UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

Post by keybored » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #65

oompydoompy74 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess they should ban all the chippies too. Everyone is unhealthy in their own way and that’s the cost of doing business. Socializing healthcare does not require banning unhealthy behavior. It turns out that money does in fact grow on trees and they can make more because it’s fucking fake and it always has been. How are we going to pay for this!?! You literally create money. Governments do it all the time for missi…

Cigarettes don't grow out of the ground to be able to be deep fried. Some private enterprise manufactures them for sale. Just ban the sale of them in the country. They offer no positive for society or humanity whatsoever. Chippies at least have their origins in actual food sustenance. If some new slow method of societally expensive suicide hit the market, it would get banned quick smart. Cigarettes have only stuck ar…

Post by ButlerianJihad » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

Pooge wrote: post #26

cineticdaffodil wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its an attempt to cut back on health system costs, disguised as well meaning measure. Up next alcohol bans. One might not even numb oneself while beeing a slave to the "allways right" generation vampire.

Alcohol was always an important cultural symbol (drinking wine as a Christian, for example). This is not the case for tobacco, especially highly artificial one. Tobacco is inherently bad for one's surrounding as well.

Post by keybored » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

tt24 wrote: post #66

keybored wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes as they currently exist are a bandaid on wealth inequality. Getting rid of rich people parasitism would be a better way to balance the budget than either right-libertarian principles or taxing commoners for their stress relief like tobacco. Though judging by the amount milords in the article I suspect that is far ways off.

Wealth inequality is a nonissue. Nobody has ever been able to provide me with any evidence to the contrary.

Post by mancerayder » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 4:11 PM UTC

tt24 wrote: post #52

fontain wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you’re being sarcastic but just in case: the goal of single payer healthcare isn’t to spend the least amount of money on healthcare. The goal of single payer healthcare is to guarantee everyone a minimum quality of life. You can believe that the minimum quality of life includes the option to engage in unprotected sex and sky diving.

I’m not being sarcastic. If you live in a society that chooses to force people to pay for other’s healthcare costs, you must support banning high risk behavior. Not out of frugality. It’s a simple issue of fairness. 5% of the healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. Why is it fair that the 5% that choose to engage in high risk behavior are subsidized at the expense of the 95% that choose not to?

Post by vikaveri » Sat, Apr 25, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

trebligdivad wrote: post #49

It's going to make for an interesting future age verification problem; For a few years it'll be easy, because it's still only going to be asking people under say 25 for proof; but then in a few decades it's going to be people trying to figure out if there customer is over 40 say.