You write, "After all, laws in place that are not complied with or adequately enforced are practically indistinguishable from having no law at all." I would have said that not only are they indistinguishable, but are in fact worse than having no law when the law abrogates an individual right or liberty.
Further, the creation of two classes of citizens, one class with a specific right and one without that right, whatever the right might be, should be morally offensive to any human. But I guess if the topic is public health, people and politicians will make exceptions.
But who knows? To paraphrase Tobias Fünke, it might work out for the UK (https://bit.ly/3xHLjLz).
Well said, Doug. There was some excellent statements supporting these points made by certain MPs during the HoC discussions. I should haven included a few of them!
Ronald Reagan’s very insightful quote in the beginning of the article thoughtfully applies to virtually any big government intervention to “protect” individuals from themselves & their individual choices.
I’m assuming the totally unregulated cigarette & vaping black markets are looking forward to a huge windfall if/when the UK’s generational smoking (& vaping) ban is enacted. What’s next for the UK? Banning alcohol like beer, stout, gin? Good luck. We all know how the USA’s prohibition on alcohol worked out back in the early 1900s. My guess is the UK will be in line for a similar result.
The ban on disposable vapes is a good idea. Aside from the health effects they have also been a cause of fires - e.g. if the lithium battery gets crushed in a rubbish lorry - and you could argue a massive waste of lithium that can't be recovered.
I do know efforts have been made to put in place recycling programs with additional incentive programs to incentivize recycling - though, I suppose, there is the economic argument of recycling vs new mining. I have read of cases of the batteries causing fires. I am curious to know how frequent (or infrequent) they are. In terms of banning disposables entirely, it seems quite shortsighted. The primary argument made by politicians for doing is is the youth usage rate. But, in my view, the best route to tackle that is to regulate and enforce more stringently against non-complying retailers. Age verification at PoS and strict fines can be extremely effective. For those focusing on the relative societal health impacts of all of this, by having a full ban, it must be recognized that many adult ex-smokers who use them may shift back to cigarettes.
"A government that has historically championed individual liberty for its people is stripping specific members of society of their ability to choose, creating a multi-tiered class system in the process. Those who happen to turn the magical age of 18 on or after January 1, 2027, will never have the right to make the choice for themselves as to whether or not to smoke. They will never have the ability to make that adult choice, whether they are 18, 25, 40, 50, or 90 years old. Those who turn 18 at any time prior to that date will enjoy the same freedom all other adults in the country currently exercise."
If this is written into law, it could have some spillover effect as the Commonwealth of Nations, many of which being former British colonies, share similar legal system as the UK and may follow suit. Actually generational ban has also been discussed in HK as well, but not quite ready for legislation due to lack of precedence.
Will be interesting to see what HK does. Malaysia also tabled their generational ban following NZ repealing its version. At some point, SOME country will pass a bill and it will be in place long enough to see the effects - effects which I suspect will disappoint many of the fiercest proponents.
There will not be a full ban on vaping. I recommend looking through the whole Impact Assessment, available at the bottom of the piece - there are all kinds of fascinating points to explore and dissect.
While banning smoking for future generations seems like a bold move, it's interesting to note that alternatives like Snus are still controversial in many countries, despite being less harmful than cigarettes. For example, Germany has recently legalized cannabis for recreational use, showing a more progressive stance on substances. If such moves are possible, should we also reconsider the restrictions on [Snus](https://snusladen.de) as a harm reduction tool?
We are seeing governments take radically different approaches to regulating recreational nicotine. While some areas continue to see lesser progress due to anti-smoking groups becoming staunchly anti-nicotine, we are seeing others, such as Sweden, embrace policies built more fully around Tobacco Harm Reduction. In the third section of last week's note, I covered specific new proposals in Sweden.
You write, "After all, laws in place that are not complied with or adequately enforced are practically indistinguishable from having no law at all." I would have said that not only are they indistinguishable, but are in fact worse than having no law when the law abrogates an individual right or liberty.
Further, the creation of two classes of citizens, one class with a specific right and one without that right, whatever the right might be, should be morally offensive to any human. But I guess if the topic is public health, people and politicians will make exceptions.
But who knows? To paraphrase Tobias Fünke, it might work out for the UK (https://bit.ly/3xHLjLz).
Well said, Doug. There was some excellent statements supporting these points made by certain MPs during the HoC discussions. I should haven included a few of them!
Ronald Reagan’s very insightful quote in the beginning of the article thoughtfully applies to virtually any big government intervention to “protect” individuals from themselves & their individual choices.
I’m assuming the totally unregulated cigarette & vaping black markets are looking forward to a huge windfall if/when the UK’s generational smoking (& vaping) ban is enacted. What’s next for the UK? Banning alcohol like beer, stout, gin? Good luck. We all know how the USA’s prohibition on alcohol worked out back in the early 1900s. My guess is the UK will be in line for a similar result.
Some very interesting lessons will be learned, one way or another. Hopefully the costs of that education won't be unbearable.
The ban on disposable vapes is a good idea. Aside from the health effects they have also been a cause of fires - e.g. if the lithium battery gets crushed in a rubbish lorry - and you could argue a massive waste of lithium that can't be recovered.
I do know efforts have been made to put in place recycling programs with additional incentive programs to incentivize recycling - though, I suppose, there is the economic argument of recycling vs new mining. I have read of cases of the batteries causing fires. I am curious to know how frequent (or infrequent) they are. In terms of banning disposables entirely, it seems quite shortsighted. The primary argument made by politicians for doing is is the youth usage rate. But, in my view, the best route to tackle that is to regulate and enforce more stringently against non-complying retailers. Age verification at PoS and strict fines can be extremely effective. For those focusing on the relative societal health impacts of all of this, by having a full ban, it must be recognized that many adult ex-smokers who use them may shift back to cigarettes.
Thanks for your thoughts, Peter.
Another great piece.
Thanks, Conor! I appreciate it.
Enjoyed reading this one. Thanks, Devin!
"A government that has historically championed individual liberty for its people is stripping specific members of society of their ability to choose, creating a multi-tiered class system in the process. Those who happen to turn the magical age of 18 on or after January 1, 2027, will never have the right to make the choice for themselves as to whether or not to smoke. They will never have the ability to make that adult choice, whether they are 18, 25, 40, 50, or 90 years old. Those who turn 18 at any time prior to that date will enjoy the same freedom all other adults in the country currently exercise."
🙏
If this is written into law, it could have some spillover effect as the Commonwealth of Nations, many of which being former British colonies, share similar legal system as the UK and may follow suit. Actually generational ban has also been discussed in HK as well, but not quite ready for legislation due to lack of precedence.
Will be interesting to see what HK does. Malaysia also tabled their generational ban following NZ repealing its version. At some point, SOME country will pass a bill and it will be in place long enough to see the effects - effects which I suspect will disappoint many of the fiercest proponents.
UK is going to ban vaping. Thank you for the information. I was under the impression that they are trying to ban cigarettes only.
There will not be a full ban on vaping. I recommend looking through the whole Impact Assessment, available at the bottom of the piece - there are all kinds of fascinating points to explore and dissect.
While banning smoking for future generations seems like a bold move, it's interesting to note that alternatives like Snus are still controversial in many countries, despite being less harmful than cigarettes. For example, Germany has recently legalized cannabis for recreational use, showing a more progressive stance on substances. If such moves are possible, should we also reconsider the restrictions on [Snus](https://snusladen.de) as a harm reduction tool?
Thanks for your thoughts, John.
We are seeing governments take radically different approaches to regulating recreational nicotine. While some areas continue to see lesser progress due to anti-smoking groups becoming staunchly anti-nicotine, we are seeing others, such as Sweden, embrace policies built more fully around Tobacco Harm Reduction. In the third section of last week's note, I covered specific new proposals in Sweden.
https://invariant.substack.com/p/haypp-group-tremors