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.

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.

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).

I agree, let's ban everybody instead of smoking.

They are cowards who do not want to face the consequences of their actions.

But you cant avoid them forever prohibitionists...

as a smoker, please yes...

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.

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.

I'd assume I'd at the retailer, like they legally have to do to make sure you're over 18 now. It'll just be the age goes up and up and up.

Bold of you to assume the U.K. government has the ability to reason.

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

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.