this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
394 points (92.3% liked)

World News

32327 readers
601 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

....how do 14 year olds get smokes now?

Making it illegal to buy at certain ages has never worked...banning them outright also won't work. You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.

Has the war on drugs not been a thought to these people? It is useless and does nothing.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree that prohibition doesn't really prevent a thing from being consumed. However, I don't think an age limit really counts as prohibition. Selling substances to those who are underage is bad and there should be potential consequences for doing so.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Underage in this scenario could be 40, 50, 60. They will just drive to an Indian reserve and buy cigarettes.

I assume you're talking about teens though..I'm fine with the current age limits, but increasing the age by 1 year ever year won't do anything.

[–] TheWoozy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Um, you do realize that Rishi Sunak is the Prime Minister of the UK? It's a long and arduous drive to the nearest Indian reservation.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 2 points 1 year ago

On balance I think it's a good thing. A gradual ban like this will help break the smoking culture and save some lives. Maybe it will help gen-z get laid too.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why have laws against drunk driving or speeding? You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's true, you can't stop people from doing what they want to do with laws, but smoking doesn't smear a child down the street for everyone to see. What a terrible comparison

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fine, why have laws against littering, or smoking in public buildings, or jaywalking, or embezzlement? People are just going to do those things anyway, no matter what is written on paper.

We have laws to provide an enforcement mechanism for behavior that is unacceptable in our society. You're right, in that laws written on paper can be ignored, but you do so at a risk of the penalties laid out in the law. Your argument essentially invalidates the purpose and effectiveness of every law. Clearly, we have laws and they work, so your argument is frivolous and empty.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not just ban Marijuana again...

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the social perception of marijuana use has changed? You're not really keeping up with the conversation here...

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am, but it will always go back to the same. You want big daddy to protect you from others doing harm to themselves, whereas I see people being able to police themselves and if they screw up it's their problem.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If only smoking harmed just the user, but secondhand smoke kills children daily in the US. https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/secondhand-smoke

It's also been found that 3rd-hand smoke can be just as dangerous a secondhand smoke. Not to mention that smoking smells awful and makes indoor and outdoor public places unpleasant. Smokers also routinely fail to dispose of cigarettes properly, leading to unsightly and unhealthy toxic litter, and causes multiple uncontrolled forest/wildfires every year.

You need to throw out your preconceived notions about smoking and the purpose of laws, they are not compatible with reality.