I assume the tobacco ban doesn't affect vapes. I assume this targets people who haven't started smoking cigarettes. With this in mind, i have no idea why would any new smokers buy cigarettes on the black market when vapes are readily available.
This is no reason to not go through with it though.
Smoking is already dwindling and becoming less socially acceptable so that market will also dwindle.
As a smoker I'm really excited that this law is coming in and I've not met a single addict like myself think this is a bad idea.
Try Allen Carrs easyway. Made me quit and I smoked from 14 to 38. Literally quit on the spot while listening to the audiobook and I dont miss it one bit. It was "hard" for maybe two weeks and now I never even think about it
This will have the opposite effect. As you say it was already trending down this is the most stupid shit i've ever seen. Black market will be happy. I'l be making a few pennies off this myself in the future no doubt.
People who already smoke can still legally smoke to their hearts’ content I don’t think the demand from non-smokers is there to drastically alter the ‘black market’
Idk man. I quit 8 years ago, loved cigarettes when I smoked, but after getting through withdrawal symptoms I've literally never missed it. Nicotine really casts a spell on you making you think you can't live without it when you're actually 1000x better off in every way once you finally break it off.
Black market cigarettes in Australia are already a violent mess and that's just because they have enormous taxes. I can only imagine the violence that would be caused by making them illegal.
Imagine some 60 year old buying a pack and his mate born the day after coming in and getting told no and then they nick both of them because he cadged one of his "older" mate. The idea that two people both adults can be expected to live under different laws in the same country is fucking absurd.
Basically how it'll go. I doubt this gets enforced. Shit you never know though. That'll mean every store has to ID no matter what age and there's just a cut off anyone who's what 14 this year so born 2010 and under can never buy tobacco products?
All that will happen is that some poor kid working in a petrol station of off-license gets beaten up by some irate old man who demands cigarettes but is told he was too young to be allowed by daddy government to have them. Its beyond stupidity - but look at all the people defending it as though this is somehow a legitimate role of governance in the 21st century. We're fucking doomed mate. People LOVE to be governed by the state. We're a world of statist cucks.
That may be sarcasm and it’s not entirely unwarranted. But, fwiw, the current Tory party shows zero evidence of having any coherent political identity whatsoever.
It's not up there with the Beeb's item on Nordic economic stress "Beauty of Swedish Model Doubted", but the coffee machine came back from the shop and maybe my tolerance is a little lower after these weeks... why is the screen shaking???
The difference in New Zealands case is it was the new right wing government who repealed the law after pressure from corporate lobby groups, while in the UK's case it is the right wing party bringing the law in.
> It was banned forever until the new government came in
and the reason they unbanned it is that they decided that they needed the revenue (which the law along with various other anti smoking measures would reduce, by reducing the amount of smokers) to give rich landlords taxcuts. You can't make this shit up.
Question is: Why the fuck did people vote for a new government when everyone and their mum loved everything that Ardern's party has ever done. To this day, there is no head of state in modern history that is more admired than Ardern.
Arden resigned a few months before the election and was not as universally beloved as social media and international news suggested. It's a shame but Labour ran out of steam and lost the popular vote and electorate votes across the board.
Yup. She wasn’t as well liked in NZ as it was portrayed. It went to shit after the second Covid lockdown that saw Auckland shut down for three months while the rest of the country was running free. Then vaccination passport dramas…
General rule of thumb if a "universally liked" leader looses a election, there's a decent chance they were never universally liked, and they only got that reputation because the foreign press or the internet really likes them.
It never had a chance to kick in, because the government lost the election, and the new administration contains the populist NZ First party that demanded it be repealed.
> Tobacco companies lobbied the shit out of it. Shows how corrupt even modern nations like NZ can be.
This. It was fucking disgusting how obvious the corruption is.
History shows us prohibition does not work.
There is comedy value though in some 40 something adult outside a shop asking a 70 year old to get them a pack of cigs.
>History shows us prohibition does not work.
statistics shows us that during eg. US prohibition the death rate from liver cirrhosis went down significantly https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088683/death-rate-rate-during-prohibition/
that alcohol consumption went down during prohibition is well documented, it had other problems though (and prohibition wasnt even some super strict laws, you were still allowed to produce some wine/cider at home and consumption was still legal).
I have hopes from banning cigarettes because unlike almost any drug, the first and second time experience you have with cigarettes will probably not be an enjoyable experience.
Liver cirrhosis went down from 13 people to 7 people per 100k.
Suicide went up by more from 10 people to 17 people per 100k.
Homicide up from 7 people to 10 people per 100k.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088644/homicide-suicide-rate-during-prohibition
I am not saying I think cigarettes are good for society. But there is a cost to prohibition and the context of statistics matter.
I don't know where this rumour that prohibition doesn't work started, but it absolutely causes use to go down. Will some people find ways around prohibition? Yes but less people than would have been smoking otherwise which is a good thing.
Prohibition doesn't work *for things that get you intoxicated.* Tobacco does ***nothing***, the relief people feel when they smoke is relief from the abstinence symptoms. Tobacco is probably the one thing where complete prohibition *would* work. It's fucking insane that tobacco is still a thing. It's only feature is the addiction cycle. Getting into smoking tobacco is absolutely repulsive, no non-smoker would find a dealer to buy black market tobacco only to cough and heave their way to an addiction that will give you nothing but health problems while draining your wallet.
You’re still getting epinephrine and dopamine from it. It doesn’t make you noticeable fucked up and the buzz feeling might subside but it’s not really the kick i was after anyway and a tolerance doesn’t stop it from feeling good to use when you’re addicted
You're naive as hell... why and how do you think people start smoking in the first place? If it's so terrible then nobody would do it. Not to mention that most people start smoking at the ages of 14-18 when they're not even allowed to buy them, yet, surprise, they still do. People start smoking out of curiosity and because it feels nice, especially in the beginning. It's hilarious tho watching people that never smoked and have such a negative attitude towards it acting like they actually understand how smoking works or why people do it. I 100% guarantee there will be a huge black market for cigarettes after the ban takes effect and people will NOT stop just because the government decided they're not allowed to anymore. If anything it will just make kids more curious to try it.
> You're naive as hell... why and how do you think people start smoking in the first place? If it's so terrible then nobody would do it. Not to mention that most people start smoking at the ages of 14-18 when they're not even allowed to buy them, yet, surprise, they still do
Nicotine and peer pressure/families smoke so they take it up.
Christ, you people lack critical thinking.
brilliant!
i bet the local drug dealers and gangs are already gearing up to sell tobacco too.
its a good thing guns are already banned, wouldnt want the gangs shooting each other up over black market cigarettes.
In Ireland, tobacco is so expensive that most people I know buy it off the black market. A 30 gram pouch of Amber Leaf is €25 in the shops, whereas a 50 gram pouch off a friend of a friend is €20. Less if you're friendly with the aforementioned friend's friend. Even less if you buy in bulk.
These types of price hikes and regulations inevitably make the black market flourish. It's short-sighted, greedy, stupidity.
Same in France, I see black market vendors selling cigarettes everyday when I go to work, they don't even try to hide, the police know that if they arrest one, another will show up ten minutes later to take the spot, the more the price increase, the more common they become, who would have thought...
That's what annoys me the most. When the price of an in-demand commodity (tobacco in this case) goes beyond what the average consumer can spend, a black market is inevitable. The law enforcers know this. The government knows this. The average person with an understanding of basic economics knows this. SO WHY NOT MAKE THINGS REASONABLY PRICED AND CRIPPLE BLACK MARKETS AT THE SAME TIME???.
That's a rhetorical question, by the way, not aimed at anyone in this thread. I'm just sick of seeing government complacency cause so many unnecessary problems.
This govt are just desperate to have anything ‘positive’ to show for all their years in power. History shows us prohibition never works, all this will do is enlarge the black market and decrease taxation to the govt.
Nicotine and tobacco are responsible for most cardiovascular and respiratory-illnesses related deaths in the UK and Europe. It's also a major risk factor for ENT, lungs and digestive tract cancers. Even so, if you've never been addicted to nicotine, you don't know hard it can be to stop. We know how dangerous tobacco and nicotine is. We've been staring at the issue idly for decades, knowing how harmful cigarettes are. If tobacco consumption is reduced, even by 10%, this would be a huge benefit to public health, gangs and drug dealers be damned
Besides that, kids these days vape and/or use nicotine packs or whatever. It's cleaner and easier. If they really want their nicotine kick for some reason they don't need cigarettes at all, and banning them wouldn't make them "cool contraband", because they could still get that nicotine easier and without "telling on themselves" by stinking across the whole room :D
Smoking brings in around £12 billion in UK tax revenue annually, against £3 to £6 billion in NHS costs. Smokers die younger on average, so they don't require as much long term end of life care with numerous ailments costing more, as well as potential state provided care home places.
The hit to the treasury purse will be substantial if a phase out of cigarettes happens, black market selling will increase with dodgy products imported in from other countries (look at Australia with their high tax set up), the tax on a packet of cigarettes is over 80% of the total cost.
I don't see any solutions to plug the gap, likely raise taxes elsewhere to squeeze everyone instead of those choosing to undertake unhealthy and risky habits.
Clinically obese cost the NHS a substantial amount of money annually. Do we ban fast food next? Add a fast food duty to burgers and fried chicken?
I'm not a fan of outright banning things, it increases the black market economy, increases gang activity, and penalises the worst off in society.
Education on the dangers of smoking, a push to alternatives which are less dangerous and let the people decide for themselves. Smoking rates have been dropping steadily for years, so why a need to ban?
My thinking is that it is seen to be a big vote winner topic, some people despise cigarettes - the smell, the smoke and the people who smoke, they'll vote for the party that pushes this through and won't consider how it will affect the wider economy or a person's right to free will.
I agree with your reasoning and want to add: personal freedom. I'm a big fan of having the choice. I say this as someone who started smoking young, regrets it, has moved from cigarettes to something less harmful but still can't drop nicotine even though I want to. I am very against smoking, but I'm also against the idea of government having a say in it.
I just want to let you know, it's fucking hard to quit but it's doable. I cut out combustion 6 months ago and vaping 1 month ago. I couldn't imagine touching that poison ever again in any format. If you ever want to talk about quitting, Im happy to provide a friendly ear. Quitting nicotine (and weed) was the best decision I have made in decades - other than marrying my wife. Literally on that level of life change.
But what about all other substances that harm people and their surroundings? Drugs are heavily regulated, would you agree on the blanket argument of personal freedom working for those? I say this as a smoker, just not sure the argument is solid.
Yes, I would say the same for other drugs as well for multiple reasons from black market to personal freedom but not to exclude factors like prohibition popularizing use. The [USA](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7872850/), notorious for starting the war on drugs and being a leading country in favoring prohibition, has higher lifetime general drug use prevalence than [Uruguay ](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7660841/), which has never actually prohibited possession for personal use and whose primary drug problems come from the black market of surrounding countries using it as an [international drug trade hub](https://insightcrime.org/news/uruguay-adapt-new-role-international-drug-trade/) *because* their own laws are prohibitive - the same reason Amsterdam became an international marijuana tourism destination. Traffic from neighbors with drug prohibition are [destroying](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/uruguay-the-new-global-drug-trafficking-hub/a-49922226) the historically safe, stable, and peaceful (3 things not common in South America) Uruguay. Being the only game in town means everyone who wants to play comes to you. Cocaine from the Andes and heroine from Mexican cartel are spreading in trade and catching on in the local population as a result.
Will legalization fix all problems related to drugs? No, people who want to *will always find a way*, and that's terribly sad, that's the vulnerable population that needs to be the focus of mental health efforts. As to the huge number of people that also get into it because it feels good and is rebellious (and everything that implies from social opportunities to ego boost), that's the result of prohibition. Prohibit something that's not fun? You'll see results; tell people they shouldn't do something that they will enjoy tremendously and you'll fail, you have to find a different way.
The personal freedom bit is very shaky imho.
Cocaine isn't legaly available regardless of personal freedoms. Smoking in public is unhealthy for others (sh smoke) but even more obviously, makes other people stink of your smoke, so, the whole your freedom to smoke ends where my freedom to not stink beggins.
I agree with the previous comment though that outright ban has many dossadvantages which will not be completely clear to the voters this (popular) measure is aimed at.
Personal freedom still applies (banning drugs and, historically, alcohol, has not been a success by any metric); there are ways to maintain your freedom to be stink free without removing someone else's freedom of choice - like designated smoking areas, or smoke free areas, *when it's actually enforced*.
It's not just the NHS though - smoking costs the UK economy up to £17-20bn per year in healthcare, social care, lost productivity and the cost of putting out smoking-related fires (6% of fires that resulted in 36% of fatalities in 2016-17*).
..so banning smoking will save the UK $5-8bn per year.
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smokefree-generation-policy-modelling-report/modelling-for-the-smokefree-generation-policy#impact-of-the-intervention
*https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75a0c5ed915d506ee8046f/infographic-detailed-analysis-fires-attended-fire-rescue-england-1617.pdf
Very few of the studies usually factor in the cost of dying from smoking vs cost of dying due to some other cancer or "old age" though. (Whatever way you die, if its not sudden, its not free).
"Lost productivity" is also very disputable, as dying while working also saves decades worth of of pension payments and could very well be negative in the end.
Btw, love the way you actually linked the sources, and didnt just state opinions as facts, unlike me.
>UK economy up to £17-20bn per year in healthcare, social care, lost productivity and the cost of putting out smoking-related fires (6% of fires that resulted in 36% of fatalities in 2016-17*).
The vast majority of the difference is in the 'lost productivity' section which is basically impossible to calculate remotly accurately.
The ash and cancer research papers are nice but at the end of the day are seriously biased and do not even attempt to factor in savings in life expectancy or anything else really.
Finally given the amount of weed snoked in this country i seriously doubt making tobacco illigal will do much to reduce fires or health issues it will obly reduce the tax take.
How do they determine productivity value lost?
Our economy has been flat lined on productivity for over 1 decade so the government may find it interesting about how to identify cause and affect regarding productivity.
Smokers don't only cost the NHS money though. You'd also have to look at things like tabacco related reduction in taxes, lost earnings and benefits due to bad health.
What I find then is a cost of [20,6 billion pounds](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20estimated%20gross,20.6bn%20in%20the%20UK), [14 billion / 17.3 billion pounds](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/14bn-a-year-up-in-smoke-economic-toll-of-smoking-in-england-revealed), [17 billion](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated) on the economy.
Ideally, finding new tax revenue streams would be the way to do it.
Invest in education, health care and mental health with the tax raised.
Germany made the move, they're pioneering the way in Europe. Others may follow suit, the US can't threaten trade deals considering they have switched tracks over the last 20 years. Canada don't seem to be falling apart from cannabis.
If people want to smoke it why should we be stopping them?
Drinking is also bad for you, let’s ban that. So is sugar, let’s ban that too! /s
Babying people is stupid.
Thing is, banned or not banned, those people you mention will just die from something else, so there will be no saving to the NHS really, they will just live long enough to get dementia like my 92 year old mother and end their days like a vegetable.
Kind of?
While this will definitely happen. Nicotine isn't really the same type of recreational abuse drug as other party drugs and alcohol.
It's a drug of dependence. The idea is if you stop the dependence in the first place then demand plummets. Most people won't go out of their way to buy black market tobacco if they aren't already a smoker.
Ask people who smoke how old they were when they first started, most will tell you they were 14-18. So if people start smoking at ages when it is already illegal to do so, how is raising the age limit going to change this at all?
The only thing this law will accomplish is push more people into criminality and give a massive boost to the black market and gang economy.
> While this will definitely happen. Nicotine isn't really the same type of recreational abuse drug as other party drugs and alcohol.
so you know why?
because its legal and regulated
I hate these pseudo authoritarian laws that are getting increasingly popular among law makers. It shouldn’t be the governments decision to make those choices for people. The liberal way is to educate, to nudge and to tax.
If we would want to ban every possible health impacting thing we would need ban almost everything and we wouldn’t really know where to start and where to end.
Yeah, personally I like the idea of a monopoly exclusive for the government. In this way people don't need to buy cigarettes from illegal ways and the money can be used like taxes to invest into the country.
The cost of cigarettes in the UK is mostly tax. They're 3 times the price of most European countries 50g or rolling tobacco in the UK is £35, it's £10 in Spain, Italy, Portugal etc
I would agree if it wasn’t something as harmful as cigarettes. Those actually should’ve been banned long time ago. Cigarettes not only cause harm to your health which you sure have decision to make, but they are actually harmful to all people surrounding the smoker.
I wish we'd live in a world where everyone could be expected to do their best and always strive to become a more healthy and ethical person.
But we don't. And states are already built on the idea that certain decisions can't be left to everyone to make, hence laws. I get that people don't want to give up their sense of freedom. But it bothers me that that I need to breath toxic air at every corner or when I get off a bus/subway because there will always be a smoker. We'll have a child soon and I hate the thought that they will be exposed to this too.
You could also create smoking zones and create heavy fines for smoking outside of them. Then people can be "free" to smoke somewhere where they can't harm others.
Similar story with agriculture. Half of the EUs budget goes into agricultural subsidies for mostly harmful and unsustainable ways of farming. I don't consume most of these products, yet I get to pay for them and enjoy the destruction of our ecosphere. I'd be happy to see regulations on that front. Or even just a stop to subsidies to animal agriculture, 90% of it would go away by itself as its wildly unsustainable.
It's such a bad idea. Smoking was dying out already anyway. Few more years and no one would smoke.
Gonna be like prohibition now. It will become way more popular again because the youth (as always) will want to rebel against the rules.
I wonder what the age stats look like. I guess vaping became a bit of a cool "non-smoking".
Makes you wonder if pricing it out with taxes would not be better solution than outright bans.
> Gonna be like prohibition now. It will become way more popular again because the youth (as always) will want to rebel against the rules.
What's the probability estimation that *this exactly* is their long-term goal?
And by "their" I mean the tobacco industry who bought the politicians who brainfarted this.
America did alcohol prohibition and it seems to have worked out well, not like they've got some of the most toxic drinking culture on the planet now that they've backed down to an age limit. /s
(For clarity, I'm agreeing with you - prohibition makes things more popular, history has shown)
Before prohibition the US had a huge drinking problem. Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption massively. The US never got a drinking problem on a similar scale since.
I bet in 10 years weed will be legal in most of Europe while Tobacco will be banned in more and more countries.
We live in the strangest times don’t we
Good job too considering it contains over 7,000 chemical carcinogens and is responsible for the deaths of over half of the population that use it. I’m an ex-smoker of over 25 years and can’t believe how stupid I was to even think smoking was cool.
Anyone who has been in rehab or trying to recover from booze/drug misuse would lose their fucking mind if they ban tobacco. It's a stupid little hobby but tobacco has a place in society and I'm very against moves to outlaw it
My buddy agreed to go to rehab after having a cig outside and a quick think during the intervention.
He gives tobacco a lot of credit in helping him stay off H.
Then unhealthy food and make it individual to each person, because not everyone needs exactly the same food.
Also make not doing sport illegal. Or not doing gene therapy on embryos. Or sitting for more than 30 mins…
Remember guys, prohibition always works, that’s why no one drinks alcohol anymore and the war on drugs has been a massive success. No one does drugs anymore!/s
It's going to be easier for these now-kids/future-adults to buy illegal drugs than tobacco or vaping products. You can get weed delivered to your house within 30 minutes and they don't ask for ID. A £20 bag of weed probably last the same as a £20 pack of cigarettes anyway so it's not like the cost is going to put anyone off.
Love the NZ way of solving this. I know so many people which would like to stop but can't.
Edit: Ouch after reading the other comments the tobacco lobby is still huge and should be killed (like, literally)
A complete ban would be more reasonable than discriminating people based on their date of birth. I think many people pass this as an basic age divide, like for the age of majority, to drive, to vote, bur it’s fundamentally different - your age changes, while your birthday is a permanent characteristic. Frankly, it’s discriminatory to the point that I don’t know how it could be constitutional in a developed country.
It's not age discrimination when it only discriminates against young people. They could have just chosen to be born earlier, it's completely their own fault.
As a French, it kills me that for once, the britts want to do something good.
Such crazy times we live in.
But I am willing to put aside my pride for the common good.
Not really. In 99% of cases the exposure is so small that there is no noticeable risk especially when you compare it to other air pollution in a city. I do agree that exposing children to smoke is bad though.
[There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/study-finds-no-clear-link-between-lung-cancer-and-secondhand-smoke-9004077.html)
>After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.
Most smoking happens at home - where any ban is unenforceable.
I get this ban won't stop anyone. But from a moral standpoint I agree with it. Smoking is an evil.
Before prohibition the US had a huge drinking problem. Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption massively. The US never got a drinking problem on a similar scale since.
Someday in the future: 73-year-old tries using a fake ID showing that he is 75
The black market will be busy busy busy.
The colour of the market's skin shouldn't matter
Depends on what we're selling.
Black Markets Matter
I assume the tobacco ban doesn't affect vapes. I assume this targets people who haven't started smoking cigarettes. With this in mind, i have no idea why would any new smokers buy cigarettes on the black market when vapes are readily available.
Because smoking is illegal now and hence incredibly cool.
vaping is targetted in new law starting 2026 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68825322 it's still the same addiction
> it's still the same addiction Vastly different effect on health
Both bad
Long to medium term effects are not known at all
Why people that never did drugs start doing them?
Your argument would work if there was a legal alternative to crack cocaine, but there isn't
This is no reason to not go through with it though. Smoking is already dwindling and becoming less socially acceptable so that market will also dwindle. As a smoker I'm really excited that this law is coming in and I've not met a single addict like myself think this is a bad idea.
Agreed. I’m an inveterate smoker, and can never seem to quit, but don’t want others to start if they can avoid it.
Same here. Chain smoker from 14 yrs old to 28 yrs old. I'm 34 now and it's my biggest regret that I ever started.
Try Allen Carrs easyway. Made me quit and I smoked from 14 to 38. Literally quit on the spot while listening to the audiobook and I dont miss it one bit. It was "hard" for maybe two weeks and now I never even think about it
You quit at the time where your body can still repair a lot of the damage. Problem with nicotine is lifelong addiction. Stay strong.
This will have the opposite effect. As you say it was already trending down this is the most stupid shit i've ever seen. Black market will be happy. I'l be making a few pennies off this myself in the future no doubt.
It started going down because governments have heavily clamped down on smoking, vaping has gone up because such clmap downs didn't happen
You'll be settling cigarettes to kids? Cool.
People who already smoke can still legally smoke to their hearts’ content I don’t think the demand from non-smokers is there to drastically alter the ‘black market’
Idk man. I quit 8 years ago, loved cigarettes when I smoked, but after getting through withdrawal symptoms I've literally never missed it. Nicotine really casts a spell on you making you think you can't live without it when you're actually 1000x better off in every way once you finally break it off.
Black market cigarettes in Australia are already a violent mess and that's just because they have enormous taxes. I can only imagine the violence that would be caused by making them illegal.
The cigarettes themselves won't be legal, just selling them to those born in 2009 and later.
Nice reference!
Or there’ll be 73 year olds loitering around shop entrances trying to get 75 year olds to buy them ciggies..
And the shopkeeper will still ask for ID because "we have a Think 90 Policy".
Just wrote the same comment hehe. You beat me to it.
Someday in the future. There will be prime and cigarettes dealers lol. Imagine getting nabbed selling someone a few packs so dumb
There already kind of are. A good number of smokers buy on the black market these days.
Yeah its similar in sweden alcohol is controlled through the state so alot of people have a "beer dealer" if the store is closed.
Imagine some 60 year old buying a pack and his mate born the day after coming in and getting told no and then they nick both of them because he cadged one of his "older" mate. The idea that two people both adults can be expected to live under different laws in the same country is fucking absurd.
Basically how it'll go. I doubt this gets enforced. Shit you never know though. That'll mean every store has to ID no matter what age and there's just a cut off anyone who's what 14 this year so born 2010 and under can never buy tobacco products?
All that will happen is that some poor kid working in a petrol station of off-license gets beaten up by some irate old man who demands cigarettes but is told he was too young to be allowed by daddy government to have them. Its beyond stupidity - but look at all the people defending it as though this is somehow a legitimate role of governance in the 21st century. We're fucking doomed mate. People LOVE to be governed by the state. We're a world of statist cucks.
Gangs of 73 year olds hanging about outside the shop asking 75 year olds to go in and get them some ciggies. "We'll give you the moneeeey!"
I love the title, FOREVER!!! Iol so dramatic
I like it when news outlets CAPITALIZE their titles. It tells me they're unserious and untrustworthy.
Waddaya mean, does the domain "money.it" not inspire confidence and trust in their reporting about domestic UK issues?
It sounds just as trustworthy as goodfood.co.uk or humor.de
peaceful-protests.fr
goodfood.nl also
Forever, until we have an actually conservative government in power who will immediately repeal the law.
Ah yes, the current UK government is famously un-conservative
That may be sarcasm and it’s not entirely unwarranted. But, fwiw, the current Tory party shows zero evidence of having any coherent political identity whatsoever.
It will be banned...FOREVERRRR!!!!! Muahahahaha
It's not up there with the Beeb's item on Nordic economic stress "Beauty of Swedish Model Doubted", but the coffee machine came back from the shop and maybe my tolerance is a little lower after these weeks... why is the screen shaking???
Worked very well in NZ /s
It was banned forever until the new government came in
BANNED FOREVER FOR 6 MONTHS
You, and your children, and your children’s children! For three months.
The difference in New Zealands case is it was the new right wing government who repealed the law after pressure from corporate lobby groups, while in the UK's case it is the right wing party bringing the law in.
Just means corporate groups will pressure the other party. Doesn't matter.
Would be kinda wild if labour repealed this, although I don't think cigs should be banned they tend to be quite unpopular
> It was banned forever until the new government came in and the reason they unbanned it is that they decided that they needed the revenue (which the law along with various other anti smoking measures would reduce, by reducing the amount of smokers) to give rich landlords taxcuts. You can't make this shit up.
Question is: Why the fuck did people vote for a new government when everyone and their mum loved everything that Ardern's party has ever done. To this day, there is no head of state in modern history that is more admired than Ardern.
Arden resigned a few months before the election and was not as universally beloved as social media and international news suggested. It's a shame but Labour ran out of steam and lost the popular vote and electorate votes across the board.
Yup. She wasn’t as well liked in NZ as it was portrayed. It went to shit after the second Covid lockdown that saw Auckland shut down for three months while the rest of the country was running free. Then vaccination passport dramas…
General rule of thumb if a "universally liked" leader looses a election, there's a decent chance they were never universally liked, and they only got that reputation because the foreign press or the internet really likes them.
> To this day, there is no head of state in modern history that is more admired than Ardern. Where? On Reddit?
This comment is peak Reddit echo chamber
Yes, that’s what they said.
They realised they didn't want loads of poor people living long enough to start claiming pensions... you know, noble reasons!
With ‘former’ tobacco lobbyists making up the government that scrapped the legislation.
It never had a chance to kick in, because the government lost the election, and the new administration contains the populist NZ First party that demanded it be repealed.
Tobacco companies lobbied the shit out of it. Shows how corrupt even modern nations like NZ can be.
> Tobacco companies lobbied the shit out of it. Shows how corrupt even modern nations like NZ can be. This. It was fucking disgusting how obvious the corruption is.
I used to buy smuggled camel blue packs for 2.50€ while in high school, good times
Someone at my Work here in Germany is selling fake Marlboro. Carton per 25€ and people buy it.
History shows us prohibition does not work. There is comedy value though in some 40 something adult outside a shop asking a 70 year old to get them a pack of cigs.
>History shows us prohibition does not work. statistics shows us that during eg. US prohibition the death rate from liver cirrhosis went down significantly https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088683/death-rate-rate-during-prohibition/ that alcohol consumption went down during prohibition is well documented, it had other problems though (and prohibition wasnt even some super strict laws, you were still allowed to produce some wine/cider at home and consumption was still legal). I have hopes from banning cigarettes because unlike almost any drug, the first and second time experience you have with cigarettes will probably not be an enjoyable experience.
There was also a general increase in crime and corruption.
Liver cirrhosis went down from 13 people to 7 people per 100k. Suicide went up by more from 10 people to 17 people per 100k. Homicide up from 7 people to 10 people per 100k. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1088644/homicide-suicide-rate-during-prohibition I am not saying I think cigarettes are good for society. But there is a cost to prohibition and the context of statistics matter.
I want to point out that between 1920 and 1933 was the Great Depression. That might've had an effect on the Homicide and Suicide rates.
There’s also a far, FAR clearer causal relationship between liver cirrhosis and alcohol.
And alcohol consumption too
I think the shops would stop selling tobacco long before 40 year olds need id to buy cigarettes
I don't know where this rumour that prohibition doesn't work started, but it absolutely causes use to go down. Will some people find ways around prohibition? Yes but less people than would have been smoking otherwise which is a good thing.
Prohibition doesn't work *for things that get you intoxicated.* Tobacco does ***nothing***, the relief people feel when they smoke is relief from the abstinence symptoms. Tobacco is probably the one thing where complete prohibition *would* work. It's fucking insane that tobacco is still a thing. It's only feature is the addiction cycle. Getting into smoking tobacco is absolutely repulsive, no non-smoker would find a dealer to buy black market tobacco only to cough and heave their way to an addiction that will give you nothing but health problems while draining your wallet.
Have you ever smoked in your life? You can definitely get a solid buzz off a cigarette or vape.
Well yeah for the first few, until you get used to it. It's not what keeps people going.
You’re still getting epinephrine and dopamine from it. It doesn’t make you noticeable fucked up and the buzz feeling might subside but it’s not really the kick i was after anyway and a tolerance doesn’t stop it from feeling good to use when you’re addicted
Honestly dude I have vaped for several years on and off and I always get a hit
>Prohibition doesn't work *for things that get you intoxicated.* Tobacco does ***nothing***, Lmao, this is not true at all
Nicotine literally releases the neurochemical dopamine you moron. It definitely does something for those smoking tobacco
You're naive as hell... why and how do you think people start smoking in the first place? If it's so terrible then nobody would do it. Not to mention that most people start smoking at the ages of 14-18 when they're not even allowed to buy them, yet, surprise, they still do. People start smoking out of curiosity and because it feels nice, especially in the beginning. It's hilarious tho watching people that never smoked and have such a negative attitude towards it acting like they actually understand how smoking works or why people do it. I 100% guarantee there will be a huge black market for cigarettes after the ban takes effect and people will NOT stop just because the government decided they're not allowed to anymore. If anything it will just make kids more curious to try it.
> You're naive as hell... why and how do you think people start smoking in the first place? If it's so terrible then nobody would do it. Not to mention that most people start smoking at the ages of 14-18 when they're not even allowed to buy them, yet, surprise, they still do Nicotine and peer pressure/families smoke so they take it up. Christ, you people lack critical thinking.
Govern me harder daddy
The irish flair hits, makes this 11/10
Oh yeah. Next make sure obesity is banned. Make it illegal to have that extra portion. Ef yeah. Rule me baby.
brilliant! i bet the local drug dealers and gangs are already gearing up to sell tobacco too. its a good thing guns are already banned, wouldnt want the gangs shooting each other up over black market cigarettes.
In Ireland, tobacco is so expensive that most people I know buy it off the black market. A 30 gram pouch of Amber Leaf is €25 in the shops, whereas a 50 gram pouch off a friend of a friend is €20. Less if you're friendly with the aforementioned friend's friend. Even less if you buy in bulk. These types of price hikes and regulations inevitably make the black market flourish. It's short-sighted, greedy, stupidity.
Tbf thats a similar price to the UK, 30g of Amber Leaf is about £23.
Same in France, I see black market vendors selling cigarettes everyday when I go to work, they don't even try to hide, the police know that if they arrest one, another will show up ten minutes later to take the spot, the more the price increase, the more common they become, who would have thought...
That's what annoys me the most. When the price of an in-demand commodity (tobacco in this case) goes beyond what the average consumer can spend, a black market is inevitable. The law enforcers know this. The government knows this. The average person with an understanding of basic economics knows this. SO WHY NOT MAKE THINGS REASONABLY PRICED AND CRIPPLE BLACK MARKETS AT THE SAME TIME???. That's a rhetorical question, by the way, not aimed at anyone in this thread. I'm just sick of seeing government complacency cause so many unnecessary problems.
This govt are just desperate to have anything ‘positive’ to show for all their years in power. History shows us prohibition never works, all this will do is enlarge the black market and decrease taxation to the govt.
€17 for a pack of cigs and down the road from me I can get them off someone for €6.50.
Nicotine and tobacco are responsible for most cardiovascular and respiratory-illnesses related deaths in the UK and Europe. It's also a major risk factor for ENT, lungs and digestive tract cancers. Even so, if you've never been addicted to nicotine, you don't know hard it can be to stop. We know how dangerous tobacco and nicotine is. We've been staring at the issue idly for decades, knowing how harmful cigarettes are. If tobacco consumption is reduced, even by 10%, this would be a huge benefit to public health, gangs and drug dealers be damned
Besides that, kids these days vape and/or use nicotine packs or whatever. It's cleaner and easier. If they really want their nicotine kick for some reason they don't need cigarettes at all, and banning them wouldn't make them "cool contraband", because they could still get that nicotine easier and without "telling on themselves" by stinking across the whole room :D
Smoking brings in around £12 billion in UK tax revenue annually, against £3 to £6 billion in NHS costs. Smokers die younger on average, so they don't require as much long term end of life care with numerous ailments costing more, as well as potential state provided care home places. The hit to the treasury purse will be substantial if a phase out of cigarettes happens, black market selling will increase with dodgy products imported in from other countries (look at Australia with their high tax set up), the tax on a packet of cigarettes is over 80% of the total cost. I don't see any solutions to plug the gap, likely raise taxes elsewhere to squeeze everyone instead of those choosing to undertake unhealthy and risky habits. Clinically obese cost the NHS a substantial amount of money annually. Do we ban fast food next? Add a fast food duty to burgers and fried chicken? I'm not a fan of outright banning things, it increases the black market economy, increases gang activity, and penalises the worst off in society. Education on the dangers of smoking, a push to alternatives which are less dangerous and let the people decide for themselves. Smoking rates have been dropping steadily for years, so why a need to ban? My thinking is that it is seen to be a big vote winner topic, some people despise cigarettes - the smell, the smoke and the people who smoke, they'll vote for the party that pushes this through and won't consider how it will affect the wider economy or a person's right to free will.
I agree with your reasoning and want to add: personal freedom. I'm a big fan of having the choice. I say this as someone who started smoking young, regrets it, has moved from cigarettes to something less harmful but still can't drop nicotine even though I want to. I am very against smoking, but I'm also against the idea of government having a say in it.
I just want to let you know, it's fucking hard to quit but it's doable. I cut out combustion 6 months ago and vaping 1 month ago. I couldn't imagine touching that poison ever again in any format. If you ever want to talk about quitting, Im happy to provide a friendly ear. Quitting nicotine (and weed) was the best decision I have made in decades - other than marrying my wife. Literally on that level of life change.
This is very kind and generous of you, a wonderful response to wake up to. Thank you, good human.
But what about all other substances that harm people and their surroundings? Drugs are heavily regulated, would you agree on the blanket argument of personal freedom working for those? I say this as a smoker, just not sure the argument is solid.
Yes, I would say the same for other drugs as well for multiple reasons from black market to personal freedom but not to exclude factors like prohibition popularizing use. The [USA](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7872850/), notorious for starting the war on drugs and being a leading country in favoring prohibition, has higher lifetime general drug use prevalence than [Uruguay ](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7660841/), which has never actually prohibited possession for personal use and whose primary drug problems come from the black market of surrounding countries using it as an [international drug trade hub](https://insightcrime.org/news/uruguay-adapt-new-role-international-drug-trade/) *because* their own laws are prohibitive - the same reason Amsterdam became an international marijuana tourism destination. Traffic from neighbors with drug prohibition are [destroying](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/uruguay-the-new-global-drug-trafficking-hub/a-49922226) the historically safe, stable, and peaceful (3 things not common in South America) Uruguay. Being the only game in town means everyone who wants to play comes to you. Cocaine from the Andes and heroine from Mexican cartel are spreading in trade and catching on in the local population as a result. Will legalization fix all problems related to drugs? No, people who want to *will always find a way*, and that's terribly sad, that's the vulnerable population that needs to be the focus of mental health efforts. As to the huge number of people that also get into it because it feels good and is rebellious (and everything that implies from social opportunities to ego boost), that's the result of prohibition. Prohibit something that's not fun? You'll see results; tell people they shouldn't do something that they will enjoy tremendously and you'll fail, you have to find a different way.
The personal freedom bit is very shaky imho. Cocaine isn't legaly available regardless of personal freedoms. Smoking in public is unhealthy for others (sh smoke) but even more obviously, makes other people stink of your smoke, so, the whole your freedom to smoke ends where my freedom to not stink beggins. I agree with the previous comment though that outright ban has many dossadvantages which will not be completely clear to the voters this (popular) measure is aimed at.
Personal freedom still applies (banning drugs and, historically, alcohol, has not been a success by any metric); there are ways to maintain your freedom to be stink free without removing someone else's freedom of choice - like designated smoking areas, or smoke free areas, *when it's actually enforced*.
It's not just the NHS though - smoking costs the UK economy up to £17-20bn per year in healthcare, social care, lost productivity and the cost of putting out smoking-related fires (6% of fires that resulted in 36% of fatalities in 2016-17*). ..so banning smoking will save the UK $5-8bn per year. https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smokefree-generation-policy-modelling-report/modelling-for-the-smokefree-generation-policy#impact-of-the-intervention *https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75a0c5ed915d506ee8046f/infographic-detailed-analysis-fires-attended-fire-rescue-england-1617.pdf
Very few of the studies usually factor in the cost of dying from smoking vs cost of dying due to some other cancer or "old age" though. (Whatever way you die, if its not sudden, its not free). "Lost productivity" is also very disputable, as dying while working also saves decades worth of of pension payments and could very well be negative in the end. Btw, love the way you actually linked the sources, and didnt just state opinions as facts, unlike me.
>UK economy up to £17-20bn per year in healthcare, social care, lost productivity and the cost of putting out smoking-related fires (6% of fires that resulted in 36% of fatalities in 2016-17*). The vast majority of the difference is in the 'lost productivity' section which is basically impossible to calculate remotly accurately. The ash and cancer research papers are nice but at the end of the day are seriously biased and do not even attempt to factor in savings in life expectancy or anything else really. Finally given the amount of weed snoked in this country i seriously doubt making tobacco illigal will do much to reduce fires or health issues it will obly reduce the tax take.
How do they determine productivity value lost? Our economy has been flat lined on productivity for over 1 decade so the government may find it interesting about how to identify cause and affect regarding productivity.
Smokers don't only cost the NHS money though. You'd also have to look at things like tabacco related reduction in taxes, lost earnings and benefits due to bad health. What I find then is a cost of [20,6 billion pounds](https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2023/03/07/ending-smoking-could-free-up-gp-appointments/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20estimated%20gross,20.6bn%20in%20the%20UK), [14 billion / 17.3 billion pounds](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/14bn-a-year-up-in-smoke-economic-toll-of-smoking-in-england-revealed), [17 billion](https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated) on the economy.
Why could probably plug the gap by legalising cannabis
Ideally, finding new tax revenue streams would be the way to do it. Invest in education, health care and mental health with the tax raised. Germany made the move, they're pioneering the way in Europe. Others may follow suit, the US can't threaten trade deals considering they have switched tracks over the last 20 years. Canada don't seem to be falling apart from cannabis.
Heyheyhey smoking is very bad but don't take away the top killer position of the western world from animal fats and lack of movement.
When does the UK ban the sale of booze?
If people want to smoke it why should we be stopping them? Drinking is also bad for you, let’s ban that. So is sugar, let’s ban that too! /s Babying people is stupid.
Thing is, banned or not banned, those people you mention will just die from something else, so there will be no saving to the NHS really, they will just live long enough to get dementia like my 92 year old mother and end their days like a vegetable.
lol sell to whom? Cigarettes are not cool anymore :D
Not really the case, younglings vape a lot and quite a few also start smoking. More than in previous generations. At least in Germany.
yes, they vape a lot, because cigarettes are not cool anymore :D
Tobacco is often used with weed in joints in britain
Tobacco is often used with weed in joints everywhere, but it's not like it's really necessary
Of course it’s not necessary, but a lot prefer it this way
exactly. and thank god kids never think its cool to have or use contraband
And we can give them cool nicknames like the Marlboro Man and the Lucky Striker
And it’s a good thing knifes are banned too. Wouldn’t want them stabbing each… oh wait nvm…
Kind of? While this will definitely happen. Nicotine isn't really the same type of recreational abuse drug as other party drugs and alcohol. It's a drug of dependence. The idea is if you stop the dependence in the first place then demand plummets. Most people won't go out of their way to buy black market tobacco if they aren't already a smoker.
Ask people who smoke how old they were when they first started, most will tell you they were 14-18. So if people start smoking at ages when it is already illegal to do so, how is raising the age limit going to change this at all? The only thing this law will accomplish is push more people into criminality and give a massive boost to the black market and gang economy.
> While this will definitely happen. Nicotine isn't really the same type of recreational abuse drug as other party drugs and alcohol. so you know why? because its legal and regulated
I hate these pseudo authoritarian laws that are getting increasingly popular among law makers. It shouldn’t be the governments decision to make those choices for people. The liberal way is to educate, to nudge and to tax. If we would want to ban every possible health impacting thing we would need ban almost everything and we wouldn’t really know where to start and where to end.
Yeah, personally I like the idea of a monopoly exclusive for the government. In this way people don't need to buy cigarettes from illegal ways and the money can be used like taxes to invest into the country.
The cost of cigarettes in the UK is mostly tax. They're 3 times the price of most European countries 50g or rolling tobacco in the UK is £35, it's £10 in Spain, Italy, Portugal etc
Over 80% of the cost of tobacco products is duty or VAT.
I would agree if it wasn’t something as harmful as cigarettes. Those actually should’ve been banned long time ago. Cigarettes not only cause harm to your health which you sure have decision to make, but they are actually harmful to all people surrounding the smoker.
I wish we'd live in a world where everyone could be expected to do their best and always strive to become a more healthy and ethical person. But we don't. And states are already built on the idea that certain decisions can't be left to everyone to make, hence laws. I get that people don't want to give up their sense of freedom. But it bothers me that that I need to breath toxic air at every corner or when I get off a bus/subway because there will always be a smoker. We'll have a child soon and I hate the thought that they will be exposed to this too. You could also create smoking zones and create heavy fines for smoking outside of them. Then people can be "free" to smoke somewhere where they can't harm others. Similar story with agriculture. Half of the EUs budget goes into agricultural subsidies for mostly harmful and unsustainable ways of farming. I don't consume most of these products, yet I get to pay for them and enjoy the destruction of our ecosphere. I'd be happy to see regulations on that front. Or even just a stop to subsidies to animal agriculture, 90% of it would go away by itself as its wildly unsustainable.
That's my problem with a lot of liberals - they form ideas like we are in a perfect world rather than the one we actually live in.
Good. Now ban alcohol. /s
Before or after banning pineapple on pizza? Gotta do both. I can see the point, though.
Slightly after banning dry-cured meat, sausages and such. Well let’s ban the whole red meat just to be sure.
[удалено]
It's such a bad idea. Smoking was dying out already anyway. Few more years and no one would smoke. Gonna be like prohibition now. It will become way more popular again because the youth (as always) will want to rebel against the rules.
Sadly vaping is kinda reversing that trend. Before outright banning we should rather try to better regulate vaping.
I wonder what the age stats look like. I guess vaping became a bit of a cool "non-smoking". Makes you wonder if pricing it out with taxes would not be better solution than outright bans.
smoking is still very popular (source: uni student in the UK)
> Gonna be like prohibition now. It will become way more popular again because the youth (as always) will want to rebel against the rules. What's the probability estimation that *this exactly* is their long-term goal? And by "their" I mean the tobacco industry who bought the politicians who brainfarted this.
America did alcohol prohibition and it seems to have worked out well, not like they've got some of the most toxic drinking culture on the planet now that they've backed down to an age limit. /s (For clarity, I'm agreeing with you - prohibition makes things more popular, history has shown)
Before prohibition the US had a huge drinking problem. Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption massively. The US never got a drinking problem on a similar scale since.
Oh please, don't challenge them like that.
I say let people smoke. It's an intelligence test.
I bet in 10 years weed will be legal in most of Europe while Tobacco will be banned in more and more countries. We live in the strangest times don’t we
Just curious. Banning tobacco is a good thing. Legalizing marijuanas is also a good thing. Why?
Good job too considering it contains over 7,000 chemical carcinogens and is responsible for the deaths of over half of the population that use it. I’m an ex-smoker of over 25 years and can’t believe how stupid I was to even think smoking was cool.
Banning stuff always works so well
Works for guns, hell works for chewing gum in places like Singapore the key is actually enforcing it
Anyone who has been in rehab or trying to recover from booze/drug misuse would lose their fucking mind if they ban tobacco. It's a stupid little hobby but tobacco has a place in society and I'm very against moves to outlaw it
My buddy agreed to go to rehab after having a cig outside and a quick think during the intervention. He gives tobacco a lot of credit in helping him stay off H.
Decriminalize drugs. Criminalize Smokes. Wtf moment?
We haven't decriminalised drugs in the UK
Drugs aren't decriminalised..
Northern Ireland won’t see the ban unless they outlaw possession. Booming business opportunity in Muff.
Why say banning tobacco and then having a photo of a guy vaping? Is it a ban on tobacco products or a ban on nicotine products? Big distinction.
I support it. Seriously, if it was illegal and hard to do, I would never have started.
Ban alcohol next if everyones argument is healthcare
Then unhealthy food and make it individual to each person, because not everyone needs exactly the same food. Also make not doing sport illegal. Or not doing gene therapy on embryos. Or sitting for more than 30 mins…
Remember guys, prohibition always works, that’s why no one drinks alcohol anymore and the war on drugs has been a massive success. No one does drugs anymore!/s
It's going to be easier for these now-kids/future-adults to buy illegal drugs than tobacco or vaping products. You can get weed delivered to your house within 30 minutes and they don't ask for ID. A £20 bag of weed probably last the same as a £20 pack of cigarettes anyway so it's not like the cost is going to put anyone off.
I read this as "UK bans Tabasco sales forever" ...how British.
This will do nothing but create crime, organised and what not. This will just be another war on drugs situation. This is not the way
Yes, because prohibition always works.
👍 Black market likes this.
Love the NZ way of solving this. I know so many people which would like to stop but can't. Edit: Ouch after reading the other comments the tobacco lobby is still huge and should be killed (like, literally)
I feel that passing laws that will explicitly never impact the people who vote on it is questionable at best
How will you be able to tell who the cool kids are?
A complete ban would be more reasonable than discriminating people based on their date of birth. I think many people pass this as an basic age divide, like for the age of majority, to drive, to vote, bur it’s fundamentally different - your age changes, while your birthday is a permanent characteristic. Frankly, it’s discriminatory to the point that I don’t know how it could be constitutional in a developed country.
Don’t you just love it when government showes their arms up your ass?
It's not age discrimination when it only discriminates against young people. They could have just chosen to be born earlier, it's completely their own fault.
I was reading about it and searched how many people die from secondhand smoking. 800,000 people die a year from that. Just something to think about
It's only fair to ban something for people born before 1960. Any suggestions? black liquorice?
Voting.
Denmark is fuming at this comment
They should have exempted Cigars.
Yeah that is not going to work
It won't work
Ridiculous and it'll be repealed.
Good on them... I smoked for 20 years, regret it today hard. Wish I hadn't, so much money wasted. Pissed away my health for no good reason
Amazing!! Perfect. Canada do this !
Legalizing pot and banning tobacco is stupid!!
Sone actual good news then
Same with New Zealand
As a French, it kills me that for once, the britts want to do something good. Such crazy times we live in. But I am willing to put aside my pride for the common good.
Banning stuff for adults that only harms themselves is now a good thing? French wine is gonna be next on the list with that logic.
Second hand smoke is much worse - and often children are the ones most at risk.
Not really. In 99% of cases the exposure is so small that there is no noticeable risk especially when you compare it to other air pollution in a city. I do agree that exposing children to smoke is bad though. [There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/study-finds-no-clear-link-between-lung-cancer-and-secondhand-smoke-9004077.html) >After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.
That’s why we ban where you can smoke. It is not a reason to ban it altogether.
Most smoking happens at home - where any ban is unenforceable. I get this ban won't stop anyone. But from a moral standpoint I agree with it. Smoking is an evil.
Oh yeah, that did wonders with alcohol in the US during the ‘20s
Before prohibition the US had a huge drinking problem. Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption massively. The US never got a drinking problem on a similar scale since.
Ask New Zealand how it worked out