21–30 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the law is to prevent anyone born after 2008 from buying cigarettes. Hardcore users that are older than that can continue to purchase tobacco.
Right, those born after 2008 will have to buy their cigarettes illegally.
Why do they think this won't increase the allure of cigarettes in general? Feels like prohibition has always been a questionable idea, regardless of what its target is, and it has pretty much never worked as expected. It's especially awkward given that people's interest in tobacco has already fallen to new lows without it (the article suggests only 8% of the adult population smokes now), so it feels like it could be…
Any data on it having counter effect on the actual consumption and prevelance? I believe are the negatives were secondary but it was effective in primary goals.
Why do they think this won't increase the allure of cigarettes in general? Feels like prohibition has always been a questionable idea, regardless of what its target is, and it has pretty much never worked as expected. It's especially awkward given that people's interest in tobacco has already fallen to new lows without it (the article suggests only 8% of the adult population smokes now), so it feels like it could be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, those born after 2008 will have to buy their cigarettes illegally.
Illegal cigarettes are something deeply ingrained in my mind as part of the trade from the mafia. I'm now imagining guido looking men with kiwi accents.
How generous of the grown ups to ban things for other people but not yourself. Like it's objectively a good thing but it seems so silly and immature to me. How good could society be by now if we could get every generation to pass restrictions on the vices of the next generation only, I suppose. Edit: I know talking about down voting is discouraged, but since I'm being downvoted, why not go further? Alcohol is also ob…
> Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? Well we both know that will never happen. But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so. If Cost is NZ only concern, they can always charge more for healthcare for people who drink/smoke, price depends upon length of use. But we all know that will never work. Where I work, just about everyone when signing up for healthcare alway…
How unfortunate, nicotine is a highly effective nootropic
You’re complaining that spraying crops with DDT was banned because “corn is actually tasty”.
How generous of the grown ups to ban things for other people but not yourself. Like it's objectively a good thing but it seems so silly and immature to me. How good could society be by now if we could get every generation to pass restrictions on the vices of the next generation only, I suppose. Edit: I know talking about down voting is discouraged, but since I'm being downvoted, why not go further? Alcohol is also ob…
> Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? Well we both know that will never happen. But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so. If Cost is NZ only concern, they can always charge more for healthcare for people who drink/smoke, price depends upon length of use. But we all know that will never work. Where I work, just about everyone when signing up for healthcare alway…
That would be unpopular in a country that has free healthcare, making 'free' conditional will scare everyone with sliperly slope arguments that it will lead to a US-style system