I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”
I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.
(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)
I’ll happily pick a side as a kid who grew up in a house constantly full of smoke and a parent who’s a total mess at least partially because of this. Good. It’s about time some serious steps were taken. Not to mention the effects of second hand smoke.
You’re parent(s) not having the sense to go outside and stay away from you while smoking shouldn’t impact my ability to smoke alone.
And it won’t, unless you were born after 2009.
deleted by creator
I’m of two minds of this. While I know that prohibition laws haven’t succeeded in the past, I also know that nowadays people don’t complain that coca cola doesn’t have cocaine anymore. It’s a harmful substance that was legislated out of being so easily accessible.
Also, with the trend towards fewer younger people smoking altogether it seems as though introducing it in this way to make it so that young people might not see it as an option makes sense to me, although maybe it’s optimistic of me to think so. The idea that smoking is already seen as an “old person” activity and efforts taken to minimize its attractiveness to youth, now following that with legislation, seems to make a logical sort of progress.
That said, I understand the black market is always going to be a thing. OP put it really well though- when something is designed to be addictive you’re already having your choices removed by being pushed to use it. If the availability is minimized, then hopefully the number of those who depend on it will also be minimized. I’m glad it’s being trialled somewhere, and am interested to see how it goes- though also hope if there are negative repercussions these legislative changes can be changed or rolled back depending on what those consequences look like and/or merit.
deleted by creator
I think it would be nigh-impossible to make tobbaco non-carcinogenic though. And even without cancers, there’s also a myriad of respiratory issues, cardiovascular problems and even autoimmune problems stemming from cigarette use to account for. I don’t think it would be feasible to ban the harmful ingredients and have anything left over.
^this guy over here trying to sell organic cigarettes
XD
I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body. That said, we need to do a better job keeping children off of those substances (and all the other ones that aren’t legal for adults, but should be)
( Exception for things like antibiotics, which endanger everyone else if you abuse them. Other drugs should be regulated like alcohol : no sale to minors, restrictions on activities like driving when under the influence. Maybe the age should also be 21 or 25 instead of 18 )
On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried 🤷🏻♀️
South Africa was trying this when I moved away about 15 years ago. If you wanted to smoke you had to sit in separate closed off area in restaurants (for example).
No idea what the ultimate outcome of that was though.Edit: According to smokefreeworld.org:
The adult smoking rate declined from 27.1 percent in 2000 to 18.2 percent in 2012
I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body.
A couple other comments seem to imply this a full-blown prohibition as well. To be clear, my interpretation is that this is not a total prohibition. From the article:
The government is set to introduce a historic new law to stop children who turn 14 this year or younger from ever legally being sold cigarettes in England, in a bid to create the first ‘smokefree generation’.
So IIUC, there is no possession or consumption offense, and anyone at any age can grow their own or import¹ it. They’re just making it inconvenient to acquire by controlling commerce. That inconvenience will certainly add to the cool factor of kids who become the resourceful hookup.
¹ I suppose they will be able to carry it into the country, but probably legit mail order shops will be controlled. Not sure.
On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried
IIRC, the smoking ban in restaurants and bars started in CA or NY, then swept around the world from there. Then NY supposedly banned smoking near outdoor bus stops or something. Not sure if that experiment spread.
That was my thought too. Ban it in public spaces so the rest of us don’t have to breath that toxic shit, but if people want to spend money to kill themselves at home then let them. But don’t cover their related health expenses.
I disagree about the health stuff, but I’m French, so I’ve always taken is as a given that we pay (almost) every healthcare expense through taxes. If you ask me, that’s just the cost of freedom 🤷🏻♀️
I agree healthcare should be a shared expense except in cases where a person knowingly does this much damage to their body. Not a hill I’d die on, but it seems more fair.
Don’t cover anyone who drinks beer, eats fast food, etc etc then.
Surely that will be good for society.
If someone is alcoholic or eats until their health is seriously compromised they could cover related medical expenses with private insurance.
No need to downvote and get sarcastic just because you disagree.
deleted by creator
i think new zealand and australia tried
The intention is meritable. As usual, Tories misunderstand how to achieve the stated objective. They’ll be creating a secondary market whereby those born before 2009 will supply cigarettes to those born after 2009… for a fee of course. Party of business and entrepreneurialship.
Also, drinking yourself into a stupor seems to be socially acceptable in the UK whilst the cost is much larger.
Cigarettes were already heavily taxed in the UK anyway. The relative share of smokers is much lower compared to places like France.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country
If the goal is to improve everyone’s well-being, is this the best way to achieve it?
Until no one is left alive who can buy cigarettes. Or rather, until no one produces cigarettes on an industrial level because the narket is so small. Then they need to grow tobacco themselves and suffer without buckets of toxic shit put into commercial cigarettes.
I’m all for making drastic positive changes in our lifetimes, but a slow change is better than no change
The goal is have less smokers. Is your argument that there will be a secondary market booming in no time or that it wont affect that many people?
The efforts should be placed on the aspects that have greater impact on health. Focusing on cigarettes when alcohol has a much larger impact seems an odd prioritisation.
Also, banning something doesn’t mean that the problem is solved. Drugs aren’t allowed but it’s easier and cheaper to pop a few happy pills on a night out than it is to drink until oblivion.
This seems more a chest pumping measure to score cheap political points. There’s no political will to tackle the bigger and more important problem as it requires additional skill and likely to be less popular.
I’m all for reducing smoking but this is unlikely to achieve any meaningful change. Happy to be proven wrong though.
I don’t live in the UK but I would not support this anywhere because making something banned makes people want to use it and creates a black market. I would absolutely support raising the minimum age you are allowed to consume it at. But not a complete ban.
What if we raise the minimum age by 1 year, each year
What is the minimum age there in the UK? Here in the United States, it’s 18. And alcohol is 21. I would say raise that to at least 21 to match alcohol.
Isn’t that the same thing, only making the cutoff 2006 instead of 2009?
Shh, don’t tell anyone
Oh sorry haha
Vapes have pretty much taken over here in the UK. The vast majority of smokers are the older generation.
I’ve been to Spain twice in the past year and each time amazed at how many smokers there are still. These were the Spanish and Germans.
I grew up in a house with a smoker and would not want to do that at all ever. I’m okay with vaping, but I don’t want anything to do with tobacco products at all. I just vape marijuana.
Didn’t New Zealand try this and eventually walk it back?
A different government came in and cancelled it to fund tax cuts
I can kinda support raising the ages for drugs, alcohol and tobacco to 19, 21 or even 25. Major human brain development is still ongoing until about 25. Or perhaps restricting the quantity they can buy.
We already see car rental companies restricting rentals to those ages and insurance companies having higher risk premiums.
And I would also put limits on things like gambling and credit card debt for those ages. And yes, stop student loans in totality.
But the idea that we are going to ban 30 and 40 year olds from consuming cigarettes is just laughable.
I can kinda support raising the ages for drugs, alcohol and tobacco to 19, 21 or even 25. Major human brain development is still ongoing until about 25. Or perhaps restricting the quantity they can buy.
There was some research finding that people who use psychedelic mushrooms are made more psychologically flexible (open minded) for the rest of their life. But the caveat is that the permanent open mindedness effect only happens if the shrooms are consumed before age 35 – presumably precisely because the brain still has significant neuroplasticity.
deleted by creator
I consumed more LSD than one could fathom from ~16-21. Maybe that’s why I’m onboard with so many of the things younger people care about at my age. It’s an interesting idea.
deleted by creator
Smoking habits are vastly different between the two. THC has strong inhibiting effects so must people will usually smoke smaller quantities (often just a quarter of a gram) and will probably do it as a way of unwinding after work or share a joint with friends when they’re hanging out. Nicotine on the other hand isn’t inhibiting and if anything can give a little boost. Because of this someone can smoke a whole cigarette and go about their day at work. Often times taking multiple breaks during the work day. Tolerance also builds up very quickly and there are significantly stronger addictive effects which often leads to people smoking several cigarettes a day even when they aren’t getting the effects while the practice of taking tolerance breaks is pretty common even with heavy weed smokers since there isn’t any real withdrawal. Sure there are people that smoke multiple joints a day, but there are also people that smoke a pack or more of cigarettes a day and they’re able to stay much more functional while doing so which means that there isn’t the negative feedback you’d get from being stoned all the time.
All of that would hold true if both substances were equally toxic. However studies show that weed is far far less carcinogenic than tobacco. It’s not healthy to smoke anything, but what you smoke and how much does matter.
So do we ban strong spirits and leave beer alone then too?
That’s a more nuanced issue, but I will say that in the US and Europe to my knowledge there are often more restrictions on spirits than on wine and beer including where it can be sold and in Europe, the age at which it can be purchased. I’m not sure about the rest of the world, but that is a very significant portion of the world for an English language discussion.
Regardless, that comparison isn’t quite right assuming we’re talking about cigarettes being hard spirits and weed being beer. With hard spirits they’re very harsh and in typical use they’re poured in smaller amounts and diluted with mixers to bring them around the strength of a beer. Even when drank neat they’re still served in smaller quantities and drank more slowly by most people.
On the other hand cigarettes are usually filtered which makes them smoother to smoke while weed is rarely filtered and people are much more likely to cough as an immediate reaction to smoking too much which also discourages smoking in excess.
One has known carcinogens, one does not
It’s why many would support vaping but not cigarettes
Tar ist created through incomplete combustion. Both burn.
deleted by creator
To me, the difference is the level of addiction. Nicotine is infinitely more addictive than weed. So, the inhaling of carcinogens in weed smoke has far more consent of the consequences imo. More so, I’m yet to meet a cigarette smoker in real life who wishes they never started.
Unfortunately, we can’t ban carcinogens from cigarettes. It’ll be like trying to ban blue from the sky.
I mean, I presume you would have to be pro full decriminalisation with the stance you’re taking or it would very much come across as you just not liking weed but liking the ones that are legal now.
I’m sure I could find plenty of drinkers or weed smokers who wish they never started either. I just fully disagree with banning the vices and making carveouts based on personal preferences. That and I question the addictive difference in marijuana vs. cigarettes but I have no data at hand to say either way.
And for the record I am completely fine/in support of full legalization of marijuana. Same way I don’t think we need to ban smoking, vaping, alcohol, etc.
I just found it easier to point out that people make excuses for marijuana (which again, will have health impacts regardless) but not cigarettes. Hell, I don’t even smoke!
That and I question the addictive difference in marijuana vs. cigarettes but I have no data at hand to say either way.
There’s a world of difference. One is both psychologically addictive and chemically addictive (iow, has withdrawal symptoms), and the other is purely psychologically addictive (like anything else… e.g. chocolate).
I’ve never been an addict but there’s plenty of credible research finding nicotine to be the most addictive substance in the world, even more than hard narcotics. MJ addictions are laughable in comparison, like addiction to waffles.
Cocaine has no withdrawals. It’s often said to be the most psychologically addictive substance. MJ is also in the purely psychological category and it’s nothing like cocaine’s stranglehold.
I think you’re being a little unfair by dismissing it as just personal preference. I live in one of the largest cities in the world. Weed’s legality has no bearing on my ability to get hold of it, if I wanted it. Like lots of people, I could have it arrive sooner than a pizza.
I mean, nicotine is top tear addictive. It far out strips alcohol and weed combined. Its easier to become addicted to nicotine than heroin. Although, heroin is far harder to come off of, of course.
Idk, to me, as an ex smoker and former wreck head, I felt that I at least got something out of the other drugs I took. Nicotine was only ever to keep a monster at bay and nothing more. Thats why I think they might have a point. They can still vape. If the trade off was only edibles for weed, then I think most people would take that.
deleted by creator
Simply put- it seems people just dislike smoking but will make exceptions for their preferred things like weed, etc.
Your original post mentioned cigs specifically, not tobacco generally. There are health risks of all ways to consume tobacco but those risks are not equal. A ban cigs but not on vaping or cigars (which are not generally inhaled) would act against the most harmful form without cancelling the whole substance and experience categorically.
There will be a small black market for cigs but if vaping is not banned then many will be steered toward vaping instead. The vaping option will keep the black market on cigs small.
If that was truly the goal then why not just ban carcinogens in cigarettes instead?
There is no such chemical as “carcinogen”. It’s just a vague term for anything that is linked to cancer. There is no proof at a molecular level that cigs cause cancer. It’s still not understood. We have overwhelming stats that smoking cigs have an undeniable link to cancer, but the science has not yet yielded detailed results on how cancer manifests in a cell. Stats are all there is.
If we fast-forwarding into the future when a cellular understanding is obtained, the intake method will certainly be part of the equation, not just the substance. AFAIK, the only cigar smokers who get lung cancer are those who smoke cigars improperly (by inhaling them). I lost 2 friends to cancer because of that. They loved to inhale cigars. Those who smoke them as intended (like myself) are not much more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker, IMO.
The rhetoric seems clever, but it is based on very shaky logic. Smoking is a choice, I made it for years and eventually made the choice to stop. Banning the sale of tobacco also doesn’t prevent smoking - it just prevents the government from taxing smoking. Just like weed, just like other drugs. We already have problems with unregulated vapes being sold to kids, surely this is only going to make that problem worse by driving even tobacco vape liquid sales underground?
The ban is on cigs not really vapes it seems (apart from the flavored ones that attract kids). In which case people are being steered toward vaping, which will likely do well in competing against black market cigs. If the goal is to keep kids off the worst of the worst, focusing on cig bans while keeping unflavored vapes on the table would seem to be the most effective compromise.
I’m not endorsing it… but just in terms of the gov achieving its goals (one of which is cancer reduction) it seems they will succeed to the extent possible with this approach.
Not to get all conspiracy-minded but banning tobacco is a great precedent for keeping cannabis illegal.
This cowardly way of making laws seems exactly like changing public pension plans to make sure they only affect people too young to care about it right now.
Prohibit it for everyone and take your lumps, or don’t. Doing things that only affect non-voters is pathetic cowardice.
Don’t worry guys, this is just Rishi’s way of telling big tobacco that he needs money. I’m sure a huge pot of cash can make this all go away for them.
But no vaping ban?
The cynic in me says this is to test the water to see how pliable we are. What else will follow if we accept this, I wonder?
I doubt vaping has the health consequences that cigs do. Baking the plant at a precise temperature needed to just release the desired chemicals instead of burning it and releasing all toxins presumably would result in less cancer. Cigs also have filters that attempt (and fail) to trap the unwanted chemicals and iirc there’s also some recent research that the filters themselves have some negative health consequences (for both the smoker and for the environment when the discarded filter chemicals leech into the ground water).
Note I’ve not studied this in depth but that’s my off-the-cuff understanding.
Vapes have their own set of issues, especially the cheap ones where you can end up with heavy metals in the vape smoke. However, it is still a better choice if you are going to do it at all. Not doing it at all is by far the absolute best. Followed by vaping it, which is still pretty good. Followed by actually smoking it, which is the worst. By far.
How about you just ban additives and allow native people to grow roll and sell tobacco as they used to back before colonization? The natives, as far as I know, weren’t putting formaldehyde in their tobacco, so removing all the additives and allowing natural cigarettes to be sold by a group who were completely oppressed wouldn’t be a bad fucking idea
This article is about the UK. People of the UK are the natives; didn’t colonize themselves
Britain has been colonized at least five times: by the Celts, then by the Romans, then the Saxons, then the Norse, and finally by the Norman French, and those are only the ones we know about.
The only lands that haven’t been colonized at some point in their history are Antarctica and recently settled islands like Iceland and some of the Pacific Islands.
Well yeah. I just meant in the modern wave of colonisation, where there is still a distinct and clear divide between native and new population left over
Fair enough I guess
