129
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by activistPnk@slrpnk.net to c/anticonsumption@slrpnk.net

I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”

I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.

(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 months ago

What if we raise the minimum age by 1 year, each year

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 2 points 6 months ago

What is the minimum age there in the UK? Here in the United States, it's 18. And alcohol is 21. I would say raise that to at least 21 to match alcohol.

[-] jpeps@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Isn't that the same thing, only making the cutoff 2006 instead of 2009?

[-] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 6 months ago
[-] jpeps@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
129 points (97.1% liked)

Anticonsumption

317 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS