- Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
- This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
- Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
- The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
- The bill will expand the UK’s indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children’s playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
- Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
- Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
- Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people’s homes
- Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
- Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
- People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program
I honestly don’t think this will lead to a massive black market like some people seem to think. I don’t see big profit margins that would make cigarettes an attractive thing to sell illegally. You can only make them so expensive if you can just find someone older to buy them for you for the normal price.
Besides, smoking is pretty shit really. There aren’t going to be loads of people willing to go through the hassle of getting cigarettes illegally when all they do is stink and give you cancer. Especially when the people who can’t buy them will mostly be people who haven’t had a chance to get addicted yet.
I think this will work and be a net positive in the long run.
You’ve obviously never been a nicotine addict. Nothing you said here would have stopped me from getting my drug, before I quit
I started smoking when I was 14. Smoked a pack a day for a while, smoked my last in my thirties.
The point of a rolling ban isn’t meant to make you quit, it’s to stop people from starting and it will work. Not for everyone, but for a lot of people it will.
Imagine if they did the same for alcohol :)
I’m so happy to see vaping receive the similar treatment as smoking. I still don’t know why people thought it was acceptable to blow fumes into others faces. Even had it while carrying my kid. Some people…
“UK mandates teenagers must shop with their local drug dealer for tobacco products”
Might as well buy some weed or pills whilst you’re there, “save a trip”
Meh, as a teenager I never would have purchased something from my dealer that didn’t get me high. It’d be a complete waste of money with my perspective back then. You’d already have to be addicted to be desperate enough to buy cigs from a dealer.
… thats the whole point… addiction doesn’t care
No way the police are going to use this to further harass young people, especially from racialized communities.
And no way this will create pathways to link marginalized youth with organised crime and such.
I don’t smoke, but this is stupid.
You can’t save people from themselves.
Of course you can. Over time fewer and fewer people will smoke.
The number of smokers have been going down for a long time now.
Right along with your personal freedoms, what a great deal
Because of awareness, social stigma, and government bans on tobacco propaganda advertising, not government sales bans.
Look at the middle east and south asia, smoking is bigger than ever, it’s like the US in 60s, but worse.
If people want to smoke, government bans won’t stop them. Yes, being easy and legal to get makes more people likely to get it, but you won’t achieve zero smoking by banning it, you’ll just increase black market sales.
Is the illegal sale and organized crime that comes with it worth the reduction of legal consumers?
It feels like you’re saying that this legislation is stupid because some people will smoke anyway. And I think that’s not a fair argument. I don’t think anyone claims that this will get rid of smoking entirely, much like outlawing murder will not get rid of all murders. But I do think this will reduce the number of smokers born after 2008.
If you reduce the number of opportunities someone has to start smoking, you will reduce the number of smokers. At least, this makes intuitive sense to me. I don’t have any data to back it up. But neither do you, so we’re tied there I guess. Or do you? I’m happy to change my mind on this.
Just ban smoking in public places. I don’t want people blowing smoke at me when I’m walking down the street or when I’m siting outside drinking coffee. If they want to smoke in their apartment or their car it’s their business. It would be easier to fight people smoking in the street than check what age every smoker is.
… public space…
Yes, public spaces too.
The healthcare costs are collectively borne by the public, no matter where you smoke. And indirect damage for kids and others in the same household should also not be underestimated.
-
All healthcare costs are borne collectively. Being obese increases healthcare costs. Extreme sports increase healthcare costs. Alcohol increases costs. Why ban smoking for that reason but not the other?
-
So “save the children” is ok in that context? We don’t trust parents now and should be banning things that can hurt kids? Like porn, social media or sugar?
What the UK did is a step in the right direction. You can’t argue that this is only valid if they ban the other things you listed as well. You need to start somewhere. Norway for example went a different route and increased taxes on alcohol and sugar to reach a healthier population
I’m not saying it’s all or nothing. I’m saying that banning things that raise healthcare costs is silly. Lots of people do things that raise healthcare costs. I don’t think that smokers should be punished for raising healthcare costs while I’m allowed to practice high risk sports. It’s unfair.
What Norway did is completely different as it still leaves it up to people. You promote good habits, not criminalize bad ones.
-
Exactly this. On top of being liberticide and hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it’s extremely hard to enforce.
Ban smoking anywhere that is not your home, problem solved
Isn’t that discrimination based on birth ?
Let’s see. Making tobacco illegal means the black market will florish. And then the government can’t regulate the quality. Kinda what we already have with Cannabis. A lot of countries legalize Cannabis so that buyers can be sure it is of proper quality and not mixed with dangerous substances. Yes, smoking is bad and that’s why it should be expensive in order to discourage people from smoking. And a lot of public spaces should be smoke-free as well so that non-smokers are affected by smokers as little as possible. Banning something completely can go fully in the opposite way, just look what the Prohibition back in the US did with regards to Alcohol.
I don’t like this argument. Every time you ban something there will black market for it. But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work. Similarly with weed, if it’s less accessible, it means less consumption.
But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work.
Yes, but the black market has serious sides effects. You have to compare the disadvantages of allowing people who want to smoke to smoke, damaging their own health vs the black market funding cartels, mafias, and/or other criminals, causing problems for everyone.
The issue is those that still consume have to operate in an unregulated environment
deleted by creator
Incorrect
It seems a little arbitrary that they can deny rights to a voting tax-paying 27 year old that they give to a 28 year old.
Can they ban Capricorns from riding motorcycles? It’s actually for their own good, those things are dangerous!
A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.
Smokers are taking away my freedom to breathe clean air
No, they aren’t.
I hate smoking. I hate the smell when assholes smoke near my house.
Those people aren’t all smokers.
This makes me want to smoke.
Comments in here really trying to argue for big tobacco, just because they don’t like the word “ban”. Edgy contrarians.
A lot of what has been coming from the UK government has been shit, but this is just plain GOOD. There’s no reason anyone should be smoking. This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers. “Education” alone clearly hasn’t worked well enough.
This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers.
Well, a good thing drugs were banned a long time ago, so that no-one who was born after the 70’s can become drug abusers.
Prohibitions don’t work. People aren’t arguing for “big tobacco”, lol, they’re using common sense.
Regulation works, prohibition doesn’t. Even heavy regulation. However a complete ban will not. Not with substances. My evidence; literally any history from anywhere. Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.
Perfection is not the aim. Fewer people will be smoking tobacco over time. Smoking also has an easy alternative like vaping available.
It is also much easier to make alcohol at home than cigarettes.
Prohibition failed for multiple reasons. I’d suggest you look into it.
I’d suggest you look into it.
There really isn’t heavier irony available. I’ve literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.
Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That’s why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?
Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.
We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn’t the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that’s regulation, not prohibition.
Vicelaws don’t work and they’re harmful to society. It’s so ironic you’re telling me to read up on this when you can’t even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don’t believe in crime or science.
Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you’re going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I’m talking about are more like Portugal’ s. (Just stronger)
OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.
Are you really implying that people banning a substance doesn’t reduce the amount of people using it?
I can literally go to a pub and see a whole pub full of people drinking and smoking.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
The aim isn’t to stop everyone, no sensible person would suggest that.
Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.
OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.
Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn’t take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.
Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.
When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You’ve no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It’s the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.
So either you’re a prude and pretend there’s a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it… or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.
I’ve had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.
You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren’t doing blow on the tables doesn’t mean that there isn’t at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you’re too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn’t mean they’re not everywhere.
Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.
Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It’s always “I don’t care” and getting upset because you realise there literally isn’t anything to back up your side and you’ve been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I’ve had people spit in my face and go “You’re stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!” because they got so upset they couldn’t name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.
I’m tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I’ve been having with “experts” like you for years so why don’t you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the “do your own research” guy, but yeah, please do.
Start here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002573
https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/Justice - Post 1.pdf
Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:
https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702
He’s the author of “Good Cop, Bad War”, one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)
Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.
This is vastly different. Alcohol prohibition took alcohol away from people. This law does not. No-one who is currently smoking is being banned from doing so.
It also doesn’t have to work 100% to be a good idea. This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.
It’s not vastly different. It’s gonna have the same exact issues.
They tried in NZ.
This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.
It will absolutely create a massive new black market. And think about how many nowadays start smoking before theyre legally allowed to buy cigarettes. Practically every single smoker there is. Kids smoke because “it’s cool”. It’s gonna be infinitely cooler when smokes are also illegal. And the Armenian fellow smuggling the ciggies in is not going to have qualms about selling cartons to teenagers.
Heavy regulation can work. Complete bans just don’t.
More like you are falling for yet another blanket ban as a viable solution to anything. Younger gens are significantly less into smoking and drinking? Oh, I know! Let’s turn it miles more enticing by making it a taboo!
Big tobacco is definitely the problem. Tobacco itself wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for industrial-scale cultivation and processing. If a smoker had to personally grow everything they planned on smoking, they’d break the habit pretty fucking quick.
Kk now do alcohol next. Good luck.
So for context, I actually drink, more than I probably should. I have a well stocked home bar, and trying or inventing new cocktails is almost a hobby for me and my partner.
I also come from a country with a veeeeeeery ingrained alcohol culture.
I’d still vote for an alcohol ban. Yes this is hypocritical when looking at my current habits. I don’t really have a point here, beyond saying that, even if banning alcohol is unrealistic, drinking alcohol being gone from the world is still a good idea in principle, the same as with tobacco.
cancer sticks. we need to rename the entire category to ‘cancer sticks’. force people to ask for their fav cancer sticks brands, “Yeah can I have a pack of Camels…” employee looks blankly… “Uh can I have camel cancer sticks please?”
I say this and I struggle with tobacco and know if every time I purchased it I was confronted even more than the labels and black wrappers etc., it would give me pause.
That might work for the first year, but after that, you’d likely go back to not giving a shit. If someone already knows cigarettes cause cancer, do you really think renaming them ‘cancer sticks’ would lead to a significant change?
Worse yet, the proposal could backfire by turning the morbid name into an in-group joke or even a badge of defiance.
I think it would wear on the person over time.
Am a person who’s quit 12 times. Grew up in a fam of chainsmokers and swore I’d never smoke…
I agree. I don’t like being denied things, but some things need to be legitimately more regulated or made illegal way more often. This would never fly in the US, big tobacco has way too many people in their pocket.
What is this? Good news? On my timeline!!! In this economy!!!
RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY DOOMSCROLLING?
Sounds a bit ageist - rather than upping the age by 1 year, why not up it by 5? That way the people imposing the law get to live under it.
Admittedly, you’ll see diehards growing their own, and a black market quickly forming which are the main issues. Then again, the fact a black market exists for fentanyl doesn’t mean banning it was a bad idea!
I think this is mostly good, because raising the cigarette each year will mean children who never smoked, didn’t get the addiction can’t get it just because its cool.
Do I think there should be more of a focus on limiting the sellers and distributors as opposed to the addicted consumers? Yes. Is this happening? According to the dotpoints yes.
Does the “smoking will remain legal inside the house” mean new 18 year olds can smoke inside there house? Idk, without big tobacco, and limiting the smoking market overall health will improve.
I mean I got into it when I was 14 just because it was cool. It being a thing that wasn’t allowed to me was part of the allure.
All you’d have to do was find a hobo who was willing to buy you some.
