It will create a substantial black market, but it won’t just do that. It will make it difficult to conveniently buy cigarettes, which will drastically cut down on the number of smokers.
Let’s hope so! My main worry is it pushes things underground where you can’t really track and regulate anything, which has happened in other prohibition policies.
I think I’d be more up for it if smoking use was trending in the wrong direction but it’s been pretty consistently trending downwards since the 70s. But if it accelerates the decline then that would definitely be a positive.
Isn’t that what they said about alcohol, marijuana, crack, and every other thing we’ve tried to outlaw over the years? The strategy doesn’t ever seem to work and yet every time it’s proposed we get about half of people saying, oh, well this time will be different.
It’s distinctly different in this case: they’re just trying to prevent people who are turning smoking age from conveniently being able to buy cigarettes. They’re not taking away cigarettes from people who can already buy them, which was not the case for prohibition.
It depends if it’s a ban on just cigarettes or nicotine in general. Ban a drug, and you’ll create a black market for it. Ban a method of administering a drug, and you can move it to other safer or more socially acceptable methods of application.
I personally hate smoking. However, as far as I am concerned, it’s down to the individual, so long as they are not affecting me, and covering the excess social costs (via taxes).
Unfortunately, most/many of the cigarette smokers I encounter are of the inconsiderate type. A single smoker can cover a large area in smoke, and most don’t either notice or care. I have yet to see a viable method of stopping this, other than banning cigarettes.
I am definitely not pro-smoking but won’t this just create a pretty substantial black market?
It will create a substantial black market, but it won’t just do that. It will make it difficult to conveniently buy cigarettes, which will drastically cut down on the number of smokers.
Let’s hope so! My main worry is it pushes things underground where you can’t really track and regulate anything, which has happened in other prohibition policies.
I think I’d be more up for it if smoking use was trending in the wrong direction but it’s been pretty consistently trending downwards since the 70s. But if it accelerates the decline then that would definitely be a positive.
it’s harder to smuggle loads of cigarettes because of the size of each bundle.
perhaps people will smuggle in powdered nicotine and make vape juice for cheap.
Isn’t that what they said about alcohol, marijuana, crack, and every other thing we’ve tried to outlaw over the years? The strategy doesn’t ever seem to work and yet every time it’s proposed we get about half of people saying, oh, well this time will be different.
Presumably vaping will still be legal.
It’s distinctly different in this case: they’re just trying to prevent people who are turning smoking age from conveniently being able to buy cigarettes. They’re not taking away cigarettes from people who can already buy them, which was not the case for prohibition.
Actually, any law is useless, because of criminals.
It depends if it’s a ban on just cigarettes or nicotine in general. Ban a drug, and you’ll create a black market for it. Ban a method of administering a drug, and you can move it to other safer or more socially acceptable methods of application.
I personally hate smoking. However, as far as I am concerned, it’s down to the individual, so long as they are not affecting me, and covering the excess social costs (via taxes).
Unfortunately, most/many of the cigarette smokers I encounter are of the inconsiderate type. A single smoker can cover a large area in smoke, and most don’t either notice or care. I have yet to see a viable method of stopping this, other than banning cigarettes.