3 ms·

They should read about Prohibition. We were really succcessful with that. Oh, and our War on Drugs - another success story. Maybe Denmark can pull this off b

by prirun 5y ago

They should read about Prohibition. We were really succcessful with that. Oh, and our War on Drugs - another success story. Maybe Denmark can pull this off because they are a small country compared to the US. I hope we never try it, because we need to be going in the other direction: if people want to kill themselves, let them do it legally, tax it, and deny them health insurance. At least that will cut down on "crime" and all the court, legal, and police infrastructure that goes with it.

Spivak 5y ago
> and deny them health insurance Okay so literally ban it but make the punishment worse than fine or jail, that'll go over well. The difference compared to prohibition is that, en masse, young people aren't clamoring to start smoking. I know a few people my age who vape, none who smoke cigarettes.
- niij 5y ago
  > I know a few people my age who vape, none who smoke cigarettes. Then why is the law necessary?
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Because you don't want people to start? And because the law is on the sellers you take away the power from huge megacorps trying to push it on people. Like I don't know anyone who doesn't use their seatbelt anymore but it's still a law.
notreallyserio 5y ago
I'm not a fan of the "deny them health insurance" clause. What's next, would you deny someone health insurance because they swam in a river occasionally, drove a car every day, or did any other dangerous thing?
- prirun 5y ago
  I think it's unreasonable to compare a person driving a car with a person smoking cigarettes every day of their life. If it were up to me, I'd also deny health insurance for people more than 100lbs overweight. Why should society pay for someone who wants to be a glutton or chooses to destroy their body with toxins that everyone knows are bad for your health? Either that, or maybe the grocery stores could give out coupons based on soft drink purchases. The coupons provide health insurance discounts and are paid for by the soft drink companies. They're the ones making money by getting people addicted to sugar so IMO they should be the ones paying for the costs. Russia and China aren't America's big problem. Our lack of personal responsibility is a much bigger problem IMO.
dusted 5y ago
The difference from prohibition is obvious. Taking away an addictive and much-used item from a population who is in full-use mode is entirely different than never introducing it to a population that has never used it. Banning tobacco for a population with smokers in it is hard and will lead to the same problems as prohibition did. However, the population born in 2010 are as of yet not allowed to purchase tobacco (because, they are 12 years old!), so only a vanishingly small part of them are active smokers. Never letting them purchase tobacco will be a none-change for them, their lives are not changed by this, execept for the healthier. Those few who are bent on becoming smokers, will still do so, but there's no good reason to think there are any significant number of them. The future generations even less so. It should be clarified that the act of smoking won't be prohibited, it is the act of selling tobacco products to someone born after 2010 that would, so there will be some black market for a little while, but it's kinda difficult to get new clients, it's not as addictive or nice a product as hard drugs are..
eesmith 5y ago
Yet to this day there are still many dry counties and cities in the US. (As I learned when I visited the Jack Daniels distillery in dry Moore county.)

by prirun 5y ago

Spivak 5y ago

> and deny them health insurance Okay so literally ban it but make the punishment worse than fine or jail, that'll go over well. The difference compared to prohibition is that, en masse, young people aren't clamoring to start smoking. I know a few people my age who vape, none who smoke cigarettes.

niij 5y ago
> I know a few people my age who vape, none who smoke cigarettes. Then why is the law necessary?
- Spivak 5y ago
  Because you don't want people to start? And because the law is on the sellers you take away the power from huge megacorps trying to push it on people. Like I don't know anyone who doesn't use their seatbelt anymore but it's still a law.

notreallyserio 5y ago

I'm not a fan of the "deny them health insurance" clause. What's next, would you deny someone health insurance because they swam in a river occasionally, drove a car every day, or did any other dangerous thing?

prirun 5y ago
I think it's unreasonable to compare a person driving a car with a person smoking cigarettes every day of their life. If it were up to me, I'd also deny health insurance for people more than 100lbs overweight. Why should society pay for someone who wants to be a glutton or chooses to destroy their body with toxins that everyone knows are bad for your health? Either that, or maybe the grocery stores could give out coupons based on soft drink purchases. The coupons provide health insurance discounts and are paid for by the soft drink companies. They're the ones making money by getting people addicted to sugar so IMO they should be the ones paying for the costs. Russia and China aren't America's big problem. Our lack of personal responsibility is a much bigger problem IMO.

dusted 5y ago

The difference from prohibition is obvious. Taking away an addictive and much-used item from a population who is in full-use mode is entirely different than never introducing it to a population that has never used it. Banning tobacco for a population with smokers in it is hard and will lead to the same problems as prohibition did. However, the population born in 2010 are as of yet not allowed to purchase tobacco (because, they are 12 years old!), so only a vanishingly small part of them are active smokers. Never letting them purchase tobacco will be a none-change for them, their lives are not changed by this, execept for the healthier. Those few who are bent on becoming smokers, will still do so, but there's no good reason to think there are any significant number of them. The future generations even less so. It should be clarified that the act of smoking won't be prohibited, it is the act of selling tobacco products to someone born after 2010 that would, so there will be some black market for a little while, but it's kinda difficult to get new clients, it's not as addictive or nice a product as hard drugs are..

eesmith 5y ago

Yet to this day there are still many dry counties and cities in the US. (As I learned when I visited the Jack Daniels distillery in dry Moore county.)