this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
856 points (99.7% liked)

World News

55730 readers
1709 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
  • This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
  • Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
  • The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
  • The bill will expand the UK's indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children's playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
  • Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
  • Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
  • Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people's homes
  • Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
  • Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
  • People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GMac@feddit.org 41 points 3 days ago (16 children)

Going to get down voted to hell and back for this I expect, but hey, different opinions generate discussion right?

This is good legislation for the environment, for non-smokers, for the NHS, and has zero negative impact on smokers. The ONLY parties I see really hurt by this are tobacco companies, since retailers make minimal margins on tobacco.

The constant use of the word freedom in the thread comments just seems odd to me. This isn't a question of freedom, and the comments mostly seem to ignore the paradox of tolerance as it applies to antisocial activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance. Individual freedoms have limits and must end at the boundary of another persons personal space and freedoms. That's why smoking is banned in confined public places.

Its all very well to say tax the shit out of it and fund the NHS, but that will feel pretty shit when your parent/partner/child has to wait for an operation because the queue is full of smokers who are entitled to that spot by having paid for it. Which also veers dangerously close to creating paid tracks within the public national health service.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] MithranArkanere@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I've had to breathe enough cancer sticks waiting at a bus stop because I could not leave because of heavy rain, that I don't care if it works or not to make people stop smoking, as long as it works enough to make people stop smoking in places where other people may be around.
I can drink a beer in a place full of people without bothering anyone, but no one can smoke without making those surrounding them breathe it.
As long as it reduces the chances of an obnoxious asshole spreading their toxic fumes to the grandma who has to sit at the bus stop and can't move away because it's raining, I'm fine with it.

Will there be a black market and other issues? Maybe. Not the best way to do it? Ok. Someone figure out a better way. In the meantime, ban it is.

Sometimes you have to go with the "this is why we can't have nice things" method.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 14 points 3 days ago

Also: Cigarette butt littering everywhere.

I am having a hard time mustering my sympathy for the freedom to slowly kill yourself.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 221 points 4 days ago (24 children)

Well there's certainly no way this will create a black market, and become impossible to enforce!

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 85 points 4 days ago (14 children)

There surely will become somewhat of a black market, but not in the same way as weed or harder drugs. Smoking doesn't really give you a buzz except for the first few times, so people won't go to the black market for the effect, but rather to keep the withdrawels at bay. It would seem incredibly silly to buy cigarettes like people buy weed, when all it really does for a first timer is taste horrible, make you cough, and if you actually manage to inhale, make you a bit dizzy. Sure, some people from 2009 and onwards will start to smoke, but it'll be a whole lot less people than today.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 55 points 4 days ago (25 children)

You realize in the 1930s there was a black market for cigerettes when they weren't even illegal, right?

Mafias had support from the people, because mobs supplied booze, which WAS illegal. They made so much money from that, they started robbing cigerette trucks. Then selling legal cigerettes, at full cost, simply because the people trusted the mob over the government.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 49 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

Come to Australia. A legit carton of fags is about 90% tax, and dodgy darts are outselling them. Vapes are prescription-only. No doctor will prescribe it, and no pharmacy will dispense it. So vapes are effectively banned too.

The black market is huge.

At the current exchange rate, a 20 pack goes for £25 GBP:

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 82 points 4 days ago (22 children)

Just ban smoking in public places. I don't want people blowing smoke at me when I'm walking down the street or when I'm siting outside drinking coffee. If they want to smoke in their apartment or their car it's their business. It would be easier to fight people smoking in the street than check what age every smoker is.

[–] Tonava@sopuli.xyz 18 points 4 days ago (3 children)

in their apartment

No! This is a huge problem in itself unless they have their own house. The smoke gets into the hallways and into other apartments as well, and it's fucking awful. Even just smoking on the balcony the smoke gets inside neighboring apartments, having lived through that. I have asthma and everyone smoking inside apartments deserves a kick to the shin

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] architect@thelemmy.club 21 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I think people should be allowed to harm themselves with drugs of they want. Maybe I’m a radical.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (29 children)

Not as long as healthcare is a public cost.

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Can I also regulate what you eat and how much you exercise, how much booze and wine, etc? Or have we decided freedom and intellectual consistency were constructs of the 20th century?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 3 days ago

We all know that banning drugs means that people will stop using them. Or so.

[–] DarthFrodo@lemmy.world 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Smoking sucks and I'm glad I've never done it, but I'm worried that this will push even more people to the far right because they will feel patronized as fuck.

Also not sure if a flourishing black market is much better. Seems like an enormous source of income for organized crime which might not be the best thing.

Imo it would be much better to only ban it at places where there are a lot of people and do proper education in schools so that children actually understand why it's a terrible idea.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yup this is not the path forward. Education is. Assistance is. Bans are stupid.

[–] Dojan@pawb.social 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

My country, Sweden, is fighting a war on drugs. Believe we have the highest drug related mortality in Europe. So currently drugs are winning the war on drugs.

Not only that, but every single party is in favour of more restrictions on drugs, yet these cunts are in parliament doing cocaine at work. Rules for thee, not for me kind of situation.

These draconian prohibitive policies are never helpful. You'd think we'd have learned that given how our prisoner rehabilitation system works, but alas. We're ruled by idiots and sociopaths.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Smoking is bad, but prohibition of drugs just drives them underground and denies freedom. Bad call UK

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sonofearth@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (7 children)

This is a stupid decision. Prohibition has never worked. Instead there will be more illegal, unsafe and unregulated cigarettes that the newer generations will smoke which will be more harmful while at the same time losing tax revenues and an increase in policing costs.

A better solution will be just to tax the shit out of these products and fund healthcare with it.

[–] sunbeam60@feddit.uk 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean, prohibition of firearms works fairly well.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (27 children)

Prohibition is never good, removing individual freedom is never good. I can see the point for some of these restrictions, to provide a safe basis for other people around (because we can't ask people to simply be nice), but more than that… meh.

I will not be up in arms to defend smoking rights, but that's probably not the way to do it.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] horse@feddit.org 39 points 4 days ago (43 children)

I honestly don't think this will lead to a massive black market like some people seem to think. I don't see big profit margins that would make cigarettes an attractive thing to sell illegally. You can only make them so expensive if you can just find someone older to buy them for you for the normal price.

Besides, smoking is pretty shit really. There aren't going to be loads of people willing to go through the hassle of getting cigarettes illegally when all they do is stink and give you cancer. Especially when the people who can't buy them will mostly be people who haven't had a chance to get addicted yet.

I think this will work and be a net positive in the long run.

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lemmites normally: smoking is bad and should be banned.

UK government: ok then.

Lemmites now: YO WHAT THE FUCK.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cytobit@piefed.social 47 points 4 days ago (43 children)

A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Oi cunt, 'ave you got a loicense for them cigarettes?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] altasshet@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Not including vaping is kinda... Odd.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lordziv@lemmy.nz 14 points 3 days ago (7 children)

This law was originally implemented within New Zealand some years ago and I believe it is based on the same principles. I am all for it because it doesn't affect those that already smoke, just the ones that would potentially get into it in the future. And it has a rolling eligibility year so every year it will move, stopping all future generations from potentially being able to try it legally. Eventually it would get to the point where the generations that currently smoke die off completely and then it would be most likely looked at from an antiquated perspective. Unfortunately, in our case, as soon as the latest conservative parliament got into power, they completely rolled it back. We never got to see the long term potential positive implications of it in practice.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 32 points 4 days ago (17 children)

I don't smoke, but this is stupid.

You can't save people from themselves.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'm imagining the last person alive to be eligible to smoke going on a grand journey to the last place selling the last pack of smokes in the country. I think this law is so ass backwards and does nothing about addressing people's concerns including the comments made in here.

Healthcare concern? Tax it, a single use isn't going to put a strain on the healthcare system. Make sure lifetime smokers have paid in more than their fair share.

Age limit? What's the current UK view on alcohol? You can't just cherry-pick drugs and regulations if you're trying to make sense.

Vape and smoke indistinguishable? Sure, but lets add additional tax onto ANYTHING that creates pollutants. It being illegal in cars is kinda ironic and hilarious. Especially from those living near industrial sites with bad water and smog effects, has the government made sure those companies are paying their fair share or restricting what they release because of the children?

I'm all for people's opinions and ideas shared, I just don't like governments that target civilian freedoms more than corporate profits when they've had the chance for the past hundred years. Let the people decide, local jurisdictions banning areas and businesses opting out are completely fine with me. Playing this weird game of "sorry you were born a day too late to be eligible" is weird. Ban it all or not, let the cards lay. Too much wiggle room/cost for enforcement for this to be anything useful and will probably just be thrown out at a later date wasting everyone's time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oh yes, we have seen how effective prohibition laws are working. Good luck with that one. And to all of you four-eyed, I have never smoked and never will.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 35 points 4 days ago (18 children)

Comments in here really trying to argue for big tobacco, just because they don't like the word "ban". Edgy contrarians.

A lot of what has been coming from the UK government has been shit, but this is just plain GOOD. There's no reason anyone should be smoking. This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers. "Education" alone clearly hasn't worked well enough.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago (11 children)

This law prevents a new generation from becoming smokers.

Well, a good thing drugs were banned a long time ago, so that no-one who was born after the 70's can become drug abusers.

Prohibitions don't work. People aren't arguing for "big tobacco", lol, they're using common sense.

Regulation works, prohibition doesn't. Even heavy regulation. However a complete ban will not. Not with substances. My evidence; literally any history from anywhere. Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] alakey@piefed.social 28 points 4 days ago (2 children)

More like you are falling for yet another blanket ban as a viable solution to anything. Younger gens are significantly less into smoking and drinking? Oh, I know! Let's turn it miles more enticing by making it a taboo!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago (7 children)

“UK mandates teenagers must shop with their local drug dealer for tobacco products”

Might as well buy some weed or pills whilst you’re there, “save a trip”

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›