• Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.

    Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

      This is the real answer right here - this is just another poverty tax/punishment.

      I don’t smoke, never have, but I know why people smoke, and it’s now (that it’s no longer seen as “cool”) almost exclusively to try and relieve a tiny bit of the mountain of stress that existing in the world today (especially as part of a marginalised group) brings, and there are a million better ways to reduce the need to smoke, and improve the health outcomes of smokers (eventually, hopefully, to the point where they are able to reduce smoking or stop altogether).

      Sunak is looking for a quick “win” for headlines and distraction, not to actually help people live healthier better lives (E: just seen his transphobic comments, which only reinforce this point). Why target the source of the problem when you can slap a band aid on it and bask in your own glory for a couple of days before your next bit of corruption is exposed?

      • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Counterpoint: A lot of people that smoke want to stop smoking. A lot of people would more easily stop smoking if it was banned or not so easily available.

        Also from the title of the article it seems that this would never apply to people that already smoke legally. The idea is that you set a minimum age and then you increase it every year. Meaning that in 100 years smoking is banned for everyone. But nobody was never banned from smoking when they were legal before. They were just never allowed to. So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

          right, just like how it being illegal prevents young people from drinking and smoking weed… 🙄🙄🙄

          • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you really disagree that it reduces the amount of young people consuming those substances?

            • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, For example, youth cannabis use halved in Canada after legalization. Also, when I was in HS, people were smoking even though it’s illegal under the age of 18. People would just buy cigarettes from reserves and sell them to each other. If made illegal, people will just find other means to get it.

              Prohibition doesn’t work but better education does.

    • Jaarsh119@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The proposal is to raise the legal smoking age every year. Meaning each yearly increase, this hypothetical 47yo will also age a year and so will be able to smoke forever