A draft law in the UK to create a "smoke-free generation" by banning smoking for anybody born after 2008 has cleared both houses of parliament. Only the king's signature remains for it to become law.
  • Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
  • This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
  • Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
  • The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
  • The bill will expand the UK’s indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children’s playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
  • Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
  • Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
  • Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people’s homes
  • Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
  • Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
  • People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program
  • flyby@lemmy.zipEnglish
    1·
    19 hours ago

    You are conflating two different problems here imo - Choosing one but not (mostly equally harmful) another thing to restrict, and government banning something as a way of restricting freedom Regarding first one - I don’t are a problem here, everything else can be addressed after this one, but even if it’s not, it’s still a net positive, I don’t understand your argument here naming this policy bad because it doesn’t do all or nothing Regarding ban as a restriction of freedom - banning something just lies on the far scale of taxing something - i.e. the more you tax something, the less people can afford it (tax is always passed onto consumer), so at some point only rich people can afford to smoke which is even worse than ban imo There’s a benefit in additional money from taxes, sure, but tobacco is already taxed quite a lot so this is nothing revolutionary, and the more taxes on something the less revenue from it at some point (considering that less and less people can afford it) Banning it from the certain age and not for everyone is obviously to not make existing smokers suffer and make younger population healthier Some things just should be banned, like murder for example, when there’s no benefit from that thing to anyone at all You would agree that products with lead or coke in in should stay banned and not be sold, right?