Cool. Now ban everything else potentially harmful.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
51 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2135 readers
1047 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good on the UK... for once...
It seems the minimum age will slowly increase, basically meaning anyone under 18 now and anyone born in the future will be unable to smoke cigarettes.
There will be the classic "black market hurr durr" people like when other drugs were banned, but evidence always shows it's better overall.
So the idea is that we want to legalize marijuana because its totally unreasonable for the government to tell us what we can put in our body, but also ban tobacco because "its bad." Is that about the size of it?
Both are bad for you. Ideally the UK would spend on education and people would just choose themselves not to smoke, but I guess they would rather ban it and keep the population dumb.
Tobacco is considerably worse.
In any case, this doesn't appear to criminalize possession, which is the usual sticking point for people against drug prohibition.
Tobacco is considerably worse.
That isn't really a claim you can make without support of any kind.
Not a single source in that article actually quantifies the difference that you just described as "significant". Want to try again? Or do you just want to admit that you said a thing that seemed like it was true and then googled it for the first time when I asked you to?
I think the main point here is: why does this matter even if its true?
Either the state is in charge of forcing you not to buy things that are unhealthy or it isn't. If it is then there is no reason not to also ban Marijuana for the same reason even if it is "less bad" than tobacco. No one is arguing that its good for you. Why not bad refined sugar and caffein and thousands of other things that are bad for you?
Not a single source in that article actually quantifies the difference that you just described as “significant”. Want to try again? Or do you just want to admit that you said a thing that seemed like it was true and then googled it for the first time when I asked you to?
Holy fucking shit, did you not read even the first three paragraphs of the link
For example, federally funded research at the University of California, Los Angeles compared the lifetime risk of lung cancer among more than 2,000 long-term marijuana smokers, tobacco smokers, and non-smokers.
Investigators determined that those who regularly smoked cigarettes possessed a 20-fold higher lung cancer risk than non-smokers. Those who only smoked marijuana had no elevated risk.
Either the state is in charge of forcing you not to buy things that are unhealthy or it isn’t. If it is then there is no reason not to also ban Marijuana for the same reason even if it is “less bad” than tobacco. No one is arguing that its good for you. Why not bad refined sugar and caffein and thousands of other things that are bad for you?
You're absolutely right, time to abolish the FDA and go back to heroin cough syrup over-the-counter.
Imagine having such a childishly boolean view of the world.
Holy fucking shit, did you not read even the first three paragraphs of the link
Do you know what the word "quantify" means? Maybe look it up before you reply?
You’re absolutely right, time to abolish the FDA and go back to heroin cough syrup over-the-counter.
You know that the UK doesn't have the "FDA" right?
Imagine having such a childishly boolean view of the world.
Hilarious perspective from a person that forgot what country we are talking about.
Do you know what the word “quantify” means? Maybe look it up before you reply?
express or measure the quantity of:
20-fold higher
You know that the UK doesn’t have the “FDA” right?
I'm sorry that you don't understand that, when arguing from principle, the principle can be applied to various real-world examples to demonstrate absurdity? Your argument was explicitly about "the state", conceptually, not Britain specifically.
Since your own grasp on the English language is tenuous, considering your Dunning-Kruger moment above, I think this conversation is over.
*unable to legally purchase
They will continue to smoke and vape. I guarantee it. Their activity will simply be criminalized. Which isn't good for anyone.
The evidence shows people will find a way and prohibitions aren't effect and mostly results in inferior and sometimes dangerous product being sold in place of what should be highly regulated and consistent.
Existing people will, but making something harder to get will reduce smokers. It will also fade out of culture through the generations.
Why do people always think it has to be immediate benefits or none at all?
Harder to legally get*
That doesn't actually make it harder to get...
Here comes the black market
Is the ban also on vapes, e-cigs, snus and nicotine pouches etc? Or only for cigarettes? Either way, the black market will work out for the people who want to use these products.
Just gonna say there miiiight be an article somewhere that answers your questions
Usually articles block me so I was being lazy lol
Ha! Fair enough. That happens to me too
Big W for corner shops across the uk now they can sell cigarettes without tax
I'm sure prohibition will work this time!
I just keep thinking about like two friends with birthdays on either side of the line. Sure the one will buy for the other but not without giving him shit every time.