically how dangerous vaping nicotine or THC is before banning it. That's call rational. Not reckless

MiiMe196• 3 months ago

We should ban scrolling social media for people born after a certain date and legally mandate an hour of exercise per day and eating 5 servings of vegetables. If you don't listen, one month in jail. The state has decided that since it pays for your healthcare, it will now tell you how to live your life.

burnt-resistor4• 3 months ago

Then charge smokers much more for healthcare rather than collectively punishing and discriminatorily reducing the rights of a group of people arbitrarily. Individual freedom and consequences rather than prior restraint.

mystraline• 3 months ago

"My body, some distant governments choice"

QuiEgo• 3 months ago

History has shown prohibition can be… problematic.

Just tax it very very heavily and apply education / social pressure?

nutjob25• 3 months ago

See the problems with the Australian system, which is basically what you describe.

HDBaseT3• 3 months ago

Exactly this.

Australia (and the States) tried to impose ever increasing tax and restriction on smoking and over the last few years, smoking has reached critical mass, with more people smoking, cheaper smokes, and smokes becoming more available AND less regulated.

Previously a 20 pack was around $40-60 at most smoke shops, then the illegal darts started to come in, they were priced as low as $6 or $8 for the cheapest 20 pack. They become rampant and barely anyone purchased genuine smokes. In fact, these illegal smoke stores were exactly like real smoke shops, proper business, proper storefront and everything. Excluding the prices, you couldn't tell you were buying illegal products.

jellyfishbeaver• 3 months ago

Can anyone attest if young people are actually taking up cigarettes again? I was talking with a friend that teaches teenagers and she was explaining how many students that once were getting in trouble for vaping/pouches have now turned on to cigarettes. Completely boggles my mind - I thought the newer generation had a much stronger aversion to physical cigarettes.

hackerInnen2• 3 months ago

Just from my subjective view and observation, I'd say yes. It feels like a lot more people (younger than 30 roughly) smoke more than people around my peer group (mid 30s).

I could be totally wrong tho, but at least that's what it feels like. It feels like "all of them" smoke. Either vape or real cigarettes and quite a few of them using cigarettes

OkayPhysicist5• 3 months ago

At least in my younger brother's social circles, cigarettes are considered the inferior, but sometimes more available, good. They're hooked on nicotine via vapes, but it's sometimes easier to get a hold of cigarettes. That doesn't mean they smoke nearly as many cigarettes as we'd be used to seeing from a smoker pre-vapes, since once they can refill/buy another disposable vape they'll preferentially use those.

Fornax96• 3 months ago

I do volunteer work at a youth organization in the Netherlands. Recently smoking has become a lot more popular. Nearly all kids between 18 and 25 smoke here. There is also a very clear group effect. People start smoking because others are doing it.

Canada• 3 months ago

This is the kind of action that really requires a referendum.

rafram3• 3 months ago

I completely disagree. Obviously people individually want to smoke - nicotine makes them feel good! - and there's a good chance they would vote to preserve that "right," but smoking is bad for society and we would unambiguously be better off if it didn't exist.

One of the principal jobs of government is to stand for the good of the collective against individual selfishness.

pocksuppet3• 3 months ago

The collective just means the majority of individuals. That's why there should be a referendum.

Jamesbeam2• 3 months ago

That will for sure go well.

Funding the "biggest threat the UK ever faced" according to Phil Mykytiuk, who has spent a decade mapping tobacco crime gangs in the north of England with a customer base of 10-11 million potential customers and rising every year, will surely cut heavily into their profits…

It gets tiresome to buy a new house every week because the dry wall is full with cash, again.

"Yo, psst, want to buy some Lucky Strikes? You know what will go really well with that? This white widow super cheese, and if you feel tired I also got some soap for you, first line on the house." "You’re afraid your parents might smell it? I can get you a discount on this perfume, smells like Aventus but way cheaper."

"Mykytiuk, though, believes the multiple layers of crime behind cheap, illegal tobacco are escaping scrutiny, allowing crime gangs – emboldened by the lack of deterrent – to expand their power base right under the noses of enforcement.

Having witnessed Kurdish tobacco gang members invest heavily in property and high street businesses here in the UK, he’s now seeing evidence of them moving into cannabis farms.

“But forget drugs,” he says. “Drugs are yesterday. The big thing is tobacco. These gangs are becoming the most capable criminals in this country. Right now it’s the biggest threat we’ve ever faced.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/criminal-gangs-are-making-bi...

rafram3• 3 months ago

He is new in post as a trading standards manager at Bolton Council in Greater Manchester but worked for 10 years on a tobacco enforcement team at nearby Rochdale Council.

Props to this Vice reporter (in 2022) for snagging an interview with a municipal staffer in a suburb of Manchester, I guess. I’m sure he’s a very busy man. But he doesn’t exactly seem notable (try Googling his name) and I’m not really sure what this is supposed to prove in the absence of any corroborating reporting.

Jamesbeam2• 3 months ago

I am interested in your thought process.

If I got you right, you’re doubting his credibility as a source after he was vetted by a journalist, because he is talking about organised crime openly and not having a website or a Substack with half a million followers?

Maybe the BBC from November last year is a more credible source for you? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx99ple17o

Markoff• 3 months ago

Do they plan to introduce social media ban as well for people born after 2010?

hackerInnen2• 3 months ago

A ban for people born before 2010 would be reasonable

kpmcc• 3 months ago

This is good and all, but they should probably also restrict the advertising of nicotine products in this country. Coming here from the states, I was astounded that you can advertise Zyn like nicotine pouches in tube stations and around in public.

ottah• 3 months ago

People should have the right to make bad decisions, because with a population of millions of individuals you can not accurately decide what is a bad decision and what is just a less bad decision.

jollyllama2• 3 months ago

I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but this is just stealth micro-pensions. Expect tobacco purchases by Gen-X'ers and Millenials to skyrocket over the next few decades.

oompydoompy74• 3 months ago

People have been smoking tobacco for 12,000 years. How about nanny states fuck off and let people do what they want with their body. I would be happy for regulation of additives that tobacco companies adulterate their products with, but I should be able to smoke any plant I want.

burnt-resistor4• 3 months ago

I defend to the death individual choice but I'm also okay if the healthcare system wants a surcharge for voluntary lifestyle choices that cause first-, second-, and third-order health problems. That a universal healthcare system exists should never be used to rationalize universal, Orwellian deprivation of rights and invasive control of what people can do with their bodies or how to live. "No" to discrimination, collective punishment, and removal of liberty, but I'm okay with costs for voluntary choices.

It's hard to say if smoking weed (blunts or the useless nonfiltration of a bong) is worse than smoking cigarettes because of the lack of filter, but I'd probably try filtered atomization (not necessarily vaping) rather than breathing in ash and tiny smoke particles that destroy lung capacity. To each, their own.

harrisoned• 3 months ago

"Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal" — Demolition Man, 1993

puelocesar• 3 months ago

This is dumb. Brazil was able to extremely reduce tobacco consumption “just” with education and banning advertising.

It blows my mind how no other country in the world wants to follow their example on this. Are they too proud to copy a third world country? Even when it’s doing some things better?

foldr2• 3 months ago

A quick Google search suggests that Brazil and the UK have similar levels of smoking in the adult population. So the UK's already succeeded in reducing smoking consumption. The aim of this legislation is to eventually eliminate it.

clickety_clack• 3 months ago

I think that banning smoking in public places makes sense because you are impacting other people. I think banning things for kids makes sense because it’s a big wide world and it’s our duty to protect them. I’m not a fan of banning the things that a grown adult can do when it only affects them personally, however much I despise smoking. Since when have people decided that giving up personal liberty is fine. If you want to look 15 years older with gross teeth, horrible smell and die at 60, it’s kind of up to you.

slibhb6• 3 months ago

It's sad that the UK, which invented liberal philosophy, is increasingly accepting of paternalism. It's important that people have an inviolable personal sphere inside which they can live their lives as they see fit. That includes making decisions of which society disaproves.

Moreover, essentially all behavior plausibly has "diffuse negative externalities". We should be very careful about adopting that ("harms others in diffuse ways") as a reasonable standard for banning some behavior.

ramesh31• 3 months ago

The real answer would be to ban all commercial cultivation and sales, but keep personal consumption legal. It's the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry that systematically hooks people through advertising, not the plant. Something tells me not many folks will be growing tobacco plants in their basement to get a fix.

burnt-resistor4• 3 months ago

It's been this way for over 60 years. Big Mommy tells you how to live.

negura4• 3 months ago

we now have empirical evidence of where liberalism leads us: to an amoral, predatory marketplace. which profits from exploiting people who are helplessly addicted to poisons like nicotine, processed foods and alcohol. how much worse does it need to get before we go back to the drawing board?

slibhb6• 3 months ago

Liberalism has led us to almost unbelievable prosperity. The fact that it has some downsides does not suggest that we have to "go back to the drawing board"

EgorKolds• 3 months ago

If anything, I think it will only increase the number of young people smoking.

nkapias• 3 months ago

First I've heard of generational ban was in a hundred years old novel from Jack London (maybe an autobiography ? can't remember the name). It certainly was about alcohol, maybe he mentioned tobacco as well, anyway the idea and debate certainly aren't new.

I find bewildering that such concepts are tried only centuries later, and wonder how it comes to be possible. Is it that we can finally enforce them, or that the lobbying have been gradually weakened, or enough data to drive decision, etc. ?

scoofy6• 3 months ago

My main problem with this is the "do as I say not as I do" intergenerational conflict.

It just seems completely absurd to me that a government thinks it's acceptable to treat a generation unable to vote differently from the generations who can. It's really an absurd unfreedom and a kind of tyranny.

Why not just pass a law that says people born after 2008 have to pay higher taxes, and work longer hours for less pay? People should be equal under the law.

Daviey3• 3 months ago

Why not just pass a law that says people born after 2008 have to pay higher taxes, and work longer hours for less pay? People should be equal under the law.

We already do this, the UK State Pension age is currently rising from 66 to 67 for those born on or after April 6, 1960.

This change affects, for example, those born between April 1960 and March 1961, who will have a pension age of 66 plus a set number of months.

When I was young, it was 65 for men and 60 for women (from the 1940s until 2010)

OkayPhysicist5• 3 months ago

See, that at least affects a big enough swath of voters that they could, if mattered to them, vote everyone involved out. This smoking ban is specifically designed to not affect a single voter.

scoofy6• 3 months ago

I mean, that's a practical and relatively small adjustment where the far-and-away majority of the voting populous are the people who are affected by the change. Yes, if you wanted to nitpick there, you could, there is a very small injustice there, but this is completely different.

My point here is that this is under 18s currently have no representation, and they're passing laws that will forever treat them as a kind of underclass, "for their own good." It's genuinely ridiculous that it's allowed to happen. In doing this, the UK -- for all it's progress a creating a mostly symbolic nobility -- will now allow a new kind of class system to emerge, where the young can be overtly dominated and discriminated against by the old. It's ridiculous. People should be equal under the law.

sidewndr46• 3 months ago

Why not just pass a law that says people born after 2008 have to pay higher taxes, and work longer hours for less pay?

That in general is what inflation is

scoofy6• 3 months ago

No. That's very much not what inflation is.

pessimizer• 3 months ago

Why not just pass a law that says people born after 2008 have to pay higher taxes, and work longer hours for less pay? People should be equal under the law.

This is one of the ways they broke the unions in the US. They offered agreements where new hires would get lower pay and fewer benefits than the old workers. Evil.

kkarakk• 3 months ago

Just like that - Smoking just got infinitely more cool among UK youth

insane_dreamer• 3 months ago

Smoking is clearly harmful, but I'm not sure about laws that criminalize adults from deciding what they want to do with their own bodies. Health care costs are a factor, but I don't know about the UK but in the US these days, junk food and sodas probably incur more health care costs through obesity, than smoking.

What I do favor of is making cigarettes highly inaccessible -- i.e., restrict the sale to a very limited number of licensed locations, impose high taxes so they're very expensive. If it's still fairly widespread, raise the taxes even more. I think we should do the same with Coke /Pepsi/etc.

burnt-resistor4• 3 months ago

Exactly. This ageist, discriminatory, paternalistic prohibition will create crime and a black market and won't solve much of anything.

cmxch• 3 months ago

Interesting to see them do this when the original study in Singapore did not (initially) enact the ban.

Did they just follow on from New Zealand?

rayiner• 3 months ago

How is this constitutional lol. Especially the age discrimination aspect.

Xiol• 3 months ago

The UK doesn't have a constitution.

asdefghyk• 3 months ago

Maybe growing kits , for sale will grow? ie seeds , and other useful / needed growing accessories .... reply

mrandish• 3 months ago

So, then some day in the distant future a 66 year-old guy standing outside a store will be asking a 67 year-old guy to buy him a pack of smokes.

rvz• 3 months ago

Bans are surely going to work for sure. /s

NoPicklez4• 3 months ago

This is a good thing.

Maybe I could sit here and debate the pros and cons, supposed crap about my liberties, is the age bracket the right way to go about it. But this is a good thing, there is nothing good about cigarettes no matter which way you argue it, or compare it to anything else.

whattheheckheck2• 3 months ago

Buckle up for more legally enforceable parental guidance for how you should live your life to serve the state

NoPicklez4• 3 months ago

Should we completely stop smoking? Yes. There is absolutely nothing about it that is good for us or anyone near those smoking.

Its not just how you life your life to the state, its for your own health and those around you. Your life will be marginally better without cigarettes.

baggy_trough• 3 months ago

This is an obscenity.

tsoukase• 3 months ago

Smoking is debilitating, so is alcohol, drugs and gambling. Since the last >100 we see a trend to gradually restrict them, one by one, albeit inconsistently. Smoking was a casual habit in the 60s, next it was banned indoors and now before a certain age. In the (not too) distant future it might me totally banned next to its cousin, cannabis. Tldr, the decision is not surprising but expected, following the trend.

taylorius• 3 months ago

As the saying goes - "Alcohol is an excellent servant, but a terrible master." The same could be said for Metrics. So much is measurable these days, and we love to watch the chart go up or down. If it hasn't been measured, it doesn't exist. And the bureaucrats conjure reality with nothing but a spreadsheet and the flourish of a rubber stamp.

perilunar2• 3 months ago

I have a slightly different take on this. Tobacco is a product that is sold by producers who know it is both highly addictive and extremely bad for their customers' health. That should be illegal. But it should not be illegal for people to consume (as long as they don't harm others via second hand smoke). The principle is simple: harming other people deliberately is wrong. (Harming yourself is merely stupid).

So I would ban the manufacture and sale of tobacco, but make it perfectly legal to grow your own. Smoke as much as you want. Just don't harm others.

Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

Related Stories