A draft law in the UK to create a "smoke-free generation" by banning smoking for anybody born after 2008 has cleared both houses of parliament. Only the king's signature remains for it to become law.
  • 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
  • Bytemeister@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    19 hours ago

    But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all.

    Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      13 hours ago

      Maybe you came in on a side thread. The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others. It’s still a super large list. But your right to snoke in you basement isn’t on it. Your right to murder is.
      It has nothing to do with using it or not. Just who it impacts directly.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        12 hours ago

        People smoking in their basements present a fire hazard, major issue if you live with other people.

        People smoking (at all) creates second-hand smoke, which harms the people that come into them, or their spaces (like say, a contractor, or first responders, utility technicians…)

        People who smoke end up using more critical and limited medical resources because of their habits.

        I’m not as daft as to say that smoking harms to the same degree as outright murder, but it’s equally stupid, if not more so, to say that smoking (even in your basement by yourself) harms no one else.

        Also…

        The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others.

        Who decided what rights should be considered for laws?

        I’ll give you a hint; it’s not some universal property of the universe, nor a divine command.

        At some point in time, the society I live in established that murder is against the law, and that is the sole reason I’m not allowed to murder anyone. My “right” to murder was just as valid as my “right” to smoke in my basement until there was a law created that defined (or changed) those “rights”.

        So, back to my still very relevant comment from earlier…

        But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all.

        Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 hour ago

          How about we say, smoking in your basement alone, in a house only you live in to avoid the semantics. Second hand smoke exposure usually requires the smoking to be taking place at the same time or very recently. So first responders are not signficantly at risk if the person isn’t smoking at the time. And their ppe should help reduce that further. If it is a concern based on data, then better ppe should be provided. 2nd hand smoke is probably the least concerning thing they are exposed to when responding. Other people like contractors and such can refuse to enter until the place is aired out.

          People who smoke do end up needing more medical care. But so do people who drink alcohol, eat red meat, or any of a large number of lifestyle choices. Motorcycle riders are a great example. If they get into an accident, they will likely need greater healthcare than someone in a car. So should be ban those too?

          As for who decides what rights should be considered for laws. That is litterally what we are discussing here. No it’s not universal anything. It’s my opinion. Universally no one has any rights.