32
Bill banning people born after 2008 from buying tobacco clears UK parliament (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/news@beehaw.org
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A bill banning anyone born after 2008 from buying tobacco in the UK has completed its progress through parliament in a move that ministers hope will create a “smoke-free generation”.

Under the tobacco and vapes bill anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be able to be legally sold tobacco across the UK, in an effort to save lives and reduce the burden on the NHS.

The bill will become legislation when it receives royal assent next week. Its long journey through both houses of parliament began when it was introduced on 5 November 2024 and ended on Tuesday, when the House of Lords approved amendments made by MPs in House of Commons.

Ministers hope it will end the sale of tobacco products altogether over time and break the cycle of addiction and the disadvantages associated with tobacco.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 4 points 4 months ago (8 children)

A full ban would cause serious political problems, with adult smokers having their rights curtailed. New Zealand has already enacted such a law, without seemingly much blowback. The goal here is to stop teens from picking up the habit in the first place while allowing those already addicted to continue throwing money away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    A full ban would cause serious political problems

    Yes they're selling it under the guise that one group is being "protected" because they ought to be protected and another group does not need this protection, which is a form of discrimination. They do this because they know they don't have the political capital to ban it for everyone, because many adults value the ability to make choices about their own health, well-being, and what vices they wish to partake in.

    New Zealand has already enacted such a law, without seemingly much blowback.

    It's pretty easy to enact laws on a small group when they have limited participation or voice in governmental affairs.

    For what it's worth I'm not against this legislation, but I am critical of it. Big tobacco is bad. Cigarettes are bad. But this kind of "save the children" mentality often leads to a lot of corrupt and incorrect decisions and legislation. Alcohol is objectively even worse, and yet we're not banning that. Why? Will similar legislation try to capitalize on this and ban things like nicotine in general (almost certainly, despite nicotine being a relatively harmless substance in comparison). Worse yet, will they try to ban things like gender affirming care, or other objectively good things because there is a moral purity angle? I suspect so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    Your take confuses me. Of all the shit flying around about being "for the children" under false and even nefarious pretenses, these bans are actively targeting only children. This seems a sensible approach.

    However, conflating it with other issues is a classic conservative trope. I don't see the slippery slope in a single piece of legislation with a clearly and narrowly defined effect that we both agree is positive.

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

    these bans are actively targeting only children

    Quite literally true of many of the examples I brought up? I'm confused about where you are going with this. I was merely pointing out that something being done "for the children" is disingenuous framing. There is no merit in discrimination. If it was truly to protect them when they are children because children can't make the decisions with the same brain that adults make decisions with, then the ban would expire when they reach adult age. But it's not actually about that; it's about the fact that they can't ban it for adults and by claiming it's there to protect children they can gain political capital and will to ban it. It's effective legislative incrementalism against a difficult foe (big tobacco). I think limiting big tobacco is good, and I think cigarettes are bad, but I don't agree with this particular application because of the flawed framing - it opens up the ability for others to legislate in areas they shouldn't be legislating, or to use the same framework and claim its for the same reasons without it meeting the same criteria.

    conflating it with other issues is a classic conservative trope

    Are you saying that pointing out the framing is flawed is a conservative trope?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I was merely pointing out that this is actually a positive public health outcome with precision. Frame it however you want, but having entire generation never start smoking isn't related to anything else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •