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
  • GMac@feddit.orgEnglish
    354·
    9 hours ago

    Going to get down voted to hell and back for this I expect, but hey, different opinions generate discussion right?

    This is good legislation for the environment, for non-smokers, for the NHS, and has zero negative impact on smokers. The ONLY parties I see really hurt by this are tobacco companies, since retailers make minimal margins on tobacco.

    The constant use of the word freedom in the thread comments just seems odd to me. This isn’t a question of freedom, and the comments mostly seem to ignore the paradox of tolerance as it applies to antisocial activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance. Individual freedoms have limits and must end at the boundary of another persons personal space and freedoms. That’s why smoking is banned in confined public places.

    Its all very well to say tax the shit out of it and fund the NHS, but that will feel pretty shit when your parent/partner/child has to wait for an operation because the queue is full of smokers who are entitled to that spot by having paid for it. Which also veers dangerously close to creating paid tracks within the public national health service.

      • JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.netEnglish
        112·
        7 hours ago

        There already is a lot of illegal food.

        Illegal for food manufacturers inject your food with rat poison, illegal for them to pump your meat full of chlorine, illegal for them to sprinkle powdered arsenic all over your snacks for flavor, illegal to put snake venom in your food, illegal for them to put heroin in your food, they can’t put just a bit of ketamine on you lunch, they can’t put coke or meth in your soda.

        How is this different?

        • squaresinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 hours ago

          Not only that. It’s not legally easy to offer food containing e.g. insects or sawdust.

          I read about a company that were selling cookies with sawdust in them as diet products. They put “Contains sawdust to reduce calories” right on the front of the packaging and were advertising it, so a customer would not be misled at all. But it was illegal for them to sell it.

      • GMac@feddit.orgEnglish
        61·
        8 hours ago

        You might need to explain that one a bit for me.
        We have a lot of food regulation, sometimes to enforce quality (e.g. no chlorinated chicken), in other cases to encourage better public health (e.g. higher rates of tax on high sugar drinks).
        What do you think my statements would make illegal?

    • crapwittyname@feddit.ukEnglish
      22·
      8 hours ago

      I think there’s a (probably) small subset of under-18s who are already addicted to nicotine who now have a lifelong issue of obtaining it legally, which I don’t see addressed in the article. Imagine being 45 and needing a fake ID saying you’re 47 so you can buy ciggies.

      • GMac@feddit.orgEnglish
        41·
        7 hours ago

        Most shops in the UK selling booze already operate a policy of asking for ID from anyone who they think looks under 25, even though the legislation is 18.

        Likely as not they’ll roll that policy on to cigarettes (in the few rare places that don’t already) and that would mean the subset you’re speaking about would have to be firmly addicted by the age of 11. At that point, I think this is not so much a tobacco problem, as a child welfare and protection issue and we have social care and protections that should already be addressing those cases.

        I don’t see anyone in that frame getting to middle age and ID for ciggies ranking in the top 10 of problems in their life.