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.
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
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.
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.
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…
That makes sense to me
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.
I am just wondering who would do all the work of warehousing, distributing, etc., if there was no profit motive.
Nonprofits can still have paid employees, it’s just that the company doesn’t profit; there’s no owner or shareholders extracting excess value.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.