Cigarette bans with candy, or something, whatever [SPLIT]
Evander
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
Yes, 16 year olds ought to have jobs, if they are able to work and have the time. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be feeding the ones who can't work (can't find it, too busy with extra-curiculars, or whatever) and ALSO the younger kids.
16 year olds should not be working in order to survive.
ideally, of course not.
if a 16 year old is ABLE to work in order to sustain themselves, I think they should go ahead and do it. (we're talking about summer jobs, here. during the school year, they should be focussed on learning, of course.)
most of them can't though.
and, in general, I think more kids ought to have jobs, even if it's just for nominal pay and they are being suported elsewhere.
Evander on
0
Posts
those have to do with the fact that children need a certain level of protection.
I'm not advocating children smoking. I'm saying that adults should be free to do what they want.
You want another example of legislating morality? anti-gay marriage bull shit.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Which is over-reaching.
You can protect children WITHOUT taking things away from responsible adults.
Just crying "It's for the children!" doesn't automatically make a thing right.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
But regulating a product because it has major harmful societal benefits when that regulation touches on no protected rights generally is.
And not having flavored cigarettes - which have negative individual and societal outcomes - didn't make the UN Charter of Human Rights.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
what are the "major harmful societal benefits" of flavored cigarettes?
Are they any more than porn or alcohol or violent video games?
None of those are protected by the UN. Let's get rid of them too.
whoops!
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
can you show me these flavored cigarrettes being marketed to kids?
And, if you can, why should the legislation go towards the flavoring, rather than the marketing?
If responsible adults want to drink candy flavored alcohol, he let them do it (look at the tons of mixed drinks out there)
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I don't really see how that's relevant to this discussion. You could probably read the fact-finding for the canadian legislation and see what their justification is. Arguing that they somehow don't have the power to do it at all is silly.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Porn and Violent video games are.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It just seems like useless "look, we're doing something!" busywork that screws a certain subset of people harder and harder for no reason.
First off, it's relevant because it is kind of the crux of your point.
Secondly, I never stated what they DO OR DON'T have the power to do. I stated what I believe SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T occur.
Technically only the creation is, not the consumption.
"Legislating morality" is only a valid label when proponents of a policy are only able to argue that what they're trying to outlaw is immoral, rather than objectively bad for society. Encouraging people not to smoke is a utilitarian issue. Protecting children from labor exploitation is a utilitarian issue. Outlawing gay marriage is pandering to a constituency on 'moral' issues.
Making stuff up is fun.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
what is utilitarian about limiting smoking in private businesses or flavorings?
Like I said, I openly accept the detrimental effects of second hand smoke, but you don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It would be like banning ALL campfires, because an imporperly kept campfire can start a larger fire. We don't ban ALL fires, we just limit where they are allowed, and put in place proper, RELEVANT, protocol to keep them safe for others.
What is the utility of limiting the spread of carcinogenic fumes in workplaces? Or the marketing of highly addictive carcinogenic products to children through targeted products?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
As I see it there are two possible arguments:
1) the state doesn't have the power to stop tobacco companies from pursuing children as consumers of their products,
or
2) Tobacco companies aren't actually doing that, hence this legislation would serve no purpose.
I haven't read the fact-finding to see how the canadian legislature has arrived at the conclusion that this is what's going on, but I do know that the tobacco industry has a long and colorful history of attempting to get people below the age of consent to start smoking.
If there's a problem with the government's reasoning, what is it?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
that's a bit of a stretch, but I'll allow it, if you'll give me this one:
Meaning that what one choses to do in their own home (be it smoking, or what have you) is their own business.
so don't allow smoking in public, and don't allow specific marketing towards children. It doesn't take a rocketsurgeon.
Sunlight is carcinogenic. Should we ban that too?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Thanks for the strawmen, but I'm going to stick with my initial argument anyway.
And if you don't know what it is, you can go on your own little fact finding argument in this thread.
You're the one who is defining playing a violent video game as "recieving information and ideas"
Broad strokes for broad strokes.
Your argument seems to be that you can't ban products targeted at children because adults might also enjoy using them.
Which is really sort of a silly argument. If we accept that premise, how can we regulate any marketing directed at children ever?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Simpsons did it!! Anyways, this all so Demolition Man on the way the government has been entering people's lives.
We could have a law FORCING sunblock, or large hats, or something.
Honestly, there are so damn many things that are carcinogenic that it is a silly argument. Cancer is what kills you if nothing else gets to you first.
I am IN FAVOR of limiting things like smoking in public areas, but I think that banning things outright, rather than promoting responsible use, is a step too far (not neccessarily an overstep of powers, but rather a thing that SHOULDN'T be done. Just because a thing is whitin governmental powers doesn't mean that they should be doing it.)
As far as smoking not being covered by the UN's Human rights, I say so what? The fact that it is not a specifically protected behavior is not, in and of itself, enough of a justification to take it away. That much is very in line with Article 30, and the third third point of Article 29.
The candy-flavored cigs are the marketing towards children. That is the entire point of the legislation under discussion.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
first off, I've never seen clove flavored candy
secondly, if you're going to claim that the existence of flavors constitute marketing towards children, in and of themselves, then how do you answer for all of the flavored alcohol out there? or for brightly colored porn?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Huh?
Last time I asked you for data, you said I'd have to get it myself.
You're being pretty silly here, demanding things of me that you are unwilling to do.
I thought (and still do think) that the whole point of the existence of Mike's Hard Lemonade was so 1) kids could drink underage without being caught 2) it'd taste better. Considering it's a common cliche of what underage kids would drink when I was in my mid-teens
Also, seriously, what the fuck does this have to do with the GOP? I find this whole discussion fascinating (as a smoker) but this really has nothing to do with the GOP. Could y'all split it so I can make fun of the hunger comment some more? Because goddamn, the GOP is insane nowadays
I don't think sweetly flavored alcohol or porn with bright colors are being used to do that, which is why the analogy doesn't work.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I'm not denying that the cigarette industry targets children, IN GENERAL (although, I WOULD argue that alcohol and porn do the same, to some extent, but that's a seperate issue)
What I'm arguing is that flavored tabbacco is not INHERENTLY a thing that serves only to market to children.