• Phen@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No no no, minimum age should increase by 360 days every year, that way people can still have hope that some day they’ll be able to smoke. Staying true to how capitalism works.

    • Melkath@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope this doesn’t happen because I love my ciggies, but this plan could actually accomplish what you people claim to want to accomplish.

      Wait… no it won’t.

      But still, at least it’s a genuine plan and not the systemic War on Drugs, prohibitionist, “put the underclass in the for profit prisons” bullshit all the prohibitionist circle-jerkers keep screaming into their echo chambers.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man the fuck up and outlaw it for everyone instead of this sneaky prohibition that only affect people that can’t vote yet. It’s such a cowardly, disingenuous way of doing it.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Prohibition never works, the best bet is to keep it legal and make it as inconvenient as possible like: raising taxes on tobacco, make it illegal to smoke outside of dedicated zones (Quebec has done it I believe), fine people who litter their cigarette butts (hard to implement but, it might deter a large majority from doing it), keep helping smokers to quit and keep raising awareness for younger people.

      • nathris@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the way. There are so few places to smoke in BC that I pretty much only ever see people doing it 5 metres from a bus stop.

        They are so expensive that the few people that still do it smoke maybe a pack a week.

        We even banned the sale of no-nic vape juice because they were becoming a gateway to nicotine addiction for teenagers.

        • ledtasso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I just visited Canada for 4 days, was around a lot of people and I only smelled smoke twice. Both times were outside the airport (once arriving and once departing).

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We even banned the sale of no-nic vape juice because they were becoming a gateway to nicotine addiction for teenagers.

          That’s crazy and backwards. Ecigs were a critical tool I used to kick a 2 pack a day habit. Vaping is the best smoking cessation system around.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah the best bet is to remove the profit motive. And through legal means execute every cigarette company owner or employee who covered up health risks for mass manslaughter.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This method stops current smokers from being criminalised.

      If you ban it like prohibition, you will instantaneously create a black market. Continually increasing the age you can buy cigarettes is easier. Everyone that this effects will not have the option to legally create a cigarette habit/addiction.

      A straight up outlawing would have the maximum effect. But it would be costly to enforce, whilst increasing overall criminal activity.

      • 2ncs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They just need to outlaw the commercial production of cigarettes. I’m very anti cigarette personally, but at the end of the day, tobacco is a plant and should not be outlawed. But outlawing commercial products it makes tobacco legal and accessible to those who want it. With commercial cigarettes being less available, in guessing through either lack of convenience or lack of ability to act on an impulse, that the amount of smokers will drop.

        • ledtasso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’ll never happen, the tobacco industry is too big and too many jobs will be lost all at once, so it becomes highly politicized and loses popular support. With the proposed law, the tobacco industry at least has time to pivot to something else.

          • 2ncs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            So let’s give the companies that have lied about the harms and effects of their product a heads up? They never gave people who died of cancer when they knew it caused cancer but denied it. Moving the age will just give the time for the business owners to get more of the money out and fuck over the smaller employees anyways.

            I honestly think there is no solution that doesn’t have negative effects. I’m personally very against the banning of something (especially a plant) as a solution to a problem as it creates plenty more problems (see America’s drug problems)

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, but and believe me I’m all for this, cocaine and heroin are plants as well, or at least you can grow coca and poppies and get the drugs from them. Should cocaine and heroin be legal as well just because a) they’re plant derived, and b) people will use the drugs and get addicted to them because that’s how it works? As I said, I personally would legalize, tax, and educate people about safe recreational, therapeutic, and medical drug use for all drugs personally, but most people find that too extreme.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reason I used the word Prohibition is because I think it’s bullshit either way. We’re sitting here legalizing pot because Prohibition doesn’t work, but somehow doing this chickenshit year-by-year outlawing is somehow going to fix something that education is doing a fine enough job. People are going to smoke cigarettes, there’s always a group that will do it, legal or not. Whether you want a crime problem around it or not is the obvious question these chucklefucks don’t seem to understand, despite repeated examples to the contrary.

        • artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Add in the danger of having the following mentality: “what are these rights laying around that I’m not utilizing? What, that person over there enjoys having these rights? Well, I don’t like that person, so I don’t care about their rights fuck em”

          This ladies and gentlemen, is how you Nazi 101 (but with rainbow flags and affirmative action this go-around)

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    If this is the only effort, it’s weak. Better to also (or instead) tax each box by another 20 pounds. Kids don’t have that money. They’ll find other things to do.

  • Icaria@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    NZ already did this and it is the most cowardly way to avoid political blowback.

    There’s plenty of other options for minimising smoking. A more altruistic way is by lifting people out of poverty and tackling social disintegration, since smokers are overwhelmingly poor and disaffected.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your right there are better ways. Both methods should be implemented. A carrot and stick approach is going to be more effective.

      I don’t think we can expect the altruistic way from a Billionaire Tory. As far as policy goes, this is the best one the Tory have had in a long time. But that doesn’t say much.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So instead of reducing a clearly destructive habit now we should wait for a major social change that likely won’t happen. I don’t see how that is more altruistic for the “poor and disaffected”.

      • Icaria@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can either try to do things the right way and cure multiple social ills, or you can do it the wrong way and end up with different rules for different adults all in an attempt to prohibition your way out of one issue.

  • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is an amazing, for the sole reason that everyone who is 17 and change now will turn 18, be able to smoke, the law will bump to 19, they won’t be allowed to smoke any more, but then they’ll turn 19 and they’ll be able to smoke again until the law raises to 20…

    • jasondj@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why adjust the law annually? Why not just write it as “no person born after Jan 1, 2005”?

      • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is the better way to write the law of course, but the ham-fisted way it’s proposed by Rishi would look more like what I wrote, because he said specifically that the age should rise one year every year.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So the age is going to get risen to 19, then the Tories are going to lose the next election (basically the only reason to have the election at this point is to find out by how much they’re going to lose so we know how much to laugh at them), and then the law stops getting updated because it’s a dumb and badly written, and then Labour don’t implement it any more.

          If anything they will probably just rewrite the law to the above version.

    • You can just make it a “born before this date” and it just solves this entirely. That date just doesn’t change. Everyone who sells darts memorizes it. Then it actually changes every day by a day. Fuck it, let’s give it an hour too, just to fuck with those kids born an hour later

  • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cool, when does the minimum age for joining the military start to raise by one year every year?

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s directly related. Why are 18 year olds able to lock themselves into a 6 year contract that they might be killed before they see the end of, when they are, legally, too dumb to make their own decisions regarding a chemical they put in their bodies?

        • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s really simple. The ruling class of society benefits more sending the little shit into the military than it costs. The ruling class doesn’t benefit as much when this little shit costs more than the little shit produces. It has nothing to do with protecting the little shit, it has to do with protecting the people in power.

        • Oyster_Lust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They can choose to take hormone blockers at 12, but they can’t choose to have sex until they’re 18 (depending on local statutes). The laws are filled with hypocrisy.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re right, there shouldn’t be recruiters in school that’s predatory as shit.

  • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We operate a Check-74 policy. If you are lucky enough to look younger than 70, we will ask for ID when buying cigarettes”

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe we will make groundbreaking leaps in cosmetic surgery. Or have Jackass-style elderly disguises become popular.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Rishi it’s a background character in his own life. There are more dynamic jellyfish.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    should rise from 18, by one year every year

    If that truly continued every year, that means someone too young to legally smoke could eventually die of old age when the legal smoking age is, say, 90 and they’re 89. skeleton-wave

    EDIT: I was just tripping out at the idea of “you must be 90 years old to buy this” signs at the supermarket. Surreal image.