this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
399 points (98.3% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2384 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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

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

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The UK has introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, aiming to make it illegal for future generations to buy cigarettes. The bill proposes gradually raising the minimum smoking age, so those born after January 1, 2009, will never be able to purchase tobacco legally.

It also includes restrictions on vape flavors and packaging to prevent youth addiction and bans smoking in certain outdoor spaces, though pub beer gardens are exempt.

Supported by the Labour Party's majority, the legislation seeks to create a “smoke-free U.K.” and combat smoking-related deaths.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Wouldn't that just push sales into the black market? Unless the government nationalized the sale of cigarettes, which seems... not great, if they believe in smoking cessation

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Think of it like clubs for tobacco enthusiasts. Ideally you would have a club with one super knowledgeable person, split the costs of growing and his time and split the the results on potentially various types of products.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So kind of like how farm cooperatives work (I think?)?

There's a guy at the farmers market that offers "shares" of cows. I can't remember the details but you pay for a certain "guaranteed" pounds of beef plus sausage made from other parts (not guaranteed to be one cow), a long with some other meats (chicken, etc). When the cow is slaughtered, you get your meat.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Similar idea. In a lot of states it could be done locally with many tobacco strains.

I like the idea, but the people who do split the animal deals around me take advantage of their customers... wish I have had better experiences. Used to be a couple neighbors just paid a butcher on their off hours...

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

That makes sense to me

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No, it wouldn't

People working in and supporting the industry would work and consume as they always have.

It's the business owners that would be hurting, as their entire existence depends on siphoning off the excess people are willing to pay for products and services.

Prices wouldn't even go up. Businesses already charge the most people are willing to pay.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I am just wondering who would do all the work of warehousing, distributing, etc., if there was no profit motive.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nonprofits can still have paid employees, it's just that the company doesn't profit; there's no owner or shareholders extracting excess value.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That reminds me of REI in America. They're technically a member-owned co-op, but they're definitely a huge corporation making buckets for somebody, probably the leadership. So a non profit version of that

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The people who do the work already.

Profit, by definition, is excess. It's what's leftover after all other business expenses are paid, including employee wages.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I guess I'm wondering who will hire the people to do that work? I assume a company that is allowed to have profit will be able to offer higher wages to be competitive

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The people who do the hiring are part of a business' expenses, not its profit.

They will still be doing their job like they normally do.

I assume a company that is allowed to have profit will be able to offer higher wages to be competitive

Where do they get that money? By charging you and I more than what a product costs to produce and bring to market. If people had higher standards (which they don't), then they would go to the business that gives them the best deal.

Right now we live in a culture where people are proud to spend more money even if it's for a worse product. Everything is backwards regarding personal financial responsibility which is why there is so much excess yet most people still think they "need" more money.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago

Without a profit motive, where is the incentive to work efficiently? The cost to get goods to market will include the cost of the inefficiencies in the market? The fact that the tobacco is being grown on a small plot instead of huge monocrop, etc.

How could this compete against a black market that has a profit motive to get costs low so they can take more for themselves

[–] cuchilloc@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No one would farm it for profit and no one would import it for profit. Ends up with people still selling it for profit in a black or parallel market.