Exclusive: Sources say law could gradually increase smoking age to ultimately prevent sales to people born after certain year

Rishi Sunak is considering introducing some of the world’s toughest anti-smoking measures that would in effect ban the next generation from ever being able to buy cigarettes, the Guardian has learned.

Whitehall sources said the prime minister was looking at measures similar to those brought in by New Zealand last December. They involved steadily increasing the legal smoking age so tobacco would end up never being sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.

  • @[email protected]English
    0•1 year ago

    I’ve been suggesting they do this in the states for a while now.

    I smoke. I like smoking, and I don’t plan to quit. But it’s obvious that most people want smoking to go away. They keep increasing the price of cigarettes, they keep banning smoking in new areas, and every time they’ll tell you it’s to keep kids from smoking. It’s a lie - they want everyone to stop smoking.

    So fine. Set a date, and make it illegal for anyone born after that date to smoke. Then leave us smokers alone. If it’s as bad for us as you say it is, we’ll all die soon anyway.

    Will some people born after that date smoke? Sure. But the majority won’t. And it’ll be a constant annoyance for them that they can’t just go buy a carton at the store, which will encourage them to quit. I’d feel sorry for them, but I was told it was bad for me, not that I’d be standing outside in -50° weather puffing as fast as I can because I can’t smoke in my hotel room, or that I’d spend more on cigarettes than I do electricity. They at least know they’ll never be allowed to smoke.

    • @[email protected]English
      9•1 year ago

      they keep banning smoking in new areas, and every time they’ll tell you it’s to keep kids from smoking. It’s a lie - they want everyone to stop smoking.

      That’s just not the case, at all. I’m a very recent ex-smoker and non-smoking areas absolutely helped me stop, but not for the reason you might think.

      In Australia it’s the same - cigarettes getting more expensive and the number of places you can smoke reducing.

      No one ever suggested that it’s to keep kids from smoking - the message has always been pretty clear: every cigarette is doing harm, so less places to smoke means less harm.

      The main benefit of non-smoking areas is that it made me realise that withdrawals and cravings are really no big deal. About 5 years ago I was terrified of trying to stop because I had convinced myself that the withdrawals would be awful. Then I took a job at a place where it just wasn’t possible to smoke even on breaks. The most noticeable thing was that getting through the entire day without a smoke was actually no big deal - the symptoms were very manageable.

      So, to say “they” want everyone to smoke is an odd take IMO. The assumption is that everyone want’s to stop - and non-smoking areas assist with that.

      I don’t really believe that you do enjoy smoking. I mean, sitting with friends and having a few beers and smokes is certainly an enjoyable activity - but it’s not the smoking that makes it enjoyable. Anyhow, even if you did truly enjoy smoking, I guess you unfortunately just have to cater for the majority who do not.

      • @teolan
        10•1 year ago

        Non-smoking area are also there so that the people around smokers don’t have to breathe cancer they never asked for.

        A absolutely hate how every time I go eat on a restaurant terrace the experience is ruined by some guy next to me smoking…

        • @[email protected]English
          -2•1 year ago

          Yeah. That is one of the purported reasons for non-smoking areas, all though your actual risk of cancer must be pretty minor surely.

          If you worked in a bar then yeah - breathing the smoke-filled air all shift for many years might effect your risk profile.

          Catching a whiff of tobacco not so much.

          • @teolan
            6•1 year ago

            Passive smoking is health problem as soon it’s indoor, but even when it’s not a health issue, smoke fucking stinks.

      • drewofdoomEnglish
        6•1 year ago

        I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it’s not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.

        But if you say it’s about the health of sweet, innocent children… well then suddenly it’s a lot more palatable for the public.

        So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•1 year ago

        Maybe things are different down under, but here in the states they very much do use the “keep kids from smoking” excuse. Every. Single. Time.

        I don’t mind going outside or whatever so much. That wasn’t the point I was making. When I started smoking, you could still smoke in restaurants, airplanes, offices, etc. They still had ashtrays at the end of every aisle at the supermarket when I was a kid. Picking up smoking wasn’t a radical thing to do.

        They’ve pushed us out to the fringes, but that’s fine. But their goal is to eliminate smoking. What I’m saying is that enough is enough. Let us smoke off away from everyone and die out.

    • Rouxibeau
      9•1 year ago

      You don’t like smoking; you’re addicted to a harmful drug. You have nicotine induced Stockholm syndrome.