Yeah no, you don’t get to arbitrarily use age to deny people their rights and manipulate them into doing what you want them to do.
Exactly what rights are you talking about?
deleted by creator
The right to smoke and be unhealthy.
Also bodily autonomy. That kind of action, if accepted, could be used to impose incremental bans on anyone for any reason, so long as the majority is authoritarian enough to agree.
Like access to hormones for trans people. Or abortions. Or birth control. Or weed.
Oooohhh the right to smoke and be unhealthy… yeah that’s not a right.
Yes it is.
Nope, its not. You’re confusing having a right and having the freedom to do something. In one you have no constraint from the state to carry out an action, in the other you are entitled to something by society. Different things.
That’s one of the facets of rights, is the freedom to do things. Rights aren’t only freedom from things.
And you might not like smoking, but other people are going to make choices and live their lives in ways you don’t agree with, even that you abhor, and rights means you have to put up with that for the betterment of all.
So people, young people, are going to smoke, and you’re going to put up with it.
Maybe you’re not quite clear on what a right is - its generally something that that’s enshrined in constitutional law like for example in a human rights act, or for some advanced democracies even the right to privacy is included in a bill of rights. The ‘right to smoke and be unhealthy’ is not a right at all, its a freedom that you may have.
Oh but it is. It is your autonomous right to duck yourself up. It’s not healthy or smart and your peers will push back at your decision. , but it is your right! Fuck this authoritarian “we will decide what you can and cannot do”
Oh but it just isn’t. Tobacco is a controlled substance in pretty much every country in the world. Now you may disagree as to where this government is being too restrictive and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you have any inherent rights to consume tobacco. The same way you don’t have a right to consume heroine or meth.
Sunak should start publicly smoking all the time, then it will be the lamest thing and teen smoking will crater.
No no no, minimum age should increase by 360 days every year, that way people can still have hope that some day they’ll be able to smoke. Staying true to how capitalism works.
“We operate a Check-74 policy. If you are lucky enough to look younger than 70, we will ask for ID when buying cigarettes”
Maybe we will make groundbreaking leaps in cosmetic surgery. Or have Jackass-style elderly disguises become popular.
New Zealand has done this
So he’s nicking what newzeland did ok cool something that he’s not going to profit from for a change atleast
If this is the only effort, it’s weak. Better to also (or instead) tax each box by another 20 pounds. Kids don’t have that money. They’ll find other things to do.
Do you know the piece of cocaine?
Taxation is a tool but it also creates inequality where rich people are able to smoke and poor people can’t. That situation risks making tobacco a signifier of wealth - an aspirational good like an expensive handbag.
If rich kids are able to get lung cancer and poor kids are priced out of it, I don’t feel bad for the poor kids.
good, let them smoke and DIE
I much prefer to see kids vaping.
It’s much harder to be intimidated by a gang of 10 youths in balaclavas when they smell like a pack of Fruit Salads.
Vaping is a joke, they stuck the addictive chemical (nicotine) in it and now they are hooked on vaping. Let them sell vaping goods but they shouldn’t be allowed to add nicotine to them.
Given that for most it’s a less harmful alternative to smoking that makes zero sense. Aside from it’s addictive properties nicotine is on about the same level as caffeine in terms of damage.
Caffeine? No, the science says otherwise
It’s already prohibitively taxed to be around £12-15 for a 20 pack. There are 4 corner stores within a 5 minute walk of my house that do them under the counter for a fiver, and you can bet they don’t care about IDs either
Contact the HMRC fraud department. They would stop these sales very quickly.
Wishing a very chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder on every dumbass calling this authoritarian
I just don’t understand how a group of people who are all for drug legalization are suddenly supporting a policy like this (from a Tory no less)? Why are we suddenly in favor of drug prohibition? Am I missing something?
What’s the public health effect of legalized cigarettes vs, say, pot? Are cigarettes being banned to provide pretext for cracking down on radicals or minority communities?
What’s the public health effect of legalized cigarettes vs, say, pot?
Communists are generally in favor of legalizing fucking heroin lol. ETA: Full drug legalization means full drug legalization. WE also want to treat drug addiction like a public health issue of course.
Are cigarettes being banned to provide pretext for cracking down on radicals or minority communities?
Hey what was Eric Garner doing when he was killed again?
Like 85% of people in the UK are non-smokers, so I’m presuming it’s some NIMBY-lite thinking: “I don’t like smoking so I need you to make everyone stop”.
Raising legal agenot be able to buy cigarettesFrench people in shamble
Rishi is just jealous that they aren’t one of the cool kids
https://www.theonion.com/secondhand-smoke-linked-to-secondhand-coolness-1819564071
Rishi it’s a background character in his own life. There are more dynamic jellyfish.
Just fucking ban it already.
…how do 14 year olds get smokes now?
Making it illegal to buy at certain ages has never worked…banning them outright also won’t work. You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.
Has the war on drugs not been a thought to these people? It is useless and does nothing.
I agree that prohibition doesn’t really prevent a thing from being consumed. However, I don’t think an age limit really counts as prohibition. Selling substances to those who are underage is bad and there should be potential consequences for doing so.
Underage in this scenario could be 40, 50, 60. They will just drive to an Indian reserve and buy cigarettes.
I assume you’re talking about teens though…I’m fine with the current age limits, but increasing the age by 1 year ever year won’t do anything.
Um, you do realize that Rishi Sunak is the Prime Minister of the UK? It’s a long and arduous drive to the nearest Indian reservation.
This is on world news, so I took it as world change. But no, I didn’t know that
On balance I think it’s a good thing. A gradual ban like this will help break the smoking culture and save some lives. Maybe it will help gen-z get laid too.
If it doesn’t work then why are the vast majority of minors non smokers?
Probably because the vast majority of adults are also non smokers.
Why have laws against drunk driving or speeding? You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.
It’s true, you can’t stop people from doing what they want to do with laws, but smoking doesn’t smear a child down the street for everyone to see. What a terrible comparison
Fine, why have laws against littering, or smoking in public buildings, or jaywalking, or embezzlement? People are just going to do those things anyway, no matter what is written on paper.
We have laws to provide an enforcement mechanism for behavior that is unacceptable in our society. You’re right, in that laws written on paper can be ignored, but you do so at a risk of the penalties laid out in the law. Your argument essentially invalidates the purpose and effectiveness of every law. Clearly, we have laws and they work, so your argument is frivolous and empty.
Why not just ban Marijuana again…
Because the social perception of marijuana use has changed? You’re not really keeping up with the conversation here…
I am, but it will always go back to the same. You want big daddy to protect you from others doing harm to themselves, whereas I see people being able to police themselves and if they screw up it’s their problem.
If only smoking harmed just the user, but secondhand smoke kills children daily in the US. https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/secondhand-smoke
It’s also been found that 3rd-hand smoke can be just as dangerous a secondhand smoke. Not to mention that smoking smells awful and makes indoor and outdoor public places unpleasant. Smokers also routinely fail to dispose of cigarettes properly, leading to unsightly and unhealthy toxic litter, and causes multiple uncontrolled forest/wildfires every year.
You need to throw out your preconceived notions about smoking and the purpose of laws, they are not compatible with reality.
The war on drugs can’t work because the CIA uses illicit drug running to fund off-the-books projects.
Maybe if they stopped fucking doing that?
It’s not the 1980’s. Reagan’s long dead. What makes you think they still do that?
Sure on a global scale, but on a more macro level, the war on drugs failed because people want to buy and consume drugs… if there is no legal, regulated, safe method to buy them then the black market will fill that gap… same under rationing, same under prohibition, same with drugs and in the future cigarettes…!
There is a legal, regulated, mostly safe method to buy cigarettes. It is inaccessible if you are under a certain age, but only the seller/provider is punished for violating regulations. It’s okay to have restrictions on what children can consume.
While current laws on illegal drugs do not work, arguing against any regulation whatsoever is similarly silly, the laws obviously work. Smoking rates have dramatically declined since those laws and public education campaigns began.
The war on drugs succeeded, because it was actually a war on black people. It was never meant to stop drug abuse.
Don’t leave out hippies and hispanics. Cannabis is called ‘marijuana’ in the US because it stoked anti-hispanic racism. It was also a convenient way to attack liberals in general.
I would like to congratulate drugs, for winning the War on Drugs.
True, but the want of cigarettes is much lower than recreational drugs. One of the reasons they’re still so popular is because they’re legal and easy to get.
I don’t smoke and never have, but I can’t imagine anyone starting smoking in order to get some effect like with marijuana.
Yet, the addiction of cigarettes is much more powerful than non narcotic drugs & every day new people are starting smoking.
I think you’re wrong. The market isn’t magic, it needs supply to meet demand and there is a steady supply of drugs to fulfill the demands because of state intervention in the market. The CIA isn’t the only government entity that uses the drug trade to raise illicit funds for off-the-books jobs, it’s just the biggest. If it weren’t for bad state actors, the war on drugs probably would have worked to a large extent; maybe not eliminate the drug trade completely, but at least reduce the volume of trade substantially.
The war on drugs can’t work because people want drugs. Has literally fuck-all to do with anything or anyone else.
Drug smuggling could never be totally eliminated but I’m sure the government could do a better job if the goal was actually to stop the drug trade.
But that is not and never was the goal.
lame. create a legal path to execute the tobacco company execs instead.
deleted by creator
I hope this doesn’t happen because I love my ciggies, but this plan could actually accomplish what you people claim to want to accomplish.
Wait… no it won’t.
But still, at least it’s a genuine plan and not the systemic War on Drugs, prohibitionist, “put the underclass in the for profit prisons” bullshit all the prohibitionist circle-jerkers keep screaming into their echo chambers.
Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.
You could just as easily day “oh, ban asbestos? I guess we gotta save everybody from themselves, what a nanny state.”
This is bad logic that can be applied to any safety law. As a society we observe and mitigate known harms, because we can’t expect every citizen to be up to date on every possible way to harm themselves without realizing it or understanding the true scope of the damage being done.
So yes; sometimes as a society we decide to save ourselves from ourselves. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I wasn’t aware people used asbestos recreationally.
And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?
I never said people use asbestos recreationally. But the logic is still the same. Why shouldn’t a person be allowed to buy a new house built with asbestos if they’re supposedly fully aware of the danger and risk of damage it does to their body over a long period of time? Everybody knows the dangers of asbestos, don’t they? The commercials tell us about asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma every day. Just let them make their own choices about asbestos, right? And while we’re at it, lead pipes, and lead paint, and grounded electrical outlets, and the list goes on.
We don’t want to have a nanny state, right? You should have to individually make all of these potentially life or death choices, all the time.
It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison. Comparing a personal use narcotic (which is combusted and spent in seconds causing harm to the user only - for the most part) with a hazardous material (which basically doesn’t degrade, huffs out cancer causing dust if you, or anyone else in the next century, work on it in any way and persists as hazardous waste if you want to dispose of it).
Lead pipes and lead paint also bleed into the environment pretty much for eternity. Why not go all the way and compare being able to buy cigarettes with being able to buy some plutonium for around the house?
It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison.
You said, “Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.” You then said “And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?” Everything I have said has been a direct attack on that line of logic and applies perfectly. We ban asbestos to protect people from buying it and hurting themselves, despite the fact that everybody is supposedly well aware of the harms. The same goes for lead paint and lead pipes; ungrounded outlets, admittedly, most people don’t actually fully understand, but the logic still largely applies. If you believe in the idea that we shouldn’t need to save people from harming their own bodies, that perfectly applies to these things as well.
If you want to go back and revise what you said to explain why it’s acceptable for society to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful construction materials but not to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful narcotics, then do that. Draw that distinction yourself if you think there is one instead of expecting me to read the wrinkles of your brain through the internet. You don’t get to be mad at me for arguing against the words you used, that’s all I have to go on.
So: when is it acceptable for society to save people from themselves, and when isn’t it?
All you’ve done here is prove that you’re ignorant. I suggest you look back and see that you’re arguing two different points with two different people as well as attributing words to me that I didn’t write.
If you actually read my post, l already answered the difference. Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith. Personal choice to smoke a cigarette is not equivalent to implanting a hazardous object into the environment. And I think you know that. If you honestly can’t see the difference, it’s willful ignorance.
You’re right, I didn’t notice you were a different person.
Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith.
There’s no greater environmental impact if a person chooses to insulate their own house with asbestos. My point still stands; draw me a clear distinction why a store can sell an individual person tobacco but not asbestos despite the fact that we know both cause long term lung damage.
No he really isn’t arguing that. It feels just pure bad faith from you here. You understand that pure anarchism has its problems, I am sure of it
Bad faith from me? Look inward.
There was a straight comparison banning cigarettes and asbestos. One is a recreational product, the other is a building material. You don’t accidentally find tobacco in your walls when renovating and inhale a bunch of smoke.
At no point did I suggest anarchy and being anti-prohibition is not a strictly anarchist philosophy as far as I’m aware.
Sure are a lot of authoritarian apologists up in here today
Authoritarianism is when tobacco companies can’t shove cigarettes down my kids neck.
It’s not shoving down their neck if they’re educated about the danger and choose to do it anyway. That’s called free will. Your job isn’t to sculpt or control your kids (bc that doesn’t ever work), your job is just to show them the ropes and hope they don’t fall down too much/too badly.
sir, have you considered you live in a society?
