Summary
The UK has introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, aiming to make it illegal for future generations to buy cigarettes. The bill proposes gradually raising the minimum smoking age, so those born after January 1, 2009, will never be able to purchase tobacco legally.
It also includes restrictions on vape flavors and packaging to prevent youth addiction and bans smoking in certain outdoor spaces, though pub beer gardens are exempt.
Supported by the Labour Party’s majority, the legislation seeks to create a “smoke-free U.K.” and combat smoking-related deaths.
Do you know what I’d like to see?
Instead of banning them, ban the extraction of profit on producing and selling them. Turn them into an entirely recreational market. I’d love to see the outcome of trying that.
I like the way you think.
Capitalists would rather there be a ban so that proles don’t realize how much they’re getting f**ked.
Wouldn’t that just push sales into the black market? Unless the government nationalized the sale of cigarettes, which seems… not great, if they believe in smoking cessation
Think of it like clubs for tobacco enthusiasts. Ideally you would have a club with one super knowledgeable person, split the costs of growing and his time and split the the results on potentially various types of products.
So kind of like how farm cooperatives work (I think?)?
There’s a guy at the farmers market that offers “shares” of cows. I can’t remember the details but you pay for a certain “guaranteed” pounds of beef plus sausage made from other parts (not guaranteed to be one cow), a long with some other meats (chicken, etc). When the cow is slaughtered, you get your meat.
Similar idea. In a lot of states it could be done locally with many tobacco strains.
I like the idea, but the people who do split the animal deals around me take advantage of their customers… wish I have had better experiences. Used to be a couple neighbors just paid a butcher on their off hours…
That makes sense to me
No, it wouldn’t
People working in and supporting the industry would work and consume as they always have.
It’s the business owners that would be hurting, as their entire existence depends on siphoning off the excess people are willing to pay for products and services.
Prices wouldn’t even go up. Businesses already charge the most people are willing to pay.
I am just wondering who would do all the work of warehousing, distributing, etc., if there was no profit motive.
Nonprofits can still have paid employees, it’s just that the company doesn’t profit; there’s no owner or shareholders extracting excess value.
That reminds me of REI in America. They’re technically a member-owned co-op, but they’re definitely a huge corporation making buckets for somebody, probably the leadership. So a non profit version of that
The people who do the work already.
Profit, by definition, is excess. It’s what’s leftover after all other business expenses are paid, including employee wages.
I guess I’m wondering who will hire the people to do that work? I assume a company that is allowed to have profit will be able to offer higher wages to be competitive
The people who do the hiring are part of a business’ expenses, not its profit.
They will still be doing their job like they normally do.
I assume a company that is allowed to have profit will be able to offer higher wages to be competitive
Where do they get that money? By charging you and I more than what a product costs to produce and bring to market. If people had higher standards (which they don’t), then they would go to the business that gives them the best deal.
Right now we live in a culture where people are proud to spend more money even if it’s for a worse product. Everything is backwards regarding personal financial responsibility which is why there is so much excess yet most people still think they “need” more money.
Without a profit motive, where is the incentive to work efficiently? The cost to get goods to market will include the cost of the inefficiencies in the market? The fact that the tobacco is being grown on a small plot instead of huge monocrop, etc.
How could this compete against a black market that has a profit motive to get costs low so they can take more for themselves
No one would farm it for profit and no one would import it for profit. Ends up with people still selling it for profit in a black or parallel market.
Pushing an entire business into black market over time… Who in their right mind approved this?
Won’t somebody think of the poor struggling businesses.
Where would society be without those good old death stick sellers who hid decades of research into health risks and marketed to children. Cornerstone of society and they’re trying to ban it? Savages.
More like prohibition doesn’t work
It’ll work for the majority of people. You won’t be able to do it out in public.
If you want to get cancer in your own house go ahead.
The truth is they put a huge burden on public services. Mainly the health service but also they create insane amounts of litter.
If vaping is still an option then most people will just do that.
If you want to get cancer in your own house go ahead.
I agree with the sentiment of both you and the person I originally applied to. Smoking is a blight and I wish it would go away. I simply don’t think prohibition is the way to do it.
Mainly the health service but also they create insane amounts of litter
Vaping also creates an insane amount of litter. I wish vaping would go away just as much as I do cigarettes.
Yeah vaping will have its time. I bet they’re already sitting on evidence that it fucks you up.
Prohibition does work very well for kids though. Most people start young as when you’re older you know the issues.
So they are keeping it for people already exposed and trying to stop younger people starting in the first place.
They raised the age to 18 when I turned 16 and it dramatically cut the amount we had access to.
It’s not like the old alcohol probation. Plus smoking isn’t even fun like drinking. It’s just gross and bad for your health. And most people don’t drink because of addiction. It’s a different kettle of fish.
But they should be doing the same for vaping.
It’s not a secret. Ask any medical professional and they’ll tell you about popcorn lung. Vaping is worse in many ways. Look, don’t suck non “air” into your lungs. Pollution is bad enough for us. We don’t need to make it worse.
The truth is they put a huge burden on public services.
Do they? If so, you must be in favor of banning smoking anything, right?
they create insane amounts of litter.
Do they? If so, it sounds like there needs to be harsher penalties and greater enforcement for litter laws!
Yes and yes.
Are you stupid? It’s not about the “businesses” and their well-being. It’s about the effect that black markets have on society.
People are going to get their drugs whether they’re legal or not. If you paid attention in history class and reality, you’d know that prohibition and the war on drugs does not solve the issue.
Exactly. Smoking was dying off due to vaping until all these countries got a stick up their ass over it and decided to either outright ban vapes or put ridiculous regulations on them. This is why everyone uses disposables in the US now and toss their lithium batteries in the trash every couple days.
vaping was much worse because people blatantly use them indoors and wherever else they shouldn’t. And due to them not needing to light up they just constantly puff on them between every three breaths. It’s fucking awful being in a queue or walking behind someone vaping.
Supported by the Labour Party’s majority, the legislation seeks to create a “smoke-free U.K.” and combat smoking-related deaths.
vaping was much worse
Why?
because people blatantly use them indoors and wherever else they shouldn’t
I don’t know if that really makes them worse than premature death.
It’s worse because smoking had started to be relegated to designated areas. Non smokers could much more easily avoid smokers. But vaping is so easy to do that you can no longer avoid them. You go to a gathering of any kind and you’re guaranteed to have at least one arsehole not respecting other peoples decisions to not smoke/vape
You’re equating the harms from second-hand smoke with vaping here, which don’t exist as they’re caused by the chemical reactions that occur when you burn plant matter.
I’m not arguing that it’s okay for people to vape where they’re not supposed to, but you’re blowing things out of proportion here. The real danger to your lungs while in a gathering is from catching COVID from one of the individuals nearby you.
I’m equating the fact that I could more consistently distance myself from smokers. I can’t do that with vapers. When getting into a gig it was relatively rare to end up next to a snooker that just didn’t care anyway. Nowadays though you can’t get away from vapers who vape way more often than they would’ve done with smoking.
People who vape are using nicotine much, much more often because it’s just so much easier now. And it taste like bubblegum. The whole idea of vape as a means to quit smoking was a myth created by vaping companies. Nicotine is also bad for you, not just the smoke. And then there’s the issues of the other compounds inside vaping liquids that should be heading into your lungs. It’s insane we let this get this far.
People who vape are using nicotine much, much more often because it’s just so much easier now.
Do you have some proof to support this? And even if it’s true, why is that your concern to the point where you feel justified in jailing individuals for using it?
The whole idea of vape as a means to quit smoking was a myth created by vaping companies.
This is false on multiple levels. First, because people who vape instead of smoke are no longer smoking, and second because countless people have used them to quit using nicotine as you can buy different strengths of juice and taper yourself down to 0mg/ml juice which is something that I’ve personally witnessed numerous people do.
Nicotine is also bad for you, not just the smoke.
The smoke is what gives you cancer. Nicotine does increase your blood pressure and heart rate, but so do cheeseburgers and soda, and I don’t see you or anyone else trying to assign criminal penalties to individuals for using those.
And then there’s the issues of the other compounds inside vaping liquids that should be heading into your lungs.
Like propylene glycol which is used in asthma inhalers? Vegetable glycerine which is used in sports drinks to candy to heart medications? What harmful chemicals are you referring to?
Look up popcorn lung. Vaping is not better than smoking.
You mentioned popcorn lung 3 times already and i did look it up and i think you don’t understand what popcorn lung is, so i will write it for whoever is reading because i didn’t know either.
Popcorn lung is a colloquialism for an illness named bronchiolitis obliterans, caused by diacetyl, a product found on early black market vapes that has been banned or discontinued for nearly 10 years now. Most clear market vapes already had discontinued the use of dyacetyl because they knew of the health risks, but only black market vapes were using it as a means to save money.
Moreover, dyacetyl was not being used in nicotine vapes, it was being used in Cannabis vapes, as such, no exclusively nicotine products vaper who used store bought liquids was ever exposed to popcorn lung. So maybe you should read up on what popcorn lung is, before posting several comments about it. I don’t vape but i have family members who quit smoking because of vapes and i don’t appreciate your blatant misinformation about them. If there are legitimate criticisms of vaping, by all means post them, but this is a falsehood you are propagating.
Oh boo hoo!
People being mildly annoying means they should be banned? Cigarettes were killing smokers and those around them. That’s the line for me. If your actions harm others, then it gets restricted.
Vapes are nowhere near that line. They just smell weird.
We don’t have 30 year studies on vapes like we do with cigarettes.
I don’t want any sort of chemical in my lungs, I should be able to choose what to inhale not the selfish arsehole stood in front of me. I or others should not be affected by other people’s bad decisions.
They really are. Popcorn lung is a thing with vapers. Plus I don’t want to inhale their nasty nicotine on accident. They need to have some damn respect for people around them instead of blatant selfishness. That’s the line for me.
Secondhand nicotine does you no harm. The reason cigarettes are so bad for you is that you’re smoking tar. That’s what makes the walls of a smokers home yellow, and what gives them cancer.
Nicotine is addictive, but largely harmless at the levels in cigarettes and vapes for the primary smoker. A secondhand smoker will be getting almost nothing. The problem with vapes is, I suspect, the flavourings. I’m aware of mounting evidence that they’re not harmless, but I think that’s only to primary vapers, not secondary.
largely harmless at the levels in cigarettes and vapes for the primary smoker
The cardiovascular effects of nicotine over the long term are likely not harmless at all. There’s no reason to believe that combustion is the reason PAD, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease is associated with smoking. There is a very good reason to believe that a potent vasoconstrictor is, however.
Vaping is currently almost completely unregulated and some studies have found terrifying chemicals in them
So regulate them and enforce it.
Well yeah that’s the idea.
Not ban. Regulate, like food. Have standards and enforce them.
Except they aren’t like food. Vaping isn’t required to live. It’s purely recreational and aimed at children.
But I’m happy with either regulation or a ban.
Are we still going on about the diacetyl and studies that drove the coils so hard they were basically incinerating the cotton and juice?
People who don’t like cancer and want to take the insane pressure these death sticks put on the health service.
Who in their right mind supports mega corps selling addictive cancer causing products to young people?
The point is prohibition doesn’t work. I would prefer no young person ever try cigarettes, or nicotine in any form. But I don’t think that’s realistic.
It works really well for kids. They aren’t even trying to ban it for adults.
Raising the age from 16 to 18 had a massive effect when I was young.
This will most likely dramatically decrease smoking in young people and that’s great.
It’s not 100% or nothing.
I’d love to be wrong about this. But I started smoking at 20, and while I’ve kicked cigarettes for good I couldn’t make quitting nicotine stick.
The difference is now you wouldn’t be able to buy it at 20 either.
You’d have to work pretty hard to get on cigarettes and hopefully most people just won’t bother.
Nicotine is still bullshit as are vapes. But as far as we know vapes are the lesser evil.
You know this, but nicotine isn’t the problem. It’s all the other crap in them.
Sure, but on another level yes, nicotine is a problem. It’s super fucking addictive and I hate my dependence on it. And harsher regulation on nicotine products in my area have ironically made it tougher to ween myself off.
I think that last point is an important one.
Banning things often does more harm than good. In your case “Nicotine Bad!” as a policy removes your options.
Libertarians
They are an island nation with very strict controls. The black market will be small. The real worry would be no different than age restrictions already in effect: find someone old enough to buy it for you.
Bruh. You do know you are talking about the cocaine capital of Europe here with your deluded “but they’re an island nation!” talk.
Cocaine is far easier to traffic than giant cigarette cartons.
The problem is, its very hard to hide the fact you are a smoker. This is why the ban will be effective, its not worth it for kids to take it up.
A very good point actually
Because it’s a gradual ban, rather than a blanket ban for everyone immediately, they are hoping the demand won’t be there by the time the last generation of legal smokers die off (sooner than you think given cigarettes are designed to kill).
People who don’t understand how things work.
Or people who benefit from there being more criminals…
Yah, banning drugs works great. And doing it in the most cowardly way possible really elevates that.
Prohibition has been such a huge success. The only option is expanding it! \s
I guess the difference between the prohibition in the US and this bill, is that the alcohol prohibition banned it to everyone at once. People who were used to drinking or down right alcoholics had a strong incentive to obtain alcohol from somewhere, so there was a market for the underground moonshine producers. This bill isn’t targeting people who are already addicted to nicotine, but rather aims at preventing people developing the addiction in the first place, so I can imagine the market for underground tobacco growers or smugglers will be much smaller and less profitable. I am optimistic that this approach will be more successful than the 20s in America, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
🥱
More black markets aren’t the solution.
This is literally an idea I had when I was 16 years old. I was pretty dumb when I was 16.
Not here in the USA! With Trump, we’re going to recycle cigarettes into baby clothes and we’ll be using PTFE to bond the fibers together for a strong cancer healthcare company.
Sort of related but I saw that black plastic spatulas and other black plastic items contain toxic flame retardants because black plastic items are made from recycled e-waste.
It’s the gallium dopants that get me excited for more. 😂
MACA - Make America Cancer Again
Sounds good to me, tbh. Increasing health for everyone involved, reducing costs on medical services. I think New Zealand had something similiar? Instead of an outright ban affecting everyone this is slowly phased out, so young kids probably won’t even miss it.
NZ reversed that ban 1 year after announcing it and decades before it would have gone into effect.
I personally support this plan. Smoking in the UK has already plummeted. A lot of smokers have moved to vaping. Unfortunately, those left are often the ruder ones. Limiting where they cam smoke, or reduce expire for everyone else is a big dead for me.
Additionally, it’s not banning nicotine, it’s banning cigarettes. Vapes have changes the balance on that one. They are less damaging, and cause far less issues with passive smoking. This acts as a pressure relief valve, rather than a blanket nicotine ban. Also, at no point will an existing (legal) smoker go from legal to illegal.
The vape issue definitely needs fixing. A number have found advertising to younger users is a good money maker. Limiting the options here l, without an outright ban would help reduce the harm to children. It wouldn’t significantly affect ex smokers who moved to vaping.
Next do beer!
I dare you Parliament.In England? Lol
It’s part of Labour’s platform. Also right now, even for pubs and beer gardens, there’s a license to restrict the number of people that can smoke outdoors.
I think cigarettes should be put behind a prescription wall. If you are addicted, a doctor can help you quit. In the mean time, they can make sure you keep having the nicotine delivery system you’re used to.
And then what about everything outside of that ridiculous context? Arrest people for possession of a plant? That’s always been a good idea.
Tobacco is important to people. If you ban it, there will be a black market. Especially for something like a plant that can simply be grown.
Ban the sale of it. That’s it. You want to cultivate it yourself, no problem. Share it with friends and family, OK. Just no more industrialized tobacco.
There will be a black market. So what? The problem isn’t that people are using it. The problem is ubiquity. It’s readily available everywhere. A black market isn’t nearly as ubiquitous as selling it in every shop across the country.
What are you even talking about? I didn’t say anything about banning it.
You’re talking about making it a prescription drug only allowed for cessation purposes. That sure sounds like a ban on recreational use to me. What happens when someone without a prescription is caught with tobacco under this system you’re proposing? What makes this preferable to just letting people smoke?
That sure sounds like a ban on recreational use to me.
You said nothing about recreational use. But something that overloads the healthcare system and costs a ton of money should not be allowed freely for recreational use.
What happens when someone without a prescription is caught with tobacco under this system you’re proposing?
A fine. Like many things that people do that are illegal. Are you under the bizarre impression that the only possible thing you can do to someone who commits a crime is imprison them?
What makes this preferable to just letting people smoke?
It helps them quit. Which is good. See above, re overloading the healthcare system and costing a ton of money.
Are you under the bizarre impression that the only possible thing you can do to someone who commits a crime is imprison them?
You’re replying to an American. So, yes.
If it’s a fine then it’s effectively only illegal for poor people – unless the fine scales with wealth
Like Finland’s speeding fines. That’s reasonable.
Are you under the bizarre impression that the only possible thing you can do to someone who commits a crime is imprison them?
I didn’t say anything about imprisoning people. Any legal consequence for possession of a plant is too far.
It helps them quit.
It leverages a nanny state that forces people to quit whether they want to or not.
When British taxpayers are the ones paying for the smokers’ illnesses, whether or not they personally want to quit is not the issue. You do know how socialized medicine works, yes? British nonsmokers should not have to foot the bill when they get emphysema or lung cancer.
I don’t know why you think they should.
Universal healthcare doesn’t give you license to police everyone else’s lifestyle to your preferred level of health-consciousness.
Well done UK!
Sounds excellent for the vape market. Just make it so only natural tobacco is legal and at the same age in which you can be drafted in the UK.
