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)

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    53·
    3 months ago

    You’re parent(s) not having the sense to go outside and stay away from you while smoking shouldn’t impact my ability to smoke alone.

      • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        22·
        3 months ago

        Ahh it’s ok because his parent’s poor choices will only affect those unlucky to be born after 2009.

        Guess that makes it fine then.

        • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          3 months ago

          I’m of two minds of this. While I know that prohibition laws haven’t succeeded in the past, I also know that nowadays people don’t complain that coca cola doesn’t have cocaine anymore. It’s a harmful substance that was legislated out of being so easily accessible.

          Also, with the trend towards fewer younger people smoking altogether it seems as though introducing it in this way to make it so that young people might not see it as an option makes sense to me, although maybe it’s optimistic of me to think so. The idea that smoking is already seen as an “old person” activity and efforts taken to minimize its attractiveness to youth, now following that with legislation, seems to make a logical sort of progress.

          That said, I understand the black market is always going to be a thing. OP put it really well though- when something is designed to be addictive you’re already having your choices removed by being pushed to use it. If the availability is minimized, then hopefully the number of those who depend on it will also be minimized. I’m glad it’s being trialled somewhere, and am interested to see how it goes- though also hope if there are negative repercussions these legislative changes can be changed or rolled back depending on what those consequences look like and/or merit.

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

            I think my biggest point is- if it’s the carcinogens you’re wanting to ban then do so. This is akin to banning coca-cola outright and not just the cocaine in it.

            • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              3 months ago

              I think it would be nigh-impossible to make tobbaco non-carcinogenic though. And even without cancers, there’s also a myriad of respiratory issues, cardiovascular problems and even autoimmune problems stemming from cigarette use to account for. I don’t think it would be feasible to ban the harmful ingredients and have anything left over.