• ms.lane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 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
      7
      ·
      1 hour 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

    • SpeedRunner@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 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.

  • HaunchesTV@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    If they think this will actually do anything then they’re horrendously fucking stupid.

    And what’s the plan in like 100 years after the previous generations die? Tobacco and nicotine just cease to exist, and there’ll be no black markets at all?

    Utterly brainless cunts. Then again, I guess you don’t have to be elected or a Lord/Lady/Baroness etc by merit.

    • dunestorm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I don’t think we should be supporting carcinogenic substances known to promote lung cancer and heart disease, personally…

      • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        To be fair, that’s not what their comment was trying to do. They were saying that it would make it worse.

    • lazynooblet@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I expect actually it will have a profound effect on the number of people smoking. I remember when they banned smoking in public places, smoking declined rapidly since then.

      Kids have been bypassing restrictions and purchasing cigarettes for years but the general decline is still happening.

    • Cherry@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It does make the average person a little more marketable as ‘undesirable’. You can pay your taxes, try to live in society’s rules but god forbid you have to support criminals to get a cigarette. The black mirror social credit episode pops in my mind again.

      I understand cigarettes are not heathy but there are better ways to support additions, these measures are a big brother take to undermine individuals.

      Between this and other recent bans they are slowly removing the steam valves.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Did they ban nicotine or smoking? Won’t nicotine in other forms that are legal outcompete illegal cigarettes?

      I also think it’s overblown though, bans in public spaces should be enough.

      • Mothra@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        34 minutes ago

        The article says “banned from purchasing tobacco products” and that the same smoking restrictions will now also apply for vaping. I don’t think it mentioned nicotine specifically. I think it mentioned banning the sale of disposable vapes too but here goes my memory span, useless.

        People are still allowed to smoke in private spaces like their homes, but the public spaces ban would now be extra. It’s an interesting move, I don’t smoke or live there but I see both the potential good and bad ramifications from this.