- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Rishi Sunak is considering introducing some of the world’s toughest anti-smoking measures that would in effect ban the next generation from ever being able to buy cigarettes, the Guardian has learned.
Whitehall sources said the prime minister was looking at measures similar to those brought in by New Zealand last December. They involved steadily increasing the legal smoking age so tobacco would end up never being sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.
You must log in or register to comment.
Do it. First decision I’ve heard him make that isn’t about making profit for himself… unless he has invested in vape shops … ah that makes more sense. Fuck Rishi
we have already taken steps to reduce smoking rates. This includes providing 1 million smokers in England with free vape kits via our world-first ‘swap to stop’ scheme
Which family member do you think invested heavily in whichever company got the contract for these vapes?
YES WASTE MORE MONEH ON WAR ON DRUGS!!! It’s not like it’s completely ineffective and is literally killing people🥰😜
Lung Cancer for Me but not Thee!
Typical, have your fun then pull up the ladder on the next generation!!!
I’ve been suggesting they do this in the states for a while now.
I smoke. I like smoking, and I don’t plan to quit. But it’s obvious that most people want smoking to go away. They keep increasing the price of cigarettes, they keep banning smoking in new areas, and every time they’ll tell you it’s to keep kids from smoking. It’s a lie - they want everyone to stop smoking.
So fine. Set a date, and make it illegal for anyone born after that date to smoke. Then leave us smokers alone. If it’s as bad for us as you say it is, we’ll all die soon anyway.
Will some people born after that date smoke? Sure. But the majority won’t. And it’ll be a constant annoyance for them that they can’t just go buy a carton at the store, which will encourage them to quit. I’d feel sorry for them, but I was told it was bad for me, not that I’d be standing outside in -50° weather puffing as fast as I can because I can’t smoke in my hotel room, or that I’d spend more on cigarettes than I do electricity. They at least know they’ll never be allowed to smoke.
they keep banning smoking in new areas, and every time they’ll tell you it’s to keep kids from smoking. It’s a lie - they want everyone to stop smoking.
That’s just not the case, at all. I’m a very recent ex-smoker and non-smoking areas absolutely helped me stop, but not for the reason you might think.
In Australia it’s the same - cigarettes getting more expensive and the number of places you can smoke reducing.
No one ever suggested that it’s to keep kids from smoking - the message has always been pretty clear: every cigarette is doing harm, so less places to smoke means less harm.
The main benefit of non-smoking areas is that it made me realise that withdrawals and cravings are really no big deal. About 5 years ago I was terrified of trying to stop because I had convinced myself that the withdrawals would be awful. Then I took a job at a place where it just wasn’t possible to smoke even on breaks. The most noticeable thing was that getting through the entire day without a smoke was actually no big deal - the symptoms were very manageable.
So, to say “they” want everyone to smoke is an odd take IMO. The assumption is that everyone want’s to stop - and non-smoking areas assist with that.
I don’t really believe that you do enjoy smoking. I mean, sitting with friends and having a few beers and smokes is certainly an enjoyable activity - but it’s not the smoking that makes it enjoyable. Anyhow, even if you did truly enjoy smoking, I guess you unfortunately just have to cater for the majority who do not.
I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it’s not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.
But if you say it’s about the health of sweet, innocent children… well then suddenly it’s a lot more palatable for the public.
So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.
Maybe things are different down under, but here in the states they very much do use the “keep kids from smoking” excuse. Every. Single. Time.
I don’t mind going outside or whatever so much. That wasn’t the point I was making. When I started smoking, you could still smoke in restaurants, airplanes, offices, etc. They still had ashtrays at the end of every aisle at the supermarket when I was a kid. Picking up smoking wasn’t a radical thing to do.
They’ve pushed us out to the fringes, but that’s fine. But their goal is to eliminate smoking. What I’m saying is that enough is enough. Let us smoke off away from everyone and die out.
Non-smoking area are also there so that the people around smokers don’t have to breathe cancer they never asked for.
A absolutely hate how every time I go eat on a restaurant terrace the experience is ruined by some guy next to me smoking…
Yeah. That is one of the purported reasons for non-smoking areas, all though your actual risk of cancer must be pretty minor surely.
If you worked in a bar then yeah - breathing the smoke-filled air all shift for many years might effect your risk profile.
Catching a whiff of tobacco not so much.
Passive smoking is health problem as soon it’s indoor, but even when it’s not a health issue, smoke fucking stinks.
You don’t like smoking; you’re addicted to a harmful drug. You have nicotine induced Stockholm syndrome.
Oh, you’re a mind reader now? You don’t know me, buddy.
Are you sure about this?
You did that with alcohol. Prohibition does not work. It isn’t working with drugs; it will never work with cigarettes either.
Prohibition works most of the time. Do you know where to get your hands on some black tar heroin? I don’t, nor do most people.
Prohibition of alcohol took something that was popular and made it illegal. Of course it failed. Making tobacco illegal would fail if they did it for everyone. I’m suggesting they make it illegal for people who aren’t already addicted to it.
Edit: heroin, not heroine. Thanks, autocorrect.
Kids are already not allowed to smoke or purchase nicotine products but millions of teenagers are still addicted to nicotine and vape like crazy. How can you enforce a ban for an entire age group? And how could you possibly justify an arbitrary ban that allows half the population to purchase and consume something and prohibits the ither half? A law that bans women from purchasing tobacco because it is harmful for a fetus would be struck down by every court in the nation, so why would a ban that discriminates against adults based kn age be any different?
Well, I guess we’ll just make it illegal for everyone and the old timers like me just have to deal with it. Thanks, I hate it.
I have no idea what black tar heroin is, but I am fairly sure I could find someone who sells drugs of any type locally. As I said the war on drugs has failed. Watch this video from an ex-UK policeman. This is what happens when you make things illegal.
The fact that you don’t know what it is is proof enough that the prohibition against it works. I have no interest in watching your video.
And besides, you’re missing the point. Prohibition of tobacco is coming. I’m not arguing in its favor. I’m suggesting that if they must prohibit tobacco, they phase it out instead of banning it outright.
Prohibition of tobacco is coming.
I have never seen Labour push this policy and Sunak has no time. I feel you are deluded on this one. I should add I am very much an anti smoking person. I just see this as a sensible option.
I would love to be wrong on that, but I don’t think I am.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
How about we let adults make their own decisions. My body my choice.
Generally I agree with you, but with cigarettes you are not making the choice only for yourself. Every time you walk down the street with a cigarette in hand you are forcing other people to inhale it.
I was born in a world without a cigarette ban in restaurants and clubs and the current situation is 1000 time more preferable imo.
Then ban smoking in public.
Addictive psychoactive substances strip you of choice. Everyone has the same chance and opportunity to start; but many have little to no opportunity to stop.
Alcohol, weed, porn, gambling, sex, gaming, candy… can be addictive. Let’s ban or strictly limit all of that coz people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Addictive psychoactive substances strip you of choice, so instead we’ll have politicians strip you of choice and make decisions for you.
Many of those don’t harm another person. If you do it to yourself have fun. Public smoking/alcoholism should be prohibited.
What’s funny is that where I live a lot of the examples you mentioned ARE heavly mandated and limited.
When people smoke at home with a window open the disgusting smell wafts out into the windows of unsuspecting non-smokers. It can’t be helped, smoking needs to be banned.
When people do all kinds of shit at their homes it affects the surrounding neighborhood. When someone barbecues you can smell it down the street, when someone mows their lawn you hear it down the street, my neighbors were doing a lot of painting last week and I could smell that for a few days. I hate smoking as much as anyone but at a certain point you just have to deal with it.
Then mandate smokers to smoke in a way that doesn’t affect other people. There’s plenty of things that can be done so that non-smokers don’t have to breath in smoke and smokers can retain autonomy over their bodies. But it’s not realy about that, is it? In a world where you pass hundreds smoke spewing machines every time you walk down the street, and every city requires a huge smoke making facility running 24/7 that can turn the whole sky gray if the wind blows the wrong way, cigarette smoke is the least of your worries. What it realy is about is control over other people, taking away their choice and forcing them to conform to your way of life.
I have said it time and time again. Smokers should have to wear those old diving helmets, but made out of glass. That way they can smoke as much as they want and don’t bother anyone but themselves!10 years ago people called me crazy, but maybe now we are heading in that direction. :)
The (stopped?) trend in the US had been to tax cigs to make them unaffordable. Just before the last major hike, my brand was about $5/pack. Now it is $10-12. So glad I quit.
Is that a viable strategy, to continue tax/price hikes?
Did it stop you smoking? If so, then yes it worked.
Every 10% increase in cigarette tax results a 4% reduction in consumption among adults, and a 7% decrease amongst youth. Source
It was a minor motivator for me. Bigger ones were things like not dying and my son.
Interesting stats, thanks.
It’s a hella regressive tax though… and we know social ad campaigns actually work.
I went to Niagara Falls in 2004, and I was a little perplexed with the stop smoking campaign flyers attached to the back of individual cigarette packs (pictures of rotten teeth, black lung, etc.). Ended going over to New York to buy smokes because they were SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive and without the flyers.
I mean taxes change habits, there is no doubt about that. Some people quit, some people buy illegal cigarettes imported from the south, others buy Indian cigarettes, others stop smoking, some roll their own with pipe tobacco that no one has ever smoked In a pipe. But the ad campaigns worked surprisingly well for long term smoke cessation. They really did nip it in the butt
They’ve been doing that in New Zealand. A pack is now $50. Violent robbery of gas stations and corner stores for them have massively increased
I was paying $14 a pack when I quit 6 weeks ago in NYS. The gum is working out great so far and I feel so much better. 17 years smoking regularly. They should be banned everywhere, sorry fellow smokers. It’s a disgusting, nasty habit that is incredibly hard to break.
Good for you! Enjoy your journey to better health!
I’ve been on zyns for a while now, my lungs do feel so much better. It’s hard to quit the substance, but it’s easier than ever to take it in without inhaling anything.
prohibition still doesn’t work
Didn’t he just say yesterday that he didn’t want the government to butt into people’s lives? I thought that was why he abandoned all those laws which didn’t exist. You know, the meat tax and the 7 bins xD
This’ll have even bigger environmental impact than damaging social structure.
If they want to ban tobacco let them first legalise weed, acid, and psylocybin. That’d be a fair trade.
Why are cocaine fent oxy schedule 2?
Legitimate medical uses, at least for fent and oxy
Cocaine can be used in dentistry in a gel if you have certain allergies
The derivates of the cocaine extracted from the coca leaves imported by Coca Cola are used in a variety of ways; from dentistry to eye surgery.
This seems like an American thing. We don’t need to a soft drink company to import medical supplies or materials. But I didn’t know it was used in eye surgery, I’m interested in learning more about that.
It’s a global thing. Everyone repurposes side products of a process. Coca-Cola isn’t allowed to have cocaine in the final product so it is extracted out and sold. (Coca-Cola doesn’t actually do this their coca leaf supplier Stepan Company does).
It is a very American story.
Coca Cola uses coca leaves for the flavor. The government banned cocaine because of racism. Coca Cola had to remove the cocaine because of capitalism and made an arrangement with the government instead of going out of business thanks to corruption.
Then why’s marijuana schedule 3?
Thank god. Hope this gets passed. Next do vaping and get rid of it
draws on vape whats wrong with vaping? draws on vape
I actually want to know, because every complaint against vape that I have seen has been about the nicotine ones, which are more prevalent for sure but I want to know if non nicotine vapes are also bad.
Nicotine vapes are a decent way to stop smoking (using one myself) but other than that it’s basically just harmful bs. Vape liquids include all kinds of garbage that increase lung conditions of all kinds, especially in the US where they are underregulated af!
Something about leaving oils and other fluids in the lung that damage it really fast.
U don’t vape oils for that reason ur vaping the same thing as in fog machines. They rnt harmless but they rnt even close to half as deadly as cigs either. Vaping has had alot of fear mongering around it such as popcorn lung. which has never occurred from vaping only extreme oral ingestion or inhalation of the actual powdered flavouring component has caused that, i feel sure enough abt this to add the ingredient to selfmade eliquids. The oils ur referring to are most likely vitamin e acetate and mct both cause oil build up in lungs when vaped, that’s not disputed, but they haven’t been used in commercial eliquids for years.
Edit: I forgot to add that so far the worst I’ve found w vaping is an increased risk for copd but fsr less than cigarettes and itll only raise if we force vapers onto the black market with unregulated eliquid, it also seems to correspond to nicotine level. My source is I researched eliquid components harm fairly indepthly to choose the best ingredients for my own liquid.
I’d reckon ur at a higher risk of developing lung conditions but not as high as smoking and most likely lower than nicotine vapes judging from the research. Vaping would probably be one of the more harmful things you do in your day but i doubt its the most. If ur worried abt the oil, refer to my reply to that comment. I would like you to see the research yourself tho and develop your own opinion as it may be different from mine even though we looked at the same data.
deleted by creator
I’m Rishi Sunak
Oh okay. Don’t just “consider it”. Fucking do it.
British prime minister
Thanks. What happened to Boris Johnson? Is he gone already? Am I seriously this out of touch?
He got caught up in a scandal, finally, then we got liz truss for a few weeks that caused an economic and energy crisis. A head of lettuce lasted longer than her. Then rishi took over from her.
Legalise weed but ban tobacco!
Just saying.
If they don’t outlaw ALL nicotine products it wont work.
Nicotine while addictive is not what causes most of the health issues associated with smoking.
Yes, but it is a drug with very little upside. It is more addictive than caffeine and produces an incredibly short and mild effect, in comparison. The vasoconstriction is not worth the very mild buzz from nicotine.
Nicotine in tobacco brings illness and death to millions of people. Yet nicotine in its pure form has the potential to be a valuable pharmaceutical agent. Nicotine fairly specifically binds to the cholinergic nicotinic gating site on cationic ion channels in receptors throughout the body. This action stimulates the release of a variety of neurotransmitters including especially catecholamines and serotonin. When chronically taken, nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement, (2) negative reinforcement, (3) reduction of body weight, (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against; (5) Parkinson’s disease (6) Tourette’s disease (7) Alzheimers disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound.
Is your point that poisons can be used as medicines? It’s all about dosing.
Arsenic (As) is commonly known as a poison. Only a few people know that As has also been widely used in medicine. In the past years As and its compounds were used as a medicine for the treatment of such diseases as diabetes, psoriasis, syphilis, skin ulcers and joint diseases. Nowadays As is also used especially in the treatment of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recognized arsenic as an element with carcinogenic effect evidenced by epidemiological studies, but as previously mentioned it is also used in the treatment of neoplastic diseases.
deleted by creator
How so? If they outlawed hard liquor but not beer or wine, don’t you think just about everyone would switch to whatever is legal?
I remember when they had the same idea around 2014, to ban smoking for anyone born in the UK from 2000 onwards. That would have been easier to enforce.
Smoking is one of the very few things everyone is better off not doing.
Same with alcohol, but I don’t think we’re allowed to say that yet. Maybe one day!
Do not disagree it not good. But until you can indicate passive damage to non drinkers. You will find it hard to argue for the ban in society. Only actions of drinkers that may effect other will ever be considered an issue.
Only actions of drinkers that may effect other will ever be considered an issue.
Yeah and we should ban cars to get rid of drunk driving tbh
If we ban oxygen all crimes would stop. And the planet would soon recover.
Fortunately we are democratic enough not to listen to outright stupid ideas. Or to punish all for the stupidity of some.
In any context, this is the most infuriatingly fucking stupid argument there is.
“well we should ban…”
Instantly stupid. just add human.
American prohibition and the war on drugs has shown that toal band like that really just make consumption worse while piling a whole new slew of problems onto an existing issue.
This just isn’t true though. Other countries ban alcohol and it doesn’t turn into what happened during American alcohol prohibition. Nor does it mean banning needs to be done like it was done during that period either. You people gotta start thinking a bit deeper about stuff.
What countries have successfully banned alcohol? Besides Muslim countries that employ capital punishment.
The Chiapas state of Mexico.
Lol sure. The worst country in the world for narcotics trafficking?
Do you pick out Alabama when you talk about the entirety of the US? Or do you tend to be less xenophobic and less racist?
I wholeheartedly agree with ya there, but would smoking be carried on in the same fashions as drugs and booze?
I quit years ago after thirty years of smoking and while it was hard as fuck, and i was nasty as a human for a while, I didn’t get the urge to find plug for smokes or off up ass for a pack of butts. Or kill anyone for that matter.
Here in Canada the jump in price has reservation smokes selling like fucking crazy. My old Racist as fuck neighbor bent his morals just enough to say his buying them was justified. I am pretty sure old Dar would drop and blow a herpes staff for a smoke, so I am probably already wrong to question it.
While people may not be willing to kill or rob someone to get a pack of smokes, there will absolutely be a black market for them that will be rife with unsavory characters that will. I live an hour away from a recreational marijuana state and it has destroyed the local black market for pot as anyone who wants to get high can just drive across the state line and get their own pot. No more sketchy drug dealers pushing other substances, no more police stings to catch teenagers buying dope.
Buying controlled and reasonably dangerous substances from licensed retailers like a dispensary, grocery store, or even a gas station is a lot safer for everyone than trying to keep tabs on a black market. The danger of prohibition wasn’t alcoholics trying to find their next drink, it was mobsters like Capone trying to dominate the black market for popular goods.
Edit since i misread what you meant: Sure tobacco is on it’s way out as is, but nicotine consumption is still skyrocketing. I dont see how banning tobacco sales for anyine born after a certain date like Sunak is proposing will help anything. People under 30 are already way less likely to smoke tobacco but consume unhealthy quantities of nicotine anyway.
People saying that’s a good decision are simply unqualified to talk about it, they’re completely clueless and willingly ignorant, just like sunak and his fking delusional confidence. How is it not obvious that people will refer to black market tobacco? Has history AND WHATS HAPPENING LIKE RIGHT NOW IN GOD DAMN REAL TIME not fking taught you all what banning drugs does? Because of people like you other people will die. That’s also YOUR responsibility, not just theirs. It’s YOU who affect their decision. And it’s not just the fact that it’s black market and people will just die, it’s also the fact that underground, potentially mafia-like organisations will have MORE POWER. You all LEGIT make me believe in totalitarian governments. I simply can not handle the confident ignorance.
Like imagine a society where 1/4 of the population is forced to quit cold turkey. Y’all are fking insane
I think it’s a good decision.
Well maybe think a bit better idk? Maybe learn to read too? Cuz I literally pointed out objective (emphasis on this word) reasons why that’s a bad idea
It’s a great idea actually.
Imagine trying to troll people on this topic😐 bruh
Did you read the article? The legislation steadily increases the legal age limit so that kids don’t get hooked on tobacco in the first place. No one will have to “quit cold turkey”.
One of the biggest issues with the war on drugs is that it criminalizes the use of certain drugs. This doesn’t do that.
As for your claim about a black market and a mafia:
we have already taken steps to reduce smoking rates. This includes providing 1 million smokers in England with free vape kits via our world-first ‘swap to stop’ scheme
They’re still providing people with tobacco, just a less-deadly kind. Comparing that to the war on drugs is ridiculous. The point of the war on drugs isn’t to get people to quit using dangerous drugs recreationally, every reasonable person wants that. The point of it is to control minorities and poor people. That’s absolutely not what’s happening here.
None of this is to defend Sunak btw, he’s a broken clock that happens to be right in this instance.
You left out the part where kids get tobacco anyways and this will just make it unsafe for them and that WILL cost their lives. It WILL kill someone’s child.
Btw war on tobacco is war on drugs. Tobacco is a drug. Making it irrelevant in people’s minds is the way, not formally banning it
It’s very easy to compare this to The Prohibition but the reality is alcohol is much more popular than tobacco. For someone who doesn’t drink, understanding the appeal of drinking in a social setting is way easier. With this law I don’t think there is a need for a black market of tobacco like there was with alcohol as it will still be available to purchase, just more controlled. The effect will be a reduction in exposure in younger generations that simply won’t find the need to start smoking. This works and in my province of Quebec since laws have been getting stricter the only people that still smoke are poor or raised by heavy smoker parents.
“WELL WHAT ABOUT” shut up, oh shut up. Ban drug = force people to do unsafe things to get an unsafe version of the drug. It’s simple. That’s how it worked, that’s how it works RIGHT NOW, and that’s how it will continue to work unless something fundamental changes in the society. Exposure won’t be reduced. Kids get tobacco illegally anyways. Nothing is changing for them. Next step after that is underground production of tobacco products which means PEOPLE WILL DIE
My first cigarette was bought from a black market dealer involved with the uda my countries main drug gang. Prohibition doesn’t work
Also, doing home made alcohol is pretty easy and pretty dangerous too, this is why is better to have it legal, regulated and restricted. Try to grow up your own tobacco.
Growing tobacco is surprisingly easy depending on your environment, I guess. I know it definitely grows in the desert where I lived at the time.
The harder part is actually curing it correctly after harvesting it. The curing process requires the right humidity and temperature and takes a while.
You still gonna need a lot of time and effort to growth enough for normal consumption.
Smoking is still more popular than soft drugs, and the same prohibition logic argues against marijauna laws quite nicely.
