this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
856 points (99.7% liked)

World News

55677 readers
2518 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
  • This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
  • Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
  • The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
  • The bill will expand the UK's indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children's playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
  • Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
  • Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
  • Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people's homes
  • Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
  • Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
  • People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 79 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Just ban smoking in public places. I don't want people blowing smoke at me when I'm walking down the street or when I'm siting outside drinking coffee. If they want to smoke in their apartment or their car it's their business. It would be easier to fight people smoking in the street than check what age every smoker is.

[–] GMac@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Smoking IS banned in public places. Has been since 2006 in Scotland and 2008 across the whole of the UK.

[–] qaeta@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Pretty sure it's only banned in indoor public spaces. Outdoor locations like bus stops and the like seem to still be fair game.

[–] Tonava@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

in their apartment

No! This is a huge problem in itself unless they have their own house. The smoke gets into the hallways and into other apartments as well, and it's fucking awful. Even just smoking on the balcony the smoke gets inside neighboring apartments, having lived through that. I have asthma and everyone smoking inside apartments deserves a kick to the shin

[–] nooch@lemmy.vg 2 points 1 day ago

Plus affecting children and the family

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Shitty neighbors are a separate issues. It's up to the landlords and residents to solve this.

[–] Tonava@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 days ago

The common solution around here has been the apartment complexes banning smoking not only inside but also on the premises outside completely, so it's getting better these days

[–] iglou@programming.dev 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Exactly this. On top of being liberticideand hypocritical (alcohol is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous of a drug), it's extremely hard to enforce.

[–] qaeta@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Maybe, but if you have a drink, it doesn't force me to also be having a drink just by being nearby.

[–] Ontimp@feddit.org 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The healthcare costs are collectively borne by the public, no matter where you smoke. And indirect damage for kids and others in the same household should also not be underestimated.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)
  1. All healthcare costs are borne collectively. Being obese increases healthcare costs. Extreme sports increase healthcare costs. Alcohol increases costs. Why ban smoking for that reason but not the other?

  2. So "save the children" is ok in that context? We don't trust parents now and should be banning things that can hurt kids? Like porn, social media or sugar?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cigarette smokers are actually supporting pension plans because they die fast and cheap before they see benefits.

[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They don't die cheap if they're treated for cancer several years before the final breath. Billions are lost to society annually as a result. Cancer treatment is largely futile, yet it's overly expensive. The revenue from tobacco tax is far from sufficient to cover that.

[–] Weydemeyer@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This seems like a much more reasonable, enforceable, and frankly more effective approach. It also seems more in line with respecting personal freedoms to do things even that harm yourself so long as no one else is being harmed.

I am a tankie - literally as far from a libertarian as you can get - and even I am struck by the seeming lack of concern over stripping away the freedoms of one demographic in particular. Honestly I’d prefer to see cigarettes banned outright than to say some people can buy them while others can’t. Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.

[–] ati@piefed.social 1 points 17 hours ago

I didn't realise people actually self-identified as tankies. That's really interesting. Thank you for broadening my conceptions.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gonna be weird in like 2050 when a 43 year old can buy smokes but a 42 year old can’t.

Exactly, how will they enforce it in like 10-20 years? Police will stop and check everyone who's looking too young to smoke? Some young looking guy in his 30 will have to show his ID to cops all the time? Right now it's working because shop owners enforce it, parents enforce it and you can generally spot kids when they are hanging out. Parents don't usually buy cigarettes for their kids but what if a 30 year old will buy cigarettes for their friend or spouse that's 29 and can't legally smoke?

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

The law just makes it illegal to purchase, not illegal to consume.

Still dumb though.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You understand what public means right?

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

So you want to regulate.. what people.. animals.. do outside.. in nature.. our natural habitat.. the area with the most air flow imaginable.. and that's still a problem.. get over yourself

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 2 days ago