• @masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    83
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    to create ‘smoke-free’ generation

    Of course, not counting the smoke, ash, and other toxic oxidized chemicals that will be kicked up by gas and diesel vehicles with his scrapping the HS2 Manchester line. What a fucking idiot. “Oh no, we brexited ourselves so hard that we’re poor now and can’t afford to build infrastructure that would stand to enrich multiple cities for hundreds of years!”

    Such classic smooth brained thatcherite conservatives. It’s mind numbing that people keep voting for them.

    • @quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      331 year ago

      Calling him smooth brained is looking past the fact that it’s just plain corruption. He has interests in the oil industry, and they are against public rail. Hold him to account for what he is, a criminal.

    • @bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      I mean, Sunak is a complete and utter bellend and cancelling half of HS2 is a ridiculous and nonsensical move.

      But I think that the good old idiom about broken clocks might just apply here. Smoking bans are a good thing.

      • Quatity_Control
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 year ago

        Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.

        Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

        • DessertStorms
          link
          fedilink
          14
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

          This is the real answer right here - this is just another poverty tax/punishment.

          I don’t smoke, never have, but I know why people smoke, and it’s now (that it’s no longer seen as “cool”) almost exclusively to try and relieve a tiny bit of the mountain of stress that existing in the world today (especially as part of a marginalised group) brings, and there are a million better ways to reduce the need to smoke, and improve the health outcomes of smokers (eventually, hopefully, to the point where they are able to reduce smoking or stop altogether).

          Sunak is looking for a quick “win” for headlines and distraction, not to actually help people live healthier better lives (E: just seen his transphobic comments, which only reinforce this point). Why target the source of the problem when you can slap a band aid on it and bask in your own glory for a couple of days before your next bit of corruption is exposed?

          • @JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            Counterpoint: A lot of people that smoke want to stop smoking. A lot of people would more easily stop smoking if it was banned or not so easily available.

            Also from the title of the article it seems that this would never apply to people that already smoke legally. The idea is that you set a minimum age and then you increase it every year. Meaning that in 100 years smoking is banned for everyone. But nobody was never banned from smoking when they were legal before. They were just never allowed to. So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

            • DessertStorms
              link
              fedilink
              61 year ago

              So it prevents young people from picking up the habit.

              right, just like how it being illegal prevents young people from drinking and smoking weed… 🙄🙄🙄

        • @Jaarsh119@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          The proposal is to raise the legal smoking age every year. Meaning each yearly increase, this hypothetical 47yo will also age a year and so will be able to smoke forever

          • @Rubanski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not if he wanted to pick up smoking one year before legal age. So he will be chasing that legal age forever and can’t smoke even if he’s 68

            • ////Edit: it seems like I need to give an example to explain this apparently very difficult problem: Person A is 17 , smoking is allowed from 18 Next year Person A is 18, he could under normal circumstances smoke with 18, but now smoking is legal with 19. Continue to age 68 but smoking is now allowed from 69. It’s even implied in the article
    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      It’s mind numbing that people keep voting for them.

      Well recent polling would suggest that they no longer will be voting for them.