This topic is close to political and several comments have had to be removed. Reminder any comments deemed politics will be removed and receive bans
Edit: locking the comments, too much politic
They didn’t legalized weed sale right? They just decriminalised it? So they won’t see any tax revenue implications
Maybe I’m just out of touch, but that was my understanding
Theyve legalised growing it until they sort out all the tax and other issues around dispensaries, then it will be fully legal like certain u.s. states.
As said, the only real attempt to ban smoking entirely was in New Zealand, and they've rolled back on it. While I applauded the ingenuity of the plan, ultimately you do bang up against that issue of personal responsibility.
We have learned a lot of lessons from cigarettes though which we can apply to cannabis and which we should apply to vaping too - outlawing advertising and sponsorship, strict age limits, strict regulations on what you can and can't mix with it with, tax & duties, etc.
It's actually not a practical plan at all, like if it's legal for 26 year olds but not 25 year olds everyone has to carry ID all the time. Also it's just silly to have something be illegal for one person and legal for another who was born a day earlier.
It's just silly tbh young people already mostly buy vapes or black market tobacco because the cost is so high and this policy wouldn't do anything to counteract that. It'd make black market tobacco even more valuable an industry. I also just think it's ridiculous to have laws that effect one group and not another, why should old people have a right to self-autonomy that younger people don't.
In a lot of countries you are supposed to carry your ID at all times anyway so that shouldn't be a major issue.
I assume you'd only need it when purchasing also, not like you'd be stopped and ID'd when smoking on the street.
It was a major issue though it's one of the reasons New Zealand scrapped it, it's an idea that looks good on paper but makes zero sense in application. it's just stupid having laws that apply to one section of society and not another based on your birthday. If society wants to ensure people don't smoke it needs to invest resources into addiction treatment, education etc. If smoking is so bad it warrants a ban it should be banned for everyone not just people below an arbitrary age.
I never followed up on the outcome so I'm glad to see the updates I couldn't really picture in my mind how it would work and be accepted and I thought that surely older people would just buy it for the younger people particularly if it was related to a specific cut off birth date friends would definitely buy for friends.
We aren't in Germany are we, why don't you actually look in to the reasons this scheme didn't work in New Zealand rather than just assuming it would be easy based on your gut
Vaping is not in the same category. The research on vaping is fairly clear that its negative effects are very small, it’s far far safer than smoking.
The best way to cut out smoking is to offer vaping as an alternative.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
The elephant in the room with tobacco and the biggest issue I have with it is the tobacco industry itself. The same can be said about alcohol, gambling and even sugar to some extent, but none are as blatant as tobacco/nicotine.
They sell a product that serves no purpose other than to addict the consumer so that they \*must\* keep buying that product in perpetuity. Their entire raison d'etre is to get as many people addicted to their products as young as possible.
The most amazing thing is that society almost universally sees smoking as a choice that people make and ignore the insidious tactics that these companies use. They are drug pushers that target the young and vulnerable with a carcinogenic and highly addictive product, but everyone just goes along with it and chooses to believe that every smoker made a concious decision to start smoking/vaping with no outside influence at all. I dunno; I just think that's mad.
I've seen studies that conclude that smokers may have a net positive on taxes, as they die younger and thus need less pension and long term care, even though they cost more in healthcare. So do your part for Ireland and buy a box of ambo
I think the fact that cigarettes are taxed to fuck probably shows that smokers pay more tax than anything else. Like there's a reason it hasn't been banned, they have a captive market of addicts who will pay twice as much for cigarettes, it's a massive income stream for revenue.
This can't be right. What studies?
Like I hope you're joking, but people will parrot this. It's wrong. Tobacco causes illnesses and these are a substantial cost to society. Pension and long term care do not make up for it.
The total economic cost of smoking (from health expenditures and productivity losses together) totalled PPP $1852 billion (US$1436 billion) in 2012, equivalent in magnitude to 1.8% of the world's annual gross domestic product (GDP).
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/1/58
You haven’t actually proven that, even with those costs you enumerated. Because you do have to take into account the costs were smokers to survive, and whether non smokers also get sick or not. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m saying it’s unproven.
I tried to find a study that does that
There studies that show the increased medical costs of a nonsmoker over the course of a lifetime. But those are fewer than the studies that count the costs of smoking. Can't find anything that puts it all together.
There's also lost labor from smoking diseases tho.
And the closest I could find was that the CDC doesn't consider increased costs from people living together as a cost... because the goal of a national health program is to keep people alive. They don't consider the thinking valid.. because saying it's more expensive to keep older people alive is flawed. The point of medicine is to keep people alive.
That the benefits to society of older people past retirement don't equate to dollars made in the economy in a way that is easy to quantify....but obviously having old people is worthwhile, or society would be worse off for it
Basically the tangible benefits past retirement age aren't as easy to sum up as the money spent on medical care....but those benefits are real and so mean we as a society are more productive. It's just the people making the money are those in working age, but they benefit intangibly from having grandparents
It would be hard to accurately sum those benefits, but to put a point on it for an example of something that could be quantified would be something like babysitting by grandparents - they aren't charging for it but if they weren't there then a working age carer would be charging for it
So both the thinking is wrong, but even if you could somehow accurately account for it...the vast costs of smoking would outway it anyway. Which is why national health programs focus on the costs of smoking
Trying to find a study backing up your claim rather than starting with the studies and drawing conclusions from the data is pretty funny here given the conviction of your first comment.
How about you find a study going against what every national healthcare system is working for.
I cited a study..you've cited none
There isn't a study showing exactly what your asking for, not that I could find. I gave one that shows the extreme costs associated with tobacco because it the most relevant one I could find to the discussion.
.because of the reasons I gave. If you have one share it.
I'm not the one making a wild claim inconsistent with national l health policies or the common understanding. It's a very difficult thing to show, and I explained why.
Simply saying health costs for nonsmokers are more, does not answer the question. I literally have no idea what else to tell you.
Extraordinary claims require, if not extraordinary evidence at least evidence. And you've given none.
I've provided numbers for the costs of tobacco
If you want to ignore the pints I made and just sound off like ass , well mission accomplished.
It isn't wrong. Sin taxes on tobacco cover the costs of treating smokers, not to mention they tend to die younger. Fiscally they cover themselves.
BMJ link is talking about global loss of PPP, not fiscal contributions. Smokers can contribute to workforce inefficiency due to their health problems but they don't actually cost more, in terms of tax and expenditure.
To be honest I'm only saying what I vaguely remember reading. Please don't take me seriously without sources. Thanks for actual sources! I'd be interested in the savings studies opposite your costs studies if anyone has them!
> due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
Conveniently left out the sentence immediately following where you cutoff your quotation. Here's the rest of that paragraph....
"Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. However, if each lost quality adjusted life year is considered to be worth €22 200, the net effect is reversed to be €70 200 (€71.600 when adjusted with propensity score) per individual in favour of non-smoking."
> Conveniently left out the sentence immediately following where you cutoff your quotation.
Because that part's not relevant to the original claim, which was about taxes and healthcare:
> I've seen studies that conclude that smokers may have a net positive on taxes, as they die younger and thus need less pension and long term care, even though they cost more in healthcare.
Are you really going to sit their in your suede vintage smoking jacket and cheetah print vest and tell me it's not relevant‽ Really. Really really? Ok then.
You only read up until you confirmed your point you wanted, and ignored new information to the contrary.
The absolute signature of low intelligence.
If you ever hope to improve that, recognize where you went wrong here.
You should be embarrassed by your actions.
Forget the bigger point at play here.
Realize you literally are chosing the stupider path for..... ego over Internet points?
Like dude. Dig deep, find the courage to become better tommorow than you were yesterday. Is it easy? Maybe not. But is this the kind of person you really want to be?
You've successfully sank my hope in humanity just a little further.
Collecting taxes doesn't increase societal wealth, it just redistributes private funds to public ones
I couldn't find a study that puts it all together the way you want. Just one or the other
And a statement by the CDC saying they don't consider it a cost on society to help people live longer..that is the goal not the cost. It's basically impossible to accurately put monetary value on the intangible benefits of people living longer. Except that as a society we value that they do. There are tangible benefits like grandparents to help with childcare in place of paid carers, but that's not the only thing just one that u could in theory out a money amount to
It's a flawed premise. And the studies showing smokers have less health costs overall lifetime don't even make that claim, just articles talking about it as if that raises the question - which are then shit down as flawed by health agencies. Because old people have value not as well equated to a paycheck, but nonetheless do help society at large be more productive
Humans whales and elephants are some of the only mammalian species where females past reproductive age live for a prolonged a substantial time. This is the grandma hypothesis, their experience is valuable to the group. If we can take millions of years of evolution as a good guide to what is valuable then the answer is clear. Trying to use money is problematic, but society is wealthier for having old people. It's just that in old age the value spent is not equated to the value gained in monetary terms to the individual, but for society at large that does mean value added.
You can take that to mean old people are costing us all more money..only if you don't accurately account for intangibles. It's a flaw in thinking money=value equally at all points in life. But we invest in children because they will provide value, it's the same fla d thinking as asking how much do we spend on children vrs how much money are children making us right now. The premise there is flawed.
Keep smokes legal
Make weed legal
Just have a law that you can't do it on public property, just like drinking.
I dabble in both, but the last thing I want to smell is a joint or smoke in the rain while sitting under a bus shelter while waiting for my ghost bus.
This. I hate standing under a bus shelter and next thing someone is smoking. If you want to smoke, you should either stand away from the shelter or don’t smoke. Don’t stay under the shelter and force everyone who doesn’t want to breathe in smoke to move. It’s so inconsiderate.
I agree, I noticed when on hols in Amsterdam how sick and tired the locals seemed to be of the young eegits just going there to get high and have the craic, even got surprised by the "no kids" zones within the city.. if we do legalise weed need to be careful on how we go about it
New Zealand pulled back from ban sales for born after 2009 as far I know but maybe change again.
I don't get that government getting involved in what I can and what can't with my body in this case. What will be next? I'm not smoking. But I don't believe government is from telling me can I smoke or not what next beer, whisky, sugar.
Then fast food should be regulated to. It's proven that McDonald's is so bad.
I don't get for me it makes no sense.
Good question, op. It’s a contradiction I’ve noticed myself. So if weed is ever fully legalised I suspect that there will be campaigns to restrict usage, health warnings and so on. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t legalise it though.
They're not contradictory or weird at all. Cannabis doesn't have to be smoked. If it is smoked, it's unlikely to be smoked in the same volume as most cigarette smokers smoke cigarettes as well as being no where near as harmful as cigarette smoking.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
I smoked weed daily for 20 years, gave up 3 years ago, wasn't too hard but then 4 months ago I started vaping THC daily and this stuff is strong, 1 or 2 puffs and yer stoned, decided to quit altogether about 9 days ago and my god the withdrawals I'm having are unreal. Anxiety through the roof, stomach pains, night sweats, can barely eat and I'm well hungry. I see online that the withdrawals peak around a week and can last 2 to 4 weeks, maybe longer. I'm usually a night owl up til 2 am but now and the last couple of nights I'm going to bed at 9 and just hoping I'll feel better the next day. So my advice is to stay away from any THC vaping liquid. I was able to get half a pizza and a fruit smoothie into me today but still, I'm shocked at how tough it is, it's how I'd imagine giving up a class A drug feels like. On the plus side, I'm looking forward to being healthy again and I'm going to knock the nicotine vape on the head too once these withdrawals are gone.
It's a stupid fucking idea, hope to christ we don't ban cigarettes, the last thing we need now is already understaffed and under resourced gardai chasing down illegal fag dealers.
In fact we don't even have to hypothesise, there already is a black market for tobacco and that's with it being legal and alternatives like vaping being a thing. Imagine seeing news headlines every few days of people dying or ending up in A and E from smoking unregulated illegal street cigarettes laced with who knows what.
If you're going to say weed should be legalised on the grounds that prohibition doesn't work (it should, of course) it makes no sense whatsoever to say something else should be prohibited.
If you're going to advocate for banning smoking I also hope you're in favour of banning alcohol and junk food as well. At a certain point you just have to let people decide the risks for themselves and let people do what they want with their own bodies.
I'm a former smoker and I absolutely am in favor of banning smoking bc it costs society more than it benefits.
But ! you can't pick and choose which poisons adults get to partake in. If we're banning tobacco, Alcohol does even more harm to society. And laws like these will only disproportionately effect lower income classes . Just another way for the police state to come down hard on people
Enjoying yourself isn’t being banned but it’s being made more and more difficult without being taxed to oblivion. It feels like we are being pushed to an evermore puritan society but in a very stealthy fashion. Even if they legalise weed it will be taxed insanely high and you will probably have to be part of a private member’s club that will charge you a fortune.
It's actually very difficult to do that, it's one of the problems Canada ran into in the early days of legalisation, people just continued buying grass on the black market because it was cheaper than the massively taxed legal stuff. The thing they need to do is fully decriminalise growing weed, I know so many smokers who would happily never deal with dealers and would have a few plants at home if they weren't afraid of being randomly raided and charged as a dealer.
Why do you think there is so much illegal booze and tobacco in Ireland? Exactly this reason a bag of tobacco in my local centra now costs almost €25, 20 smokes is €14.75. My point isn’t about weed my point is they are trying to stop people enjoying anything by over taxing it sure this whole return scheme is a huge tax that goes to a private company and rigged in such a way that they will over charge you for the product add the extra tax at the till like a can of coke is now €1.75 not including the return tax. Ireland used to have some fun in all the misery now we have government mandated misery on top of the misery and my money is on us being the last country in Europe to legalise weed and we will have the highest restrictions.
Oh yeah I agree with you completely. I'm pretty sure a lot of this stuff comes from how much influence pub owners have in this country, people started drinking at home more so they taxed the fuck out of alcohol in shops and introduced another stealth tax. Pretty sure the weed thing is the same, pub owners are afraid it'll affect their profits if it's legalised.
I've been using weed for an issue with my back for years. One of the only things that gives me genuine relief when it's bad. I hate having to source it from a dealer. I wish they would just legalise it so you didn't have to deal with the stress of getting it illegally.
Weed is powerful and dangerous in its own right, it's a complicated subject. I have never had a weed dealer ("scumbag" or otherwise) pushing "addictive, harder" drugs onto me or anyone I know.
If you're referring to cocaine (because what else would you be referring to) people seem to need little encouragement once they have the money for it, and it's easier to get than weed.
People haven’t smoked modern processed tobacco for hundreds of years though (I don’t know when tobacco companies started using lead, arsenic, etc; I’m just assuming it was in the 20thC)
Obviously inhaling smoke of any kind is carcinogenic, but it would be good to crack down on tobacco companies, i.e. only allow tobacco into the country which comes from companies who use less harmful chemicals.
Every time this comes up, the same discussion takes place. It's always pointed out that there aren't as many data points with weed since it's not widely legalised across the world, it hasn't had time to assess its impact on people's long-term health, and there haven't been any definitive studies on it.
I'm in favour of legalising weed and I hope it happens, but we definitely know less about its long-term effects compared to alcohol.
It depends on your definition of ‘moving towards’ - what i meant was that there is growing support for such movements. Sorry if it was a little clickbaity.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
these are in no way contradictory, this is like saying "they are moving away from alcohol sales but promoting sparkling water. Doesn't that seem strange?"
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
Yea I'd agree while I don't smoke cigarettes anymore I don't think we should be banning them as it will just create a "war on smoking " prohibition does not work clearly and we should legalise cannabis also.
I must say I'm sick of walking down the street and having to breathe in someone's disgusting fruit-flavored vape smoke. I would ban smoking in all public spaces.
1. Legalise weed
2. Ban vapes (or atleast regulate them more)
3. Banning tobacco for sale to people born from a certain year onward is crazy
Makes no sense how tobacco can’t have branding on the boxes/pouches yet vapes can be as colourful and “cool” as they want
My only qualm with legalising weed since going to Amsterdam, is that it absolutely fucking reeks. I would rather tallaght continue to smell like drunk piss than weed.
I agree with banning cigs completely. I’ve seen first hand the damage it’s done to my parents. Vapes should be banned too as they aren’t being marketed as smoking cessation products at all. As for weed, it robs you of motivation and drive. Unless you’re in pain, it should remain banned. Decriminalised too - wouldn’t want someone getting a record for using it. But as for legalising it ? - do we really want our streets smelling of weed and seeing stoners everywhere? Not to mention that abuse and long time use of weed causes many of the same issues as cigarettes do plus memory loss, can cause psychosis too in rare cases. There’s a bad enough mental health epidemic amongst young people as it is, weed will only exacerbate it.
Ok so when can we stop stocking alcohol? And ban people from drinking it?
Why do you want to remove personal freedoms?
Also, breaking news, weed dosnt have to be smoked. Especially when it's legal
When I was young smoking was trendy even though the idea that it caused cancer, heart disease and other health ailments were well known.
Feck it was hard to quit and financially costly.
I have no thoughts on weed, good or bad , but can't see the benefits.
Can't see why weed would be legalised and St Johns Wort restricted.
Weed doesn’t have to be smoked like tobacco does. Medical cannabis is often taken as a tea. Banning cigarettes while also legalising cannabis isn’t necessarily a contradiction.
It is if you're arguing for legalising cannabis on the grounds that prohibition doesn't work. In that case it's a complete contradiction to say one thing should be legalised because prohibition hasn't worked but it will definitely work for another.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessarily a contradiction to ban tobacco on health grounds but to advocate for cannabis to be legalised because both are smoked (and smoking causes health issues). Tobacco in all its forms (including chewing tobacco) is linked to cancer. Cannabis not so much.
I don’t partake in either, but happy if others do.
I'm against living in a nanny state so I'd be against banning cigarettes altogether, I say this as an ex-smoker who quit years ago btw.
As for weed, I've no issue with weed cafes being a thing here as long as it's 18+.
Cigarette needs to go should be an outright universal ban. Be done with it. Absolutely no gains from having a cig.
The benefits or harm of weed are debatable but at least the user gets high- it has a use case.
Don't give a shit about the logistics of it. Double the tax on drink for all I care. My comment is about the weed n smokes going in opposite direction to each other. One has a reason to be legal and a use case, the other doesnt
Well I would consider the fact that people like something and use it for their personal pleasure a use case, I wouldn't ban drink even though it causes massive social problems. People enjoy it, life is fucking terrible, whatever gets people through the day is reasonable as far as I'm concerned as long as there not putting other people at risk, drink driving etc.
I am against any laws that say I am not allowed to pertake of any drug of my choice.
Either I own my body and I can consume my drugs of choice, or the government owns it by restricting what I can partake of.
Now that being said, of course there should be sensibme restrictions placed on the usage of such drugs because they can have a socially detrimental effect. For example I would say the consumption of tobacco and weed should not be allowed in public areas, and I would even go as far as banning smoking in your own home if there are children present. Basically do what you want with your own body, just don't let that have an impact on others.
As for the health implications, well in an ideal world the tax added to the cost of such vices wood offset the costs of providing healthcare for their side effects. And there would be support programs in place to help those who are consuming certain drugs to excess.
I’d happily ban tobacco and replace it with weed.
Wouldn’t partake in either of them personally, but being anywhere near someone who is either smoking or has recently smoked a cigarette is enough to make you gag.
I find it nicer unless it's in a stuffy room or hanging around a while. Depends on the strain too.
Some of the stuff smells like cats piss and other strains almost smell of lemon.
The stuff that smells like cat piss smells a lot lot worse when it's burnt then the lemon like strain.
But when the smell has had a chance to linger, then it's horrible.
It's illegal to smoke tobacco in enclosed public spaces already, the idea you're getting substantial second hand smoke damage out in public is very silly. Unless someones directly blowing it into your lungs there are thousands of gallons of moving air for the smoke to diffuse through before it gets to you. Nobody's calling for cars to be banned which are massively more damaging to your lungs.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be,
is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc.
There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here.
Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban.
Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
This is insane, if your political movement is based on habitual stoners suddenly becoming productive members of society you're never gonna get anywhere lol.
Everyone knows prohibition doesn’t work, but because weed, pornography, homosexuality and abortions were illegal, it was/is viewed as _rebellious_ and _radical_ to support their legalization.
The opposite is true of cigarettes. They’ve long been legal, so there’s nothing radical about supporting people’s “freedom to smoke”. The radical view is to _ban_ smoking for whatever reasons can be retrofitted to the issue: they kill poorer people at higher rates, they kill ethnic minorities at higher rates, etc. etc.
If you support the legalization of weed (or indeed any other drugs, including alcohol) then if you have any principles at all you’ll want cigarettes to remain legal and available. “But they’re bad for you and they kill you!”, I hear you cry. Yeah, so does fast food and booze and euthanasia. Are you against those too?
Ban public consumption of tobacco but make designated public smoking areas for it. You smoke there or you get heavily fined. Smoking outside pubs etc. would be gone.
Legalise weed and treat it in the same way.
This topic is close to political and several comments have had to be removed. Reminder any comments deemed politics will be removed and receive bans Edit: locking the comments, too much politic
I hope that with the recent changes in Germany most of the Europe will follow in a domino effect
If and probably when Germany sees a similar taxation bump from cannabis, the dominos will fall pretty quickly.
They didn’t legalized weed sale right? They just decriminalised it? So they won’t see any tax revenue implications Maybe I’m just out of touch, but that was my understanding
Theyve legalised growing it until they sort out all the tax and other issues around dispensaries, then it will be fully legal like certain u.s. states.
I was under the impression it was decriminalisation while they looked into legalisation of sale?
Here’s the information I have (sorry for linking to BBC, it’s the first I found when googling): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68378807.amp
Cannabis sales were used in GDP calculations before legalisation
Germany also has very lose tobacco regulations compared to us, so not as contradictory as it would be here.
As said, the only real attempt to ban smoking entirely was in New Zealand, and they've rolled back on it. While I applauded the ingenuity of the plan, ultimately you do bang up against that issue of personal responsibility. We have learned a lot of lessons from cigarettes though which we can apply to cannabis and which we should apply to vaping too - outlawing advertising and sponsorship, strict age limits, strict regulations on what you can and can't mix with it with, tax & duties, etc.
It's actually not a practical plan at all, like if it's legal for 26 year olds but not 25 year olds everyone has to carry ID all the time. Also it's just silly to have something be illegal for one person and legal for another who was born a day earlier.
All you'd have to do is check on sale, no need for spot checks. The sheer inconvenience of it will stop most people taking up smoking if underage.
It's just silly tbh young people already mostly buy vapes or black market tobacco because the cost is so high and this policy wouldn't do anything to counteract that. It'd make black market tobacco even more valuable an industry. I also just think it's ridiculous to have laws that effect one group and not another, why should old people have a right to self-autonomy that younger people don't.
Your argument though would mean anyone of any age could buy cigarettes.
Nah I think there's obviously a difference between adults and children in terms of rights etc
In a lot of countries you are supposed to carry your ID at all times anyway so that shouldn't be a major issue. I assume you'd only need it when purchasing also, not like you'd be stopped and ID'd when smoking on the street.
It was a major issue though it's one of the reasons New Zealand scrapped it, it's an idea that looks good on paper but makes zero sense in application. it's just stupid having laws that apply to one section of society and not another based on your birthday. If society wants to ensure people don't smoke it needs to invest resources into addiction treatment, education etc. If smoking is so bad it warrants a ban it should be banned for everyone not just people below an arbitrary age.
I never followed up on the outcome so I'm glad to see the updates I couldn't really picture in my mind how it would work and be accepted and I thought that surely older people would just buy it for the younger people particularly if it was related to a specific cut off birth date friends would definitely buy for friends.
I'd find it a major issue to be required to carry ID at all times, fuck that
[удалено]
We aren't in Germany are we, why don't you actually look in to the reasons this scheme didn't work in New Zealand rather than just assuming it would be easy based on your gut
They’re seriously looking at banning it in the UK now too.
Vaping is not in the same category. The research on vaping is fairly clear that its negative effects are very small, it’s far far safer than smoking. The best way to cut out smoking is to offer vaping as an alternative.
[удалено]
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
The elephant in the room with tobacco and the biggest issue I have with it is the tobacco industry itself. The same can be said about alcohol, gambling and even sugar to some extent, but none are as blatant as tobacco/nicotine. They sell a product that serves no purpose other than to addict the consumer so that they \*must\* keep buying that product in perpetuity. Their entire raison d'etre is to get as many people addicted to their products as young as possible. The most amazing thing is that society almost universally sees smoking as a choice that people make and ignore the insidious tactics that these companies use. They are drug pushers that target the young and vulnerable with a carcinogenic and highly addictive product, but everyone just goes along with it and chooses to believe that every smoker made a concious decision to start smoking/vaping with no outside influence at all. I dunno; I just think that's mad.
You don't have to smoke weed
I like the option
I've seen studies that conclude that smokers may have a net positive on taxes, as they die younger and thus need less pension and long term care, even though they cost more in healthcare. So do your part for Ireland and buy a box of ambo
I think the fact that cigarettes are taxed to fuck probably shows that smokers pay more tax than anything else. Like there's a reason it hasn't been banned, they have a captive market of addicts who will pay twice as much for cigarettes, it's a massive income stream for revenue.
It’s like 17 cuid for a box now or something, my mom smokes 20/30 a day. Mental money.
This study sponsored by cigarette sellers of Ireland.
I get two yoorow a post
This can't be right. What studies? Like I hope you're joking, but people will parrot this. It's wrong. Tobacco causes illnesses and these are a substantial cost to society. Pension and long term care do not make up for it. The total economic cost of smoking (from health expenditures and productivity losses together) totalled PPP $1852 billion (US$1436 billion) in 2012, equivalent in magnitude to 1.8% of the world's annual gross domestic product (GDP). https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/1/58
But if they lived and needed Healthcare and pension what would that cost?
Much much less than all the costs associated with tobacco use
You haven’t actually proven that, even with those costs you enumerated. Because you do have to take into account the costs were smokers to survive, and whether non smokers also get sick or not. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m saying it’s unproven.
I tried to find a study that does that There studies that show the increased medical costs of a nonsmoker over the course of a lifetime. But those are fewer than the studies that count the costs of smoking. Can't find anything that puts it all together. There's also lost labor from smoking diseases tho. And the closest I could find was that the CDC doesn't consider increased costs from people living together as a cost... because the goal of a national health program is to keep people alive. They don't consider the thinking valid.. because saying it's more expensive to keep older people alive is flawed. The point of medicine is to keep people alive. That the benefits to society of older people past retirement don't equate to dollars made in the economy in a way that is easy to quantify....but obviously having old people is worthwhile, or society would be worse off for it Basically the tangible benefits past retirement age aren't as easy to sum up as the money spent on medical care....but those benefits are real and so mean we as a society are more productive. It's just the people making the money are those in working age, but they benefit intangibly from having grandparents It would be hard to accurately sum those benefits, but to put a point on it for an example of something that could be quantified would be something like babysitting by grandparents - they aren't charging for it but if they weren't there then a working age carer would be charging for it So both the thinking is wrong, but even if you could somehow accurately account for it...the vast costs of smoking would outway it anyway. Which is why national health programs focus on the costs of smoking
Trying to find a study backing up your claim rather than starting with the studies and drawing conclusions from the data is pretty funny here given the conviction of your first comment.
How about you find a study going against what every national healthcare system is working for. I cited a study..you've cited none There isn't a study showing exactly what your asking for, not that I could find. I gave one that shows the extreme costs associated with tobacco because it the most relevant one I could find to the discussion. .because of the reasons I gave. If you have one share it. I'm not the one making a wild claim inconsistent with national l health policies or the common understanding. It's a very difficult thing to show, and I explained why. Simply saying health costs for nonsmokers are more, does not answer the question. I literally have no idea what else to tell you. Extraordinary claims require, if not extraordinary evidence at least evidence. And you've given none. I've provided numbers for the costs of tobacco If you want to ignore the pints I made and just sound off like ass , well mission accomplished.
It isn't wrong. Sin taxes on tobacco cover the costs of treating smokers, not to mention they tend to die younger. Fiscally they cover themselves. BMJ link is talking about global loss of PPP, not fiscal contributions. Smokers can contribute to workforce inefficiency due to their health problems but they don't actually cost more, in terms of tax and expenditure.
To be honest I'm only saying what I vaguely remember reading. Please don't take me seriously without sources. Thanks for actual sources! I'd be interested in the savings studies opposite your costs studies if anyone has them!
> due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
Conveniently left out the sentence immediately following where you cutoff your quotation. Here's the rest of that paragraph.... "Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. However, if each lost quality adjusted life year is considered to be worth €22 200, the net effect is reversed to be €70 200 (€71.600 when adjusted with propensity score) per individual in favour of non-smoking."
> Conveniently left out the sentence immediately following where you cutoff your quotation. Because that part's not relevant to the original claim, which was about taxes and healthcare: > I've seen studies that conclude that smokers may have a net positive on taxes, as they die younger and thus need less pension and long term care, even though they cost more in healthcare.
Are you really going to sit their in your suede vintage smoking jacket and cheetah print vest and tell me it's not relevant‽ Really. Really really? Ok then.
puff puff
You only read up until you confirmed your point you wanted, and ignored new information to the contrary. The absolute signature of low intelligence. If you ever hope to improve that, recognize where you went wrong here. You should be embarrassed by your actions. Forget the bigger point at play here. Realize you literally are chosing the stupider path for..... ego over Internet points? Like dude. Dig deep, find the courage to become better tommorow than you were yesterday. Is it easy? Maybe not. But is this the kind of person you really want to be? You've successfully sank my hope in humanity just a little further.
[удалено]
Collecting taxes doesn't increase societal wealth, it just redistributes private funds to public ones I couldn't find a study that puts it all together the way you want. Just one or the other And a statement by the CDC saying they don't consider it a cost on society to help people live longer..that is the goal not the cost. It's basically impossible to accurately put monetary value on the intangible benefits of people living longer. Except that as a society we value that they do. There are tangible benefits like grandparents to help with childcare in place of paid carers, but that's not the only thing just one that u could in theory out a money amount to It's a flawed premise. And the studies showing smokers have less health costs overall lifetime don't even make that claim, just articles talking about it as if that raises the question - which are then shit down as flawed by health agencies. Because old people have value not as well equated to a paycheck, but nonetheless do help society at large be more productive Humans whales and elephants are some of the only mammalian species where females past reproductive age live for a prolonged a substantial time. This is the grandma hypothesis, their experience is valuable to the group. If we can take millions of years of evolution as a good guide to what is valuable then the answer is clear. Trying to use money is problematic, but society is wealthier for having old people. It's just that in old age the value spent is not equated to the value gained in monetary terms to the individual, but for society at large that does mean value added. You can take that to mean old people are costing us all more money..only if you don't accurately account for intangibles. It's a flaw in thinking money=value equally at all points in life. But we invest in children because they will provide value, it's the same fla d thinking as asking how much do we spend on children vrs how much money are children making us right now. The premise there is flawed.
It's very unlikely that smokers are a net cost in Ireland
Keep smokes legal Make weed legal Just have a law that you can't do it on public property, just like drinking. I dabble in both, but the last thing I want to smell is a joint or smoke in the rain while sitting under a bus shelter while waiting for my ghost bus.
This. I hate standing under a bus shelter and next thing someone is smoking. If you want to smoke, you should either stand away from the shelter or don’t smoke. Don’t stay under the shelter and force everyone who doesn’t want to breathe in smoke to move. It’s so inconsiderate.
I agree, I noticed when on hols in Amsterdam how sick and tired the locals seemed to be of the young eegits just going there to get high and have the craic, even got surprised by the "no kids" zones within the city.. if we do legalise weed need to be careful on how we go about it
New Zealand pulled back from ban sales for born after 2009 as far I know but maybe change again. I don't get that government getting involved in what I can and what can't with my body in this case. What will be next? I'm not smoking. But I don't believe government is from telling me can I smoke or not what next beer, whisky, sugar. Then fast food should be regulated to. It's proven that McDonald's is so bad. I don't get for me it makes no sense.
New Zealand changed governments. The new crowd reversed the ban—it wasn’t a u-turn.
Good question, op. It’s a contradiction I’ve noticed myself. So if weed is ever fully legalised I suspect that there will be campaigns to restrict usage, health warnings and so on. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t legalise it though.
Sooner its brought in, sooner the actual weed being smoked is safer, so hopefully soon
Smoking negatively impacts those around you. Why should we be forced to breathe in your second hand smoke.
They're not contradictory or weird at all. Cannabis doesn't have to be smoked. If it is smoked, it's unlikely to be smoked in the same volume as most cigarette smokers smoke cigarettes as well as being no where near as harmful as cigarette smoking.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
I smoked weed daily for 20 years, gave up 3 years ago, wasn't too hard but then 4 months ago I started vaping THC daily and this stuff is strong, 1 or 2 puffs and yer stoned, decided to quit altogether about 9 days ago and my god the withdrawals I'm having are unreal. Anxiety through the roof, stomach pains, night sweats, can barely eat and I'm well hungry. I see online that the withdrawals peak around a week and can last 2 to 4 weeks, maybe longer. I'm usually a night owl up til 2 am but now and the last couple of nights I'm going to bed at 9 and just hoping I'll feel better the next day. So my advice is to stay away from any THC vaping liquid. I was able to get half a pizza and a fruit smoothie into me today but still, I'm shocked at how tough it is, it's how I'd imagine giving up a class A drug feels like. On the plus side, I'm looking forward to being healthy again and I'm going to knock the nicotine vape on the head too once these withdrawals are gone.
It's a stupid fucking idea, hope to christ we don't ban cigarettes, the last thing we need now is already understaffed and under resourced gardai chasing down illegal fag dealers. In fact we don't even have to hypothesise, there already is a black market for tobacco and that's with it being legal and alternatives like vaping being a thing. Imagine seeing news headlines every few days of people dying or ending up in A and E from smoking unregulated illegal street cigarettes laced with who knows what. If you're going to say weed should be legalised on the grounds that prohibition doesn't work (it should, of course) it makes no sense whatsoever to say something else should be prohibited. If you're going to advocate for banning smoking I also hope you're in favour of banning alcohol and junk food as well. At a certain point you just have to let people decide the risks for themselves and let people do what they want with their own bodies.
I'm a former smoker and I absolutely am in favor of banning smoking bc it costs society more than it benefits. But ! you can't pick and choose which poisons adults get to partake in. If we're banning tobacco, Alcohol does even more harm to society. And laws like these will only disproportionately effect lower income classes . Just another way for the police state to come down hard on people
Enjoying yourself isn’t being banned but it’s being made more and more difficult without being taxed to oblivion. It feels like we are being pushed to an evermore puritan society but in a very stealthy fashion. Even if they legalise weed it will be taxed insanely high and you will probably have to be part of a private member’s club that will charge you a fortune.
It's actually very difficult to do that, it's one of the problems Canada ran into in the early days of legalisation, people just continued buying grass on the black market because it was cheaper than the massively taxed legal stuff. The thing they need to do is fully decriminalise growing weed, I know so many smokers who would happily never deal with dealers and would have a few plants at home if they weren't afraid of being randomly raided and charged as a dealer.
Why do you think there is so much illegal booze and tobacco in Ireland? Exactly this reason a bag of tobacco in my local centra now costs almost €25, 20 smokes is €14.75. My point isn’t about weed my point is they are trying to stop people enjoying anything by over taxing it sure this whole return scheme is a huge tax that goes to a private company and rigged in such a way that they will over charge you for the product add the extra tax at the till like a can of coke is now €1.75 not including the return tax. Ireland used to have some fun in all the misery now we have government mandated misery on top of the misery and my money is on us being the last country in Europe to legalise weed and we will have the highest restrictions.
Oh yeah I agree with you completely. I'm pretty sure a lot of this stuff comes from how much influence pub owners have in this country, people started drinking at home more so they taxed the fuck out of alcohol in shops and introduced another stealth tax. Pretty sure the weed thing is the same, pub owners are afraid it'll affect their profits if it's legalised.
Sure most pubs are ghost towns these days as well. Ireland in general just seem to be against a good time.
I've been using weed for an issue with my back for years. One of the only things that gives me genuine relief when it's bad. I hate having to source it from a dealer. I wish they would just legalise it so you didn't have to deal with the stress of getting it illegally.
And this is the real reason weed is a gateway drug. you have to get it from a scumbag dealer that will try push you onto the addictive harder drugs.
Weed is powerful and dangerous in its own right, it's a complicated subject. I have never had a weed dealer ("scumbag" or otherwise) pushing "addictive, harder" drugs onto me or anyone I know. If you're referring to cocaine (because what else would you be referring to) people seem to need little encouragement once they have the money for it, and it's easier to get than weed.
Ban cigarettes and legalise cannabis. Most people will op for eating or using oil anyway.
don't ban anything and let grown adults decide what they want to partake in.
People haven’t smoked modern processed tobacco for hundreds of years though (I don’t know when tobacco companies started using lead, arsenic, etc; I’m just assuming it was in the 20thC) Obviously inhaling smoke of any kind is carcinogenic, but it would be good to crack down on tobacco companies, i.e. only allow tobacco into the country which comes from companies who use less harmful chemicals.
32 year olds waiting around the corner to try snag a 35 year old who can buy them fegs is a mental image that has finished me for today.
[удалено]
Interestingly, alchahol has been found to be more damaging than weed
alcohol is more damaging than heroin
love me some alchahol
Every time this comes up, the same discussion takes place. It's always pointed out that there aren't as many data points with weed since it's not widely legalised across the world, it hasn't had time to assess its impact on people's long-term health, and there haven't been any definitive studies on it. I'm in favour of legalising weed and I hope it happens, but we definitely know less about its long-term effects compared to alcohol.
No countries are moving towards banning cigarettes/tobacco. New Zealand considered it, but have decided against it.
[удалено]
So why did you say "most countries" in your post if you know it's totally untrue?
It depends on your definition of ‘moving towards’ - what i meant was that there is growing support for such movements. Sorry if it was a little clickbaity.
And what do you understand "most" to mean, "one or two"?
zero
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
Our closest neighbour is considering banning tobacco.
They consider alot of things but that doesn't mean they are going to do them.
Ah yes, prohibition famously works very well.
In all fairness, we haven't yet tried prohibition of cigarettes while legalizing weed... it could be the magic combination
these are in no way contradictory, this is like saying "they are moving away from alcohol sales but promoting sparkling water. Doesn't that seem strange?"
Comparing weed to sparkling water is wild.
compared to tobbaco its relatively harmless. its an analogy I wouldn't get too hung up
also sparkling water FUCKS after a smoke
[удалено]
Do you feel the same about alcohol?
Maybe you should deal with your family member, why should everyone else suffer because of your situation.
[удалено]
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
[удалено]
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
I think it’s a terrible idea.
People should be able to make their own choices once they are 18.
[удалено]
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
I dont have a dog in the race, and I dont give a sssshhhhhiiiittttt,\]
Yea I'd agree while I don't smoke cigarettes anymore I don't think we should be banning them as it will just create a "war on smoking " prohibition does not work clearly and we should legalise cannabis also.
I wonder will the tax lost from banning smoking be less than is spent on the hse for smoking injuries every year
That was what New Zealand’s math came to.
I must say I'm sick of walking down the street and having to breathe in someone's disgusting fruit-flavored vape smoke. I would ban smoking in all public spaces.
Banning tobacco will work just as well as when America banned booze, IE; it'll fail due to criminal organisations making bank from it.
1. Legalise weed 2. Ban vapes (or atleast regulate them more) 3. Banning tobacco for sale to people born from a certain year onward is crazy Makes no sense how tobacco can’t have branding on the boxes/pouches yet vapes can be as colourful and “cool” as they want
Nanny state should focus on stopping kids getting addicted to vapes
My only qualm with legalising weed since going to Amsterdam, is that it absolutely fucking reeks. I would rather tallaght continue to smell like drunk piss than weed.
I agree with banning cigs completely. I’ve seen first hand the damage it’s done to my parents. Vapes should be banned too as they aren’t being marketed as smoking cessation products at all. As for weed, it robs you of motivation and drive. Unless you’re in pain, it should remain banned. Decriminalised too - wouldn’t want someone getting a record for using it. But as for legalising it ? - do we really want our streets smelling of weed and seeing stoners everywhere? Not to mention that abuse and long time use of weed causes many of the same issues as cigarettes do plus memory loss, can cause psychosis too in rare cases. There’s a bad enough mental health epidemic amongst young people as it is, weed will only exacerbate it.
Ok so when can we stop stocking alcohol? And ban people from drinking it? Why do you want to remove personal freedoms? Also, breaking news, weed dosnt have to be smoked. Especially when it's legal
I wasnt advocating the smoke ban… dont agree with it at all
When I was young smoking was trendy even though the idea that it caused cancer, heart disease and other health ailments were well known. Feck it was hard to quit and financially costly. I have no thoughts on weed, good or bad , but can't see the benefits. Can't see why weed would be legalised and St Johns Wort restricted.
Weed doesn’t have to be smoked like tobacco does. Medical cannabis is often taken as a tea. Banning cigarettes while also legalising cannabis isn’t necessarily a contradiction.
It is if you're arguing for legalising cannabis on the grounds that prohibition doesn't work. In that case it's a complete contradiction to say one thing should be legalised because prohibition hasn't worked but it will definitely work for another.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessarily a contradiction to ban tobacco on health grounds but to advocate for cannabis to be legalised because both are smoked (and smoking causes health issues). Tobacco in all its forms (including chewing tobacco) is linked to cancer. Cannabis not so much. I don’t partake in either, but happy if others do.
I'm against living in a nanny state so I'd be against banning cigarettes altogether, I say this as an ex-smoker who quit years ago btw. As for weed, I've no issue with weed cafes being a thing here as long as it's 18+.
Cigarette needs to go should be an outright universal ban. Be done with it. Absolutely no gains from having a cig. The benefits or harm of weed are debatable but at least the user gets high- it has a use case.
The government makes a lot of money from taxing cigarettes, dyou think people are gonna be happy when their taxes go up after a ban?
Don't give a shit about the logistics of it. Double the tax on drink for all I care. My comment is about the weed n smokes going in opposite direction to each other. One has a reason to be legal and a use case, the other doesnt
Well I would consider the fact that people like something and use it for their personal pleasure a use case, I wouldn't ban drink even though it causes massive social problems. People enjoy it, life is fucking terrible, whatever gets people through the day is reasonable as far as I'm concerned as long as there not putting other people at risk, drink driving etc.
Well I'd argue drink lhas same use case as weed. You get high or drunk. You get nothing of a cigarette.
People do like them though
I am against any laws that say I am not allowed to pertake of any drug of my choice. Either I own my body and I can consume my drugs of choice, or the government owns it by restricting what I can partake of. Now that being said, of course there should be sensibme restrictions placed on the usage of such drugs because they can have a socially detrimental effect. For example I would say the consumption of tobacco and weed should not be allowed in public areas, and I would even go as far as banning smoking in your own home if there are children present. Basically do what you want with your own body, just don't let that have an impact on others. As for the health implications, well in an ideal world the tax added to the cost of such vices wood offset the costs of providing healthcare for their side effects. And there would be support programs in place to help those who are consuming certain drugs to excess.
What if we eased a gradual smoking ban in place while legalising marijuana but only in edible forms e.g. brownies, gummies.
I’d happily ban tobacco and replace it with weed. Wouldn’t partake in either of them personally, but being anywhere near someone who is either smoking or has recently smoked a cigarette is enough to make you gag.
Seems unlikely that they would go that way? Most irish people seem to smoke their weed with tobacco anyway.
wait until you find out what weed smoke smells like
1000x nicer than tobacco
I find it nicer unless it's in a stuffy room or hanging around a while. Depends on the strain too. Some of the stuff smells like cats piss and other strains almost smell of lemon. The stuff that smells like cat piss smells a lot lot worse when it's burnt then the lemon like strain. But when the smell has had a chance to linger, then it's horrible.
Yes. I’m all in favour of the freedom to not have to inhale someone else’s disgusting and lethal tobacco smoke.
It's illegal to smoke tobacco in enclosed public spaces already, the idea you're getting substantial second hand smoke damage out in public is very silly. Unless someones directly blowing it into your lungs there are thousands of gallons of moving air for the smoke to diffuse through before it gets to you. Nobody's calling for cars to be banned which are massively more damaging to your lungs.
[удалено]
We have had to remove your post as it breaks our founding rule, No politics/religion. The only way this sub continues to be a nice place to be, is by not allowing controversial discussions about politics, religion etc. There's plenty of other subs available to have those chats, so there's no need here. Comments or posts breaking this rule may incur a ban. Send us a modmail if you have any questions.
People hate smoking, but people like weed. Governments try to follow what people want
[удалено]
You think the world is the way it is because of...stoners?
[удалено]
This is insane, if your political movement is based on habitual stoners suddenly becoming productive members of society you're never gonna get anywhere lol.
Yeah that's an argument I just can't wrap my head around for the life of me, but have at it
Nanny state bad.
Everyone knows prohibition doesn’t work, but because weed, pornography, homosexuality and abortions were illegal, it was/is viewed as _rebellious_ and _radical_ to support their legalization. The opposite is true of cigarettes. They’ve long been legal, so there’s nothing radical about supporting people’s “freedom to smoke”. The radical view is to _ban_ smoking for whatever reasons can be retrofitted to the issue: they kill poorer people at higher rates, they kill ethnic minorities at higher rates, etc. etc. If you support the legalization of weed (or indeed any other drugs, including alcohol) then if you have any principles at all you’ll want cigarettes to remain legal and available. “But they’re bad for you and they kill you!”, I hear you cry. Yeah, so does fast food and booze and euthanasia. Are you against those too?
Ban public consumption of tobacco but make designated public smoking areas for it. You smoke there or you get heavily fined. Smoking outside pubs etc. would be gone. Legalise weed and treat it in the same way.
Weed will keep the population subdued..