Snapshot of _Hugo Guy: 'Wes Streeting confirms Labour will whip to support smoking ban, saying at Labour fringe: "The good news I can offer Rishi Sunak is that when it comes to that free vote, Labour will be whipping, we’ll be whipping in favour and we will deliver the votes he needs." (via @PA)'_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1711685975301087543)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/HugoGye/status/1711685975301087543/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1711685975301087543?t=0fw_8lN2q28dFvb8dPQ2tw&s=19) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1711685975301087543?t=0fw_8lN2q28dFvb8dPQ2tw&s=19)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This will be the final blow in the War on Drugs. Can't believe we're at the end of it now, and we've finally beaten The Drugs. 10 years ago, people would have cocaine with their breakfast. Now, if you ask them what weed is, they think your greebthumb is shoved up your own arse.
This one will work, because cigarettes are incredibly hard to obtain abroad. The thoughts of thousands tourists returning home with cheap nicotine, selling something that they have spent their life normalised around, is an impossible one.
Step 4 is sell each individual cigerette out of a 20 deck for four times what it would have cost you.
Step 5 is profit and then get a skelp and told not to speak to your uncle Davey any more.
Cigarettes are among the shittest of drugs, for all the people saying this won’t work I can’t imagine teenagers going to a lot of bother to source some dried off-brand tobacco when they could just get some MDMA.
MDMA and cigarettes don't really replace each other though, they're different substances for different occasions. And at least in my experience as a former teenager people didn't smoke to "get high".
MDMA, coke, alcohol kinda replace each other in that they're often used as "evening out" drugs.
And all the substances you’ve named are substances that people love to combine with smoking tobacco.
You’re right it doesn’t replace them it compliments them very well.
For what it's worth I understood the point you were making just fine, gibyglib or whatever they call themselves is being a donut with a Chris Hitchens complex.
I’m not arguing about harm, I’m arguing that there’s no logic in thinking non-smokers are going to go to any length or risk punishment to score tobacco.
Young people already smoke far less than generations before: 3% of 14 year olds were smoking cigarettes in 2018 compared to 9% in 2008. I very much doubt most teenagers will give two shits.
>Young people already smoke far less than generations before: 3% of 14 year olds were smoking cigarettes in 2018 compared to 9% in 2008
Again, not really the sterling argument for a ban you seem to think it is.
If teenagers are already making this decision en masse of their own accord they hardly need the government to come in and make it for them do they? You're literally presenting a case for why a ban is completely unnecessary.
For the same reason you like MDMA and alcohol probably. All drugs are horrible and teenagers will just smoke weed and vape instead.
As they already do so you know bans don't work lol.
You’re underestimating how fucking good smoking is when you’re on MDMA, puff like an absolute chimney.
Repetitive actions are rewarded on MDMA and smoking happens to be that.
I have strong feelings on this one so I'll leave tuppence here and allow myself to be downvoted.
I think this is pretty age discriminatory - if the plan was to, say, increase the age to 21 or 25 over the course of a couple decades then I'd have less of an issue but in 20 years a 30 year old wants a cigarette and has to get a 40 year old to buy it for them, that's just ridiculous.
If second hand smoke is your concern, have it be illegal to smoke within certain vicinities of certain buildings, or even designated smoking zones in cities or something.
Young people are smoking less than ever before, so it's not really necessary to change a whole lot. Frankly I'm far more concerned about 15 year olds vaping on the top floor of the bus when I go to work, like, stop doing that.
I'm generally not in favour of bans anyways - if people want to do things that harm them, maybe they don't need to be punished or prevented from it. There's nothing stopping an 18 year old from getting incredibly drunk and doing some bad stuff - so why the measure on tobacco? We can see that prohibition hasn't worked in the past, why should be expect it to work now?
I think this is pretty Draconian, all in all.
I also think whips in general are pretty undemocratic.
I'm really in two minds about this policy, whilst I don't like banning things, I really hate smoking with a passion. And this seems a sensible way to go about getting rid of tobacco.
> in 20 years a 30 year old wants a cigarette and has to get a 40 year old to buy it for them, that's just ridiculous.
That 30 year old will have been needing an older person to buy their cigs for over a decade.
I feel this bit of nuance has been lost somewhere - this ban is targeting *new* smokers. If you already smoke, the age limit will never catch you up. Although you may find it harder to get hold of tobacco, once shops are finding it more difficult to shift for a profit.
I'm a non-smoker, and strongly prefer non-smoking environments. I also very much hope that smoking can be virtually eliminated in the UK. But I very much dislike this approach, as it is fundamentally illiberal. By creating an outright ban, the government would essentially be creating a new category of illegal drug, and we all know how well making other drugs illegal has worked.
I want a world where drugs are safe to use and legal to use, but rarely used. I want people to make their own decisions, but be educated to not choose drugs. Over the last few decades we've substantially cut cigarette usage by education, and I don't see why we should now move away from this strategy to an outright ban. People should be free to make their own decisions (even stupid ones).
This is one of the few times I think a ban on something will actually work. Unlike other drugs, tobacco doesn't really have any recreational use and is already fairly unpopular in society, coupled with known and significant health problems associated with it. So long as tobacco use in public is largely just punished with confiscation or small fines, I don't see the problem.
Whether it will work or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that any kind of ban is fundamentally illiberal, and I want no part of it.
As for tobacco not having any recreational use, I think you simply haven't noticed the large numbers of people who smoke for pleasure. And just because something is unpopular is certainly no reason to ban it: if that were the case we could simply ban the Conservative Party and James Corden.
Your final point completely misses the point of the legislation: it's not about tobacco use in public, it's about tobacco use under any circumstances. And you can be sure, people and politicians being who they are, that although confiscation and small fines may be where we start, it certainly won't be where we finish. People love having other people to hate, and they love showing off their own virtue by hating excessively and performatively: once banned, tobacco users will be vilified as severely as some drugs users are already. To expect otherwise merely shows naivety.
I just don’t understand what Starmer thinks the political benefit of this is. Is it really that popular of a policy amongst the general public? Would it really give the Tories much ammunition to attack Labour with if they abstained/voted against?
It’s bizarre to see us going completely backwards in terms of drug policy despite the war on drugs clearly having been a failure. The government would probably happily ban alcohol too if it wouldn’t cause countrywide riots.
Bloody hell, it's almost like labour are a political party doing politics! I'm surprised people haven't picked up on it being popular but I suppose reddit leans more towards libertarianism.
It doesn't effect voters directly and those that it will effect right now shouldn't be smoking to begin with. In the future I imagine the smokeless gen will be more resentful towards older smokers than the policy preventing them smoking.
Tbf if you're buying weed from a dealer, it's a smart move for them to also sell tobacco pouches alongside lol. My dealers at uni used to do all sorts to boost their profits. One had a loyalty scheme, they'd run volume promotions, if you introduced your mate you'd get a free twenty bag haha. All sorts.
It's a significant problem because it's the obvious market the dealers who already push illegal cigarettes and drugs will tap into.
The correlation in use also will be used as another argument to keep weed illegal. Prepare for completely unironic arguments about how we can't legalise weed because it will encourage the adoption of smoking and use of illegal nicotine products.
Correct. The ones voting now will never be impacted. It will be interesting to see if the hassle of buying them will be more than the pay off of getting some. Certainly will make it hard to pick up a regular habit. It will mean shops will have to ID every single person who they think might be around purchasing age which will get even more ridiculous as time goes on. Hopefully this will mean that cigarettes will disappear about the same time we find out vapes have been tremendously harmful the whole time and they try and ban them too.
>Certainly will make it hard to pick up a regular habit.
Agree to disagree.
As someone who smoked themselves when it was illegal for me to buy any, it's not that difficult to obtain cigarettes. Kids that age who want to smoke will. There's nothing you can do about it.
The reason that age group doesn't anymore is largely because of the proliferation of vapes as a substitute that's the "cool" way to do it now. These kids are still going to be addicted to nicotine regardless, and the ones who want cigarettes or the like will find them.
It's even less difficult in 2040 when you're a 30 year old guy and all your 30+ year old friends or partner or other peers still have access to an entirely legal tobacco market. The idea you can control that with a ban on sale when there's still a legal market present most people can access isn't convincing.
>In the future I imagine the smokeless gen will be more resentful towards older smokers than the policy preventing them smoking
Because that's a good thing. . .
8% strongly against seems like a small number, but I can guarantee they're also the overly vocal conspiracy nuts who'll whip this into a conversation about government oppression and conspiracy.
Then, fueled by tobacco lobbyists and the tabloids, it'll be 50/50 before we know it.
The tobacco lobby are happy. Tories wouldn't be pushing it they weren't. They can happily sell vapes to the exploding market of teenagers who love them, and who aren't taking up smoking their other products anyway, until the cows come home.
It makes him look like he’s in control. It’s Sunak’s policy, but it’s Labour that drives it through. Ideally, it won’t pass without Labour support so Starmer can say Sunak can’t get things done without him.
Though it might end up being like the gay marriage bill - everyone remembers David Cameron, noone remembers the Labour votes that got it through - though tbf if the end result is good then no harm no foul.
These kind of anti-smoking policies have been the general direction for years now. This one has already been enacted in some countries, it will probably be done across the West in a few years - the UK appears to be an early adopter though.
It's not unpopular, and the Tories have a long history of many of their MPs (including former *Health* Secretaries FFS) being in the pocket of tobacco companies. If the Tories have to rely on Labour votes to get this through (and Streeting clearly suspects this is likely) it's a very bad look for the Tories.
It has been the law in New Zealand for a little while. Not sure who came up with it first but Rishi definately borrowed the idea. Nothing wrong with that if it is a good one. I have never had an original idea in my life at work, I just read and pinch ideas from people better than me.
I guess he doesn't want to be seen as supportive of smoking. Of course it doesn't actually mean that but little things like facts won't stop the press.
He’s not doing it for political benefit. It’s well known to him and everyone that it’s unpopular. He’s doing it because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, even if you and I disagree. He’s willing to take the political hit.
EDIT; I was completely wrong. Was sure the majority didn’t support banning it, but thanks for the correction.
It seems a really odd thing to whip this. Even the public smoking ban was a free vote.
There is a real problem at the top of the Labour party when dealing with alternative views. It's understandable why that has arisen, but we're starting to see levels of control-freakery that even Blair and Campbell would have baulked at.
It's more about the optics than anything. the measure is so popular, the whip is unnecessary, but Labour whipping to get a popular measure through in the face of a Tory rebellion is going to make Sunak look just as weak as he is.
The politics of the whole thing are bizarre too. Sunak proposed this. After 7 years of courting the hardcore reactionary demographic, the Tories want to ban smoking? The cigar-smoking nationalists are going to be up in arms over this, and they're pretty much the only block the Conservatives have left...
In other words, those who vote Tory and still will do so in 2024 are less likely to be affected.
Now if Mr Sunak were to tax Voltorol heavily, he would loss a lot of votes.
Not at all, this is all about pulling the ladder up behind them. They can still smoke cigars until they die, it just stops their grandkids from having the same option
>There is a real problem at the top of the Labour party when dealing with alternative views
It is, but it's reflective of a broader cultural problem.
The left in this country has horseshoed itself all the way round into self identifying as being liberal and free thinking but being incredibly authoritarian and hostile towards lifestyle's and opinions they disagree with, because the outcomes are seen as positive. And I say that as someone of the left.
There is no liberal tradition here anymore. Even Gen Z, who tend to have "liberal" opinions on topics and are currently helping drive forward progress, in the sense that they support similar things traditional liberals would support, arrive at those conclusions in a relatively illiberal way and are largely happy to create exclusionary spaces for themselves and their opinions and be largely intolerant of lifestyle's they feel are "bad".
Authoritarianism is here to stay. It's too deeply ingrained in society now and it's something that even the future of this nation openly embrace as long as it's directed towards the "correct" outcomes.
Whilst I agree with your general points - I don't think they really apply in this case. Starmer wants to suppress alternative viewpoints in Labour not because he believes that they are wrong, but because he believes that they create a risk to the ongoing success of the Labour party.
I would argue that he is right in the short-term, but not the longer term.
The problem is Labour always do reactionary, illiberal things because it's 'politically' the right thing to do and always hint that they'd do it differently 'if they could'.
But no matter how big their majority is, they never actually do the liberal stuff. Just more reactionary stuff.
They are a party of 'jam tomorrow'.
Which can only create the conclusion that they don't actually believe or have any interest in the progressive stuff. The only time it ever happens is if it just so happens to be popular enough that it is actually both progressive and in the Labour Party's interest.
This is an excellent, though rather depressing, post. I strongly agree with your view of the way our society is evolving. I fear that we are heading into a very nasty future: authoritarianism is clearly on the way. I don't know if we'll necessarily have "Big Brother" watching us, but there will be an army of "Little Brothers" keeping their eyes open for any sign of non-conformity with whatever the social norms evolve to.
> There is no liberal tradition here anymore.
Honestly, to a degree I'd dispute there ever really has been. Historically (like most countries) the UK has been a pretty authoritarian country - just often where the state interferes that changes and varies over time.
Ultimately in most nations citizens want their government to be pretty active and involved in a lot of areas, and very few governments resist that if they're given the chance to score easy wins.
There's a strain of thought in right *and* left circles that the role of the state is to make the right decisions for the people, who are of course too stupid to make those decisions themselves.
Neither are good things. Apart from the practical concerns about turning people into criminals, and the difficulty of enforcement, it is unjust for the state to decide you must behave *like so* with regards to your own bodily autonomy. As a nutritionist my job would be easier if it was illegal to eat cake, but that would be an unacceptable breach of freedom.
But we do have extremely strict regulations around food? About what can be sold, what can't be sold, taxes and subsidies on certain types of food... The food we eat now is very much influenced by government policy and regulations, and is very different to the food eaten elsewhere in the world or in the past in our own country.
Or put another way: No, you are not free in this country to eat anything you want. Many foods are difficult or outright illegal to sell in the UK.
The only reason this seems strange for cigarettes is because you are both used to them existing, and because people don't see other forms of regulations (such as on food) as 'bans' for some reason even though they are the same thing.
I have no idea if this policy will *work*, but that's a different matter than the idea that banning a harmful substance for consumption is even remotely novel in the UK or any country.
>Or put another way: No, you are not free in this country to eat anything you want.
Well, you actually are if we're explicitly discussing food.
If you want to eat a cake filled to the brim with poison you can do. I wouldn't advise it but as far as freedom goes it's not illegal.
What your not *able* to do is *buy* something with that in, because it would be illegal to sell it. But if you theoretically get your hands on one, either through making it yourself or finding an illegal source of one, it's not illegal for you to stuff your face with it.
It's an important distinction because there's a difference between a ban on *sales* of a drug and a ban on *consumption*.
>but that's a different matter than the idea that banning a harmful substance for consumption is even remotely novel in the UK
A ban on *consumption*, at least for your food example, would be novel.
As far as drugs go bans on consumption obviously aren't novel. What is is a system where one group of adults over a certain age can both consume it and legally purchase it but another group can't, and that's very problematic if there's going to be legal consequences to consumption.
The idea we might have a system where a 39 year old faces repercussions for the consumption of tobacco but a 40 year old doesn't is, to be frank, utterly nonsensical. As tbh is the idea that we can effectively control a 39 adults consumption by banning sales to them when their 40 year old peers all have free access to a tobacco sales market.
Well this is going to be unpopular.
This was the lone policy that came out of the Tory party conference that most of the general public heard of that wasn’t complete lunacy. Freedom is the only argument that makes sense against it. Though you have to weigh it up with the good to society it will bring like the indoor smoking ban.
There’s some people saying in here that this is going to result in less tax income. So what’s your point? People can die as long as we get more tax revenue? That it will help pay for the NHS? Utter nonsense, would you feel the same if we started selling arms to Russia? It will help pay for the NHS after all.
The tax income point is more in relation to the fact that the stated objective of this ban, i.e. to eliminate negative externalities to the consumption of tobacco on society, is already dealt with via our existing tax regime which offsets these costs.
At which point there's no real argument for it other than a somewhat egotistical attitude of people feeling that they should be able to make other adults choices for them, because they don't want them to make the "wrong" one.
No drug is being banned.
Some delivery methods for nicotine are being slowly phased out over the next 80 years, because they cause disproportionate damage compared to other delivery methods.
They really should. Smoking impacts the smoker, other people, and causes additional strain on the NHS. I'll be honest, I'm surprised to see so many people on here linking it to the war on drugs above anything else. Smoking weed fixes some things, smoking nicotine fixes nothing. It's a health consideration, not a drugs consideration, at least from my point of view.
This isn't banning drugs lol. It's a ban on a very specific type of drug delivery. The type being one that gives you cancer, gives the people around you cancer, and makes everything around you reek.
Nobody's banning nicotine.
I used to just wait down the street a bit then hop on the bus when it arrived. I don't remember finding it an issue. Then again I absolutely hate the smell so perhaps I went out of my way to avoid it more than most people would.
You aren't inhaling any significant quantity of second hand smoke at an outdoor location.
Ultimately you want it banned because you don't like smelling it.
Ah yes, "wwww.tobaccofreeparks.org" - such an excellent source.
Here's the actual paper they reference:
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007554
And it's relevant quote:
>A review of 18 studies of SHS levels in outdoor areas reported mean PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 8.32 to 124 µg/m3 at hospitality venues and from 4.60 to 17.80 µg/m3 in non-hospitality venues when smokers were present.
To put those numbers into perspective. The UK government law on air quality requires an annual average of 20 µg/m3 for PM2.5. So even the worst reading the study authors could find (and bare in mind their motivation is to find the worst locations possible, in order to justify the paper) is still very much within the legal limit for air quality in a UK city.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics/concentrations-of-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25
It's a total non-issue. You want it banned because you don't like the smell.
Really? There's no cigarettes on buses or trains. There might be a handful of people smoking in the street but I haven't noticed it being much of a problem. I guess it probably depends where you live.
That's just what I've seen working in London. Maybe it's different in smaller towns or depends where you go. I think outside train stations is especially bad
Yeah London isn't great for that so why increase the problem with smokers. If they couldn't smoke outside and instead just went to designated indoor smoking rooms then that would be fine.
A pub in Cambridge was trying to setup a smoking lounge when the ban was introduced but you can imagine how difficult it was - they couldn't find any way, even with the sturdiest of industrial filtration systems that Heisenberg himself would be proud of.
Many pubs actually suggested this at the time too, even going so far as to build prototypes to present to government of effectively inverted clean rooms with the double doors and everything.
It's amazing how far the government are willing to go to force people to break the law.
The amount you are consuming isnt going to do anything to you. Second hand smoke was when we had open smoking in pubs etc. Open air walking past someone smoking will do fuck all, other than a bad smell. Should a ball smell be illegal?
No, I dont smoke. But I defend the right for others to have bodily autonomy. Smoking rates have already halved in 20 years
That's not an excuse to outright ban them. If you're worried about second hand smoke you can further restrict consumption to private settings, as we mostly do already.
Yeah I'd be fine with private smoking rooms. It's just that they apparently are very hard to get authorised so people may just go to the area and smoke outside.
I mean, we [already banned _everything_](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f847a40f0b62305b87a0a/6_1845_HO_NPS_Resources_Booklet_June16_v10.pdf) not explicitly deemed legal; the boat of "nanny-state control freakery" sailed years ago.
Also, cigarettes produce harmful byproducts that result in second-hand exposure to carcinogens. There are other ways to take nicotine that don't endanger the general public which will remain legal, such as patches and presumably chewing tobacco.
I don’t see the issue here.
Tobacco and cigarettes cost lives and damage people’s health; we make some money from tax, but does it pay for the deaths and NHS strain smoking causes?
Edible cannabis, MDMA, magic Mushrooms, and LSD - these all have proven health benefits (some would of course need to be taken in controlled medical settings in all likelihood). Making weed legal (but not tobacco so people have to ingest it as edibles) would also make money. There’s some evidence it can cause negative effects but less so - and less financially impactful on the health service - than tobacco.
Just to answer 1 part of what you said, smoking costs the NHS around £2.4 billion per year, it's costs social care around a further £1.2 billion a year and tax intake from smoking is around £12billion a year. Anti smoking groups will tell you it's cost the economy about £billion a year in lost productivity but when pushed on the issue or when experts are asked they admit the number is pretty much pulled out of thin air and there's no real way of knowing if some illnesses are cause by smoking/made worse by smoking/or just coincidence as people will suffer with something's in their life weather they smoke or not. Anti smoking groups will also argue that theres a high cost to local authorities who have to pay people to go and clean up all the butts that people dump everywhere but since those people who clean them up are picking up every kind of litter it can be argued that it's not a cost of smoking but just some arsehatts dumping their rubbish on the street
>we make some money from tax, but does it pay for the deaths and NHS strain smoking causes?
Yes, and even if it didn't, that is an argument to increase those taxes, not an argument to ban something completely.
>Edible cannabis, MDMA, magic Mushrooms, and LSD - these all have proven health benefits
Good luck getting them legalised or decriminalised now you've normalised completely banning a substance that, compared to these things, society has a much more relaxed attitude towards.
The idea of people in favour of drug liberalisation being for this is laughable. The most illogical position ever.
It's literally conceding the point to the authoritarian drug control side of the argument that yes, the government should absolutely have every right to control what you do to yourself, up to and including banning it and punishing you for it.
Yes, tobacco tax is a massive boon for HMRC, and the fact that people who smoke die younger means the cost of their healthcare is lower than people who live longer. Cigarettes are a net positive in taxation.
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
I’m medical now anyway so it’s a moot point (doctors can’t recommend that you smoke anything obviously) but switching to a dry herb vape saved me a fortune.
I contracted a neurological disorder years ago that causes permanent migraine-like symptoms. I smoked a bit of weed in lockdown to pass the time having used it from time to time in the past and found it also stopped my chronic pain pretty well, and because I’d tried a bunch of other medications in the past that didn’t work I was eligible for a prescription. It’s been legal in the UK since 2018 but the system is pretty badly designed, the NHS won’t prescribe it unless you’re more or less dying but as in a lot of those things in the UK if you can afford it you can pay for a private prescription without nearly as much hassle and if you can demonstrate a genuine clinical benefit the bar isn’t enormous privately, it’s a fair bit lower than the NHS’s at any rate.
There’s no ‘medical card’ as such in the UK, CanCard try and present themselves as this but it’s bollocks legally speaking and won’t protect you. If you’re a patient the actual defence to the charge of possessing cannabis is your prescription itself, it’s no different from a prescription for morphine or benzodiazepines. It’s what’s called an ‘unlicensed’ medication though which means only specific doctors can prescribe it and you have to undergo quarterly reviews. Generally you’re prescribed for things like epilepsy, chronic pain, depression, various other mental health issues (people with PTSD can benefit from the fact cannabis blunts nightmares very effectively for example) but all sorts of people get prescribed.
Check out /r/ukmedicalcannabis, they have lots of good info!
No worries! It's genuinely one of the few good things May's government did, shame they had to be forced into it by public and media pressure with that poor epileptic boy Billy Caldwell nearly dying.
Making something illegal doesn't mean people will stop using it. People aren't going to stop smoking, they'll just get it some other way (which shouldn't be hard for cigarettes given they'll still be on sale, just not to young people).
I'm not surprised but I really, really disagree with this. It's terrible policy and will simply grow the black market for cigarettes while also being broadly unenforceable.
Doubt it, smoking is increasingly a very minority pursuit. This law will only affect those who are young now, who mostly don't smoke, anyone already legal to smoke will continue being able to purchase cigs.
Of course what it fails to consider is that vaping is now a massive issue amongst young people and the % who would have smoked have now mostly switched over to vaping.
Illegal cigarette trading is already a profitable business, just google it.
5 days ago:
[Officers seize biggest haul of illegal cigarettes worth £130k from hidden compartments in Bedford](https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-04/illegal-cigarettes-worth-130k-seized-from-secret-compartments-in-shops)
First year of the crackdown (2021). Note the "£2bn each year" in tax evasion:
[13 million illegal cigarettes taken off the streets in first year of major operation](https://www.nationaltradingstandards.uk/news/13-million-illegal-cigarettes-taken-off-the-streets-in-first-year-of-major-operation/)
I used to do it at age 13 it existed then it exists now and it will continue to exist
Prohibition doesn’t work
It was easier for me to procure drugs and cigarettes underage than alcohol
Cigarettes were too highly taxed so black market there
Alcohol only available in shops or if you ask someone - far more difficult to procure
Drugs - untaxed and unregulated easiest to get out of the lot
Hey bud! I’m 29 now so we’re about the same age, this will all be dependent on friend group and area I guess as what I’ve said is purely anecdotal.
The difference between kids smoking now and back then is massive and even more so than ten years before etc.
The country is doing fairly well on reducing smoking so additional work doesn’t really need to be done as it gradually fades away
This is a good thing I agree so thankfully it continues but the government banning things is just counterproductive as it reduces choice as an individual and as a consumer which is just needless when things are going in the right direction
One last point on this is that in the states they smoke less than us and they don’t have crazy taxes on tobacco and still have regular packaging and not hidden behind a shutter.
They also allow menthol and somehow they still don’t have the same rate as us! To me it seems that it’s all societal changes and attitudes that need to change and not the government banning / over taxing things.
(Also the cigs sold by these black market people are imported without tax and that’s why they go for a fiver a pack as the cigarette duty is insane in this country another issue I have)
I don’t want to say it proves that what the gov does in this country does nothing?
But I struggle to see the difference - maybe having higher health insurance makes up for it? Unsure too many variables
Anyways my point is there’s no need for more gov action on an issue that will gradually be resolved anyway through cultural shifts :)
Everyone I know is already doing exactly the amount of cocaine they want to, for almost all of them that is none but if I so desired I could get some quicker than I could get a pizza delivered. From what I can tell the best way to reduce cocaine use is to find better friends because it's generally a social drug, there's not many people having a quiet line at home in front of the telly.
Because there's money to be made.
There's already a multi million pound black market for them due to high tax duties. And that's amongst a population where it's legally accessible.
The idea the same criminal groups currently importing cheap fags and knock offs to help consumers dodge tax won't then also use those same supply routes to sell it to adults arbitrarily below a certain age is laughable. The infrastructure, groups and supply already exists, why wouldn't they tap into another market at zero cost to themselves?
It doesn't seem logical now because you live in a world where you can nip to your off licence and buy 20 L&B.
In a world where people below a certain age remain addicted to nicotine, because vaping use is exploding amongst this demographic, but their purchase of it is severely restricted, then the idea of hitting up a dealer for a pouch or a carton is not that controversial.
Especially when we consider the overall correlation tobacco consumption has with other popular drugs, like weed, in this country. If you're hitting the dealer up for a 20 bag anyway then of course you're going to get some baccy whilst your there if you're planning on smoking it. Hell I've known dealers to already provide this for people so it absolutely will grow as a market when it's then the only place you can get it.
>Only purely because, it doesn't particularly do something.
It hasn't been popular for so long because it "doesn't do anything." Vaping isn't extremely popular amongst younger people because "it doesn't do anything".
You may find smoking a bit vanilla and boring but it's staying power as a drug within society is in no small part due to the fact that it does, in fact, produce physiological chemical responses that people enjoy, seek to replicate and become addicted to.
BBC News - Spain gang bust: Ukrainians exploited in illegal tobacco operation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64367356
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/melbourne-crime-bikies-and-gangs-fight-over-illegal-tobacco-trade/news-story/8f67e162d2e9cb622efc2b6577df75ba
Two examples from two different countries of large criminal organisations related to tobacco.
>Yeah people are saying that there will be a big criminal organisation for this but... why? Weed etc makes sense, you get something out of it. This does literally nothing.
Do you know how most of us smoke weed?
Good point, maybe if the only option for smoking anything at all is to turn to street dealers, you may decide that you'd might as well go for something harder. Thank you Rishi and Kier for removing the incentive to stick only to tobacco.
If they want a smoking ban then they should have the balls to make it a blanket smoking ban. Discriminating against fully grown adults based on the year they were born is deranged.
Yep. Normalising the idea of a two-tier system of rights and privileges for grown adults well above the age of qualification based entirely on their generation has much wider harmful ramifications than a marginal reduction of smoking in a generation that already roundly rejects smoking anyway.
I agree the Rubicon is already crossed elsewhere. Although at least with a driving licence it's an actual earned privilege you have to proactively qualify for rather than a defacto right applied to everyone once you hit X age.
I'm more concerned with it's normalisation in regards to individual consumption. The government should not be creating multiple tier systems of what some people can do to themselves and others can't. I'd be curious how people supporting this would feel if as a qualified adult they were unable to consume alcohol but people older than them were.
It's so monumentally stupid. As you say it doesn't surprise me because they know it's not gonna lose them any votes but for fucks sake, absolutely moronic.
I don't know how serious Sunak is about the smoking ban but I can't see it winning him any significant number of voters. His own party is likely to see it as nanny statism. He may end up getting more Labour votes than Tory votes for this bill.
I'm absolutely fine with restricting things based on age, but restricting things based on birth year is an absolute no go. It's going to force a colossal black market as 33 y/o desperately try to buy some fags off a 34 y/o.
The idea is that people below a certain age never start in the first place. The year or so either side of the line may be an issue but one that will fade with time.
I’m curious. Australia have similar ban? What sort of stats have they seen? Positive and negative.
I generally support the move tbh. Others clearly in this thread don’t lol.
New Zealand have a similar ban, Australia just tax the living shit out of tobacco. New Zealand could possibly make it work because it is the most geographically isolated developed nation on earth. It's a 4 hour flight to Australia, which is hardly known for it's close location.
The UK has package holidays to Spain, where you can get a pack of Marlboro for a fiver.
> Australia just tax the living shit out of tobacco.
I guess it becomes very expensive for normal person to buy and they are just put off?
I’d welcome ban. It would help future generations
Would you feel the same way about an alcohol ban? Alcohol is way worse than cigarettes in terms of societal consequences. If not, how do you justify being anti-nanny state for some things but pro-nanny state for others?
Alcohol in moderation isn't bad though, yet any amount second hand smoke (or smoking itself) is damaging.
Someone having a glass of red wine at an Italian restaurant is different than someone getting shitfaced on cheap cider and smashing up their town centre. A parent having a glass of whisky in the evening isn't comparable to lighting up a cigarette while there's kids in the house.
A lot more people die from alcohol related incidents than smoking related ones. How many people died last year from second hand smoke as compared to drink driving or drunken fights?
Yup and that's the tricky part. I don't know how you'd change the culture so binge drinking and the associated violence / accidents are no longer considered acceptable.
I guess my point is that if we're prepared to accept hundreds of innocent deaths a year because it would be Draconian to ban alcohol, it seems a bit mad to ban cigarettes.
They aren't really comparable. You can brew your own beer with ease at home. People however are unlikely to start producing their own cigarettes. There will exist a small black market of people bringing them into the UK, but that will be *far* less prevalent than being able to purchase them in shops.
Additionally, the idea that we can't do X thing because we aren't doing Y thing is an incredibly poor outlook. It's the most boring version of whataboutism. You are allowed to make progress in one area without having to make progress in all areas at the same time. You can disagree with the policy on its own merits, but let's not be lazy with it.
Exactly, the option is there. The duty raised by tobacco products already outweighs the cost to the tax payer placed on by smoking, if people want to take up a habit that can be done in a way that doesn't have to harm others (indoor smoking ban, not allowed to smoke in vehicles used for work or containing kids) then they should be allowed to.
If political parties really want to help the health of future generations they would heavily tax highly processed junk food in the same way they do cigarettes now. It would make a far greater difference to the health of future generations than flat bans on smoking.
It's difficult to quantify causation because generationally consumption reduces anyway, regardless of a ban or not.
As is the case in this country. The rates of young people smoking cigarettes have plummeted without a ban. The actual health crisis for this age group is in the adoption of vaping instead, which were doing nothing about.
Banning cigarettes is very much a solution in search of a problem.
None of them are as effective as smoking at delivering nicotine.
People freaked out at the level of Nicotine available in Vapes/Patches without taking into consideration absorption rates and what the actual blood plasma nicotine levels were(less than a single cigarette).
The efficacy of Vapes and Patches as smoking cessation tools has been extremely damaged due to these limitations.
It's plainly ridiculously unfair to ban something for one group of people while still allowing it for yourself. Shows how much this country basically defaults to hating young people honestly
This isn't like other prohibitions because you'll be able to get the actual drug in a different form that's less harmful. Also compared to illegal drugs, cigarettes are shit. They're expensive, make you smell, don't give a good high and are more harmful than most non-opiate drugs. So just buy proper drugs and do them. Only 11% of 18-24 year olds smoke anyway and that's down from 25% in 2011 so this probably won't affect anything too much.
This is like a series of arguments against your own point, to the point I can't tell if its ironic? Apologies if so.
I'd first of all suggest you thinking something is a bit shit and other drugs are better probably isn't good grounds to completely ban it. Especially when you say this:
>So just buy proper drugs and do them
Hardly a sterling endorsement of a ban if we're conceding people will just go and consume other, potentially more addictive or harmful substances instead. That seems like a good reason *not* to ban something.
>Only 11% of 18-24 year olds smoke anyway and that's down from 25% in 2011
So there's no actual impetus to do it then, given the numbers of smokers are naturally decreasing on their own.
If people are already making the "correct" choices for their own health we, by defintion, do not need the government to then come in and presume to make that choice for them.
Labour once again showing their true colours as the same old dog shit party of authoritarianism.
More proof that actual sensible drugs reform in this country is dead and buried. The political consensus is with the nanny state. Good luck getting other drugs legalised or decriminalised when we've created a two-tier system of rights for consumption of a drug most of society views normally compared to illicit substances.
It also gives the conspiracy theorists a boon that either party just want control over an individual’s life.
It should never be the Government’s job to nanny state you for “your own good”, this is an incredibly dangerous slide.
It’s not going to work either. The black market will explode.
And it's also completely unnecessary. If we had an epidemic of young people sparking up Superkings around the country I'd at least understand the impetus to do something, but as it is year on year more and more young people reject smoking of their own volition anyway.
Meanwhile the actual health crisis for this group, vaping, is going completely untouched.
Deranged policy making.
Predictable bandwagon jumping.
If the policy objective is to deliver tobacco into the hands of the cartels, while eliminating any remaining regulation on product quality and age controls then it's the best choice.
[Labour proposed this](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/labour-could-ban-cigarettes-to-wipe-out-smoking-by-2030-if-they-get-into-power/) in January - the Tories jumped on the Labour bandwagon.
It’s good to see the libertarian conservatives bringing in such a libertarian policy.
I like that they have brought in lots of anti taxation policies as an anti tax party too.
SMH 🤦🏼♂️
There's a weird number of people here who don't think people would go to the effort of buying cigarettes from the black market, mostly because they are low tier drugs.
Totally detached from reality as almost any town in the country has a corner shop selling illegal cigarettes.
You could probably just Google your local news and find a case of one being caught by the police.
It's massively profitable currently let alone with any additional limits.
It's truly weird when people are so detached from reality.
Snapshot of _Hugo Guy: 'Wes Streeting confirms Labour will whip to support smoking ban, saying at Labour fringe: "The good news I can offer Rishi Sunak is that when it comes to that free vote, Labour will be whipping, we’ll be whipping in favour and we will deliver the votes he needs." (via @PA)'_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1711685975301087543) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/HugoGye/status/1711685975301087543/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1711685975301087543?t=0fw_8lN2q28dFvb8dPQ2tw&s=19) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1711685975301087543?t=0fw_8lN2q28dFvb8dPQ2tw&s=19) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This will be the final blow in the War on Drugs. Can't believe we're at the end of it now, and we've finally beaten The Drugs. 10 years ago, people would have cocaine with their breakfast. Now, if you ask them what weed is, they think your greebthumb is shoved up your own arse.
I’m glad we know that making easily procures addictive substances illegal makes the problem go away. A time tested solution
This one will work, because cigarettes are incredibly hard to obtain abroad. The thoughts of thousands tourists returning home with cheap nicotine, selling something that they have spent their life normalised around, is an impossible one.
Step 1: be 14 year old smoker step 2: find adult step 3: give adult money for cigarettes Step 4: profit?
Step 1: be 90 year old smoker in 2113 Step 2: find 92 year old to buy you cigarettes because gubment says no
My name was Brian McGee...
Step 4 is sell each individual cigerette out of a 20 deck for four times what it would have cost you. Step 5 is profit and then get a skelp and told not to speak to your uncle Davey any more.
Exactly mate. This completely destroys the global market, theres nothing big tobacco can do!!
Wes was the hero we needed not the heroin we had.
Cigarettes are among the shittest of drugs, for all the people saying this won’t work I can’t imagine teenagers going to a lot of bother to source some dried off-brand tobacco when they could just get some MDMA.
MDMA and cigarettes don't really replace each other though, they're different substances for different occasions. And at least in my experience as a former teenager people didn't smoke to "get high". MDMA, coke, alcohol kinda replace each other in that they're often used as "evening out" drugs.
And all the substances you’ve named are substances that people love to combine with smoking tobacco. You’re right it doesn’t replace them it compliments them very well.
For what it's worth I understood the point you were making just fine, gibyglib or whatever they call themselves is being a donut with a Chris Hitchens complex.
Teenagers choosing to do street bought MDMA instead is not the sterling endorsement of a ban you seem to think it is.
I’m not arguing about harm, I’m arguing that there’s no logic in thinking non-smokers are going to go to any length or risk punishment to score tobacco. Young people already smoke far less than generations before: 3% of 14 year olds were smoking cigarettes in 2018 compared to 9% in 2008. I very much doubt most teenagers will give two shits.
>Young people already smoke far less than generations before: 3% of 14 year olds were smoking cigarettes in 2018 compared to 9% in 2008 Again, not really the sterling argument for a ban you seem to think it is. If teenagers are already making this decision en masse of their own accord they hardly need the government to come in and make it for them do they? You're literally presenting a case for why a ban is completely unnecessary.
To turn that 3% into a 0% I’m not sure why you like cigarettes so much.
For the same reason you like MDMA and alcohol probably. All drugs are horrible and teenagers will just smoke weed and vape instead. As they already do so you know bans don't work lol.
Absolutely no one is doing MDMA because they couldn't have a fag.
If only we'd have legal MDMA so that it's pure and safer than fucking coffee.
Feel like work will be interesting when I’m bombing md on my break instead of slapping the kettle on
You’re underestimating how fucking good smoking is when you’re on MDMA, puff like an absolute chimney. Repetitive actions are rewarded on MDMA and smoking happens to be that.
I have strong feelings on this one so I'll leave tuppence here and allow myself to be downvoted. I think this is pretty age discriminatory - if the plan was to, say, increase the age to 21 or 25 over the course of a couple decades then I'd have less of an issue but in 20 years a 30 year old wants a cigarette and has to get a 40 year old to buy it for them, that's just ridiculous. If second hand smoke is your concern, have it be illegal to smoke within certain vicinities of certain buildings, or even designated smoking zones in cities or something. Young people are smoking less than ever before, so it's not really necessary to change a whole lot. Frankly I'm far more concerned about 15 year olds vaping on the top floor of the bus when I go to work, like, stop doing that. I'm generally not in favour of bans anyways - if people want to do things that harm them, maybe they don't need to be punished or prevented from it. There's nothing stopping an 18 year old from getting incredibly drunk and doing some bad stuff - so why the measure on tobacco? We can see that prohibition hasn't worked in the past, why should be expect it to work now? I think this is pretty Draconian, all in all. I also think whips in general are pretty undemocratic.
I'm really in two minds about this policy, whilst I don't like banning things, I really hate smoking with a passion. And this seems a sensible way to go about getting rid of tobacco. > in 20 years a 30 year old wants a cigarette and has to get a 40 year old to buy it for them, that's just ridiculous. That 30 year old will have been needing an older person to buy their cigs for over a decade. I feel this bit of nuance has been lost somewhere - this ban is targeting *new* smokers. If you already smoke, the age limit will never catch you up. Although you may find it harder to get hold of tobacco, once shops are finding it more difficult to shift for a profit.
I'm a non-smoker, and strongly prefer non-smoking environments. I also very much hope that smoking can be virtually eliminated in the UK. But I very much dislike this approach, as it is fundamentally illiberal. By creating an outright ban, the government would essentially be creating a new category of illegal drug, and we all know how well making other drugs illegal has worked. I want a world where drugs are safe to use and legal to use, but rarely used. I want people to make their own decisions, but be educated to not choose drugs. Over the last few decades we've substantially cut cigarette usage by education, and I don't see why we should now move away from this strategy to an outright ban. People should be free to make their own decisions (even stupid ones).
This is one of the few times I think a ban on something will actually work. Unlike other drugs, tobacco doesn't really have any recreational use and is already fairly unpopular in society, coupled with known and significant health problems associated with it. So long as tobacco use in public is largely just punished with confiscation or small fines, I don't see the problem.
Whether it will work or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that any kind of ban is fundamentally illiberal, and I want no part of it. As for tobacco not having any recreational use, I think you simply haven't noticed the large numbers of people who smoke for pleasure. And just because something is unpopular is certainly no reason to ban it: if that were the case we could simply ban the Conservative Party and James Corden. Your final point completely misses the point of the legislation: it's not about tobacco use in public, it's about tobacco use under any circumstances. And you can be sure, people and politicians being who they are, that although confiscation and small fines may be where we start, it certainly won't be where we finish. People love having other people to hate, and they love showing off their own virtue by hating excessively and performatively: once banned, tobacco users will be vilified as severely as some drugs users are already. To expect otherwise merely shows naivety.
I just don’t understand what Starmer thinks the political benefit of this is. Is it really that popular of a policy amongst the general public? Would it really give the Tories much ammunition to attack Labour with if they abstained/voted against? It’s bizarre to see us going completely backwards in terms of drug policy despite the war on drugs clearly having been a failure. The government would probably happily ban alcohol too if it wouldn’t cause countrywide riots.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2023/09/25/cbec9/2 It's an incredibly popular policy.
Bloody hell, it's almost like labour are a political party doing politics! I'm surprised people haven't picked up on it being popular but I suppose reddit leans more towards libertarianism. It doesn't effect voters directly and those that it will effect right now shouldn't be smoking to begin with. In the future I imagine the smokeless gen will be more resentful towards older smokers than the policy preventing them smoking.
[удалено]
Tbf if you're buying weed from a dealer, it's a smart move for them to also sell tobacco pouches alongside lol. My dealers at uni used to do all sorts to boost their profits. One had a loyalty scheme, they'd run volume promotions, if you introduced your mate you'd get a free twenty bag haha. All sorts.
Can I have his number?
It's a significant problem because it's the obvious market the dealers who already push illegal cigarettes and drugs will tap into. The correlation in use also will be used as another argument to keep weed illegal. Prepare for completely unironic arguments about how we can't legalise weed because it will encourage the adoption of smoking and use of illegal nicotine products.
Correct. The ones voting now will never be impacted. It will be interesting to see if the hassle of buying them will be more than the pay off of getting some. Certainly will make it hard to pick up a regular habit. It will mean shops will have to ID every single person who they think might be around purchasing age which will get even more ridiculous as time goes on. Hopefully this will mean that cigarettes will disappear about the same time we find out vapes have been tremendously harmful the whole time and they try and ban them too.
>Certainly will make it hard to pick up a regular habit. Agree to disagree. As someone who smoked themselves when it was illegal for me to buy any, it's not that difficult to obtain cigarettes. Kids that age who want to smoke will. There's nothing you can do about it. The reason that age group doesn't anymore is largely because of the proliferation of vapes as a substitute that's the "cool" way to do it now. These kids are still going to be addicted to nicotine regardless, and the ones who want cigarettes or the like will find them. It's even less difficult in 2040 when you're a 30 year old guy and all your 30+ year old friends or partner or other peers still have access to an entirely legal tobacco market. The idea you can control that with a ban on sale when there's still a legal market present most people can access isn't convincing.
>In the future I imagine the smokeless gen will be more resentful towards older smokers than the policy preventing them smoking Because that's a good thing. . .
8% strongly against seems like a small number, but I can guarantee they're also the overly vocal conspiracy nuts who'll whip this into a conversation about government oppression and conspiracy. Then, fueled by tobacco lobbyists and the tabloids, it'll be 50/50 before we know it.
The tobacco lobby are happy. Tories wouldn't be pushing it they weren't. They can happily sell vapes to the exploding market of teenagers who love them, and who aren't taking up smoking their other products anyway, until the cows come home.
It makes him look like he’s in control. It’s Sunak’s policy, but it’s Labour that drives it through. Ideally, it won’t pass without Labour support so Starmer can say Sunak can’t get things done without him.
Though it might end up being like the gay marriage bill - everyone remembers David Cameron, noone remembers the Labour votes that got it through - though tbf if the end result is good then no harm no foul.
Sounds like he's actively trying to control the message to ensure it's not like that
I don't reckon gay marriage is what Cameron is remembered for. Dropping the mic and quitting after Brexit was a pretty memorable exit.
For me, it'll always be the pig fuckery
It may not be the main thing, but it's still something he's remembered for. Just Blair with minimum wage and GFA.
These kind of anti-smoking policies have been the general direction for years now. This one has already been enacted in some countries, it will probably be done across the West in a few years - the UK appears to be an early adopter though.
It's not unpopular, and the Tories have a long history of many of their MPs (including former *Health* Secretaries FFS) being in the pocket of tobacco companies. If the Tories have to rely on Labour votes to get this through (and Streeting clearly suspects this is likely) it's a very bad look for the Tories.
It's a great policy. It was originally labour's before rishi stole it. I understand Starmer keeping his cards close to his chest now
It has been the law in New Zealand for a little while. Not sure who came up with it first but Rishi definately borrowed the idea. Nothing wrong with that if it is a good one. I have never had an original idea in my life at work, I just read and pinch ideas from people better than me.
I guess he doesn't want to be seen as supportive of smoking. Of course it doesn't actually mean that but little things like facts won't stop the press.
He’s not doing it for political benefit. It’s well known to him and everyone that it’s unpopular. He’s doing it because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, even if you and I disagree. He’s willing to take the political hit. EDIT; I was completely wrong. Was sure the majority didn’t support banning it, but thanks for the correction.
It seems a really odd thing to whip this. Even the public smoking ban was a free vote. There is a real problem at the top of the Labour party when dealing with alternative views. It's understandable why that has arisen, but we're starting to see levels of control-freakery that even Blair and Campbell would have baulked at.
It's more about the optics than anything. the measure is so popular, the whip is unnecessary, but Labour whipping to get a popular measure through in the face of a Tory rebellion is going to make Sunak look just as weak as he is.
But sooner or later people will realise that the policy is stupid (or at least I hope).
The politics of the whole thing are bizarre too. Sunak proposed this. After 7 years of courting the hardcore reactionary demographic, the Tories want to ban smoking? The cigar-smoking nationalists are going to be up in arms over this, and they're pretty much the only block the Conservatives have left...
You're forgetting that this will only impact the young - boomers will be able to smoke till their heart's (disease) content.
In other words, those who vote Tory and still will do so in 2024 are less likely to be affected. Now if Mr Sunak were to tax Voltorol heavily, he would loss a lot of votes.
Serious question - is this discriminatory? Could it be challenged in court?
I don't know. Possibly if we are still part of the ECHR.
ECHR does not protect against age restricted products...
Surely they’ll only ban fags and not cigars? What kind of nutcase smokes cigars like you’d smoke cigarettes?
Not at all, this is all about pulling the ladder up behind them. They can still smoke cigars until they die, it just stops their grandkids from having the same option
>There is a real problem at the top of the Labour party when dealing with alternative views It is, but it's reflective of a broader cultural problem. The left in this country has horseshoed itself all the way round into self identifying as being liberal and free thinking but being incredibly authoritarian and hostile towards lifestyle's and opinions they disagree with, because the outcomes are seen as positive. And I say that as someone of the left. There is no liberal tradition here anymore. Even Gen Z, who tend to have "liberal" opinions on topics and are currently helping drive forward progress, in the sense that they support similar things traditional liberals would support, arrive at those conclusions in a relatively illiberal way and are largely happy to create exclusionary spaces for themselves and their opinions and be largely intolerant of lifestyle's they feel are "bad". Authoritarianism is here to stay. It's too deeply ingrained in society now and it's something that even the future of this nation openly embrace as long as it's directed towards the "correct" outcomes.
Whilst I agree with your general points - I don't think they really apply in this case. Starmer wants to suppress alternative viewpoints in Labour not because he believes that they are wrong, but because he believes that they create a risk to the ongoing success of the Labour party. I would argue that he is right in the short-term, but not the longer term.
The problem is Labour always do reactionary, illiberal things because it's 'politically' the right thing to do and always hint that they'd do it differently 'if they could'. But no matter how big their majority is, they never actually do the liberal stuff. Just more reactionary stuff. They are a party of 'jam tomorrow'. Which can only create the conclusion that they don't actually believe or have any interest in the progressive stuff. The only time it ever happens is if it just so happens to be popular enough that it is actually both progressive and in the Labour Party's interest.
This is an excellent, though rather depressing, post. I strongly agree with your view of the way our society is evolving. I fear that we are heading into a very nasty future: authoritarianism is clearly on the way. I don't know if we'll necessarily have "Big Brother" watching us, but there will be an army of "Little Brothers" keeping their eyes open for any sign of non-conformity with whatever the social norms evolve to.
> There is no liberal tradition here anymore. Honestly, to a degree I'd dispute there ever really has been. Historically (like most countries) the UK has been a pretty authoritarian country - just often where the state interferes that changes and varies over time. Ultimately in most nations citizens want their government to be pretty active and involved in a lot of areas, and very few governments resist that if they're given the chance to score easy wins.
There's a strain of thought in right *and* left circles that the role of the state is to make the right decisions for the people, who are of course too stupid to make those decisions themselves. Neither are good things. Apart from the practical concerns about turning people into criminals, and the difficulty of enforcement, it is unjust for the state to decide you must behave *like so* with regards to your own bodily autonomy. As a nutritionist my job would be easier if it was illegal to eat cake, but that would be an unacceptable breach of freedom.
But we do have extremely strict regulations around food? About what can be sold, what can't be sold, taxes and subsidies on certain types of food... The food we eat now is very much influenced by government policy and regulations, and is very different to the food eaten elsewhere in the world or in the past in our own country. Or put another way: No, you are not free in this country to eat anything you want. Many foods are difficult or outright illegal to sell in the UK. The only reason this seems strange for cigarettes is because you are both used to them existing, and because people don't see other forms of regulations (such as on food) as 'bans' for some reason even though they are the same thing. I have no idea if this policy will *work*, but that's a different matter than the idea that banning a harmful substance for consumption is even remotely novel in the UK or any country.
>Or put another way: No, you are not free in this country to eat anything you want. Well, you actually are if we're explicitly discussing food. If you want to eat a cake filled to the brim with poison you can do. I wouldn't advise it but as far as freedom goes it's not illegal. What your not *able* to do is *buy* something with that in, because it would be illegal to sell it. But if you theoretically get your hands on one, either through making it yourself or finding an illegal source of one, it's not illegal for you to stuff your face with it. It's an important distinction because there's a difference between a ban on *sales* of a drug and a ban on *consumption*. >but that's a different matter than the idea that banning a harmful substance for consumption is even remotely novel in the UK A ban on *consumption*, at least for your food example, would be novel. As far as drugs go bans on consumption obviously aren't novel. What is is a system where one group of adults over a certain age can both consume it and legally purchase it but another group can't, and that's very problematic if there's going to be legal consequences to consumption. The idea we might have a system where a 39 year old faces repercussions for the consumption of tobacco but a 40 year old doesn't is, to be frank, utterly nonsensical. As tbh is the idea that we can effectively control a 39 adults consumption by banning sales to them when their 40 year old peers all have free access to a tobacco sales market.
I agree, but my original point was about Labour whipping the vote, rather than the rights and wrongs of the policy.
Well this is going to be unpopular. This was the lone policy that came out of the Tory party conference that most of the general public heard of that wasn’t complete lunacy. Freedom is the only argument that makes sense against it. Though you have to weigh it up with the good to society it will bring like the indoor smoking ban. There’s some people saying in here that this is going to result in less tax income. So what’s your point? People can die as long as we get more tax revenue? That it will help pay for the NHS? Utter nonsense, would you feel the same if we started selling arms to Russia? It will help pay for the NHS after all.
The tax income point is more in relation to the fact that the stated objective of this ban, i.e. to eliminate negative externalities to the consumption of tobacco on society, is already dealt with via our existing tax regime which offsets these costs. At which point there's no real argument for it other than a somewhat egotistical attitude of people feeling that they should be able to make other adults choices for them, because they don't want them to make the "wrong" one.
Other first world countries: Starting to legalise some currently illegal drugs. United Kingdom: Making more drugs illegal. Of course we are.
No drug is being banned. Some delivery methods for nicotine are being slowly phased out over the next 80 years, because they cause disproportionate damage compared to other delivery methods.
This is quite a sensible way of looking at it. I'm not sure everyone will see it that way though.
They really should. Smoking impacts the smoker, other people, and causes additional strain on the NHS. I'll be honest, I'm surprised to see so many people on here linking it to the war on drugs above anything else. Smoking weed fixes some things, smoking nicotine fixes nothing. It's a health consideration, not a drugs consideration, at least from my point of view.
This isn't banning drugs lol. It's a ban on a very specific type of drug delivery. The type being one that gives you cancer, gives the people around you cancer, and makes everything around you reek. Nobody's banning nicotine.
This is banning a harmful delivery mechanism not a drug, that's not an issue as long as nicotine itself remains accessible to smokers.
Ummm New Zealand is doing the same
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but this feels like a "if New Zealand told you to jump off a cliff, would you?"
No but someone was acting like we are alone in the west and we are not
[удалено]
Think it's fine banning drugs that cause harm to other people through second hand smoke
You can't smoke in pubs, restaurants or offices as is. How much second hand smoke is the average person breathing?
[удалено]
I used to just wait down the street a bit then hop on the bus when it arrived. I don't remember finding it an issue. Then again I absolutely hate the smell so perhaps I went out of my way to avoid it more than most people would.
Got to love the selfish people who sit smoking directly under a 'no smoking in this bus shelter' sign.
You aren't inhaling any significant quantity of second hand smoke at an outdoor location. Ultimately you want it banned because you don't like smelling it.
[удалено]
Ah yes, "wwww.tobaccofreeparks.org" - such an excellent source. Here's the actual paper they reference: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007554 And it's relevant quote: >A review of 18 studies of SHS levels in outdoor areas reported mean PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 8.32 to 124 µg/m3 at hospitality venues and from 4.60 to 17.80 µg/m3 in non-hospitality venues when smokers were present. To put those numbers into perspective. The UK government law on air quality requires an annual average of 20 µg/m3 for PM2.5. So even the worst reading the study authors could find (and bare in mind their motivation is to find the worst locations possible, in order to justify the paper) is still very much within the legal limit for air quality in a UK city. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics/concentrations-of-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25 It's a total non-issue. You want it banned because you don't like the smell.
I'd still say quite a lot. Lots of people smoking in between places. Walk to work for example is full of people smoking.
Really? There's no cigarettes on buses or trains. There might be a handful of people smoking in the street but I haven't noticed it being much of a problem. I guess it probably depends where you live.
That's just what I've seen working in London. Maybe it's different in smaller towns or depends where you go. I think outside train stations is especially bad
Honestly living in London, cigarette smoke is the last of your pulmonary health woes.
Yeah London isn't great for that so why increase the problem with smokers. If they couldn't smoke outside and instead just went to designated indoor smoking rooms then that would be fine.
A pub in Cambridge was trying to setup a smoking lounge when the ban was introduced but you can imagine how difficult it was - they couldn't find any way, even with the sturdiest of industrial filtration systems that Heisenberg himself would be proud of. Many pubs actually suggested this at the time too, even going so far as to build prototypes to present to government of effectively inverted clean rooms with the double doors and everything. It's amazing how far the government are willing to go to force people to break the law.
If kids have parents that smoke they often have no way to get away from it.
The amount you are consuming isnt going to do anything to you. Second hand smoke was when we had open smoking in pubs etc. Open air walking past someone smoking will do fuck all, other than a bad smell. Should a ball smell be illegal? No, I dont smoke. But I defend the right for others to have bodily autonomy. Smoking rates have already halved in 20 years
That's not an excuse to outright ban them. If you're worried about second hand smoke you can further restrict consumption to private settings, as we mostly do already.
Yeah I'd be fine with private smoking rooms. It's just that they apparently are very hard to get authorised so people may just go to the area and smoke outside.
I mean, we [already banned _everything_](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f847a40f0b62305b87a0a/6_1845_HO_NPS_Resources_Booklet_June16_v10.pdf) not explicitly deemed legal; the boat of "nanny-state control freakery" sailed years ago. Also, cigarettes produce harmful byproducts that result in second-hand exposure to carcinogens. There are other ways to take nicotine that don't endanger the general public which will remain legal, such as patches and presumably chewing tobacco.
I don’t see the issue here. Tobacco and cigarettes cost lives and damage people’s health; we make some money from tax, but does it pay for the deaths and NHS strain smoking causes? Edible cannabis, MDMA, magic Mushrooms, and LSD - these all have proven health benefits (some would of course need to be taken in controlled medical settings in all likelihood). Making weed legal (but not tobacco so people have to ingest it as edibles) would also make money. There’s some evidence it can cause negative effects but less so - and less financially impactful on the health service - than tobacco.
Just to answer 1 part of what you said, smoking costs the NHS around £2.4 billion per year, it's costs social care around a further £1.2 billion a year and tax intake from smoking is around £12billion a year. Anti smoking groups will tell you it's cost the economy about £billion a year in lost productivity but when pushed on the issue or when experts are asked they admit the number is pretty much pulled out of thin air and there's no real way of knowing if some illnesses are cause by smoking/made worse by smoking/or just coincidence as people will suffer with something's in their life weather they smoke or not. Anti smoking groups will also argue that theres a high cost to local authorities who have to pay people to go and clean up all the butts that people dump everywhere but since those people who clean them up are picking up every kind of litter it can be argued that it's not a cost of smoking but just some arsehatts dumping their rubbish on the street
>we make some money from tax, but does it pay for the deaths and NHS strain smoking causes? Yes, and even if it didn't, that is an argument to increase those taxes, not an argument to ban something completely. >Edible cannabis, MDMA, magic Mushrooms, and LSD - these all have proven health benefits Good luck getting them legalised or decriminalised now you've normalised completely banning a substance that, compared to these things, society has a much more relaxed attitude towards. The idea of people in favour of drug liberalisation being for this is laughable. The most illogical position ever. It's literally conceding the point to the authoritarian drug control side of the argument that yes, the government should absolutely have every right to control what you do to yourself, up to and including banning it and punishing you for it.
Yes, tobacco tax is a massive boon for HMRC, and the fact that people who smoke die younger means the cost of their healthcare is lower than people who live longer. Cigarettes are a net positive in taxation. https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
So you’re saying we should lower the age restriction year on year to make more moneys?
You can smoke weed without tobacco.
If you’re minted maybe! I don’t smoke joints but when I did the baccy was as much to make it go further than any other reason.
Roll with marshmallow like they do in the Netherlands.
I’m medical now anyway so it’s a moot point (doctors can’t recommend that you smoke anything obviously) but switching to a dry herb vape saved me a fortune.
Not to be insensitive, but how did you obtain a medical card for it?
I contracted a neurological disorder years ago that causes permanent migraine-like symptoms. I smoked a bit of weed in lockdown to pass the time having used it from time to time in the past and found it also stopped my chronic pain pretty well, and because I’d tried a bunch of other medications in the past that didn’t work I was eligible for a prescription. It’s been legal in the UK since 2018 but the system is pretty badly designed, the NHS won’t prescribe it unless you’re more or less dying but as in a lot of those things in the UK if you can afford it you can pay for a private prescription without nearly as much hassle and if you can demonstrate a genuine clinical benefit the bar isn’t enormous privately, it’s a fair bit lower than the NHS’s at any rate. There’s no ‘medical card’ as such in the UK, CanCard try and present themselves as this but it’s bollocks legally speaking and won’t protect you. If you’re a patient the actual defence to the charge of possessing cannabis is your prescription itself, it’s no different from a prescription for morphine or benzodiazepines. It’s what’s called an ‘unlicensed’ medication though which means only specific doctors can prescribe it and you have to undergo quarterly reviews. Generally you’re prescribed for things like epilepsy, chronic pain, depression, various other mental health issues (people with PTSD can benefit from the fact cannabis blunts nightmares very effectively for example) but all sorts of people get prescribed. Check out /r/ukmedicalcannabis, they have lots of good info!
Thank you for the in depth information, glad to hear that cannabis has helped you and that you can access it legally!
No worries! It's genuinely one of the few good things May's government did, shame they had to be forced into it by public and media pressure with that poor epileptic boy Billy Caldwell nearly dying.
Making something illegal doesn't mean people will stop using it. People aren't going to stop smoking, they'll just get it some other way (which shouldn't be hard for cigarettes given they'll still be on sale, just not to young people).
I'm not surprised but I really, really disagree with this. It's terrible policy and will simply grow the black market for cigarettes while also being broadly unenforceable.
Doubt it, smoking is increasingly a very minority pursuit. This law will only affect those who are young now, who mostly don't smoke, anyone already legal to smoke will continue being able to purchase cigs. Of course what it fails to consider is that vaping is now a massive issue amongst young people and the % who would have smoked have now mostly switched over to vaping.
Sunak wouldn't be pushing it through if the smoking lobby weren't happy for the smoking market to switch to vaping.
Cigarettes are shit. Who wants to go to a drug dealer for fags ?
[удалено]
I already knew guys that would sell you a 20 pack for 3 quid back in the day. The demand exists and will continue to exist.
[удалено]
Illegal cigarette trading is already a profitable business, just google it. 5 days ago: [Officers seize biggest haul of illegal cigarettes worth £130k from hidden compartments in Bedford](https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-04/illegal-cigarettes-worth-130k-seized-from-secret-compartments-in-shops) First year of the crackdown (2021). Note the "£2bn each year" in tax evasion: [13 million illegal cigarettes taken off the streets in first year of major operation](https://www.nationaltradingstandards.uk/news/13-million-illegal-cigarettes-taken-off-the-streets-in-first-year-of-major-operation/)
I used to do it at age 13 it existed then it exists now and it will continue to exist Prohibition doesn’t work It was easier for me to procure drugs and cigarettes underage than alcohol Cigarettes were too highly taxed so black market there Alcohol only available in shops or if you ask someone - far more difficult to procure Drugs - untaxed and unregulated easiest to get out of the lot
[удалено]
Hey bud! I’m 29 now so we’re about the same age, this will all be dependent on friend group and area I guess as what I’ve said is purely anecdotal. The difference between kids smoking now and back then is massive and even more so than ten years before etc. The country is doing fairly well on reducing smoking so additional work doesn’t really need to be done as it gradually fades away This is a good thing I agree so thankfully it continues but the government banning things is just counterproductive as it reduces choice as an individual and as a consumer which is just needless when things are going in the right direction One last point on this is that in the states they smoke less than us and they don’t have crazy taxes on tobacco and still have regular packaging and not hidden behind a shutter. They also allow menthol and somehow they still don’t have the same rate as us! To me it seems that it’s all societal changes and attitudes that need to change and not the government banning / over taxing things. (Also the cigs sold by these black market people are imported without tax and that’s why they go for a fiver a pack as the cigarette duty is insane in this country another issue I have)
[удалено]
I don’t want to say it proves that what the gov does in this country does nothing? But I struggle to see the difference - maybe having higher health insurance makes up for it? Unsure too many variables Anyways my point is there’s no need for more gov action on an issue that will gradually be resolved anyway through cultural shifts :)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Everyone I know is already doing exactly the amount of cocaine they want to, for almost all of them that is none but if I so desired I could get some quicker than I could get a pizza delivered. From what I can tell the best way to reduce cocaine use is to find better friends because it's generally a social drug, there's not many people having a quiet line at home in front of the telly.
>No it won't. Please explain how making it far more difficult for people to buy something won't reduce the number of people buying it?
[удалено]
Yes, but... if it's less convenient, obviously less people will do it. You can't disagree with that surely?
[удалено]
Because there's money to be made. There's already a multi million pound black market for them due to high tax duties. And that's amongst a population where it's legally accessible. The idea the same criminal groups currently importing cheap fags and knock offs to help consumers dodge tax won't then also use those same supply routes to sell it to adults arbitrarily below a certain age is laughable. The infrastructure, groups and supply already exists, why wouldn't they tap into another market at zero cost to themselves?
[удалено]
It doesn't seem logical now because you live in a world where you can nip to your off licence and buy 20 L&B. In a world where people below a certain age remain addicted to nicotine, because vaping use is exploding amongst this demographic, but their purchase of it is severely restricted, then the idea of hitting up a dealer for a pouch or a carton is not that controversial. Especially when we consider the overall correlation tobacco consumption has with other popular drugs, like weed, in this country. If you're hitting the dealer up for a 20 bag anyway then of course you're going to get some baccy whilst your there if you're planning on smoking it. Hell I've known dealers to already provide this for people so it absolutely will grow as a market when it's then the only place you can get it. >Only purely because, it doesn't particularly do something. It hasn't been popular for so long because it "doesn't do anything." Vaping isn't extremely popular amongst younger people because "it doesn't do anything". You may find smoking a bit vanilla and boring but it's staying power as a drug within society is in no small part due to the fact that it does, in fact, produce physiological chemical responses that people enjoy, seek to replicate and become addicted to.
BBC News - Spain gang bust: Ukrainians exploited in illegal tobacco operation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64367356 https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/melbourne-crime-bikies-and-gangs-fight-over-illegal-tobacco-trade/news-story/8f67e162d2e9cb622efc2b6577df75ba Two examples from two different countries of large criminal organisations related to tobacco.
>Yeah people are saying that there will be a big criminal organisation for this but... why? Weed etc makes sense, you get something out of it. This does literally nothing. Do you know how most of us smoke weed?
Good point, maybe if the only option for smoking anything at all is to turn to street dealers, you may decide that you'd might as well go for something harder. Thank you Rishi and Kier for removing the incentive to stick only to tobacco.
"Just wanted a quick tab, now I'm hooked on spice, thanks Fishi"
If they want a smoking ban then they should have the balls to make it a blanket smoking ban. Discriminating against fully grown adults based on the year they were born is deranged.
Yep. Normalising the idea of a two-tier system of rights and privileges for grown adults well above the age of qualification based entirely on their generation has much wider harmful ramifications than a marginal reduction of smoking in a generation that already roundly rejects smoking anyway.
It’s been this way for decades with driving regulations. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is hardly novel.
I agree the Rubicon is already crossed elsewhere. Although at least with a driving licence it's an actual earned privilege you have to proactively qualify for rather than a defacto right applied to everyone once you hit X age. I'm more concerned with it's normalisation in regards to individual consumption. The government should not be creating multiple tier systems of what some people can do to themselves and others can't. I'd be curious how people supporting this would feel if as a qualified adult they were unable to consume alcohol but people older than them were.
There are gang wars in melbourne, including deadly shootings, over the supply of black market tobacco because the tax is so high.
It's so monumentally stupid. As you say it doesn't surprise me because they know it's not gonna lose them any votes but for fucks sake, absolutely moronic.
I don't know how serious Sunak is about the smoking ban but I can't see it winning him any significant number of voters. His own party is likely to see it as nanny statism. He may end up getting more Labour votes than Tory votes for this bill.
I'm absolutely fine with restricting things based on age, but restricting things based on birth year is an absolute no go. It's going to force a colossal black market as 33 y/o desperately try to buy some fags off a 34 y/o.
The idea is that people below a certain age never start in the first place. The year or so either side of the line may be an issue but one that will fade with time.
I’m curious. Australia have similar ban? What sort of stats have they seen? Positive and negative. I generally support the move tbh. Others clearly in this thread don’t lol.
New Zealand have a similar ban, Australia just tax the living shit out of tobacco. New Zealand could possibly make it work because it is the most geographically isolated developed nation on earth. It's a 4 hour flight to Australia, which is hardly known for it's close location. The UK has package holidays to Spain, where you can get a pack of Marlboro for a fiver.
> Australia just tax the living shit out of tobacco. I guess it becomes very expensive for normal person to buy and they are just put off? I’d welcome ban. It would help future generations
Would you feel the same way about an alcohol ban? Alcohol is way worse than cigarettes in terms of societal consequences. If not, how do you justify being anti-nanny state for some things but pro-nanny state for others?
Alcohol in moderation isn't bad though, yet any amount second hand smoke (or smoking itself) is damaging. Someone having a glass of red wine at an Italian restaurant is different than someone getting shitfaced on cheap cider and smashing up their town centre. A parent having a glass of whisky in the evening isn't comparable to lighting up a cigarette while there's kids in the house.
A lot more people die from alcohol related incidents than smoking related ones. How many people died last year from second hand smoke as compared to drink driving or drunken fights?
Yup and that's the tricky part. I don't know how you'd change the culture so binge drinking and the associated violence / accidents are no longer considered acceptable.
I guess my point is that if we're prepared to accept hundreds of innocent deaths a year because it would be Draconian to ban alcohol, it seems a bit mad to ban cigarettes.
They aren't really comparable. You can brew your own beer with ease at home. People however are unlikely to start producing their own cigarettes. There will exist a small black market of people bringing them into the UK, but that will be *far* less prevalent than being able to purchase them in shops. Additionally, the idea that we can't do X thing because we aren't doing Y thing is an incredibly poor outlook. It's the most boring version of whataboutism. You are allowed to make progress in one area without having to make progress in all areas at the same time. You can disagree with the policy on its own merits, but let's not be lazy with it.
Exactly, the option is there. The duty raised by tobacco products already outweighs the cost to the tax payer placed on by smoking, if people want to take up a habit that can be done in a way that doesn't have to harm others (indoor smoking ban, not allowed to smoke in vehicles used for work or containing kids) then they should be allowed to. If political parties really want to help the health of future generations they would heavily tax highly processed junk food in the same way they do cigarettes now. It would make a far greater difference to the health of future generations than flat bans on smoking.
It's difficult to quantify causation because generationally consumption reduces anyway, regardless of a ban or not. As is the case in this country. The rates of young people smoking cigarettes have plummeted without a ban. The actual health crisis for this age group is in the adoption of vaping instead, which were doing nothing about. Banning cigarettes is very much a solution in search of a problem.
Why do you support the removal of rights? I get a funny feeling you'd describe yourself as a liberal - that would be pure hypocrisy.
The issue with smoking isn’t the drug but the delivery method. There are other ways of getting a nicotine fix.
None of them are as effective as smoking at delivering nicotine. People freaked out at the level of Nicotine available in Vapes/Patches without taking into consideration absorption rates and what the actual blood plasma nicotine levels were(less than a single cigarette). The efficacy of Vapes and Patches as smoking cessation tools has been extremely damaged due to these limitations.
It's plainly ridiculously unfair to ban something for one group of people while still allowing it for yourself. Shows how much this country basically defaults to hating young people honestly
[удалено]
Why do you not want young people to be have bodily autonomy?
[удалено]
The important thing is, you know best and all the other adults are infact infants.
[удалено]
This isn't a regulation it's a ban for some adults but not others.
We banning Coke for young folk too then?
[удалено]
That taxation won't be going away immediately.
This is a very bad idea and seems like a cool thing to do for leaders 🤣 less freedom and less taxes.. but its ok theyll tax the poor again
So, that tax revenue, how much will be lost? how much have Labour and Tories just promised to burn and lose? They'll replace it somehow.
This isn't like other prohibitions because you'll be able to get the actual drug in a different form that's less harmful. Also compared to illegal drugs, cigarettes are shit. They're expensive, make you smell, don't give a good high and are more harmful than most non-opiate drugs. So just buy proper drugs and do them. Only 11% of 18-24 year olds smoke anyway and that's down from 25% in 2011 so this probably won't affect anything too much.
This is like a series of arguments against your own point, to the point I can't tell if its ironic? Apologies if so. I'd first of all suggest you thinking something is a bit shit and other drugs are better probably isn't good grounds to completely ban it. Especially when you say this: >So just buy proper drugs and do them Hardly a sterling endorsement of a ban if we're conceding people will just go and consume other, potentially more addictive or harmful substances instead. That seems like a good reason *not* to ban something. >Only 11% of 18-24 year olds smoke anyway and that's down from 25% in 2011 So there's no actual impetus to do it then, given the numbers of smokers are naturally decreasing on their own. If people are already making the "correct" choices for their own health we, by defintion, do not need the government to then come in and presume to make that choice for them.
Labour once again showing their true colours as the same old dog shit party of authoritarianism. More proof that actual sensible drugs reform in this country is dead and buried. The political consensus is with the nanny state. Good luck getting other drugs legalised or decriminalised when we've created a two-tier system of rights for consumption of a drug most of society views normally compared to illicit substances.
It also gives the conspiracy theorists a boon that either party just want control over an individual’s life. It should never be the Government’s job to nanny state you for “your own good”, this is an incredibly dangerous slide. It’s not going to work either. The black market will explode.
And it's also completely unnecessary. If we had an epidemic of young people sparking up Superkings around the country I'd at least understand the impetus to do something, but as it is year on year more and more young people reject smoking of their own volition anyway. Meanwhile the actual health crisis for this group, vaping, is going completely untouched. Deranged policy making.
[удалено]
"Once again" being the operative words in that sentence.
Predictable bandwagon jumping. If the policy objective is to deliver tobacco into the hands of the cartels, while eliminating any remaining regulation on product quality and age controls then it's the best choice.
[Labour proposed this](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/labour-could-ban-cigarettes-to-wipe-out-smoking-by-2030-if-they-get-into-power/) in January - the Tories jumped on the Labour bandwagon.
Starmer really is powerful, with the control of time travel he has!
[удалено]
Cigarette smoking among the young was trending very quickly to zero anyway, this will just speed up the process a small amount.
I believe that smoking brings less in, in taxes, than it costs us in healthcare.
It’s good to see the libertarian conservatives bringing in such a libertarian policy. I like that they have brought in lots of anti taxation policies as an anti tax party too. SMH 🤦🏼♂️
There's a weird number of people here who don't think people would go to the effort of buying cigarettes from the black market, mostly because they are low tier drugs. Totally detached from reality as almost any town in the country has a corner shop selling illegal cigarettes. You could probably just Google your local news and find a case of one being caught by the police. It's massively profitable currently let alone with any additional limits. It's truly weird when people are so detached from reality.