Rare case of not even reading the title of the post I guess
The criminals are the people selling the cigarettes, not the people smoking them. They're going after the capitalist predators who make their living on peddling deadly addiction. Good.
So are you ready to admit you half-skimmed the title, made up in your head that it said "smokers born after 2008 to be thrown in prison" and then got outraged over that made up headline? Because your comments are only growing more obviously indefensible
The tobacco companies aren’t going to be held accountable
The article says that they expect 90% of the country's tobacco retailers to have lost their licenses by the end of next year (which is the explicit goal of this and related laws, as part of an effort to reduce the hold tobacco companies have on their country and people)
Where in the world are you getting the idea that those most affected will not be the companies specifically targeted, but will instead be some hypothetical asshole poisoning his neighborhood's kids? By the way, why would I be sad if that hypothetical asshole were negatively impacted anyway? Hope the fucker hypothetically dies of disease related to secondhand smoke.
Liberal state creates a law trying to prevent another generation of children from poisoning themselves and those around them, and finally tackling a culture manufactured by tabacco companies where poisoning yourself is seen as "cool" by children?
Yes, this is unironically, without a doubt good and should be supported by everyone, especially because no one is taking any adult smokers' treats away
I need you to know that the controversiality is not from "simply" saying that people should be allowed a cig, but from making a false equivalency between cigarettes, a product that contains 20 different carcinogenic substances and, if you are a smoker, lowers your life expectancy on average by 6.5 years, and coffee, a product that hasn't been shown to have any effect on life expectancy. This is not people being inconsistent because they think drugs are bad and therefore want to ban the bad drug, but oh, have never considered banning their sweet, sweet personal drug. It's people wanting to ban the thing that overall shortens your life, for the same reason that, if it were legal, they would ban consumption of asbestos. Cigarettes being a drug is only incidental to this.
So ten years from now those 14yo will be 24.
Why should they not be allowed to smoke tobacco then? But they can do caffeine and sugar?
deleted by creator
You should tell that to oil companies, car manufacturers, coal plants, and what not.
Rather than some powerless prole having a cig after finishing their shift in the hell-factory.
deleted by creator
You can grow tobacco in your kitchen window.
Try growing a car.
deleted by creator
I love how the most controversial thing I ever did on this site was simply saying that people should be allowed to have a cig
It's kind of depressing how so many people on here are just completely decoupled from real life.
But I suppose that's what happens when you're born and raised in Amerikkka
14 year old children should not actually be allowed to have a cig, you are the one decoupled from real life
And then that 14 year old gets a criminal record for having a smoke.
I'm not fucking saying that I'm ok with children smoking.
Then what are you outraged about, there are no adults born after 2008
And those 14 year olds who will inevitably start smoking could end up with a criminal record if/when they are caught by the coppers.
But that's a good thing now I suppose? We're now in favor of our bougie dictatorships making kids criminals for literally nothing?
Come the fuck on.
Rare case of not even reading the title of the post I guess
The criminals are the people selling the cigarettes, not the people smoking them. They're going after the capitalist predators who make their living on peddling deadly addiction. Good.
The guy selling a 20 to a teenager is definitely the "capitalist" we need to focus on.
Why are you in favor of people being poisoned for profit? Do you take a similarly positive view of casino owners?
I'm in favor of not supporting liberal states and whatever it is they do
So are you ready to admit you half-skimmed the title, made up in your head that it said "smokers born after 2008 to be thrown in prison" and then got outraged over that made up headline? Because your comments are only growing more obviously indefensible
I have no problem admitting that. But that changes nothing.
Who are the people who will be arrested for selling cigs to kids? They're hardly going to be the NZ Elon Musk, are they?
The tobacco companies aren't going to be held accountable, it's going to be the 20 year old lumpen who sells singles to teens.
The article says that they expect 90% of the country's tobacco retailers to have lost their licenses by the end of next year (which is the explicit goal of this and related laws, as part of an effort to reduce the hold tobacco companies have on their country and people)
Where in the world are you getting the idea that those most affected will not be the companies specifically targeted, but will instead be some hypothetical asshole poisoning his neighborhood's kids? By the way, why would I be sad if that hypothetical asshole were negatively impacted anyway? Hope the fucker hypothetically dies of disease related to secondhand smoke.
So you think NZ cops will stop harrassing kids who smoke?
Do you think that cracking down on tobacco peddlers in any way affects the frequency with which cops harass teenagers unrelated to this change?
Why?
Liberal state makes more laws.
We communists should support this.
Liberal state creates a law trying to prevent another generation of children from poisoning themselves and those around them, and finally tackling a culture manufactured by tabacco companies where poisoning yourself is seen as "cool" by children?
Yes, this is unironically, without a doubt good and should be supported by everyone, especially because no one is taking any adult smokers' treats away
I need you to know that the controversiality is not from "simply" saying that people should be allowed a cig, but from making a false equivalency between cigarettes, a product that contains 20 different carcinogenic substances and, if you are a smoker, lowers your life expectancy on average by 6.5 years, and coffee, a product that hasn't been shown to have any effect on life expectancy. This is not people being inconsistent because they think drugs are bad and therefore want to ban the bad drug, but oh, have never considered banning their sweet, sweet personal drug. It's people wanting to ban the thing that overall shortens your life, for the same reason that, if it were legal, they would ban consumption of asbestos. Cigarettes being a drug is only incidental to this.
That is absolutely not what I'm saying, but you already knew that
you're right, we should ban sugar