- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- politics@lemmy.world
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- politics@lemmy.world
- worldnews@lemmit.online
A draft law in the UK to create a “smoke-free generation” by banning smoking for anybody born after 2008 has cleared both houses of parliament. Only the king’s signature remains for it to become law.
Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://www.dw.com/en/uk-moves-to-ban-smoking-for-everyone-born-after-2008/a-76884561
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
You must log in or # to comment.
Meanwhile, the USA has people touting medicinal benefits of tobacco.
I wonder whether the ban extends to all nicotine products. Some ADHD people I know self-regulate using nicotine since it works better than Adderall and co.
Good. It’s a moronic habit that end up costing everyone else to cover your increased demands on the NHS. Let it become a historical footnote, and a cautionary tale of how far companies will go to chase profits, as soon as possible.
As someone who hates smoking, never enjoyed it, it’s a terrible health choice etc. Let people do what they want.
I’m more than content with smoking being banned in various public areas. Do what you want as long as it’s not harming anyone else.
There will always be unhealthy choices, once smoking is banned and smoking disappears into history, cured meat will be top dog, then ultra-processed food or something.
As a Brit, Champion freedom for a change.
Do what you want as long as it’s not harming anyone else.
The problem is that it does harm others. Not only in the obvious ways, such as passive smoking, the toxic chemicals that cling to smokers, the environmental costs, and such, but also the increased healthcare costs. The NHS is tax funded, and smokers add significantly to the cost of that.
Remember, this ban isn’t stopping anyone who currently had legal access to cigarettes smoking, it is only stopping those who don’t yet have access from gaining access. It’s not actually depriving anyone of freedoms they already have, simply blacklisting a behaviour which has no positives and significant downsides.
Ultra processed foods are not good for human beings either.
Most of these mass issues aren’t because “the people want it” its because corporations have pushed their products for generations and only care about money and not public health.
I totally agree with you, I also avoid UPF. I’m just saying that there will always be choices that make a divergence from optimum health, and it will be seen by others as costly and perhaps even stupid, but that’s not a good enough reason for me to limit freedoms.
If corporations pushing products is an issue, regulate the companies not individuals
Tbf the added lifetime that this will gain will put strain on the NHS as people get older they will have different illnesses.
Plus banning drugs only Lowes demand to a certain level, at that point people will continue to do it even though it’s illegal.
Added lifetime will put more strain on the NHS, but it’s likely to be lower than the cost of treatments for smoking related illnesses and injuries.
They’ve set the ban for anyone born after 2008 so that it only affects people who shouldn’t have been able to aquire tabacco products anyway, which sidesteps the problem of people continuing to do it even though it’s illegal, as they hopefully wont have started in the first place. As the years pass kids wont have the older kids or adults around them smoking, so the desire should drop even more. Undoubtedly there will be some fools who start just because they’re told not to, but I would hope they are in the tiny minority.
Ik help you hope it, but I don’t think the savings will out do the tax revenue of the excise tax
Your comment encouraged me to go and find the actual figures for tabacco revenue and the costs of ill health due to its use.
The UK goverment’s figures show tabacco revenue falling year on year, with tax on cigarettes and hand rolling tabacco now totalling about £6B per year.
In terms of costs, ASH seem to have produced the clearest breakdown here. They give a combined cost to the NHS and social care of £3.1B, so your assertion is correct there. However they also note a lost of productivity (basically people not working because they’re sick, or dieing before retirement age) of some £18.3B. Assuming that productivity would be taxed, that would more than make up the difference.
The reduction in revenue and costs will also happen quite slowly, presumbly over the course of a full generation, so there should be plenty if time to adjust.
Anyway, thanks for sending me to find the actual figures, it was a worthwhile exercise.
Great sleuthing!
I think taking into account aan earlier death, that’s quicker than, say Alzheimers needs to be taken into account. A Dutch magazine once did that math and argued that smoking is cheaper for the state overall.
Not that that pleads for smoking in any way, shape or form. The main benefit is an improved quality of life. (And better financial stability for those concerned).
By the time this will have an impact on NHS either neoliberalism has completely destroyed NHS along with the rest of the country or neoliberalism is replaced with an ideology that cares about using tax money on people instead of businesses. So I wouldn’t be all that concerned by the strain on NHS.
