Pshaw, I just wanted to say 'double monkey punch" to remind people of what they’re dealing with.
Back on topic,
Australia could try to stop people from smoking by using large aerial firefighting aircraft.
Revenge of Paraquat Pot ?
Revenge of the Fire Fighting Expert of Notre Dame.
Yes, and even brand placement. Tobacco brand placement is no longer kosher, but Big Tobacco can still bribe film companies to show smoking is cool… and they are doing just that.
New Zealand considers catfish to be an invasive species.
https://www.lernz.co.nz/research-themes/invasive-fish#:~:text=Catfish%20are%20significant%20invaders%20that,internationally%20as%20an%20invasive%20species.
See? What did I tell ya?
In an article I read on the New Zealand law, they acknowledged two issues raised in this thread: the black market and medical treatment.
The last sentence still confounds me. They will still have a new generation potentially addicted to nicotine; why not get rid of vaping (which is apparently what kids these days are into, anyway), too?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/world/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban.html
Cred totally blown.
I totally didn’t notice the name until just now!
I just removed 47 posts to their own hijack thread. Please stick to the topic of the New Zealand smoking ban in this thread.
If you want to talk about that topic, it’s here:
It would be hard to make a piece of a certain period without a great deal of smoking in it.
Some of us are old enough to remember our doctors entering the exam room with a lit cigarette.
I wonder how the TV and film industry will work with this? I suppose they can use “blanks” - i.e. cigarettes that contain harmless tobacco alternatives.
Mostly harmless, anyway.
It wasn’t a real ciggie, a proper tobacco-nicotine death stick, but a relatively harmless herbal one donated by the props man while visiting the Budapest set of a new biopic of Ian Fleming due out later [in 2014]. Dominic Cooper (The History Boys) plays the Bond creator, and over the course of a day’s filming I watched Cooper and his co-star Anna Chancellor inhale countless of these herbal gaspers, allowing the plume to snake up from their lips to their nostrils before swallowing it again with seasoned aplomb.
The difference is this isn’t a universal ban, nor is it just a ban for minors. It’s a ban that would apply to some adults and not others. That does raise novel concerns in the U.S. system.
How are those novel? Adults who are 20 and adults who are 21 have different access to the otherwise perfectly legal drug, alcohol.
As pointed out above (I think twice), the difference is when the people who are 20 turns 21 today, they get access, but in this setup, they won’t…forever. And in the US at least, the folks who are 20 have only gotten to vote for 2 years at this point…and those younger than 18 not at all. So it’s all good since they didn’t get to really vote on this. Might not continue to be all good down the road though, but maybe it will. Who knows?
The courts have never (to my knowledge) had to decide if it’s permissible to have a product legal for 45 year olds and illegal for 44 year olds, and as others have noted, have a cohort of citizens who will never be legal users. They have certainly upheld general age restrictions (18 or 21 being the most common).
I’m not saying the courts would strike this down, but it does pose different issues than saying only adults can smoke or you have to be 16 to drive.
I can see the argument that says the 21yo was barred at one time and the 20yo will not be barred in the future, so it doesn’t violate equal protection. There’s also the argument that says a fixed birthdate restriction creates a perpetual difference in rights, and does violate equal protection. However, we have changed the ages of these rights over time without apparent civil rights violations. What if you increased the age by 1 year every 2 years?
Why? I have seen films made during the 40’s,. 50’s etc with little or no smoking, and it didn’t bother me.
Since prehistory, people have been pissing and shitting, and they rarely include those scenes.
Do we see people blowing or picking their nose? Unless it is to make a plot point? Coughing? Trust me, those smokers coughed a lot, nasty wet sounding coughs too.
No, all those common daily or hourly actions are not included- unless it is to make a plot point.
Not true.
20% of house fires are caused by smoking (that smoker, alone in their own house, falling asleep while smoking and starting the house on fire. And a burning house, with the possibility f spreading to other houses, and the need for an expensive Fire Department to put out the fire, and ambulances & hospitals to aid the smoker – all these are effects on others.
And in your calculation of the public costs of smoking, did you include 20% of the costs of Fire Departments? And of homeowners; insurance?