• 0 Posts
  • 4 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 26th, 2024

help-circle
  • Still. A civilized society doesn’t give every single person in a uniform the licence to tackle, kill and assault whomever without facing any real consequences. Sure, the money’s nice, but not getting tackled would’ve surely been much more civilized.

    Aunt Tifa hit a double-jackpot. Second, the money. But first and foremost - she’s still alive. She’s also white, which might have more causal relationships with her getting said jackpot than should be the case in a civilized society.

    The problem is that not everyone has either her luck or her complexion.



  • You’re right.

    I never said higher prices were a good solution. Merely a better (i.e. less terrible) one. Most people will budget. A few who “can” quit might.

    The only way to truly stop people by raising prices is to price them out completely, making a pack $500 or the like, and that’s an idea not too far from hitting a head against the wall - except the head isn’t even yours!

    As always, the best fix is support. Small-group therapy for sharing experiences, writing a diary of smoke info (what/when) and related events (feelings, triggers, etc) with a quick rundown of important info such as a taper plan, withdrawal and the symptoms. Suggesting alternatives that migjt help ease the symptopms.

    Perhaps a quick cost analysis for the urge-based spenders might be the little push they need to get cigarettes out of their life.


  • it will definitely save lives that were cut short

    Sorry for being pedantic, but it will do no such thing.

    The lives rhat have already been cut short - they’ll continue being cut short. That time isn’t something a magic wand nor a ban on sale can fix.

    This type of ban won’t even try to deal with the existing smokers. The only thing it tries to do is stop the new geberation from becoming smokers by taking away access.

    Which will probably work, but it’s a stopgap - not a solution.

    I’d argue a policy of prevention, of raising prices, of limiting the amount of cancer-causing chemicals and of clearly defining and educating people about tapering off (including perhaps cigarrettes of differing nicotine levels like the vapes) would work better than saying “time’s up, young-uns 2008 onwards can’t get cigs”.

    I’d also argue a better approach would be a school lesson where kids try a puff of cigarette smoke, hopefully hate it for life, and never think about trying it again. Banning stuff just makes it seem cool and I think this rebellious aspect is what gets most high school kids into the addiction.

    Accessibility doesn’t help, but cigs are already illegal to sell to under-18s but we all know how effective that is at preventing teenagers developing the addiction. Altering the rule a bit doesn’t get rid of the problem of it not being properly enforced.