• FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    …how do 14 year olds get smokes now?

    Making it illegal to buy at certain ages has never worked…banning them outright also won't work. You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.

    Has the war on drugs not been a thought to these people? It is useless and does nothing.

    • 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.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Ελληνικά
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why have laws against drunk driving or speeding? You cannot stop people from doing things, no matter how many words you put on paper.

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It's true, you can't stop people from doing what they want to do with laws, but smoking doesn't smear a child down the street for everyone to see. What a terrible comparison

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fine, why have laws against littering, or smoking in public buildings, or jaywalking, or embezzlement? People are just going to do those things anyway, no matter what is written on paper.

          We have laws to provide an enforcement mechanism for behavior that is unacceptable in our society. You're right, in that laws written on paper can be ignored, but you do so at a risk of the penalties laid out in the law. Your argument essentially invalidates the purpose and effectiveness of every law. Clearly, we have laws and they work, so your argument is frivolous and empty.

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

              Because the social perception of marijuana use has changed? You're not really keeping up with the conversation here…

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

                I am, but it will always go back to the same. You want big daddy to protect you from others doing harm to themselves, whereas I see people being able to police themselves and if they screw up it's their problem.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Ελληνικά
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If only smoking harmed just the user, but secondhand smoke kills children daily in the US. https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/secondhand-smoke

                  It's also been found that 3rd-hand smoke can be just as dangerous a secondhand smoke. Not to mention that smoking smells awful and makes indoor and outdoor public places unpleasant. Smokers also routinely fail to dispose of cigarettes properly, leading to unsightly and unhealthy toxic litter, and causes multiple uncontrolled forest/wildfires every year.

                  You need to throw out your preconceived notions about smoking and the purpose of laws, they are not compatible with reality.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      The war on drugs can't work because the CIA uses illicit drug running to fund off-the-books projects.

      Maybe if they stopped fucking doing that?

      • Badgernomics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure on a global scale, but on a more macro level, the war on drugs failed because people want to buy and consume drugs… if there is no legal, regulated, safe method to buy them then the black market will fill that gap… same under rationing, same under prohibition, same with drugs and in the future cigarettes…!

        • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The war on drugs succeeded, because it was actually a war on black people. It was never meant to stop drug abuse.

          • squiblet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don't leave out hippies and hispanics. Cannabis is called 'marijuana' in the US because it stoked anti-hispanic racism. It was also a convenient way to attack liberals in general.

          • Gork@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would like to congratulate drugs, for winning the War on Drugs.

        • pips@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There is a legal, regulated, mostly safe method to buy cigarettes. It is inaccessible if you are under a certain age, but only the seller/provider is punished for violating regulations. It's okay to have restrictions on what children can consume.

          While current laws on illegal drugs do not work, arguing against any regulation whatsoever is similarly silly, the laws obviously work. Smoking rates have dramatically declined since those laws and public education campaigns began.

        • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, but the want of cigarettes is much lower than recreational drugs. One of the reasons they're still so popular is because they're legal and easy to get.

          I don't smoke and never have, but I can't imagine anyone starting smoking in order to get some effect like with marijuana.

          • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yet, the addiction of cigarettes is much more powerful than non narcotic drugs & every day new people are starting smoking.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you're wrong. The market isn't magic, it needs supply to meet demand and there is a steady supply of drugs to fulfill the demands because of state intervention in the market. The CIA isn't the only government entity that uses the drug trade to raise illicit funds for off-the-books jobs, it's just the biggest. If it weren't for bad state actors, the war on drugs probably would have worked to a large extent; maybe not eliminate the drug trade completely, but at least reduce the volume of trade substantially.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Drug smuggling could never be totally eliminated but I'm sure the government could do a better job if the goal was actually to stop the drug trade.

          But that is not and never was the goal.