this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
125 points (97.0% liked)

Anticonsumption

345 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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] 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.