Comment by alsetmusic
7 hours ago
As a former smoker (who quit for seven years and regrets taking it up again), and as a present-day vape user, wtf. This is a clear restriction on liberty. It may be stupid that I do it. Just like many stupid decisions (junk food included), it ought to be my right to decide how to live.
Cut off production so cigarettes are no longer made or imported. Don't block me from them while letting others have them. (Not in UK)
It'd be kinda funny to see an early 1900s / USA-style mafia / gangster resurgence of bootleggers over cigs in the UK. Much lower stakes, but black markets are a thing.
Edit: added "while letting others have them"
In a country with a national health system, why should you be able to internalize the benefit of smoking whilst externalizing the cost?
You could use this logic to ban unhealthy foods, or restrict people from eating too much.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-us/news-and-views/junk-foo...
https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/government-bans-high-sugar-a...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drink-levy-extended-...
Or to resist ever passing a national health system.
1 reply →
Considering the general state of the UK population, this may not be such a bad idea.
This is just whataboutism, but the UK also regulates sugar in fairly draconian ways too, for example.
There are good reasons to target smoking given how addictive and deadly it is. Nicotine is fairly unique in this regard.
1 reply →
> In a country with a national health system
I live in the USA where we are treated like crap by our system of government. I'd agree with you if we had national healthcare.
pigouvian taxes are both a stronger disincentive and help cover externalized costs.
if this moves nicotine to the black market then the people/government will still pay the cost without receiving any taxes on it at all
The sin taxes more than cover the healthcare costs of the associated sins. It's the untaxed sins, greed and sloth, that are fucking the NHS.
OK, so if you smoke you don't get national / socialized health care but don't have to pay the taxes that fund it either. Deal. It's enough to convince me to take up smoking.
> wtf. This is a clear restriction on liberty
The title is hyperbolic. It isn't a ban on smoking. It's a "ban on buying cigarettes." Commerce is being restricted, not consumption. If, presumably, you bring your own in from France, or someone bums one to you, it would appear you're free to smoke it.
That broadly seems to strike a fair balance. Banning purchases and sales, not possession or consumption.
A lifetime ban on purchase is a ban. Don't be ridiculous.
> This is a clear restriction on liberty. ... Just like many stupid decisions (junk food included), it ought to be my right to decide how to live.
I guess that liberty was plenty abused on every non-smoker in a non-smoking area, that ended up coughing in clouds of smoke anyway. Smoking affects everyone around you whether you want it or not, and while you may smoke for 50 years and end up being perfectly healthy, some may get cancer from it, even for a very small dose.
There's already some pretty comprehensive bans on smoking in places where it could affect other people. I don't really encounter cigarette smoke in my day-to-day life.
>This is a clear restriction on liberty.
So is banning the sale of leaded gasoline.
> "it ought to be my right to decide how to live"
"Why is the government stopping me from murdering people and stealing from them? it's my right to decide how I live!"
You vill get your state mandated 1 hour of exercise and 5 servings of vegetables. You VILL eat only the state mandated bug based protein that our studies have shown to be 10% less likely of causing heart attacks than red meat. YOU VILL NOT spend more than 1 hour outside to prevent skin cancer.
I think that a government should be able to ban murdering people but that it would very sketchy for them to ban it for some people and not others.
One of the most important foundations of democracy is that the law applies to everyone equally. If smoking is banned, it should be banned for everyone, not banned for some people and allowed for a privileged class who got here first.
This is nonsense. There is a logic to the law, it's not arbitrary.
I could argue (unsuccessfully) that it's discriminatory and unfair that I have to wait an extra 3 years to claim my pension compared to older people.
This is a great argument. Let's use it to ban sugar and meat.
A restriction on liberty? For a britbong? What a surprise.
It's a restriction on liberty but not an unjustified one. I agree that it gives cigarettes a "mystique" that they do not deserve to have one generation able to smoke if they like while another generation has to go outside the law to do so.
When I was a smoker, I used to decry places that were less liberal about where I was allowed to smoke, and places with high taxes. As a former smoker, I know that the high taxes have enabled a lot of people to stop, and the restrictions got to a point where smoking was less "cool" and more "pariah" behavior. These influences helped me stop.
If you didn't read "The Easy Way to Stop Smoking", go do so, and smoke/vape no more.
If everyone appreciated how little value they receive from tobacco/nicotine and how easy it really is to quit, there would be no market.
If I want to smoke in my own home I should be able to. Next up the government will ban reading hacker news for people born after 2012 because it incentivizes you sitting in your chair too much.
Might be a good idea tbh
Kinda like being in a country where nobody born past a certain date can ever be a citizen.
Unless their ancestors were already citizens beforehand.
Which I guess could be considered a more generous concession.