Rendered at 01:59:35 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
dusted 4 hours ago [-]
I always thought it was an elegant and respectful solution.
Instead of harassing existing addicts into quitting, ease out of general addiction by forbidding those who haven't yet had the opportunity to get addicted, yes, of course some will still be, but it will be vastly fewer than when it's illegal.
It's different from weed in that, while it makes you look cool, it's simply nowhere near as fun..
kelseyfrog 4 hours ago [-]
> I vehemently insist on the right of my fellow humans to smoke.
You still have the right to bodily autonomy. What sellers don't have is the right to sell something that kills their clients and has obvious consequences en mass.
Just grow your own tobacco, cure it, process it, and roll your own cigarettes. Think of it like building your own Linux distro. You always had that ability, but didn't exercise it. Now you can.
justsomehnguy 2 hours ago [-]
> Just grow your own tobacco, cure it, process it, and roll your own cigarettes.
Just grow your own grapes, ferment them, distill them, and bottle your own whiskey.
Just raise your own cattle, slaughter them, butcher them, and prepare your own steak.
Just raise your own cows, milk them, pasteurize the milk, and produce your own cheese.
vrganj 1 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, or... don't.
But don't expect other people to make everything easy for you. If you really want to, you can. Laziness is not an excuse.
cucumber3732842 2 hours ago [-]
Acting like "well we're not banning it, we're just regulating it to the point that it's a non starter for 99.99% of people effectively acomplishing the same thing" isn't a ban is just calling people stupid with extra steps.
camgunz 3 hours ago [-]
This is a particularly lazy article. I expected Friedersdorf to engage at least perfunctorily with drug laws or seatbelt laws, but no, just a bunch of trying to troll the libs.
Here's something else that's argument-destroying: the ban doesn't apply to the people born after 2009, it applies to anyone trying to sell them tobacco or vapes. This falls under the aegis of regulation (can't sell heroin either) and applies to all sellers regardless of race, age, sex, etc, so it's not even discriminatory. Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet.
But finally, Friedersdorf talks about the dignity of making choices and dealing with the consequences. I'd love to see him make this argument to people dying slowly of COPD and emphysema, people with mouth, throat, and lung cancer, people who will die before meeting their grandkids, etc. Just, chilling detachment from humanity.
mytailorisrich 3 hours ago [-]
A pack of cigarettes in the UK has a huge warning that smoking kills/causes cancer/etc with a shocking picture of a potential actual outcome, too. That's in addition to all the public campaigns about the risks of smoking.
The argument that smokers were victims who didn't know hasn't held any water for decades...
vrganj 3 minutes ago [-]
They're addicts. Whether they know it's bad or not is irrelevant.
If you ever struggle with addiction, you'll know that decision making is no longer well-reasoned or thought through. Such is addiction.
troad 2 hours ago [-]
> Here's something else that's argument-destroying: the ban doesn't apply to the people born after 2009, it applies to anyone trying to sell them tobacco or vapes. This falls under the aegis of regulation (can't sell heroin either) and applies to all sellers regardless of race, age, sex, etc, so it's not even discriminatory. Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet.
This is a terrible argument. Imagine a law that prohibited ALL vendors, regardless of age, race, sex, etc from selling to people of a certain race. Would you claim that such a law is not discriminatory, because it affects vendors of all races equally?
> Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet
> Just, chilling detachment from humanity
I don't agree with CF on many things, including this smoking ban, but I'd point out these kinds of flourishes do nothing but weaken your overall point.
clutter55561 5 hours ago [-]
This is stupid. Smoking has high social negative externality. It causes cancer to the smoker and to others around the smoker. Who pays for the treatment of those affected? All tax payers.
Want to die? Die fast, not in a way that waste everyone’s money, and don’t take others with you.
mytailorisrich 5 hours ago [-]
In the UK it is forbidden to smoke in public places and the revenue from taxes on cigarettes is several times what the healthcare service spends on smoking-related illnesses.
So I'd say things are already exactly as you wish.
greggoB 5 hours ago [-]
> the revenue from taxes on cigarettes is several times what the healthcare service spends on smoking-related illnesses.
I'd be interested to see this - you have a source you can link for it?
mytailorisrich 4 hours ago [-]
Google is still around: revenue is at £8 billion (Office for Budget Responsibility) and in decline, and NHS spending is at £2.6 billion in England, which is by far the bulk of the UK (NHS England).
greggoB 46 minutes ago [-]
"In 2024, smoking cost the public finances in England £16.5bn, more than double the £6.8bn raised through tobacco taxes." [0]
"The NHS’s expenditure on smoking-related health issues remains high, corroborated by the reported £20. 6 billion cost to public finances in the UK in 2022, with approximately £2. 2 billion attributed to the NHS" [1]
It seems NHS spending is only a part of the story. Also note that I'm only quoting cost to public finances, the overall societal costs are cited as being much higher.
Extraordinary claims require evidence, not snarky Google mentions. Spending amounts are for what specifically? Do those 2.6 billion account for second and third hand smoke? For smoking in pregnancy leading to problems?
mytailorisrich 4 hours ago [-]
I didn't make any extraordinary claims...
Most of the price of a pack of cigarettes in the UK is tax. It is fairly well known that revenue is higher than cost to healthcare service (NHS, which is funded via general taxation), and data are public and very easily found. My previous comment with data was indeed literally the result of two Google queries (revenue amd cost) and were from official sources, which I mentioned.
You don't like the data? Fine. You want to do your own detailed research and enlighten us? Fine. I didn't comment to be cross-examined to death...
greggoB 42 minutes ago [-]
This is HN, you should know to expect your comments will be scrutinized if not backed up by data. I provided an example in direct reply to your previous comment.
armada651 4 hours ago [-]
> So I'd say things are already exactly as you wish.
Except, you know, the "don't take others with you" part.
That is a crucial, fundamental part of liberalism that people often skip over. Everyone only seems to remember the "I have the freedom to do whatever I want" part and skip over the "until that freedom impedes the freedom of others" part.
mytailorisrich 4 hours ago [-]
Absolutely, which is why smoking in public, offices, bars, restaurants, etc is banned...
hackable_sand 2 hours ago [-]
So it logically follows that you don't have the right to sell cigarettes
Good job everyone!
erelong 2 hours ago [-]
Personally I find it embarassing the U.K. is doing this but it's not surprising
Was pretty surprised to see the U.S. bump up smoking age to 21
These efforts seem like the opposite of progress and promote irresponsibility and dependence
quickthrowman 4 hours ago [-]
Cigarettes exist solely to keep people smoking, they’re an insidious product. It’s a corporation weaponizing addiction to profit while causing cancer and COPD. You’re either addicted, or you aren’t. There are no pleasurable psychoactive effects, only relief from nicotine withdrawal. Humans are better off without tobacco, or cigarettes at least.
This solution at least lets the current addicts maintain their addiction, but there are much safer ways to get nicotine these days if you want it, lozenges, vapes, pouches.
5 hours ago [-]
calvinmorrison 4 hours ago [-]
I love smoking cigarettes.
ls612 3 hours ago [-]
Of all the illiberal things that the UK has been doing the past few years this of all things is what is a bridge too far for the Atlantic? Apologies for the lack of decorum but lol. lmao even.
watwut 4 hours ago [-]
Wait till you hear about trans issues there.
cumshitpiss 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
busterarm 6 hours ago [-]
Liberalism left UK politics decades ago and their voters practically begged for it.
calvinmorrison 4 hours ago [-]
I love smoking
fancyfredbot 4 hours ago [-]
Shocking. They'll be banning cocaine and heroin next!
Scroll_Swe 4 hours ago [-]
Dont really care.
Not in the UK but in Sweden. Smoking is already banned in restaurants, on train platforms, mostly all in public.
With health care being tax funded in regions, I dont want to pay for smokers bad health.
"oh but do you want to tax or prohibit unhealthy foods!!??"
Yes, first remove all drinks with sugar or heavily tax them. Not needed. Zero sugar drinks only.
2nd - price hike on snacks, chips, nuts, chocolate, "pick n mix" candy, sugar candy
3rd - BMI based health. Want any help for pain, surgery, whatever and your BMI is over 25? Lower it and you get it. Do you smoke? Stop. Do nicotine? Stop. Any hard drugs? Stop.
ianschmitz 3 hours ago [-]
What did nuts ever do to you?
Scroll_Swe 3 hours ago [-]
Nuts have good fats and are somewhat okay in a VERY moderate amount.
But they have a crazy amount of calories. Nuts are not a thing to snack on, if you eat more than one handful, but it is easy to eat an entire bag and at that point just eat chips.
"A small 1.5-ounce serving often contains 240–300 calories, while larger bags (e.g., 100g) can range from 570 to 750 calories."
mrbukkake 4 hours ago [-]
yes very swedish response, aggressively conformist and narrow minded
Scroll_Swe 3 hours ago [-]
I assume you are american, must be very blackpilling to visit Sweden. Imagine living in a functional democracy and society where things work like public transport and holidays.
Not OP, but I'm not American, have been to Sweden (and lived most of my life in countries with better public healthcare than Sweden), and I also think yours is an aggressively conformist take. I'm not sure what value it is meant to be adding to the overall conversation. Save it for Reddit next time.
2 hours ago [-]
cindyllm 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
subjectsigma 3 hours ago [-]
> With health care being tax funded in regions, I dont want to pay for smokers bad health.
> 2nd - price hike on snacks, chips, nuts, chocolate, "pick n mix" candy, sugar candy
I assume you are american, must be very blackpilling to visit Sweden. Imagine living in a functional democracy and society where things work like public transport and holidays.
I am American and I visited Stockholm for a week last year. It was nice and pretty but boy oh boy was it stifling. Copenhagen was way more relaxed by comparison.
subjectsigma 2 hours ago [-]
I am American, I have never visited Sweden but I have visited Norway. The taxes on normal everyday things like food were as high as 25% and everyone I talked to expressed interest in America, either visiting or living there. I only know one person who moved from America to a Nordic country (Denmark) and she complained that everyone was racist and that it took several months to get an appointment for a root canal, during that time she just had to live with severe pain. I have zero desire to live in any Nordic country.
You still have the right to bodily autonomy. What sellers don't have is the right to sell something that kills their clients and has obvious consequences en mass.
Just grow your own tobacco, cure it, process it, and roll your own cigarettes. Think of it like building your own Linux distro. You always had that ability, but didn't exercise it. Now you can.
Just grow your own grapes, ferment them, distill them, and bottle your own whiskey.
Just raise your own cattle, slaughter them, butcher them, and prepare your own steak.
Just raise your own cows, milk them, pasteurize the milk, and produce your own cheese.
But don't expect other people to make everything easy for you. If you really want to, you can. Laziness is not an excuse.
Here's something else that's argument-destroying: the ban doesn't apply to the people born after 2009, it applies to anyone trying to sell them tobacco or vapes. This falls under the aegis of regulation (can't sell heroin either) and applies to all sellers regardless of race, age, sex, etc, so it's not even discriminatory. Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet.
But finally, Friedersdorf talks about the dignity of making choices and dealing with the consequences. I'd love to see him make this argument to people dying slowly of COPD and emphysema, people with mouth, throat, and lung cancer, people who will die before meeting their grandkids, etc. Just, chilling detachment from humanity.
The argument that smokers were victims who didn't know hasn't held any water for decades...
If you ever struggle with addiction, you'll know that decision making is no longer well-reasoned or thought through. Such is addiction.
This is a terrible argument. Imagine a law that prohibited ALL vendors, regardless of age, race, sex, etc from selling to people of a certain race. Would you claim that such a law is not discriminatory, because it affects vendors of all races equally?
> particularly lazy article
> just a bunch of trying to troll the libs
> Here's something else that's argument-destroying
> Claims destroyed, nice try token conservative at liberal outlet
> Just, chilling detachment from humanity
I don't agree with CF on many things, including this smoking ban, but I'd point out these kinds of flourishes do nothing but weaken your overall point.
Want to die? Die fast, not in a way that waste everyone’s money, and don’t take others with you.
So I'd say things are already exactly as you wish.
I'd be interested to see this - you have a source you can link for it?
"The NHS’s expenditure on smoking-related health issues remains high, corroborated by the reported £20. 6 billion cost to public finances in the UK in 2022, with approximately £2. 2 billion attributed to the NHS" [1]
It seems NHS spending is only a part of the story. Also note that I'm only quoting cost to public finances, the overall societal costs are cited as being much higher.
[0] https://ash.org.uk/key-topics/the-economic-impact-of-smoking
[1] https://themaplesrehab.com/how-much-money-does-the-nhs-spend...
Most of the price of a pack of cigarettes in the UK is tax. It is fairly well known that revenue is higher than cost to healthcare service (NHS, which is funded via general taxation), and data are public and very easily found. My previous comment with data was indeed literally the result of two Google queries (revenue amd cost) and were from official sources, which I mentioned.
You don't like the data? Fine. You want to do your own detailed research and enlighten us? Fine. I didn't comment to be cross-examined to death...
Except, you know, the "don't take others with you" part.
That is a crucial, fundamental part of liberalism that people often skip over. Everyone only seems to remember the "I have the freedom to do whatever I want" part and skip over the "until that freedom impedes the freedom of others" part.
Good job everyone!
Was pretty surprised to see the U.S. bump up smoking age to 21
These efforts seem like the opposite of progress and promote irresponsibility and dependence
This solution at least lets the current addicts maintain their addiction, but there are much safer ways to get nicotine these days if you want it, lozenges, vapes, pouches.
Not in the UK but in Sweden. Smoking is already banned in restaurants, on train platforms, mostly all in public.
With health care being tax funded in regions, I dont want to pay for smokers bad health.
"oh but do you want to tax or prohibit unhealthy foods!!??"
Yes, first remove all drinks with sugar or heavily tax them. Not needed. Zero sugar drinks only.
2nd - price hike on snacks, chips, nuts, chocolate, "pick n mix" candy, sugar candy
3rd - BMI based health. Want any help for pain, surgery, whatever and your BMI is over 25? Lower it and you get it. Do you smoke? Stop. Do nicotine? Stop. Any hard drugs? Stop.
But they have a crazy amount of calories. Nuts are not a thing to snack on, if you eat more than one handful, but it is easy to eat an entire bag and at that point just eat chips.
"A small 1.5-ounce serving often contains 240–300 calories, while larger bags (e.g., 100g) can range from 570 to 750 calories."
https://youtu.be/xrTTIYd2OyY?si=3ZVicQxgxzXhu4s9&t=27
> 2nd - price hike on snacks, chips, nuts, chocolate, "pick n mix" candy, sugar candy
I love being proven right.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47848115
Sweden does not have a sugar tax but Norway does, they go over the border to buy candy.
The big limit here is alcohol, over 3.5% is only able to be sold in special regulated stores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget
I assume you are american, must be very blackpilling to visit Sweden. Imagine living in a functional democracy and society where things work like public transport and holidays.
https://youtu.be/xrTTIYd2OyY?si=3ZVicQxgxzXhu4s9&t=27