1y ago

UK Prime Minister to create ‘smokefree generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009

www.gov.uk

Prime Minister to create ‘smokefree generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009

I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”

I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.

(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)

United Kingdom @feddit.uk

thehatfox @lemmy.world

2y ago

Prime Minister to create ‘smokefree generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009

www.gov.uk /government/news/prime-minister-to-create-smokefree-generation-by-ending-cigarette-sales-to-those-born-on-or-after-1-january-2009

44 comments

I'll happily pick a side as a kid who grew up in a house constantly full of smoke and a parent who's a total mess at least partially because of this. Good. It's about time some serious steps were taken. Not to mention the effects of second hand smoke.
- You're parent(s) not having the sense to go outside and stay away from you while smoking shouldn't impact my ability to smoke alone.
  
  And it won't, unless you were born after 2009.
I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body. That said, we need to do a better job keeping children off of those substances (and all the other ones that aren’t legal for adults, but should be)
( Exception for things like antibiotics, which endanger everyone else if you abuse them. Other drugs should be regulated like alcohol : no sale to minors, restrictions on activities like driving when under the influence. Maybe the age should also be 21 or 25 instead of 18 )
On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried 🤷🏻‍♀️
- South Africa was trying this when I moved away about 15 years ago. If you wanted to smoke you had to sit in separate closed off area in restaurants (for example).
  ~~No idea what the ultimate outcome of that was though.~~
  Edit: According to smokefreeworld.org:
  The adult smoking rate declined from 27.1 percent in 2000 to 18.2 percent in 2012
- I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body.
  A couple other comments seem to imply this a full-blown prohibition as well. To be clear, my interpretation is that this is not a total prohibition. From the article:
  The government is set to introduce a historic new law to stop children who turn 14 this year or younger from ever legally being sold cigarettes in England, in a bid to create the first ‘smokefree generation’.
  So IIUC, there is no possession or consumption offense, and anyone at any age can grow their own or import¹ it. They’re just making it inconvenient to acquire by controlling commerce. That inconvenience will certainly add to the cool factor of kids who become the resourceful hookup.
  ¹ I suppose they will be able to carry it into the country, but probably legit mail order shops will be controlled. Not sure.
  On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried
  IIRC, the smoking ban in restaurants and bars started in CA or NY, then swept around the world from there. Then NY supposedly banned smoking near outdoor bus stops or something. Not sure if that experiment spread.
- That was my thought too. Ban it in public spaces so the rest of us don't have to breath that toxic shit, but if people want to spend money to kill themselves at home then let them. But don't cover their related health expenses.
  
  I disagree about the health stuff, but I’m French, so I’ve always taken is as a given that we pay (almost) every healthcare expense through taxes. If you ask me, that’s just the cost of freedom 🤷🏻‍♀️
- i think new zealand and australia tried
The intention is meritable. As usual, Tories misunderstand how to achieve the stated objective. They'll be creating a secondary market whereby those born before 2009 will supply cigarettes to those born after 2009... for a fee of course. Party of business and entrepreneurialship.
Also, drinking yourself into a stupor seems to be socially acceptable in the UK whilst the cost is much larger.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/24/tories-failure-to-tackle-alcohol-harm-is-causing-public-health-crisis-say-mps
Cigarettes were already heavily taxed in the UK anyway. The relative share of smokers is much lower compared to places like France.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country
If the goal is to improve everyone's well-being, is this the best way to achieve it?
- Until no one is left alive who can buy cigarettes. Or rather, until no one produces cigarettes on an industrial level because the narket is so small. Then they need to grow tobacco themselves and suffer without buckets of toxic shit put into commercial cigarettes.
  I'm all for making drastic positive changes in our lifetimes, but a slow change is better than no change
Didn't New Zealand try this and eventually walk it back?
- A different government came in and cancelled it to fund tax cuts
I can kinda support raising the ages for drugs, alcohol and tobacco to 19, 21 or even 25. Major human brain development is still ongoing until about 25. Or perhaps restricting the quantity they can buy.
We already see car rental companies restricting rentals to those ages and insurance companies having higher risk premiums.
And I would also put limits on things like gambling and credit card debt for those ages. And yes, stop student loans in totality.
But the idea that we are going to ban 30 and 40 year olds from consuming cigarettes is just laughable.
- I can kinda support raising the ages for drugs, alcohol and tobacco to 19, 21 or even 25. Major human brain development is still ongoing until about 25. Or perhaps restricting the quantity they can buy.
  There was some research finding that people who use psychedelic mushrooms are made more psychologically flexible (open minded) for the rest of their life. But the caveat is that the permanent open mindedness effect only happens if the shrooms are consumed before age 35 -- presumably precisely because the brain still has significant neuroplasticity.
- One has known carcinogens, one does not
  It's why many would support vaping but not cigarettes
  
  Tar ist created through incomplete combustion. Both burn.
- Smoking habits are vastly different between the two. THC has strong inhibiting effects so must people will usually smoke smaller quantities (often just a quarter of a gram) and will probably do it as a way of unwinding after work or share a joint with friends when they're hanging out. Nicotine on the other hand isn't inhibiting and if anything can give a little boost. Because of this someone can smoke a whole cigarette and go about their day at work. Often times taking multiple breaks during the work day. Tolerance also builds up very quickly and there are significantly stronger addictive effects which often leads to people smoking several cigarettes a day even when they aren't getting the effects while the practice of taking tolerance breaks is pretty common even with heavy weed smokers since there isn't any real withdrawal. Sure there are people that smoke multiple joints a day, but there are also people that smoke a pack or more of cigarettes a day and they're able to stay much more functional while doing so which means that there isn't the negative feedback you'd get from being stoned all the time.
  All of that would hold true if both substances were equally toxic. However studies show that weed is far far less carcinogenic than tobacco. It's not healthy to smoke anything, but what you smoke and how much does matter.
  
  So do we ban strong spirits and leave beer alone then too?
The rhetoric seems clever, but it is based on very shaky logic. Smoking is a choice, I made it for years and eventually made the choice to stop. Banning the sale of tobacco also doesn't prevent smoking - it just prevents the government from taxing smoking. Just like weed, just like other drugs. We already have problems with unregulated vapes being sold to kids, surely this is only going to make that problem worse by driving even tobacco vape liquid sales underground?
- The ban is on cigs not really vapes it seems (apart from the flavored ones that attract kids). In which case people are being steered toward vaping, which will likely do well in competing against black market cigs. If the goal is to keep kids off the worst of the worst, focusing on cig bans while keeping unflavored vapes on the table would seem to be the most effective compromise.
  I’m not endorsing it.. but just in terms of the gov achieving its goals (one of which is cancer reduction) it seems they will succeed to the extent possible with this approach.
But no vaping ban?
The cynic in me says this is to test the water to see how pliable we are. What else will follow if we accept this, I wonder?
- I doubt vaping has the health consequences that cigs do. Baking the plant at a precise temperature needed to just release the desired chemicals instead of burning it and releasing all toxins presumably would result in less cancer. Cigs also have filters that attempt (and fail) to trap the unwanted chemicals and iirc there’s also some recent research that the filters themselves have some negative health consequences (for both the smoker and for the environment when the discarded filter chemicals leech into the ground water).
  Note I’ve not studied this in depth but that’s my off-the-cuff understanding.
This cowardly way of making laws seems exactly like changing public pension plans to make sure they only affect people too young to care about it right now.
Prohibit it for everyone and take your lumps, or don't. Doing things that only affect non-voters is pathetic cowardice.
Don’t worry guys, this is just Rishi’s way of telling big tobacco that he needs money. I’m sure a huge pot of cash can make this all go away for them.
Not to get all conspiracy-minded but banning tobacco is a great precedent for keeping cannabis illegal.
How about you just ban additives and allow native people to grow roll and sell tobacco as they used to back before colonization? The natives, as far as I know, weren't putting formaldehyde in their tobacco, so removing all the additives and allowing natural cigarettes to be sold by a group who were completely oppressed wouldn't be a bad fucking idea
- This article is about the UK. People of the UK are the natives; didn't colonize themselves
  
  Britain has been colonized at least five times: by the Celts, then by the Romans, then the Saxons, then the Norse, and finally by the Norman French, and those are only the ones we know about.
  The only lands that haven't been colonized at some point in their history are Antarctica and recently settled islands like Iceland and some of the Pacific Islands.
  
  Fair enough I guess

44 comments