Just fucking ban it already.
Yeah no, you don’t get to arbitrarily use age to deny people their rights and manipulate them into doing what you want them to do.
Exactly what rights are you talking about?
deleted by creator
The right to smoke and be unhealthy.
Also bodily autonomy. That kind of action, if accepted, could be used to impose incremental bans on anyone for any reason, so long as the majority is authoritarian enough to agree.
Like access to hormones for trans people. Or abortions. Or birth control. Or weed.
Oooohhh the right to smoke and be unhealthy… yeah that’s not a right.
Yes it is.
Nope, its not. You’re confusing having a right and having the freedom to do something. In one you have no constraint from the state to carry out an action, in the other you are entitled to something by society. Different things.
That’s one of the facets of rights, is the freedom to do things. Rights aren’t only freedom from things.
And you might not like smoking, but other people are going to make choices and live their lives in ways you don’t agree with, even that you abhor, and rights means you have to put up with that for the betterment of all.
So people, young people, are going to smoke, and you’re going to put up with it.
Maybe you’re not quite clear on what a right is - its generally something that that’s enshrined in constitutional law like for example in a human rights act, or for some advanced democracies even the right to privacy is included in a bill of rights. The ‘right to smoke and be unhealthy’ is not a right at all, its a freedom that you may have.
Oh but it is. It is your autonomous right to duck yourself up. It’s not healthy or smart and your peers will push back at your decision. , but it is your right! Fuck this authoritarian “we will decide what you can and cannot do”
Oh but it just isn’t. Tobacco is a controlled substance in pretty much every country in the world. Now you may disagree as to where this government is being too restrictive and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you have any inherent rights to consume tobacco. The same way you don’t have a right to consume heroine or meth.
Now do Australia
Omg hate to see dirty bogans everywhere smoking winni blues.
“We operate a Check-74 policy. If you are lucky enough to look younger than 70, we will ask for ID when buying cigarettes”
Maybe we will make groundbreaking leaps in cosmetic surgery. Or have Jackass-style elderly disguises become popular.
So he’s nicking what newzeland did ok cool something that he’s not going to profit from for a change atleast
Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.
You could just as easily day “oh, ban asbestos? I guess we gotta save everybody from themselves, what a nanny state.”
This is bad logic that can be applied to any safety law. As a society we observe and mitigate known harms, because we can’t expect every citizen to be up to date on every possible way to harm themselves without realizing it or understanding the true scope of the damage being done.
So yes; sometimes as a society we decide to save ourselves from ourselves. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I wasn’t aware people used asbestos recreationally.
And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?
I never said people use asbestos recreationally. But the logic is still the same. Why shouldn’t a person be allowed to buy a new house built with asbestos if they’re supposedly fully aware of the danger and risk of damage it does to their body over a long period of time? Everybody knows the dangers of asbestos, don’t they? The commercials tell us about asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma every day. Just let them make their own choices about asbestos, right? And while we’re at it, lead pipes, and lead paint, and grounded electrical outlets, and the list goes on.
We don’t want to have a nanny state, right? You should have to individually make all of these potentially life or death choices, all the time.
It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison. Comparing a personal use narcotic (which is combusted and spent in seconds causing harm to the user only - for the most part) with a hazardous material (which basically doesn’t degrade, huffs out cancer causing dust if you, or anyone else in the next century, work on it in any way and persists as hazardous waste if you want to dispose of it).
Lead pipes and lead paint also bleed into the environment pretty much for eternity. Why not go all the way and compare being able to buy cigarettes with being able to buy some plutonium for around the house?
It’s interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison.
You said, “Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.” You then said “And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?” Everything I have said has been a direct attack on that line of logic and applies perfectly. We ban asbestos to protect people from buying it and hurting themselves, despite the fact that everybody is supposedly well aware of the harms. The same goes for lead paint and lead pipes; ungrounded outlets, admittedly, most people don’t actually fully understand, but the logic still largely applies. If you believe in the idea that we shouldn’t need to save people from harming their own bodies, that perfectly applies to these things as well.
If you want to go back and revise what you said to explain why it’s acceptable for society to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful construction materials but not to save people from damaging their bodies with known harmful narcotics, then do that. Draw that distinction yourself if you think there is one instead of expecting me to read the wrinkles of your brain through the internet. You don’t get to be mad at me for arguing against the words you used, that’s all I have to go on.
So: when is it acceptable for society to save people from themselves, and when isn’t it?
All you’ve done here is prove that you’re ignorant. I suggest you look back and see that you’re arguing two different points with two different people as well as attributing words to me that I didn’t write.
If you actually read my post, l already answered the difference. Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith. Personal choice to smoke a cigarette is not equivalent to implanting a hazardous object into the environment. And I think you know that. If you honestly can’t see the difference, it’s willful ignorance.
You’re right, I didn’t notice you were a different person.
Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith.
There’s no greater environmental impact if a person chooses to insulate their own house with asbestos. My point still stands; draw me a clear distinction why a store can sell an individual person tobacco but not asbestos despite the fact that we know both cause long term lung damage.
No he really isn’t arguing that. It feels just pure bad faith from you here. You understand that pure anarchism has its problems, I am sure of it
Bad faith from me? Look inward.
There was a straight comparison banning cigarettes and asbestos. One is a recreational product, the other is a building material. You don’t accidentally find tobacco in your walls when renovating and inhale a bunch of smoke.
At no point did I suggest anarchy and being anti-prohibition is not a strictly anarchist philosophy as far as I’m aware.
No no no, minimum age should increase by 360 days every year, that way people can still have hope that some day they’ll be able to smoke. Staying true to how capitalism works.
As UK economy continues to crumble, Rishi is focusing on the real issues.
Because people have been more and more conditioned to obey year after year. To be absolute pushovers who never fight against the grain, never question groupthink, etc. Grandfathering the criminalization (using violent enforcement) of something like smoking a cigarette is a shining example of what’s to come.
Crystal Meth is illegal in all 50 states
You ironically found yourself pointing out something valid. Banning companies from putting addictive substances into everyday products has always been a good idea (Meth in Cheerios, no thx). Banning an individual from choosing, by their own free will, to make a bad decision that doesn’t do any great harm to anyone else… is oppression my guy.
There’s a big difference between banning addictive industries and oppression. There’s a big difference between ‘a government not letting people do something’ and ‘oppression’. There might be a case that this way of eliminating tobacco usage, by just making an addictive substance illegal, can be cruel if there isn’t adequate social support alongside it, but banning smoking by itself isn’t cruel, malicious or arbitrary.
I think there are some reasonable arguments for not criminalizing tobacco, and that this is a silly ineffective way to approach a chemically-and-socially addictive issue, but it is harmful to health for the user and others, society and therefore economics. And this can’t be rationalized away by ‘it’s someone’s own free will’ when it’s chemically-addictive, socially-ingrained and still being marketed to vulnerable teens. And, keep in mind, the medical costs of this are socialised, so it’s not like the person smoking pays for all the consequences. It’s a systematic, non-trivial problem that significantly affects people who do not choose to partake.
With all that said, fuck the ‘war on drugs’ style of criminalization. It just creates an illegal market and fills prisons, and in some countries with a similar system to the US, creates a legalized form of mass slave labour.
Not defending cigarette companies, but it really actually does suck that meth is illegal in all 50 states. The United States has the world’s largest prison population, it’s the most authoritarian country on the planet, and that is heavily facilitated by throwing people into prison for using drugs.
most authoritarian country on the planet
Are you by chance familiar with countries that kill LGBTQ people, beat women who don’t cover their hair, and kill drug addicts?
Are you familiar with the sheer scale of destruction and death the United States has wrought on the rest of the world in its imperialist adventures? Nothing anywhere else in the modern day even comes close.
Dooog wwhiisstllleeeessss
Theyre talking about the US, of course they are. Well, the US just beats women without hair coverings coming into it, but the point stands.
What are you even talking about? I know of no such instance, at least at the systemic level.
Well, I’m sorry you’re ignorant about stochastic terrorism against lgbt people in the US, the epidemic of domestic violence facing women in the US, and the war on drugs.
I am gay and have friends who are trans. Yes, I am well aware of stochastic terrorism against LGBTQ people, as well as how right wing politicians are exploiting nutcases to get votes at the expensive of our safety. Domestic violence I find perplexing. It happens, but it’s illegal and there are many institutions trying to tackle it. The US is far from the worst here, especially considering many countries still don’t recognize domestic violence as a real thing.
The war on drugs is bad, but the US has a set of policies that are left over from the 1990’s when things were really bad and no one really knew what to do. Even Black leaders went along with them, since their neighborhoods were the ones that were actually affected by the crime wave. Fortunately, we are seeing the slow unwinding of these polities. Now, compare the US’s war on drugs to Singapore (death penalty for drug trafficking) or Dirty Deuterty’s free-for-all on anyone who was even alleged to be a drug addict. Decisions by SCOTUS have limited the death penalty to murder only, and even then it is being slowly abolished.
‘Authoritarianism’ is a bullshit vague idealist concept that can’t be linearized into ‘more than’, ‘less than’, ‘most’ or ‘least’, and make any sense.
The USA throw people in prison for decades and enslave them for being a victim of the drug trade. They have one of the largest proportions of imprisoned population in the world.
They also allow socialists to own guns and propagandize, to a larger degree than most countries.
Liberalism is complex, contradictory and idealist, so terms like ‘authoritarianism’ are basically meaningless to apply to the real world.
That’s not how that law works it would be a law on shops
cigs are bad, phase 'em out
Not a smoker or wannabe one but if someone is just one year behind in their age, they’ll never be able to legally smoke with this setup.
Correct, that’s the point. I’m fancy, there would be a day cutoff. Likely 1/1 of some year.
I believe that’s the intention yes.
They don’t respect the rights of other people, that’s all. It’s just blatant authoritarianism that they’re getting away with because of popular support.
Yes, that’s how both time and math works.
That’s the goal.
c/theyfigureditout
great!
Cool things that leftists always support: making drugs illegal.
Cool things that have historically worked and not made things worse: Prohibition.
Like seriously what the fuck is this shit since when did we believe in making drugs illegal.
that is the exact point
Smoking age should follow the age of boomers, age 80+
how to create a blackmarket with health issues
I’d prefer they start at 60 and raise it every year, but I’ll take what I can get.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Speaking at the Conservative party conference, Mr Sunak said he believed it was the right step to tackle the leading cause of preventable ill-health.
“Because without a significant change, thousands of children will start smoking in the coming years and have their lives cut short.”
But Mr Sunak has decided to throw his backing behind it as a way of meeting the government’s ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030 - defined as less than 5% of the population smoking.
The proposal on raising the age of sale of cigarettes is similar to laws being introduced in New Zealand, where buying tobacco products will remain banned for anyone born after 2008.
Mr Sunak also said the government would consider restricting the sale of disposable vapes and look at flavourings and packaging of the devices, to tackle the rising rates of children using them.
“If implemented, the prime minister will deserve great credit for putting the health of UK citizens ahead of the interests of the tobacco lobby.”
The original article contains 577 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Man the fuck up and outlaw it for everyone instead of this sneaky prohibition that only affect people that can’t vote yet. It’s such a cowardly, disingenuous way of doing it.
This method stops current smokers from being criminalised.
If you ban it like prohibition, you will instantaneously create a black market. Continually increasing the age you can buy cigarettes is easier. Everyone that this effects will not have the option to legally create a cigarette habit/addiction.
A straight up outlawing would have the maximum effect. But it would be costly to enforce, whilst increasing overall criminal activity.
They just need to outlaw the commercial production of cigarettes. I’m very anti cigarette personally, but at the end of the day, tobacco is a plant and should not be outlawed. But outlawing commercial products it makes tobacco legal and accessible to those who want it. With commercial cigarettes being less available, in guessing through either lack of convenience or lack of ability to act on an impulse, that the amount of smokers will drop.
That’ll never happen, the tobacco industry is too big and too many jobs will be lost all at once, so it becomes highly politicized and loses popular support. With the proposed law, the tobacco industry at least has time to pivot to something else.
So let’s give the companies that have lied about the harms and effects of their product a heads up? They never gave people who died of cancer when they knew it caused cancer but denied it. Moving the age will just give the time for the business owners to get more of the money out and fuck over the smaller employees anyways.
I honestly think there is no solution that doesn’t have negative effects. I’m personally very against the banning of something (especially a plant) as a solution to a problem as it creates plenty more problems (see America’s drug problems)
Ok, but and believe me I’m all for this, cocaine and heroin are plants as well, or at least you can grow coca and poppies and get the drugs from them. Should cocaine and heroin be legal as well just because a) they’re plant derived, and b) people will use the drugs and get addicted to them because that’s how it works? As I said, I personally would legalize, tax, and educate people about safe recreational, therapeutic, and medical drug use for all drugs personally, but most people find that too extreme.
Unironically yes, cocaine and heroin should be legal, or at the very least decriminalized. If they were legal, regulated, and you could pop into a headshop and buy them, the black markets surrounding them would begin to evaporate.
I agree, as I said
Prohibition never works, the best bet is to keep it legal and make it as inconvenient as possible like: raising taxes on tobacco, make it illegal to smoke outside of dedicated zones (Quebec has done it I believe), fine people who litter their cigarette butts (hard to implement but, it might deter a large majority from doing it), keep helping smokers to quit and keep raising awareness for younger people.
This is the way. There are so few places to smoke in BC that I pretty much only ever see people doing it 5 metres from a bus stop.
They are so expensive that the few people that still do it smoke maybe a pack a week.
We even banned the sale of no-nic vape juice because they were becoming a gateway to nicotine addiction for teenagers.
We even banned the sale of no-nic vape juice because they were becoming a gateway to nicotine addiction for teenagers.
That’s crazy and backwards. Ecigs were a critical tool I used to kick a 2 pack a day habit. Vaping is the best smoking cessation system around.
except the ones using it don’t even smoke rn.
I just visited Canada for 4 days, was around a lot of people and I only smelled smoke twice. Both times were outside the airport (once arriving and once departing).
Nah the best bet is to remove the profit motive. And through legal means execute every cigarette company owner or employee who covered up health risks for mass manslaughter.
Hmmm, where have I heard this proposal before?
The reason I used the word Prohibition is because I think it’s bullshit either way. We’re sitting here legalizing pot because Prohibition doesn’t work, but somehow doing this chickenshit year-by-year outlawing is somehow going to fix something that education is doing a fine enough job. People are going to smoke cigarettes, there’s always a group that will do it, legal or not. Whether you want a crime problem around it or not is the obvious question these chucklefucks don’t seem to understand, despite repeated examples to the contrary.
Add in the danger of having the following mentality: “what are these rights laying around that I’m not utilizing? What, that person over there enjoys having these rights? Well, I don’t like that person, so I don’t care about their rights fuck em”
This ladies and gentlemen, is how you Nazi 101 (but with rainbow flags and affirmative action this go-around)
Sure are a lot of authoritarian apologists up in here today
Authoritarianism is when tobacco companies can’t shove cigarettes down my kids neck.
It’s not shoving down their neck if they’re educated about the danger and choose to do it anyway. That’s called free will. Your job isn’t to sculpt or control your kids (bc that doesn’t ever work), your job is just to show them the ropes and hope they don’t fall down too much/too badly.
sir, have you considered you live in a society?
