I’m not a smoker. Never have been.
I am curious what people think of this from a privacy and freedom perspective.
Pretty sure you already have to show your ID to get cigarettes don’t you? I’ve never smoked so I don’t really know.
1 Like
It depends. If you are 30 years old in 2026, and you look 30 years old, you are not likely to be asked for ID to buy cigarettes. But this is different. This is a lifetime ban.
This means that anyone born after 2008 will never be able to buy cigarettes. Not when they’re 18. Not when they’re 21. Not when they’re 30, 40, 50, 60. NEVER.
Although the aim is noble, is this the right way to achieve it?
2 Likes
In an ideal world, people would be allowed to put whatever they want into their own bodies.
However, there is the flip side that companies also should not be able to profit off of selling people toxic substances for the purpose of consumption at the expense of their health.
Assuming this doesn’t ban mere possession or consumption of tobacco products, just the sale, and one could theoretically still grow a tobacco plant for personal use, I don’t think this actually infringes on personal freedom in a necessarily philosophically harmful way.
2 Likes
I’m not sure why they just don’t outright ban it for everyone like prohibition. I suppose this would create a black market like it did for alcohol in the US, but eh. I feel like 2008 is too early. People born that time will already be 18, and 18-year-olds are likely already counting down the days they can buy a smoke. This will likely generate the same demand necessary for a black market as prohibition would. If the bill had pushed the year to maybe 2016 I would see the vision. I don’t see 10-year-olds counting down the days until they can smoke.
1 Like
My take is that from the right to put whatever you want in your body follows the right to not put whatever you do not want in your body. Therefore, while a company should be allowed to sell products containing harmful substances like cigarettes, failing to meaningfully inform a person of those harmful substances violates their right to control what they put in their own body.
This is the typical case of the older generation passing oppressive legislation that doesn’t affect them. Similar examples include banning books in schools, etc.
5 Likes
Yeah, but this law was designed for a specific demographic, and many people who are not part of that demographic will be alive when it’s implemented. Is it fair that older people get to buy cigarettes and not younger ones? And is it fair that people who are not part of that demographic would need to have their ID verified. I understand that most likely the verification would not happen online, but still.
That would be more fair. At least on a techinical level.
Indeed. And when it comes to drugs, it is well documented that prohibition doesn’t work.
From my observation, the only people who would be counting down the days when they can finally smoke legally, are the people who are already smoking illegally. Non-smokers are not counting down the days.
I’m not sure if this would make a difference. Instead of banning the people, IMO, they should find new ways to limit the sale of cigarettes even further. In most countries, there was a time when advertising for cigarettes was allowed, and then it was rightly banned. That is one way to fight smoking, but obviously it’s not enough. Higher taxes on cigarettes also helps, and warning labels are a thing too. Maybe increase the tax even more.
IMHO, they should also make it illegal for cigarettes companies to invest in cancer research or pharmaceuticals that are supposed to help fight or prevent cancer and other smoking related diseases. Because unbeknownst to most people, tobacco companies do that. They are diversifying their business.
This makes sense to me, but tobacco companies could use food companies as shield to fight this. What I mean is, they could argue that, if such a right should apply to them, it should also apply to all the food companies, and of course I 100% agree with this.
But some countries like the US are more lax about allowing toxic ingredients in their food.
Also, there have been many scientific reports revealing that more and more young people have cancer, and smoking is not the primary culprit, as the number of smokers keeps going down. One major factor is the fact that we eat more ultra processed foods than previous generations. I could see food companies join Big Tobacco in their fight for fear of more regulation.
I haven’t made up my mind yet on whether this is a good thing. The fact remains that anyone born after 2008 is currently a minor, and is not allowed to moke. So I could see why it could be sold as, it’s not discrimination if the law passed now. But 3 years from now would it be fair for 20-year-old to sue for discrimination? I don’t know.
One could also argue that it’s hypocritical to come after tobacco but not alcohol, especially when you consider that we have known at least since 2013, that no amount of alcohol is safe for your health. Meaning that even drinking in moderation harms your health in the long run. But I suspect governments will not do that because selling alcohol is too important to the economy. Good old capitalism.
This is blatant government overreach imo
The law gives your government the power to prohibit commonplace products from the market by age range, based on ‘health and safety’ grounds
This same premise, tied together with the broad & rapid implementation of age & ID laws, sets a precedent for your government to ban a much greater range of products from a broader market by age. We may not think the next one is so palatable
Edit: idk why this resolved as a response to Lyr’s comment, that wasnt my intention
3 Likes
I mean, you’re asking “is it fair that older people get to poison themselves and not the younger ones?”
And the answer is no, we shouldn’t be allowing companies to poison old people either. However, it’s not that simple, because of nicotine withdrawal. It’s not (normally?) deadly, but it would put a massive strain on the health system and probably the entire economy to be honest.
Legally that was already required anyway if you were buying cigarettes so no change here.
Yeah we probably shouldn’t be ok with allowing food companies to poison people with HFCS and excessive sugar. I would be ok with banning the sale such foods (some countries already do, including the UK as I understand. If you’ve ever been to both the UK and the US you can immediately tell how much less garbage they allow in their food).
However there is a key difference between cigarettes and unhealthy foods, and even things like alcohol: With cigarettes, there is no amount of consumption that is safe. Unhealthy foods and alcohol don’t really do any long term damage if consumed in moderation.
1 Like
The government already has that power though? You understand there are minimum ages to purchase cigarettes already right?
Am I in a parallel universe where up until right this second everyone has been able to buy cigarettes regardless of age?
1 Like
I think there’s a meaningful distinction between
this product is harmful to development, you must be X years old to have the option to consume
And
This product is harmful, if you were not born before X, the choice to consume will be permanently removed
Despite its normalization, I think there’s a good faith argument to make against the former - it removes autonomy from individuals & gives it to the government
Using the existence of the former to justify the latter is unreasonable imo
I think we need the European age verification system so that the seller only has the age of the person. This is a privacy-friendly way to verify the age of customers, regardless of the type of product (this principle can be applied to the sale of alcohol or other legalized drugs).
It already exists in a certain way in France, but I think that each state which wishes to verify the age of its citizens must go towards an open source system, stored locally and double-blind for verification.
I think you’re falling for a trick often employed by capital wherein the right of a corporation to harm people is protected under the guise of personal freedom of the people to be harmed. It’s the same as saying “well children should have the right to go work in sweatshops, it’s their choice”.
Let’s take your argument to it’s logical conclusion: Let’s imagine there were a drug commonly consumed where, every time you take it, it removes one day from your lifespan. However, if you stop taking it at least daily, you die instantly. It has no positive effects, however, young people have historically been goaded into taking it to show they’re cool and and care-free. The companies producing it have historically made a killing as they have a captured customer base and pushed those ideas that get people to take it, as well as hiding just how much time each dose takes away from your life. The government proposes banning the sale for anyone born after a certain date. Is that government overreach too?
Acceptable, if they don’t make possession a crime. I’m against all drug possession being criminalized because it is mainly used as a pretense to violate your rights.
Honestly feel that way about mere possession of anything. Law enforcement needs to focus on stopping the distribution of illegal goods, not hunting down random folks who are not harming others, only themselves.
The government regulating commerce is like the main thing a government is supposed to do though, so in this case, yeah.
5 Likes
By this logic we should ban caffeine for those born after 2008 as well 
1 Like
Because the older people that are already addicted to it, are the once to decide that, and they will not remove their own drug for them.
Besides, it is not hard to get away from smoking addiction if done correctly (depends on if you have a substantial bound smoking addiction or non-substantial bound addiction), but it is still a big step someone must actively take. Which most people will not do.
This depends on if the drug is already legally established or not. Banning legal drugs now, will not work, but allowing already banned drugs (cocaine, fentanyl, LSD) is not a good idea either.
They did not ban the people, they banned the selling.
The idea is not bad, however instead of prohibiting the donation to such projects, it should be much more regulated, transparent and forced peer-review from people that don’t get money from them.
ultra processed foods != bad.
Ultra processed foods means just that you have an ingredient that are not naturally found in the nature.
McDonald’s food is ultra processed food, and it is not healthy, however brown bread or to be more specific whole grain bread is also ultra processed food, but it is not unhealthy.
Most studies that claim ultra processed foods = bad, are not done correctly or financed through food companies that want to put the blame to ultra processed foods.
Not only that, alcohol is also deep settled in most peoples culture, this would definitely make a lot and I mean really a lot of people really furious.
The law gives your government the power to prohibit commonplace products from the market by age range, based on ‘health and safety’ grounds
This is already the case for centuries.
Alcohol or smoking are available at sixteen or eighteen. Porn or sex toys are available at eighteen.
Honestly, maybe we should ban caffeine for minors. I don’t think it has negative effects on adults though, so it doesn’t need to be phased out of society entirely like they’re doing with cigarettes lol
3 Likes
What long term harm does a daily cup of coffee have on your health?
If you show me something that causes long term massive harm being sold by corporations who disregard that harm in the interest of their bottom line, yeah I will be consistent and say the government should ban it from being sold, but not possessed or consumed.
People don’t die or develop serious illnesses from caffeine.
1 Like
Yeah, My orignal comment was mostly a joke
2 Likes