Daring FireballUnited Kingdom to Pass Smoking Ban Only for Those Who Are Not Yet Legal Adults
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/04/23/united-kingdom-smoking-ban
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/04/23/united-kingdom-smoking-ban
Chase G@daringfireball the first thing that came to mind about the age cutoff was Children of Men
Nathan@chasegallagher Because cigarettes are the secret ingredient keeping people fertile?
@daringfireball Reminds me of the grandfathering exceptions to the rules requiring helmets (1979) and visors (2013) in the NHL. By grandfathering in those people used to the unsafe way of doing things, it’s a way to phase out the unsafe behavior without ruffling too many feathers for those with unsafe habits.
@daringfireball Several towns in Massachusetts have had such laws for a few years. https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2025/07/29/nicotine-free-massachusetts/
Nick Schaedel 🏳️🌈@daringfireball New Zealand passed this with broad support (including from Māori communities, which make the highest proportion of smokers), but a subsequent conservative government undid it.
The idea is simple: there exist adults currently who have nicotine addictions and who could not simply stop without extensive support. But smoking is obviously bad on an individual level and societal and financial level, so you phase it out.
I encourage you to read about it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851024001337 For one, the fears of a black market are overblown and unsupported by evidence.
@nshady @daringfireball yeah, Gruber's take on this is so obviously nonsensical to me.
Mathias af Jochnick@bsf1 @nshady @daringfireball You could argue that it’s wrong, or not taking everything into consideration, but ”nonsensical” that all legal adults should have the same rights? I must also be missing something.
To me, what might make it ok is when there’s overwhelming public support for the law.
@2happy1sad @nshady @daringfireball life isn't fair. just ask people born after 1959 who have to work years more than people born before 1960 before they can collect full social security.
@2happy1sad @nshady @daringfireball Gruber is arguing smoking bans should be applied to everyone equally -- requiring every legal age smoker to quit is nonsensical vs. not permitting young people to start in the first place (by banning sales -- you can argue how effective that is today). People under 21 already don't have the same rights as people under 21 WRT the ability buy cigarettes. The law is simply adjusting the legal birth year to *ever* buy cigarettes.
Enrico@daringfireball regarding Northern Ireland, I don’t know the specifics of how it affects this law but in my opinion this has to do with the fact that NI is still in the EU common market, no border to the Republic of Ireland etc… it would be difficult and ridiculous to enforce a ban like this in that situation. There are houses that cross the border. Imagine being allowed to smoke but only in half of your home…
Josh Biggs@daringfireball Prohibition banned the sale and distribution of alcohol. Not the imbibing of it. ;)
John Gruber@biggsjm That's the UK law too. "Sale and supply”. At least judging from the NYT report, it doesn't apply to consuming.
Eric J@daringfireball It’s gonna go fine because the UK is the vape capitol of the world.
If someone proposed a bill like this in Italy or France they’d get assassinated.
Phil Hirst@daringfireball @gruber a parallel, Australia banned the sale of vapes, except on prescription and only through a chemist. This seems a more sensible way to deal with the addiction issue. However, it hasn’t worked as it is way too easy to buy them under the counter, or by message service, delivered to your door within an hour…
ee@ee @daringfireball @gruber you can get a prescription from a doctor to get them if you’re addicted…
@ee @daringfireball @gruber a good idea, but they don’t police the under the counter vapes and other supplies very well, so it just drove it under ground, but not very deep.
Bhavyang Pau@daringfireball There was something similar in New Zealand. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/27/new-zealand-scraps-world-first-smoking-generation-ban-to-fund-tax-cuts
Nick Vance@paubhavyang @daringfireball
But another party in NZ repealed it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_New_Zealand#Smokefree_generation
But another party in NZ repealed it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_New_Zealand#Smokefree_generation
@nick @daringfireball Yeah, that's pretty much what the article says. And also that's why I used "there was"! 😄
Dave Porter@daringfireball @gruber I think we prefer "Brookliners"
Dr. Joe Sarsero, Ph.D.@daringfireball
New Zealand introduced the same style of smoking ban in 2022 but it was repealed following a change of government.
New Zealand introduced the same style of smoking ban in 2022 but it was repealed following a change of government.
Tony Meyer@daringfireball NZ had it first, but scrapped it before it came into force: https://time.com/6339910/new-zealand-scraps-generational-smoking-ban/ (because we voted in people explicitly funded by tobacco companies).
Maybe it helps to think of it not as some adults can and some can't, but that the age just increases every year. That happens with other things, like you have to be older to marry now than in the past, and so on. It just keeps climbing.
Osma A 🇫🇮🇺🇦This same grandfathering logic is all over financial policies from pensions to bailouts. Never mind every other privileged preference. Sure, it's weird, but weird in a very common way.
@daringfireball
@daringfireball
MediaBaron@daringfireball Kids, just say NO to smoking. But when you can't say no, say ZYN!
Eric Stephan@daringfireball look: This is a uniform ban of smoking, which is valid given the intense burden it places on society and the health system-- AND, older generations are grandfathered in so that this will proceed with a strategy of gradualism. Partly because that makes this actually have the potential of working ... and partly because the older generations did not have the benefit of a state that actively combated the smoking threat. "there will simply be a black market?" That's not an argument.
Ben Kirton@daringfireball You are from a country that famously declares you an adult at 18 and yet you can’t drink until 21, but this is a step too far?
You can’t be a rep until 25, senator until 30, pres until 35. So many others.
Absolutism while ignoring all the pragmatic aspects of something is just a reaction based on feels, not the actual law as presented.
You can’t be a rep until 25, senator until 30, pres until 35. So many others.
Absolutism while ignoring all the pragmatic aspects of something is just a reaction based on feels, not the actual law as presented.
hot coffee@bjkirton @daringfireball I thought you couldn’t be pres until you were at least 75 lol
@hotcoffee @daringfireball Only in practice, not in the rules :)
I also forgot to add that I think this law is great.
There are no benefits at all to smoking and only negatives to the person and society.
Preventing an addiction to an only harmful product before it can even begin, while leaving a carve out for existing addicts, is a great solution.
@bjkirton First, while my inclination is to object (as I wrote, on the grounds that it violates the notion that all adults are equals), but I do see both sides here, which is why I find it fascinating.
To your points, 21 for drinking (and smoking in many places now), 35 to be president, 65 for Medicare -- everyone turns those ages eventually. It'd be absurd to pass a law that says no one born after 2008 can ever be elected president, or ever receive Medicare benefits.
@gruber I see the distinction, but it ignores the actual law. If it needs to be perfect, nothing will pass.
This hurts literally no one except the tobacco companies, and it would be hard to find someone not employed by them to do anything other than cheer.
There are a million laws in your country and mine that don’t fit perfectly with the ideal, but work to gain the intended effect.
The killer piece is to review and update as required, which our politicians all seem unable to do.
@daringfireball The rationale seems clear to me - the UK has banned smoking for all adults who had never yet had the right to smoke, but not removed that right from any adult who had already 'enjoyed' the right to legally become addicted to nicotine. And yes, if Australia is anything to go by, this will create a massive and violent black market. (We got that just by raising the excise, not even banning.)
Nit@daringfireball > but there’s no way this law would work in America.
About the best endorsement you could’ve given to this smoking ban.
Klongeiger@daringfireball the idea is good, mainly because banning something people are addicted to leads to a huge black market, fueling organized crime.
By excluding those who never got into the habit, chances are this will lead to at least a significant drop in smokers.
Best of all: if they succeed, in thirty years we’ll have a generation of non-addict politicians banning the use for all, including the original authors of the bill. They’ll be pissed, but karma comes around. ‘tis a filthy habit anyway.
By excluding those who never got into the habit, chances are this will lead to at least a significant drop in smokers.
Best of all: if they succeed, in thirty years we’ll have a generation of non-addict politicians banning the use for all, including the original authors of the bill. They’ll be pissed, but karma comes around. ‘tis a filthy habit anyway.
Mohammad R. Ali@daringfireball likely titration of age because they would lose out on £8bn/yr tax receipts from tobacco immediately if it was a blanket policy (that’s their thinking I imagine) https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/tobacco-duties/
Tobacco duties - Office for Budget Responsibility
Tobacco duties are levied on purchases of cigarettes, hand-rolled tobacco, cigars and other forms of tobacco. In 2025-26 we estimate that tobacco duties will raise £8 billion. This represents 0.6 per cent of all receipts and is equivalent to 0.3 per cent of national income, and £280 per household. Duty on cigarettes accounts for the...
Thomas P. Moonis@daringfireball I seem to be the only person on the internet who thinks this law is fine. Oh no, people under 18 don't get the privilege of getting themselves addicted to a pointless substance and dooming themselves to an early, cancerous death. I'd also be fine with an alternative where they ban it for everyone and make bupropion (smoking cessation aid) freely available, though.
Matt@daringfireball good to hear I'm not the only one who didn't like this law, even though I've never smoked and hate it.