- Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
- This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
- Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
- The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
- The bill will expand the UK’s indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children’s playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
- Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
- Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
- Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people’s homes
- Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
- Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
- People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program
Oh yes, we have seen how effective prohibition laws are working. Good luck with that one. And to all of you four-eyed, I have never smoked and never will.
It’s OK, nobody born after that will be able to afford them.
There’s a reason vapes got popular, and part of that is a pack of 20 ciggies costing £15+.
So now everyone smells of either fruit salads or weed.
I honestly don’t think this will lead to a massive black market like some people seem to think. I don’t see big profit margins that would make cigarettes an attractive thing to sell illegally. You can only make them so expensive if you can just find someone older to buy them for you for the normal price.
Besides, smoking is pretty shit really. There aren’t going to be loads of people willing to go through the hassle of getting cigarettes illegally when all they do is stink and give you cancer. Especially when the people who can’t buy them will mostly be people who haven’t had a chance to get addicted yet.
I think this will work and be a net positive in the long run.
the black market in france wich is simply the product of high tax on tobaco is estimate at 4 billion euro. So you think britain will not have the issue with a practie that is well spread there ? i think u are delusional
Besides, smoking is pretty shit really. There aren’t going to be loads of people willing to go through the hassle of getting cigarettes illegally when all they do is stink and give you cancer.
yeah like any drugs ???
I think this will work and be a net positive in the long run.
It wont, and the gov shouldnt have a word on those
This. Furthermore, because the date is fixed, a decade from now, only middle aged people will smoke in public. I really doubt if youngsters find it appealing at that time, to adopt a habit associated with the elderly.
Fun fact, Eric Garner was killed for illegally selling cigarettes. He was selling loosies outside of drug stores and owners had repeatedly complained about him doing that.
Ok. I’m stretching the definition of fun here. And, to be clear, I also don’t think there will be a huge black market for cigarettes with this law, just that there already is one, kind of.
Eric Garner was killed for being black and inconveniencing the cops. The loosies were just the thing that put him on the radar.
I know. People already sell illegally imported cigarettes too, but I don’t think it’s nearly as problematic as the black market for other drugs is.
You’ve obviously never been a nicotine addict. Nothing you said here would have stopped me from getting my drug, before I quit
But governments will continue to allow nicotine delivery devices like vapes and pouches.
They should be banning nicotine as a controlled drug. Take nicotine out and people will see no reason to smoke or vape. It’s been government sanctioned addiction for over 100 years.
I started smoking when I was 14. Smoked a pack a day for a while, smoked my last in my thirties.
The point of a rolling ban isn’t meant to make you quit, it’s to stop people from starting and it will work. Not for everyone, but for a lot of people it will.
Its taking away personal freedoms and works against a free market. Keep the government out of your personal choices.
Imagine if they did the same for alcohol :)
I’m so happy to see vaping receive the similar treatment as smoking. I still don’t know why people thought it was acceptable to blow fumes into others faces. Even had it while carrying my kid. Some people…
“UK mandates teenagers must shop with their local drug dealer for tobacco products”
Might as well buy some weed or pills whilst you’re there, “save a trip”
Meh, as a teenager I never would have purchased something from my dealer that didn’t get me high. It’d be a complete waste of money with my perspective back then. You’d already have to be addicted to be desperate enough to buy cigs from a dealer.
… thats the whole point… addiction doesn’t care
Just ban smoking in public places. I don’t want people blowing smoke at me when I’m walking down the street or when I’m siting outside drinking coffee. If they want to smoke in their apartment or their car it’s their business. It would be easier to fight people smoking in the street than check what age every smoker is.
This seems like a much more reasonable, enforceable, and frankly more effective approach. It also seems more in line with respecting personal freedoms to do things even that harm yourself so long as no one else is being harmed.
I am a tankie - literally as far from a libertarian as you can get - and even I am struck by the seeming lack of concern over stripping away the freedoms of one demographic in particular. Honestly I’d prefer to see cigarettes banned outright than to say some people can buy them while others can’t. Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.
Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.
Exactly, how will they enforce it in like 10-20 years? Police will stop and check everyone who’s looking too young to smoke? Some young looking guy in his 30 will have to show his ID to cops all the time? Right now it’s working because shop owners enforce it, parents enforce it and you can generally spot kids when they are hanging out. Parents don’t usually buy cigarettes for their kids but what if a 30 year old will buy cigarettes for their friend or spouse that’s 29 and can’t legally smoke?
The healthcare costs are collectively borne by the public, no matter where you smoke. And indirect damage for kids and others in the same household should also not be underestimated.
Cigarette smokers are actually supporting pension plans because they die fast and cheap before they see benefits.
-
All healthcare costs are borne collectively. Being obese increases healthcare costs. Extreme sports increase healthcare costs. Alcohol increases costs. Why ban smoking for that reason but not the other?
-
So “save the children” is ok in that context? We don’t trust parents now and should be banning things that can hurt kids? Like porn, social media or sugar?
What the UK did is a step in the right direction. You can’t argue that this is only valid if they ban the other things you listed as well. You need to start somewhere. Norway for example went a different route and increased taxes on alcohol and sugar to reach a healthier population
I’m not saying it’s all or nothing. I’m saying that banning things that raise healthcare costs is silly. Lots of people do things that raise healthcare costs. I don’t think that smokers should be punished for raising healthcare costs while I’m allowed to practice high risk sports. It’s unfair.
What Norway did is completely different as it still leaves it up to people. You promote good habits, not criminalize bad ones.
-
Exactly this. On top of being liberticideand hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it’s extremely hard to enforce.
… public space…
Yes, public spaces too.
You understand what public means right?
Yes, totally.
A good move in my opinion. Not sure how enforced it will be but phasing out cigarettes full stop is a good idea.
Now we should be clamping down on vapes. Tax them more, ban advertising, hide them from sale and put them in the same blank packaging as cigs.
In my opinion, they should ban the sweet flavours and only allow menthol, tobacco or mint flavours but not sure how that would fly.
I don’t smoke, but this is stupid.
You can’t save people from themselves.
Of course you can. Over time fewer and fewer people will smoke.
The number of smokers have been going down for a long time now.
Right along with your personal freedoms, what a great deal
Personal freedom to pollute the bloodstream of a child before it is born, personal freedom to cause lung disease in people who have to live around smokers.
Banning drunk driving is another attack on personal freedoms?
Where’s my personal freedom as a non smoker?
Because obviously, most smokers don’t give a two sh*ts about other people
Freedom works both ways
It’s like arguing people should be free to drive drunk.
Whatever we are doing to not turn into a shithole like America seems to be working.
Because of awareness, social stigma, and government bans on tobacco propaganda advertising, not government sales bans.
Look at the middle east and south asia, smoking is bigger than ever, it’s like the US in 60s, but worse.
If people want to smoke, government bans won’t stop them. Yes, being easy and legal to get makes more people likely to get it, but you won’t achieve zero smoking by banning it, you’ll just increase black market sales.
Is the illegal sale and organized crime that comes with it worth the reduction of legal consumers?
It feels like you’re saying that this legislation is stupid because some people will smoke anyway. And I think that’s not a fair argument. I don’t think anyone claims that this will get rid of smoking entirely, much like outlawing murder will not get rid of all murders. But I do think this will reduce the number of smokers born after 2008.
If you reduce the number of opportunities someone has to start smoking, you will reduce the number of smokers. At least, this makes intuitive sense to me. I don’t have any data to back it up. But neither do you, so we’re tied there I guess. Or do you? I’m happy to change my mind on this.
No way the police are going to use this to further harass young people, especially from racialized communities.
And no way this will create pathways to link marginalized youth with organised crime and such.
It seems a little arbitrary that they can deny rights to a voting tax-paying 27 year old that they give to a 28 year old.
Can they ban Capricorns from riding motorcycles? It’s actually for their own good, those things are dangerous!
Well, the better overall solution would be to ban it entirely, but here is the rub…
The addictive nature of these products is so strong that there is significant health risks to quitting them “cold turkey”.
The alternative is mandated addiction rehab programs, and completely banning the sale, use and possession of tobacco and vape products outside of licensed rehab centers. So, even though it feels arbitrary restrictive to ban that 27 year old, but not the 28 year old, overall it is much more permissive than the alternative.
Let’s see. Making tobacco illegal means the black market will florish. And then the government can’t regulate the quality. Kinda what we already have with Cannabis. A lot of countries legalize Cannabis so that buyers can be sure it is of proper quality and not mixed with dangerous substances. Yes, smoking is bad and that’s why it should be expensive in order to discourage people from smoking. And a lot of public spaces should be smoke-free as well so that non-smokers are affected by smokers as little as possible. Banning something completely can go fully in the opposite way, just look what the Prohibition back in the US did with regards to Alcohol.
I don’t like this argument. Every time you ban something there will black market for it. But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work. Similarly with weed, if it’s less accessible, it means less consumption.
But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work.
Yes, but the black market has serious sides effects. You have to compare the disadvantages of allowing people who want to smoke to smoke, damaging their own health vs the black market funding cartels, mafias, and/or other criminals, causing problems for everyone.
The issue is those that still consume have to operate in an unregulated environment
deleted by creator
Incorrect
A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.
Smokers are taking away my freedom to breathe clean air
No, they aren’t.
I hate smoking. I hate the smell when assholes smoke near my house.
Those people aren’t all smokers.
This makes me want to smoke.
Isn’t that discrimination based on birth ?
Comments in here really trying to argue for big tobacco, just because they don’t like the word “ban”. Edgy contrarians.
A lot of what has been coming from the UK government has been shit, but this is just plain GOOD. There’s no reason anyone should be smoking. This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers. “Education” alone clearly hasn’t worked well enough.
This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers.
Well, a good thing drugs were banned a long time ago, so that no-one who was born after the 70’s can become drug abusers.
Prohibitions don’t work. People aren’t arguing for “big tobacco”, lol, they’re using common sense.
Regulation works, prohibition doesn’t. Even heavy regulation. However a complete ban will not. Not with substances. My evidence; literally any history from anywhere. Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.
Perfection is not the aim. Fewer people will be smoking tobacco over time. Smoking also has an easy alternative like vaping available.
It is also much easier to make alcohol at home than cigarettes.
Prohibition failed for multiple reasons. I’d suggest you look into it.
I’d suggest you look into it.
There really isn’t heavier irony available. I’ve literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.
Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That’s why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?
Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.
We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn’t the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that’s regulation, not prohibition.
Vicelaws don’t work and they’re harmful to society. It’s so ironic you’re telling me to read up on this when you can’t even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don’t believe in crime or science.
Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you’re going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I’m talking about are more like Portugal’ s. (Just stronger)
OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.
Are you really implying that people banning a substance doesn’t reduce the amount of people using it?
I can literally go to a pub and see a whole pub full of people drinking and smoking.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
The aim isn’t to stop everyone, no sensible person would suggest that.
Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
You never get invited to parties, do you? lmao
Yes, parties without drugs do not exist. Youre right.
OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.
Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn’t take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.
Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.
When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You’ve no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It’s the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.
So either you’re a prude and pretend there’s a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it… or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.
I’ve had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.
You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.
Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?
Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren’t doing blow on the tables doesn’t mean that there isn’t at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you’re too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn’t mean they’re not everywhere.
Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.
Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It’s always “I don’t care” and getting upset because you realise there literally isn’t anything to back up your side and you’ve been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I’ve had people spit in my face and go “You’re stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!” because they got so upset they couldn’t name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.
I’m tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I’ve been having with “experts” like you for years so why don’t you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the “do your own research” guy, but yeah, please do.
Start here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002573
https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/Justice - Post 1.pdf
Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:
https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702
He’s the author of “Good Cop, Bad War”, one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)
Prohibition is not the same as banning them for people born later than 2008 in any sense of the word.
We’re talking about banning for people who will never be able to buy cigarettes, not people who were able to and were later denied this.
With prohibition you’re conveniently missing the fact enforcement was poor and loopholes existed. Plus you were denying people alcohol who already drank.
Along with this was the fact that public support was not in favour.
I think you’ll find a lot of people support a blanket ban on smoking.
Also stop using the argument of appealing to authority.
Finally, I’m talking a pub full of people and you’re talking about one guy on blow. Yeah, seems like less people are using drugs than taking drugs. Obvious , right?
I’m not a prude. I’d support legalisation of certain drugs and decriminilisation of others. It depends purely (for me) on how damaging they are but they wouldn’t be for me to decide. I firmly believe though that drug users don’t belong in prison at all.
Edit: To make me belive this prohibition shit you’d have to convince me that prohibition fails when public support is high. Perhaps like a majority Islamic country where I would assume people support the banning of alcohol.
It seems to me like it works there fine.
Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.
This is vastly different. Alcohol prohibition took alcohol away from people. This law does not. No-one who is currently smoking is being banned from doing so.
It also doesn’t have to work 100% to be a good idea. This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.
It’s not vastly different. It’s gonna have the same exact issues.
They tried in NZ.
This will absolutely reduce the number of new smokers in the UK.
It will absolutely create a massive new black market. And think about how many nowadays start smoking before theyre legally allowed to buy cigarettes. Practically every single smoker there is. Kids smoke because “it’s cool”. It’s gonna be infinitely cooler when smokes are also illegal. And the Armenian fellow smuggling the ciggies in is not going to have qualms about selling cartons to teenagers.
Heavy regulation can work. Complete bans just don’t.
More like you are falling for yet another blanket ban as a viable solution to anything. Younger gens are significantly less into smoking and drinking? Oh, I know! Let’s turn it miles more enticing by making it a taboo!
Big tobacco is definitely the problem. Tobacco itself wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for industrial-scale cultivation and processing. If a smoker had to personally grow everything they planned on smoking, they’d break the habit pretty fucking quick.
yea they would do anything not to piss off phillip morris lmao. Just outlaw industrial cigarettes. Natural tabacco isn’t that toxic compared to the shit these idiots are people smoke
Kk now do alcohol next. Good luck.
So for context, I actually drink, more than I probably should. I have a well stocked home bar, and trying or inventing new cocktails is almost a hobby for me and my partner.
I also come from a country with a veeeeeeery ingrained alcohol culture.
I’d still vote for an alcohol ban. Yes this is hypocritical when looking at my current habits. I don’t really have a point here, beyond saying that, even if banning alcohol is unrealistic, drinking alcohol being gone from the world is still a good idea in principle, the same as with tobacco.
cancer sticks. we need to rename the entire category to ‘cancer sticks’. force people to ask for their fav cancer sticks brands, “Yeah can I have a pack of Camels…” employee looks blankly… “Uh can I have camel cancer sticks please?”
I say this and I struggle with tobacco and know if every time I purchased it I was confronted even more than the labels and black wrappers etc., it would give me pause.
That might work for the first year, but after that, you’d likely go back to not giving a shit. If someone already knows cigarettes cause cancer, do you really think renaming them ‘cancer sticks’ would lead to a significant change?
Worse yet, the proposal could backfire by turning the morbid name into an in-group joke or even a badge of defiance.
I think it would wear on the person over time.
Am a person who’s quit 12 times. Grew up in a fam of chainsmokers and swore I’d never smoke…
I agree. I don’t like being denied things, but some things need to be legitimately more regulated or made illegal way more often. This would never fly in the US, big tobacco has way too many people in their pocket.
Dear god, is today the day I see Lemmy turn into Helen Lovejoy - “won’t somebody think of the kids!”
