• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    421 year ago

    Shit policy idea. Banning things never works. Please see all of history as evidence.

    Increase taxes on nicotine ten-fold if it’s so important. Use taxes in part to ensure that the amount of smokes that fall off the back of trucks doesn’t spike. That’s about as good as you’re gonna get to influence anyone who’s addicted.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      231 year ago

      You don’t have to increase it 10 fold, that just creates an overnight black market.

      Banning sales to people born after a specific date is just as good a solution as any. If you want go full retar-, er, libertarian on it, let people grow their own, but forbid sales/distribution.

      There is no upside to cigarettes – it’s the leading cause of lung cancer and a dozen other diseases that cost our health care system billions in each province, every year. The only people who will complain will be the companies who make billions in profit from human addiction, misery, and death.

    • Victor Villas
      link
      fedilink
      23
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Which “all of history” are you using as a base? Because this is a slow phase-out of cigarettes, nothing like anything we’ve had before.

      This is not a ban on nicotine, like we had bans on alcohol. People would still be able to vape nicotine.

    • Hyacin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

      This kind of policy is not about influencing people who are already addicted, it is about trying to prevent anyone new from getting addicted and eventually putting the entire thing in the rear view.