Anticonsumption

345 readers

1 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

125

UK Prime Minister to create ‘smokefree generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009 (www.gov.uk)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”

I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.

(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body. That said, we need to do a better job keeping children off of those substances (and all the other ones that aren’t legal for adults, but should be)

( Exception for things like antibiotics, which endanger everyone else if you abuse them. Other drugs should be regulated like alcohol : no sale to minors, restrictions on activities like driving when under the influence. Maybe the age should also be 21 or 25 instead of 18 )

On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried 🤷🏻‍♀️

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

South Africa was trying this when I moved away about 15 years ago. If you wanted to smoke you had to sit in separate closed off area in restaurants (for example).

~~No idea what the ultimate outcome of that was though.~~

Edit: According to smokefreeworld.org:

The adult smoking rate declined from 27.1 percent in 2000 to 18.2 percent in 2012

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I’m ideologically opposed to anything that prevents an adult from doing what they want to their own body.

A couple other comments seem to imply this a full-blown prohibition as well. To be clear, my interpretation is that this is not a total prohibition. From the article:

The government is set to introduce a historic new law to stop children who turn 14 this year or younger from ever legally being sold cigarettes in England, in a bid to create the first ‘smokefree generation’.

So IIUC, there is no possession or consumption offense, and anyone at any age can grow their own or import¹ it. They’re just making it inconvenient to acquire by controlling commerce. That inconvenience will certainly add to the cool factor of kids who become the resourceful hookup.

¹ I suppose they will be able to carry it into the country, but probably legit mail order shops will be controlled. Not sure.

On the other hand, a complete ban on smoking in public spaces could be helpful ? I’m not certain if it has been tried

IIRC, the smoking ban in restaurants and bars started in CA or NY, then swept around the world from there. Then NY supposedly banned smoking near outdoor bus stops or something. Not sure if that experiment spread.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That was my thought too. Ban it in public spaces so the rest of us don't have to breath that toxic shit, but if people want to spend money to kill themselves at home then let them. But don't cover their related health expenses.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I disagree about the health stuff, but I’m French, so I’ve always taken is as a given that we pay (almost) every healthcare expense through taxes. If you ask me, that’s just the cost of freedom 🤷🏻‍♀️

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I agree healthcare should be a shared expense except in cases where a person knowingly does this much damage to their body. Not a hill I'd die on, but it seems more fair.

[–] timbuck2themoon 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't cover anyone who drinks beer, eats fast food, etc etc then.

Surely that will be good for society.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If someone is alcoholic or eats until their health is seriously compromised they could cover related medical expenses with private insurance.

No need to downvote and get sarcastic just because you disagree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

i think new zealand and australia tried