• ms.lane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I like that they’re trying to kill off smoking.

    I don’t like this ageist bullshit.

    Why don’t they just set a timeline of 5 years and all tobacco sales are prohibited after that. You’ve got 5 years to quit if you smoke.

    That solves even more of the problem and isn’t ageist bullshit.

    • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      probably because it’s easier to make people not start smoking than make people stop smoking. 2008 people are below 18, so most of them probably haven’t started

    • village604@adultswim.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      My biggest issue is them labeling vaping as a tobacco product. While tobacco contains nicotine, it’s like saying Red Bull is coffee.

    • SpeedRunner@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      22 hours ago

      It’s the same reason that Age Gating is popping up all over the world.

      It’s because fuck young people, that’s why. I got mine, I don’t care about you.

        • SpeedRunner@europe.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          I’m not saying I’m against the ban - I actually am for it. I’m just saying that if it was good enough for older people to make an informed decision, why are we denying only the younger ones that right.

          If we truly wanted to fix things, we should ban it for everybody. Not at some arbitrary age cut-off.

          Last I checked, secondary smoke does not respect age limits.

          • Crankley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Honestly curious, why pro ban? I don’t smoke/condone smoking but I don’t think of it as so heinous an activity as to be made illegal.

            I feel like gambling is a far greater issue and only seems to have it’s popularity on the rise recently.

            Smoking falls in my “vices that don’t totally ruin your life” category. Alcohol seems an obvious and fair bit worse a vice so why is there not a call for change there?

            I was living in Canada for the change in weed prohibition and all and all seemed like a somewhat positive change overall.

            Folks are going to smoke regardless, why give up taxation to pay for the treatment? I only see making it illegal as means to create a criminal element. Once that is robust enough you loose any real ability to regulate as well.

            Again, honest question curious if any of this resonates or if you have a completely different view of how the situation will play out.

            • SpeedRunner@europe.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Because of secondary smoke. If you drink or gamble, that does not affect people around you.

              Smoking always does.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 hours ago

        No age rating is a measure of control and surveillance. They force you to supply more info, so authorities can track people better when they want to.