• Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was wondering what is Lemmy’s opinion on this?

    Personally, I really don’t understand the purpose of prohibition laws. It’s some sort of virtue signaling? I don’t smoke tobacco but this seems just silly. People will get shitty black market cigs that’ll be much worse. If they really cared about the people wouldn’t addiction programs be funded instead of prohibition? Especially when the science is clearly in favor of the former.

    • dansity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In universal healthcare countries the one’s smoking are basically abusing the system as there is a very high chance they end up with some kind or respiratory or hearth issues sooner or later. Such illnesses are very costly to treat hence they are taking away from others. Contrary to let’s say alcohol that most people consume but also majority is not alcoholic. Smokers are almost always junkies and they have issues quitting fags. Smoking is extremely addicting.

      • lotophage@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In these cases it is very much “privitise the profits, socialise the costs” scenario. The tobacco companies reap the profits and the taxpayer foots the bill via the healthcare system.

    • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      This policy suggestion differs from other prohibitions slightly, due to the mechanisms of addiction, and the existance of alternative nicotine delivery.

      In the first factor, there is a prime age range during which addiction likelyhood is highest: ages 10 to 20. Beyond this range, succeptibility to addiction falls. By reducing the likelyhood of people in that range to encounter tobacco products, we can meaningfully reduce overall nicotine addiction inthe population.

      The second factor is the existance of safer alternative nicotine delivery mechanisms. For those already addicted, more targeted mechanisms such as gum, patches, and even vaping can represent a reduced-harm alternetive to smoking.

      Also, black market ciggarettes probably will be just as safe as they are now, since they will most likely be commercially produced for other countries and smuggled in. Its not like RJ Reynolds will start cutting Camels with coca leaves just cause they can’t sell to 25 year olds.

    • NightLily@lemmy.basedcount.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say no cause it is on the recommendation of doctors and researchers within the country to him and it’s actually something that will affect people in a positive way supposedly. Now I think he made cuts to healthcare so in that regard yeah it is a little bit of virtue signalling but it’s virtue signalling in a functional way that actually impacts things. Which I think is okay for him to do.

      It commissioned a review, published last June and led by Dr Javed Khan, which made a series of recommendations, including increasing the legal age for buying tobacco.

      He recommended that the age of sale should increase from 18, by one year every year, until no-one can buy a tobacco product.

      Cancer Research UK’s chief executive Michelle Mitchell said: “Raising the age of sale on tobacco products is a critical step on the road to creating the first ever smoke-free generation.”

      But Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest, said: "Raising the age of sale of tobacco is creeping prohibition, but it won’t stop young people smoking because prohibition doesn’t work.