Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 142 posts

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#121

Post by tt24 »

intended wrote: post #114
tt24 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close! Insurance is a transaction I consent to engaging in, but a single payer system is not that.

But… wait… what? Based on you what you say… why do you put money into an insurance system? It sounds like you want to make the most rational choice, but you are working off of a model of insurance that doesn’t make sense. The maximally effective version, with the least cost, and greatest coverage is one that distributes costs across the largest pool of individuals. Which is a single payer system.

I put money into an insurance system to diffuse risk away from myself.

> The maximally effective version, with the least cost, and greatest coverage

It would be even more effective to just enslave a bunch of people and force them to pay for my healthcare, but I don’t advocate for that because it’s immoral and unfair.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#122

Post by saalweachter »

tt24 wrote: post #93
saalweachter wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are housed, you are almost certainly paying for home insurance, even if you rent.

1. Many landlords don’t require tenant’s insurance. 2. If you choose to get a mortgage you have to pay for homeowner’s insurance yes. You have the option to not get a mortgage if you prefer. Notice how in both of the above, there is no third party forcing me to pay for anybody’s bad choices.

Your landlord has insurance on the property.

You are paying for it with your rent, just like you're paying property taxes.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#123

Post by notrustincloud »

t-3 wrote: post #100
keybored wrote: post #69

I get the apparent logic of phasing cigarettes into unlawfulness over decades. But considering this is so one-sided in terms of curtailing liberty for one generation,[1] it would have been interesting if they also got a privilege that us oldies are cut off from. Just as a perk to offset things. But whatever could that be? Twenty-year 5% discount on vegetables? [1] But this youngest generation also gets the privilege…

> [1] But this youngest generation also gets the privilege of never having easy access to cigarettes. Being an island, it's probably slightly easier to control smuggling, but if there's money to be made, people will be smuggling in cartons. Anyway, getting an older person to buy cigs isn't difficult, and they're still legal for the majority of the population. I doubt smoking will become immediately attractive, but if…

"being an island" doesnot, in fact, make it easier to inhibit smuggling. One reason, the sheer number of small, unstaffed seaports and the volume of small fishing vessel traffic does in fact make it easier for unobserved ingress of materials under the guisd of small commercial and noncommercial fishing and small to midsize shipping. (see Scotland as major import of currently illicit drugs and undocumented refugees)

Adding another globally common and less regulated substance to the list of extrajudicial desireables simply equals a performance bonus and being low aquisition risk (already shipping other goods from places that grow tobacco and make cigs) as an incentive for the already very profitable and active operators of these networks.

From my perspective this would simply make being a smuggler easier and more profitable and be a value uplift for corrupt enforcement and a net reduction in collectable taxes... moving the revenue from comsumption tax books to black market coffers.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#124

Post by t-3 »

notrustincloud wrote: post #123
t-3 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [1] But this youngest generation also gets the privilege of never having easy access to cigarettes. Being an island, it's probably slightly easier to control smuggling, but if there's money to be made, people will be smuggling in cartons. Anyway, getting an older person to buy cigs isn't difficult, and they're still legal for the majority of the population. I doubt smoking will become immediately attractive, but if…

"being an island" doesnot, in fact, make it easier to inhibit smuggling. One reason, the sheer number of small, unstaffed seaports and the volume of small fishing vessel traffic does in fact make it easier for unobserved ingress of materials under the guisd of small commercial and noncommercial fishing and small to midsize shipping. (see Scotland as major import of currently illicit drugs and undocumented refugees) A…

> "being an island" doesnot, in fact, make it easier to inhibit smuggling. One reason, the sheer number of small, unstaffed seaports and the volume of small fishing vessel traffic does in fact make it easier for unobserved ingress of materials under the guisd of small commercial and noncommercial fishing and small to midsize shipping. (see Scotland as major import of currently illicit drugs and undocumented refugees)

I mean, sure, that's true, but is it more difficult to smuggle by walking or driving over an imaginary line or getting a boat and crew and crossing the water? I don't see water as being the low-effort option.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#125

Post by defrost »

t-3 wrote: post #124
notrustincloud wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"being an island" doesnot, in fact, make it easier to inhibit smuggling. One reason, the sheer number of small, unstaffed seaports and the volume of small fishing vessel traffic does in fact make it easier for unobserved ingress of materials under the guisd of small commercial and noncommercial fishing and small to midsize shipping. (see Scotland as major import of currently illicit drugs and undocumented refugees) A…

> "being an island" doesnot, in fact, make it easier to inhibit smuggling. One reason, the sheer number of small, unstaffed seaports and the volume of small fishing vessel traffic does in fact make it easier for unobserved ingress of materials under the guisd of small commercial and noncommercial fishing and small to midsize shipping. (see Scotland as major import of currently illicit drugs and undocumented refugees)…

They're about the same in practice .. with a boat having the advantage of being able to unload tonnes of goods outside a national limit in open waters for pickup by fisherman where heavy incoming tonnages by truck or aircraft are a little more constrained in respect to transport path (roads for haulage) and drop offs (typically airfields, air drops are relatively rare (but not unheard of)).

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#126

Post by noplacelikehome »

tt24 wrote: post #27

This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of this just doesn’t make sense.

Why must I do anything of the sort? As with all things there is a balance to be found that does not necessarily mean zero.

I can both support healthcare that’s free at the point of access (this distinction is important, because the NHS is not strictly speaking a “single payer” system, as both National Insurance and tax revenues from e.g. alcohol and cigarette sales are used to fund it) and individual liberty, even if that increases the cost of healthcare delivery. The NHS is not evidence of an authoritarian regime, it is evidence of the state playing a role in maintaining baseline standards of health, largely for the purposes of maintaining a healthy workforce.

Americans have such a wildly warped worldview in my experience.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#127

Post by noplacelikehome »

tt24 wrote: post #39
pkulak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is the problem?

To a large extent yes, but more specifically the decision to collectively shoulder healthcare costs is the problem.

Why is it a problem? Why should the ability to afford healthcare determine your ability to access it?

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think it's reasonable for the less financially well off to die.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#128

Post by tt24 »

saalweachter wrote: post #122
tt24 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Many landlords don’t require tenant’s insurance. 2. If you choose to get a mortgage you have to pay for homeowner’s insurance yes. You have the option to not get a mortgage if you prefer. Notice how in both of the above, there is no third party forcing me to pay for anybody’s bad choices.

Your landlord has insurance on the property. You are paying for it with your rent, just like you're paying property taxes.

He’s welcome to pay for home insurance if he likes. That doesn’t mean I’m forced to pay for it. It’s like saying that I’m forced to pay for other people’s education because the Starbucks provides it as a benefit. Not really lol

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#129

Post by tt24 »

noplacelikehome wrote: post #126
tt24 wrote: post #27

This is the logical conclusion when you socialize healthcare. If you’re pro NHS / single payer, you *must* support this. As well as banning drugs, sugar, extreme sports, unprotected sex, and other high risk behavior. Anything short of this just doesn’t make sense.

Why must I do anything of the sort? As with all things there is a balance to be found that does not necessarily mean zero. I can both support healthcare that’s free at the point of access (this distinction is important, because the NHS is not strictly speaking a “single payer” system, as both National Insurance and tax revenues from e.g. alcohol and cigarette sales are used to fund it) and individual liberty, even if…

The 5% of high risk healthcare consumers will result in 95% of the costs. It’s not fair for the 95% of low risk people to subsidize the remainder.

Re: UK to permanently ban future generations from buying cigarettes

#130

Post by tt24 »

noplacelikehome wrote: post #127
tt24 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a large extent yes, but more specifically the decision to collectively shoulder healthcare costs is the problem.

Why is it a problem? Why should the ability to afford healthcare determine your ability to access it? I'm genuinely curious as to why you think it's reasonable for the less financially well off to die.

Why should I ever have to pay for someone else’s healthcare lol, that seems wild to me
Post reply on HN