• CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree that prohibition doesn't really prevent a thing from being consumed. However, I don't think an age limit really counts as prohibition. Selling substances to those who are underage is bad and there should be potential consequences for doing so.

    • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Underage in this scenario could be 40, 50, 60. They will just drive to an Indian reserve and buy cigarettes.

      I assume you're talking about teens though…I'm fine with the current age limits, but increasing the age by 1 year ever year won't do anything.

      • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Um, you do realize that Rishi Sunak is the Prime Minister of the UK? It's a long and arduous drive to the nearest Indian reservation.

        • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is on world news, so I took it as world change. But no, I didn't know that

      • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        On balance I think it's a good thing. A gradual ban like this will help break the smoking culture and save some lives. Maybe it will help gen-z get laid too.