A draft law in the UK to create a "smoke-free generation" by banning smoking for anybody born after 2008 has cleared both houses of parliament. Only the king's signature remains for it to become law.
  • 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
  • Bytemeister@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    6 hours ago

    Sure there is an argument for letting me do anything, but when you keep persuing and reducing the argument, it eventually boils down to “Why do we even have laws at all?”

    The answer to that question is “because we as a society decided to.” By their very nature, laws created by people are arbitrary and intangible, their only actual effect is derived from society’s willingness to actually enforce them.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      7 hours ago

      If the laws were actually agreed upon by the people… but they aren’t. And most are really to protect businesses, not people.

      But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all. Laws should protect people’s rights. Like the right to not get murdered. But that’s not what this is.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        6 hours ago

        But no, it doesn’t boil down to why have laws at all.

        Okay, let’s play this out. Laws against murder remove my right to murder people. Just because you weren’t going to use that right doesn’t mean that I wasn’t going to.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          36 minutes ago

          Maybe you came in on a side thread. The only rights that should be considered for law are rights that impact others. It’s still a super large list. But your right to snoke in you basement isn’t on it. Your right to murder is.
          It has nothing to do with using it or not. Just who it impacts directly.