New Zealand plans to make it illegal for kids to buy cigarettes – for life

Post by cies » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

maccolgan wrote: post #121

cies wrote: post #47

It will only get cooler. And you put age discrimination in the law book. Sure there is some age discrimination in the lawbooks for kids/elderly have some different laws applicable to them. But this is discriminating against a generation not an age group. I prefer the "tax the shit out of it" approach. Possibly with a tax that is calculated based on your wealth/income (as all discouragements taxes should be, or they o…

You think that the harm is positively correlated with income out of all things? And you want to present your income to a cig store out of all places?

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #123

dredmorbius wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the first: Contrary to your earlier assertion, however, it is an extant definition in a sense of the word. You don't like the definition. The definition, however, exists. Regarding the second: We're discussing its regulation here and now. (Updated to clarify which aspects of comment I'm responding to, and how.)

I would argue that nicotine is not a controlled substance, so it doesn't fall under this definition anyway. But, that said, it is totally valid to argue that a definition is wrong, misleading, or incomplete. Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, but thanks for saying that.

Post by sleepysysadmin » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #116

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But what's up with Jacinda? Is she afraid of Maori adults, why not just ban tobacco entirely? Kind of side line question. Jacinda got a huge result in the election. Their majority and nearly majority popular vote effectively authorizes them do whatever they please. So why not go all the way on all their efforts?

Getting 99% of votes does not entitle you from expropriating the capital of remaining 1%. It does not work that way.

Post by lostmsu » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #134

dredmorbius wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be arguing that on a discussion concerning its regulation. Does this dissonance not register at all with you?

It would be a tautological argument for its addition to the list of controlled substances. Like so, "It's a narcotic because it's a controlled substance and it's a controlled substance because it's a narcotic." Calling it a narcotic is not helpful. I do wish you would stop taking jabs at me personally.

Post by NoSorryCannot » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #137

NoSorryCannot wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a tautological argument for its addition to the list of controlled substances. Like so, "It's a narcotic because it's a controlled substance and it's a controlled substance because it's a narcotic." Calling it a narcotic is not helpful. I do wish you would stop taking jabs at me personally.

Nobody made that argument. The cause it for being on the list is "deadly addictive". See above.