Bill to ban smoking for anyone born after 2009 introduced by government

[Oopsie Daisy]

85,090 views Mar 20, 2024
The government has put the UK on what it hopes will be a path to becoming a world leader in the fight against smoking-related diseases. (Subscribe: https://bit.ly/C4_News_Subscribe)

It has introduced its Tobacco and Vapes bill that will mean that the legal age people can buy cigarettes will be raised by one year every year, so anyone born after 2009 will never legally be sold cigarettes.

I hope! If it works well in the UK, perhaps a version something like that could be introduced here.

[DoBW]

1. Death sticks

[Oopsie Daisy]

15. We can ban asbestos, which kills a mere 40k people per year *

* so let's ban tobacco which kills 480k people in the US per year.

[Jacson6]

2. This will be effective as the 1919 US Prohibition of Alcohol.

[CurtEastPoint]

3. Yep, it'll be like prohibition, which failed, and the war on drugs, which failed.

[Warpy]

4. Yeah, like that's ever going to work

It should work even less well than Nixon's war on cannabis did. Cannabis want's addictive. Tobacco is the most rapidly addictive substance we know of.

It also grows easily and while it requires a long drying period (2 years) to be usable, it is usable in its dried leaf form, requiring no refinement process to extract the active drug. People who want it will grow it, dry it in attics or basements, and continue to smoke the shit. No one will ever be able to eradicate it. Adults will be well within their rights to tell the government to go to hell if they want to smoke it.

I hate smoking I'm allergic and it made me sick as hell. I was fine with indoor bans, those should have happened long before they finally did. I am against outdoor bans. The stuff is addictive. People who are addicted to it are compelled to smoke it (or chew it or vape it) or their brains don't work right. Outdoor smoking is a reasonable accommodation.

They're asking for trouble with this one.

[Mosby]

5. People aren't going to grow it and cure it.

It's more likely that illegal sellers of cigarettes will set up shop to sell to the blacklisted ages.

I'm all for a social engineering approach to mitigate cigarette and tobacco use, but this is ridiculous.

[Warpy]

13. That's going to happen, also

along with southern states absolutely refusing to enforce that particular law.

In fact, I can see police anywhere enforcing it.

[DoBW]

7. More more more

[Attilatheblond]

6. So, born before that date, can still smoke?

How about making it illegal period? Won't work, but neither will an age line legislation.

[Torchlight]

8. It was the consistently increasing taxes on smokes that got me to finally quit after 35 years.

I began the year after hs graduation in the summer of '84. At that point, they were 75 cents a pack; a price I could justify to myself. I kept those rationalizations going over the years while hearing all my pals say, "they're 2 bucks a pack now. I quit." "They're four dollar a pack now, I quit..." and so on.

I never got to that point until 2021 (?) when the price was jacked to just over eight dollars a pack. Vaping was a viable alternative, and it averages out to about 35 cents a day instead of $3000 a year for the same habit in cigg form.

But I've noticed (in the US, can't speak to Britain's habits) smoker slowly became social pariahs in many venues, and I'd guess half the people I know quit just because it was being called a 'filthy habit' again. Point being, the impressions of social stigmas as defined by leadership can work, but I think it takes a full generation or more to remove a habit once considered benign and ubiquitous.

[róisín_dubh]

21. I just quit smoking

It’s not been too bad actually, when cigarettes are near on $20 everywhere in the UK. I had to do it, I felt like crap and my bank account was dwindling.
But I wouldn’t say smokers are social pariahs here. Vaping has just replaced it for the most part.

[Luz]

23. Good for you! It's a tough habit to break.

[DoBW]

29. I quit in '09, same year pinpointed in story

the first week was toughest, especially with coffee, but i held on-- we already had one lung cancer death in family. My mother wanted to spend her last summer in the house where she grew up; she and my father still owned it. I was able to be there and I helped him getting her through her toilet business, helping her keep clean, changing her rubber sheets at 2 am, trying to get her to drink Ensure, keeping her as comfortable as possible in between getting her to chemo. It was brutal. That was in '98. Even with all that, I fed my addiction for another 11 years to '09. I had smoked pack-a-day minimum over 30 years. I went cold turkey. By '010 I felt better than I had in 20 years. Quitting smoking was the 2nd best health decision I ever was willing to make. The first was quitting drinking two years earlier. I was falling down drunk at that funeral. The memory is forever burned into my consciousness.

[flying_wahini]

9. Sorry, I hate cigs too but this is outrageous.

They can’t take them off the market cuz the corporations would get mad.

[KarenS]

10. They are already trying it in the USA

https://democraticunderground.com/10575808

Another story was posted on DU March 12th.

[Oopsie Daisy]

16. Cool.

👍

[MichMan]

11. Court upholds town bylaw banning anyone born in 21st century from buying tobacco products

Already here in the US

Brookline, Mass. — A Massachusetts town that adopted an unusual ordinance banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born in the 21st century is being looked at as a possible model for other cities and towns hoping to further clamp down on cigarettes and tobacco products.

The bylaw — the first of its kind in the country — was adopted by Brookline in 2020 and last week was upheld by the state’s highest court, opening the door for other communities to adopt similar bans that will, decades from now, eventually bar all future generations from buying tobacco.

The rule, which bans the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000, went into effect in 2021 in the town of about 60,000 next to Boston.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/11/court-upholds-town-bylaw-banning-anyone-born-in-21st-century-from-buying-tobacco-products/72935779007/

[ret5hd]

12. Apt theme song:

[Aristus]

14. Stupid.

Do what we're doing over here: Prohibit smoking in any place worth going to, and make it too expensive to sustain.

People smoke mostly in their homes and in their cars, and I still smell that shit everywhere.

[Warpy]

17. If you want more of something, subsdize it

Yes, big tobacco got its price supports and subsidies for a very long time, probably still going on today but called something else.

If you want less of something, tax it. Every time taxes on cigarettes go up, the smoking rate goes down. The cumulative effect of this over the last 30 years is a large one, mostly smokers looking at the price tag and deciding to go through withdrawal so they can breathe fresh air for a change, it's cheaper.

[Oopsie Daisy]

18. Yes... I think taxing it is a good start. $2 per cigarette *

* that will certainly discourage people with limited income from starting/continuing... and even folks who can "afford" it will be motivated to quit.

[Warpy]

19. That will create a black market. Do you want more gang running another black market?

Some people are just contrary, "This is bad and will kill me so I'm a-gonna do it to look tough."

At some poine, you get counterproductive taxation, when more people get defiant.

It's best to mitigate harm as much as you can. So smoke the stupid things if ya got 'em, just set fire to them outdoors. M'kay?

[Oopsie Daisy]

22. Yes. That's exactly what I want. You figured me out!

And STILL fewer people will be dead because of smoking-related disease and complications.

[Warpy]

31. Both my parents died from it

They didn't stop until it was far too late to do anything.

They lived to old age, but that life was blighted by COPD, stroke, and heart disease.

Nicotine is the worst drug out there, the easiest to get addicted to and the hardest to quit.

Still, I would never presume to tell any other adult what to do with his or her body. As long as they set fire to it outside, we'll get along just fine.

[Oopsie Daisy]

34. The effects of smoking (even when they fire-up outside) has negative consequences on *

* more than just the smoker. It's a social and economical problem.

Smoking-related illnesses place a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Smokers have a higher risk of developing various health conditions such as lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory disorders. Treating these illnesses requires extensive medical resources, including costly procedures, medications, and hospital stays. The expenses associated with treating smoking-related diseases ultimately affect everyone through increased healthcare costs and taxes.

Smoking has a negative impact on the economy. Smokers often experience reduced productivity due to increased sick leave, absenteeism, and decreased work performance as a result of smoking-related health issues. This can lead to decreased efficiency and higher healthcare costs for employers. Additionally, premature deaths caused by smoking result in lost productivity and potential years of economic contribution to society.

Smoking has adverse effects on the environment. Cigarette butts, the most common form of litter worldwide, are non-biodegradable and contribute to pollution in water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. The manufacturing, packaging, and transportation of cigarettes also have environmental consequences, including deforestation, energy consumption, and carbon emissions. Pets and babies suffer serious consequences when they eat or chew on filters.

Smoking poses a risk of accidental fires, which can result in property damage, injuries, and loss of life. Discarded cigarette butts or improperly extinguished cigarettes can easily ignite flammable materials, leading to devastating consequences for individuals and communities.

Even when they take-it-outside at the workplace or when socializing, the impact of smoking extends beyond the individual smoker. Secondhand smoke affects those who are exposed to it, increasing their risk of developing health problems such as respiratory issues, heart disease, and cancer. This is particularly concerning in public spaces and homes where non-smokers may be involuntarily exposed to secondhand smoke.

Smoking is a significant factor in determining insurance rates. Although smokers are generally charged higher premiums for health, life, and disability insurance due to their increased risk of developing smoking-related illnesses... their increased premiums don't truly represent the actual increased costs, therefore this affects not only smokers but also the broader population, as insurance costs are spread among all policyholders.

Smoking can strain personal relationships, particularly within families. The health risks associated with smoking can create emotional and financial burdens on loved ones who may have to care for or support a smoker suffering from smoking-related illnesses.

PS: Sorry you had to go through that. It's a terrible way to go and it puts such a financial and emotional burden on the family.

[Warpy]

36. That's the logic of the war on drugs

not to mention the anti LGBT, anti trans, and anti abortion movements and I don't buy any of them.

You want to go through life telling adults "thou shalt not," open a church.

[Oopsie Daisy]

37. Oh lord.

>> not to mention the anti LGBT, anti trans, and anti abortion movements and I don't buy any of them.
So, being anti-smoking is the same logic as being anti-lgbtq, and anti-abortion?? What a ridiculous argument. Actually it's offensive.

Smoking is an activity that has been scientifically proven to have substantial negative health consequences for both the smoker and those exposed to secondhand smoke. Advocating against smoking is primarily focused on promoting public health and reducing the harm caused by a behavior that is known to be detrimental. On the other hand, issues like sexual orientation or decisions related to pregnancy are deeply personal matters that do not pose inherent health risks to oneself or others.

Being gay or having a specific sexual orientation is an inherent and unchangeable aspect of a person's identity. It is not a behavior or choice. Conversely, smoking is a behavior that individuals engage in and have the ability to modify or quit. Equating the two disregards the fundamental distinction between a person's core identity and a chosen behavior like smoking.

It's unclear where you were going with that offensive analogy... but it's big fail.

>> You want to go through life telling adults "thou shalt not," open a church.
Look, I'm not here to tell you what to do or not to do. It's your life, your lungs, your choice. But hey, let's not forget that smoking bans (especially this age-related ban) are implemented for the greater good, to protect people from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. But who needs consideration for others when we can wave the flag of individualism and the family-tradition of being smokers, right?

[Warpy]

38. It's unconscionable interference with the lives of individuals

You can try to mitigate the harm. You can educate kids about smoking, make smoking expensive, and restrict where addicts light up. You can do outreach to stop HIV from devastating the gay community. You can make abortion safe and legal instead of shoving it into the hands of fast buck butchers who don't care if women die. You can't thunder "thou shalt not" and expect people to fall into line and obey you. It's just not going to work. It will never work. It just turns people into lawbreakers and ruins their lives.

Sometimes harm mitigation is the best you can do.

Nobody hates tobacco more than I do. I just realize I don't make the rules for other adults. Neither do you.

[Oopsie Daisy]

39. LOL!

>> You can't thunder "thou shalt not" and expect people to fall into line and obey you.
Nonsense. Of course you can. By making it too painful, or too expensive to indulge.

>> It's just not going to work. It will never work.
Tell that to paedophiles and murderers. "Thou shalt not fuck little children, thou shalt not kill." They're going to do what they want anyway, so might as well just let them, eh?

[Midwestern Democrat]

33. Every single day, I see lower income people digging cigarette butts out of outdoor ashcans so they can roll whatever

unsmoked tobacco is left in these butts into cigarettes - these are people living hard lives working terrible jobs and smug well to do Nanny Staters are just putting one more boot on their throats. Whenever I run across one of these people, I always give them a few cigarettes to help them out - I DON'T LIKE seeing these people forced to suffer this indignity.

[Oopsie Daisy]

35. Sorry, that's not helping them out.

The indignity is smoking. The real indignity is making poor choices like wasting $12 for a pack of menthol cigarettes instead of buying food for their children, or instead of blood pressure meds, or anything else that they ACTUALLY need. Nobody needs cigarettes, they simply want them. After three or four days of being 100% smoke free, the physical cravings end and then it's just the habit and mental associations and "desire" that remain. The only "boot on their throat" is the one that's helping to ensure their poor health and early death under the guise of freedoms, liberties and "don't tread on me." Big Tobacco has a lot of people fooled and addicted and is profiting while driving them to an early grave.

>> smug well to do Nanny Staters
LOL!

[ShazzieB]

20. As much as I hate cigarettes, it's hard to imagine it being effective.

And I DO hate cigarettes, believe me. Both of my parents were lifelong heavy smokers and both died prematurely due to smoking related issues. I hate cigarettes with the fire of a thousand suns. If tobacco were to vanish off the face of the earth, it would be fine with me.

But as some have pointed out, nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and when people really crave something they're addicted to, they won't just stop because it's illegal. There are a lot of ways people can get around this, and it's a safe bet people will try them all.

I'm curious to see what happens with this, though. The bill hasn't even passed yet, but if it does, it should be interesting to watch how it goes from afar. If it's a disaster, we can all say, "Told you so," but it'll be the UK's problem, not ours. If they want to try it, I say let 'em give it a try.

[Warpy]

32. Anyone who's ever seen a Jonesing smoker

clawing through the eggshells, limp veg, coffee grounds and orange peels looking for a butt they can still get one drag off at 3 AM knows this isn't going to work and why.

[LexVegas]

24. How about pipe tobacco? Cigars? Ridiculous. nt

[hunter]

25. It's already failed in New Zealand.

New Zealand’s new government scraps world-leading smoking ban to fund tax cuts

(CNN)As any smoker will tell you, quitting tobacco isn’t easy – and it’s something New Zealand’s new government just isn’t prepared to do right now.

A year after passing a world-leading smoking ban designed to save thousands of lives and prevent new generations of young adults from smoking, New Zealand has announced a u-turn to help pay for tax cuts, infuriating public health officials and anti-tobacco groups.

--more--

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/28/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban-reversal-intl-hnk/index.html

Taxing carbon emissions won't work for the same reason.

[Scrivener7]

26. Bill title: "How to make smoking totally attractive to kids."

Is it sponsored by tobacco companies?

[Oopsie Daisy]

27. There would still be FEWER smokers and FEWER deaths.

Those who are most tempted because it's forbidden would be hardcore smokers anyway. Simply because the forbidden/banned cigarettes would become "totally attractive" to a certain element/personalty-type is not really a convincing reason to continue to make it easily accessible and affordable for everyone. Banning cigarettes would not make things "worse" even if it's not 100% effective.

[Scrivener7]

30. Sure! We proved that with Prohibition!

[Layzeebeaver]

28. My wife and I still enjoy a cigar out in our garden on a nice day

there's nothing wrong with that.

Don't tell me what I can or can't do in the privacy of my own home as long as it doesn't threaten anyone.

[LeftishBrit]

40. This is ridiculous

I dislike smoking, have never smoked myself, and am glad that it's gone down massively among young people in the UK, but this will be as effective as Prohibition.

And the law will be an ass when in, say, 2029, a 20-year-old won't be able to buy cigarettes, but a 21-year-old will. And in 2039, a 30-year-old won't be able to buy cigarettes, but a 31-year-old will. Etc. And of course the prohibited group will be able to get cigarettes from their older friends and siblings.

Just another of Rishi Sunak's bright ideas.

[Oopsie Daisy]

41. I'm sure that they've taken that into consideration. Access by way of peers is not new *

* but it will certainly hinder and curtail or delay or make tobacco use more trouble than its worth (and more expensive than its worth). While imperfect, I think it's something that would have the greatest impact.

Otherwise, why have age 21 as a cutoff for liquor? Because someone who's 20 can get it from their friends, and someone who's 19 can get it from their friend's friends (and so on). And someone who's 16 can steal it from their parents' bar... why bother having an age limit at all? Right?

[JanMichael]

42. Alcohol isn't a lifetime ban. Once over 21 or 18 you can buy it.

This crazy ban is forever for a certain group born after 2009.

Also I could see these zeolites starting with tobacco then going all Prohibitionlike with alcohol then what? Caffeine?

Here is your water and saltine crackers without salt. Enjoy lunch.

[Oopsie Daisy]

43. Cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 deaths per year in the US alone.

Here's the thing, if we can ban asbestos (which causes only 40,000 deaths annually in the US) then it certainly makes good sense to ban something that's even more dangerous.

I'm unaware that caffeine has been determined to be as hazardous as smoking cigarettes. If you find any stories about passive-caffeine or 2nd-hand-caffeine dangers, let me know.

I keep scouring the internet for articles and protests and petitions from folks who are demanding their god-given right to use asbestos and proclaiming that their liberties are being infringed upon by a "nanny-state"... but so far, I can't find any. It probably won't take too long: I want my lead-based paint! I demand to use asbestos ceiling tiles & insulation! I have the right to use DDT! My air conditioner worked better with CFCs! Bring back PhisoHEX!! Unfair to pregnant women --- I demand thalidomide for morning sickness!

Seat-belts, helmet-laws, speed-limits... why bother?

[JanMichael]

44. 1 in 5 deaths worldwide are caused by poor diets

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1RF2SU/

I would love to ban added sugar but that isnt going to happen. People are going to eat their candy and drink their sweet tea. And eat bread that has sweeteners in it. And eat or use ketchup that has extra sweeteners in it. And we wonder why everyone needs those weight loss drugs?

As for nicotine it doesn't only have to be smoked. And I'm not talking about chew.

Also I don't equate seat belt usage to personal proclivities.

And I hate to say this but there are too many people in the world anyway.

But lastly tobacco use has drop dramatically anyway.