• bob_lemon@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, Sunak is a complete and utter bellend and cancelling half of HS2 is a ridiculous and nonsensical move.

    But I think that the good old idiom about broken clocks might just apply here. Smoking bans are a good thing.

    • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      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
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        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

        • Rubanski@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not if he wanted to pick up smoking one year before legal age. So he will be chasing that legal age forever and can't smoke even if he's 68

          • ////Edit: it seems like I need to give an example to explain this apparently very difficult problem: Person A is 17 , smoking is allowed from 18 Next year Person A is 18, he could under normal circumstances smoke with 18, but now smoking is legal with 19. Continue to age 68 but smoking is now allowed from 69. It's even implied in the article