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.
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?
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.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2023/12/hospital-admissions-due-to-smoking-up-nearly-5-per-cent-last-year-nhs-data-shows/
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5bn-more-than-previously-estimated
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?
It helps them quit. Which is good. See above, re overloading the healthcare system and costing a ton of money.
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.
I didn’t say anything about imprisoning people. Any legal consequence for possession of a plant is too far.
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.
Costing the British taxpayers money for the sake of your disease-causing pleasure is some real nonsense. If you want to argue that smoking-related diseases should be exempt from the NHS, fine. But you want to have your cigarette and smoke it too.
I suppose i wouldnt oppose a ban like that in theory, but because doctors rnt omniscient, in practice, you’d end up with either, smokers not being treated for illnesses completely unrelated to their smoking, or non smokers not being treated because doctors think its related to smoking. I mean how could u tell for 100% certain someone is a smoker, I can bet theres smokers out there w still perfectly white teeth etc and non smokers whos lungs r black from car exhausts. Is it really worth letting a non smoker die js because you dont wanna pay for the smoker too? Its hardly like people r gonna be honest abt smoking when they won’t get free healthcare for it
Of course not, but that’s the only option that allows people to enjoy their cancer sticks and not have everyone else pay for the cancer.
So ud genuinely rather non smokers die than let smokers get medical care? I feel like I have to be reading this wrong thats a bit psychopathic to admit that once someones smokes u actively dislike them so much ud be okay w collateral damage to prevent them getting medical care