- Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
- This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
- Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
- The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
- The bill will expand the UK’s indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children’s playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
- Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
- Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
- Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people’s homes
- Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
- Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
- People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program
Prohibition is never good, removing individual freedom is never good. I can see the point for some of these restrictions, to provide a safe basis for other people around (because we can’t ask people to simply be nice), but more than that… meh.
I will not be up in arms to defend smoking rights, but that’s probably not the way to do it.
In Australia the government just applies a very hefty tax to tobacco products, they banned vapes, you need a doctors prescription to buy them. But all these measures have done is create a huge black market for both, it’s really easy to buy cheap smokes or vapes. But we also now get all the lovely things that come along with that much criminal activity like innocent people being killed in turf wars.
The government legislation is still way behind so while in theory there are penalties for selling illegal tobacco it’s more of a slap on the wrist and it’s only the end sellers getting in trouble, the heads of the networks are shielded and raking in the money.
I generally agree that prohibition doesn’t work, and is bad, but having an absolutist position like this is usually problematic. For example we have to restrict some people’s freedoms. Like some people want to harm or kill others, that should not be a freedom people have.
Most things in life have a lot of nuance, which means we can’t usually make blanket rule for things.
In saying all that… Prohibition usually doesn’t solve the issue, sometimes makes it worse, and often ends up hurting people who are already suffering (usually why they resort to harmful substances)
Hence the immediate follow-up sentence: “I can see the point for some of these restrictions, to provide a safe basis for other people around”. Basically, the old saying “one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins”.
Laws should be around to protect other people from external nuisance/danger, not for the express purpose of prohibition.
The parts about not being a nuisance for other/imposing onto them is nice. It will take forever to become a new society standard, though. In France, it’s been forbidden to smoke in public places like subway stations and bars for decades, but there’s still a lot of people doing it. But we’re slowly moving there.
However, forbidding people to smoke, period, will not prevent them from smoking, it just makes it illegal. That’s the part I’m not strongly agreeing with. There was the nuance.
And to be clear, my personal opinion on this topic is that smoking is batshit crazy and why would anyone do this to themselves, but I’d rather we go the education route and work toward a better environment for people to live in than going the “NO” route. Unfortunately, that’s not the way we’re going.
The issue is that they are NOT doing this for healthcare costs, or any other reason other than telling others what they can do. If it was for healthcare costs, it would be everyone, so you can rule that out from jump. So why did they say 18 and under, because they weren’t sure if they could get a large enough following to say yes is they went to high, so divide and conquer. Find enough people who don’t care about the minority, and they can get it to pass. Why 18… Because they mostly have no say. If we relabeled it to non-whites can’t buy cigarettes, people would be like woah that’s racist, but the attempt would be the same, trying to control what others can or can’t do while not restricting enough of the majority to lose their votes.
Under 18 can’t smoke is like saying under 30 can’t cat call people on the street, under 40 can’t slap their coworkers on the ass, under 50 can’t beat their children, and under 60 can’t rape minors.
Either they are all bad/wrong for society… and should be banned for all, or they are manipulating votes as a plot to slide something else by under peoples noses while playing it up to look like a good guy
Honest ignorant question: What would happen if you ban the products and not the act?
You never get charged for smoking, but you can have the cigarettes seized. No imports and no factories.
Why do you people CARE so much what other people do?!
Do you drive the speed limit? It protects others and future generations. Life would have been a lot healthier if someone hadn’t introduced that first cigarette to you 20yrs ago, and you would never have felt the loss.
We care about people, even if they hurt themselves (and tax dollars in future healthcare). Most people are better off never starting. It’s like trying to stop someone from hang gliding into a volcano. Sure it’s fun… but most people shouldn’t do it.
I would rest easier knowing there is less of it around for kids to get peer pressured into locking themselves to it.
That’s called a ban on smoking for people under 18. You already do that.
We used to drink beer for breakfast in this country and now you’re asking to give the officers reason to stop and search you to check if you’ve bought the cigarettes from a legitimate place?
I have no idea how that would change thing. I just base myself on previous (and current) attempts at banning things. It never goes well.
if removing individual freedom is never good, then you shouldn’t be able to smoke, because people should have the individual freedom to not breathe your fucking tar smoke.
That sounds more of a case for banning smoking in public areas specifically except for possible designated places.
yeah because smoke famously stays in place
Smoke disperses. If you aren’t up someone’s ass while they smoke outside you’ll never even smell it, let alone get health complications from it.
I should then have the freedom to never see an ugly face, either. Also, no fucking tuna fish. It’s nasty. Also I hate the scent of certain perfume. Illegal.
Also homeless people stink…
seeing a face and being poisoned aren’t comparable, try harder.
no other drugs are “free” to force on others.
also smokers are the last people who should say anything about people stinking.