Smoking age should rise from 18, by one year every year

aside from the issue of 'prohibition still doesn't work', i don't think giving kids or "underage" adults criminal charges for cigarettes is making anything better for anyone

Smoking age is specifically the ability to purchase. There are no criminal/civil charges for underage smoking. The crimes are specifically 1) selling to minors 2) buying for minors.

TL;DR: No one goes/will go to jail for underage smoking. They won’t even get in trouble for buying. The onus is on the vendor OR the legal purchaser who handed them off.
- Incorrect.
  
  A black market is created, kids still smoke, but poor people making a buck selling to kids go to jail.
  
  It doesn't fix the issue and syphons poor people into prisons.
I know this is pretty radical, but if we made smoking FFA way fewer people should theoretically start smoking in the first place. From my experience when I was still at school most of the people there were only smoking because it's "cool", making smoking legal for everyone should take the coolness factor away at least.
- Please, oh dear god...
  
  Please tell me what FFA means and how it doesn't amount to "send poor people to prison".

how to create a blackmarket with health issues

I'd prefer they start at 60 and raise it every year, but I'll take what I can get.

This is an amazing, for the sole reason that everyone who is 17 and change now will turn 18, be able to smoke, the law will bump to 19, they won't be allowed to smoke any more, but then they'll turn 19 and they'll be able to smoke again until the law raises to 20...

I believe they passed a similar law like this in New Zealand. You could be 50 and still too young to smoke lol.

Smokefree action plan: Cigarette sales to be banned for younger generations
Why adjust the law annually? Why not just write it as “no person born after Jan 1, 2005”?
- This is the better way to write the law of course, but the ham-fisted way it's proposed by Rishi would look more like what I wrote, because he said specifically that the age should rise one year every year.
You can just make it a "born before this date" and it just solves this entirely. That date just doesn't change. Everyone who sells darts memorizes it. Then it actually changes every day by a day. Fuck it, let's give it an hour too, just to fuck with those kids born an hour later

Sunak should start publicly smoking all the time, then it will be the lamest thing and teen smoking will crater.

No no no, minimum age should increase by 360 days every year, that way people can still have hope that some day they'll be able to smoke. Staying true to how capitalism works.

....how do 14 year olds get smokes now?

Making it illegal to buy at certain ages has never worked...banning them outright also won't work. You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.

Has the war on drugs not been a thought to these people? It is useless and does nothing.

I agree that prohibition doesn't really prevent a thing from being consumed. However, I don't think an age limit really counts as prohibition. Selling substances to those who are underage is bad and there should be potential consequences for doing so.
- Underage in this scenario could be 40, 50, 60. They will just drive to an Indian reserve and buy cigarettes.
  
  I assume you're talking about teens though..I'm fine with the current age limits, but increasing the age by 1 year ever year won't do anything.
Why have laws against drunk driving or speeding? You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.
- It's true, you can't stop people from doing what they want to do with laws, but smoking doesn't smear a child down the street for everyone to see. What a terrible comparison
The war on drugs can't work because the CIA uses illicit drug running to fund off-the-books projects.

Maybe if they stopped fucking doing that?
- Sure on a global scale, but on a more macro level, the war on drugs failed because people want to buy and consume drugs.... if there is no legal, regulated, safe method to buy them then the black market will fill that gap... same under rationing, same under prohibition, same with drugs and in the future cigarettes....!
- It's not the 1980's. Reagan's long dead. What makes you think they still do that?
- The war on drugs can't work because people want drugs. Has literally fuck-all to do with anything or anyone else.

lame. create a legal path to execute the tobacco company execs instead.

I hope this doesn't happen because I love my ciggies, but this plan could actually accomplish what you people claim to want to accomplish.

Wait... no it won't.

But still, at least it's a genuine plan and not the systemic War on Drugs, prohibitionist, "put the underclass in the for profit prisons" bullshit all the prohibitionist circle-jerkers keep screaming into their echo chambers.

New Zealand has done this

Man the fuck up and outlaw it for everyone instead of this sneaky prohibition that only affect people that can't vote yet. It's such a cowardly, disingenuous way of doing it.

Prohibition never works, the best bet is to keep it legal and make it as inconvenient as possible like: raising taxes on tobacco, make it illegal to smoke outside of dedicated zones (Quebec has done it I believe), fine people who litter their cigarette butts (hard to implement but, it might deter a large majority from doing it), keep helping smokers to quit and keep raising awareness for younger people.
- This is the way. There are so few places to smoke in BC that I pretty much only ever see people doing it 5 metres from a bus stop.
  
  They are so expensive that the few people that still do it smoke maybe a pack a week.
  
  We even banned the sale of no-nic vape juice because they were becoming a gateway to nicotine addiction for teenagers.
- Nah the best bet is to remove the profit motive. And through legal means execute every cigarette company owner or employee who covered up health risks for mass manslaughter.
This method stops current smokers from being criminalised.

If you ban it like prohibition, you will instantaneously create a black market. Continually increasing the age you can buy cigarettes is easier. Everyone that this effects will not have the option to legally create a cigarette habit/addiction.

A straight up outlawing would have the maximum effect. But it would be costly to enforce, whilst increasing overall criminal activity.
- They just need to outlaw the commercial production of cigarettes. I'm very anti cigarette personally, but at the end of the day, tobacco is a plant and should not be outlawed. But outlawing commercial products it makes tobacco legal and accessible to those who want it. With commercial cigarettes being less available, in guessing through either lack of convenience or lack of ability to act on an impulse, that the amount of smokers will drop.
Hmmm, where have I heard this proposal before?
- The reason I used the word Prohibition is because I think it's bullshit either way. We're sitting here legalizing pot because Prohibition doesn't work, but somehow doing this chickenshit year-by-year outlawing is somehow going to fix something that education is doing a fine enough job. People are going to smoke cigarettes, there's always a group that will do it, legal or not. Whether you want a crime problem around it or not is the obvious question these chucklefucks don't seem to understand, despite repeated examples to the contrary.

NZ already did this and it is the most cowardly way to avoid political blowback.

There's plenty of other options for minimising smoking. A more altruistic way is by lifting people out of poverty and tackling social disintegration, since smokers are overwhelmingly poor and disaffected.

Your right there are better ways. Both methods should be implemented. A carrot and stick approach is going to be more effective.

I don't think we can expect the altruistic way from a Billionaire Tory. As far as policy goes, this is the best one the Tory have had in a long time. But that doesn't say much.
So instead of reducing a clearly destructive habit now we should wait for a major social change that likely won't happen. I don't see how that is more altruistic for the "poor and disaffected".
- You can either try to do things the right way and cure multiple social ills, or you can do it the wrong way and end up with different rules for different adults all in an attempt to prohibition your way out of one issue.

As UK economy continues to crumble, Rishi is focusing on the real issues.

Cool, when does the minimum age for joining the military start to raise by one year every year?

What's with the whataboutism?
- It's directly related. Why are 18 year olds able to lock themselves into a 6 year contract that they might be killed before they see the end of, when they are, legally, too dumb to make their own decisions regarding a chemical they put in their bodies?
- They're right, there shouldn't be recruiters in school that's predatory as shit.

“We operate a Check-74 policy. If you are lucky enough to look younger than 70, we will ask for ID when buying cigarettes”

Maybe we will make groundbreaking leaps in cosmetic surgery. Or have Jackass-style elderly disguises become popular.

Back in my day we used to smoke up hill both ways in the rain and snow.

Rishi is just jealous that they aren't one of the cool kids

https://www.theonion.com/secondhand-smoke-linked-to-secondhand-coolness-1819564071

Rishi it's a background character in his own life. There are more dynamic jellyfish.

Raising legal age

not be able to buy cigarettes

French people in shamble

should rise from 18, by one year every year

If that truly continued every year, that means someone too young to legally smoke could eventually die of old age when the legal smoking age is, say, 90 and they're 89. skeleton-wave

EDIT: I was just tripping out at the idea of "you must be 90 years old to buy this" signs at the supermarket. Surreal image.

That's the point.
- I was just tripping out at the idea of "you must be 90 years old to buy this" signs at the supermarket. Surreal image.
Yep, the idea is to prevent new kids from getting addicted to this awful shit without hurting people who are already addicted.
- I was just tripping out at the idea of "you must be 90 years old to buy this" signs at the supermarket. Surreal image.

So he's nicking what newzeland did ok cool something that he's not going to profit from for a change atleast

Big tobacco trying to kill big vape by making it exciting again to smoke and break the law

Not a smoker or wannabe one but if someone is just one year behind in their age, they'll never be able to legally smoke with this setup.

that is the exact point
I believe that's the intention yes.
Yes, that's how both time and math works.
Correct, that’s the point. I’m fancy, there would be a day cutoff. Likely 1/1 of some year.
great!
- Cool things that leftists always support: making drugs illegal.
  
  Cool things that have historically worked and not made things worse: Prohibition.
  
  Like seriously what the fuck is this shit since when did we believe in making drugs illegal.
They don't respect the rights of other people, that's all. It's just blatant authoritarianism that they're getting away with because of popular support.
That's the goal.

If he wanted it to work he could make cigarettes more lethal. Kill you in a couple of months type of thing.

(Clearly not a serious suggestion in case you wonder)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me.
Minutes to seconds better, also if the cigarettes put themselves off and doesn't cause fires

Yeah no, you don't get to arbitrarily use age to deny people their rights and manipulate them into doing what you want them to do.

Exactly what rights are you talking about?
- The right to smoke and be unhealthy.
  
  Also bodily autonomy. That kind of action, if accepted, could be used to impose incremental bans on anyone for any reason, so long as the majority is authoritarian enough to agree.
  
  Like access to hormones for trans people. Or abortions. Or birth control. Or weed.

I agree that smoking is bad for you, having quit myself - but the idea of outlawing a plant / prohibiting humans who just happened to be born in one specific part of the world from burning it and inhaling the produced smoke just goes against my views on ethics.

Instead, why don't we fix the real problems? How about getting rid of capitalism, and thus the profit incentive to sell addictive substances for a huge markup? How about we fix this broken society that keeps pushing more and more people towards drugs such as nicotine, the tiny escape, and the little bit of stress relief they provide?

Drugs, from cigarettes to meth, are not the problem..

They're just a symptom.

The war on drugs is nothing more than an effort to sweep the real problems under the rug, and nothing less than coordinated violence targeted at people who are already suffering.

Fuck this.

Going to the doctor in mind melting pain and he says I have a broken leg and it requires an operation and I say great in the meantime can you give me something for this pain and he says no that's just a symptom. Except here the pain is a ton of innocent kids being consigned to an early grave for the stock of tobacco companies.

How on earth is proscribing cigarettes for kids who are thankfully not yet addicted to them coordinated violence aimed at the suffering? Completely rubbish, cigarette-brained take.
- Yeah I completely agree, cigarettes are a symptom, but when the actual cute is a long hard road, treating symptoms is a totally reasonable course.
  
  Also, cigarettes don't provide an escape from reality, they only provide an escape for nicotine cravings. Literally the only reason to smoke is because you have to (or you're dumb and curious), it doesn't get you high or anything like that
- The problem with your analogy though is that the doctor does have plans to actually help the problem too. It takes more time and effort to set up all the things needed to properly heal a bone, so in the mean time they try to help alleviate the symptoms in the mean time. The system' in place has no plans to actually address the real issues, so it's more like the doctor sent you out the door with painkillers and calls that good enough. Creating laws that attempt to curb cigarette habits might be worth pursuing if paired with actual legislation to handle the causes that drive people to their use.
  
  Also, to me, it is worth looking at some of the other reasons people are draw to smoking. Tobacco companies pour tons of money into methods of encouraging smoking and vaping, with it being well know that some of this is targeted at young people. To be honest, and some may find this a bit of a stretch, I sometimes feel that these laws are a sort of collective societal victim blaming more then a benefit.
  
  As another point, and I don't know if you know this, but banning something does not necessarily curb it's use (see alcohol prohibition in the US in the early 20th century). If anything prohibition just deregulates it, making it more dangerous for those who still continue to participate.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Speaking at the Conservative party conference, Mr Sunak said he believed it was the right step to tackle the leading cause of preventable ill-health.

"Because without a significant change, thousands of children will start smoking in the coming years and have their lives cut short."

But Mr Sunak has decided to throw his backing behind it as a way of meeting the government's ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030 - defined as less than 5% of the population smoking.

The proposal on raising the age of sale of cigarettes is similar to laws being introduced in New Zealand, where buying tobacco products will remain banned for anyone born after 2008.

Mr Sunak also said the government would consider restricting the sale of disposable vapes and look at flavourings and packaging of the devices, to tackle the rising rates of children using them.

"If implemented, the prime minister will deserve great credit for putting the health of UK citizens ahead of the interests of the tobacco lobby."

The original article contains 577 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

I hate smoking stock photos. Clearly she has never smoked in her life.

This better not apply to vaping.

I vaped for a few years and then stopped. Quitting was pretty damn easy imo

Under no pretext should vapes be surrendered.
- Counterpoint, a majority of the man’s bathrooms in high schools are taken up by vapers and no one can piss anymore
Agreed. I stopped smoking by switching to vaping, slowly reducing to 0mg and then realised I hadn’t used it for a week so got rid of it all.
They want to look at how vaping is being marketed to kids to reduce the number starting to vape but they’re not changing the age restrictions as far as I know.
- Hopefully this will lead to them just using vapes instead of cigarettes and not them trying to illegally get cigarettes. I'm still on the fence on whether I think this law is a good idea in general or not but allowing them to still buy vapes / vape liquid is definitely the right decision IMO.
They're doing a separate crusade against disposable vapes. If they're going after smoking I'd imagine they'd be trying to encourage people to vape to quit.

It's all hypothetical because it's highly unlikely he'll still be in power to put this plan in to action come the next general election
If you are above 18 this doesn't concern you anyway
- I care about people younger than me lol
- Sure it does. The functions of government concern us all

Wishing a very chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder on every dumbass calling this authoritarian

I just don't understand how a group of people who are all for drug legalization are suddenly supporting a policy like this (from a Tory no less)? Why are we suddenly in favor of drug prohibition? Am I missing something?
- Like 85% of people in the UK are non-smokers, so I'm presuming it's some NIMBY-lite thinking: "I don't like smoking so I need you to make everyone stop".
- What's the public health effect of legalized cigarettes vs, say, pot? Are cigarettes being banned to provide pretext for cracking down on radicals or minority communities?

Now do Australia

Omg hate to see dirty bogans everywhere smoking winni blues.

Sure are a lot of authoritarian apologists up in here today

Authoritarianism is when tobacco companies can't shove cigarettes down my kids neck.
- It's not shoving down their neck if they're educated about the danger and choose to do it anyway. That's called free will. Your job isn't to sculpt or control your kids (bc that doesn't ever work), your job is just to show them the ropes and hope they don't fall down too much/too badly.

Because people have been more and more conditioned to obey year after year. To be absolute pushovers who never fight against the grain, never question groupthink, etc. Grandfathering the criminalization (using violent enforcement) of something like smoking a cigarette is a shining example of what's to come.

Crystal Meth is illegal in all 50 states
- Not defending cigarette companies, but it really actually does suck that meth is illegal in all 50 states. The United States has the world's largest prison population, it's the most authoritarian country on the planet, and that is heavily facilitated by throwing people into prison for using drugs.
- You ironically found yourself pointing out something valid. Banning companies from putting addictive substances into everyday products has always been a good idea (Meth in Cheerios, no thx). Banning an individual from choosing, by their own free will, to make a bad decision that doesn't do any great harm to anyone else... is oppression my guy.
cigs are bad, phase 'em out
That's not how that law works it would be a law on shops

Smoking age should follow the age of boomers, age 80+

Just fucking ban it already.

Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.

You could just as easily day "oh, ban asbestos? I guess we gotta save everybody from themselves, what a nanny state."

This is bad logic that can be applied to any safety law. As a society we observe and mitigate known harms, because we can't expect every citizen to be up to date on every possible way to harm themselves without realizing it or understanding the true scope of the damage being done.

So yes; sometimes as a society we decide to save ourselves from ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that.
- I wasn't aware people used asbestos recreationally.
  
  And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?

This is illegal. You can't make a law that discriminated based on age. This would be effective prohibition for some adults and not others.

The fuck are you talking about? There are all kinds of laws that make something legal or not based on someone's age, and they often vary by state or even locale. Hell, there's a minimum age for running for president for chryssake and it's well past any definition of adulthood.
- Hell, there's a minimum age for running for president for chryssake and it's well past any definition of adulthood.
  
  Yeah and it results in super out of touch people becoming president.
What are you talking about? Plenty of laws discriminate based on age. Like, the minimum drinking age, the minimum voting age and the minimum age of consent
- This doesn't discriminate based on age. This creates a permant class of adults who may exercise a freedom and those who mayn't.
- Are there any examples that increase by one year every year?

Which means somebody's gonna have to fill the tax-hole (loss of government income) it creates...

If the best argument you can think of is "think of the taxes," maybe it's not a bad policy after all.

Cigarette taxes barely offset the increase in healthcare expenses lol
- Still, and I mean no offense here, I still smoke because I want to and like to, knowing every danger it brings me I still have the right to do it to myself. Right of ones own body and all... And for the healthcare part, I just did my part and paid more than will probably be needed myself in advance over the passed 20+ years... The only cost I will make by death from smoking will have come from my pocket when I was alive and still glad I could smoke. 😅
  
  Also, don't get me wrong, I do agree you should not smoke among non-smokers, at least not physically, cause at that point a smoker is causing physical harm to someone that choses not to be harmed by it, I do get and hold myself to that. I also hate smokers that just smoke anywhere at anytime (my own mother, for example, will always eat small portions and immediately smoke at the table after, even though nobody else is finished), but that's just terrible manners or attitude and arguably does not origin from the fact they smoke, rather the other way around,...
  
  I'm just not a fan of more rules with more reasons to become a criminal for doing mundane things. I get that we shouldn't endanger eachother with our behaviors, but full banning things eventually gets enforced to your home included, and you just know one day the cops will be showing up cause somebody saw a young looking person smoke through a home window, because "if it's illegal, it must be evil and stopped." and will also make it impossible for anyone under the rising barrier to ever be able to get help stopping when they want to, cause it'll forever get them in trouble admitting they do...
  
  Either way, aside from the smoking, though, I also don't think it's a good idea to start introducing laws with a rising age-barrier,... History has shown us plenty of times it is not a very productive thing to separate groups of people for life according to a personal trait they didn't choose to have/be. 😕
Are you kidding? The government will dig themselves deeper into debt with or without it. Regardless, "I can't stop giving people cancer because otherwise it would cut into my profits" is a uniquely shitty thing to say.
- Assuming that I go out and smoke among other people, which I don't. My pack is always safe at home when I'm out, only time I'd take it was when going out to parties (which I haven't done in many years) and even then I'd go stand separate to smoke.
  
  Not everybody of a big group of people that have a similar action are therefor the same. Never good to generalize and treat people differently for 1 thing either...
  
  It seems to me y'all have problems with people of a bad attitude. It's not so much that they smoke, but that they do it without respect... Doesn't every smoker doesn't have respect...
Better than selling cancer. There's bound to be another, better way.
- Everything causes cancer.
  
  Everything.

Smoking age should rise from 18, by one year every year - Rishi Sunak