2Yr·

The UK tobacco ban will come into force on January 1, 2027.

come into force. Sales to people born after January 1, 2009 will be banned.

Heated tobacco products will also be affected. Vapes and nicotine pouches will not be affected.

It is questionable how long this ban will last as a similar ban in New Zealand was reversed as it led to a thriving black market and a significant loss of tax revenue.

I don't expect tobacco bans to prevail for a long time, the tax revenue is simply far too important. Also, a tobacco ban will only lead to the creation of a black market.

It is difficult to say who will be most affected by this ban.

For Philipp Morris in particular, it comes as a surprise that heated tobacco products are also to be banned. Even though BAT only has a very small market share in the UK, it is relieving to see that vapes and pouches are not affected.

56 Comments

Berater N.@Consulting4Life

2Yr

Simply a tax of 300%.
Let people smoke, but then they should also finance the costs for city cleaning, waste disposal, etc. to a large extent.

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Consulting4Life I see it similarly

••

Chris_legt_an@Chris_legt_an

2Yr

@Consulting4Life Since the tax share is already almost 50%, I don't think you know what smokers are already paying mitbezahlen👍🏻

•

Berater N.@Consulting4Life

2Yr

@Chris_legt_an seeing how many people smoke, they probably don't pay enough yet 😉

•

Deleted User

2Yr

Comment was deleted

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Drachen 🤝

•

Daxdaniel@Daxdaniel

2Yr

@Consulting4Life Info: a €7 package includes €4.68 tax, which is currently approx. 200% surcharge / 69% of the total price

•

Berater N.@Consulting4Life

2Yr

@Drachen Thanks for the comment Bingo I was still missing: "Let yourself be put in any political drawer" 😉

••

Sparfuchs@Reinecke

2Yr

@Consulting4Life you can throw a cigarette or chewing gum on the street in London. If you want to take Germany as an example, there is a dog tax, for example, and yet the sidewalks are full of shit.

•

devnerd_daddy@devnerd_daddy

2Yr

@Drachen No, it has something to do with responsibility. In my opinion, products with tobacco, alcohol, too much sugar/salt/etc. should generally be taxed extra and the money distributed directly to the health insurance funds.

You also immediately think of adults, responsible people. I spent my childhood/youth at a friend's house in a completely smoky living room and no, children simply can't defend themselves against something like that.

Freedom is not a one-way street. Which is more important: the right to smoke for smokers or the right to be smoke-free for non-smokers and the right to health for children?

If freedom meant being allowed to do anything, we would have anarchy and therefore a dictatorship of the strongest. Quasi ... the opposite of freedom.

••

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@devnerd_daddy Of course, the freedom of an individual only goes as far as it does not restrict the freedom of others. Freedom does not mean that you are allowed to do everything, but that you have a choice. After all, we have free will. But it also means that we are responsible for our actions and must bear the just consequences. Freedom is not a one-way street, as freedom automatically ensures that everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. Without freedom, it's always "I had no other choice". The fact that children are in a smoky living room/car has absolutely nothing to do with the cigarette, but with the parents. Anyone who puts their children in such a situation must bear the legal consequences. But the person responsible here is the smoker himself. Absolutely everyone must bear the consequences for their actions and the resulting consequences. And this is not done as easily (as politicians like to do) with an "I take full responsibility", if an action has no real consequences, you have never taken responsibility for it. It is not the gun's fault that someone was shot, but the person who pulled the trigger.

••

View all 7 further answers

Soprano@Soprano

2Yr

Germany may legalize cannabis because the state capitulates and admits it can no longer cope with the situation. And the UK believes it can implement a tobacco ban. That is courageous.

As far as I know, the UK also has a ban on knives and yet the specialists carry on knifing 😆

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Soprano exactly

•

Seventrader@7Trader

2Yr

I hope it gets much harder and worse 😎💪🏽

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@7Trader oh no, please don't

••

Seventrader@7Trader

2Yr

@TaxesAreTheft Oh yes. Evil poison should be banned. Especially when innocent children are being driven into addiction and the taxpayer has to indirectly pay for the medical care of those who smoke.

•

Deleted User

2Yr

Comment was deleted

Seventrader@7Trader

2Yr

@Cype you would like to believe that.....
There are studies that prove both the one and the other.
So it is not possible to say with absolute certainty whether medical care for all smoking-related diseases is covered by tobacco tax payments.
Other data approaches yield different results.

The Cancer Research Institute came up with only 40% coverage at the time.

••

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@7Trader then we can ban everything right away. I understand the approach, but we're in a spiral where everyone makes money from it. So I simply make money by investing in pharmaceuticals and tobacco. In my opinion, alcohol should be banned rather than tobacco/nicotine, I know more than enough people who ruin their lives with alcohol but none of the smokers have suffered such consequences.

•

Felix@Lici981

2Yr

@7Trader Then we might as well ban all unhealthy foods and alcohol. They are also harmful to health

•

Seventrader@7Trader

2Yr

@Lici981 between harmful foods and addictive cigarettes are worlds apart

•

Seventrader@7Trader

2Yr

@TaxesAreTheft all of them? I donan.....t earn anything from it
Do as you say. From my point of view, there is nothing reprehensible about investing in such companies. That's the stock market.

I hope that at some point these companies will have very little influence in politics and then go under.
(will never happen 😉)

••

Felix@Lici981

2Yr

@7Trader Yes and no. Poor nutrition and nutrient deficiencies promote/trigger many (expensive) diseases, be it a weakened immune system due to vitamin deficiency, diseases of the digestive system, diabetes due to excessive sugar consumption (sugar addiction), tooth decay, and even cancer (especially of the digestive system).

However, many more people (more or less all) will be affected by this than by smoking alone, so even if the costs per person of tobacco consumption are higher, even more costs could be saved. The same could be done with alcohol, which is also an addictive substance and responsible for various illnesses and deaths every year. Or with dangerous sports, sports with a very high risk of injury could also be banned in order to save the health insurance companies money.

My point is not that cigarettes are not significantly harmful to health, because they undoubtedly are. My point is to draw a line. Where do we give people their freedom and where does personal responsibility begin? I'm always in favor of more freedom instead of being patronized, and that includes the freedom to make stupid decisions.

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@7Trader Sugar has a similar addictive potential to cocaine and is extremely harmful to health. By "all" I just meant that there are a great many people who benefit directly and indirectly from tobacco consumption. Products with addictive potential are simply a goldmine for everyone involved. And I'm not worried about the poor insurance companies, they're making record profits and even if everyone stopped smoking, it's naive to believe that premiums would fall.

••

View all 4 further answers

Christianxys@Christianxys

2Yr

$BATS Investors hate this trick

•

Smudo@Smudeo

2Yr

It feels like more people smoke here than at home.

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Smudeo generally have the feeling that people are smoking more

••

Smudo@Smudeo

2Yr

@TaxesAreTheft in England yes

•

Joker@Blizzard

2Yr

Better sales in the neighboring countries as they are sure to start smuggling again. Perhaps $BATS can also profit from this 🤣

•

Seventrader@7Trader

2Yr

I have expressed my opinion and for me this discussion is over. There are just different points of view and that has to be accepted

•

Patrick@JoyBoy

2Yr

Very interesting, maybe there are favorable purchasing opportunities here😁 I doubt that a ban is so easy to enforce. in the end, the government buckles again and merely restricts access or increases taxes on tobacco products, but taking the addictive substance away from addicts is not so easy

•

Felix@Lici981

2Yr

Not maybe, but after today for sure

••

Reppi@Reppi

2Yr

And the taxes are then used for precisely these things. 😂😂😂😂😂👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

••

Deleted User

2Yr

Comment was deleted

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Lasse25 No, because people simply bought cigarettes on the black market. Prohibition doesn't work.

••

Deleted User

2Yr

Comment was deleted

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Lasse25 No, just because you suddenly ban the sale of cigarettes on a large scale doesn't mean that fewer people need to be treated for lung cancer, for example.

••

Deleted User

2Yr

Comment was deleted

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Lasse25 you can look it up yourself 😂, but it should be logical. Just because something is banned doesn't mean it's no longer done. As far as I know, cocaine is still banned, but I don't remember cocaine not being used because of that.

••

Deleted User

2Yr

Comment was deleted

Konni@WindkraftJAbitte

2Yr

@Lasse25 Shut up 🤣 tell me how stupid you are. When did New Zealand ban smoking? The health consequences of smoking show up much later... As a smoker at 60, you won't be cured by a smoking ban because 1. people will continue to buy cigarettes anyway (black market) and 2.tens the damage to health has already been done

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@WindkraftJAbitte thank you, finally someone who thinks logically

•

Konni@WindkraftJAbitte

2Yr

@TaxesAreTheft Above all, switch "topic" 🤣🤣. Nicotine and cocaine = highly addictive substances. Both used to be legal (around 1910 in Germany), now both illegal in New Zealand. Both are made. And the guy claims you're trolling - what does someone like that want to do for a living? Or is he autistic and therefore can't get it together 🤣

•

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@WindkraftJAbitte he lets others think for him, nothing works without a source. It's really too much to ask if you have to use your own brain 😂

•

Deleted User

2Yr

Comment was deleted

TaxesAreTheft@TaxesAreTheft

2Yr

@Takashi_Monosato finally someone understands

••