this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
835 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39011 readers
3262 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

to create 'smoke-free' generation

Of course, not counting the smoke, ash, and other toxic oxidized chemicals that will be kicked up by gas and diesel vehicles with his scrapping the HS2 Manchester line. What a fucking idiot. "Oh no, we brexited ourselves so hard that we're poor now and can't afford to build infrastructure that would stand to enrich multiple cities for hundreds of years!"

Such classic smooth brained thatcherite conservatives. It's mind numbing that people keep voting for them.

[–] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calling him smooth brained is looking past the fact that it's just plain corruption. He has interests in the oil industry, and they are against public rail. Hold him to account for what he is, a criminal.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly he's more corrupt than Boris Johnson which is saying something.

Of course. Why else would a billionaire want the job of leading a country?

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

At least nobody can outcorrupt Putin. Fuck him, fuck UR.

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.de 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, Sunak is a complete and utter bellend and cancelling half of HS2 is a ridiculous and nonsensical move.

But I think that the good old idiom about broken clocks might just apply here. Smoking bans are a good thing.

[–] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.

Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

This is the real answer right here - this is just another poverty tax/punishment.

I don't smoke, never have, but I know why people smoke, and it's now (that it's no longer seen as "cool") almost exclusively to try and relieve a tiny bit of the mountain of stress that existing in the world today (especially as part of a marginalised group) brings, and there are a million better ways to reduce the need to smoke, and improve the health outcomes of smokers (eventually, hopefully, to the point where they are able to reduce smoking or stop altogether).

Sunak is looking for a quick "win" for headlines and distraction, not to actually help people live healthier better lives (E: just seen his transphobic comments, which only reinforce this point). Why target the source of the problem when you can slap a band aid on it and bask in your own glory for a couple of days before your next bit of corruption is exposed?

[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: A lot of people that smoke want to stop smoking. A lot of people would more easily stop smoking if it was banned or not so easily available.

Also from the title of the article it seems that this would never apply to people that already smoke legally. The idea is that you set a minimum age and then you increase it every year. Meaning that in 100 years smoking is banned for everyone. But nobody was never banned from smoking when they were legal before. They were just never allowed to. So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

right, just like how it being illegal prevents young people from drinking and smoking weed... 🙄🙄🙄

[–] JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you really disagree that it reduces the amount of young people consuming those substances?

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, For example, youth cannabis use halved in Canada after legalization. Also, when I was in HS, people were smoking even though it's illegal under the age of 18. People would just buy cigarettes from reserves and sell them to each other. If made illegal, people will just find other means to get it.

Prohibition doesn't work but better education does.

[–] Jaarsh119@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The proposal is to raise the legal smoking age every year. Meaning each yearly increase, this hypothetical 47yo will also age a year and so will be able to smoke forever

[–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not if he wanted to pick up smoking one year before legal age. So he will be chasing that legal age forever and can't smoke even if he's 68

  • ////Edit: it seems like I need to give an example to explain this apparently very difficult problem: Person A is 17 , smoking is allowed from 18 Next year Person A is 18, he could under normal circumstances smoke with 18, but now smoking is legal with 19. Continue to age 68 but smoking is now allowed from 69. It's even implied in the article
[–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Yes, I love it when people buy things from black markets too.

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the smoking ban thread

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's mind numbing that people keep voting for them.

Well recent polling would suggest that they no longer will be voting for them.

[–] Clanket@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's hard to believe so many people vote for them