3 points

This better not apply to vaping.

I vaped for a few years and then stopped. Quitting was pretty damn easy imo

permalink
report
reply
-1 points

If you are above 18 this doesn’t concern you anyway

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I care about people younger than me lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Your extreme views frighten me! I thought we were just gonna let them all deal with this mess long after we’re gone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Sure it does. The functions of government concern us all

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Agreed. I stopped smoking by switching to vaping, slowly reducing to 0mg and then realised I hadn’t used it for a week so got rid of it all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They’re doing a separate crusade against disposable vapes. If they’re going after smoking I’d imagine they’d be trying to encourage people to vape to quit.

It’s all hypothetical because it’s highly unlikely he’ll still be in power to put this plan in to action come the next general election

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They want to look at how vaping is being marketed to kids to reduce the number starting to vape but they’re not changing the age restrictions as far as I know.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Hopefully this will lead to them just using vapes instead of cigarettes and not them trying to illegally get cigarettes. I’m still on the fence on whether I think this law is a good idea in general or not but allowing them to still buy vapes / vape liquid is definitely the right decision IMO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Under no pretext should vapes be surrendered.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Counterpoint, a majority of the man’s bathrooms in high schools are taken up by vapers and no one can piss anymore

permalink
report
parent
reply

the GOVERNMENT wants to TAKE away your PISS

Death to America

permalink
report
parent
reply

Also there’s lead in some vapes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wishing a very chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder on every dumbass calling this authoritarian

permalink
report
reply

I just don’t understand how a group of people who are all for drug legalization are suddenly supporting a policy like this (from a Tory no less)? Why are we suddenly in favor of drug prohibition? Am I missing something?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Like 85% of people in the UK are non-smokers, so I’m presuming it’s some NIMBY-lite thinking: “I don’t like smoking so I need you to make everyone stop”.

permalink
report
parent
reply

What’s the public health effect of legalized cigarettes vs, say, pot? Are cigarettes being banned to provide pretext for cracking down on radicals or minority communities?

permalink
report
parent
reply

What’s the public health effect of legalized cigarettes vs, say, pot?

Communists are generally in favor of legalizing fucking heroin lol. ETA: Full drug legalization means full drug legalization. WE also want to treat drug addiction like a public health issue of course.

Are cigarettes being banned to provide pretext for cracking down on radicals or minority communities?

Hey what was Eric Garner doing when he was killed again?

permalink
report
parent
reply
55 points

how to create a blackmarket with health issues

permalink
report
reply
7 points

I’d prefer they start at 60 and raise it every year, but I’ll take what I can get.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Cool, when does the minimum age for joining the military start to raise by one year every year?

permalink
report
reply
0 points

What’s with the whataboutism?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

They’re right, there shouldn’t be recruiters in school that’s predatory as shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Do they do that in the UK? I didn’t think they were quite so gung-ho about their military.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The military shouldn’t be allowed to actively recruit anyone regardless of their age. It’s inherently predatory to everyone in this society.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

It’s directly related. Why are 18 year olds able to lock themselves into a 6 year contract that they might be killed before they see the end of, when they are, legally, too dumb to make their own decisions regarding a chemical they put in their bodies?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They can choose to take hormone blockers at 12, but they can’t choose to have sex until they’re 18 (depending on local statutes). The laws are filled with hypocrisy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

It’s really simple. The ruling class of society benefits more sending the little shit into the military than it costs. The ruling class doesn’t benefit as much when this little shit costs more than the little shit produces. It has nothing to do with protecting the little shit, it has to do with protecting the people in power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Save the people from themselves. They are too ignorant to have control of their bodies.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

You could just as easily day “oh, ban asbestos? I guess we gotta save everybody from themselves, what a nanny state.”

This is bad logic that can be applied to any safety law. As a society we observe and mitigate known harms, because we can’t expect every citizen to be up to date on every possible way to harm themselves without realizing it or understanding the true scope of the damage being done.

So yes; sometimes as a society we decide to save ourselves from ourselves. There’s nothing wrong with that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I wasn’t aware people used asbestos recreationally.

And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

No he really isn’t arguing that. It feels just pure bad faith from you here. You understand that pure anarchism has its problems, I am sure of it

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I never said people use asbestos recreationally. But the logic is still the same. Why shouldn’t a person be allowed to buy a new house built with asbestos if they’re supposedly fully aware of the danger and risk of damage it does to their body over a long period of time? Everybody knows the dangers of asbestos, don’t they? The commercials tell us about asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma every day. Just let them make their own choices about asbestos, right? And while we’re at it, lead pipes, and lead paint, and grounded electrical outlets, and the list goes on.

We don’t want to have a nanny state, right? You should have to individually make all of these potentially life or death choices, all the time.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 4.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 126K

    Comments