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
  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
    845·
    3 days ago

    Just ban smoking in public places. I don’t want people blowing smoke at me when I’m walking down the street or when I’m siting outside drinking coffee. If they want to smoke in their apartment or their car it’s their business. It would be easier to fight people smoking in the street than check what age every smoker is.

    • Tonava@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      203·
      3 days ago

      in their apartment

      No! This is a huge problem in itself unless they have their own house. The smoke gets into the hallways and into other apartments as well, and it’s fucking awful. Even just smoking on the balcony the smoke gets inside neighboring apartments, having lived through that. I have asthma and everyone smoking inside apartments deserves a kick to the shin

        • Tonava@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          5·
          3 days ago

          The common solution around here has been the apartment complexes banning smoking not only inside but also on the premises outside completely, so it’s getting better these days

    • GMac@feddit.orgEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      Smoking IS banned in public places. Has been since 2006 in Scotland and 2008 across the whole of the UK.

      • qaeta@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        Pretty sure it’s only banned in indoor public spaces. Outdoor locations like bus stops and the like seem to still be fair game.

    • iglou@programming.devEnglish
      183·
      3 days ago

      Exactly this. On top of being liberticideand hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it’s extremely hard to enforce.

      • qaeta@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        Maybe, but if you have a drink, it doesn’t force me to also be having a drink just by being nearby.

    • Ontimp@feddit.orgEnglish
      158·
      3 days ago

      The healthcare costs are collectively borne by the public, no matter where you smoke. And indirect damage for kids and others in the same household should also not be underestimated.

      • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
        261·
        3 days ago

        1. All healthcare costs are borne collectively. Being obese increases healthcare costs. Extreme sports increase healthcare costs. Alcohol increases costs. Why ban smoking for that reason but not the other?

        2. So “save the children” is ok in that context? We don’t trust parents now and should be banning things that can hurt kids? Like porn, social media or sugar?

        • monsdar@lemmy.worldEnglish
          511·
          3 days ago

          What the UK did is a step in the right direction. You can’t argue that this is only valid if they ban the other things you listed as well. You need to start somewhere. Norway for example went a different route and increased taxes on alcohol and sugar to reach a healthier population

          • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
            18·
            3 days ago

            I’m not saying it’s all or nothing. I’m saying that banning things that raise healthcare costs is silly. Lots of people do things that raise healthcare costs. I don’t think that smokers should be punished for raising healthcare costs while I’m allowed to practice high risk sports. It’s unfair.

            What Norway did is completely different as it still leaves it up to people. You promote good habits, not criminalize bad ones.

            • fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              2 days ago

              Yeah I think the route of Norway makes more sense. Prohibition failed historically multiple times. I think education and factful discussions (pros/cons) without irrational condemning drugs would actually be a sustainable long term solution for addiction (because let’s face it, it’s mostly about unhealthy addiction).

              Just legalise all kinds of substances without e.g. ads and other measures that effectively reduce the issue. And give proper education early (ideally from long term addicts, so that it’s believable and properly shows the issues).

              We see with weed, opiates and currently growing cocaine where uncontrolled markets go and promote addiction…

              I doubt that this will be much different with tobacco in a prohibited future…

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish
        71·
        3 days ago

        Cigarette smokers are actually supporting pension plans because they die fast and cheap before they see benefits.

        • Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          1·
          3 days ago

          They don’t die cheap if they’re treated for cancer several years before the final breath. Billions are lost to society annually as a result. Cancer treatment is largely futile, yet it’s overly expensive. The revenue from tobacco tax is far from sufficient to cover that.

    • Weydemeyer@lemmy.mlEnglish
      6·
      3 days ago

      This seems like a much more reasonable, enforceable, and frankly more effective approach. It also seems more in line with respecting personal freedoms to do things even that harm yourself so long as no one else is being harmed.

      I am a tankie - literally as far from a libertarian as you can get - and even I am struck by the seeming lack of concern over stripping away the freedoms of one demographic in particular. Honestly I’d prefer to see cigarettes banned outright than to say some people can buy them while others can’t. Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.

      • ati@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        1 day ago

        I didn’t realise people actually self-identified as tankies. That’s really interesting. Thank you for broadening my conceptions.

      • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
        6·
        3 days ago

        Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.

        Exactly, how will they enforce it in like 10-20 years? Police will stop and check everyone who’s looking too young to smoke? Some young looking guy in his 30 will have to show his ID to cops all the time? Right now it’s working because shop owners enforce it, parents enforce it and you can generally spot kids when they are hanging out. Parents don’t usually buy cigarettes for their kids but what if a 30 year old will buy cigarettes for their friend or spouse that’s 29 and can’t legally smoke?