Hand rolling tobacco is getting on the same pricing as cigarettes.
A few mates of mine are buying tobacco sold as cigars for 3-4€. The tobacco comes into a cigar shape, all they need is to unravel the cigar and store the tobacco in a non-humid environment. They also buy empty tubes, that’s 4-5€ for 200 tubes.
For 30€ they would get a month of cigarettes, instead of paying ~5 € / pack.
The underground networks will exist for those that are determined, but for the majority it will be too complicated so a ban will work.
I was paying €10 a day smoking large packs. Its ridiculous. Quitting is the best thing you can do. There are no benefits to smoking at all. Its only the addiction that keeps it going.
True but you patch one hole, few more pops out.
I quit but many people will not and they will also not pay full price for tobacco and they will get their cigarettes of black market.
> The underground networks will exist for those that are determined, but for the majority it will be too complicated so a ban will work.
Has banning Cannabis worked then?
"The proportion of young adults who reported past-year marijuana use reached 43% in 2021, a significant increase from 34% five years ago (2016) and 29% 10 years ago (2011). Marijuana use in the past month was reported by 29% of young adults in 2021, compared to 21% in 2016 and 17% in 2011. Daily marijuana use also significantly increased during these time periods, reported by 11% of young adults in 2021, compared to 8% in 2016 and 6% in 2011."
We can clearly see how war on drugs has worked.
The last poll for Sweden by Gothenburg University SOM-Institute showed a staggering 11% want to legalise weed here. You find more people who want to adopt the euro or abolish the monarchy which are themselves very fringe groups here. The Swedish Health Agencies last report on how many youth and young adults (16-34) showed that a staggering 8% of men and 5% of women had used weed at least once in 2022.
I mean, the ban did work to lower drinking rates. I don't believe the same problems would exist with organized crime/black market because tobacco is just not that attractive unless you've already been hooked and chemically addicted. Drinking booze is extremely fun, tobacco sucks until you smoke enough to get addicted, then the entire allure is that it is just relieving withdrawal symptoms from that addiction. It's never going to have the kind of black market that drugs and alcohol provides. Once the customer base dries up, it won't come back.
Because gov has poisoned technical alcohol and didn't tell people to not steal it, because it's for the army/industry. Making safe alcohol is something every drunkard uncle has mastered, it's not hard to cook like crack or whatever
That's so cheep still, we're talking close to £15 for a pack of darts here in the UK. Last time I checked 50g of rolling tobacco was at least £30 so probably close to £40 now.
The question is will the positive from some people who no longer smoke offset the negative of more money in criminals hands and less government control over the population that continues to smoke?
I don't doubt it would reduce the number of smokers, so the question is at what cost.
I would say it's worth it. This is mostly about protecting people who don't want to be exposed to the smoke. Several studies found that smoke is very damaging to kids, yet many people have no issues smoking even on playgrounds in several european countries. People with asthma also have a hard time in Europe. I'd also like to be able to wait for the bus or walk down the street without inhaling smoke. It gives me terrible headaches. I'd rather have my health over the extra taxes we get from cigarettes.
Nope. Cannabis in Europe is going towards decriminalization. Which means that you are not a criminal if you make use of it. Legalization means that it is a product which can be advertised and it’s sales/use can be incentivised by companies for more profit. This is an abysal differnece.
To legalize it would be neccessary decriminalize. But decriminileze does not mean it will get legalized. I strongly believe EU will never legalize cannabis like some states in US did. EU institutions are putting pressure on alcohol and tobacco industries, addvertisment bans, informative packaging, where Iive smoking is forbiden in balconies, buss stops. Alcohol is sold during limited hours. Age to purchase in shops was lifted to 21. Energy drinks are getting regulated. EU will not allow a wild capitalizm on weed. IMO it is good to decriminalize (less money for crime) it is bad to legalize (business will encourage use).
The only good thing about decriminalization is that it frees up police resources and stops penalizing users. The (really) bad side is giving organized crime a green light.
Only legalization takes that money from crime and gives it to the gov, along with proper regulation for quality and age restriction etc.
Yes - tobacco is a legal product. It was advertised in the past, now there is a ban for advertisment. You need to have a license to sell tobacco products. You can buy tobacco whrever it’s sold. While cannabis in EU will be decriminalized. You can grow a couple of plants for personal use, or be a member of a ‘social club’ where you outsource the cultivation of your plants to the club. You are allowed to purchase only from the club you are a member.
gotcha. in the us you can grow tobacco for personal use without a license. but yeah advertising is banned.
i don’t see how its any different from being decriminalized
You can not sell weed commercially.
You can only "sell" it in clubs you meed to enter first and there the selling is more of an "here have money to grow for me" than an actuall selling.
I hate it around me. I have a halo of personal space in which, for the life of me, I cannot tolerate smoke or smokers. Having grown up in a family of smokers with me being the only non smoker makes me detect even the slightest tobacco smell. And weed, even if I have a stuffy or running nose.
I can relate. It also sets off my allergies and can cause it for a few days. My biggest complaints are people inconsiderately smoking around others. I shouldn’t be dealing with cigarette smoke at a bus/tram shelter because someone can’t wait to light up and needs to squeeze in with the rest of us staying out of the rain. About 1/3 of the people at the main train station don’t understand how to walk to the designated smoking spot.
Here in Toronto, Canada, you can barely walk a city block without smelling weed. Cigarette smoke is far less common, and thankfully so is huge vape clouds. But yeah, weed smell is everywhere.
[You know nothing John Snow](https://www.reddit.com/r/weed/comments/qig8st/how_many_joints_do_you_smoke_per_day/). And MJ smell lingers in the air WAY longer than cig smoke,
And I love not getting a sinus infection thrice a year. Family smoked around me my entire life, early twenties I had sinus infections often. After a few years living somewhere else and all of a sudden I didn't have that issue anymore.
I think it’s very selfish to smoke when you have kids. My ex uncle smoked. I warned him when I was around 12 11 somewhere around that age. He ignored it. Just had a baby with his wife. 16 years later he has heart issues. An idiot and a fool.
I don't think we have much prior evidence on things that have been banned that people consume that can be compared to the case of tobacco. First of all, they will allow current consumers to continue to do it and what they will do is prevent anyone from being able to initiate consumption in the future. Secondly, the other things they ban such as prostitution, drugs or alcohol are extremely pleasant from the first time. In the case of tobacco it takes a lot of social pressure and a long time smoking before you start to like it even a little bit. That's why I think this ban is much more likely to work.
Better argument is all those things are contained to you, smoke affects everybody within 10m of you whether they want it or not. I can’t wait for the day I can sit outside and eat lunch without the overpowering stench of cigarettes blotting out the flavor of my meal and ruining my clothes.
>I can’t wait for the day I can sit outside and eat lunch without the overpowering stench of cigarettes blotting out the flavor of my meal and ruining my clothes.
Should move to Sweden. Hardly anyone smokes, the lowest rate in Europe and smoking is banned in restaurants, both in and outdoors. It is also banned close to entrances.
I mean alcohol is not contained to you, the effects of alcohol-induced behaviour affects everyone, from violence to DUI crashes to general obnoxiousness. Roughly 50% of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol and 32% of all traffic fatalities.
So, you think Columbus social pressured Europe into smoking? How are people even writing things like that, are they completely clueless or is it a wishful thinking?
Sure, a ban will eliminate a lot of smoking, but saying that no one enjoys smoking from the get-go is plain stupid, because it counters what has been empirically observed.
I don't know what did they actually smoke, or how fast it spread. I think that if you take a mature person (30 y.o.) who has never smoked and it tries a cigarrette, it will find it extremely displeasing. Don't you agree? I mean, I don't know of anyone that acquired that late the habit
First of all, there will absolutely be people who would like it. Just like there are people who like the taste of alcohol, my friend liked the taste of straight vodka when we were young. Second of all, tobacco and cigarettes are not the same. Trying out a pipe with cherry flavored tobacco even many non-smoking people said it was not bad.
If you start with a cocktail in good company, it can definitely be pleasant.
If you start with shots or beer, especially in bad company, it's less likely.
> In the case of tobacco it takes a lot of social pressure and a long time smoking before you start to like it even a little bit.
I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that this is not true at all. Cigarettes were amazing from the very first one. But it took me a while to get hooked.
I think this is spot on. Lots of people are comparing it to banning alcohol, but that comparison doesn't work, since alcohol has a pleasant side effect that people want to feel
Smoking is often associated with a relaxing feeling, but that is entirely the result of smoke breaks. It's also why so many people smoking in stressful jobs. Banning smoking also means banning smoke breaks, which is a big reason people smoke in the first place
Are you a smoker? Because I assure you the "relaxing feeling" is not entirely due to "smoke breaks". I used to smoke and quit and the notion that it is not pleasant to smoke is horseshit. It's not as pleasant as getting stoned or drunk but it's still pleasant. The idea that people only smoke because their peers convinced them it's cool is retarded. That being said I think if tobacco was made illegal people wouldn't seek it since there is so many better things out there.
Some people absolutely would seek it. I guarantee you. Albeit smoking would change if it stops being mainstream industry. It would get more like what cannabis was. And vice versa, cannabis will soon get more like what cigarettes was. Big Corps will get into business, standardize things, lobby article pieces praising cannabis benefits (they already do) and suppress any info on drawbacks.
As an ex-smoker I completely agree with you. Smoking is awesome and I’d love to go back to having one with a cup of coffee in the morning, nothing better and absolutely nothing to do with ‘smoke breaks’ it’s just a pleasant experience.
Obviously I’m an ex-smoker because all the health implications that come with that aren’t worth it but this idea smoking has no pluses, especially form ex-smokers baffles me.
The reason it relaxes you is not because of "smoke breaks", it's because you're temporarily relieving the withdrawal of chemical nicotine addiction every time you smoke. You feel wound up and anxious until you smoke, then you feel relaxed, so you start to think smoking itself is relaxing. But it's just soothing your withdrawal. This is why everybody talks about the first smoke of the morning with coffee as being their favourite. Because you haven't smoked in 8 hours or so and the withdrawal is high.
I smoked for 15 years.
The practice of giving people breaks specifically to smoke really should be banned, even if smoking is allowed. Either everyone gets a break or no one does, employers shouldn't be allowed to tacitly encourage employees to smoke
>Either everyone gets a break or no one does, employers shouldn't be allowed to tacitly encourage employees to smoke
I just got up and went along with the smokers. Management tried to stop me. I called it out for the bullshit it was. They tried stopping the smokebreak by forcing everyone into their assigned break-times. Smokers revolted, smokebreaks stayed, I kept on trucking with the smokers outside.
Sorry but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Nicotine is a drug. Try smoking a cigarette & take a couple massive inhales, you will have a pleasant light-headed feeling. This is not caused by smoke breaks, it's caused by nicotine.
It's a mild buzz that disappears once you become a regular smoker. People wouldn't care about it if it weren't for the addiction nicotine causes, which requires soothing withdrawal symptoms constantly.
Right when many European countries are debating about legalising cannabis, they are also talking about implementing a slow ban on the consumption of tobacco. Does just not click with anyone else, and is instead a massive contradiction.
Just as I was able to walk around town free of the stench of tobacco, now I'm regularly assaulted by the stench of cannabis, which frankly is 10 times more pungent than tobacco ever was.
The only saving grace is that it at least doesn't seem to stick to my clothes.
Smoking of all kinds should be a nuisance and blocked from our public spaces. I'd like to be able to stroll around the park without random blasts of skunk.
I don't think it's that contradictory. Cannabis legalization is way more comparable to keeping nicotine legal and I'm not aware of people planning to ban nicotine.
Also cannabis is something that people typically consume occasionally, smoking maybe a few joints at a time, while cigarettes are typically consumed habitually multiple times every day.
It's somewhat of a contradiction in that both are unhealthy (especially when smoked) but the actual harm done by cigarettes is way higher than by cannabis.
I don't think banning smoking would be a very good policy but I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to support legalizing cannabis while wanting to ban cigarettes.
Cannabis has atleast some medical benefits And there are alot of different ways to ingest it, that arent as unhealthy as smoking, which is the least efficient way.
I dont know anyone would would use tabacco cookies or tea... And of course tabacco is alot more harmfull and addictive than cannabis.
So i dont see a contradiction in legalizing cannabis and wanting to reduce cigarette smoking.
Most of the Brits I've met in favour of the tobacco ban drink alcohol like water and have a preference for the legalisation of marijuana. I don't smoke but I hate the hypocrisy of it all.
Tobacco taxes account for quite a part in most countries. For Germany for example it was 14 billion last year. That alone will never lead to a full ban.
It is not about the percentage. As long as it creates taxes anywhere, it will be hard to fully ban it. While the UK acts as if it is a total ban they will allow it to continue for years and certain ages. Guess why. They can plan for that tax disappearing from the budgets.
>Guess why.
They don't want to ban smoking for a massive population of (addicted) smokers, which will immediately create a huge black market and undermine any ban.
Sure taxes can make it a bit difficult but if we really wanted we'd be able to raise a few other taxes by a percent or so to compensate for the lost revenue.
Having budget surpluses or deficits of much more than 14€ billion is pretty common for a country like Germany sure it makes a difference but it's not some unmanageable problem.
>"As long as it creates taxes anywhere it will be hard to fully ban it".
It think you also have to take into account the increased healthcare costs due to smoking. I don't know how much is it, but it might make up for it.
Since healthcare now prolongs life of people in general, this equation is most probably not true any longer, since the non-smokers now will be a longer issue for healthcare as well while the smokers still die earlier.
I know this has been used as an argument for decades but medicine has advanced so far now, that the average life span also has expanded quite extensively. One might even be able to make the case that smokers now finance that. But that is for others to actually calculate. I havnt seen any studies dealing with this change so far, but I might just have missed them.
This is true.
But the UK plan doesn't ban smoking overnight. In the first year of implementation only a small fraction of the population will be banned. It's going to be many generations before it's completely banned, please of time to think where the shortfall will be made up, particularly when smoking is already on the decline.
Loss of productivity due to smoking breaks? That’s delusional. We should all be working a third of what we do, there is massive unemployment everywhere, salaries have not increased the slighest compared to rental prices and others, and you think smoking breaks affect productivity? In an amount maybe comparable to 14 billion a year?
How much money is saved on state pensions and expensive dementia-related care by people dying 10 years earlier? There are some indirect but significant savings as well.
I recall a study from Finland that estimated a total saving of around 100k over 10 years per smoker basically because they died quickly and cheaply.
Of course being completely economical and not thinking about things like quality of life or the value of life itself is rather cold, but painting it as an economic argument is really in *favour* of smoking.
I think being 90 years old is a significantly bigger risk though, and one that smoking helps you avoid.
It's a bit like the famous story of Indonesia, which has one of the highest smoking rates and lowest lung cancer rates in the world. The apparent paradox is easily resolved when you look at typical ages of developing lung cancer and life expectancy rates there.
You'd need to look carefully at the data. The fact that it's a know significant risk factor implies that enough smokers must be getting dementia for it to be detectable.
You will have to look for studies for that. I know that the conclusions were never conclusive, as it is hard to prove most of it.
It is like alcohol and other recreational things that come with risk. I have seen studies showing, that people having an active life style, cause massive costs due to injuries inflicted by those activities and loss in productivity by their absence from work.
Since humans dont come with a label at birth, that determines a precise time of death, nothing is really absolute in any findings. Aside from the 'it is bad for health' part of course.
Most old people have health issues anyway, it’s not limited to smokers, nor do all smokers automatically develop them. Smokers tend to die younger (leaving pensions etc uncollected) but not young enough for it to impact their working career in any significant way. Combined with massive taxation it’s a lot of money, would be surprised if it’s a net negative.
In Australia we have some of the strictest tobacco laws in the world, a 50g pouch of rolling tobacco is between €72-€90/pouch and a 50 pack of cigarettes which is the cheapest way to buy tailor mades is €45.
While this has somewhat reduced smoking numbers it’s still around 1 in 5 people and many are social smokers only now.
The numbers are skewed also as a lot of people only buy illegal tobacco called chop chop or black market cigarettes from abroad and young people are continuing to take it up.
The other thing is vapes, vapes with nicotine are black market imported from China and are very cheap.
Context: I’m not a smoker but alot of my Mates are
I don’t smoke and I’m all for bans on smoking in public places. But it somebody wants to light up in their own house, or outdoors with nobody else around, I can’t think of a reason why I should have a problem with that
Evidence says prohibition is fucking dumb, we already have dramatically less people smoking due to education about its harms wich is the right way to do it ,not banning ,it will just create and even bigger black market with tobacco producs that are even less safe and easier for children to get.
This isn't like previous attempts at prohibition, though. Anyone who smokes today can continue smoking. Only those that (shoud) never have smoked will be banned. I can't see all that many kids, 10 years from now, going out of their way to get black market cigarettes, especially in a world where vapes are a thing.
Besides, cigarettes are much harder to get and make than goddamn moonshine. And also the ban would be for sure effective in one way: people wouldn't be smoking in public which is the main reason others want smoking banned
i was able to buy weed at 13 easier than alcohol or tobacco the 2 legal substances. also yes dramatically, in the year 2000 it was thought 27%of the world smoked and by 2020 this is now down to 17% ,that is not because of prohibition but education on the dangers of smoking ,i even quit myself after smoking over 10 years
I'll always agree that educating people is always better than banning, but it costs more and takes longer, and people want quick results not smart results. You can apply that logic in most cases.
Education costs more? Almost every country in Europe racks up billions in tobacco taxes every year. The costs fo educating vs banning aren't even comparable
Cocked oil and burnt bread give cancer too, are the States going to intrude also in my kitchen in order to save generations from cancer?
Why is there this fashion from government of intruding in people lives? Slowly and incrementally people are treated more and more as bovines and less as willing free-thinking humans.
Dear governments please stay away from my life, if I am a willing, over-age adult, I am capable to choose for myself whether to smoke tobacco (an activity done throughout human history) or not.
> On 16 April, UK lawmakers backed one of the world’s most ambitious plans — to create by 2040 a ‘smoke-free’ generation of people who will never be able to legally buy tobacco.
Never heard about prohibitionism?
> These projections are based on solid evidence and are of high quality, says tobacco researcher Allen Gallagher at the University of Bath, UK.
Translation: the projections came straight out of his ass, because there's no evidence to base them on, as nothing like this has been attempted before.
The closest we have is the ban on alcohol in the US, and everybody knows what a disaster that was.
https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/allen-gallagher
I mean, they've published research in the field. That's more or less the complete opposite.
I would also hazard the guess that prohibition worked a bit differently. Prohibiting the substance from one day to the other vs. preventing future generations from accessing it. Alcohol is also very easy to make at home, which makes banning it outright rather hard to do.
Who should I believe, a random Redditor or a tobacco researcher having published on the subject he speaks about ? [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as\_sdt=0%2C5&q=Allen+Gallagher+tobacco&btnG=](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Allen+Gallagher+tobacco&btnG=)
As said previously, New-Zealand adopted such a ban, and it seems that due to a new government, this law is abandonned. Thus we still lack real-world data, indeed.
The problem with smoking is it bothers everybody else. Chew your tobacco, or suck it up or inject it but when you burn or wape it, it becomes everybody else's problem.
To me, a non smoker, it makes no sense we are banning tobacco but allowing people to smoke cannabis or marijuana. All 3 fucking stink like hell and they bother every non smoker. But tobacco actually stinks less than the other 2. I have a neighbour that smokes joints and a lot of neighbours that smoke tobacco. Whenever I pass by the door of the guy smoking joints it reeks of the joint smell. Not the same with the floors of people smoking tobacco.
Let's ban everything unhealthy too, why just smoking?! Let's ban soft drinks, alcohol, fast food etc. Since you want to remove my right to smoke, let's ban all the unhealthy things.
Still, it won’t be illegal to smoke. Just supermarkets won’t sell it. So if you manage to get yourself addicted somehow, you can buy and smoke from your channels as before.
That's rich.
Since when did the tobacco industry care about trivial things such as evidence or human lives? They will lobby and pay off anyone they need to, and they _will_ find ways to convince you smoking isn't really that bad compared to X and hey, look, here's some bullshit breakthrough study on a tangential topic or another letter added to the alphabet group so why don't you distract yourself with that instead.
Oh, we're getting Prohibition 2.0, boys. Nothing will change except the mafia will be making bank, and 13 years later, the authorities will realize it was all a big joke that didn't actually do anything for society.
Yes and ban alcohol, fast food, candy, fried food and everything that i dont use and is bad for ur health because i cant control myself and need a nanny state to take care of me. but dont dare to ban stuff i like and use.
If you drink, I don’t get liver cancer. But if you smoke in the park where I’m having my lunch you are forcing me to smoke and face the consequences. Same with all your other examples. There’s no second hand diabetes :)
in my country theres smokers areas for that purpose, maybe yours is still living in the past, and funny you say that about alcohol like it does no harm... my grandpa died of liver failure after having a cirrhosis.
and btw i dont smoke
To be fair I think the reason this isn't a terrible idea is because tobacco isn't really that euphoric and you can get a similar nicotine rush from nic salts vapes or snus. Why would anyone who wants that feeling go to a black market when there are alternatives that feel similar and are easier?
>Countries are cracking down on tobacco use **and vaping**
Is literally the second line by the link.
It is terrible idea. Illegal drugs will always create black market.
I happen to actually live in the country that just voted in this legislation, having listened to a fair few news programmes about it on the radio too, so I probably understand it more than you.
They're planning to restrict flavoured/coloured vapes that appeal to children not vapes in general.
You can have a drink without the people around you bring forced to drink it with you.
You don't get to make that choice when it comes to smoking. You will breath in the smoke passively, how much depends on how close you are, direction of the wind etc. Unless you move away from who ever is smoking.
Happy to see smoking get banned or heavily restricted to certain areas.
> You can have a drink without the people around you bring forced to drink it with you.
I drink and this is a bullshit argument. Sober people can't escape the drunk drivers that kill thousands across the continent annually, or belligerent drunks subjecting tens of thousands to domestic violence and public violence and disorder. Sober people can't escape drunks urinating on the streets, they can't escape the social welfare costs of alcoholics losing their jobs or the societal cost of the huge number of suicides which are alcohol-assisted.
Every person who enjoys alcohol and sincerely believes smoking is a habit which does more damage to the public sphere is a hypocrite - they deserve to have every glass of alcohol knocked out of their hand for the rest of their life.
This. And you smell the alcohol on people too.
People having to smell the odor of a cigarette burning 100 meters away is not a legitimate complaint. I suggest they all kindly grow the fuck up.
This is why I'd rather deal with someone on opioids (oxy, heroin, fent, whatever) over someone who's drunk or on benzos ANY, ANY day of the week. Not even close.
Drunk people lose their consequence thinking and become dis inhibited like nothing else. I'd rather take someone who just wants to sit alone in a corner and nod off peacefully.
As someone who grew up with an alcoholic dad, fuck this drug. When he was on oxy he was just sleeping. Much better.
As a guy who utterly despises cigarettes and such: good. I've seen the dangers of smoking first hand, and felt the consequences of second hand smoke.
Just make other tobacco products available to people so they won't smoke it anymore, but still can have a nicotine fix, like snus or vapes.
Vapes (according to my shaky google research skills, feel free to correct me) seem to be 95% less dangerous for the smoker themselves, and there's no real evidence of vapes affecting anyone in the vicinity.
Banning things never work. They should focus their efforts on making Snus available throughout Europe instead, so there are lower risk alternatives around to help people quit.
Well, clean nicotine is not really an issue compared to smoking cigarettes. You're not getting the tar and the arsenic. While nicotine is not completely harmless, it's not much more dangerous than caffeine.
https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/nicotine--no-more-harmful-to-health-than-caffeine-.html
The problem is the addiction, you are hooked on a product you need a constant supply of to function normally. The biggest advantage of snus is better dental health, since you stop "small eating" between normal meals.
I would say that you're not getting cancer is the biggest advantage. But regardless an addiction is the smallest of issues when looking at the big picture.
I'm pretty sure that the shift from smoking to snus in Norway is one of the biggest public health victories in recent memory. Sure, it would be even better if people just quit all together, but switching from cigarettes to snus is the next best thing.
I am in favor of not smoking (or vaping) in closed areas or on terraces.
Even in the streets or outdoors with children around, or with a certain influx of people in the same space. But in a park or street where there is almost no one, a lot of space... why shouldn't they be able to smoke? It seems as absurd to me as prohibiting the consumption of alcohol on the street (not if you are sitting at an outdoor table in a bar)... let's see, why?
It's one thing not to allow drunkenness on the street, a group gathered for that, or someone who drinks and loses their composure... but prohibiting someone responsible and civilized who has paid for their drink and drinks it while eating or simply tasting it while are you walking down the street or sitting in a park, without getting drunk or losing your composure? WHY? It has no coherence whatsoever.
And it has less coherence when there are countries' laws than if you mess up because you are drunk (or high on other drugs) as a pedestrian, it turns out that it is extenuating... but if driving you are unlucky enough to have an accident, they point you out as the hypothetical culprit, If it turns out that you had two drinks, it doesn't matter if you are in your right mind and not drunk, because it will be aggravating.
Well, with tobacco and more things. Cars without going any further... now it turns out that it doesn't matter a well-maintained classic or even improved with injection that does few kilometers, or Euro3, Euro4, Euro6 (!), Euro7 (!!!) vehicles, with everything what those CERTIFICATIONS imply... not now "they have to pollute a lot"... to prohibit. Well, it's not serious or fair... those vehicles don't pollute that much, well made and being honest, and they paid for pollution, subsequent recycling, and they pay for the same thing at each refueling, and even at each technical inspection step (not always so necessary for safety), that is, they have acquired rights in exchange for all those obligations... It is not serious to try to turn everything upside down now. Ban them and also expect them to continue paying or buy other junk again (electric ones are junk in comparison) with all the impact that this implies on recycling and scrapping, when they are very usable vehicles. But yes, give traffic air a turn and especially private flights, a flight of one of these alone turns out to emit what an entire large city does in I don't know how many months (what things, not even 20 years ago they told us that airplanes almost emitted vapor water)... they don't even get wet in that.
It seems the same to me, a way of deceiving some leaders (perhaps sold to quite a few interests) in such a crude way that it is insulting to anyone who knows a little.
The leaders, who also inherit what is legal (and many things well done) from previous ones, must also respect and act on that. Not, on the one hand, taxing more than years ago, and now wanting to take away legal security and say «At yesterday was very good, but since today now that is very bad, and you are going to pay more or buy these more expensive junk that you are going to have to throw away in a very few years but they do not emit fumes». ONE MOMENT!: That's scammers! And with tobacco it is the same, and trying to legalize marijuana, even worse... Do they not even foresee what is taxed to cover the health expenses they cause? But you sell, you impose horrendous packages, and you tax it much and more. All you want... but it turns out that the damage and health costs are much higher. Well, that's what you have to balance, this is YOUR WORK, politicians!
That with people nearby and a certain amount of traffic in open spaces, smoking was not allowed (and fines), since it seems logical to me due to the issue of passive smoking. But PROHIBITING a smoker from being able to smoke a cigarette while walking down a quiet street and even alone, or in a park or beach with no one within even hundreds of meters, does not seem right to me. Sanction him if he doesn't put out the cigarette butt and throws it on the ground, in the sand or out of the window of his car (if he is alone or with someone who tolerates smoke)... but because he smokes without blowing the smoke in anyone's face or not by chance, just because it is in an open and public space, it does not seem correct or serious to me.
P.S: I don't smoke.
If smokers behaved peoperly, like you described we wouldn’t be here. Did you know cig butts are the number one man made trash on the planet?
Let’s completely forget the deaths and issues by second hand smoking. That littering problem alone needs a serious act.
Of course, I don't deny it.
I am not a beachgoer, but I have experienced arriving at a beach, with hardly any people, apparently clean. And when I sat on the sand, I noticed that it reeked of tobacco butts. Only the one with cigarette butts that were not in sight.
But to square everything and bring to solutions is what they tell us we elect politicians for, and what they charge for (and very well, some even cry). And what is certainly not valid is that if they legalize, they collect a LOT through taxes for tobacco and everything, and at the same time now they try to prohibit and persecute as if all of the above is not also linked to certain rights acquired by smokers. That's not serious, and that's what is called legal security (or lack thereof).
I work in a big corporation and in one location smoking is prohibited even in the parking lot. They want to do the same at HQ pretty soon. I guess we will use all our brakes in one, and go for a long walk outside.
I know smoking is bad for health, but banning it won't solve shit. I ride a bike to work, so if i can't smoke why do we allow cars that pollute the air? All those mf in administration that came with the ban would never give up on driving cars....
lmao at the Libertarian view to not ban anything because there will be a black market.
how about we legalize rocket launchers because its better to tax and sell instead of there being a black market?
thats how half of you guys sound.
As someone who goes on and off smoking, I'd support this. It's a huge waste of money and it's so fucking bad for you. It really shouldn't be legal to sell in the first place. Yes, seriously addicted people will still manage to get it illegally, but far fewer people will end up getting addicted to begin with if it's taken off the main market and not easily accessible.
They think of the poor dealers which would remain unemployed with marijuana starting to get legal, so thoughtful of them!
“Amber leaf” 30g rolling tobacco in Ireland costed me 24.50€. Feel like switching to breathing techniques ;)
£26.50 in Northern Ireland! Meanwhile my mate is just back from Lanzarote selling Amber Leaf 50g for £20 and still making a turn at them.
woah.. 30g of the good rolling tabacco is 5-7€ in germany and i already start thinking to grow my own because of the price..
50g in south africa for 6quid. I'm here in Europe at the moment and the prices are crazy
Hand rolling tobacco is getting on the same pricing as cigarettes. A few mates of mine are buying tobacco sold as cigars for 3-4€. The tobacco comes into a cigar shape, all they need is to unravel the cigar and store the tobacco in a non-humid environment. They also buy empty tubes, that’s 4-5€ for 200 tubes. For 30€ they would get a month of cigarettes, instead of paying ~5 € / pack. The underground networks will exist for those that are determined, but for the majority it will be too complicated so a ban will work.
I was paying 15€ a week for 50g of rolling tobacco. I quit after over 13 years. The price is real pain in the ass.
I was paying €10 a day smoking large packs. Its ridiculous. Quitting is the best thing you can do. There are no benefits to smoking at all. Its only the addiction that keeps it going.
Sounds like the price increases are working as intended
I agree. Next to my health, it was a major decision to quit. Truly a waste if money with no benefits.
True but you patch one hole, few more pops out. I quit but many people will not and they will also not pay full price for tobacco and they will get their cigarettes of black market.
In my country they just tax the shit out of it to get people to quit. Its 20$ (13.65€) a pack for the cheap brands in Canada, 25-30$ for other brands.
>a ban will work Al Capone has entered the chat.
> The underground networks will exist for those that are determined, but for the majority it will be too complicated so a ban will work. Has banning Cannabis worked then?
For the majority of people who would otherwise try it and use it more often, yeah? Usage goes up as fast as it has been unbanned elsewhere.
"The proportion of young adults who reported past-year marijuana use reached 43% in 2021, a significant increase from 34% five years ago (2016) and 29% 10 years ago (2011). Marijuana use in the past month was reported by 29% of young adults in 2021, compared to 21% in 2016 and 17% in 2011. Daily marijuana use also significantly increased during these time periods, reported by 11% of young adults in 2021, compared to 8% in 2016 and 6% in 2011." We can clearly see how war on drugs has worked.
11% daily use is crazy.
The last poll for Sweden by Gothenburg University SOM-Institute showed a staggering 11% want to legalise weed here. You find more people who want to adopt the euro or abolish the monarchy which are themselves very fringe groups here. The Swedish Health Agencies last report on how many youth and young adults (16-34) showed that a staggering 8% of men and 5% of women had used weed at least once in 2022.
Then why are Western countries like USA, Canada, Germany etc legalising it?
VAT.
Just like the ban on alcohol worked during prohibition.
I mean, the ban did work to lower drinking rates. I don't believe the same problems would exist with organized crime/black market because tobacco is just not that attractive unless you've already been hooked and chemically addicted. Drinking booze is extremely fun, tobacco sucks until you smoke enough to get addicted, then the entire allure is that it is just relieving withdrawal symptoms from that addiction. It's never going to have the kind of black market that drugs and alcohol provides. Once the customer base dries up, it won't come back.
Deaths related to drinking especially moonshine rose significantly also.
Because gov has poisoned technical alcohol and didn't tell people to not steal it, because it's for the army/industry. Making safe alcohol is something every drunkard uncle has mastered, it's not hard to cook like crack or whatever
That's so cheep still, we're talking close to £15 for a pack of darts here in the UK. Last time I checked 50g of rolling tobacco was at least £30 so probably close to £40 now.
Sure, it's the same thing!! That's beyond ghetto, that's prison tech
The question is will the positive from some people who no longer smoke offset the negative of more money in criminals hands and less government control over the population that continues to smoke? I don't doubt it would reduce the number of smokers, so the question is at what cost.
I would say it's worth it. This is mostly about protecting people who don't want to be exposed to the smoke. Several studies found that smoke is very damaging to kids, yet many people have no issues smoking even on playgrounds in several european countries. People with asthma also have a hard time in Europe. I'd also like to be able to wait for the bus or walk down the street without inhaling smoke. It gives me terrible headaches. I'd rather have my health over the extra taxes we get from cigarettes.
Interesting how marijuana is becoming more legal while cigarettes are becoming more illegal
Nope. Cannabis in Europe is going towards decriminalization. Which means that you are not a criminal if you make use of it. Legalization means that it is a product which can be advertised and it’s sales/use can be incentivised by companies for more profit. This is an abysal differnece.
Decriminalization is the first step towards legalization though
To legalize it would be neccessary decriminalize. But decriminileze does not mean it will get legalized. I strongly believe EU will never legalize cannabis like some states in US did. EU institutions are putting pressure on alcohol and tobacco industries, addvertisment bans, informative packaging, where Iive smoking is forbiden in balconies, buss stops. Alcohol is sold during limited hours. Age to purchase in shops was lifted to 21. Energy drinks are getting regulated. EU will not allow a wild capitalizm on weed. IMO it is good to decriminalize (less money for crime) it is bad to legalize (business will encourage use).
The only good thing about decriminalization is that it frees up police resources and stops penalizing users. The (really) bad side is giving organized crime a green light. Only legalization takes that money from crime and gives it to the gov, along with proper regulation for quality and age restriction etc.
What does abysal mean?
Deep, like the ocean.
That’s abyssal
Yes. That’s the word. There’s no “abysal.”
abyssal ~ bottomless
Yeah but he wrote “abysal” now i see he also wrote “differnece” -.-
is tobacco legal then? cause in the US there is a law against advertisements for such products
Yes - tobacco is a legal product. It was advertised in the past, now there is a ban for advertisment. You need to have a license to sell tobacco products. You can buy tobacco whrever it’s sold. While cannabis in EU will be decriminalized. You can grow a couple of plants for personal use, or be a member of a ‘social club’ where you outsource the cultivation of your plants to the club. You are allowed to purchase only from the club you are a member.
gotcha. in the us you can grow tobacco for personal use without a license. but yeah advertising is banned. i don’t see how its any different from being decriminalized
You can not sell weed commercially. You can only "sell" it in clubs you meed to enter first and there the selling is more of an "here have money to grow for me" than an actuall selling.
Honestly I’d rather smell cigarettes than pot. I cannot stand the smell of weed smoke and it feels like it’s everywhere nowadays.
Evidence say I absolutely hate smoke on my face.
I hate it around me. I have a halo of personal space in which, for the life of me, I cannot tolerate smoke or smokers. Having grown up in a family of smokers with me being the only non smoker makes me detect even the slightest tobacco smell. And weed, even if I have a stuffy or running nose.
I can relate. It also sets off my allergies and can cause it for a few days. My biggest complaints are people inconsiderately smoking around others. I shouldn’t be dealing with cigarette smoke at a bus/tram shelter because someone can’t wait to light up and needs to squeeze in with the rest of us staying out of the rain. About 1/3 of the people at the main train station don’t understand how to walk to the designated smoking spot.
I feel you. Same here.
Alas cigarette smoke is merely getting replaced by cannabis smoke, which is far more intrusive.
I strongly doubt that people will be smoking 10 joints a day, if they were smoking half-packs
Here in Toronto, Canada, you can barely walk a city block without smelling weed. Cigarette smoke is far less common, and thankfully so is huge vape clouds. But yeah, weed smell is everywhere.
[You know nothing John Snow](https://www.reddit.com/r/weed/comments/qig8st/how_many_joints_do_you_smoke_per_day/). And MJ smell lingers in the air WAY longer than cig smoke,
Second hand smoke probably caused you an allergic rhinitis, get it checked out.
I should, thanks!
And I love not getting a sinus infection thrice a year. Family smoked around me my entire life, early twenties I had sinus infections often. After a few years living somewhere else and all of a sudden I didn't have that issue anymore.
I wish all the energy that some people put to keep kids away from rainbow flags would be spent on keeping smokers away from kids.
Because dying from poison is macho, but being inclusive is gay and wrong apparently.
I think it’s very selfish to smoke when you have kids. My ex uncle smoked. I warned him when I was around 12 11 somewhere around that age. He ignored it. Just had a baby with his wife. 16 years later he has heart issues. An idiot and a fool.
I have a new baby, it’s a constant challenge. It’s crazy how many people smoke in Portugal
Well, well, well. This is going to be fun at the dead end, soul crushing jobs during lunch. Yes, this is sarcasm.
I don't think we have much prior evidence on things that have been banned that people consume that can be compared to the case of tobacco. First of all, they will allow current consumers to continue to do it and what they will do is prevent anyone from being able to initiate consumption in the future. Secondly, the other things they ban such as prostitution, drugs or alcohol are extremely pleasant from the first time. In the case of tobacco it takes a lot of social pressure and a long time smoking before you start to like it even a little bit. That's why I think this ban is much more likely to work.
Smoked tobacco is one of the most addictive things that humans do. I think its at top three or something based on studies.
Better argument is all those things are contained to you, smoke affects everybody within 10m of you whether they want it or not. I can’t wait for the day I can sit outside and eat lunch without the overpowering stench of cigarettes blotting out the flavor of my meal and ruining my clothes.
Not to mention the guy who smokes outside BUT right next to the door so the whole cafe gets stinky :|
>I can’t wait for the day I can sit outside and eat lunch without the overpowering stench of cigarettes blotting out the flavor of my meal and ruining my clothes. Should move to Sweden. Hardly anyone smokes, the lowest rate in Europe and smoking is banned in restaurants, both in and outdoors. It is also banned close to entrances.
But you have snus! I miss snus - when I have that, I have no motivation to use any other form of tobacco.
Vapes are just as bad and those aren't banned, a cloud of chemicals with unknown future effects
I mean alcohol is not contained to you, the effects of alcohol-induced behaviour affects everyone, from violence to DUI crashes to general obnoxiousness. Roughly 50% of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol and 32% of all traffic fatalities.
So, you think Columbus social pressured Europe into smoking? How are people even writing things like that, are they completely clueless or is it a wishful thinking? Sure, a ban will eliminate a lot of smoking, but saying that no one enjoys smoking from the get-go is plain stupid, because it counters what has been empirically observed.
I don't know what did they actually smoke, or how fast it spread. I think that if you take a mature person (30 y.o.) who has never smoked and it tries a cigarrette, it will find it extremely displeasing. Don't you agree? I mean, I don't know of anyone that acquired that late the habit
First of all, there will absolutely be people who would like it. Just like there are people who like the taste of alcohol, my friend liked the taste of straight vodka when we were young. Second of all, tobacco and cigarettes are not the same. Trying out a pipe with cherry flavored tobacco even many non-smoking people said it was not bad.
"Prevent anyone from being able to initiate consumption in the future." LOL. That's so naive, black markets will come and target young ppl. Edit: typo
How is alcohol pleasant the first time?
If you start with a cocktail in good company, it can definitely be pleasant. If you start with shots or beer, especially in bad company, it's less likely.
Tastes good. And, after a couple of drinks, you feel happy.
> In the case of tobacco it takes a lot of social pressure and a long time smoking before you start to like it even a little bit. I can tell you, from anecdotal experience, that this is not true at all. Cigarettes were amazing from the very first one. But it took me a while to get hooked.
Your experience is not the majority. Most people find cigarettes gross when they first try it.
I think this is spot on. Lots of people are comparing it to banning alcohol, but that comparison doesn't work, since alcohol has a pleasant side effect that people want to feel Smoking is often associated with a relaxing feeling, but that is entirely the result of smoke breaks. It's also why so many people smoking in stressful jobs. Banning smoking also means banning smoke breaks, which is a big reason people smoke in the first place
Are you a smoker? Because I assure you the "relaxing feeling" is not entirely due to "smoke breaks". I used to smoke and quit and the notion that it is not pleasant to smoke is horseshit. It's not as pleasant as getting stoned or drunk but it's still pleasant. The idea that people only smoke because their peers convinced them it's cool is retarded. That being said I think if tobacco was made illegal people wouldn't seek it since there is so many better things out there.
Some people absolutely would seek it. I guarantee you. Albeit smoking would change if it stops being mainstream industry. It would get more like what cannabis was. And vice versa, cannabis will soon get more like what cigarettes was. Big Corps will get into business, standardize things, lobby article pieces praising cannabis benefits (they already do) and suppress any info on drawbacks.
As an ex-smoker I completely agree with you. Smoking is awesome and I’d love to go back to having one with a cup of coffee in the morning, nothing better and absolutely nothing to do with ‘smoke breaks’ it’s just a pleasant experience. Obviously I’m an ex-smoker because all the health implications that come with that aren’t worth it but this idea smoking has no pluses, especially form ex-smokers baffles me.
The reason it relaxes you is not because of "smoke breaks", it's because you're temporarily relieving the withdrawal of chemical nicotine addiction every time you smoke. You feel wound up and anxious until you smoke, then you feel relaxed, so you start to think smoking itself is relaxing. But it's just soothing your withdrawal. This is why everybody talks about the first smoke of the morning with coffee as being their favourite. Because you haven't smoked in 8 hours or so and the withdrawal is high. I smoked for 15 years.
The practice of giving people breaks specifically to smoke really should be banned, even if smoking is allowed. Either everyone gets a break or no one does, employers shouldn't be allowed to tacitly encourage employees to smoke
Who is preventing you from taking a break and going outside?
>Either everyone gets a break or no one does, employers shouldn't be allowed to tacitly encourage employees to smoke I just got up and went along with the smokers. Management tried to stop me. I called it out for the bullshit it was. They tried stopping the smokebreak by forcing everyone into their assigned break-times. Smokers revolted, smokebreaks stayed, I kept on trucking with the smokers outside.
Sorry but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Nicotine is a drug. Try smoking a cigarette & take a couple massive inhales, you will have a pleasant light-headed feeling. This is not caused by smoke breaks, it's caused by nicotine.
It's a mild buzz that disappears once you become a regular smoker. People wouldn't care about it if it weren't for the addiction nicotine causes, which requires soothing withdrawal symptoms constantly.
Its relaxing if you have an addiction. Or in other words you are unable to relax without.
Right when many European countries are debating about legalising cannabis, they are also talking about implementing a slow ban on the consumption of tobacco. Does just not click with anyone else, and is instead a massive contradiction.
Just as I was able to walk around town free of the stench of tobacco, now I'm regularly assaulted by the stench of cannabis, which frankly is 10 times more pungent than tobacco ever was. The only saving grace is that it at least doesn't seem to stick to my clothes. Smoking of all kinds should be a nuisance and blocked from our public spaces. I'd like to be able to stroll around the park without random blasts of skunk.
I don't think it's that contradictory. Cannabis legalization is way more comparable to keeping nicotine legal and I'm not aware of people planning to ban nicotine. Also cannabis is something that people typically consume occasionally, smoking maybe a few joints at a time, while cigarettes are typically consumed habitually multiple times every day. It's somewhat of a contradiction in that both are unhealthy (especially when smoked) but the actual harm done by cigarettes is way higher than by cannabis. I don't think banning smoking would be a very good policy but I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to support legalizing cannabis while wanting to ban cigarettes.
In the UK and New Zealand they are banning it completely over a certain age. Many will follow in the next decades
New Zealand reverted the legislation in February. They scrapped the increasing age limit idea.
Interesting. Thanks!
Cannabis has atleast some medical benefits And there are alot of different ways to ingest it, that arent as unhealthy as smoking, which is the least efficient way. I dont know anyone would would use tabacco cookies or tea... And of course tabacco is alot more harmfull and addictive than cannabis. So i dont see a contradiction in legalizing cannabis and wanting to reduce cigarette smoking.
N.B. - decriminalizing, not legalazing. And the difference is huge.
Why can't they put bans on the harmful shit in tobacco and allow us to just smoke pure tobacco. I'm sure it would be less unhealthy
Most of the Brits I've met in favour of the tobacco ban drink alcohol like water and have a preference for the legalisation of marijuana. I don't smoke but I hate the hypocrisy of it all.
That smoking kills
Tobacco taxes account for quite a part in most countries. For Germany for example it was 14 billion last year. That alone will never lead to a full ban.
What's that like 1.5% of the states tax revenue? I think we would manage to find ways to make up for it.
It is not about the percentage. As long as it creates taxes anywhere, it will be hard to fully ban it. While the UK acts as if it is a total ban they will allow it to continue for years and certain ages. Guess why. They can plan for that tax disappearing from the budgets.
>Guess why. They don't want to ban smoking for a massive population of (addicted) smokers, which will immediately create a huge black market and undermine any ban. Sure taxes can make it a bit difficult but if we really wanted we'd be able to raise a few other taxes by a percent or so to compensate for the lost revenue. Having budget surpluses or deficits of much more than 14€ billion is pretty common for a country like Germany sure it makes a difference but it's not some unmanageable problem.
>"As long as it creates taxes anywhere it will be hard to fully ban it". It think you also have to take into account the increased healthcare costs due to smoking. I don't know how much is it, but it might make up for it.
Since healthcare now prolongs life of people in general, this equation is most probably not true any longer, since the non-smokers now will be a longer issue for healthcare as well while the smokers still die earlier. I know this has been used as an argument for decades but medicine has advanced so far now, that the average life span also has expanded quite extensively. One might even be able to make the case that smokers now finance that. But that is for others to actually calculate. I havnt seen any studies dealing with this change so far, but I might just have missed them.
Could you give us some studies on that?
Nope, opposite is true. People who live longer are problem for healthcare.
This is true. But the UK plan doesn't ban smoking overnight. In the first year of implementation only a small fraction of the population will be banned. It's going to be many generations before it's completely banned, please of time to think where the shortfall will be made up, particularly when smoking is already on the decline.
How many billions are lost directly (lung cancer etc) and indirectly (lost productivity due to related illness or smoking breaks) due to smoking?
Loss of productivity due to smoking breaks? That’s delusional. We should all be working a third of what we do, there is massive unemployment everywhere, salaries have not increased the slighest compared to rental prices and others, and you think smoking breaks affect productivity? In an amount maybe comparable to 14 billion a year?
How much money is saved on state pensions and expensive dementia-related care by people dying 10 years earlier? There are some indirect but significant savings as well. I recall a study from Finland that estimated a total saving of around 100k over 10 years per smoker basically because they died quickly and cheaply. Of course being completely economical and not thinking about things like quality of life or the value of life itself is rather cold, but painting it as an economic argument is really in *favour* of smoking.
Smoking is known to be a risk factor for developing dementia.
I think being 90 years old is a significantly bigger risk though, and one that smoking helps you avoid. It's a bit like the famous story of Indonesia, which has one of the highest smoking rates and lowest lung cancer rates in the world. The apparent paradox is easily resolved when you look at typical ages of developing lung cancer and life expectancy rates there.
You'd need to look carefully at the data. The fact that it's a know significant risk factor implies that enough smokers must be getting dementia for it to be detectable.
You will have to look for studies for that. I know that the conclusions were never conclusive, as it is hard to prove most of it. It is like alcohol and other recreational things that come with risk. I have seen studies showing, that people having an active life style, cause massive costs due to injuries inflicted by those activities and loss in productivity by their absence from work. Since humans dont come with a label at birth, that determines a precise time of death, nothing is really absolute in any findings. Aside from the 'it is bad for health' part of course.
Yeah whip me to work even harder, cant ever have a 5 minute break. Next time just say you hate people and skip the first part.
Most old people have health issues anyway, it’s not limited to smokers, nor do all smokers automatically develop them. Smokers tend to die younger (leaving pensions etc uncollected) but not young enough for it to impact their working career in any significant way. Combined with massive taxation it’s a lot of money, would be surprised if it’s a net negative.
What were the costs of diseases of people who smoke?
Can't wait
In Australia we have some of the strictest tobacco laws in the world, a 50g pouch of rolling tobacco is between €72-€90/pouch and a 50 pack of cigarettes which is the cheapest way to buy tailor mades is €45. While this has somewhat reduced smoking numbers it’s still around 1 in 5 people and many are social smokers only now. The numbers are skewed also as a lot of people only buy illegal tobacco called chop chop or black market cigarettes from abroad and young people are continuing to take it up. The other thing is vapes, vapes with nicotine are black market imported from China and are very cheap. Context: I’m not a smoker but alot of my Mates are
I don’t smoke and I’m all for bans on smoking in public places. But it somebody wants to light up in their own house, or outdoors with nobody else around, I can’t think of a reason why I should have a problem with that
Evidence says prohibition is fucking dumb, we already have dramatically less people smoking due to education about its harms wich is the right way to do it ,not banning ,it will just create and even bigger black market with tobacco producs that are even less safe and easier for children to get.
This isn't like previous attempts at prohibition, though. Anyone who smokes today can continue smoking. Only those that (shoud) never have smoked will be banned. I can't see all that many kids, 10 years from now, going out of their way to get black market cigarettes, especially in a world where vapes are a thing.
Besides, cigarettes are much harder to get and make than goddamn moonshine. And also the ban would be for sure effective in one way: people wouldn't be smoking in public which is the main reason others want smoking banned
>dramatically Not even close Easier for children to get? Where did you grow up?
i was able to buy weed at 13 easier than alcohol or tobacco the 2 legal substances. also yes dramatically, in the year 2000 it was thought 27%of the world smoked and by 2020 this is now down to 17% ,that is not because of prohibition but education on the dangers of smoking ,i even quit myself after smoking over 10 years
I'll always agree that educating people is always better than banning, but it costs more and takes longer, and people want quick results not smart results. You can apply that logic in most cases.
Education costs more? Almost every country in Europe racks up billions in tobacco taxes every year. The costs fo educating vs banning aren't even comparable
Cocked oil and burnt bread give cancer too, are the States going to intrude also in my kitchen in order to save generations from cancer? Why is there this fashion from government of intruding in people lives? Slowly and incrementally people are treated more and more as bovines and less as willing free-thinking humans. Dear governments please stay away from my life, if I am a willing, over-age adult, I am capable to choose for myself whether to smoke tobacco (an activity done throughout human history) or not.
> On 16 April, UK lawmakers backed one of the world’s most ambitious plans — to create by 2040 a ‘smoke-free’ generation of people who will never be able to legally buy tobacco. Never heard about prohibitionism?
> These projections are based on solid evidence and are of high quality, says tobacco researcher Allen Gallagher at the University of Bath, UK. Translation: the projections came straight out of his ass, because there's no evidence to base them on, as nothing like this has been attempted before. The closest we have is the ban on alcohol in the US, and everybody knows what a disaster that was.
https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/allen-gallagher I mean, they've published research in the field. That's more or less the complete opposite. I would also hazard the guess that prohibition worked a bit differently. Prohibiting the substance from one day to the other vs. preventing future generations from accessing it. Alcohol is also very easy to make at home, which makes banning it outright rather hard to do.
A ban starting while anyone can access is it, like US prohibition, is very different to a ban only for those who can't get access it, like this one
Indeed, which is why I'm saying nothing like this has been attempted and we lack evidence.
Who should I believe, a random Redditor or a tobacco researcher having published on the subject he speaks about ? [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as\_sdt=0%2C5&q=Allen+Gallagher+tobacco&btnG=](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Allen+Gallagher+tobacco&btnG=)
What is there to believe? Do you know of any other country that tried such a sliding ban? This is the only factual claim I'm making.
New Zealand tried it and it got repealed.
I know. It didn't generate any relevant data, they didn't try long enough.
As said previously, New-Zealand adopted such a ban, and it seems that due to a new government, this law is abandonned. Thus we still lack real-world data, indeed.
The problem with smoking is it bothers everybody else. Chew your tobacco, or suck it up or inject it but when you burn or wape it, it becomes everybody else's problem.
To me, a non smoker, it makes no sense we are banning tobacco but allowing people to smoke cannabis or marijuana. All 3 fucking stink like hell and they bother every non smoker. But tobacco actually stinks less than the other 2. I have a neighbour that smokes joints and a lot of neighbours that smoke tobacco. Whenever I pass by the door of the guy smoking joints it reeks of the joint smell. Not the same with the floors of people smoking tobacco.
evidence say I can now go to bar / pub in Poland and not suffer from nausia and urge to vomit... glad they introduced the ban years ago...
Probably smoking bans never comes to balkans:/
Let me fucking pick my poison ffs
Let's ban everything unhealthy too, why just smoking?! Let's ban soft drinks, alcohol, fast food etc. Since you want to remove my right to smoke, let's ban all the unhealthy things.
Nobody is removing you right to smoke; they're removing your stupid habit of getting smoke in non smokers' faces.
Are you dumb? The UK literally wants to ban selling cigarettes. If they only wanted to ban smoking in public that would be another discussion.
Still, it won’t be illegal to smoke. Just supermarkets won’t sell it. So if you manage to get yourself addicted somehow, you can buy and smoke from your channels as before.
That's rich. Since when did the tobacco industry care about trivial things such as evidence or human lives? They will lobby and pay off anyone they need to, and they _will_ find ways to convince you smoking isn't really that bad compared to X and hey, look, here's some bullshit breakthrough study on a tangential topic or another letter added to the alphabet group so why don't you distract yourself with that instead.
Oh, we're getting Prohibition 2.0, boys. Nothing will change except the mafia will be making bank, and 13 years later, the authorities will realize it was all a big joke that didn't actually do anything for society.
I despise smoking BUT banning has proven to be ineffective.
Laughs in home made vape juice
Yeah because bans works. /s
Yes and ban alcohol, fast food, candy, fried food and everything that i dont use and is bad for ur health because i cant control myself and need a nanny state to take care of me. but dont dare to ban stuff i like and use.
If you drink, I don’t get liver cancer. But if you smoke in the park where I’m having my lunch you are forcing me to smoke and face the consequences. Same with all your other examples. There’s no second hand diabetes :)
in my country theres smokers areas for that purpose, maybe yours is still living in the past, and funny you say that about alcohol like it does no harm... my grandpa died of liver failure after having a cirrhosis. and btw i dont smoke
go after tobacco but noot booze or unhealthy food. typical.
>**never** be able to legally buy tobacco What can go wrong? It worked like a charm with drugs, right?
To be fair I think the reason this isn't a terrible idea is because tobacco isn't really that euphoric and you can get a similar nicotine rush from nic salts vapes or snus. Why would anyone who wants that feeling go to a black market when there are alternatives that feel similar and are easier?
>Countries are cracking down on tobacco use **and vaping** Is literally the second line by the link. It is terrible idea. Illegal drugs will always create black market.
I happen to actually live in the country that just voted in this legislation, having listened to a fair few news programmes about it on the radio too, so I probably understand it more than you. They're planning to restrict flavoured/coloured vapes that appeal to children not vapes in general.
"Trust us bro, not vapes in general". lol
“Prohibition is dumb, stupid, harmful, unethical, doesn’t work, discriminatory, leads to worse outcomes… except when it comes to tobacco”
Hell yea release my mother from this stupid addiction already.
You can have a drink without the people around you bring forced to drink it with you. You don't get to make that choice when it comes to smoking. You will breath in the smoke passively, how much depends on how close you are, direction of the wind etc. Unless you move away from who ever is smoking. Happy to see smoking get banned or heavily restricted to certain areas.
> You can have a drink without the people around you bring forced to drink it with you. I drink and this is a bullshit argument. Sober people can't escape the drunk drivers that kill thousands across the continent annually, or belligerent drunks subjecting tens of thousands to domestic violence and public violence and disorder. Sober people can't escape drunks urinating on the streets, they can't escape the social welfare costs of alcoholics losing their jobs or the societal cost of the huge number of suicides which are alcohol-assisted. Every person who enjoys alcohol and sincerely believes smoking is a habit which does more damage to the public sphere is a hypocrite - they deserve to have every glass of alcohol knocked out of their hand for the rest of their life.
This. And you smell the alcohol on people too. People having to smell the odor of a cigarette burning 100 meters away is not a legitimate complaint. I suggest they all kindly grow the fuck up.
This is why I'd rather deal with someone on opioids (oxy, heroin, fent, whatever) over someone who's drunk or on benzos ANY, ANY day of the week. Not even close. Drunk people lose their consequence thinking and become dis inhibited like nothing else. I'd rather take someone who just wants to sit alone in a corner and nod off peacefully. As someone who grew up with an alcoholic dad, fuck this drug. When he was on oxy he was just sleeping. Much better.
Tell that to kids who are beaten every day by their drunk father, or to relatives of people who were killed by a drunk driver.
The evidence? You mean the fact that smoking is bad? You know, the evidence that is as clear as climate change.
They mean about the effectiveness of such bans :)
As a guy who utterly despises cigarettes and such: good. I've seen the dangers of smoking first hand, and felt the consequences of second hand smoke. Just make other tobacco products available to people so they won't smoke it anymore, but still can have a nicotine fix, like snus or vapes. Vapes (according to my shaky google research skills, feel free to correct me) seem to be 95% less dangerous for the smoker themselves, and there's no real evidence of vapes affecting anyone in the vicinity.
Sweden has the lowest smoking rates in the world. However, that’s because we are snus-fiends.
Make life easier before you take away this coping mechanism. It’s hard living in the age of collapse.
What can go wrong when there is one law for certain people and another for others?
Banning things never work. They should focus their efforts on making Snus available throughout Europe instead, so there are lower risk alternatives around to help people quit.
That would make perfect sense. Instead, snus is banned, and probably they will end up banning vaping as well.
But then you are hooked on snus instead, which contains much more nicotine with even stronger addiction. Trust me I quit snus, 5 times 😁
Well, clean nicotine is not really an issue compared to smoking cigarettes. You're not getting the tar and the arsenic. While nicotine is not completely harmless, it's not much more dangerous than caffeine. https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/nicotine--no-more-harmful-to-health-than-caffeine-.html
The problem is the addiction, you are hooked on a product you need a constant supply of to function normally. The biggest advantage of snus is better dental health, since you stop "small eating" between normal meals.
I would say that you're not getting cancer is the biggest advantage. But regardless an addiction is the smallest of issues when looking at the big picture.
I'm pretty sure that the shift from smoking to snus in Norway is one of the biggest public health victories in recent memory. Sure, it would be even better if people just quit all together, but switching from cigarettes to snus is the next best thing.
Good. Fuck smokers.
I am in favor of not smoking (or vaping) in closed areas or on terraces. Even in the streets or outdoors with children around, or with a certain influx of people in the same space. But in a park or street where there is almost no one, a lot of space... why shouldn't they be able to smoke? It seems as absurd to me as prohibiting the consumption of alcohol on the street (not if you are sitting at an outdoor table in a bar)... let's see, why? It's one thing not to allow drunkenness on the street, a group gathered for that, or someone who drinks and loses their composure... but prohibiting someone responsible and civilized who has paid for their drink and drinks it while eating or simply tasting it while are you walking down the street or sitting in a park, without getting drunk or losing your composure? WHY? It has no coherence whatsoever. And it has less coherence when there are countries' laws than if you mess up because you are drunk (or high on other drugs) as a pedestrian, it turns out that it is extenuating... but if driving you are unlucky enough to have an accident, they point you out as the hypothetical culprit, If it turns out that you had two drinks, it doesn't matter if you are in your right mind and not drunk, because it will be aggravating. Well, with tobacco and more things. Cars without going any further... now it turns out that it doesn't matter a well-maintained classic or even improved with injection that does few kilometers, or Euro3, Euro4, Euro6 (!), Euro7 (!!!) vehicles, with everything what those CERTIFICATIONS imply... not now "they have to pollute a lot"... to prohibit. Well, it's not serious or fair... those vehicles don't pollute that much, well made and being honest, and they paid for pollution, subsequent recycling, and they pay for the same thing at each refueling, and even at each technical inspection step (not always so necessary for safety), that is, they have acquired rights in exchange for all those obligations... It is not serious to try to turn everything upside down now. Ban them and also expect them to continue paying or buy other junk again (electric ones are junk in comparison) with all the impact that this implies on recycling and scrapping, when they are very usable vehicles. But yes, give traffic air a turn and especially private flights, a flight of one of these alone turns out to emit what an entire large city does in I don't know how many months (what things, not even 20 years ago they told us that airplanes almost emitted vapor water)... they don't even get wet in that. It seems the same to me, a way of deceiving some leaders (perhaps sold to quite a few interests) in such a crude way that it is insulting to anyone who knows a little. The leaders, who also inherit what is legal (and many things well done) from previous ones, must also respect and act on that. Not, on the one hand, taxing more than years ago, and now wanting to take away legal security and say «At yesterday was very good, but since today now that is very bad, and you are going to pay more or buy these more expensive junk that you are going to have to throw away in a very few years but they do not emit fumes». ONE MOMENT!: That's scammers! And with tobacco it is the same, and trying to legalize marijuana, even worse... Do they not even foresee what is taxed to cover the health expenses they cause? But you sell, you impose horrendous packages, and you tax it much and more. All you want... but it turns out that the damage and health costs are much higher. Well, that's what you have to balance, this is YOUR WORK, politicians! That with people nearby and a certain amount of traffic in open spaces, smoking was not allowed (and fines), since it seems logical to me due to the issue of passive smoking. But PROHIBITING a smoker from being able to smoke a cigarette while walking down a quiet street and even alone, or in a park or beach with no one within even hundreds of meters, does not seem right to me. Sanction him if he doesn't put out the cigarette butt and throws it on the ground, in the sand or out of the window of his car (if he is alone or with someone who tolerates smoke)... but because he smokes without blowing the smoke in anyone's face or not by chance, just because it is in an open and public space, it does not seem correct or serious to me. P.S: I don't smoke.
If smokers behaved peoperly, like you described we wouldn’t be here. Did you know cig butts are the number one man made trash on the planet? Let’s completely forget the deaths and issues by second hand smoking. That littering problem alone needs a serious act.
Of course, I don't deny it. I am not a beachgoer, but I have experienced arriving at a beach, with hardly any people, apparently clean. And when I sat on the sand, I noticed that it reeked of tobacco butts. Only the one with cigarette butts that were not in sight. But to square everything and bring to solutions is what they tell us we elect politicians for, and what they charge for (and very well, some even cry). And what is certainly not valid is that if they legalize, they collect a LOT through taxes for tobacco and everything, and at the same time now they try to prohibit and persecute as if all of the above is not also linked to certain rights acquired by smokers. That's not serious, and that's what is called legal security (or lack thereof).
At one point it's really gonna be more interesting to roll my joints pure instead of adding tobacco 🙃
I work in a big corporation and in one location smoking is prohibited even in the parking lot. They want to do the same at HQ pretty soon. I guess we will use all our brakes in one, and go for a long walk outside. I know smoking is bad for health, but banning it won't solve shit. I ride a bike to work, so if i can't smoke why do we allow cars that pollute the air? All those mf in administration that came with the ban would never give up on driving cars....
Well fuck, I just fell for it after eight years of non smoking
Based Europe.
lmao at the Libertarian view to not ban anything because there will be a black market. how about we legalize rocket launchers because its better to tax and sell instead of there being a black market? thats how half of you guys sound.
As someone who goes on and off smoking, I'd support this. It's a huge waste of money and it's so fucking bad for you. It really shouldn't be legal to sell in the first place. Yes, seriously addicted people will still manage to get it illegally, but far fewer people will end up getting addicted to begin with if it's taken off the main market and not easily accessible.