172
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Plans to stop young people born since 2009 ever smoking are being debated and will be voted on later.

Rishi Sunak's bill aims to create the UK's first smoke-free generation in a major public health intervention.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill would ensure anyone turning 15 from this year would be banned from buying cigarettes, and also aims to make vapes less appealing to children.

A number of Tory MPs have told the BBC they won't back the bill.

The BBC understands that Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch is considering voting against the plans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 32 points 5 months ago

I’m all about personal choice and laws like this conflict me.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 14 points 5 months ago

Same. Normally I'd say "keep it legal" but smoking has significant second-hand effects, unlike something like motorcycle helmets for example (which I do not think should be legally mandated). I'm very torn on this one.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 5 months ago

I find the second hand effects argument a difficult one to swallow when we deal with car pollution, industrial waste, microplastics, and so much more on a minute to minute basis. Anyone who lives in a city has essentially no reasonable expectation of overly clean air.

Public spaces are just that—public—and there should not be an expectation of being insulated from every harmful output by your fellow citizens, within reason. I’d take the errant cigarette waft over a bus station fart any day.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

when we deal with car pollution, industrial waste, microplastics, and so much more

I'd support banning or heavily penalizing those things too, FWIW.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago

Don’t get me wrong, I want a clean world too, but what replaces the things we ban? Do we go back to horses (and all the animal cruelty that includes), or does someone foot the bill for everyone to get electric vehicles with charging stations that are 100% renewable?

Same with cigarettes—I’m ok with banning them in a world with free mental healthcare, humane working conditions, and stress relief spaces on every public block. Since that isn’t the world we live in though…I’m going to continue to defend people’s ability to reduce their stress with 5 minutes of nicotine, even if it is at the detriment of their own health. Some lives are so hard that extending them isn’t desirable—so the goal becomes to make the best of the time you have.

Seems silly to restrict or punish people for that reality, especially when nothing is being done to address the root causes of why people want to smoke in the first place.

[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

I find the second hand effects argument a difficult one to swallow when we deal with car pollution, industrial waste, microplastics, and so much more on a minute to minute basis.

'Everyone else is hurting you, so it should be okay for me to hurt you, too!'

It's 2024, and there are people who unironically think that two wrongs make a right.

The damage done by secondhand smoking is not an argument, it's a proven fact. It has been for decades.

overly clean air

You think that air can be too clean?

This reminds me of how smokers will try to exercise, start coughing because their lungs are clogged and trying to process the increase in oxygen, then using that to claim that exercise is bad for you.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 5 months ago

As a motorcycle rider: not wearing your helmet has significant second-hand effects on those who see your brains smeared across the highway.

You're also far more likely to take a rock to the face and become a danger to those around you before you crash without a helmet.

In other words: it's not just a personal choice and absolutely should be legally mandated

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 points 5 months ago

I don’t see any benefits to smoking but we can say that about many things. I’d like to live in a smoke free world but once we go down the path, we run into the issue where to start banning everything on health concerns.

I like being able to go out to eat and it be smoke free but I wish the market had decided that.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 months ago

we run into the issue where to start banning everything on health concerns.

Not really. Soda for example doesn't harm others, regardless of how much you drink. Smoking is different.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago

If you’re smoking by yourself, you are not impacting anyone. In the United States, it’s banned indoors almost everywhere. The main impact is to the user.

[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 4 points 5 months ago

Smokers are some of the nastiest people when it comes to littering.

[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Smokers litter!

Great now that we have established this fact of life, force tobacco corporations to make cigarette butts biodegrade at a faster rate.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 3 points 5 months ago

I just don’t get that.

When I was young I would just toss them out the window, but as I got older I realized how fucked up that was.

It doesn’t take long to just stick the butt out the window and let the cherry burn off, then you can trash it in the car without the smell

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

Lots of smokers do so around their kids. How do you police that?

[-] capem@startrek.website 4 points 5 months ago

I dunno.

It's illegal to jack off in front of your kids.

Why don't we make it illegal to smoke in the same house as them, too?

Both seem equally-difficult to police.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Excellent analogy - you're right.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

It hurts if you throw the can hard enough. /s

[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 6 points 5 months ago

If you ride without a helmet, you're too dumb to get a licence

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 months ago

I agree that it's incredibly stupid, but if being stupid were illegal, we'd have an awful lot of people in prison.

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

I smoke a lot. It's basically the only vice I can do anymore, so I enjoy it.

I wouldn't want anyone else to take it up though.

[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago

Then get off your ass and mentor some youths.

[-] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

Why would I do something you want to do? I never once said anything about mentoring anyone.

[-] FierySpectre@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Even motorcycle helmets have a significant secondary psychological impact for bystanders... The difference between seeing someone slide and seeing a human crayon go splat is huge.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 5 months ago

I don't like these laws.

If you're going to ban it, ban it from being sold on the grounds that it poses a danger to the buyer.

If someone wants to grow their own, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it, except sell it.

[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 5 months ago

It's a drug ban. I am not conflicted. It will go the way of alcohol, weed and every other illegal drug.

We've been able to effectively curtail tobacco use by regulating the shit out of it.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

Yes and no. Drugs, okay, but not ones which so negatively affect those around users.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 4 points 5 months ago

So everything legal, just no public use?

[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

That would be a very reasonable solution. Like not being allowed to drink in public. And drinking doesn't even have secondhand effects ...unless a drunk fall on top of you.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Private use still affects others such as the family members.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

But there is no guarantee of family being around. Hell I know someone who only smokes before a hunt, mind you its with a pipe and is a family tradition of his but its still smoking. Him smoking in the middle of the woods aint hurten no one.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Not sure what your point is. People do smoke in their homes with family around, and in their cars. This should protect them.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Vaping doesn't really. I mean, the user's still got a nicotine addiction, but there isn't a sidestream smoke issue.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
172 points (96.2% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2393 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS