this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026

834 points (99.6% liked)

World News

55668 readers

2204 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

834

UK moves to ban smoking for everyone born after 2008 (www.dw.com)

submitted 2 days ago by 8oow3291d@feddit.dk to c/world@lemmy.world

463 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Technically, the new law will raise the legal age requirement in the UK for buying cigarettes, cigars or tobacco, which is currently 18, by one year in every subsequent year, starting on January 1, 2027
This will effectively mean that people born on or after January 1, 2009 will never be eligible to buy them
Retailers will face financial penalties for selling the products to those not entitled to them
The government will also be empowered to impose a new registration system for smoking and vaping products entering the country, seeking to improve oversight
The bill will expand the UK's indoor smoking ban to a series of outdoor public spaces, for instance in children's playgrounds, outside schools and hospitals
Most indoor spaces that are designated smoke-free will become vape-free as well
Smoking in designated areas outside pubs and bars and other hospitality settings will remain permissible
Smoking and vaping will remain legal in people's homes
Vaping will become illegal in cars if someone under the age of 18 is inside, to match existing rules on smoking
Advertising for smoking and vaping products will be banned
People aged 18 or older will remain eligible to purchase vaping products, but some items targeted at younger consumers like disposable vapes have already been outlawed as part of the program

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd suggest you look into it.

There really isn't heavier irony available. I've literally, hand-to-heart, been studying about prohibitions of substances (and other things, like sexuality and religion etc but those are beside the point) through history for over 20 years, with heavy emphasis on the modernity, beginning with Egyptian cannabis bans (because the cotton farmers wanted an upper hand) and mostly just the modern war on drugs.

Your assumption has literally no merit. You claim fewer people will be smoking. Based on what? The famous history of prohibitions definitely working. That's why no-one can use cannabis or cocaine anywhere in the world right?

Yeah, alcohol is easy to make. And growing weed is also easy. Just like growing tobacco is. Will it be worse quality and more dangerous? Yep. Will it still sell nonetheless, for exorbitant prices, as long as you make it even a remotely tobacco looking product? Yes.

We have data that loosening drug regulations leads to less abuse. Drug use isn't the issue. Abuse is. Banning smoking in all working places and bars (smoking places outside are still a thing in most ofc) is a good thing. But that's regulation, not prohibition.

Vicelaws don't work and they're harmful to society. It's so ironic you're telling me to read up on this when you can't even understand the harms laws like these do since you just don't believe in crime or science.

Your way of doing things, this rhetoric you're going with, leads to a society like Singapore. The sane policies I'm talking about are more like Portugal' s. (Just stronger)

[–] greyfrog@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.

Are you really implying that people banning a substance doesn't reduce the amount of people using it?

I can literally go to a pub and see a whole pub full of people drinking and smoking.

Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?

The aim isn't to stop everyone, no sensible person would suggest that.

Are you even British? Not sure why you'd even care if you're not.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.

Because it led to increased use, increased abuse, and when black markets are owned by organised crime, insane crime rates. Society just simply couldn't take the chaos prohibition was causing, so it got legalised.

Because when you take booze away from drinkers they get mad.

When you take weed away, weeders just get scared and go away to grow some more. Cocaine on the other hand? You've no idea how much the world would improve and how much drug abuse would be lowered if we simply had legal and regulated versions of everything. It's the only way to regulate them and they exist anyway.

So either you're a prude and pretend there's a reason for prohibition and allow one of the largest industries in the world by trade to be controlled entirely by organised crime and all that follows with it... or you actually look at the facts and realise legalising is the only way to go.

I've had this discussion literally thousands of times over 20 years.

You assume prohibition lowers use. But you have absolutely no facts to back that up.

Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?

Any building in a poor area. Any prison nearby. Any pub as well. Just because people aren't doing blow on the tables doesn't mean that there isn't at one coked up guy in every fucking bar on the planet. Just because you're too ignorant to recognise recreational users doesn't mean they're not everywhere.

Are you even British? Not sure why you'd even care if you're not.

Oh so in Britain social sciences and basic economics of the world just go out the window? It's always "I don't care" and getting upset because you realise there literally isn't anything to back up your side and you've been on the side of incredibly silly lies for your entire life. I've had people spit in my face and go "You're stupid! Stupid stupid stupid!" because they got so upset they couldn't name a single actual reason why drug prohibition should exist.

I'm tired of writing up the very basics of the argument I've been having with "experts" like you for years so why don't you read up on them yourself a bit. I hate being the "do your own research" guy, but yeah, please do.

Start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002573

https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/Justice%20-%20Post%201.pdf

Or as I know reading is boring listen to the last minute or two of this forner undercover police officer who infiltrated drug gangs talk about this:

https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?t=702

He's the author of "Good Cop, Bad War", one of the most important voices for reform with his organisation Law Enforcement Action Partnership. They advocate for the full regulation of all drug markets to take control away from organised crime. He is, in fact, British. (Not that it matters.)

[–] greyfrog@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Prohibition is not the same as banning them for people born later than 2008 in any sense of the word.

We're talking about banning for people who will never be able to buy cigarettes, not people who were able to and were later denied this.

With prohibition you're conveniently missing the fact enforcement was poor and loopholes existed. Plus you were denying people alcohol who already drank.

Along with this was the fact that public support was not in favour.

I think you'll find a lot of people support a blanket ban on smoking.

Also stop using the argument of appealing to authority.

Finally, I'm talking a pub full of people and you're talking about one guy on blow. Yeah, seems like less people are using drugs than taking drugs. Obvious , right?

I'm not a prude. I'd support legalisation of certain drugs and decriminilisation of others. It depends purely (for me) on how damaging they are but they wouldn't be for me to decide. I firmly believe though that drug users don't belong in prison at all.

Edit: To make me belive this prohibition shit you'd have to convince me that prohibition fails when public support is high. Perhaps like a majority Islamic country where I would assume people support the banning of alcohol.

It seems to me like it works there fine.