A bill banning anyone born after 2008 from buying tobacco in the UK has completed its progress through parliament in a move that ministers hope will create a “smoke-free generation”.
Under the tobacco and vapes bill anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be able to be legally sold tobacco across the UK, in an effort to save lives and reduce the burden on the NHS.
The bill will become legislation when it receives royal assent next week. Its long journey through both houses of parliament began when it was introduced on 5 November 2024 and ended on Tuesday, when the House of Lords approved amendments made by MPs in House of Commons.
Ministers hope it will end the sale of tobacco products altogether over time and break the cycle of addiction and the disadvantages associated with tobacco.
Your take confuses me. Of all the shit flying around about being “for the children” under false and even nefarious pretenses, these bans are actively targeting only children. This seems a sensible approach.
However, conflating it with other issues is a classic conservative trope. I don’t see the slippery slope in a single piece of legislation with a clearly and narrowly defined effect that we both agree is positive.
Quite literally true of many of the examples I brought up? I’m confused about where you are going with this. I was merely pointing out that something being done “for the children” is disingenuous framing. There is no merit in discrimination. If it was truly to protect them when they are children because children can’t make the decisions with the same brain that adults make decisions with, then the ban would expire when they reach adult age. But it’s not actually about that; it’s about the fact that they can’t ban it for adults and by claiming it’s there to protect children they can gain political capital and will to ban it. It’s effective legislative incrementalism against a difficult foe (big tobacco). I think limiting big tobacco is good, and I think cigarettes are bad, but I don’t agree with this particular application because of the flawed framing - it opens up the ability for others to legislate in areas they shouldn’t be legislating, or to use the same framework and claim its for the same reasons without it meeting the same criteria.
Are you saying that pointing out the framing is flawed is a conservative trope?
I was merely pointing out that this is actually a positive public health outcome with precision. Frame it however you want, but having entire generation never start smoking isn’t related to anything else.
Yes because making drugs illegal stops them from ever being used😂
I’m not claiming that at all, but it does put up a significant roadblock. Prohibition never works.