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)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

I'll happily pick a side as a kid who grew up in a house constantly full of smoke and a parent who's a total mess at least partially because of this. Good. It's about time some serious steps were taken. Not to mention the effects of second hand smoke.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago

You're parent(s) not having the sense to go outside and stay away from you while smoking shouldn't impact my ability to smoke alone.

[-] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago

And it won't, unless you were born after 2009.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] radiant_bloom@lemm.ee 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body. That said, we need to do a better job keeping children off of those substances (and all the other ones that aren’t legal for adults, but should be)

( Exception for things like antibiotics, which endanger everyone else if you abuse them. Other drugs should be regulated like alcohol : no sale to minors, restrictions on activities like driving when under the influence. Maybe the age should also be 21 or 25 instead of 18 )

On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried 🤷🏻‍♀️

[-] bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

South Africa was trying this when I moved away about 15 years ago. If you wanted to smoke you had to sit in separate closed off area in restaurants (for example).

~~No idea what the ultimate outcome of that was though.~~

Edit: According to smokefreeworld.org:

The adult smoking rate declined from 27.1 percent in 2000 to 18.2 percent in 2012

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body.

A couple other comments seem to imply this a full-blown prohibition as well. To be clear, my interpretation is that this is not a total prohibition. From the article:

The government is set to introduce a historic new law to stop children who turn 14 this year or younger from ever legally being sold cigarettes in England, in a bid to create the first ‘smokefree generation’.

So IIUC, there is no possession or consumption offense, and anyone at any age can grow their own or import¹ it. They’re just making it inconvenient to acquire by controlling commerce. That inconvenience will certainly add to the cool factor of kids who become the resourceful hookup.

¹ I suppose they will be able to carry it into the country, but probably legit mail order shops will be controlled. Not sure.

On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried

IIRC, the smoking ban in restaurants and bars started in CA or NY, then swept around the world from there. Then NY supposedly banned smoking near outdoor bus stops or something. Not sure if that experiment spread.

[-] sparkle@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

i think new zealand and australia tried

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

That was my thought too. Ban it in public spaces so the rest of us don't have to breath that toxic shit, but if people want to spend money to kill themselves at home then let them. But don't cover their related health expenses.

[-] radiant_bloom@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

I disagree about the health stuff, but I’m French, so I’ve always taken is as a given that we pay (almost) every healthcare expense through taxes. If you ask me, that’s just the cost of freedom 🤷🏻‍♀️

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] h_ramus@lemm.ee 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The intention is meritable. As usual, Tories misunderstand how to achieve the stated objective. They'll be creating a secondary market whereby those born before 2009 will supply cigarettes to those born after 2009... for a fee of course. Party of business and entrepreneurialship.

Also, drinking yourself into a stupor seems to be socially acceptable in the UK whilst the cost is much larger.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/24/tories-failure-to-tackle-alcohol-harm-is-causing-public-health-crisis-say-mps

Cigarettes were already heavily taxed in the UK anyway. The relative share of smokers is much lower compared to places like France.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country

If the goal is to improve everyone's well-being, is this the best way to achieve it?

[-] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 months ago

Until no one is left alive who can buy cigarettes. Or rather, until no one produces cigarettes on an industrial level because the narket is so small. Then they need to grow tobacco themselves and suffer without buckets of toxic shit put into commercial cigarettes.

I'm all for making drastic positive changes in our lifetimes, but a slow change is better than no change

[-] Squizzy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

The goal is have less smokers. Is your argument that there will be a secondary market booming in no time or that it wont affect that many people?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 12 points 6 months ago

I don't live in the UK but I would not support this anywhere because making something banned makes people want to use it and creates a black market. I would absolutely support raising the minimum age you are allowed to consume it at. But not a complete ban.

[-] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 months ago

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

[-] 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

Oh sorry haha

[-] 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.

[-] Swarfega@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Vapes have pretty much taken over here in the UK. The vast majority of smokers are the older generation.

I've been to Spain twice in the past year and each time amazed at how many smokers there are still. These were the Spanish and Germans.

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 1 points 6 months ago

I grew up in a house with a smoker and would not want to do that at all ever. I'm okay with vaping, but I don't want anything to do with tobacco products at all. I just vape marijuana.

[-] JillyB@beehaw.org 10 points 6 months ago

Didn't New Zealand try this and eventually walk it back?

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago

A different government came in and cancelled it to fund tax cuts

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 months ago

I can kinda support raising the ages for drugs, alcohol and tobacco to 19, 21 or even 25. Major human brain development is still ongoing until about 25. Or perhaps restricting the quantity they can buy.

We already see car rental companies restricting rentals to those ages and insurance companies having higher risk premiums.

And I would also put limits on things like gambling and credit card debt for those ages. And yes, stop student loans in totality.

But the idea that we are going to ban 30 and 40 year olds from consuming cigarettes is just laughable.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I can kinda support raising the ages for drugs, alcohol and tobacco to 19, 21 or even 25. Major human brain development is still ongoing until about 25. Or perhaps restricting the quantity they can buy.

There was some research finding that people who use psychedelic mushrooms are made more psychologically flexible (open minded) for the rest of their life. But the caveat is that the permanent open mindedness effect only happens if the shrooms are consumed before age 35 -- presumably precisely because the brain still has significant neuroplasticity.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BluesF@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

The rhetoric seems clever, but it is based on very shaky logic. Smoking is a choice, I made it for years and eventually made the choice to stop. Banning the sale of tobacco also doesn't prevent smoking - it just prevents the government from taxing smoking. Just like weed, just like other drugs. We already have problems with unregulated vapes being sold to kids, surely this is only going to make that problem worse by driving even tobacco vape liquid sales underground?

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The ban is on cigs not really vapes it seems (apart from the flavored ones that attract kids). In which case people are being steered toward vaping, which will likely do well in competing against black market cigs. If the goal is to keep kids off the worst of the worst, focusing on cig bans while keeping unflavored vapes on the table would seem to be the most effective compromise.

I’m not endorsing it.. but just in terms of the gov achieving its goals (one of which is cancer reduction) it seems they will succeed to the extent possible with this approach.

[-] darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org 2 points 6 months ago

Not to get all conspiracy-minded but banning tobacco is a great precedent for keeping cannabis illegal.

[-] HolidayGreed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

Don’t worry guys, this is just Rishi’s way of telling big tobacco that he needs money. I’m sure a huge pot of cash can make this all go away for them.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

This cowardly way of making laws seems exactly like changing public pension plans to make sure they only affect people too young to care about it right now.

Prohibit it for everyone and take your lumps, or don't. Doing things that only affect non-voters is pathetic cowardice.

load more comments
view more: next ›
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