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..

> 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.

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.

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.

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

If they're trying to ban things that cause cancer, eating pussy is surely next.

I love smoking cigarettes.

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.

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.

Wait till you hear about trans issues there.

[dead]

Liberalism left UK politics decades ago and their voters practically begged for it.

I love smoking

Shocking. They'll be banning cocaine and heroin next!

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.