NZ already did this and it is the most cowardly way to avoid political blowback.
There’s plenty of other options for minimising smoking. A more altruistic way is by lifting people out of poverty and tackling social disintegration, since smokers are overwhelmingly poor and disaffected.
So instead of reducing a clearly destructive habit now we should wait for a major social change that likely won’t happen. I don’t see how that is more altruistic for the “poor and disaffected”.
You can either try to do things the right way and cure multiple social ills, or you can do it the wrong way and end up with different rules for different adults all in an attempt to prohibition your way out of one issue.
Your right there are better ways. Both methods should be implemented. A carrot and stick approach is going to be more effective.
I don’t think we can expect the altruistic way from a Billionaire Tory. As far as policy goes, this is the best one the Tory have had in a long time. But that doesn’t say much.
Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.
You could just as easily day “oh, ban asbestos? I guess we gotta save everybody from themselves, what a nanny state.”
This is bad logic that can be applied to any safety law. As a society we observe and mitigate known harms, because we can’t expect every citizen to be up to date on every possible way to harm themselves without realizing it or understanding the true scope of the damage being done.
So yes; sometimes as a society we decide to save ourselves from ourselves. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I wasn’t aware people used asbestos recreationally.
And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?
No he really isn’t arguing that. It feels just pure bad faith from you here. You understand that pure anarchism has its problems, I am sure of it
I never said people use asbestos recreationally. But the logic is still the same. Why shouldn’t a person be allowed to buy a new house built with asbestos if they’re supposedly fully aware of the danger and risk of damage it does to their body over a long period of time? Everybody knows the dangers of asbestos, don’t they? The commercials tell us about asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma every day. Just let them make their own choices about asbestos, right? And while we’re at it, lead pipes, and lead paint, and grounded electrical outlets, and the list goes on.
We don’t want to have a nanny state, right? You should have to individually make all of these potentially life or death choices, all the time.
It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison. Comparing a personal use narcotic (which is combusted and spent in seconds causing harm to the user only - for the most part) with a hazardous material (which basically doesn’t degrade, huffs out cancer causing dust if you, or anyone else in the next century, work on it in any way and persists as hazardous waste if you want to dispose of it).
Lead pipes and lead paint also bleed into the environment pretty much for eternity. Why not go all the way and compare being able to buy cigarettes with being able to buy some plutonium for around the house?
It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison.
You said, “Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.” You then said “And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?” Everything I have said has been a direct attack on that line of logic and applies perfectly. We ban asbestos to protect people from buying it and hurting themselves, despite the fact that everybody is supposedly well aware of the harms. The same goes for lead paint and lead pipes; ungrounded outlets, admittedly, most people don’t actually fully understand, but the logic still largely applies. If you believe in the idea that we shouldn’t need to save people from harming their own bodies, that perfectly applies to these things as well.
If you want to go back and revise what you said to explain why it’s acceptable for society to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful construction materials but not to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful narcotics, then do that. Draw that distinction yourself if you think there is one instead of expecting me to read the wrinkles of your brain through the internet. You don’t get to be mad at me for arguing against the words you used, that’s all I have to go on.
So: when is it acceptable for society to save people from themselves, and when isn’t it?
All you’ve done here is prove that you’re ignorant. I suggest you look back and see that you’re arguing two different points with two different people as well as attributing words to me that I didn’t write.
If you actually read my post, l already answered the difference. Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith. Personal choice to smoke a cigarette is not equivalent to implanting a hazardous object into the environment. And I think you know that. If you honestly can’t see the difference, it’s willful ignorance.
You’re right, I didn’t notice you were a different person.
Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith.
There’s no greater environmental impact if a person chooses to insulate their own house with asbestos. My point still stands; draw me a clear distinction why a store can sell an individual person tobacco but not asbestos despite the fact that we know both cause long term lung damage.
Wishing a very chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder on every dumbass calling this authoritarian
I just don’t understand how a group of people who are all for drug legalization are suddenly supporting a policy like this (from a Tory no less)? Why are we suddenly in favor of drug prohibition? Am I missing something?
Like 85% of people in the UK are non-smokers, so I’m presuming it’s some NIMBY-lite thinking: “I don’t like smoking so I need you to make everyone stop”.
What’s the public health effect of legalized cigarettes vs, say, pot? Are cigarettes being banned to provide pretext for cracking down on radicals or minority communities?
What’s the public health effect of legalized cigarettes vs, say, pot?
Communists are generally in favor of legalizing fucking heroin lol. ETA: Full drug legalization means full drug legalization. WE also want to treat drug addiction like a public health issue of course.
Are cigarettes being banned to provide pretext for cracking down on radicals or minority communities?
Hey what was Eric Garner doing when he was killed again?
I agree that smoking is bad for you, having quit myself - but the idea of outlawing a plant / prohibiting humans who just happened to be born in one specific part of the world from burning it and inhaling the produced smoke just goes against my views on ethics.
Instead, why don’t we fix the real problems? How about getting rid of capitalism, and thus the profit incentive to sell addictive substances for a huge markup? How about we fix this broken society that keeps pushing more and more people towards drugs such as nicotine, the tiny escape, and the little bit of stress relief they provide?
Drugs, from cigarettes to meth, are not the problem…
They’re just a symptom.
The war on drugs is nothing more than an effort to sweep the real problems under the rug, and nothing less than coordinated violence targeted at people who are already suffering.
Fuck this.
Going to the doctor in mind melting pain and he says I have a broken leg and it requires an operation and I say great in the meantime can you give me something for this pain and he says no that’s just a symptom. Except here the pain is a ton of innocent kids being consigned to an early grave for the stock of tobacco companies.
How on earth is proscribing cigarettes for kids who are thankfully not yet addicted to them coordinated violence aimed at the suffering? Completely rubbish, cigarette-brained take.
The problem with your analogy though is that the doctor does have plans to actually help the problem too. It takes more time and effort to set up all the things needed to properly heal a bone, so in the mean time they try to help alleviate the symptoms in the mean time. The system’ in place has no plans to actually address the real issues, so it’s more like the doctor sent you out the door with painkillers and calls that good enough. Creating laws that attempt to curb cigarette habits might be worth pursuing if paired with actual legislation to handle the causes that drive people to their use.
Also, to me, it is worth looking at some of the other reasons people are draw to smoking. Tobacco companies pour tons of money into methods of encouraging smoking and vaping, with it being well know that some of this is targeted at young people. To be honest, and some may find this a bit of a stretch, I sometimes feel that these laws are a sort of collective societal victim blaming more then a benefit.
As another point, and I don’t know if you know this, but banning something does not necessarily curb it’s use (see alcohol prohibition in the US in the early 20th century). If anything prohibition just deregulates it, making it more dangerous for those who still continue to participate.
Yeah I completely agree, cigarettes are a symptom, but when the actual cute is a long hard road, treating symptoms is a totally reasonable course.
Also, cigarettes don’t provide an escape from reality, they only provide an escape for nicotine cravings. Literally the only reason to smoke is because you have to (or you’re dumb and curious), it doesn’t get you high or anything like that
Because people have been more and more conditioned to obey year after year. To be absolute pushovers who never fight against the grain, never question groupthink, etc. Grandfathering the criminalization (using violent enforcement) of something like smoking a cigarette is a shining example of what’s to come.
cigs are bad, phase 'em out
Crystal Meth is illegal in all 50 states
You ironically found yourself pointing out something valid. Banning companies from putting addictive substances into everyday products has always been a good idea (Meth in Cheerios, no thx). Banning an individual from choosing, by their own free will, to make a bad decision that doesn’t do any great harm to anyone else… is oppression my guy.
There’s a big difference between banning addictive industries and oppression. There’s a big difference between ‘a government not letting people do something’ and ‘oppression’. There might be a case that this way of eliminating tobacco usage, by just making an addictive substance illegal, can be cruel if there isn’t adequate social support alongside it, but banning smoking by itself isn’t cruel, malicious or arbitrary.
I think there are some reasonable arguments for not criminalizing tobacco, and that this is a silly ineffective way to approach a chemically-and-socially addictive issue, but it is harmful to health for the user and others, society and therefore economics. And this can’t be rationalized away by ‘it’s someone’s own free will’ when it’s chemically-addictive, socially-ingrained and still being marketed to vulnerable teens. And, keep in mind, the medical costs of this are socialised, so it’s not like the person smoking pays for all the consequences. It’s a systematic, non-trivial problem that significantly affects people who do not choose to partake.
With all that said, fuck the ‘war on drugs’ style of criminalization. It just creates an illegal market and fills prisons, and in some countries with a similar system to the US, creates a legalized form of mass slave labour.
Not defending cigarette companies, but it really actually does suck that meth is illegal in all 50 states. The United States has the world’s largest prison population, it’s the most authoritarian country on the planet, and that is heavily facilitated by throwing people into prison for using drugs.
‘Authoritarianism’ is a bullshit vague idealist concept that can’t be linearized into ‘more than’, ‘less than’, ‘most’ or ‘least’, and make any sense.
The USA throw people in prison for decades and enslave them for being a victim of the drug trade. They have one of the largest proportions of imprisoned population in the world.
They also allow socialists to own guns and propagandize, to a larger degree than most countries.
Liberalism is complex, contradictory and idealist, so terms like ‘authoritarianism’ are basically meaningless to apply to the real world.
it’s the most authoritarian country on the planet
Let me guess, you’re from the US and you’ve never left.
most authoritarian country on the planet
Are you by chance familiar with countries that kill LGBTQ people, beat women who don’t cover their hair, and kill drug addicts?
Dooog wwhiisstllleeeessss
Are you familiar with the sheer scale of destruction and death the United States has wrought on the rest of the world in its imperialist adventures? Nothing anywhere else in the modern day even comes close.
Theyre talking about the US, of course they are. Well, the US just beats women without hair coverings coming into it, but the point stands.
What are you even talking about? I know of no such instance, at least at the systemic level.
Well, I’m sorry you’re ignorant about stochastic terrorism against lgbt people in the US, the epidemic of domestic violence facing women in the US, and the war on drugs.
I am gay and have friends who are trans. Yes, I am well aware of stochastic terrorism against LGBTQ people, as well as how right wing politicians are exploiting nutcases to get votes at the expensive of our safety. Domestic violence I find perplexing. It happens, but it’s illegal and there are many institutions trying to tackle it. The US is far from the worst here, especially considering many countries still don’t recognize domestic violence as a real thing.
The war on drugs is bad, but the US has a set of policies that are left over from the 1990’s when things were really bad and no one really knew what to do. Even Black leaders went along with them, since their neighborhoods were the ones that were actually affected by the crime wave. Fortunately, we are seeing the slow unwinding of these polities. Now, compare the US’s war on drugs to Singapore (death penalty for drug trafficking) or Dirty Deuterty’s free-for-all on anyone who was even alleged to be a drug addict. Decisions by SCOTUS have limited the death penalty to murder only, and even then it is being slowly abolished.
That’s not how that law works it would be a law on shops
deleted by creator
Taxation is a tool but it also creates inequality where rich people are able to smoke and poor people can’t. That situation risks making tobacco a signifier of wealth - an aspirational good like an expensive handbag.
good, let them smoke and DIE
If rich kids are able to get lung cancer and poor kids are priced out of it, I don’t feel bad for the poor kids.
I much prefer to see kids vaping.
It’s much harder to be intimidated by a gang of 10 youths in balaclavas when they smell like a pack of Fruit Salads.
Vaping is a joke, they stuck the addictive chemical (nicotine) in it and now they are hooked on vaping. Let them sell vaping goods but they shouldn’t be allowed to add nicotine to them.
Given that for most it’s a less harmful alternative to smoking that makes zero sense. Aside from it’s addictive properties nicotine is on about the same level as caffeine in terms of damage.
Caffeine? No, the science says otherwise
It’s already prohibitively taxed to be around £12-15 for a 20 pack. There are 4 corner stores within a 5 minute walk of my house that do them under the counter for a fiver, and you can bet they don’t care about IDs either
Contact the HMRC fraud department. They would stop these sales very quickly.
Do you know the piece of cocaine?
Sunak should start publicly smoking all the time, then it will be the lamest thing and teen smoking will crater.
Yeah no, you don’t get to arbitrarily use age to deny people their rights and manipulate them into doing what you want them to do.
Exactly what rights are you talking about?
The right to smoke and be unhealthy.
Also bodily autonomy. That kind of action, if accepted, could be used to impose incremental bans on anyone for any reason, so long as the majority is authoritarian enough to agree.
Like access to hormones for trans people. Or abortions. Or birth control. Or weed.
Oooohhh the right to smoke and be unhealthy… yeah that’s not a right.
Yes it is.
Nope, its not. You’re confusing having a right and having the freedom to do something. In one you have no constraint from the state to carry out an action, in the other you are entitled to something by society. Different things.
That’s one of the facets of rights, is the freedom to do things. Rights aren’t only freedom from things.
And you might not like smoking, but other people are going to make choices and live their lives in ways you don’t agree with, even that you abhor, and rights means you have to put up with that for the betterment of all.
So people, young people, are going to smoke, and you’re going to put up with it.
Maybe you’re not quite clear on what a right is - its generally something that that’s enshrined in constitutional law like for example in a human rights act, or for some advanced democracies even the right to privacy is included in a bill of rights. The ‘right to smoke and be unhealthy’ is not a right at all, its a freedom that you may have.
Oh but it is. It is your autonomous right to duck yourself up. It’s not healthy or smart and your peers will push back at your decision. , but it is your right! Fuck this authoritarian “we will decide what you can and cannot do”
Oh but it just isn’t. Tobacco is a controlled substance in pretty much every country in the world. Now you may disagree as to where this government is being too restrictive and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you have any inherent rights to consume tobacco. The same way you don’t have a right to consume heroine or meth.
deleted by creator
Not a smoker or wannabe one but if someone is just one year behind in their age, they’ll never be able to legally smoke with this setup.
I believe that’s the intention yes.
that is the exact point
Yes, that’s how both time and math works.
Correct, that’s the point. I’m fancy, there would be a day cutoff. Likely 1/1 of some year.
great!
Cool things that leftists always support: making drugs illegal.
Cool things that have historically worked and not made things worse: Prohibition.
Like seriously what the fuck is this shit since when did we believe in making drugs illegal.
That’s the goal.
They don’t respect the rights of other people, that’s all. It’s just blatant authoritarianism that they’re getting away with because of popular support.
c/theyfigureditout
If he wanted it to work he could make cigarettes more lethal. Kill you in a couple of months type of thing.
(Clearly not a serious suggestion in case you wonder)
Minutes to seconds better, also if the cigarettes put themselves off and doesn’t cause fires
Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me.
Back in my day we used to smoke up hill both ways in the rain and snow.
Cool, when does the minimum age for joining the military start to raise by one year every year?
What’s with the whataboutism?
They’re right, there shouldn’t be recruiters in school that’s predatory as shit.
Do they do that in the UK? I didn’t think they were quite so gung-ho about their military.
It’s directly related. Why are 18 year olds able to lock themselves into a 6 year contract that they might be killed before they see the end of, when they are, legally, too dumb to make their own decisions regarding a chemical they put in their bodies?
They can choose to take hormone blockers at 12, but they can’t choose to have sex until they’re 18 (depending on local statutes). The laws are filled with hypocrisy.
So he’s nicking what newzeland did ok cool something that he’s not going to profit from for a change atleast
“We operate a Check-74 policy. If you are lucky enough to look younger than 70, we will ask for ID when buying cigarettes”
Maybe we will make groundbreaking leaps in cosmetic surgery. Or have Jackass-style elderly disguises become popular.
Smoking age should follow the age of boomers, age 80+
