Anticonsumption

You're parent(s) not having the sense to go outside and stay away from you while smoking shouldn't impact my ability to smoke alone.

Until no one is left alive who can buy cigarettes. Or rather, until no one produces cigarettes on an industrial level because the narket is so small. Then they need to grow tobacco themselves and suffer without buckets of toxic shit put into commercial cigarettes.

I'm all for making drastic positive changes in our lifetimes, but a slow change is better than no change

The goal is have less smokers. Is your argument that there will be a secondary market booming in no time or that it wont affect that many people?

South Africa was trying this when I moved away about 15 years ago. If you wanted to smoke you had to sit in separate closed off area in restaurants (for example).

~~No idea what the ultimate outcome of that was though.~~

Edit: According to smokefreeworld.org:

The adult smoking rate declined from 27.1 percent in 2000 to 18.2 percent in 2012

I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body.

A couple other comments seem to imply this a full-blown prohibition as well. To be clear, my interpretation is that this is not a total prohibition. From the article:

The government is set to introduce a historic new law to stop children who turn 14 this year or younger from ever legally being sold cigarettes in England, in a bid to create the first ‘smokefree generation’.

So IIUC, there is no possession or consumption offense, and anyone at any age can grow their own or import¹ it. They’re just making it inconvenient to acquire by controlling commerce. That inconvenience will certainly add to the cool factor of kids who become the resourceful hookup.

¹ I suppose they will be able to carry it into the country, but probably legit mail order shops will be controlled. Not sure.

On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried

IIRC, the smoking ban in restaurants and bars started in CA or NY, then swept around the world from there. Then NY supposedly banned smoking near outdoor bus stops or something. Not sure if that experiment spread.

That was my thought too. Ban it in public spaces so the rest of us don't have to breath that toxic shit, but if people want to spend money to kill themselves at home then let them. But don't cover their related health expenses.

i think new zealand and australia tried

What if we raise the minimum age by 1 year, each year

Vapes have pretty much taken over here in the UK. The vast majority of smokers are the older generation.

I've been to Spain twice in the past year and each time amazed at how many smokers there are still. These were the Spanish and Germans.

A different government came in and cancelled it to fund tax cuts

I can kinda support raising the ages for drugs, alcohol and tobacco to 19, 21 or even 25. Major human brain development is still ongoing until about 25. Or perhaps restricting the quantity they can buy.

There was some research finding that people who use psychedelic mushrooms are made more psychologically flexible (open minded) for the rest of their life. But the caveat is that the permanent open mindedness effect only happens if the shrooms are consumed before age 35 -- presumably precisely because the brain still has significant neuroplasticity.

Smoking habits are vastly different between the two. THC has strong inhibiting effects so must people will usually smoke smaller quantities (often just a quarter of a gram) and will probably do it as a way of unwinding after work or share a joint with friends when they're hanging out. Nicotine on the other hand isn't inhibiting and if anything can give a little boost. Because of this someone can smoke a whole cigarette and go about their day at work. Often times taking multiple breaks during the work day. Tolerance also builds up very quickly and there are significantly stronger addictive effects which often leads to people smoking several cigarettes a day even when they aren't getting the effects while the practice of taking tolerance breaks is pretty common even with heavy weed smokers since there isn't any real withdrawal. Sure there are people that smoke multiple joints a day, but there are also people that smoke a pack or more of cigarettes a day and they're able to stay much more functional while doing so which means that there isn't the negative feedback you'd get from being stoned all the time.

All of that would hold true if both substances were equally toxic. However studies show that weed is far far less carcinogenic than tobacco. It's not healthy to smoke anything, but what you smoke and how much does matter.

The ban is on cigs not really vapes it seems (apart from the flavored ones that attract kids). In which case people are being steered toward vaping, which will likely do well in competing against black market cigs. If the goal is to keep kids off the worst of the worst, focusing on cig bans while keeping unflavored vapes on the table would seem to be the most effective compromise.

I’m not endorsing it.. but just in terms of the gov achieving its goals (one of which is cancer reduction) it seems they will succeed to the extent possible with this approach.