• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, trying to get rid of smoking is admirable, but completely banning a drug has historically not often ended well, because it forces those who ended up addicted underground, and creates opportunity for organized crime to profit from their production.

    • thehatfox@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, if prohibition has taught us anything it’s that it doesn’t work.

      My country, the UK, is attempting to follow in New Zealand’s footsteps and recently announced its own “generation ban” on tobacco smoking. Despite the fact that tobacco usage has been declining here for many years and seems likely to all but cease naturally anyway.

      I’m no fan of tobacco smoking, but prohibition does not seem the right approach to take. It doesn’t seem helpful or necessary from a public health standpoint, and is also an impediment of individual liberty.

      Revoking such a ban for tax reasons isn’t a great angle either though in New Zealand’s case. However, from what I remember of USA history tax was a motivation to repeal alcohol prohibition in the 1930s, so maybe that’s an unpleasant taste we should be willing to swallow in this case.

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the cigarette smoking is on historical low, isn’t it a best time to ban it, because the least people is going to be affected?

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If that was their reasoning: fine, but it isn’t.

      They actually, out loud, said they need the tax revenue to fund top bracket tax cuts.

    • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      sure but this is for people that were born after 2009. If enough 14yos have smoked to justify your argument humanity is doomed anyway

      • thehatfox@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many of the smokers I’ve known started smoking at that age or younger. When I was at school there was a playground back market for cigarettes.

        Banning cigarettes for younger people now won’t stop that. Just as banning cannabis for everyone doesn’t stop those who want to smoking it.

        Many of the younger people in my family now however don’t want to smoke. There has been a significant shift in cultural and health attitudes against tobacco consumption, without a ban being required.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a temporary measure though I imagine? If someone born after 2009 gets ahold of some illegal cigarettes a few years from now (I definitely remember some high schoolers when I went to school that smoked, despite being under the legal age at the time) and gets addicted, then the issue still arises. People end up addicted to illegal drugs all the time.