Prime Minister to create ‘smokefree generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009
www.gov.uk
Government to introduce historic new law to protect future generations of young people from the harms of smoking.

I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”

I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.

(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)

  • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
    47·
    7 months ago

    One has known carcinogens, one does not

    It’s why many would support vaping but not cigarettes

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        42·
        7 months ago

        To me, the difference is the level of addiction. Nicotine is infinitely more addictive than weed. So, the inhaling of carcinogens in weed smoke has far more consent of the consequences imo. More so, I’m yet to meet a cigarette smoker in real life who wishes they never started.

        Unfortunately, we can’t ban carcinogens from cigarettes. It’ll be like trying to ban blue from the sky.

        I mean, I presume you would have to be pro full decriminalisation with the stance you’re taking or it would very much come across as you just not liking weed but liking the ones that are legal now.

        • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          7 months ago

          I’m sure I could find plenty of drinkers or weed smokers who wish they never started either. I just fully disagree with banning the vices and making carveouts based on personal preferences. That and I question the addictive difference in marijuana vs. cigarettes but I have no data at hand to say either way.

          And for the record I am completely fine/in support of full legalization of marijuana. Same way I don’t think we need to ban smoking, vaping, alcohol, etc.

          I just found it easier to point out that people make excuses for marijuana (which again, will have health impacts regardless) but not cigarettes. Hell, I don’t even smoke!

          • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
            1·
            7 months ago

            That and I question the addictive difference in marijuana vs. cigarettes but I have no data at hand to say either way.

            There’s a world of difference. One is both psychologically addictive and chemically addictive (iow, has withdrawal symptoms), and the other is purely psychologically addictive (like anything else… e.g. chocolate).

            I’ve never been an addict but there’s plenty of credible research finding nicotine to be the most addictive substance in the world, even more than hard narcotics. MJ addictions are laughable in comparison, like addiction to waffles.

            Cocaine has no withdrawals. It’s often said to be the most psychologically addictive substance. MJ is also in the purely psychological category and it’s nothing like cocaine’s stranglehold.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            1·
            7 months ago

            I think you’re being a little unfair by dismissing it as just personal preference. I live in one of the largest cities in the world. Weed’s legality has no bearing on my ability to get hold of it, if I wanted it. Like lots of people, I could have it arrive sooner than a pizza.

            I mean, nicotine is top tear addictive. It far out strips alcohol and weed combined. Its easier to become addicted to nicotine than heroin. Although, heroin is far harder to come off of, of course.

            Idk, to me, as an ex smoker and former wreck head, I felt that I at least got something out of the other drugs I took. Nicotine was only ever to keep a monster at bay and nothing more. Thats why I think they might have a point. They can still vape. If the trade off was only edibles for weed, then I think most people would take that.

      • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
        1·
        7 months ago

        Simply put- it seems people just dislike smoking but will make exceptions for their preferred things like weed, etc.

        Your original post mentioned cigs specifically, not tobacco generally. There are health risks of all ways to consume tobacco but those risks are not equal. A ban cigs but not on vaping or cigars (which are not generally inhaled) would act against the most harmful form without cancelling the whole substance and experience categorically.

        There will be a small black market for cigs but if vaping is not banned then many will be steered toward vaping instead. The vaping option will keep the black market on cigs small.

        If that was truly the goal then why not just ban carcinogens in cigarettes instead?

        There is no such chemical as “carcinogen”. It’s just a vague term for anything that is linked to cancer. There is no proof at a molecular level that cigs cause cancer. It’s still not understood. We have overwhelming stats that smoking cigs have an undeniable link to cancer, but the science has not yet yielded detailed results on how cancer manifests in a cell. Stats are all there is.

        If we fast-forwarding into the future when a cellular understanding is obtained, the intake method will certainly be part of the equation, not just the substance. AFAIK, the only cigar smokers who get lung cancer are those who smoke cigars improperly (by inhaling them). I lost 2 friends to cancer because of that. They loved to inhale cigars. Those who smoke them as intended (like myself) are not much more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker, IMO.