It makes perfect sense. Cigarettes are cancer death machines in an addictive package. They should be banned. However, we've learned from hard experience that making addictive drugs harder to get just leads to addicts trying even harder to get them. So what's a practical solution? Grandfather in the current addicts and try like hell to keep everyone else away from it.

Equality doesn't come in to this. You do not, in fact, need to protect people's right to addictive cancer sticks.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Motivation is irrelevant - this kind of law is intolerable.

You wanna limit it to current users? Say that. Have a national registry of whoever's bought them before, and if they stop for six months, they're off the list. Treat it like a progressive opioid program where the government supplies them directly by mail, if they fill out some preachy postcards.

Age limits are only legitimate because of physiological differences. A 12-year-old cannot be trusted the same way as a 22-year-old. But today's 22-year-olds are no different from next year's 22-year-olds. Or the next, or the next. Declaring some of them unfit is worse than baseless age discrimination. It is creating second-class citizens, forever barred from... whatever.

Allowing bad precedent for good reason would create tremendous problems later. People would propose all kinds of exclusionary bullshit, where old people get to do stuff forever and young people never will, and they'd excuse it by saying 'well you allowed it for smoking.'

If you think that'd never happen - I will remind you this law was defeated by assholes who think more people should smoke. So they can funnel more wealth to the wealthy. Good faith and sensible governance do not need more obstacles.

[–] Frittiert@feddit.de -2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

As a human being with my own rule over my own body I have the right to do with it as I please.

If I want to consume addictive cancer sticks until I die a slow, painful death, I have the natural freedom to do so, and laws, taxes or fines won't stop me until I'm really locked away.

So I support other peoples freedom to smoke. It is just inhaling smoke from burning plant matter, which may be an irrational choice, but is my choice.

[–] atan@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago

Then grow your own. Your natural right of control over your own body doesn't extend to the markets and industry of the society you live in.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

That’s fine, but this is one country that didn’t even push it through.

Methadone clinics are this on a large scale, and they exist around the world.

[–] TheMetaleek@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If you do that, then you should also forfeit your right to use publicly funded hospitals that already struggle enough with people suffering of conditions they did not ask for voluntarily. Smoking is not just a cost for your body, but for society as a whole, hence the justification in a ban

[–] Frittiert@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago

While I see your point, this could be extended to people doing dangerous sports for fun, eating unhealthy foods or engaging in any activity where one could get hurt.

[–] OurTragicUniverse@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The high tax on the cigarettes covers the cost of treatment for the few folk who get cancer from smoking.