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

World News

55677 readers
2496 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 79 points 2 days ago (25 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.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 221 points 3 days ago (70 children)

Well there's certainly no way this will create a black market, and become impossible to enforce!

load more comments (70 replies)
[–] chloroken@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This is regulation, not prohibition.

There is no value but death to smoking tobacco and nicotine products simply interface with that reality. There is value to other substances like alcohol and cannabis.

The conflation in this thread is staggering.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Oi cunt, 'ave you got a loicense for them cigarettes?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] horse@feddit.org 38 points 2 days ago (42 children)

I honestly don't think this will lead to a massive black market like some people seem to think. I don't see big profit margins that would make cigarettes an attractive thing to sell illegally. You can only make them so expensive if you can just find someone older to buy them for you for the normal price.

Besides, smoking is pretty shit really. There aren't going to be loads of people willing to go through the hassle of getting cigarettes illegally when all they do is stink and give you cancer. Especially when the people who can't buy them will mostly be people who haven't had a chance to get addicted yet.

I think this will work and be a net positive in the long run.

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I spent a few months in South Korea and packs of smokes there were like 2 bucks and change (Seoul and Gwangju). In USA a decent pack of 72s is like 8 -10 bucks, federal tax is a buck and change per pack with state taxes being 2$+ per pack. That means that on average the consumer is paying nearly 40% in taxes to the government. Black market smokes ABSOLUTELY will provide good margins, selling without tax at taxed price or greater will net black market sellers nearly double their money on each sale which is significantly greater than a lot of the easier to sell drugs. Hell when I sold weed before it got legalized I typically made 25-30% mark up unless I sold pennyweight but then it was a hassle. In the 90s when taxes were hiked on tobacco people were selling black market cartons for less than stores could with tax and making money hand over fist, it happened because of a tax HIKE not a ban! And YOU think smoking is shit, I think smoking crack rocks is shit but people still love it. Not advocating for shit here, just pointing out that there has, is, and will be a black market for tobacco and just about everything else. I have bought illegal moonshine, tax free darts off an old head, and various illicit substances without giving my genocidal gov a penny for it! Of course now I pay tax on weed I buy legally.... But I'm getting old and don't want to take as many risks when there's a legal alternative.

load more comments (41 replies)
[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How kind of the government to decide that people born after 2008 have fewer freedoms than those born before it!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

This is one of the few bans that actually makes sense. Carcinogens are genuinely bad for a person's future.

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago

And bad for the people around them.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cytobit@piefed.social 47 points 2 days ago (43 children)

A lot of people here are happy to see others lose a freedom that they themselves were never going to exercise.

[–] kevinsky@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I wish this ban was in effect when my stupid cunt of an adolescent brain thought starting smoking would be a good idea.

And also this freedom to increase your chances of lung cancer for litterally no reason at all doesn't only affect the smoker, but everybody in the general area of said smoker. What about their freedom to breathe clean air.

The world changes, handle it. Older generations took away younger generation's freedom to have a perspective on any kind of affordable housing.

I don't think taking away their freedom to make an objectively dumb and pointless choice for their health and finances moves the needle on the scale of problems we are facing.

load more comments (42 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›