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
    2·
    14 hours ago

    No one is incentivizing people to smoke. And why should one person have to pay a tax for thier vice, while others don’t. Alcohol is literally poison. It’s worse than terrible for you. But that one is ok? There are those who would argue adamantly that red meat is terrible for you and the environment. Should we try to tax those two out of existence. Why should we be trying to make people think twice. They have a right to make their decisions without other people interference and judgements. We could go deeper down this rabbit hole and get into sexual orientation and such. The same arguments were made for laws against that… it’s terrible, it’s not natural. Maybe they will think twice if we make laws against it…

    • Blander_Rurton@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      13 hours ago

      I mean, I think that’s a stretch. We know that vaping gives you popcorn lung and likely lung cancer also the same as cigarettes.

      Alcohol in moderation has no long lasting effects. If you drink in excess it’s not great for your liver sure, but it’s still not as bad as smoking/vaping.

      For the record, I’m pro legalising cannabis, and if people want to smoke and drink up a storm in their own home on a Friday night, go for it!

      However, in the interest of public health, a tax on vapes wouldn’t be a bad idea. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be as restricted as cigarettes are. If they’re expensive then it doesn’t stop those who really want to partake from using them, but it limits children’s access.

      Also, alcohol IS taxed already.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        7 hours ago

        The data on alcohol in moderations actually isn’t that clear from the things I read. But if you want to go that route… vaping in moderation also isn’t going to do much to you either. And if they are expensive, you have now said a whole bunch of people can’t do it because they are poor. And you rich people, you can do whatever you want. Why should laws be made to punish people with less money? And yes alcohol is taxed already. It shouldn’t be taxed any different than anything else. The gov shouldn’t be trying to tell us how to live our lives if we aren’t hurting anyone.
        But if a rich person kills someone while driving drunk… well that is just okay. We can’t put them in jail. It will ruin their life.
        The reality of taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes is that they can get away with it. So they do. Because where does that money eventually land? Is some donors pocket. Gotta have an organization to collect those taxes. And someone has to be the overpaid political appointee to “run” that organization. And probably need software for tracking all that stuff… you guessed it. Consultants, and some over paid ceo who gets a disproportionately large amount compared to others because he know people in the gov and was able to land the contract. It’s never about actually reducing people’s use of the substances. They could do that with better services for addicts, and better mental healthcare. But that just doesn’t pay enough rich people. It’s too simple.