Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#131

Post by stevenalowe »

pclowes wrote: post #23
sph wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Did people already forget the prohibitionism? Did people already forget the war on drugs? I remember liberals were talking about drug decriminalisation 10 years ago, has everybody turned into a puritan nowadays? Also, very hypocritical argument when alcohol (and gambling) are very accepted in British culture. I'd like to see the numbers showing that the few people that still roll their own cigs at 15 pounds…

The Prohibition was actually very effective and reasonable. Especially considering the rampant alcoholism of the time. Also, Singapore seems to have conclusively won the war on drugs. I would not mind those policies in San Francisco.

Alcohol consumption increased and stronger beverages became more popular but sure it was effect and reasonable yeah

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#132

Post by [deleted] »

thrance wrote: post #111
amiga386 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're pointing out that 2.9 millon people take drugs (extrapolating from the people surveyed), and law says that should be zero. This law will attempt to ban cigarettes. Estimate how many people will buy them and smoke them illegally. The number will not be zero.

Yeah, murder is illegal too, but still the number of murders is non-zero. Maybe we should just legalize it? Sarcasm aside, if the goal is to reduce consumption, criminalization does work. Repression, though, does come with its own can of worm (an euphemism, yes). It's up to the citizenry and its representatives to decide if the trade-off is worth it.

[deleted]

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#133

Post by threepts »

stavros wrote: post #44
threepts wrote: post #24

They also permanently banned coke,meth and other drugs since the inception of law, guess how that turned out? "The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 8.7% of people aged 16 to 59 years (around 2.9 million people) reported using any drug in the last 12 months for the year ending (YE) March 2025; there was no statistically significant change compared with YE March 2024" I believe limiting people's…

You think education is effective? How much educating do they need to do about meth being bad before people stop using it?

I merely suggested that it is an better alternative as opposed to restricting people's freedom (and setting a precedent that the government can just simply choose to ignore people's rights).

Also criminalization of something always leads to its romanticization to some extent. Look at the rap scene. There is always a rebound effect.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#134

Post by noplacelikehome »

tt24 wrote: post #129
noplacelikehome wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why must I do anything of the sort? As with all things there is a balance to be found that does not necessarily mean zero. I can both support healthcare that’s free at the point of access (this distinction is important, because the NHS is not strictly speaking a “single payer” system, as both National Insurance and tax revenues from e.g. alcohol and cigarette sales are used to fund it) and individual liberty, even if…

The 5% of high risk healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. It’s not fair for the 95% of low risk people to subsidize the remainder.

[dead]

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#135

Post by stavros »

threepts wrote: post #133
stavros wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think education is effective? How much educating do they need to do about meth being bad before people stop using it?

I merely suggested that it is an better alternative as opposed to restricting people's freedom (and setting a precedent that the government can just simply choose to ignore people's rights). Also criminalization of something always leads to its romanticization to some extent. Look at the rap scene. There is always a rebound effect.

There is, but we've tried educating people against smoking, and it hasn't worked. I agree with you that we shouldn't limit people's freedom, but I don't believe that education works better than criminalization, when we're talking strictly about effectiveness.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#136

Post by KetoManx64 »

vially wrote: post #74
amiga386 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're pointing out that 2.9 millon people take drugs (extrapolating from the people surveyed), and law says that should be zero. This law will attempt to ban cigarettes. Estimate how many people will buy them and smoke them illegally. The number will not be zero.

The number does not have to be zero for this to still have a net positive effect on society.

How many people's lives have been ruined due to them getting caught with drugs? Your "net positive" just focuses on using force to make people not have self agency to what they do to their bodies.

You know what would really solve crime and drug abuse issues? If we just gave people lobotomies at the age of 16. They will all be nice and complacent and due what they're told by the state.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#137

Post by KetoManx64 »

thrance wrote: post #111
amiga386 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're pointing out that 2.9 millon people take drugs (extrapolating from the people surveyed), and law says that should be zero. This law will attempt to ban cigarettes. Estimate how many people will buy them and smoke them illegally. The number will not be zero.

Yeah, murder is illegal too, but still the number of murders is non-zero. Maybe we should just legalize it? Sarcasm aside, if the goal is to reduce consumption, criminalization does work. Repression, though, does come with its own can of worm (an euphemism, yes). It's up to the citizenry and its representatives to decide if the trade-off is worth it.

At the cost of how many people's lives that get jailed for doing drugs/smoking and not hurting anyone? Telling people what they cannot do in the privacy of their own homes is a massive invasion of pri... Ohh, well England is par for the course when it comes to that at this point.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#138

Post by KetoManx64 »

jmye wrote: post #119
DeveloperOne wrote: post #2

Censorship and restrictions for regular people.

What, specifically, does banning buying cigarettes have to do with “censorship”? Or are we just saying words now, because they seem emotive?

Look at the root of censorship and then do a Google search. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#139

Post by KetoManx64 »

pkulak wrote: post #18

Wow, lots of libertarian absolutists up this morning. Guys, that's all well and good as a philosophy, but you need to integrate your views into the world around you too. When you live in a society that has _decided_ to collectively shoulder health care costs, and assume responsibility for everyone's health, you also may need some ground rules. I know it sucks, because _you_ may have just been born there and you don't…

Wow, lots of statists up this morning.

Guys, it's all well and good as a philosophy, but maybe you should take a second look and reconsider that the state just keeps creeping more and more into your private affairs and is very glad when you believe them when they say things are "for the children" and "for the public good". One day you might find yourself in jail for sharing a meme that is critical of the government in any way.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#140

Post by snapplebobapple »

Milpotel wrote: post #98
snapplebobapple wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is also a strong question as to whether smokers are actually a net cost to government or not. They draw decades less old age pension, have decades less medical visits, etc. I am extremely unconvinced that a large cancer related medical cost now has a higher net present value than a stream of government pension payouts, health costs, etc for decades ended with a large medical cost for some other reason. This is…

The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3533014/ (Finland, 2012)

So the answer is smokers are cheaper so its stupid for the government to dump on smokers like they have been?
Post reply on HN