21–30 of 162 posts
But not at this price. A few years of life more will never justify another war on drugs and this level of government control.
We have bills like this in the US a few times a year but they never have real chances of being signed into law.
Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.
I think it's a step in the direction of personal freedom, because addictive substances are kinda the opposite of free will.
Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.
I fully support the spirit of this legislation, because I'm a recovered nicotine addict and I wish I had never been granted access to nicotine when I first experimented with it. > Some people will never receive the access in the first place This simply isn't true. People will purchase nicotine from older people, while that's still possible, and then there will be a blossoming bootleg nicotine market. We've seen prohi…
1. Market will shrink, making tobacco more difficult to obtain for current users and suppliers
2. Population will age, and it will become harder and harder for new generations to obtain access.
3. At some point, the policy might be considered excessive and abolished. However, there is no time frame for that. 5 years? 50 years? Will it have accomplished anything?
4. (same as your last point) As legalization of other drugs seems to gain traction, this seems like a weird position to take. Would illegal trafficking of tobacco increase, with the usual downsides?
Instead of a blanket ban, would a huge tax increase work better? Keeping the same age restrictions. I can imagine most people preferring a legal, though more expensive, procurement source. Of course, that discriminates against a growing part of the population, but so does a ban. And in both cases, it helps you not to take up the habit in the fist place.
If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self?
I hope lives are saved, but dang, it just hurts me a little bit to see personal liberty curbed.
There’s no way this will result in an illegal drug market for cigarettes, right?
Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.
I fully support this, but sadly there will be kids to whom possession and the smoking of cigarettes will be even more a sign of the utmost coolness. And, as I understand it there will be a time when a 35 year old can buy cigarettes but a 34 year old can't. That's going to be interesting.
Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.
I think the view that the government grants rights rather than takes away natural freedoms is a dangerous view.
Sidestepping questions of personal freedom, I think the method here is interesting. No one will have their access to buy cigarettes taken away. Some people will never receive the access in the first place. It’s easier to not grant access than to grant it, then take it away. I wonder if this could have other legal applications.
I think it's a step in the direction of personal freedom, because addictive substances are kinda the opposite of free will.