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.

  • john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

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

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            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.

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours 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

      • cuchilloc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours 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.