Sunak proposes raising smoking age every year to create 'smoke-free' generation
https://news.sky.com/story/sunak-proposes-raising-smoking-age-every-year-to-create-smoke-free-generation-12976625Open linkView original on lemmy.world838
Comments435https://news.sky.com/story/sunak-proposes-raising-smoking-age-every-year-to-create-smoke-free-generation-12976625Open linkView original on lemmy.world
Everyone here is arguing the benefits of prohibition. I'm just interested to know how much money Rishi (and/or his family members/friends/donors) have invested in vaping and nicotine alternatives.
It always confuses me to learn that when people want to ban smoking it somehow means ban "cigarettes" and not "nicotine"
Because smoking is WILDLY more harmful than vaping.
Yes vaping has SOME health risks, but it's like saying drinking tea and drinking four loko are just as bad because they both have caffeine
Well what's wrong with nicotine? In itself it's not worse than booze. It's all the other crap they add that makes it so terrible
Hi from the depths of a nicotine addiction and struggling to quit. Its a worthless chemical that gets more expensive everyday and my brain SCREAMS at me for a fix if I try to go more than even a few hours. At least heroin gets you high.
is not doing your argument any favors.
I mean I'm no expert but I do have some knowledge on the subject.
The difference is how you injest it. Our stomachs are much more resilient than our lungs. Your stomach is, for all intents and purposes, a sac of acid that dissolves mostly anything you put in it, your lungs on the other hand literally only do 1 thing all day and it's breathe air. There are different qualities of air of course, and microparticles in it that could cause harm, but on the whole it's more or less all the same.
Its like dumping garbage into a sink vs. a paper bag. The sink will get disgusting, and you may end up with a clogged drain, messed up pipes, or worse. But at the end of the day if you just clean the mess and don't do it too often it will probably be fine. The paper bag on the other hand is gonna get Soggy, gross, and start falling apart in your hands. You can dry it out but it will never quite be the same..
Are you kidding? Booze is incredibly harmful!
In the US it's the opposite, which is absolutely bizarro land. Want to ban vapes but not cigarettes.
Well, nicotine isn't the part of smoking that causes cancer
But it's the part that is addictive and keeps you smoking.
If it's not too harmful - what's the problem with being addicted? I'm addicted to coffee and drink at least two cups per day, as do most people around here.
Nobody out there is just buying Nicotine gum for the flavor. The overwhelming majority are struggling with an addiction that may one day kill them.
Also, as a former smoker of over 20 years as well as a current coffee addict, I can tell you from personal experience that there is no comparison between the two. Some substances are simply more addictive than others. Nicotine is one of the worst on the planet.
You say that, but even if there was a pill that instantly cured all addiction, I'd probably still crave coffee every day.
...because there isn't a pill that instantly cures all addiction. Addiction is a complicated thing that combines a lot of factors between physical dependence, pleasure-seeking, memory formation, and a lot more.
Idk man, I vaped for years many times a day and was able to quit very easily, but sugar and caffeine I just can't, they're so much more addictive to me.
The problem with addiction is that it's safe to say that NOTHING is good if used to excess.
I used to be so hooked on caffeine I drank a 30-cup pot each day. It was giving me all kinds of issues, and I was only in my 20's. I'm still addicted, but I've learned to moderate. It took me years. And my 4th latte of the day is telling me that I'm not exactly great at it.
If I smoked/vaped Nicotine, I would have serious problems of taking too much all the time.
Are you suggesting you want caffeine banned?
Not at all. I don't suggest any bans. I said elsewhere I would not oppose pre-rolled cigarette bans because they are especially dangerous and would not reduce access to the product itself. But I also don't suggest pre-rolled cigarette bans.
If addiction is a problem, should the general use of caffine be banned then? Thats why its kinda odd to specifically ban nicotine.
Choosing to ban specifically nicotine and not caffine is as silly as the idea that cigarettes should be legal but weed shouldnt.
Probably, yes. Even the age restrictions are kinda silly.
I do think it's ok to ban sale of "prepared smokables" like cigarettes. The harm level is known to be severe. But if someone wants to buy their own tobacco+papers and roll their own cigarettes, that's on them.
Of course, I don't think it would be effective to ban cigarettes. Just ethically coherent.
The addicting part isnt the nicotine. Its everything atound it. The ritual, the friends the "doing something with your hands".
The psychological addiction is way stronger than the nicotine addiction that you can just overcome in 2 weeks.
What do you think is fuelling that connection?
The full effects of vaping are not well understood, and while they're almost certainly not as bad as cigarettes, they're also almost certainly still bad for you, and they are indeed still addictive for the same reasons as cigarettes because they still use nicotine.
Further, one main reason their risks remain as poorly understood as they do is that (again, because of the same active ingredient) people who vape often also use cigarettes. The two are closely linked, I don't think my confusion should be so easily dismissed as that.
Oh sorry, I was thinking nicotine supplements like gum and patches. In my mind, smoking and vaping are the same thing. "Don't inhale particulate matter of any kind" is an excellent rule of thumb for all humans in all situations
Exactly my point. It always throws me for a minute when I realize people are treating them so separately.
So you're against smelling flowers, too? And scented candles?
The problem is that we "inhale particulate matter" all the time. Every day of our lives.
Yes, and it kills people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8140409/#:~:text=The%20World%20Health%20Organization%20estimates,PM2.5)%20in%20polluted%20air.
You're not that stupid. You know the difference between inhaling concentrated particulates from a cigarette or vape and smelling a fucking flower. (Which, by the way, pollen grains are average 10-20 microns, not 2.5.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7937385/#:~:text=Many%20studies%20have%20reported%20that,2020%3B%20Schober%20et%20al.%2C
And you're not that stupid. You know that fine particulate matter in the air every breath we take is different from someone vaping sometimes. There's a reason your linked study doesn't mention vaping AND why scientists are still saying the risks of vaping are unclear.
Your second study is more useful, but it really is not intellectually defensible to take it results as saying vaping is unhealthy. Instead, its results are saying that we need to keep regulations to control air quality with regards to vaping.
I'll reiterate my original critique.
...is something I disagree with, like most extreme naive generalities.
That used to say that about artificial sweeteners. The question shouldn't be "is it bad for you" but "is it worse for you than 99 other things you do in a day". And vaping nicotine is "almost certainly bad for you" because of the nicotine, and nicotine is a known quantity - we know how bad it is and isn't. We don't have evidence that the mechanism of vaping is bad for you, and there's no "almost certainly" on that.
And the truth is, I have problems with people who lean on "poorly understood" for vaping. Evidence shows vaping as a mechanism (for THC as it were) going back over 2000 years to ancient Egypt. Widespread use of hookahs started in the 19th century and has tons mechanically in common with modern vaporization. There are some differences, but short of a few badly-designed vapes that let air reach the lungs while superheated, it looks a lot like people are saying "not well understood" because they cannot seem to "understand" bad things and they don't want to say good things. We have TONS of research precedent around room-temperature air with vaporized herbs in it.
If I were going to imbibe nicotine (or CBD or THC for that matter), I would probably prefer to vape it. I think the stigma against vaping needs to step aside for the vaccine research considering using vapes as an alternative to needle injection.
Hookah is pretty bad for you too, my friend. From Wikipedia, emphasis mine:
If the best you can say is "it's pretty much a mini hookah, don't worry", then I'm going back to the best you can say for it is that it's poorly understood. Vaping doesn't burn anything, unlike a hookah, but the vaporized oils still contain toxins and novel toxins not in the smoke from cigarettes or hookah. The health consequences of that are not well understood, but are probably not as bad as cigarette smoking. That's the best we've got.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said we have a lot more context than people want to pretend about vaping in general.
And I'm not trying to say "it's a mini hookah", nor am I trying to say you should vape.
If they contain toxins, we probably know quite a bit about those toxins right now. But what about pure vaporized solids? In the CBD and Cannabis community, dry herb vaporizing is the hot new thing specifically because 99% of complaints about vaping being unhealthy are irrelevant. All they do is get the herbs hot without burning it, run it through cooling, and inhale it. I laugh, but I used to do that with lavender with an aromatic herb heating unit.
Despite your incredulity, you really haven't shown that. The consequences are not perfectly understood, but we understand enough to start making educated opinions about vaping. Even your points about hookahs work towards that, with the worst cons being that you still get Carbon Monoxide and the intensity of Nicotine is high. The problem is that we don't want to tell people that the educated opinion is "probably better for you than that glazed donut"
Because probably it was defined as burning, not usage of nicotine
But why? The full effects of vaping are not well understood, and while they're almost certainly not as bad as cigarettes, they're also almost certainly still bad for you, and they are indeed still addictive for the same reasons as cigarettes. Further, one main reason their risks remain as poorly understood as they do is that (again, because of the same active ingredient) people who vape often also use cigarettes. The two are closely linked, I don't think my confusion should be so easily dismissed as that.
Banning nicotine would be going too far. Nicotine in and of itself isn't that bad, it's the delivery methods that can be problematic. In particular the ones where you inhale things into your lungs. But there are smokeless tobacco and there are types of tobacco smoking where you don't inhale the smoke.
Who would want other nicotine options without cigarettes or vaping? No one is starting out with nicorette.
I tried to start with both a patch and gums years ago because of the stimulant benefits and the decent risk profile of nicotine on its own. I've never smoked, never will. Didn't stick - it was too hard to get used to. If I could get it as a flavourless pill, maybe.
Many people. There are many different tobacco products that either are smokeless or that you don't inhale that are common in different areas, like dip, snus, snuff, cigars, pipes and what have you. In some regions those are what people start using nicotine with.
Actually I started with nicorette because of nootropics blogs and nasal snuff. I've only ever smoked 1 cigarette although I did partake in some hookah.
Nicotine is the active psychoactive poison that gets you hooked. Its not harmless.
Psychoactive poison. Great argument there. List the negative effects of nicotine itself that you think are so bad that they require a ban instead of the problematic delivery methods.
It's "psychoactive" in the same way that caffeine is. That is, it's a stimulant. Using that term only serves the purpose of making it sound scarier. And it's far less addictive on its own than when smoked. It's not harmless, but it's also nowhere near as big a problem in itself as specific product categories and delivery methods, and no worse than any number of other things we're perfectly fine with people using.
Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety. There's little meaningful reason to ban nicotine. You're more likely to harm yourself with any number of other things we readily allow.
The addiction potential of nicotine alone is also far lower than people assume, because smoking is highly addictive both due to the rituals and the other substances involved. I tried to get used to nicotine via patches years back to use as a safe stimulant, and not only did I not get addicted, I couldn't get used to it (and I was not willing to get myself used to smoking, given the harm that involves). That's not to say you can't develop addictions to patches or vapes etc. too, but much more easily when it's as a substitution for smoking than "from scratch".
Restrictions on delivery methods that are harmful or not well enough understood, and combining nicotine with other substances that make the addiction and harm potential greater, sure.
A lot of the alternatives are already owned by Big Tobacco
You can go EU-way and say that all vapes should be rechargable(in both meanings), repairable and intercompatible. Basically opposite of what Big Tabacco does.
Disposable vapes should be banned.
Though even the reusable ones generate a decent amount of waste between coil assemblies that get replaced and the plastic bottles the juice comes in. I mean, I hope we eventually get to managing waste at that level, though I'm not holding my breath since it would require huge changes to the way we handle food logistics, which eclipses vape juice waste by a lot per person.
But the disposable ones are ridiculous.
You can build your own coils and mix your own liquid. Me and my mate both do it it's far cheaper and better for the environment, not too hard either once uve learnt the basics of materials and ohms n all.
But you cannot use them in disposable shit. Selling and producing disposable shit should be banned.
Glycerin costs 2.5$ for 1 liter bottle. And food flavoring about 6-10$ for 0.1 liter bottle.
Disposables could have a use assuming they were more like pods but made from biodegradable materials that are sustainably sources I,e wood or something but that wouldnt solve the coke bottles everywhere and those r worse. The problem isn't smoking or vaping and it never was the problem is companies knowing they could get away with not being ecologically responsible and by putting the blame on disposables bring used, all you do is help them shift the blame away.
Greenwashing.
Halp! I have no idea how to recharge my cigar! Beyond that, i really have no idea how Big Tobacco would comply with these regulations.
At all or while making insane profit and producing a lot of waste? At all simple: just look how vapes looked like before Big Tabacco came and enshittified them.
That isn't always the case though. Just look at climate scientists.
Some just want to ban smoking because they see how much damage it has done in their community.
But I'd also like to know if there was any vested interests.
I'm not sure what this has to do with climate scientists. What am I supposed to be looking at?
Rishi has a history of making legislation to benefit the companies run or owned by friends and family. I would be extremely surprised if this didn't also have a similar angle.
Just some good old "whataboutism". Maybe he sprinkles some climate-change denial into some prohibition discussion to distract us?
Climate activists want to, among other things, pass extremely unpopular carbon taxes as they're the most serious effort toward cutting fossil fuels usage
Extremely unpopular ideas that inevitably favor certain products are not always moves to sell those products, is the point
It's pretty reasonable to assume no one outside the UK knows much about Sunak's history with handouts to friends.
Who are carbon taxes unpopular with? Aside from politicians?
The people that have to pay them, I assume
People who don't understand we need to break our addiction to petroleum based fuel. Also People who make money off of petroleum based products.
I think you overestimate the size of these two groups. The group of people who care more about their own financials is likely a lot larger.
That's a matter of proper implementation. Tax & dividend! Distribute the tax revenue to the population per capita.
That means:
Since money is distributed unequally in society, this means most people will have to pay less in such a system.
The beautiful thing is, the financial incentive to emit less remains even for people who gain more than they pay. It's also an incentive both for buyers and sellers, researchers and investors.
It’s Rishi Sunak. Of course he has a financial interest somewhere.
It won’t work, though. Hell. He might be getting paid off by big Tabacco- make smoking edgy and rebellious again so more kids start up.
It’s the kind of thing those ghouls would try.
Rishi Sunak also just promised to ensure cars will be able to drive through heavily populated areas indefinitely and has pushed back plans to introduce electric-only cars. He absolutely does not care about peoples' health.
I see angry wankers want to moan for the sake of moaning.
Eliminating smoking is a goos thing! I'll take my wins whenever possible, doesn't happen all that often.
But but there are other things that are also bad and if one proposal doesn't solve everything it is complete trash!!!
Yea not everything is a partisan issue, and this seems like a good thing? Antismoking efforts have largely been successful in a lot of places.
It's not one of those things where someone is choosing to harm themselves only. Smoking affects the people around you
So many people like to portray everything as a 'personal choice' while ignoring all said implications to others. Very rarely does something only actually impact you.
With enough hoop jumping anything can have a terinary chain of impact if you need to justify your cause.
Too many people use it as a cop-out to avoid being accountable. It's like when meat eaters say it's a 'personal choice.' Like yeah, it is a choice you mean, but it also implicates other things not only you.
It’s gobsmacking what people will argue for. Shines a light in the general dimness of people.
The difference being that cigarettes are always unhealthy, no matter how many you smoke, they procure zero benefits. McDonald's is just a meal and becomes an issue if you eat too much of it, once every now and then won't have any consequences.
I mean... I wouldn't complain if megacorporation fast food restaurants that provide nothing but cheap, unhealthy junk were driven out of business...
Banning it for everyone is OK, telling some people that they can't ever because they were born too late is silly, discriminatory and will inevitably create a flourishing black market.
"If I don't like it, then neither should anyone else!" - you
"If it harms the people using it (and makes them addicted and unable to stop even if they wish to), the people around them, and the planet, I don't like it"
So, ban alcohol then.
Cause that worked so well the first time.
If I never have to smell cigarette smoke again and also no one ever uses the medical system to cure the consequences of smoking then I don't care. Otherwise I am all for this.
First and foremost, people have the right to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes as long as it isn't harming innocent bystanders.
Arguably more importantly, the proposed ban is worryingly dystopian.
Finally, agreeing with anything Sunak does is unforgivable. And in this case would reflect neo-liberal sympathies.
Considering that's exactly what second hand smoke does, I really don't see what point you're trying to make.
What they are trying to say is to ban it in public areas, but not at home.
But consumption isn't being banned...
Except it doesn't, less than 9% of the population in the USA uses tobacco in any form, including in that group is past smokers and vapers so it's probably around 7% or less. Continually attacking a vice that's basically done is just virtue signaling bullshit. Alcoholism has skyrocketed and kills way more people a year, and obesity is now our number one killer by miles. No one is dying from second hand smoke...you sitting in traffic is doing way more damage to your body than getting a random breeze of smoke from someone outside.
No.
That's the thing with smoking though, second hand smoke is a big problem, especially for vulnerable people
You may not know it because you're a smoker (smokers' noses are completely and irreparably fucked), but normal people can tell a cigarette was lit in a 10 meter radius, even on a windy day.
See, you get it afterall!
I'm surprised they can still walk around outside, when there are literally cars everywhere. Those are killing way more people on 'second hand' exposure than tobacco.
Whataboutism.
Except smokers always insist on slowly murdering everyone around them and littering everything in their path. If you want to smoke in a hermetically sealed room and not get close to me for at least 6 hours after, fine by me.
I mean, I understand that it smells really bad to non smokers. On the other hand, statements like this seem so ridiculously over the top that it makes me question you as a person.
We live in car country - assuming you are German as well -, with a wide variety of unhealthy crap that you have to inhale on a daily basis. Smog, exhaust fumes, half the food we can buy is unhealthy.
Honestly I don’t understand how people can be so worked up about smokers in that context. Is it because those are people you can bitch at and boss around, instead of nebulous corps and governments who ignore your calls for climate action and environment protection?
Otherwise it makes no sense. Smokers are already segregated away from non smokers nowadays, what about their freedom to live (or die) as they want? Your freedom not to smell unpleasant things doesn’t trump that. Me farting in your vicinity doesn’t constitute harm to your individual rights.
Your freedom ends where mine begins. You are free to kill yourself, but not to blow cancerous substances on top of me - and yes, that should include cars.
I generally agree, just that it seems cheap to pile on smokers like they are some sort of lepers. Also you are free to go somewhere else when around a smoker. Their habit doesn’t make them second class citizens, or should I say your freedom ends where theirs begins?
If we want clean air we have to start with the actual polluters, not the easy pickings who are just random people. That’s like, obsessively worrying about your personal climate impact when the vast, vast majority of climate change is caused by just a handful of corporations.
Their children aren't.
Not always.
That's not how it works.
They're literally cancer sticks...
I guess we should allow people to sell antifreeze as both an industrial chemical and a soft drink. Arguably, people have the right to quickly and painfully kill themselves as well.
Humans have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Banning it will only allow the black market to swell to an unimaginable size
These are cigarettes. Engineered to be as addictive as possible. We aren't talking about hand rolled stogies here
They absolutely are talking about any form of tobacco...hell track and trace in the EU has effectively destroyed the nasal snuff industry in Germany...a form of tobacco that has no deaths on its hands... literally. This is just ignorance being used in the name of "think of the children" hell that's one of the main things everyone keeps bringing up in this thread.
Meanwhile, smoking has been on a sharp decline for decades, is no longer a mass killer...while obesity is and alcoholism has grown 10 fold, so much so that they created a new label called social drinkers because it would put a massive amount of the population into alcoholic territory.
You can imagine it, it would be less than the amount that is currently being smoked.
Not necessarily. People could actually start smoking more because tax free cigarettes are astronomically cheaper
Are people smoking less weed now it's legal in many US states?
Where do you think tax free cigarettes are going to come from?
They are either domestic bootlegs or imports. If cigarettes were actually fully banned, organized crime groups would begin mass cigarette smuggling and manufacturing operations. Sounds ridiculous, but it's true
By that logic we should continue slavery. Aren't you worried someone's going to purchase one of your children on the black market!?
Slaves don't grow on trees though
Moving the goalposts or something like that?
Of course, not counting the smoke, ash, and other toxic oxidized chemicals that will be kicked up by gas and diesel vehicles with his scrapping the HS2 Manchester line. What a fucking idiot. "Oh no, we brexited ourselves so hard that we're poor now and can't afford to build infrastructure that would stand to enrich multiple cities for hundreds of years!"
Such classic smooth brained thatcherite conservatives. It's mind numbing that people keep voting for them.
Calling him smooth brained is looking past the fact that it's just plain corruption. He has interests in the oil industry, and they are against public rail. Hold him to account for what he is, a criminal.
Honestly he's more corrupt than Boris Johnson which is saying something.
Of course. Why else would a billionaire want the job of leading a country?
At least nobody can outcorrupt Putin. Fuck him, fuck UR.
I mean, Sunak is a complete and utter bellend and cancelling half of HS2 is a ridiculous and nonsensical move.
But I think that the good old idiom about broken clocks might just apply here. Smoking bans are a good thing.
Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.
Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.
This is the real answer right here - this is just another poverty tax/punishment.
I don't smoke, never have, but I know why people smoke, and it's now (that it's no longer seen as "cool") almost exclusively to try and relieve a tiny bit of the mountain of stress that existing in the world today (especially as part of a marginalised group) brings, and there are a million better ways to reduce the need to smoke, and improve the health outcomes of smokers (eventually, hopefully, to the point where they are able to reduce smoking or stop altogether).
Sunak is looking for a quick "win" for headlines and distraction, not to actually help people live healthier better lives (E: just seen his transphobic comments, which only reinforce this point). Why target the source of the problem when you can slap a band aid on it and bask in your own glory for a couple of days before your next bit of corruption is exposed?
Counterpoint: A lot of people that smoke want to stop smoking. A lot of people would more easily stop smoking if it was banned or not so easily available.
Also from the title of the article it seems that this would never apply to people that already smoke legally. The idea is that you set a minimum age and then you increase it every year. Meaning that in 100 years smoking is banned for everyone. But nobody was never banned from smoking when they were legal before. They were just never allowed to. So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.
right, just like how it being illegal prevents young people from drinking and smoking weed... 🙄🙄🙄
Do you really disagree that it reduces the amount of young people consuming those substances?
Yes, For example, youth cannabis use halved in Canada after legalization. Also, when I was in HS, people were smoking even though it's illegal under the age of 18. People would just buy cigarettes from reserves and sell them to each other. If made illegal, people will just find other means to get it.
Prohibition doesn't work but better education does.
The proposal is to raise the legal smoking age every year. Meaning each yearly increase, this hypothetical 47yo will also age a year and so will be able to smoke forever
Not if he wanted to pick up smoking one year before legal age. So he will be chasing that legal age forever and can't smoke even if he's 68
That isn't how time works.
Are you saying that time advances at a different rate to human aging? 1 year to the earth is how many years to a human?
Yes, I love it when people buy things from black markets too.
This is the smoking ban thread
It's hard to believe so many people vote for them
Well recent polling would suggest that they no longer will be voting for them.
He's still an MP, so those in his riding would have voted for him, and the Tory party members voted for him, and the rest of the country voted for members of his party that include Lettuce Head and BoJo, so they did vote for a numbskull from his party to be in power.
The fact that I have no idea what her name is but still know exactly who you're talking about when you say Lettuce Head is endlessly amusing to me.
Ah yes, because making drugs illegal has worked so well in the past.
Setting age limits on substance use is a little different from criminalizing possession/use. In the case of smoking, it has helped reduce rates. This is something backed by people working in public health, who also support decriminalization for possession and bringing in safe consumption sites. It's all about finding the right approach for an issue.
I'd rather focus on calling out the OTHER bad stuff his government is doing, instead of turning this one partisan based on which party introduced it
It's not really an age limit when you'll never reach it, it's just gradual criminalization.
That's not true. It's a ban on the sale not possession or consumption. The end user is not being criminalized.
Theoretically there's nothing stopping from importation (barring implementation of another law).
But this isn't am age limit, its using an age limit as a hack to basically grandfather in a smoking ban. It is about finding the right approach, and this ain't it.
Why isn't this it?
For the same reason prohibition of alcohol didn't work, for the same reason the drug war didn't work, for the same reason prescription requirements for medically useful narcotics doesn't work. It doesn't matter what the law is, people will make their own choices, and if the things are available, legally or not, people that want to use them will use them.
Look at the US. For all it's faults, it has handled smoking very very well. The younger generation basically doesn't smoke cigarettes. They're not banned from it for life, they just were informed about it and so they find it disgusting and don't really do it. You can't even really get a date anymore with someone if you smoke cigarettes and you're under like 40.
This really varies by state, based on the smoking policies. In Republican led states, smoking policies have led to shorter life spans.
Whilst I agree with you in that I don't think this is an optimal approach, at the same time I'm curious as to whether this would create a significant black market for cigarettes.
Anybody already addicted will continue to have access. Anyone not addicted has to overcome the barrier of acquiring it illicitly, which works in tandem with education about the harm it does.
Considering how bulky cigarettes are compared to most other drugs, I wonder whether most dealers would carry around loads of cigarettes - particularly if they'd be at risk of being prosecuted for having them (which I don't think is the case here, though).
However, it would probably increase the rate at which weed is cut with tobacco as it increases the addictiveness and ensures customer dependency for the dealers.
I got my first cigarette from a uda (local gang) dealer. So yes there would be a black market for cigs
Making things easily available increases their rates of use
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/
Except it doesn't. Vapes are super easy for kids to get, yet somehow they don't stick with it.
https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/7995/CDC-reports-confirm-benefits-of-raising-tobacco?autologincheck=redirected
Raising age limits on smoking has not reduced rates, making tobacco use taboo in society and knowing how dangerous it is for you has. In the US like 9% use any form of tobacco (which it's more likely around 7% or less because they include people who have smoked in their lives and quit as well). At this point no one is really smoking... going after tobacco still is just stupid.
It's more like 18-19% in the US.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10168602/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20an%20estimated%2046,hookah)*%20(0.9%25).
Edit: not sure why the link got all fucky but it still works, somehow.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1717/Tobacco-Smoking.aspx
%11...not 18-19% at all.
That's smoking, not tobacco products use. Vaping, for instance, is its own category.
Tobacco use includes more options, so the numbers will be higher
Not really, cigar and pipe tobacco smokers are a rounding error against the population...nasal snuff users even less. Vaping is only added to pad the numbers. Let's get real here, cigarette smokers are what is being effected, not other forms of tobacco use which are basically non existent.
By "pad the numbers" you mean "accurately reflect reality?"
I am aware that cigarette smokers are who is affected by this policy but that is not the discussion at hand.
Also raising age limits did reduce smoking rates, but also neither here nor there as this policy is not strictly about raising age to purchase but effectively forming a generational cutoff.
Sunak is really reaching here, to say the least, but the data is the data. It's not worth trying to ignore reality.
https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/is-raising-the-sales-age-of-tobacco-reducing-youth-smoking/2021/04
https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/7995/CDC-reports-confirm-benefits-of-raising-tobacco?autologincheck=redirected
Read the article for fucks sake.
They're not making the drug illegal, just cigarettes. People who want nicotine still have other options.
It's like how no one goes out of their way to make/sell pure ethanol, because you can still buy beer or vodka.
That's still prohibition.... it's flat out dumb. A kid isn't smoking a $10 cigar...
Smoking is redundant today. Kids are getting enough cancer from the environment already.
It's not redundant. Harms compound. It's not like people max out their carcinogenic index or something. 🙄
Pretty much anything in the state of California
This product is known to the state of California
Why not making the warnings be available elsewhere?
That law is an excellent example of knowledge vs wisdom. Knowledge is knowing that some substances may be carcinogenic. Wisdom is knowing that the dosage of a carcinogen is so low it hardly poses any risk.
To be fair though that's hard to put on a warning label and harder to explain.
That wasn't funny or clever.
It's just a fact, I don't think it needs to be funny or clever.
It's not a fact though, but I'm glad we can both agree it wasn't funny or clever.
Just hyperbole.
True anyways
What is funny or clever, oh great wise bobman of unilem of org?
Lol, why do you people always get upset when someone says something isn't funny?
It was just a rude and aggressive thing to say intended to make someone feel bad about IMO a valid (or at worst innocuous) comment.
Not really. It's to show them the reality that some people think what they said wasn't funny.
You seem to think that it's only acceptable to say a joke is funny, but not that it isn't.
You seem to think anyone cares about what you think is or isn't funny.
What? Lol.
Unfortunately these days, you'll find that reality is neither
So we would eliminate smoking the same way we eliminated drug use...by making it illegal.
/S if necessary
Smoking's already dramatically fallen out of popularity with younger people, being replaced by vaping. So I don't think it really matters what they do at this point - smoking's a dinosaur waiting to die.
From someone who has smoked and quit, I was really blind sided by how addictive nicotine was. People talk about adults and what they put in there body but nicotine really is a different monster
Or do it like Germany: make vaping extremely expensive so people go back to smoking. Stupid.
One problem: most smokers start as teens, all while it's forbidden to sell kids the cancer sticks.
Addition: I would punish the selling of tobbaco products to kids even more, including the ability of suing the adults for damages in the future (If it won't cause a cobra problem later on), and also give the ability to non-smoking workers to sue their employers if they give smokers more breaks.
My 13-year-old daughter already has friends who vape. That's how insidious it is and how deeply embedded in the public consciousness nicotine-based products are.
Most kids aren't vaping anything with nicotine in it. Most are vaping 0mg juices and trying to look cool blowing clouds. Nicotine isn't a super addictive chemical, it's about as addictive as caffeine. Smoking cigarettes and vaping are habit forming, it's why almost all smoking cessation forms fail multiple times for people.
bullshit
nicotine is incredibly addictive - and it’s very hard to break. and no, caffeine is less addictive. Much less addictive.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100713144920.htm
https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/nicotine--no-more-harmful-to-health-than-caffeine-.html
Nicotine is not incredibly addictive, the habit of smoking is. It's why NRT have basically a 95% failure rate.
Habits forming actions like biting your nails, are also incredibly hard to stop and their is no underlying drug there.
The who nicotine is bad for you and causes cancer is also bullshit. The bad science that was used against smoking and still used today was done for the public good. It's why a lot of studies are starting to come out that, nicotine isn't what's the issue...the inhalation of smoke and the habit of doing so are.
Sorry but no. habits generally take weeks to months to form. that smoking becomes habitual certainly makes quitting harder. there is no doubt there. but, if smoking was far less addictive, it would be far less likely to ever develop as a habit. Remember, that nicotine from smoking (or vaping) starts affecting your brain essentially instantly, creating a dopamine hit, as well as the other affects. it is that which makes nicotine addictive. not some random associated habits that developed over weeks or months.
Also your sources aren't very good. In the first, there's no direct link to the studies in question, but based entirely on what was said int he article... I'm doubting very much they took into consideration the use of alternatives by flight attendants- patches and gums are extremely common among FA's that smoke; specifically to manage the cravings while they're forbidden from smoking. And from what I can tell with a quick search (I'm far from authoritative here,) snuff has been used as an alternative to smoking on shabbat... from pretty much the first time it was brought to Europe, so I would have to assume patches are also a viable method of controlling cravings there as well.
In any case, nobody really says that nicotine causes cancer. At least, no one even remotely honest.
tobacco use causes cancer. As RSPH notes:
however it goes on to be wrong about one thing:
vapes frequently contain toxic chemicals. many are frequently contaminants from extraction; some are added as flavoring or turn into toxic chemicals because of being vaporized, which changes chemical structures. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Nobody really knows for sure what the long term impacts of vaping is- even if the vape juice is just water; we don't really know if it's safe or not. One thing people do know is that Nicotine is addictive, and that you keep saying it's 'not that bad' makes me think maybe you're trying to justify something. I don't care if you smoke or vape. nobody here does. But I do care that you're spreading misinformation about things.
Talk to any one whose tried quitting both caffeine and nicotine. there's really no comparison between the two; and saying there's not is patent bullshit.
I just quit vaping like a week or two ago and it was fucking miserable for a week straight. Caffeine isn't nearly as bad when I've quit that, but nicotine withdrawals are fucking horrible and they feel like they last forever.
Congrats on quitting. That took a lot of determination, I'm sure.
I quit caffeine and it took me 2 weeks of shakes and fevers to get over it. The withdrawals were horrible. I smoke cigars and pipe tobacco regularly and quit every winter with no issues.
Why do you think nicotine is not very addictive? I saw several studies that called it a highly addictive substance (for example this review about e-cigarettes). By the way, the review is overall very interesting and worth reading.
Nicotine is on the same level of addictiveness as heroin and cocaine lol.
That sounds like some D.A.R.E. bullshit. If that's the case then I'd be perfectly fine trying heroin once because I won't get addicted to it. I've tried nicotine a few times, now, and I have less than zero interest in trying it again. You can make your point without being hyperbolic
You probably wouldn't get addicted to heroin on the first try... Have you never taken opiate painkillers? Were you immediately addicted after your first dose? Sounds like DARE failed you as well.
You do not get the same high with nicotine as you do with heroin. It's a bullshit lie told to kids to keep them from smoking. So many of you seem to have swallowed this crap hook line and sinker.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100713144920.htm
Nicotine is about as addictive as caffeine. It sucks but the habit is what causes people to stay addicted. It's why nicotine replacement treatments don't work, and why vaping has a way higher success rate of getting people to stop than anything pharma companies have come up with.
Lmfao.
The review study I linked says vaping doesn't have higher success rate when it comes to stopping.
The FDA would disagree.
Yes the same FDA who pushes for NRT...the same NRT that have people failing to quit...and committing suicide while on them...also no where in your link does it show what mg kids are vaping.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/
1% is what your looking at for kids that get addicted to vaping...
Nicotine is highly addictive. Nice try Mr. Big Tobacco.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100713144920.htm
What evidence do you have that this is not detrimental to their health and development? Because as far as I know, no major studies have been done.
Are you asking if nicotine is bad for you or ???
That isn't true, Elf bars and Lost Marys are so easy for kids to get hold of and it is 100% what they're using.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/
That data is 6 years out of date and times have massively changed. Seriously, just go walk down the street after the kids have finished school for the day and your eyes will be opened.
This report is from 2 years ago so still out of date, but you can see the change that happened just in the 4 years between this and the one you linked:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaping-in-england-evidence-update-february-2021/vaping-in-england-2021-evidence-update-summary
Thanks, troll, for mixing valid points with blatant bullshit.
Also caffeine is neurotoxin.
https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/nicotine--no-more-harmful-to-health-than-caffeine-.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100713144920.htm
I mean I can back up my claims. This isn't rocket science. Most kids in the smoking years (50-00s) started smoking to look cool and older...hell there are even studies that show most people hate it at first.
I didn't compare harm, I was saying that caffeine is very useful neurotoxin. Meanwhile nicotine is completely useless at best.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent-expert-e-cigarettes-evidence-review
https://www.rsph.org.uk/about-us/news/nicotine--no-more-harmful-to-health-than-caffeine-.html
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/nicotine-the-wonder-drug
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8078469/
Want me to go on?
Nicotine isn't the harmful drug the anti-tobacco groups have you believing.
Soooo? We were talking specifically about nicotine and caffeine, not smoking and drinking coffee. Burning organic compunds is very nasty ofc. Again "it is useless at best".
See. Useless at best.
Yeah, but then ultimately it becomes illegal for everyone to own them. Meaning shops cant sell them.
Then comes the black-market.
Black market of dead souls.
Yeah, honestly I think it would make more sense to increase the age at which it's legal to sell to 25 (under the justification that supposedly that's when your brain has finished developing), and then allow it from there on to prevent it becoming a way to support illegal activity.
They change their main supplier
My first cigarette at the ripe old age of 13 was illegally imported. I very much doubt it worked where you live and in reality teens just went more underground with their smoking.
I think New Zealand implemented a similar measure some years back, it should probably be good to see how well it works there. Hopefully this doesn't create a black market for tobacco.
Yes we did. Have not heard anything about it since... so it's probably working as intended.
We're currently freaking out about vape shops springing up every ten feet.
My first cig was illegally imported and sold by a dealer involved with gangs. All its done is make people get tobacco from their dealer rather than the guy outside the shop.
And where does teens get the idea to smoke from? Is it from grandpa that coughs louder than a jet engine? Or is it the older cooler teens who got the idea from older teens, who got the....
You get the point.
I smoked as a teen because some of my friends did, they smoked because some of their friends did. And you don't have to look very far to find the 18-20 year olds who provided them.
Luckily, I never smoked much and mostly kept it to social smoking which made it very easy for me to quit once I grew up and developed some brain-cells that enjoyed co-operating with eachother.
Yeah but the 18 year old buys for the 15 year old-- brothers, sisters, upperclassmen, etc.
The more that gap becomes larger, the less likely they have social interaction and access. How many 40 year olds buy for 15 year olds today? In 20 something years, 40 year olds will be the youngest purchasers.
Yeah, one of the best bits of WFH is that I can take as many breaks as my nicotine obsessed colleagues.
Afaik NZ has already implemented such a rule.
He should also star making crimes illegal so that they can live in a society without crime /s.
Finally something sensible from this guy. Last week it was all big auto lobby nonsense.
I feel we've done a good enough job at making smoking undesirable, effectively banning it is excessive. It would be better to focus on doing what was done to cigarettes to vapes. Kids arent smoking nearly as much but theyre vaping like mad. I see kids as young as 13-14 doing it. Vapes are allowed to look appealing, combine that with their nice smell and flavour, ofc young people are going to gravitate toward them instead.
Make it so vape packaging is bland and has similar warnings as cigarretes, and actually teach kids about addiction instead of just a hard "dont touch these". Everyone with a braincell knows that if you ban something from young people, theyre gonna do it more
the problem is there's actually zero evidence vapes alone (without nicotine etc) do any harm. The vapes which the industry is moving towards is just largely the same as steamed and cooling water vapour. It's totally harmless.
Sadly though, vaping is associated almost entirely with nicotine. I know plenty who vape, but no one who vapes 0% juice. I havent personally done much research about them but inhaling any fumes is a net negative. Although vapes are far less harmful tham cigarettes, nicotine addiction is still there, and these kids are getting it. Im one of the few of my generation that used vapes for their original purpose, quitting smoking and they work great, but its depressing af seeing kids caning vapes just knowing its already an addiction for them
I mean I very recently got diagnosed with polycythaemia that was caused by excessive vaping. Which has seen marked improvement since I stopped.
The problem is its still too new to do long term (10+ year) studies on vaping and health institutions still don't collect data on vape usage.
There's plenty of evidence that vapes are harmful not as harmful as cigarettes but still.
There's zero evidence! (just ignore the mounds of evidence saying that it's still fucking awful for you)
But what will boebert do while jerking off dudes at movie theaters?
I think they should raise it by 1 year every 2 years.
Broken clock right twice a day type of deal with Sunak
That's gonna work splendidly since underage people would never dare to smoke!
Ehhhhhh, you make it permanently harder for a generation and eventually, barring a political change, you need to find an 80 year old to boot cigarettes for you from that one shop down the road that still caters to a rapidly shrinking audience.
Not to say that this is a good idea or one with which but long-term, it could work. (Or at least reduce smoking to a relatively minor few.)
Eventually stores will just stop selling them. Why stock cigarette when you only sell 10 packs a month.
I think it’s a great idea. People will create a black market for them, but it will be really small and die out.
It’s not like you really get anything from it like you do from alcohol or other drugs.
There's already a black market for tobacco, and it will just grow in size not shrink. You can buy 50g for like £5 on DNMs.
Yeah, the risk is that if the black market becomes large enough, it will mean youths will have easier access to cheaper cigarettes than the current situation (with the added issue of cigarettes being entirely unregulated, meaning they're going to put God knows what in them).
Similar ehhhhhh as earlier.
There are moments when a cigarette gives you an amazing or just right, feeling, for lack of a better word. In reality you're just sating a self inflicted addiction, but it can feel great to do so.
I don't think it's a good trade, that's why I no longer smoke, but I understand the simple pleasure. Even if in the long, medium, heck, often even short term that pleasure has stupid costs.
This is a woefully ignorant take
It's a nice theory but it does sort of forget that other countries exist - the black marketeers will just smuggle tobacco in. They're also going to be guaranteed a market of younger immigrants who've gotten addicted in another country.
Sure, at first, absolutely, though even then you are raising the cost of smokes, not just financially but convenience, potential customer base (not everyone has the connections or would feel comfortable buying on the resale market) etc.
Long run, sure, smokers will probably always exist. But at the point where it's awkward to smoke in public you've probably cut down on a good percentage of smoking at all.
It's still gonna slowly reduce use. And that's better than nothing.
How is this supposed to be enforced? In a decade's time are shopkeepers going to have to challenge anyone buying a packet of fags who looks under 28? And then later it'll be "sorry mate, can you prove you're 44?" and so on.
Asking for ID when buying cigarettes is not exactly an outlandish proposal. It's already done around the current legal smoking age.
Arguably, this proposal makes it easier, since there's a fixed cutoff date of birth instead of calculating their age.
Is it legal to discriminate against people who are over 21 years old in the UK? I think you couldn't even pass a law like that in Germany.
Calling it discrimination is quite a stretch. By that logic our gun laws are discrimination, too and why can't I buy enriched uranium in stores? I'm being discriminated against!!! Muh pearls! Some laws exist to protect people from themselves and I would welcome a law like this in Germany. Cigarettes and vapes don't do anything that you can't do in other ways, without harming others. Except maybe get you more breaks at work :P
I mean, if you have the equipment and chemicals, i think you can buy uranium ores and manually process them for a tiny amount of u235
I disagree. It's not the same, because everyone can buy a gun if they have the paperwork for it (and noone can buy the uranium). It's not only an exclusive group of old people, people with spots on their skin or people with green eyes. Otherwise it would be discrimination, because it creates differential treatment based solely on age, skin type, eye color...
We also discriminate against young people to protect their vulnerable health via alcohol, tobacco regulations. But it's justifiable and 'good' discrimination, because they're not of age yet and need to be protected.
I'm not smoking or anything btw so I'm not emotionally involved in this argument, I'm just curious about the debate :D
Not everyone can buy a gun, to get the paperwork you need to meet a somewhat arbitrary age requirement and you have to be "mentally stable". So we are discriminating against mentally handicapped people. It makes sense, I don't even disagree with it, just saying that it's the same logic as op's.
Okay, maybe a better example: if you're interested in becoming president you have to be at least 40. Sounds like age discrimination to me :P
I don't smoke so I'm not super invested in this either. However, I travel a lot by train and besides the trains always being late what annoys me most are smokers. Smoking is already banned at all train stations and bus stops but the first thing some people do when exiting a train is lighting a cigarette. In the middle of a crowd. Imo the only way to stop them from doing that in crowds is by banning smoking completely & this law is a good way to do that, but it would have to be an EU-wide measure imo. Otherwise it's too easy to just drive to a neighbouring country and buy a pack of cigarettes.
Sure, that's exactly what we do. And there's a good reason for that. I'm also not against dropping it, just because it's discriminatory.
Sure. In this case I don't see a rightful reason for it to exist though, which is why it has to be abolished.
I hate second hand smoke as much as every other non-smoker, but I'm not a fan of banning smoking, just because I think it's annoying. Let people ruin their health if they want it that bad. We live in a time where second hand smoke is almost completely avoidable. At least in Germany. With the vapes it's even less of a problem now. If I breathe in smoke from some other guys' cigarette once a month it won't affect my health.
However there's a much much bigger problem regarding breathing in toxic fumes, which we should address immediately: cars.
It is avoidable overall but it always requires an effort on my part which is the wrong way around imo.
Ultimately my stance on it is that it's annoying but there's only so much we can reasonably do about it. I don't expect dB or the police to patrol train stations to make sure nobody is smoking. It's largely avoidable and if people want to kill themselves then they're free to do that. We have much bigger problems to focus on, like the one you mentioned: cars. (And maybe if more people used the train instead of cars there'd be more of an incentive make sure most of your customers aren't being bothered by a minority)
Discrimination has an actual legal protected definition, it doesn't just mean I want to do something and I'm not allowed.
Care to share it? I'm quite sure it's applicable in this case.
Allowing the future 45-year old to smoke, while making it illegal for the future 44-year old, sounds like text book age-based discrimination to me. And the health based age argument (protecting the youth), which is the main reason for smoking/alcohol regulations, doesn't make sense here, cause they're not teens anymore.
By the time they're 44 hopefully they're not such crybabies and have learned to accept a law that's been there their whole life. Or they just get someone else to buy them.
Either way it limits access and I think that's good, even if not perfect.
Imagining a 70 year old hanging around a store for some 80 year old to come by to ask them if they could buy them some cigs.
That's such a ridiculous and unnecessary scenario. Just make it illegal in 20 years and be done with it. Why put so much money and effort into such a badly designed solution?
Why not right now? Waiting 20 years is such a ridiculous and unnecessary scenario
I think you answered your own question.
It's not enforceable.
India is about as united as Afghanistan. We'll see shops in Delhi follow the law and the government enforcing it.
Everywhere else probably won't even know this is happening. If they did, they'll take is as an opportunity to gauge young people buying tobacco. No law enforcement will occur.
Rishi Sunak is brittish PM btw.
I loathe Sunak, his political party and their ideals... but this is pretty good actually Maybe he'll manage to do a single worthwhile thing
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Addressing the annual Tory party conference today, Mr Sunak also promised to restrict the availability of vapes under plans to "put the next generation first".
Read More:Rishi Sunak confirms northern leg from Birmingham to Manchester will be scrappedSunak says nobody wants an election - the truth is he can't risk one | Beth Rigby
Ministers have faced repeated calls to ban vapes to help protect children and reduce the significant environmental impact of the single-use products.
It commissioned a review, published last June and led by Dr Javed Khan, which made a series of recommendations, including increasing the legal age for buying tobacco.
Cancer Research UK's chief executive Michelle Mitchell said: "Raising the age of sale on tobacco products is a critical step on the road to creating the first ever smoke-free generation."
"Future generations of adults who are considered old enough to vote, pay taxes, drive a car and drink alcohol are going to be treated like children and denied the right to buy a product that can be purchased legally by people a year older than them."
The original article contains 665 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I don't know if that's feasible given that adults are adults after all. But maybe just restrict the sale of cigarettes and make it so burdensome to sell them in shops so most don't even bother. And do the same for vapes. Vapes are ridiculously easy to buy so stick them in the same locked cabinet that other nicotine products go in and ban all advertising and signage.
Imagine turning 18 (or whatever the smoking age is in the UK) and starting to smoke during the year this rule takes effect. Then, every year from that point forward, you'd have to wait for your birthday to start smoking again.
I don't agree with this type of stuff let people do whatever they're going to do freedom is more important
So many things wrong with this. First thing that pops to mind is that Sunak thinks we actually pay attention to these age restrictions.
A show of hands, who here has smoked before it was legal for you to do so? How about drank alcoholic beverages?
The second thing, how much interest does Sunak have in tobacco alternatives? Probably a lot, considering how much he's pushing it...
E: autocorrect mishaps.
Meh. We're all going to be dead from climate change.
We are all going to be dead, why care at all?
Good point.
Edit: Heroin dealers apparently don't advertise on yelp. Anyone know where I can pick some up?
Speak for yourself.
Love the "if I don't do it, neither should anyone else" mentality among children in these threads.
We must save people from themselves! Don't let them make any decisions since they could make bad ones!
I think this is deeply illiberal. There are some cases where bans make sense like the XXL Bully dog ban that has been mooted. But I don't think the government should be able to decide what an adult puts in their own body.
My dad was an oncologist for years and he said that one of the reasons we're having trouble in the NHS is that people have stopped smoking. Unfortunately if you are stricken with lung cancer then your prognosis is not good - and while this is a tragedy - you potentially could end up costing much more money in terms of social care and hospital visits if you carry on to live to a later age but get stricken with a more complex degenerative disease.
This is disappointing. Honestly I has found Sunak to be a relief on the whole after our previous few Prime Ministers, probably on par with Therasa May. In my opinion this is a cynical attempt to steal a policy that Labour's Wes Streeting was going to announce soon in order to take the wind out of his sails.
Punishing the symptom, great idea
In a physical health perspective, smoking is the cause, or contributing factor, to a lot of problems. In what perspective is smoking a symptom?
So don't get me wrong, I fully support this kind of measure.
But there's potentially an argument to be made that there is an issue (or more likely multiple issues) that isn't being addressed properly that is leading people to choose to smoke. It's well known to be harmful, addictive, and frankly doesn't have many upsides. What that bigger issue could be is kind of up for debate- is it a failure of the education system or health system not doing enough to educate people about the harm and risks? Is it a mental health issue leading people to choose self destructive behaviors or possibly a conscious or subconscious attempt to self medicate those issue? Is it a societal issue like peer pressure, portrayals in the media, people emulating role models, or just plain old rebellion? Is it due to regulations or enforcement being too lax?
Whatever it is, there may a root cause that isn't being sufficiently addressed that makes people choose destructive behaviors like smoking, which makes smoking a symptom of that bigger issue. And what other vices are those same factors pushing people towards? Maybe addressing those kinds of underlying issues the right way might do more good than just getting people to stop smoking, maybe we'd kill 2 birds with one stone and also make headway on other substance abuse issues, or gambling addictions, etc.
Now again, I'm totally in support of this kind of regulation. Sometimes you need to treat the symptoms before/while to treat the underlying disease. But we need to be sure we're looking at it from both angles.
I take the view that smoking is a behavior that is largely impacted by socioeconomic factors. To put it plainly, it's something you mostly see among the poor.
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/30/4/380
Not saying that I agree with RS's policy proposal but what is wrong with targeting smoking cessation especially amongst the poor? If poor people quit smoking, that's better for their health, the health of those around them/who live with them (secondhand smoke), and their wallets.
I don't have a problem with the intended result, but I would rather see an approach that is reformative rather than punitive or prohibitive, since those methods tend to create dark markets; in my town quite recently, illegal cigarettes worth more than a small home were seized from a single shop. I come from America, where we have had issues with prohibition-style laws, so I feel that I see where it leads.
I would rather see community funding for smoking cessation resources and support groups, education initiatives in schools, and broader policies aimed at decreasing the underlying wealth inequality that drives the behavior.
It is, until it isn't.
And when it isn't, we should all cheer.
Okay.
I'm just sorta reading what the researchers said. Did I misread it? Are they wrong?
no shot they read it
Any perspective that isn't being deliberately obtuse (if you cared you'd have looked it up and seen for yourself all of the evidence that exists, but it's easier to go the "personal responsibility" route and ignore the societal and economical factors, because acknowledging those makes you too uncomfortable)..
So is drinking.
I guess we ban alcohol too, huh. Oh wait, we tried that.
You must be one of the, "I don't like it so neither should anyone else" people.
"we tried that" do you know who sunak is?
Most countries have set a legal age for drinking alcohol.
What a weird take. Nobody is punishing people who smoke.