348
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tal@lemmy.today 55 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Realistically, I assume that anyone who wants tobacco and would be affected is just going to buy it outside city limits.

[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 39 points 8 months ago

Yep. My hometown restricted beer and wine sales and that is exactly what we did. It was a 15min drive instead of what could have been a 5min drive.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago

We had a religious township do that, now the highway to the nearest wet town has the highest rate of drunkdriving deaths in the province.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

I lived in a dry county growing up. If someone was headed "across the bridge" it meant they were heading to the border of the next county where they had a bar and 4 liquor stores within a half mile stretch.

It's weird that I grew up in a county that didn't sell alcohol but there were more liquor stores within 10 miles than there were grocery stores.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

Username checks out. Dry/wet town/county lines are a very common experience there

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

When you're as drunk and Texan as I am you know where to go to get liquor.

It's getting less prevalent. Last I heard my hometown is now wet and the closest town down the street serves beer at the only restaurant there. In the last 20 years things have started loosening up a little.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 41 points 8 months ago

This does seem super anti democratic. Banning things for only people of a specific group made up of people who were born into it is pretty gross no matter what it is. If it’s worth banning then it should be banned for everyone. Or no one.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

It’s perfectly democratic; it is, however, horribly illiberal.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

This is like Texas when they had dry counties. This didn't stop people from drinking they just drove futher to buy it. This law is dumb they are now going lose tax dollars to the next towm over.

[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 18 points 8 months ago

How do you stop a Mormon from drinking your alcohol?

Invite 2.

I don't really know Mormons but for some reason I remember that joke.

[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 17 points 8 months ago

I heard it a bit different: What's the difference between Jews and Mormons? Jews don't recognize Jesus as the messiah and Mormons don't recognize each other in the liquor store. (I think it works with baptists too)

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah that the one I heard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Dry counties still exist (outside of Texas at least).

[-] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

The manufacturers are banned from selling to new markets.

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Effectively banning something for a group of people who had no choice about being in that group. If you can’t ban something for yourself then it shouldn’t be banned for others.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] kirbowo808@kbin.social 20 points 8 months ago

I understand banning something that’s basically super unhealthy and has direct links to cancer but at the same time, ppl have been smoking and consuming drugs/alcohol for centuries and by stopping ppl from doing it, it’s basically gonna encourage a new generation to try it.

If they’re gonna start banning things like this, then maybe they should also ban alcohol and talcum powder too since they also have links to cancer as well.

Things like this, ppl should be taught about the effects of drugs/cigarettes/alcohol in a safe environment, not just ban things cuz the law says otherwise. You can’t have a black/white approach to those things.

[-] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Prohibition has never and will never work, and we have the data to prove it. However, these laws are made by people who want to go and say "I did a thing, re-elect me peasants!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

I smoked the most before I was legally allowed to do it

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Congrats on cutting back. That shit is terrible for you.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

i quit when I started running it was automatic

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

I can definitely see how those two things would conflict.

[-] spyd3r@sh.itjust.works 17 points 8 months ago

Politicians making smoking cool again with this one stupid trick.

[-] Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

Prohibition of cigarettes won't work, at best people will just go across an imaginary line to buy cigs, at worst it creates an unregulated black market. Just look at how alcohol prohibition went and the current war on drugs is going. If you want to have any sort of meaningful impact on cigarettes create more sin taxes on the product so people will decide on their own to just not buy them.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Prohibition of cigarettes won’t work

I mean, it depends.

Worth noting that a lot of historical "prohibition" efforts have been tools for hyper-policing certain neighborhoods and ethnic groups rather than efforts to actually prohibit the substance.

Re: former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

Did the War on Drugs succeed in breaking the back of the Vietnam-Era antiwar movement and the mass incarceration/assassination of 60s/70s era Civil Rights Leaders? Ab-so-fucking-lutely. In that sense, they were enormously successful.

On the flip side, if you look at serious efforts to regulate sale and distribution of controlled substances, there's some cause for optimism.

Are Dry Counties Safer than Wet Counties?

While dry counties may not be as effective in reducing alcohol-related harms as some people may hope, there is evidence to suggest that other restrictions on alcohol sales may be beneficial. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests limiting the number of days when alcohol can be sold, citing research that suggests that doing so has shown to decrease consumption, alcohol-related violence, and DWIs

Similarly, the CDC also recommends limiting the time in which alcohol can be sold as research has found that increasing the sale of alcohol by two or more hours resulted in increased consumption and motor vehicle crashes.

I should further note that infrastructure improvements, like bus/rail transit and active cab services, do a lot to reduce the negative externalities of excess consumption. Similarly, access to affordable housing and medical services can curb the use of alcohol and heroin as stand-ins for treatment of pain management and depression. And environmental improvements (particularly, de-leading of the water supply and clean-up of toxic dumping sites that contribute to chronic ailments) can reduce demand for pain management drugs at the root.

The idea that you simply can't do anything about drug abuse and its consequences is heavily predicated on the assumption that our Drug Wars have sincerely sought to improve the lives of residents. When policymakers are allowed to pursue reforms that include public services and societal improvements, municipalities report significantly better results than when they're restricted purely to policing and other punitive measures.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 8 months ago

Sounds like you would appreciate The End of Policing. It more or less advances that public services (socialism) would be more effective at addressing societal ills. I agree.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jonne@infosec.pub 2 points 8 months ago

In Australia there's already huge issues with a black market and criminal gangs, and that's just with cigarettes being super expensive (like $50+ for a pack).

I think governments should really think about making sure their policies don't backfire, and keeping legal, affordable supply should be part of that.

Although to be fair, the tax on cigarettes does tend to work, Australians generally don't smoke, if you see someone smoking they're usually a recent immigrant or just old.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] bier@feddit.nl 3 points 8 months ago

If you ban tabacco all out its going to create a huge black market. Addicted smokers that don't want to stop aren't just going to stop.

But, raising the legal smoking age with one year every year might work. Tabacco use is already pretty low for GenZ as smoking isn't "cool" like it was in the 70s.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Wermhatswormhat@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Smoking is not good for your health, but we as Americans are free to make that choice for ourselves. I think that’s the definition of unconstitutional. Banning something like that is only going to make it more widespread and sketchy. Look at the war on drugs and what it’s done, but sure it’ll work this time.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

I don't think "unconstitutional" is the word you want here. There's endless things you are not free to purchase or choose for yourself.

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 19 points 8 months ago

“Unconstitutional” == I don’t like it

Literally as deep as most people’s understanding goes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hornface@fedia.io 12 points 8 months ago

Not going to argue about whether or not it's constitutional (because I don't know), but I just wanted to point out that this case is slightly more complicated than just "you're not allowed to purchase". It's "you're not allowed to purchase.... BUT other people are". Which means it's potentially a question of discrimination, which is maybe not as cut-and-dry as a "normal" law banning a substance across the board.

[-] wrath_of_grunge@kbin.social 4 points 8 months ago

The cost of cigs is also artificially inflated in many places. I’m glad to see less of the younger crowd smoking, that’s a good thing. But doing it in these ways just feels plain un-American.

We let an awful lot of things that are bad for us slide, because the effects aren’t as visible.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Back to the old days of buying smokes out of some guy's trunk.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 points 8 months ago

Thank god i can gi back to buying individual smokes when i am hammered at the bar. Nothing worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes over the course of a week because i had a craving while drunk.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

i hate tobacco too but this is going to backfire just like every other attempt at drug prohibition ever, just you wait.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

I wish them luck with that. If someone wants cigarettes they’ll get cigarettes. I bought them under age and when they were over $6 in my city I’d buy them in other states or duty free or the black market.

[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I grew up with these types of laws and they are just more of an inconvenience than anything else. My old hometown restricted the sale of beer and wine for many years, but it was easy enough just to go to the next town over. (Simultaneously, the town hosted a state managed liquor store which was extremely weird.)

If smaller communities want to restrict products like that, whatever. Hell, even restricting some services is OK as long as it's not discrimination based.

Personally, I wouldn't live in one of those places. It's not about the tobacco but more about the people who are elected by those communities to make laws like that. If smaller communities of like-minded people want to make their own laws like that, so be it. I wouldn't be like-minded, in that case.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
348 points (99.2% liked)

News

23296 readers
1213 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS