173
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 56 points 2 months ago

Honestly, we see where banning things gets us. Millions of people in prison and or killed over these things because there's black markets for them because people want them.

[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 months ago

Or y’know ban the sale and don’t criminalise it?

Funny how a lot of countries are starting to crack down on cigarettes and the health issues they pose without mass locking people up.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 21 points 2 months ago

Even if you do that you risk creating a black market that will be served by organised crime. In Australia it's an issue where tobacco shops get firebombed, and that's with just expensive cigarettes, not outright bans.

[-] evranch@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

Here in Canada, we have a loophole in the law where indigenous have the right to use tobacco without taxation due to tradition. Which is totally fair - but it also applies to modern mass produced cigarettes for some reason.

As a result of ever increasing taxes on tobacco, I would reckon that at this point 80% of cigarettes smoked in my community have been smuggled off of a reserve. The black market is booming with "Rez smokes" selling for $5-10 a pack while legal cigs go for ~$30.

The federal government recently introduced a regulation mandating a health warning printed on every cigarette. Most agree it's a transparent attempt for the police to spot an illegal smoke in your hand, as Rez smokes don't have warnings on them. They are losing a ton of revenue to the black market, and are trying to crack down with heavy fines for even possessing a pack off of a reserve.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago

I definitely agree with taxing cigarettes more, but if you get to the stage where organised crime starts doing arbitrage, you've gone too far.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

But then you're hurting the corpos bottom line. And thats the one real law.

[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The system is working as intended, support ticket closed.

Joe biden loves the police state and would like to see it expanded... again.

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 1 points 2 months ago

The system is working as intended, support ticket closed.

SO DAMN TRUE!

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

Just criminalize the sale, not the possession. When they vanish from storefronts and become much harder to find, many people will switch to alternatives like vapes, or reduce their consumption. Don’t bother with citing individuals for possessing them; Just fine the fuck out of any storefronts caught selling them, and/or take their tobacco sale permits away.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

That would fuel a black market even more because now customers don't need to take any risk so more profit for those who do take the risk on the selling side.

And if they just do fines, it will become a cost of business. If they lock people up, then it's just another front in the ridiculous drug war that does more harm on its own than the drugs themselves do.

As much as I don't like smoking still being a thing, use is trending down on its own and people should have a right to choose what they do with their bodies, even if it fucks them up or they end up regretting it later. As a society, we've been fucking up our environment more than smoking ever has to the point where just existing in a large city is as bad as smoking because of the car exhaust, and that's for everyone, not just those who choose to drive or ride in cars.

Though I would be in favour of mandating that some majority portion of cigarette profits go to paying for the health treatments and would also be open to some kind of asterisk on healthcare coverage for those who live in places with public healthcare and choose to smoke, maybe requiring some kind of insurance policy to help pay for healthcare they might end up needing.

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town -1 points 2 months ago

I would agree, except do not criminalize individuals selling to other individuals, but if it's stores then I completely agree.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

do not criminalize individuals selling to other individuals, but if it’s stores then I completely agree.

What do you think a store is, exactly?

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 2 months ago

I consider a store to be more of a corporation because of the fact that I can't go up and talk to the individual who runs the thing in most cases.

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

It depends on the size of the store, but that isn’t necessarily true. A lot of convenience stores are franchises, and you definitely could talk to the owner.

My point isn’t really to define what a store is, but rather to point out that it is really tricky to place blame appropriately when you are banning a substance that people want to buy. How far down the chain do you prosecute?

Much better to simply teach people the truth about their health and let them make their own decisions rather than try to control and blame, in my opinion.

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 1 points 2 months ago

Fair enough, I generally think prosecution is a bad idea if it can be at all avoided because then taxpayers have to pay for that person to be prosecuted in court and if they end up guilty have to keep them in jail and I don't agree with that if it can be avoided.

this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
173 points (94.4% liked)

politics

18134 readers
3687 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS