World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
A good move in my opinion. Not sure how enforced it will be but phasing out cigarettes full stop is a good idea.
Now we should be clamping down on vapes. Tax them more, ban advertising, hide them from sale and put them in the same blank packaging as cigs.
In my opinion, they should ban the sweet flavours and only allow menthol, tobacco or mint flavours but not sure how that would fly.
So... answer me this. Why? Why should anyone be able to tell us what we can and can't do in our own homes, if it isn't impacting anyone else?
Not bothered about what people do in their own homes, moreso what they do in public. Vape isn't a pleasant smell and we don't know the impacts of second hand vapour
Okay, but what you suggested wasn't focused on what they do in public. It was on the product itself.
Phase out allowing smoking in public, fine, that fits what you are saying. But raising taxes on them and such would mean there is someone who can no longer smoke in their own home because it is now too expensive.
I personally hate cigarettes and such. But I don’t think I or anyone should be doing things to stop others from enjoying what I hate if it doesn't impact me. It's just none of my business.
Ever lived next to someone that was smoking at home? The smoke doesn't care about property borders and will find its way into neighboring apartments and yards.
The only way to smoke without bothering anyone is if you live somewhere in the woods in bumfuck nowhere.
Once your law covers all eventualities regarding this, its so convoluted that banning is the better option.
It really isn't. You can make it illegal to make others smell the smoke. Most places already have ordinances in llace for noise, and many actually do for smells as well. Make laws that solve the real problem, not overreach into other areas that aren't the problem.
Yes, and that's nonsense. In any well built home you can smoke without it bothering other people in the house. If you are bothered by someone smoking in another house you are gaslighting yourself to get a hit of your much worse rage addiction.
Maybe so, but they are terrible for you and there shouldn't be incentive to do it. Vapes are very cheap, this is partly why they're so popular with children. Maybe it they were a bit pricier then people would think twice. Can also put tax towards public health service.
No one is incentivizing people to smoke. And why should one person have to pay a tax for thier vice, while others don't. Alcohol is literally poison. It's worse than terrible for you. But that one is ok? There are those who would argue adamantly that red meat is terrible for you and the environment. Should we try to tax those two out of existence. Why should we be trying to make people think twice. They have a right to make their decisions without other people interference and judgements. We could go deeper down this rabbit hole and get into sexual orientation and such. The same arguments were made for laws against that... it's terrible, it's not natural. Maybe they will think twice if we make laws against it...
I mean, I think that's a stretch. We know that vaping gives you popcorn lung and likely lung cancer also the same as cigarettes.
Alcohol in moderation has no long lasting effects. If you drink in excess it's not great for your liver sure, but it's still not as bad as smoking/vaping.
For the record, I'm pro legalising cannabis, and if people want to smoke and drink up a storm in their own home on a Friday night, go for it!
However, in the interest of public health, a tax on vapes wouldn't be a bad idea. There's no reason they shouldn't be as restricted as cigarettes are. If they're expensive then it doesn't stop those who really want to partake from using them, but it limits children's access.
Also, alcohol IS taxed already.
The data on alcohol in moderations actually isn't that clear from the things I read. But if you want to go that route... vaping in moderation also isn't going to do much to you either. And if they are expensive, you have now said a whole bunch of people can't do it because they are poor. And you rich people, you can do whatever you want. Why should laws be made to punish people with less money? And yes alcohol is taxed already. It shouldn't be taxed any different than anything else. The gov shouldn't be trying to tell us how to live our lives if we aren't hurting anyone.
But if a rich person kills someone while driving drunk... well that is just okay. We can't put them in jail. It will ruin their life.
The reality of taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes is that they can get away with it. So they do. Because where does that money eventually land? Is some donors pocket. Gotta have an organization to collect those taxes. And someone has to be the overpaid political appointee to "run" that organization. And probably need software for tracking all that stuff... you guessed it. Consultants, and some over paid ceo who gets a disproportionately large amount compared to others because he know people in the gov and was able to land the contract. It's never about actually reducing people's use of the substances. They could do that with better services for addicts, and better mental healthcare. But that just doesn't pay enough rich people. It's too simple.
Even if they're smoking at home, the enormous costs to the healthcare system caused by smokers every year are a burden on the shoulders of everyone in society.
Hm, so alcohol should be banned to? You should see the cost to the healthcare system for that. And what about red meat, causes heart issues. And fried foods too. It's a long list. And many cost far more than smoking does. So who decides which vices are okay despite the cost, and which aren't? And why do they get to decide?
We see who decides: the government. In Britain they are elected to do so. That's democracy. The majority of people are non-smokers, and the tobacco lobby no longer has the power it used to.
Same thing with obesity, but try banning fat people from buying snacks and see how thats recieved.
Obesity is a little different issue since nutrition is not optional; smoking, on the other hand, is quite non-essential.
There are also programs that address the problem of obesity. The regulation of sugar use as an ingredient in food, for example. But laws in this field are subject to greater influence from the food manufacturers' lobby. The tobacco lobby, on the other hand, no longer wields as much power, as the majority of people are non-smokers.
If you banned everything that costs the public money then your lives would be more miserable than any monk's in history.
No one here has suggested banning everything that costs the public money.
Smokers, on the other hand, are a minority in society. And in a democratic society, majorities can form to create laws.
Because it isn't just your body in your home. It is the entire healthcare system that has to deal with the impacts of smokers. It is the neighbors who have to smell it from your house. It is the kids of parents who are smokers.
Should the government ban snack foods for obese households then? Or take away their kids before they pass on their unhealthy ways?
Tobacco legislation is just as much an over reach as that would be, and if you accept their proposal, they will come back and take more from you in the name of health. It's a steady walk into fascism while you're distracted with the handful of countries that are speed running it.
Sure. But how many other things do we do that are bad for us. Alcohol, red meat (according to some), skydiving (mostly a joke). So who chooses which vices are okay to burden the healthcare system with, and which aren't. I have no problem with making it illegal to cause others to have to smell it, nor with exposing children to it. That is impacting someone else's rights.
Your phone causes health complications and should be banned. Almost all the food you eat causes health complications and should be banned. Exercising causes health complications and should be banned.
Or maybe we don't do authoritarian bullshit and stop trying to regulate what people do to themselves.