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
  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    14 hours ago

    I dunno. You seem to be reading different things than I am writing.
    I litterally said “should” which is a pretty clear indication that it was my opinion. You saw me reference othe things that cause increased healthcare costs, but ignored the point that some group deciding which life choices that cost more are okay is, in my opinion, not something laws should be used for. And gou say Iam jumpping around when my focal point has been pretty clear. Don’t legislate what people can do if it does not DIRECTLY impact others.
    You talk about cleaning out a smokers house. It may smell bad, but do you have any data to show it is bad for you after the smoke has settled? And no one “has” to go clean it out. They can choose to take on that job or not. So it isn’t a direct impact. It requires the person to choose to be impacted. With bombs… if a guy has 50 acres in the middle of nowhere, why shouldn’t he be allowed to make bombs in his basement.