|
| ▲ | toast0 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| NZ tried that cigarette ban, but walked it back so they could get juicy tax revenues. https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/28/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban... Maybe split the difference and raise the purchasing age for cigarettes 6 months every year. Takes longer to get to nobody can smoke, but you'll get there eventually. |
| |
| ▲ | InvertedRhodium 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We’d just end up in the same situation as Australia - where up to one third of all cigarettes consumed are purchased on the black market. | |
| ▲ | bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Smoking is out of favor and has been for years. Every year that goes by there are less smokers. Eventually there will be so few that the tax revenues don't matter anymore. I can't guess when that is coming though. | | |
| ▲ | ikr678 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was, but vape use has taken over, and once the nicotine addiction is in place people are open to smoking again. Also, they tried taxing cigarettes to the moon in Australia and created a multi billion dollar black market for them instead. |
| |
| ▲ | awesome_dude 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The (NZ) government that changed the approach is heavily loaded with Tobacco friendly Ministers - the expectation is that when the government is voted out (no government lasts forever) the age based approach will be bought back in. |
|
|
| ▲ | smelendez 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| US has gone to a minimum age of 21. I actually think that’s enough, along with raising the price and reducing the number of places people can smoke. People generally start smoking by their teens or not at all. Making it hard for kids to get exposed to nicotine will stop a lot of addiction. Also way fewer parents have cigarettes in the house so it’s harder for kids to grab them at home. And there are pretty strong taboos nowadays about giving random kids stuff they’re not supposed to have. |
|
| ▲ | mrguyorama 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The UK is supposedly doing exactly this. As are a few other places. |
|
| ▲ | squigz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would you support the same ban for alcohol? |
|
| ▲ | denkmoon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can we please not keep trying to redo prohibition. Yes it costs public health. No you can’t stop adults imbibing the drugs they want, the only thing you can do is criminalise it which makes criminals of sick people. Great work. |
|
| ▲ | asdff 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | wredcoll 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why stop there? Because we decided to stop there. It's really that simple. | |
| ▲ | andrewstuart 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Seatbelts, speed limits, laws against property and personal crime, workplace safety regulations, All government overreach, eh? | | |
| ▲ | asdff 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Admittedly, I'm not arguing it any one way or another. I'm just presenting what I think is perhaps an interesting argument that highlights how the whole concept is somewhat arbitrary and ambiguous, resting more on ones personal moral positions towards a thing in particular than any real underlying logical justification shared across similar concepts. | | |
| ▲ | sanswork 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not interesting at all, you're just choosing to ignore externalities. |
|
| |
| ▲ | amarcheschi 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Smoking affects surrounding people much more than the above | | |
| ▲ | asdff 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Obesity does too. You are consuming sometimes twice as many calories as what is needed to survive. You put strain on medical facilities as well, and increase pooled costs of healthcare. Same social ills a smoker puts on you. Second hand smoke isn't really a thing anymore with indoor smoking bans. | | |
| ▲ | sanswork 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Someone being obese doesn't impact my health directly. Second hand smoke impacts the kids/family of smokers. Second hand smoke impacts everyone walking past the front of an office building. | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't actually know the math behind it but I would imagine that just smoking outside eliminates almost all the second hand smoke risk. The air outside is really really big, and the smoke is pretty small. Surely most of it misses you, even if you can smell it. | |
| ▲ | asdff 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure it does. Hospital is more busy than it needs to be and service therefore is diminished or you pay more for the same. |
| |
| ▲ | awesome_dude 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People that consume more are carbon sinks... How ludicrous is this argument going to get? | | |
| ▲ | asdff 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Consuming more makes you a carbon sink? Quite the opposite. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | grebc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I smoke maybe a pack a year at best. I can’t buy smokes because some nuffies don’t like it? Take a hike. |
| |
| ▲ | nkrisc 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | So it would be a small personal sacrifice for huge societal benefit, and you wouldn’t even do that? | | |
| ▲ | InvertedRhodium 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The societal downside of providing yet another revenue stream for criminal organisations seems like it might be worth taking into consideration. |
|
|
