Anticonsumption

353 readers

5 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

129

UK Prime Minister to create ‘smokefree generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009 (www.gov.uk)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by activistPnk to c/anticonsumption

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”

I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.

(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] h_ramus@lemm.ee 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

The intention is meritable. As usual, Tories misunderstand how to achieve the stated objective. They'll be creating a secondary market whereby those born before 2009 will supply cigarettes to those born after 2009... for a fee of course. Party of business and entrepreneurialship.

Also, drinking yourself into a stupor seems to be socially acceptable in the UK whilst the cost is much larger.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/24/tories-failure-to-tackle-alcohol-harm-is-causing-public-health-crisis-say-mps

Cigarettes were already heavily taxed in the UK anyway. The relative share of smokers is much lower compared to places like France.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country

If the goal is to improve everyone's well-being, is this the best way to achieve it?

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

Until no one is left alive who can buy cigarettes. Or rather, until no one produces cigarettes on an industrial level because the narket is so small. Then they need to grow tobacco themselves and suffer without buckets of toxic shit put into commercial cigarettes.

I'm all for making drastic positive changes in our lifetimes, but a slow change is better than no change

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The goal is have less smokers. Is your argument that there will be a secondary market booming in no time or that it wont affect that many people?

[–] h_ramus@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The efforts should be placed on the aspects that have greater impact on health. Focusing on cigarettes when alcohol has a much larger impact seems an odd prioritisation.

Also, banning something doesn't mean that the problem is solved. Drugs aren't allowed but it's easier and cheaper to pop a few happy pills on a night out than it is to drink until oblivion.

This seems more a chest pumping measure to score cheap political points. There's no political will to tackle the bigger and more important problem as it requires additional skill and likely to be less popular.

I'm all for reducing smoking but this is unlikely to achieve any meaningful change. Happy to be proven wrong though.

EDIT: https://feddit.uk/post/10757641