I don’t think this is a good move. All drugs should be made legal, but they should be prohibited in public, their taxes raised significantly, and a license required.
Dude I get it but this is dumb. the creation of a smoking and non smoking class is fucking ridiculous. Pick a side and stick with it.
The side picked is banning smoking. It’s being done by attrition because everyone knows how hard it is to stop, easier to just prevent it from the beginning.
I can appreciate that’s the intent, but the optics are this are what creates the class disparity thing. Plus it’s abusable. They need to have a firm cutoff date to be clear that applies to everybody. Splitting hairs makes this look suspect.
So prohibition 2.0? How’d that work out again?
I think everyone stopped, we fixed all the problems and then got lots of back pats.
I like that they’re trying to kill off smoking.
I don’t like this ageist bullshit.
Why don’t they just set a timeline of 5 years and all tobacco sales are prohibited after that. You’ve got 5 years to quit if you smoke.
That solves even more of the problem and isn’t ageist bullshit.
probably because it’s easier to make people not start smoking than make people stop smoking. 2008 people are below 18, so most of them probably haven’t started
2008 people are already turning 18 this year.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
It’s the same reason that Age Gating is popping up all over the world.
It’s because fuck young people, that’s why. I got mine, I don’t care about you.
Yeah they’re fucking over young people by (checks notes) extending their life expectancy?
I’m not saying I’m against the ban - I actually am for it. I’m just saying that if it was good enough for older people to make an informed decision, why are we denying only the younger ones that right.
If we truly wanted to fix things, we should ban it for everybody. Not at some arbitrary age cut-off.
Last I checked, secondary smoke does not respect age limits.
Honestly curious, why pro ban? I don’t smoke/condone smoking but I don’t think of it as so heinous an activity as to be made illegal.
I feel like gambling is a far greater issue and only seems to have it’s popularity on the rise recently.
Smoking falls in my “vices that don’t totally ruin your life” category. Alcohol seems an obvious and fair bit worse a vice so why is there not a call for change there?
I was living in Canada for the change in weed prohibition and all and all seemed like a somewhat positive change overall.
Folks are going to smoke regardless, why give up taxation to pay for the treatment? I only see making it illegal as means to create a criminal element. Once that is robust enough you loose any real ability to regulate as well.
Again, honest question curious if any of this resonates or if you have a completely different view of how the situation will play out.
Because of secondary smoke. If you drink or gamble, that does not affect people around you.
Smoking always does.
No age rating is a measure of control and surveillance. They force you to supply more info, so authorities can track people better when they want to.
Well, that’s just an added bonus. Killing two birds with one stone and all.
My biggest issue is them labeling vaping as a tobacco product. While tobacco contains nicotine, it’s like saying Red Bull is coffee.
They even label vape juice with zero nicotine as a “tobacco product.”
Oh, so now that smoking is illegal that means it’s cool again?
Seriously, all they’re doing is making smoking cool again.
And keeping vaping seeming cool.
Ah, the old “vaping is a tobacco product and is the same as smoking” bullshit.
You wouldn’t call a red-bull a coffee product because coffee has caffeine in it.
If they think this will actually do anything then they’re horrendously fucking stupid.
And what’s the plan in like 100 years after the previous generations die? Tobacco and nicotine just cease to exist, and there’ll be no black markets at all?
Utterly brainless cunts. Then again, I guess you don’t have to be elected or a Lord/Lady/Baroness etc by merit.
I don’t think we should be supporting carcinogenic substances known to promote lung cancer and heart disease, personally…
To be fair, that’s not what their comment was trying to do. They were saying that it would make it worse.
True. With a lot of swearing andand not a lot of arguments though.
I expect actually it will have a profound effect on the number of people smoking. I remember when they banned smoking in public places, smoking declined rapidly since then.
Kids have been bypassing restrictions and purchasing cigarettes for years but the general decline is still happening.
I always attributed it to general education being the real mover. I think as the public became more educated we looked for solutions to help curb use and the decline was the leveling out once people were able to make a more informed decision.
Some folks will always choose to smoke knowing what it is and I think we have just moved closer to that number. Certainly advertising and exposure have a large role to play as well, I just feel as though it’s a whole host of elements that have changed the usage rates.
I feel as though banning something makes certain demographics less likely to take it up but I feel like the measures we had in place already target that crowd. I think we are very close to the market cap on people we can sell abstinence to.
Just my thinking on it, the numbers might bare out different results. I just personally think illegality is not the major barrier to uptake that folks think it is. I would point to coke usage and how ubiquitous it is with young adults in the UK right now.
In the end I think making something illegal that is already on the decline is a misstep, let it fade out on its own rather than call attention to it. People get up in arms about change, a great way to make something popular is to tell folks they can’t have it.
It does make the average person a little more marketable as ‘undesirable’. You can pay your taxes, try to live in society’s rules but god forbid you have to support criminals to get a cigarette. The black mirror social credit episode pops in my mind again.
I understand cigarettes are not heathy but there are better ways to support additions, these measures are a big brother take to undermine individuals.
Between this and other recent bans they are slowly removing the steam valves.
Did they ban nicotine or smoking? Won’t nicotine in other forms that are legal outcompete illegal cigarettes?
I also think it’s overblown though, bans in public spaces should be enough.
The article says “banned from purchasing tobacco products” and that the same smoking restrictions will now also apply for vaping. I don’t think it mentioned nicotine specifically. I think it mentioned banning the sale of disposable vapes too but here goes my memory span, useless.
People are still allowed to smoke in private spaces like their homes, but the public spaces ban would now be extra. It’s an interesting move, I don’t smoke or live there but I see both the potential good and bad ramifications from this.
I live in the UK. At this point, most of the polite smokers have moved over to vapes. Those left are almost entirely rude wankers who don’t care where their smoke goes and who it affects. The smoking ban came in because 1 smoker can affect dozens of unwilling people.
I have zero issues with vapes. The effect on others is quite minor, outside a few fog machines disguised as vapes.
I need this in my country, but for people born after 1980. I need to quit.
I quit by switching to e-cig first. E-cigs get you halfway, an after e-cig for a year or two, it’s way easier, for instance by reducing the nicotine level.
I should not have started again after 12 years. I’m planning on getting Champix again from the doctor. Worked 13 years ago.
Best of luck quitting again. 🤞
Were you really nicotine free for 12 years and then started again?
If so, can you confirm that us smokers become conditioned to the nicotine, I’ve heard it termed smokers brain, so even after years of not smoking, you get right back in no time to the level of smoking you were at before you quit?!even after years of not smoking, you get right back in no time to the level of smoking you were at before you quit?!
This is common with any addiction whether it be gambling, booze, or cigarettes.
OK thanks, I wasn’t aware of that, I thought it was something particular for tobacco.
All I can say is that that warning has been key for me to NOT try that single party cigarette.
It took a looooong time to not have cravings anymore after quitting. Like, almost 2 years. Maybe more. But for years I had no issues with it. Last summer I got into a relationship with a chain smoker, and to not be disgusted when kissing I thought I could smoke on occasion. That went bad really fast.
Some people are more prone to addiction than others. I am not. I’ve used loads of drugs, but never had cravings or got addicted. I did it almost every weekend for several years, but quite often I would forget to clean up the mirror from the table and I never ever thought of taking some during the week. I had no issues doing kothing for periods of 4 tot 6 months, or a few years. Never cravings or anything. Same with alcohol. No issue what so ever.
Sigarettes? Fuuuuuuuuck I’m a sucker and have no self control.
But there is a very important factor in play. Cigarette factories add loads of chemicals to increase addictiveness. To make the nicotine rush faster and more intense, to make the dip more heavy causing you to light up another one. No one adds shit to ketamine to make it more potent.
