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
  • Blander_Rurton@lemmy.worldEnglish
    96·
    14 hours ago

    A good move in my opinion. Not sure how enforced it will be but phasing out cigarettes full stop is a good idea.

    Now we should be clamping down on vapes. Tax them more, ban advertising, hide them from sale and put them in the same blank packaging as cigs.

    In my opinion, they should ban the sweet flavours and only allow menthol, tobacco or mint flavours but not sure how that would fly.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      62·
      13 hours ago

      So… answer me this. Why? Why should anyone be able to tell us what we can and can’t do in our own homes, if it isn’t impacting anyone else?

      • Blander_Rurton@lemmy.worldEnglish
        62·
        13 hours ago

        Not bothered about what people do in their own homes, moreso what they do in public. Vape isn’t a pleasant smell and we don’t know the impacts of second hand vapour

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          13 hours ago

          Okay, but what you suggested wasn’t focused on what they do in public. It was on the product itself.

          Phase out allowing smoking in public, fine, that fits what you are saying. But raising taxes on them and such would mean there is someone who can no longer smoke in their own home because it is now too expensive.

          I personally hate cigarettes and such. But I don’t think I or anyone should be doing things to stop others from enjoying what I hate if it doesn’t impact me. It’s just none of my business.

          • Jako302@feddit.orgEnglish
            41·
            10 hours ago

            Ever lived next to someone that was smoking at home? The smoke doesn’t care about property borders and will find its way into neighboring apartments and yards.

            The only way to smoke without bothering anyone is if you live somewhere in the woods in bumfuck nowhere.

            Once your law covers all eventualities regarding this, its so convoluted that banning is the better option.

            • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              6 hours ago

              It really isn’t. You can make it illegal to make others smell the smoke. Most places already have ordinances in llace for noise, and many actually do for smells as well. Make laws that solve the real problem, not overreach into other areas that aren’t the problem.

          • Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            32·
            11 hours ago

            Even if they’re smoking at home, the enormous costs to the healthcare system caused by smokers every year are a burden on the shoulders of everyone in society.

            • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              6 hours ago

              Hm, so alcohol should be banned to? You should see the cost to the healthcare system for that. And what about red meat, causes heart issues. And fried foods too. It’s a long list. And many cost far more than smoking does. So who decides which vices are okay despite the cost, and which aren’t? And why do they get to decide?

          • Blander_Rurton@lemmy.worldEnglish
            12·
            10 hours ago

            Maybe so, but they are terrible for you and there shouldn’t be incentive to do it. Vapes are very cheap, this is partly why they’re so popular with children. Maybe it they were a bit pricier then people would think twice. Can also put tax towards public health service.

            • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              6 hours ago

              No one is incentivizing people to smoke. And why should one person have to pay a tax for thier vice, while others don’t. Alcohol is literally poison. It’s worse than terrible for you. But that one is ok? There are those who would argue adamantly that red meat is terrible for you and the environment. Should we try to tax those two out of existence. Why should we be trying to make people think twice. They have a right to make their decisions without other people interference and judgements. We could go deeper down this rabbit hole and get into sexual orientation and such. The same arguments were made for laws against that… it’s terrible, it’s not natural. Maybe they will think twice if we make laws against it…

              • Blander_Rurton@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                5 hours ago

                I mean, I think that’s a stretch. We know that vaping gives you popcorn lung and likely lung cancer also the same as cigarettes.

                Alcohol in moderation has no long lasting effects. If you drink in excess it’s not great for your liver sure, but it’s still not as bad as smoking/vaping.

                For the record, I’m pro legalising cannabis, and if people want to smoke and drink up a storm in their own home on a Friday night, go for it!

                However, in the interest of public health, a tax on vapes wouldn’t be a bad idea. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be as restricted as cigarettes are. If they’re expensive then it doesn’t stop those who really want to partake from using them, but it limits children’s access.

                Also, alcohol IS taxed already.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        10 hours ago

        Because it isn’t just your body in your home. It is the entire healthcare system that has to deal with the impacts of smokers. It is the neighbors who have to smell it from your house. It is the kids of parents who are smokers.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          6 hours ago

          Sure. But how many other things do we do that are bad for us. Alcohol, red meat (according to some), skydiving (mostly a joke). So who chooses which vices are okay to burden the healthcare system with, and which aren’t. I have no problem with making it illegal to cause others to have to smell it, nor with exposing children to it. That is impacting someone else’s rights.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          4·
          9 hours ago

          Should the government ban snack foods for obese households then? Or take away their kids before they pass on their unhealthy ways?

          Tobacco legislation is just as much an over reach as that would be, and if you accept their proposal, they will come back and take more from you in the name of health. It’s a steady walk into fascism while you’re distracted with the handful of countries that are speed running it.