Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The US did the same thing with cockfighting. Two wrongs don't make a right.
No, but my point is this argument isn't really consistently applied. The excuse about a law made specifically to apply against people that can't vote is quite popular and accepted. The cockfighting law was cheered by most the mainland US, while Puerto Rico desperately fought against it, though they weren't able to get cert in SCOTUS to challenge it. There was never really much of any concern of "wait, Puerto Rico has…
Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
331–340 of 430 posts
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? Seems borderline psychopathic. Kinda sums up democracy in current times though.
> It’s awesome to decide what your children, once they are adults, can’t do? You do realize that this is what basically every single law in existence does, right? That my kids, and likely yours, once they're adults, can't drive under the influence, rob a bank, impersonate a cop, lie under oath, exercise medecine without a licence, walk downtown naked, jaywalk, evade taxes, criticize the King?
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, that at least affects a big enough swath of voters that they could, if mattered to them, vote everyone involved out. This smoking ban is specifically designed to not affect a single voter.
I can't agree with this. When they become voters, if enough people of that age bracket wanted to reversed it then they could elect a party that has it in their manifesto. For example, some parties have a cannabis pledge and not enough people have wanted it as yet. My son is 16, and will be impacted by this ban. He is constantly exposed to the temptation to smoke and vape. As a responsible parent, I want to do everyth…
It is much easier to pass new laws, then to remove old laws. Parties also tend to not get elected because of promises for law adjustments, its primarily based upon policy adjustments and most people aren't single issue voters, the want to smoke might be a consideration for some people but even the most diehard smokers probably have 20 other things more important on their mind when at the voting booth.
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
what if they told you your kids would never be allowed to have a drink?
Sounds like a great way to avoid alcohol addiction, prevent drunk driving deaths, and save countless generations from being negatively impacted in one way or another by alcohol.
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
what if they told you your kids would never be allowed to have a drink?
Sounds like a great way to avoid alcohol addiction, prevent drunk driving deaths, and save countless generations from being negatively impacted in one way or another by alcohol.
This banal, smiling, petty authoritarianism sickens me. Bodily autonomy trumps "common good" arguments, and where it somehow doesn't, injustice abides. Society's job isn't to crush individualism in order to create the safest and most financially efficient outcome. Shall we throw everyone in prison for their safety and protection next, and control their diet to ensure maximum healthspan and potential for participation in the labor market?
Rather than banning anything, point out at an early age that cigarettes stink, get you addicted, cost money forever, and cause health problems. Point out that alcohol makes you fat and causes heart problems and cancer. The accept that each person has the right to make a decision for themselves about what risks they're willing to accept to achieve a desired outcome, and that they have to own those consequences.
Don't want to pay for smokers' lung cancer treatment? Then only fund palliative care for smoking-related cancers. Man enough to smoke a pack a day, man enough to buy smokers' insurance. There, now we can live free.
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#336There are two separate issues here: 1. will this work (will the UK stop smoking) 2. is this something the UK government should be doing Setting aside 1 and looking at 2, it seems silly to me to point out that other things (alcohol) that cause problems and are not being restricted. You take the wins where you find them, and the government isn't a magical force that can impose its will on the people arbitrarily. This i…
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
what if they told you your kids would never be allowed to have a drink?
Sounds like a great way to avoid alcohol addiction, prevent drunk driving deaths, and save countless generations from being negatively impacted in one way or another by alcohol.
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking away smoking still solves the secondhand smoke issue.
Not the second-hand vape issue though. Those of us who don't smoke or vape can smell that shit a couple of hundred metres away.
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#339History has shown prohibition can be… problematic. Just tax it very very heavily and apply education / social pressure?
See the problems with the Australian system, which is basically what you describe.
Australia (and the States) tried to impose ever increasing tax and restriction on smoking and over the last few years, smoking has reached critical mass, with more people smoking, cheaper smokes, and smokes becoming more available AND less regulated.
Previously a 20 pack was around $40-60 at most smoke shops, then the illegal darts started to come in, they were priced as low as $6 or $8 for the cheapest 20 pack. They become rampant and barely anyone purchased genuine smokes. In fact, these illegal smoke stores were exactly like real smoke shops, proper business, proper storefront and everything. Excluding the prices, you couldn't tell you were buying illegal products.
Re: Smoking ban for people born after 2008 in the UK agreed
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drinking doesn’t affect others as direct as smoking does. Most of the indoor smoking bans in the U.S. have been based entirely on the fact that second hand smoke affects the employees who are forced to be there. Further, drinking has a far deeper cultural resonance, so smoking is clearly the lower hanging fruit. And it’s not like the UK has not been taking action against drinking. For example, they’ve imposed minimum…
"Ranked by drug experts on damage to user, impact on crime, and socioeconomic effects" 1. Alcohol 2. Heroin 3. Crack Cocaine 4. Cocaine 5. Tobacco I think these laws are bizarre morality rituals. Evidence doesn't conclude it has anything to do with public health when you see how vicious alcohol is.
Of course Alcohol and Tobacco are high up on the list because they are legal. The percentage of people drinking vs percentage of people doing heroin is not even comparable.
Apparently [0] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10278447/ [1] - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
What should be surprising is that 0.2% of the population results in the second highest negative impacts on society. Not that something the vast majority partake in causes the most issues, of course it does given the sheer scale of it.
Put simply, imagine if 50% of the UK did Heroin at least once a week, it would be much worse than alcohol usage.