3 ms·

If they wanted to ban cigarettes, they should have banned cigarettes. The whole "let's pass a law that only affects people who can't vote" strategy applied here

If they wanted to ban cigarettes, they should have banned cigarettes. The whole "let's pass a law that only affects people who can't vote" strategy applied here is tyranical.

mothballed 6mo ago
The US did the same thing with cockfighting. It was already illegal in all the states, but they passed a federal law binding on all states and territories to stop Puerto Ricans (who had no such law against it), who have no meaningful federal representation.
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  >The US did the same thing with cockfighting. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    No, but my point is this argument isn't really consistently applied. The excuse about a law made specifically to apply against people that can't vote is quite popular and accepted. The cockfighting law was cheered by most the mainland US, while Puerto Rico desperately fought against it, though they weren't able to get cert in SCOTUS to challenge it. There was never really much of any concern of "wait, Puerto Rico has no representation in the law that was essentially drafted to target specifically them." All these people claiming to not support the smoking laws on this kind of basis were nowhere to be found. The law passed like a thief in the night.
    - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
      I'll happily endorse the idea that double standards and hypocrisy are the true evil if that's what you're getting at.
      - mothballed 6mo ago
        That seems like worth endorsing, along with the notion of disgust for legislating grown non-convicted adults without any representation.
testing22321 6mo ago
It’s the perfect way to phase it in. In ~80 years nobody will be able to smoke, but you never took the right away from someone that already had it. A huge win for society
- AngryData 6mo ago
  That doesn't sound like a win to me, it sounds ultra authoritarian and restrictive. Prohibition has never cured us of a drug problem and tobacco is no different. You think jailing someone for decades for selling tobacco should be a thing? Because that is what such a policy will do.
  - testing22321 6mo ago
    I think making a society more healthy should be a goal. You already can’t legally do a lot of things that appear to only be about yourself because society as a whole said it’s not good for everyone. You can’t buy cocaine. You can’t commit suicide (it’s illegal almost everywhere) . You can’t ride a motorbike without a helmet, or drive a car without a seatbelt. You can’t even build a house without a smoke detector or remove the airbags from your own car. To some degree, if you want to, go buy 100 acres in the middle of nowhere and go nuts. Or move to a country that doesn’t care about all those things. If you want to be part of a modern clan, it’s not helpful to do things that indirectly hurts everyone, even if on the surface it only impacts you and your body. If you want all the benefits of a modern society, it asks you to not be a net negative. This is 10x important in countries with universal healthcare, ie all but one.
    - Cytobit 6mo ago
      We should empower people to live healthier lives, not subjugate them.
      - testing22321 6mo ago
        Ideally yes. But clearly all the examples I listed and many dozens more show that, at times, for the greater good we have to stop people doing certain things. Would you argue we should teach empower people to be more responsible and let them all own surface to air missiles? Surely we should empower people to be healthy and make smart choices and let companies put arsenic in food to save money. Let people build homes with asbestos insulation because it’s cheap and works and let people connect their house to the gas main because it will encourage people to be resourceful ? I’m all for encouraging people to make good choices, but the consequences are very obvious in certain circumstances.

If they wanted to ban cigarettes, they should have banned cigarettes. The whole "let's pass a law that only affects people who can't vote" strategy applied here is tyranical.

mothballed 6mo ago

The US did the same thing with cockfighting. It was already illegal in all the states, but they passed a federal law binding on all states and territories to stop Puerto Ricans (who had no such law against it), who have no meaningful federal representation.

cucumber3732842 6mo ago
>The US did the same thing with cockfighting. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- mothballed 6mo ago
  No, but my point is this argument isn't really consistently applied. The excuse about a law made specifically to apply against people that can't vote is quite popular and accepted. The cockfighting law was cheered by most the mainland US, while Puerto Rico desperately fought against it, though they weren't able to get cert in SCOTUS to challenge it. There was never really much of any concern of "wait, Puerto Rico has no representation in the law that was essentially drafted to target specifically them." All these people claiming to not support the smoking laws on this kind of basis were nowhere to be found. The law passed like a thief in the night.
  - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
    I'll happily endorse the idea that double standards and hypocrisy are the true evil if that's what you're getting at.
    - mothballed 6mo ago
      That seems like worth endorsing, along with the notion of disgust for legislating grown non-convicted adults without any representation.

testing22321 6mo ago

It’s the perfect way to phase it in. In ~80 years nobody will be able to smoke, but you never took the right away from someone that already had it. A huge win for society

AngryData 6mo ago
That doesn't sound like a win to me, it sounds ultra authoritarian and restrictive. Prohibition has never cured us of a drug problem and tobacco is no different. You think jailing someone for decades for selling tobacco should be a thing? Because that is what such a policy will do.
- testing22321 6mo ago
  I think making a society more healthy should be a goal. You already can’t legally do a lot of things that appear to only be about yourself because society as a whole said it’s not good for everyone. You can’t buy cocaine. You can’t commit suicide (it’s illegal almost everywhere) . You can’t ride a motorbike without a helmet, or drive a car without a seatbelt. You can’t even build a house without a smoke detector or remove the airbags from your own car. To some degree, if you want to, go buy 100 acres in the middle of nowhere and go nuts. Or move to a country that doesn’t care about all those things. If you want to be part of a modern clan, it’s not helpful to do things that indirectly hurts everyone, even if on the surface it only impacts you and your body. If you want all the benefits of a modern society, it asks you to not be a net negative. This is 10x important in countries with universal healthcare, ie all but one.
  - Cytobit 6mo ago
    We should empower people to live healthier lives, not subjugate them.
    - testing22321 6mo ago
      Ideally yes. But clearly all the examples I listed and many dozens more show that, at times, for the greater good we have to stop people doing certain things. Would you argue we should teach empower people to be more responsible and let them all own surface to air missiles? Surely we should empower people to be healthy and make smart choices and let companies put arsenic in food to save money. Let people build homes with asbestos insulation because it’s cheap and works and let people connect their house to the gas main because it will encourage people to be resourceful ? I’m all for encouraging people to make good choices, but the consequences are very obvious in certain circumstances.