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

Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 430 posts

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#141

Post by FL33TW00D »

alsetmusic wrote: post #33

As a former smoker (who quit for seven years and regrets taking it up again), and as a present-day vape user, wtf. This is a clear restriction on liberty. It may be stupid that I do it. Just like many stupid decisions (junk food included), it ought to be my right to decide how to live. Cut off production so cigarettes are no longer made or imported. Don't block me from them while letting others have them. (Not in UK)…

In a country with a national health system, why should you be able to internalize the benefit of smoking whilst externalizing the cost?

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#142

Post by olalonde »

forinti wrote: post #102
olalonde wrote: post #78

What about tourists and foreigners? Most smokers can't go more than a few hours without smoking... This will surely lead to a large black market.

Will this market be significant? This would surely affect a very small percentage of visitors.

22% of the global population are smokers according to Wikipedia. It's probably lower for younger generations but still significant.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#143

Post by rafram »

causalmodels wrote: post #116
LazyMans wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although much less harmful than smoke, nicotine is still not harmless to the cardiovascular system. If the goal is public health, it makes sense to move the needle a little further and try to keep people off nicotine entirely. Alcohol is another story, we're not ready to remove that yet.

After alcohol, are we going to stop people from having multiple sexual partners in their lifetime? Because if public health is the goal, that would solve a lot of problems. It is fine to attempt to improve public health, but not at the cost of giving people a life worth living.

If alcohol is what gives you "a life worth living," that's extremely concerning.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#144

Post by draw_down »

kpmcc wrote: post #137

This is good and all, but they should probably also restrict the advertising of nicotine products in this country. Coming here from the states, I was astounded that you can advertise Zyn like nicotine pouches in tube stations and around in public.

[dead]

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#145

Post by defrost »

afavour wrote: post #139
reactordev wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same amount of damage done to your liver from that beer…

There's no such thing as second hand liver damage from someone else drinking beer

There is, however, absolutely such a thing as being glassed and sustaining head injuries from someone else drinking beer.

Shows up consistently in A&E Hospital records, reportedly enough to identify weekends and phases of the moon.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#146

Post by Findecanor »

hyperpape wrote: post #40
brador wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know the dangers of second hand smoke. Someone drinking near you does not impact your health.

With all due respect, this is completely wrong. There is a difference that someone smoking nearby automatically harms people around you. With alcohol, the effect is more unpredictable, but it is equally real. Alcohol is a factor in an automobile crashes, and a factor in a significant proportion of violent crime, especially domestic violence ( https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/09/17/mark-kleiman/taxatio... edit: this…

Second-hand smoke does affect people around you. It is how people get addicted to nicotine. It is how new smokers are created.

And there are some people who are more sensitive to temporary exposure to smoke (and pollution in general) than others. That is why smoking tends to be is banned around hospitals and day care centers ­— because those are places where you will find those people. My father was one of them, after he had got his larynx removed for throat cancer after having smoked for decades. He could not suffer being subjected to even small amounts of second-hand smoke again because then the breathing hole in his throat would get irritated, fill up with mucus and have to be cleaned with a suction device.

And if you drink alcohol next to me, it does not make my clothes and my hair stink so much afterwards that I will want to wash my hair and change my clothes before going to bed.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#147

Post by temp0826 »

brador wrote: post #28
squigz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the government's perspective, this may (or may not) be silly. But putting that aside, if a citizen supports banning cigarettes for people born after a certain date, but not alcohol, that certainly seems hypocritical to me.

We know the dangers of second hand smoke. Someone drinking near you does not impact your health.

Grow up with an alcoholic parent then get back to us

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#148

Post by rafram »

Jamesbeam wrote: post #124

That will for sure go well. Funding the "biggest threat the UK ever faced" according to Phil Mykytiuk, who has spent a decade mapping tobacco crime gangs in the north of England with a customer base of 10-11 million potential customers and rising every year, will surely cut heavily into their profits… It gets tiresome to buy a new house every week because the dry wall is full with cash, again. "Yo, psst, want to buy…

> He is new in post as a trading standards manager at Bolton Council in Greater Manchester but worked for 10 years on a tobacco enforcement team at nearby Rochdale Council.

Props to this Vice reporter (in 2022) for snagging an interview with a municipal staffer in a suburb of Manchester, I guess. I’m sure he’s a very busy man. But he doesn’t exactly seem notable (try Googling his name) and I’m not really sure what this is supposed to prove in the absence of any corroborating reporting.

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#149

Post by lokar »

themaninthedark wrote: post #140
lokar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think health costs are the bigger issue

Yes, this is one of the reasons there is resistance to socialized health care. People view it as opening the door to the government controlling what they due due to health care costs. Sure, I dislike smoking, I really don't drink that much either. But then it leads to questions such as; What about birth defects? What about extreme sports(risk of permanent injury)? There was a scandal in Canada recently about veterans…

IMO they should just charge a premium for smoking that about covers the expense overall

Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed

#150

Post by pixl97 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #131
pixl97 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the US found out, alcohol is very very hard to ban because it is very very easy to make.

Weed and tobacco are also very easy to make. They literally grow on trees[1]. [1] Technically, herbaceous plants.

Really in the case of tobacco, (almost) no one is going to grow it. It's a massive pain in the ass when most people are addicted to the nicotine. Synthetic nicotine in vapes are what would be black marketed these days.
Post reply on HN