4 ms·
But 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 ho
by avbanks 4y ago
But 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 agoArresting ~20% of the Maori population (the number that smoke according to other comments in this thread) might not be received well.