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’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 🤷🏻‍♀️

    • 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 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.

  •  h_ramus   ( @h_ramus@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    11
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/24/tories-failure-to-tackle-alcohol-harm-is-causing-public-health-crisis-say-mps

    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

  • 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.