Summary

The UK has introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, aiming to make it illegal for future generations to buy cigarettes. The bill proposes gradually raising the minimum smoking age, so those born after January 1, 2009, will never be able to purchase tobacco legally.

It also includes restrictions on vape flavors and packaging to prevent youth addiction and bans smoking in certain outdoor spaces, though pub beer gardens are exempt.

Supported by the Labour Party’s majority, the legislation seeks to create a “smoke-free U.K.” and combat smoking-related deaths.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      22 days ago

      You’re talking about making it a prescription drug only allowed for cessation purposes. That sure sounds like a ban on recreational use to me. What happens when someone without a prescription is caught with tobacco under this system you’re proposing? What makes this preferable to just letting people smoke?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        22 days ago

        That sure sounds like a ban on recreational use to me.

        You said nothing about recreational use. But something that overloads the healthcare system and costs a ton of money should not be allowed freely for recreational use.

        https://www.england.nhs.uk/2023/12/hospital-admissions-due-to-smoking-up-nearly-5-per-cent-last-year-nhs-data-shows/

        https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated

        What happens when someone without a prescription is caught with tobacco under this system you’re proposing?

        A fine. Like many things that people do that are illegal. Are you under the bizarre impression that the only possible thing you can do to someone who commits a crime is imprison them?

        What makes this preferable to just letting people smoke?

        It helps them quit. Which is good. See above, re overloading the healthcare system and costing a ton of money.

        • minibyte@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 days ago

          Are you under the bizarre impression that the only possible thing you can do to someone who commits a crime is imprison them?

          You’re replying to an American. So, yes.

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 days ago

          Are you under the bizarre impression that the only possible thing you can do to someone who commits a crime is imprison them?

          I didn’t say anything about imprisoning people. Any legal consequence for possession of a plant is too far.

          It helps them quit.

          It leverages a nanny state that forces people to quit whether they want to or not.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            22 days ago

            When British taxpayers are the ones paying for the smokers’ illnesses, whether or not they personally want to quit is not the issue. You do know how socialized medicine works, yes? British nonsmokers should not have to foot the bill when they get emphysema or lung cancer.

            I don’t know why you think they should.

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              22 days ago

              Universal healthcare doesn’t give you license to police everyone else’s lifestyle to your preferred level of health-consciousness.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                22 days ago

                Costing the British taxpayers money for the sake of your disease-causing pleasure is some real nonsense. If you want to argue that smoking-related diseases should be exempt from the NHS, fine. But you want to have your cigarette and smoke it too.

                • Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  I suppose i wouldnt oppose a ban like that in theory, but because doctors rnt omniscient, in practice, you’d end up with either, smokers not being treated for illnesses completely unrelated to their smoking, or non smokers not being treated because doctors think its related to smoking. I mean how could u tell for 100% certain someone is a smoker, I can bet theres smokers out there w still perfectly white teeth etc and non smokers whos lungs r black from car exhausts. Is it really worth letting a non smoker die js because you dont wanna pay for the smoker too? Its hardly like people r gonna be honest abt smoking when they won’t get free healthcare for it

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    22 days ago

                    Of course not, but that’s the only option that allows people to enjoy their cancer sticks and not have everyone else pay for the cancer.