5 ms·
How generous of the grown ups to ban things for other people but not yourself. Like it's objectively a good thing but it seems so silly and immature to me. How
by thatguy0900 4y ago
How generous of the grown ups to ban things for other people but not yourself. Like it's objectively a good thing but it seems so silly and immature to me. How good could society be by now if we could get every generation to pass restrictions on the vices of the next generation only, I suppose.
Edit: I know talking about down voting is discouraged, but since I'm being downvoted, why not go further? Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? You would presumably even avoid all the rum running and speak easys and mass organized crime you had with the US doing the first time around if everyone who already enjoyed it got to keep doing it. Would you also find this law but for alcohol reasonable?
- stevehawk 4y agoI can't upvote this enough. This is a mind blowing precedent for New Zealand, and scarily, every country. I can't imagine how Boomers in the USA could be drooling at this concept.
- hedora 4y agoIn the US, it is the opposite. The younger generations are (correctly) panicking over climate change, but the octegenarians in congress are working tirelessly to make sure that we'll continue burning the planet down for decades after they've kicked the bucket.
- Arubis 4y agoThis is a totally reasonable point. Interestingly, so is its inversion: "How thoughtful of the grown ups to prevent harm to other people, even knowing it won't save themselves."
- avbanks 4y agoBut I don't understand that, if we're operating on under the premise that smoking is bad for all (which it is), then why not ban it for all now? Thats sets a horrible precedent.
- Arubis 4y agoIt's kind of a harm reduction-style argument. The premise here is that banning smoking for a group more likely to already be addicted might be a non-starter, so let's at least reduce harm where we can. A fairer way might be to say "people that don't already have an established history of smoking can never buy cigarettes going forward", but that immediately creates an unhealthy incentive for everyone to go out and buy their first pack right now.
- dylan604 4y agoAny credence to it's better to prevent someone from starting than trying to get someone to stop? Trying to find a way to see this from a positive view than the super cynical way it comes across. I know I'm stretching for it, and it kind of hurts.
- Arubis 4y agoGiving credit where it's due: stretching to support an argument that isn't your own & doesn't align with your values is a lot of what makes this place great :D
- anentropic 4y agoBecause older people already got addicted while it was legal seems like a pragmatic decision (and... "sets a horrible precedent" for what?)
- auveair 4y agoWould you be against the same law if it was about alcohol? (Ban for people born after 2008)
- anentropic 4y agoNo of course not, it's not the same
- thebooktocome 4y ago
- jmclnx 4y agoBut I wonder how many people with COPD due to smoking would say "I am really glad I have been smoking and would never give it up" ? That is the thing, people start at a young age because it is "cool", when they get old, they wish they never started. I never meet a longtime smoker who has never tried to quit. Eventually many just give up trying to quit. I wonder how enforceable this law is ? I suspect illegal markets are already being planned :)
- subradios 4y agoEhh, there are a lot of people who really like to smoke and are filly aware of COPD and emphysema etc. One thing I suspect is potentially operative is that the long term health of people in general is much better. Previous generations could happily write off the last 5 or 10 years of their life, and that's just not as true today.
- nmeofthestate 4y agoYep. My dad is one such person - smoking has destroyed his health but it's so addictive he didn't even give it up after multiple strokes, heart attacks and surgery. The idea that he's still smoking because "he chooses to do so" and "he likes it" makes me fucking laugh. This law doesn't even try to wean addicts off cigarettes, accepting that many of them have no hope of giving up or even just moving to vaping. It seems like a fair approach to treat this population of addicts as something to be managed as they age out.
- jmclnx 4y ago> Alcohol is also objectively bad, why not implement this for alchohol? Well we both know that will never happen. But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so. If Cost is NZ only concern, they can always charge more for healthcare for people who drink/smoke, price depends upon length of use. But we all know that will never work. Where I work, just about everyone when signing up for healthcare always ticks the "I do not smoke" box to get a cheaper rate. And I doubt there is a sure fire way to verify how much people smoke or imbibe over their lifetime.
- thatguy0900 4y agoWhy couldn't it happen? If you get to make laws like this you can do all sorts of things. The only people it hurts are the ones who don't get to vote on it, after all. The people doing the voting can rest easy knowing they can drink as much as they want. You can't just raise taxes because then the people voting would also have to pay them. Maybe you could just raise taxes for people under 18 and grandfather yourself into the cheaper stuff.
- justahuman74 4y ago> they can always charge more for healthcare That would be unpopular in a country that has free healthcare, making 'free' conditional will scare everyone with sliperly slope arguments that it will lead to a US-style system
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoNot to mention the further down the slope of "tax for this, fee for that" type carrot and stick bullshit you go the more you defeat the point of pooling the cost of something (either via insurance or via the state).
- FpUser 4y ago>"But yes, alcohol is harmful but I think smoking is even more so." I disagree. Also alcoholics harm many other people around them
- 4y ago
- burnished 4y agoIt’s absurdly addictive. And as I understand it smoking as we know it has more to do with marketing and the intentional suppression of research indicating serious harm than anything else. Hell, I might liken it to generational trauma. I’m not sure of the specifics. Does the law prevent you from growing and curing your own tobacco? There might be something important there - I don’t think folks would make their own cigarettes, but they would make their own alcohol. Feels like there is a difference.
- purpleflame1257 4y agoMany countries in the world (like AUS and India) also prohibit tobacco growing. It's hard to do in the U.S. because it is a native species--literally, like cannabis, a weed.
- burnished 4y agoMy assumption is that if you illegalized the sale of tobacco but not the growing of it that cigarettes would not have wide spread use, whereas with alcohol I think most communities would end up producing it. Which makes it seem different, like cigarettes are this highly addictive thing that gets pushed on you because it makes some one else wealthy but otherwise would not have much demand. Which makes comparisons to alcohol feel flat. That is the point I was trying to make when asking about laws about growth/personal production.
- petodo 4y ago
- burnished 4y agoSorry, I was here to participate in a genuine conversation, if you are here to score cheap points can you instead do it elsewhere?
- worik 4y ago> Alcohol is also objectively bad, Alcohol is a wonderful drug in low doses. It is a social lubricant, relieves stress, lowers inhibitions. It is possible to use alcohol without it being very bad for you.
- thatguy0900 4y agoA lot of people recreationally smoke cigars and would say the exact same words about it.