Children aged 17 or younger to face a lifelong ban on buying cigarettes in the UK

[littlepotter 76,612]

11 hours ago, Bronco said:

The evidence backs me up though. 

Prohibition increases criminality, creates higher risk factors for the public which in turn drives up the pressure placed on public spending and doesn't lower consumption. 

We know there is a better way on the issue of addictive substances. We have the evidence. Portugal decriminalised drug use in 2001. It led to a 60% rise in people seeking treatment within the first 10 years. It cut HIV infections via drug use by 90%. They have the lowest drug mortality rate in Western Europe cutting it from 131 in 2001 to 20 by 2008. Usage trended down within the first five years. Usage rates amongst adolescents went down. Usage rates are consistent and consistently below the EU average. For the last 20 years the drug use among adolescents was below EU average as well.

The simple fact is clear. Criminalisation of substances does not deter users, or adoption. Health-focused therapeutic responses do.  

The UK has had consistent downward trending smoking since 1974. It's fallen from 45% to 11%. Because there has been consistent focus on healthcare responses to smoking - significant public health campaigns, mandatory education in schools, and NHS funded support to quit smoking. We're proposing throwing away proven policy that is working for a policy that has no evidence base supporting it and the only comparable situations all raise serious red flags about its efficacy. 

That is solid data but I do think it's a stretch to compare this to cigarettes. Drug related deaths went down from 131 to 20. From the guardian article:

"Smoking leads to 400,000 hospital admissions and 64,000 deaths a year in England alone and costs the NHS £3bn in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. It is estimated to involve total costs to society of between £21.3bn and £27.6bn a year in England, mainly through lost productivity."

64k deaths is a horrific number. Even if people will find other ways to smoke, don't you think making a substance not available for effortless sale will result in much less than 400k hospital admissions? 

The way I see it, since it's already passed into law, there's no need to speculate: in a few years we will see the numbers and see what happens. If it does drive down smoking and reduce related health problems, the whole world will know this is an effective way to deal with the problem; if not then we'll know it doesn't work and it's a reversible law. 

[Bronco 25,131]

2 hours ago, littlepotter said:

That is solid data but I do think it's a stretch to compare this to cigarettes. Drug related deaths went down from 131 to 20. From the guardian article:

"Smoking leads to 400,000 hospital admissions and 64,000 deaths a year in England alone and costs the NHS £3bn in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. It is estimated to involve total costs to society of between £21.3bn and £27.6bn a year in England, mainly through lost productivity."

64k deaths is a horrific number. Even if people will find other ways to smoke, don't you think making a substance not available for effortless sale will result in much less than 400k hospital admissions? 

The way I see it, since it's already passed into law, there's no need to speculate: in a few years we will see the numbers and see what happens. If it does drive down smoking and reduce related health problems, the whole world will know this is an effective way to deal with the problem; if not then we'll know it doesn't work and it's a reversible law. 

No I don't.

Because as we've already seen in the UK as we've raised the cost of legitimate tobacco products, the market has been flooded with counterfeit versions available for cheaper prices.

These products have *zero* oversight and contain worse toxins than legal tobacco products. And have worse health outcomes for users, which increases cost inflicted on the NHS. 

1.3 billion counterfeit cigs are seized annually in the UK *without* a ban on smoking. The demand only goes up when they are made the only option.

[MajorMinus 409]

On 4/21/2026 at 11:45 AM, Junko Enoshima said:

didn’t know that ty

Hey! The statement you replied to is not exactly correct. Vaping is generally considered harm reduction (though to be clear, it is definitely not SAFE). Studies that look at cardiovascular or respiratory function show either similar or lessened effects with vapes compared to standard cigarettes. 

There’s not enough evidence yet for using them as a stepping stone to transition off cigs, but there are randomized controlled trials showing e-cigs can be successful for transitioning off cigs when provided. 

(No offense to the user you responded to btw, I have been a medical provider for 7 years and keep up the medical literature for e-cigs as a personal interest thing since my dad smokes like a chimney, so I like to share info!) 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,974]

On 4/22/2026 at 1:11 AM, IWantYourLove said:

As a Brit already old enough to smoke so it doesn't affect me at all, I think this is a stupid idea.

It's a brilliant idea to regulate, tax, and discourage smoking, of course - but banning fully competent, capable (soon-to-be) adults from doing something we have done for CENTURIES as a species just rubs me the wrong way for some reason.

Yes, it's very harmful. The people who choose to smoke are completely aware of this, they're not utter morons. 

IMO, adults should be allowed to do as they wish as long as it isn't done with the sole intention of harming themselves and also doesn't harm others.

The fact it will still be a legal substance for other adults simply because they were born earlier is part of why this irks me so much. It just sits wrong with me that a government can make decisions like this for one set of adults, yet not another.

Just find ways to make it even less accessible and apply it to everyone. That would make SO much more sense. Don't just decide to put a blanket ban on what an entire generation can or cannot do to their own adult bodies. 

Idk I'm not sure why this is getting under my skin so much - I'm really don't care for cigarettes at all unless I'm like on holiday or something. I think it's the partial ban applied to people who will very soon be adults no different from those of us who already are. They're going to be 20, 30, 60 one day, too, and equally as capable as those of us who are proficient adults now. I would be mad as f*ck if I was caught on the wrong side of this - not because I couldn't start smoking, but because of the unfair control.

I know that smoking is awful for your health, and I also know that this is realistically one of the most effective ways to put a stop to it from harming people at the sheer volume that it does. But the selective ban kinda just p*sses me off on behalf of people who will one day be my age and have had a decision about their bodies made on their behalf without any consultation (not that it would've happened like that anyway, but you get my point). Maybe I take things like this too personally, even though it doesn't affect me. Banning something for entire generations (and all future ones to follow) just feels like crossing a line. Idk.

If they banned it for everyone, that would frustrate me far less tbh.

The UK acknowledged that addiction already exists for the current adult population. That's why the cut off is 2009 and not a full ban. I think it's a very humanitarian approach. The fact you felt the need to put (soon-to-be) in parentheses demonstrates that 18 year olds are in fact not old enough to make fully informed decisions. I don't think this is an effort to keep cigarettes completely off limits to the younger generation. It's a mitigation tactic to reduce the amount of teenagers exposed to smoking. Research shows that age is a huge factor in the strength of an addiction so delaying when people get access to cigarettes will still have an impact on health outcomes. Humans might have consumed tobacco for thousands of years but not the 80+ carcinogens found in cigarettes. 

On 4/22/2026 at 1:57 AM, liamgaga said:

What frustrates me is that adults should be allowed to buy and do what they want. Cigarettes are taxed ridiculously high hete anyway which in theory pays for any treatment they need on the NHS in later life. Alcohol has been shown to be just as damaging. Not to mention the side effects of drinking which encourage things like drink driving etc and yet we have adverts for alcohol on TV, billboards, and just about everywhere else. I drink occasionally so im not here on a high horse, but you can't ban one without considering banning the other. Not to mention, in decades time imagine being 50 and wanting to try a cigarette and being asked for ID at the checkout, like wtf? 

But alcohol and cigarettes aren't both equally harmful. Cigarettes are more directly linked to negative health outcomes such as cancer and are also more addictive. 

On 4/22/2026 at 2:03 AM, princedeeblebleble said:

That kinda makes 0 sense  like younger generations smoke far less anyways, but prohibiting it generally goes to the way where it looks more tempting cause it's forbidden.  That leads to people going towards more dangerous ways to get something that otherwise you could pick in broad daylight in a safe store instead of doing it in the shadows.. and then the possible nonsense of jailng or making people pay for doing something that humanity has been doing for millennia.

I'm not a smoker, nor do I like it when smokers disregard people around them and I'm well aware of all the health risks, but why not take the time to educate people on the dangers and realities of it all, make them make their choices instead of banning it all? 

This doesn't criminalize smoking cigarettes for individuals, just bans the sale of cigarettes to people born after 2009. 

17 hours ago, Bronco said:

The evidence backs me up though. 

Prohibition increases criminality, creates higher risk factors for the public which in turn drives up the pressure placed on public spending and doesn't lower consumption. 

We know there is a better way on the issue of addictive substances. We have the evidence. Portugal decriminalised drug use in 2001. It led to a 60% rise in people seeking treatment within the first 10 years. It cut HIV infections via drug use by 90%. They have the lowest drug mortality rate in Western Europe cutting it from 131 in 2001 to 20 by 2008. Usage trended down within the first five years. Usage rates amongst adolescents went down. Usage rates are consistent and consistently below the EU average. For the last 20 years the drug use among adolescents was below EU average as well.

The simple fact is clear. Criminalisation of substances does not deter users, or adoption. Health-focused therapeutic responses do.  

The UK has had consistent downward trending smoking since 1974. It's fallen from 45% to 11%. Because there has been consistent focus on healthcare responses to smoking - significant public health campaigns, mandatory education in schools, and NHS funded support to quit smoking. We're proposing throwing away proven policy that is working for a policy that has no evidence base supporting it and the only comparable situations all raise serious red flags about its efficacy. 

This doesn't criminalize smoking, only bans the sale of cigarettes. Individuals born after Jan 1 2009 won't be arrested or prosecuted unless they're smoking on school or hospital grounds. It's a law aimed at retailers. And prohibition does work in terms of consumption rates. US Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption by 60-70%. And even if it doesn't stop the entire generation from smoking, making it less accessible will increase the age at which the generation is exposed to smoking and thus make smoking less addictive. 

[Bronco 25,131]

59 minutes ago, AsleepOnTheCeiling said:

That's why the cut off is 2009 and not a full ban

We already have data that under 18s are already smoking. Despite it being illegal for them.

And we already know the larger uptake among younger generations is vaping - which is not prevented by this ban. And again, is illegal. 

So if the current ban does not prevent under 18s starting smoking. How does this ban prevent under 18s starting smoking? 

Considering this ban comes with no new powers or funding for authorities to enforce it.

1 hour ago, AsleepOnTheCeiling said:

And prohibition does work in terms of consumption rates. US Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption by 60-70%

Prohibition was a failure. It cost the US $226 million in tax revenues alone and the US government had to actively begin poisoning alchol supplies to fight bootleggers. 

The US government's actions led to a 600% rise in the fatality rate from alcohol consumption. 

All data reviews conclude that prohibition led to short term gains which were replaced with a long term rise in crime and destabilisation. 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02926.x

Data reviews also suggest that public intoxication offences saw a short term decline only to have it return to standard levels as bootleggers established themselves.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176504002691?via%3Dihub

Some studies found that there was a quick drop to 30% consumption at the start of prohibition only for the rate of consumption to then rise back up to 70% as prohibition continued. Meaning that prohibition only ever achieved a sustained 30% decline in consumption. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006862

Studies that compare cirrhosis records as a way of estimating the impact on consumption point to a measly 10-20% reduction. 

Criminality in Chicago is believed to have tripled during prohibition.

Some studies suggest a 24% national rise in criminal activity. 

A study of data in South Carolina found that counties which enforced prohibition had a 30 to 60% higher homicide rate to counties that didnt enforce.

Drug addiction rose by 45% during prohibition 

And records show policing costs increased by 11.4%.

The government costs of enforcing prohibition rose from 4.4million to 13.4 million over the course of the decade. The cost of combatting smuggling was $13million annually for the coastguard as well. 

Colin Augur's works point to prohibition as the driving factor in the establishment of government phonewire tapping. 

Prohibition had disproportionate effects on non-white communities and poor communities because of bias within enforcement agencies.

And a recent study estimates that repealling prohibition brought a financial net benefit of $432mil per annum between 1934-1937. With total benefits were estimated to be $3.25 billion. 

The valuation of prohibition era alcohol trading (all illegal so no taxable revenue potential) was $3 billion per year. 

Prohibition was a costly failure. 

[50 Ft Queenie 640]

Happened in NZ…already 

[Shadownight 554]

Im 35, and in the uk and I rarely see the younger generation smoking anymore. It's all about the vapes. I dont particularly agree with banning people born after a certain year from buying cigarettes, but if youre gonna do that you've got to go the whole hog and include vapes in that.  Vapes MAY be less serious, but these younger people I see are constantly chugging away on them. Whereas when I smoke, I have one and thats it for a while. Its seems like it's glued to thier hands. That itself isnt good. 

Edited April 25 by Shadownight