• superkret@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, because making drugs illegal has worked so well in the past.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Setting age limits on substance use is a little different from criminalizing possession/use. In the case of smoking, it has helped reduce rates. This is something backed by people working in public health, who also support decriminalization for possession and bringing in safe consumption sites. It’s all about finding the right approach for an issue.

      I’d rather focus on calling out the OTHER bad stuff his government is doing, instead of turning this one partisan based on which party introduced it

      • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not really an age limit when you’ll never reach it, it’s just gradual criminalization.

        • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not true. It’s a ban on the sale not possession or consumption. The end user is not being criminalized.

          Theoretically there’s nothing stopping from importation (barring implementation of another law).

      • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        But this isn’t am age limit, its using an age limit as a hack to basically grandfather in a smoking ban. It is about finding the right approach, and this ain’t it.

          • betwixthewires@lemmy.basedcount.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            For the same reason prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, for the same reason the drug war didn’t work, for the same reason prescription requirements for medically useful narcotics doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter what the law is, people will make their own choices, and if the things are available, legally or not, people that want to use them will use them.

            Look at the US. For all it’s faults, it has handled smoking very very well. The younger generation basically doesn’t smoke cigarettes. They’re not banned from it for life, they just were informed about it and so they find it disgusting and don’t really do it. You can’t even really get a date anymore with someone if you smoke cigarettes and you’re under like 40.

            • Risk@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whilst I agree with you in that I don’t think this is an optimal approach, at the same time I’m curious as to whether this would create a significant black market for cigarettes.

              Anybody already addicted will continue to have access. Anyone not addicted has to overcome the barrier of acquiring it illicitly, which works in tandem with education about the harm it does.

              Considering how bulky cigarettes are compared to most other drugs, I wonder whether most dealers would carry around loads of cigarettes - particularly if they’d be at risk of being prosecuted for having them (which I don’t think is the case here, though).

              However, it would probably increase the rate at which weed is cut with tobacco as it increases the addictiveness and ensures customer dependency for the dealers.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/

                ASH surveys showed a rise in the prevalence of ever use of e-cigarettes from 7% (2016) to 11% (2017) but prevalence of regular use did not change remaining at 1%. In summary, surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low.

                Except it doesn’t. Vapes are super easy for kids to get, yet somehow they don’t stick with it.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Raising age limits on smoking has not reduced rates, making tobacco use taboo in society and knowing how dangerous it is for you has. In the US like 9% use any form of tobacco (which it’s more likely around 7% or less because they include people who have smoked in their lives and quit as well). At this point no one is really smoking… going after tobacco still is just stupid.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s smoking, not tobacco products use. Vaping, for instance, is its own category.

              Tobacco use includes more options, so the numbers will be higher

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not really, cigar and pipe tobacco smokers are a rounding error against the population…nasal snuff users even less. Vaping is only added to pad the numbers. Let’s get real here, cigarette smokers are what is being effected, not other forms of tobacco use which are basically non existent.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  By “pad the numbers” you mean “accurately reflect reality?”

                  I am aware that cigarette smokers are who is affected by this policy but that is not the discussion at hand.

                  Also raising age limits did reduce smoking rates, but also neither here nor there as this policy is not strictly about raising age to purchase but effectively forming a generational cutoff.

                  Sunak is really reaching here, to say the least, but the data is the data. It’s not worth trying to ignore reality.

                  https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/is-raising-the-sales-age-of-tobacco-reducing-youth-smoking/2021/04

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28850065/

                    ASH surveys showed a rise in the prevalence of ever use of e-cigarettes from 7% (2016) to 11% (2017) but prevalence of regular use did not change remaining at 1%. In summary, surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low.

                    Kids smoking are at an all time high and so is vaping. Raising the age limit didn’t do anything to help reduce this, because kids haven’t been allowed to smoke for decades now.

                    Also, this is literally in your link:

                    While it may be surprising that the new T21 law didn’t reduce cigarette smoking across all types of smoking behavior,** explanations include pre-existing declines in smoking nationwide, **enforcement challenges at the state level, increased use of other products (e-cigarettes and marijuana), definitions of smokers in the study, sales outside of retail stores and other tobacco control policies.

                    Crazy thought… people aren’t smoking anymore. No wonder it’s in decline…

        • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/7995/CDC-reports-confirm-benefits-of-raising-tobacco?autologincheck=redirected

          reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found people who started smoking before age 21 are more likely to have a high nicotine dependence, and raising the age to buy tobacco to 21 impacts the sale of such products.

          found average monthly cigarette sales in Hawaii dropped about 4.4% following the new law. California sales declined 11.7%, and mainland sales dropped 10.6%.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read the article for fucks sake.

      They’re not making the drug illegal, just cigarettes. People who want nicotine still have other options.

      It’s like how no one goes out of their way to make/sell pure ethanol, because you can still buy beer or vodka.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s still prohibition… it’s flat out dumb. A kid isn’t smoking a $10 cigar…