UK plans to pass law banning anyone born after 2008 to buy or smoke cigarettes

lyricism:

I don’t think this actually infringes on personal freedom in a necessarily philosophically harmful way.

Yeah, but this law was designed for a specific demographic, and many people who are not part of that demographic will be alive when it’s implemented. Is it fair that older people get to buy cigarettes and not younger ones? And is it fair that people who are not part of that demographic would need to have their ID verified. I understand that most likely the verification would not happen online, but still.

me:

I’m not sure why they just don’t outright ban it for everyone like prohibition.

That would be more fair. At least on a techinical level.

me:

. I suppose this would create a black market like it did for alcohol in the US, but eh.

Indeed. And when it comes to drugs, it is well documented that prohibition doesn’t work.

me:

I feel like 2008 is too early. People born that time will already be 18, and 18-year-olds are likely already counting down the days they can buy a smoke.

From my observation, the only people who would be counting down the days when they can finally smoke legally, are the people who are already smoking illegally. Non-smokers are not counting down the days.

me:

If the bill had pushed the year to maybe 2016 I would see the vision. I don’t see 10-year-olds counting down the days until they can smoke.

I’m not sure if this would make a difference. Instead of banning the people, IMO, they should find new ways to limit the sale of cigarettes even further. In most countries, there was a time when advertising for cigarettes was allowed, and then it was rightly banned. That is one way to fight smoking, but obviously it’s not enough. Higher taxes on cigarettes also helps, and warning labels are a thing too. Maybe increase the tax even more.

IMHO, they should also make it illegal for cigarettes companies to invest in cancer research or pharmaceuticals that are supposed to help fight or prevent cancer and other smoking related diseases. Because unbeknownst to most people, tobacco companies do that. They are diversifying their business.

phnx:

while a company should be allowed to sell products containing harmful substances like cigarettes, failing to meaningfully inform a person of those harmful substances violates their right to control what they put in their own body.

This makes sense to me, but tobacco companies could use food companies as shield to fight this. What I mean is, they could argue that, if such a right should apply to them, it should also apply to all the food companies, and of course I 100% agree with this.

But some countries like the US are more lax about allowing toxic ingredients in their food. Also, there have been many scientific reports revealing that more and more young people have cancer, and smoking is not the primary culprit, as the number of smokers keeps going down. One major factor is the fact that we eat more ultra processed foods than previous generations. I could see food companies join Big Tobacco in their fight for fear of more regulation.

I haven’t made up my mind yet on whether this is a good thing. The fact remains that anyone born after 2008 is currently a minor, and is not allowed to moke. So I could see why it could be sold as, it’s not discrimination if the law passed now. But 3 years from now would it be fair for 20-year-old to sue for discrimination? I don’t know.

One could also argue that it’s hypocritical to come after tobacco but not alcohol, especially when you consider that we have known at least since 2013, that no amount of alcohol is good for your health. Meaning that even drinking in moderation harms your health in the long run. But I suspect governments will not do that because selling alcohol is too important to the economy. Good old capitalism.