top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Just ban the sale and make people grow it themselves :)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Wish we would do this here. Quit wasting money on getting us to quit (we will or won't by our own energy) and just start raising the minimum age each year til the age is ~50, this will kill the vape and tobacco industry, sadly here this move would (in theory - I'd like to see the actual numbers) lower the amount of money going into healthcare

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Jesus this is such a cowardly way to do things. It's like not dealing with climate change because "I'll be dead when it's a problem".

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Other countries: mostly liberalizing drug laws.

    UK: passing new drug laws for drugs that have been legal for decades.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    Response to this has been insane, so many halfwits think the government having more control over daily lives is somehow a good thing. Terf-islanders just seem to be born and bred authoritarians.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago*

    I understand wanting smoking free generation but don’t think this will work.

    People will always find ways to get it, whether legally or illegally obtained. If they can’t get it from the country they’re living, they’ll purchase it overseas. If they can’t purchase ut either overseas some might try to get it through illegal ways.

  • source
  • [+] -15 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Hitler also tried banning smoking.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    What a dumb fucking comment. Seriously it cost you zero money to not post this.

    Are you arguing that kids should be allowed to give themselves cancer and pour money into big tobacco companies and ruin their lives?

    Because that sounds awful

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    There's a bug difference between telling people who are hopelessly hooked on something that they can't have it any more, and telling someone they'll never be allowed to start on it to begin with.

    Also, this law doesn't have to completely eliminate smoking to have done it's job. All they're trying to do is reduce it, which reducing availability certainly will

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    No, banning adults from buying cigarettes is too far. Sin taxes are fine, but pretending informed adults shouldn’t take care of themselves is ridiculous.

    The UK is quickly becoming the largest nanny state in history, where everything you do or watch or eat or drink must be approved by the government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I’m not sure which battle you’re fighting, but this is the wrong one.

    Please go hang out with people dying of lung cancer. There is zero benefit to smoking. I get personal freedoms, but you sound like a clown for this argument.

    Smoking has zero benefit, and only destroys lives and health and medical services. It’s trash that belongs in the bin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    At this point who does not know smoking causes cancer? The research is older than my parents.

    It’s a fully optional and expensive vice that adults who know the risks partake in. Most places don’t let smokers smoke indoors anymore to reduce second hand smoke risks. Nobody lets kids buy cigarettes.

    Alcohol is bad for, should it be banned? How about sugar? People might get hurt rock climbing, should that be banned?

    I bring up the slippery slope not as a theory, but because we’re watching it happen in the UK with porn bans, forced identity verification, now criminal prosecution of porn actors, pushes to ban VPNs, and all these vice substances. The UK isn’t at the top of a slope they’re rolling down it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 29 comments in c/worldnews@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 23 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    The only thing this will accomplish is creating a black market just like every other drug. Don't get me wrong, it makes sense from a public health stand point and it will definitely save lives that were cut short from smoking related health conditions. But as we've found out with literally every drug in existence no matter how hard of a drug it is, the moment it isn't legal it gets replaced by a black market with a mountain of new issues.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    I think it can be banned if you also don't criminalize it and implement some kind of harm-reduction system.

    This way being caught with a cigarette won't land you in jail. At most you'll be fined (though ideally confiscation should be enough). And if you want to quit there are resources.

    Heavy penalties should only be for trafficking, which you can achieve by stipulating an amount that counts as trafficking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    it will definitely save lives that were cut short

    Sorry for being pedantic, but it will do no such thing.

    The lives rhat have already been cut short - they'll continue being cut short. That time isn't something a magic wand nor a ban on sale can fix.

    This type of ban won't even try to deal with the existing smokers. The only thing it tries to do is stop the new geberation from becoming smokers by taking away access.

    Which will probably work, but it's a stopgap - not a solution.

    I'd argue a policy of prevention, of raising prices, of limiting the amount of cancer-causing chemicals and of clearly defining and educating people about tapering off (including perhaps cigarrettes of differing nicotine levels like the vapes) would work better than saying "time's up, young-uns 2008 onwards can't get cigs".

    I'd also argue a better approach would be a school lesson where kids try a puff of cigarette smoke, hopefully hate it for life, and never think about trying it again. Banning stuff just makes it seem cool and I think this rebellious aspect is what gets most high school kids into the addiction.

    Accessibility doesn't help, but cigs are already illegal to sell to under-18s but we all know how effective that is at preventing teenagers developing the addiction. Altering the rule a bit doesn't get rid of the problem of it not being properly enforced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Idk if it’s really helpful to the convo but As someone who quit smoking less than a year ago after 10+ years I wanna say raising the price won’t help people not smoke. The amount of money I threw at my smokes was just someothing I always budgeted in and it just kinda fucks over poor people who are gonna smoke no matter what. I don’t think this full ban is really gonna do much for already existing smokers. Of course if the cost of selling cigarettes was more than the profit we could get somewhere but at the end of the day every industry would benefit from ditching profit based economics. Thats why I’m a leftist I guess

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    You're right.

    I never said higher prices were a good solution. Merely a better (i.e. less terrible) one. Most people will budget. A few who "can" quit might.

    The only way to truly stop people by raising prices is to price them out completely, making a pack $500 or the like, and that's an idea not too far from hitting a head against the wall - except the head isn't even yours!

    As always, the best fix is support. Small-group therapy for sharing experiences, writing a diary of smoke info (what/when) and related events (feelings, triggers, etc) with a quick rundown of important info such as a taper plan, withdrawal and the symptoms. Suggesting alternatives that migjt help ease the symptopms.

    Perhaps a quick cost analysis for the urge-based spenders might be the little push they need to get cigarettes out of their life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I almost smoked over the weekend, found out we lost my grandmother on Saturday morning , still haven’t picked one back up. Starting a new job this weekend too, after the strike on the first, Almost gave myself the excuse that I’m stressing so might as well.

    I can put it this way, my grandmother lived a beautiful long life, created wonderful paintings and ceramic vases, career artist, never smoked once in her life and lived to be 95. My grandfather smoked like a chimney, passed about 15 years ago, I think he was about 80. Makes a youngin’ think

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Please take my sincerest condolences over the loss of your grandmother. I wish health to you, your family, your relatives and your grandmother's friends and acquaintances.

    I especially wish you luck and the strength both mental and physical needed to overcome smoking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Thanks! I’m extremely lucky my parents are both in great health, so I’m focusing on being happy w them. My dad has a strong spirit. He gave up smokes in the 80s. For anyone it may help reading, quitting feels awesome after a while. It’s so worth it in the long run. Just think of how much longer we could have had some of our favorites: Lenin, David Lynch, the list goes on

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    The idea is to prevent addiction forming in newer generation. Rather then banning those they have already developed addiction.

    The minimum age has been rising for a couple of years.

    This is actually a manifesto promises so has fairly high support. (Unlike almost everything else the gov has done).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    fuck that, as someone who is addicted and wants to stop but can't.... JUST BAN THE SHIT

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    If you're in your late 70s. You have an excuse. But are not likely to think as you do. But if so. Sorry you were fooled by such arsehole Corporations lieing about their own research for decades.

    If younger. Then you grew up knowing how dangerous smoking was. Even if you failed to believe the government telling you so. You have no excuse for makeing the choices you did.

    And most of us who made those dumb choices do not expect others to take responsibility for them. Even if we find/found stopping hard. In nearly 60 years. Absolutely every government in my lifetime. Has reduced the excuses of the generations forward to fall for the stupidity. Including my father who gave up in his late 60s after cancer. But knew full well how dumb his smoking was when I was a toddler.

    You are entitled to your opinion. But everyone else is also entitled to consider you pathetic. For thinking the government is responsible for fixing your own stupidity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    But everyone else is also entitled to consider you pathetic. For thinking the government is responsible for fixing your own stupidity.

    So, you also think we should abolish drunk driving laws?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Smoking cigarettes isn’t dangerous to everybody in your vicinity only to second hand smoke and it’s kinda disingenuous to pretend the danger to society from the two is comparable. And like I said I smoked for over 10 years and I’m gen z. Society makes it look cool but I should have listened to my mom the whole time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Even if you failed to believe the government telling you so.

    People chose to smoke not because they don’t understand the risk, they find the reward outweighs the risk. Why they think that varies, some like the stimulation, the ritual, the escape, same as the use of any drug (or other “vice” like overeating, sex, gambling). It’s what makes confronting these things difficult, not everyone has the same reason for indulging.

    Personally, I’m well aware of the risks of smoking, and that the likelihood I might have a reduced lifespan due to that choice is higher than that of a non-smoker. But it is my life to live, same as it is everyone else’s own lives to live. The information is out there, most of us have seen or know someone who’s experienced the consequences of smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse, reckless sex, gambling, food addiction. If they want help to stop and change, be there for them. If they don’t, no amount of coercion, force, or external consequence is going to make someone who doesn’t want to change do it. No amount of vice legislation has ever thwarted vice, it just turns regulating it into a revenue stream for the state because they’re in the business of law enforcement, not crime prevention.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -13 points 6 months ago* (10 children)

    It is time to begin the war on sobriety

    Drug users of all stripes, we must ban together and begin the war on sobriety! People must be forced to use the types of drugs we want, in the amounts we want them to take. No one should be allowed to remain sober! All must comply or face a crushing police state crack down on them and their sober communities.

    Sounds ridiculous right? That's you prohibitionists. You are ugly awful people who want to control what I do with my body. And its socially acceptable! Virtuous even!

    Go fuck yourselves. Fuck yourselves for the rest of your lives. Nothing lasts forever, not even your war on humanity. Fuck off fuckers!

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    Philip Morris International thanks you for your brave defense of products that only exist to create lifelong addictions, make unfathomably massive corporations unfathomable amounts of money, and induce severe chronic health conditions.

    Sorry it apparently didn't work out for you; hopefully fewer kids in the UK born after 2008 will have the same mistake imposed upon them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    We could ban advertising and attractive packaging. We could provide non-carcinogenic alternatives like nicotine gum or snus made with synthetic nicotine so no profits go to Philip Morris. We could heavily fine people who smoke around children and other non-smokers. We have all of these regulatory scalpels at our disposable but for some reason we're always reaching for the nuclear option of prohibition. When will we learn?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    One should always be drunk that’s all that matters.

    So as to not feel time’s horrible burden and bows you down you must be drunk without ceasing.

    But what with? With wine, with poetry, or with virtue, as you choose.

    But get drunk

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 6 months ago*

    I am already drunk. Im always drunk. Why wouldn't I be when I am living in the boot worshiping multiverse?

    Ban alcohol again douchebags so I can die on a mountain defending my illegal moonshine op from the alphabet boys. At least I would die happy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    This is exactly the effects of addiction on the brain when the drug supply is threatened.

    They are banning smoking. You can still suck on nicotine pouches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    I am not addicted to nicotine. I am addicted to having freedom.

    Dont like tobacco? dont use it. Same thing with abortions, same thing with religion.

    You are disgusting. Get into bdsm if you want to control other people so bad. At least that would be a positive outlet for your base innate human desire to dominate and control others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    I am not addicted to nicotine. I am addicted to having freedom.

    You're apparently also addicted to unfounded exceptionalism. Since you haven't said anything specific, I'm assuming from your overwhelmingly passionate backlash that you've smoked routinely for at least a few years.

    Well-understood medical literature will tell you you've developed a tolerance (this one's just obvious for any CNS stimulant), will have physical withdrawal symptoms for the first few weeks upon cessation, are very likely to have developed a psychological dependence, and just overall are exceedingly likely to have develped an addiction.

    Maybe this was meant to be ironic and you're lampshading that you have an addiction while claiming it's irrelevant, but if not, I have four words: dude, you're not special.

  • source
  • parent
  • 14 comments in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 9 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting,

    🤢

    It's not clear how they will police this. Will you need to provide ID at point of sale? Will we punish buyers or sellers? Will this just make this all go underground?

    While I do think everyone should quit smoking, it's easier said than done and it could disproportionately affect disadvantaged people.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    It's not clear how they will police this. Will you need to provide ID at point of sale?

    You have to right now if you're lucky (unlucky) enough to still look like a child otherwise the seller is fined quite substantially and they do spot checks to enforce this. Same with alcohol. The difference is that the lowest age will increase each year.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Prohibition never works, if people want something then they are going to find it. The only thing this does is make smoking tobacco even less safe than it already is. If they truly wanted people to stop smoking then they just need to keep raising the tax on it year after year but of course new taxes are unpopular and politicians hate to be unpopular

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Outright banning it or taxing the shit out of it have the same effect: buyers go to underground sellers, further risking their health/bypassing legal quality controls.

    Source: I'm a weed smoker in Canada. While it is legal here; it's like 80% cheaper to use 'native' dispensaries (shops on native land, run by natives, and thus not subject to federal/provincial taxes). It's been several years since I last used a govt dispensary, and that was mostly because my usual sources were unavailable at the time.

    $10-15/gram shatter vs $45-50/gram at a govt dispensary.

    At least the taxing option brings in revenue for the govt and keeps people out of jail just for consuming their substance of choice without harming anyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Fair point but for tobacco I think it would be different. Granted its a subjectively biased opinion but every smoker I've talked to wants to quit and just needs the proverbial last straw to put it down for good. If tobacco spikes in price that will be that straw for many people. Sure plenty of folks will still want to use tobacco and will do their best to skirt that tax but it will be a fraction of the current total smoking population that will continue to shrink. Additionally higher taxes kneecap the ability of manufacturers to raise prices on their goods so if theres no profit to be made the industry itself shrinks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    Fantastic. Time to limit this plague.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    But alcohol is ok?

    This just reeks of banning something because we, personally, do not like it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    If it "reeks" of anything it reeks of making a compromise of what is more damaging to society and what could reasonably be done given the current circumstances.

    Smoking / vaping hands down trumps drink. That's not to say drink isn't damaging but of the two what is more damaging.

    It's actually one of the more sensible things this government has achieved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Smoking / vaping hands down trumps drink.

    By what metric are you basing this off of?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    What metric? Metric? The metric would be: Deaths. Perhaps you mean sources of this claim?

    NHS Statistics on Public Health 2023 shows that smoking was attributed to 74,600 deaths. The same statistics show 408,700 attributable admissions to hospital due to smoking.

    The Office For National Statistics showed that, in comparison, there were 10,473 deaths from alcohol-specific causes. Whereas the Government figures from another study showed there were 339,916 alcohol-specific hospital admissions, 280,747 alcohol-related hospital admissions under the narrow definition, and 1,018,986 alcohol-related hospital admissions under the broad definition in England (you can read up on the definitions yourself).

    So in terms of deaths smoking is by far the greatest of the two evils. Whilst it is right to point out alcohol still causes harm if the government were to focus on one then smoking and vaping is the right one to focus on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Great news. Some people cry about government overreach but this is a good thing. It's insane that we still have entire industries around tobacco. Vapes aren't going anywhere for those after 2008 who want to smoke, and the lack of tobacco in their lungs will be a net plus for the NHS.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/world view that post
    [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    I somehow doubt those born after 2008 agreed.

  • source