Dying for big tobacco: omg what a tragedy
Dying for big oil: omg he’s a hero
Pick your corporate servitude carefully kids
Dude, you finally made me understand.
it’s just big corporations fighting amongst themselves for available manpower and manlives. But still much better as the alternative, which is politicians fighting amongst themselves for manpower etc
Politicians do it in public, corps do it in secret.
Wanna see me stick nine inch nails through each one of my eyelids?
Copy me and do exactly as I did
Pilot a drone and use it to blow up 9 kids
Democracy’s dead, wait, tryna get this all straight
But I can’t figure out how Cheeto man still ain’t jail bait
And Dr. Schwab said “you’ll own nothing and you’ll like it” (nuh-uh)
“Then why’s you broke yet? Man, choose violence.”
Image Transcription: Meme
Government: Tobacco is dangerous. You need to be 21 to buy it
Also government *sending military recruiters to high schools*:
[An image of a man in a red suit captioned with the text “Hi kids! Do you like violence?”]
Can’t you, like, buy weed at 18? Or what about vapes? Plenty of literal children using those.
There’s no state that allows recreational purchase under 21. Vapes are considered a tobacco product regardless of nicotine content and also require you to be 21.
All tobacco and vape got set to 21 and over where I live so just military and adult jail as benefits of turning 18 now.
deleted by creator
No longer have to lie about age on 18+ sites
Yeah but often 1/1/1900 is still easier on shitty ui sites lol
Where I live weed is 21, tobacco is 18
im guess im assuming you live in the us, but you might want to double check that.
Tobacco sales to anyone under the age of 21 has been federally illegal since 2021.
deleted by creator
My state too, weirdly.
deleted by creator
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/bills/3548.htm#:~:text=Section 16-17-500.,the age of eighteen years. As of January 10th, 2023, the minimum age in SC is 18. I cannot find anything in the Bill that mentions 21 being the minimum age.
The federal minimum age overrides the state. Generally speaking, state laws can be stricter, but not more lenient than federal laws that cover the same subject.
deleted by creator
Uh. Federal law is that cannabis is illegal, yet that doesn’t stop sales. It does effect prosecution when feds decide to, for sure.
deleted by creator
And youth ain’t gonna have the chance to drink until they turn 21 ffs.
My parents would buy RTD spirits for my sister aged 15 when she was going to a friend’s party or something. They’re cops
In certain parts of America.
Forever annoyed that my students have to get recruiters in our school to show up and try to persuade them to join ARMY, NAVY, etc.
🫠 Worst of all was when one of them showed up on International PEACE Day.
Removed by mod
Tobacco is a shitty drug. We should ban it entirely and federally legalize another drug like cannabis instead.
I’m all for legalising cannabis, but to ban tobacco seems pointless.
I want to legalise or decriminalise drugs because it doesn’t work. Banning tobacco also will not work.
Tax high - use money for education and healthcare.
Ah yes. The poorest people are the smokers, let’s just make them more miserable. Sounds about right.
You should work at a place that sells cigarettes for awhile and scope out the customers. I’ve seen people count pennies and cry because they’re hungry but they’d rather not experience the anxiety of nicotine withdrawal.
As a former very poor person and now just regular poor person who used to smoke ikr.
That said, smoking never made me a happier person and at some point we have to do something. Smoking related issues cost the NHS an absolute fortune.
Do I think that corporations and billionaires should pay their fair share so us peasants don’t need to pay at all. Sure do.
Do I think that’ll ever happen. Heck no.
So given that, then we need to do something.
You shouldn’t make assumptions about people!!
You can have a look at some places that implemented the policy you’re putting forward to check if it works though, right?
Have a look at Australia & New Zealand. Taxed at around 65-70% respectively with intent to make cigarettes cost prohibitive
A summary of some outcomes following a decade or so of implementation of these policies:
- No acceleration in the overall decline of smoking rates at any stage following policy implementation
- Reversal of trend in Australia where tobacco use is currently increasing
- The disproportionality in smoking rates between Europeans and the countries’ respective indigenous groups is now higher
- Politicians (even the health minister himself in Aus) now champion increases to tobacco excise as a means to secure the financial stability of the country
All this while cost of living increases, rate of poverty increases. I mean not all of these things are solely attributable to periodic tobacco excise increases but it hasn’t fixed a thing. The government got some more money to blow on some antiquated nuclear submarines to defend our massive island, surrounded by allied nations and thousands of miles from the nearest potential adversary. They’ll be ready in about 20 years. Great to see the extra tax dollars at work!
Unless I’m mistaken but correlation isn’t causation. Meaning that an increase in tax revenue from cigarettes around the time some new subs were ordered doesn’t mean that one is paying for the other.
Is it unreasonable to make the assumption that the extra tax revenue in fact goes into public health to combat the effects of smoking on an aging population?
smoking for those abive 15 has dropped from 24% in 1991 to around 11% in 2019
although i will concede that this tax disproportionately impacts lower income people
The current excise policies were implemented around 2010, at which point the global decline was already well underway. As I mentioned originally, there has been no stage following implementation of the respective policies in which the decline in smoking accelerated. It has only slowed since that time, and in Australia is increasing as of 2023.
It’s unreasonable to assume that allocations of tax contributed by smokers and tobacco companies is proportionately allocated to areas relevant to the stated intent of the tax policy. That just isn’t a thing for really any tax policy in any government - there’s no point at which the public health cost of using tobacco nationally is reconciled against the tax income from those products to see if things are evening out. They’re entirely separate vectors that are unrelated.
correlation isn’t causation
Do you think these are magic words or something? The entire stated intent of the policy is to cause a correlation that is inverse to the one that’s been observed since. Nowhere above did I say that tobacco excise causes the problems I mentioned - I responded to someone putting forward the idea that it is a viable solution to those same problems.
I have trouble considering your response to be in good faith, since I already disclaimed this in my original comment.I’m sorry, I misread yours. I was just making a joke dude - it’s just meant to be an example of how 1. government expenditures are fundamentally disconnected from the tax funding source and 2. the government having an excess in tax funding often doesn’t result in them doing anything of significant benefit to anyone with it. Who are the subs meant to to protect us from, Indonesia? Wait, that’s right, it was just to piss off our #1 trading partnercorrelation isn’t causation. Do you think these are magic words or something.
Actual quote
I’m uncertain…
So no I don’t believe they’re magic words and I find your quote disingenuous.
Have a nice day and we can end this here. No hard feelings.
Prohibition of any drug is stupid. Especially a damn plant.
deleted by creator
Imagine looking at the war on drugs, prohibition in the US, etc then thinking “I think we should ban this drug that’s already normalised and used by millions. Then nobody will use it and everything will be fine.”
It. Doesn’t. Work.
It especially wouldn’t for something as addictive as nicotine and so trivially purchasable abroad and easy to import.
Tobacco is already dying. Just let it continue to run its course.
Obviously smoking anything isn’t good for you, but tobacco on it’s own isn’t that bad; it’s all the chemicals added that make it so shitty.
However, unless you grow your own or know a farmer, good luck finding any pure tobacco.
Tobacco on its own will cause cancer. Note how pipe and cigar smokers get mouth cancers despite taking only pure tobacco
That is patently false. There is only one single risk factor for cancer generally that is bigger problem than smoking unprocessed tobacco - that is smoking processed tobacco. If you charted endemic cancer risk factors in order of risk, with smoking processed tobacco at the top, then smoking unprocessed/organic/raw tobacco would be about 5% away from the top. The next biggest risk factor would be obesity about halfway down the chart (close to smokeless tobacco products like dip, which has a higher specific risk for mouth cancers). Turns out lighting something on fire and inhaling the combusted free radicals is universally a terrible idea, who’d have thunk? Personally I’m amazed that this kind of misinformation still propagates, on Lemmy of all places, sixty years following the surgeon general’s warning.
It should be pointed out that the vast majority of the military are in support career fields, not combat units. Also, the GI Bill absolutely makes it worth it.
And the VA loan. That’s how I got my house!
Generally speaking, a military career is the best means of advancement in social class for Americans. You’ll easily move up the middle class and likely upper middle class or upper class depending on time served.
Problem is for people with fundamental incompatibility with the military, either disability or personality clash with authority
Even civilian work parallel to the military can be hard to access in those circumstances
Yeah, but on the other hand: fuck tobacco, smoking and all drugs. Drugs are for losers.
Yeah, but when you’re stoned, you don’t care if you’re a loser. That’s the point of getting stoned.
