Yeah it's illegal, but people get others to buy them like what will happen with this law. Yeah it's to restrict which I get, but it seems a little off, I don't disagree with it though fully as I think it could help, but not by much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
Just because they ban people who were born after 2000 from buying them, doesn't mean they won't get their hands on them. It would also make tobacco and cigarettes sales on the black market go through the roof wouldn't it?
Well exactly, but we're talking about politicians and 'experts' here: common sense doesn't come into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdport.
Would banning gay sex to prevent STDs/HIV be a great idea 'on paper' too, even if it surely wouldn't work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
For the 87th time, I'm not entirely sure how you can compare HIV/Aids to smoking.
Because, as usual, this goes back to principle. Unlike others in this thread, you haven't come out and stated how taken aback you are at the thought that the state could impose such a draconian law banning everyone born after 2000 from smoking, all you have done is come out and say that it looks like a good idea to you on paper - which I take it you think so because it would potentially save lives - but that you perhaps wouldn't pursue it because the policy would be unworkable. In short, you're not opposed to the policy in principle but only on practicality grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
My irk with you is that you don't appear to have any underlying principles when it comes to issues like this, and would ask that instead of pretending - as so many of you do - that you'd support draconian laws and measures to 'save lives', that instead you come out and state what your *true* intentions and beliefs are which is simply this: you don't like smoking on a personal level and would like to see it banned on that concern and that concern alone. Public health isn't really your concern, and I wish you would be more honest in what your reasons really are which to me are spookily authoritarian. If you are going to use state power and force for public health reasons (so you and your side so often claim) on one issue, then what is stopping you from using them on other public health issues? I don't think you care at all about public health, this is all about "I don't like X so i'll ban it".
Of course you won't admit this, because we all know that (including yourself) "ew, ick I don't like that" isn't a good enough reason for banning something via the power and force of the state. Unless you're an authoritarian, something which i'm suspecting you are at heart.
i think the biggest loophole is, as i read in another article about this, that most people start smoking b4 they can legally buy cigs anyway, mostly due to peer pressure at school. obviously these people who have relied on others' obtaining the cigs for them in the past when they were underage will just continue relying on others even once they are banned to their age group.
*shrugs* despite the big loopholes i think it would significantly reduce the number of people that start smoking
But why is that your business anymore than it is my business what you might allow inbetween your legs on a friday night? And vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by subo
tbf I don't like smoking but this will cause up roar
it not my business at all. i like the occasional cigarette and i hate nothing more than ppl nagging smokers that they're killing themselves lolQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
nonetheless we all know its in every1s best interests to entirely phase out smoking but i also agree with ur concerns about where we draw the line i.e. junk food and alcohol. its tricky but smoking seems easier to target and i think thats because its more addictive...obviously u have alcoholics and fatties addicted to bad food but those are less socially accepted and have more of a stigma anyway its not as common.
But again, why is it your business to 'target' a particular vice of a group of people at all? Y'know, it reminds me of the very same persecution that gay people faced from the state years back - justified (by the state) with health concerns and mental health concerns. It's one thing disagreeing with a particular vice that can lead to serious health complications (as both smoking and gay sex do on a large scale) but it is another thing to get the jackboots out and stamp that activity out via the force of the law. Most of us have a favourite vice, it ought to be each to their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by subo
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, always remember that.