Well there's certainly no way this will create a black market, and become impossible to enforce!
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.
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.
There's a huge black market for tobacco products here in Australia and it's completely legal, simply having the tax on it so high has led to massive smuggling operations, black market cigarettes in many convenience stores, and a fire bombing epidemic of those same convenience stores for carrying competitors black market cigs. It doesn't even need to be illegal. Just too expensive.
1930s didnt have overwhelming evidence that smoking was stupid, addictive, and disastrously dangerous to your health.
Smoking doesnt produce the same euphoria and consistency of drugs on the current blackarket. The juice wont be worth the squeeze. Financially, there wont be enough "consumers" for a cigarette black market.
I think you misunderestimate how addictive cigerettes are. My friends mom goes through $80 worth of cigerettes every 2-3 days.
Mate, you got no fucking clue. This will create entire new organised crime markets.
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:
Oh no. Whatever will we do. No smoking in public places or around me but people will still smoke at home nowhere near me.
Truly it will be unbearable.
So terrible.
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.
Exactly this. On top of being liberticide and hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it's extremely hard to enforce.
Ban smoking anywhere that is not your home, problem solved
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.
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!
A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.
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.
Now, this is a good thing, but I can't help but imagine in 2099, a 90yr old begging their friends to sell them a pack
Good. It'll cut down healthcare costs
Hard unnuanced bans on vices never work and it's insane that people think that this time it will.
You say that it'll cut down on healthcare costs but how much will now be spent on enforcement? Tobacco use was already out of style and smoking seen as obnoxious and uncool but now it'll be seen as a mysterious and forbidden thing. Look at cannabis use among youth in Canada after legalisation if you want an example. People will continue to smoke tobacco but now that tobacco will all be unregulated black market stuff bought from some sketchy guy who can offer you any number of other unregulated, untested and more dangerous drugs
This won't solve anything, it will only create a black market and the vape industry will gain new customers.
The UK is on a wave of embracing ideas that have already proven to be failures at other places and other times, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they instituted Prohibition.
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.
I don't smoke, but this is stupid.
You can't save people from themselves.
Of course you can. Over time fewer and fewer people will smoke.
The number of smokers have been going down for a long time now.
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.
Yup this is not the path forward. Education is. Assistance is. Bans are stupid.
What is this? Good news? On my timeline?!!! In this economy?!!!!!!
RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY DOOMSCROLLING?
Smoking is bad, but prohibition of drugs just drives them underground and denies freedom. Bad call UK
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.
Did they look at Australia and the colossal failure trying the same thing, and thought "but we will be different"?
Let's see. Making tobacco illegal means the black market will florish. And then the government can't regulate the quality. Kinda what we already have with Cannabis. A lot of countries legalize Cannabis so that buyers can be sure it is of proper quality and not mixed with dangerous substances. Yes, smoking is bad and that's why it should be expensive in order to discourage people from smoking. And a lot of public spaces should be smoke-free as well so that non-smokers are affected by smokers as little as possible. Banning something completely can go fully in the opposite way, just look what the Prohibition back in the US did with regards to Alcohol.
I don't like this argument. Every time you ban something there will black market for it. But the goal is to reduce consumption, and it will work. Similarly with weed, if it's less accessible, it means less consumption.
“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”
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.
Lemmites normally: smoking is bad and should be banned.
UK government: ok then.
Lemmites now: YO WHAT THE FUCK.
I sometimes feel like people get so caught up on the word "prohibition" that their arguments bend towards addiction enabling at a societal scale. Smoking is beyond crazy when you look at the stats (using USA for convenience, but similar for other countries)
The problem is simple: cigarettes are a massive drain on the health system, directly and indirectly. The solution should be just as simple: buying cigarettes forfeits your rights to health care treatments for the damage caused. You get some palliative care but we save the lung transplants for people who aren't killing themselves.
If you think that's too harsh then you should stomach the cost of prohibition, policing and black markets. No matter how shitty, costly and dangerous it may be I promise that it will save lives and money if it's a barrier to even a fraction of smokers.
You can make every single argument you used for unhealthy eating. Especially since its the leading cause of death in the United States yet no one is talking about banning oreos. Regulate the industry and inform the population to make better choices but a ban just a uncalculated reaction. We've literally seen it with prohibition and the drug war and it ultimately doesn't work. You can't just say that the black market won't be as costly because you have no idea what will actually happen. Global smoking trends have been going down. Let's just continue to do what has been proven to work.
Also denying ppl healthcare based on their bad health habits is facist...
I think people should be allowed to harm themselves with drugs of they want. Maybe I’m a radical.
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.
It seems a little arbitrary that they can deny rights to a voting tax-paying 27 year old that they give to a 28 year old.
Can they ban Capricorns from riding motorcycles? It's actually for their own good, those things are dangerous!
We all know that banning drugs means that people will stop using them. Or so.
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.
This is one of the few bans that actually makes sense. Carcinogens are genuinely bad for a person's future.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/