New Zealand to ban tobacco

[Winchester]

58 minutes ago, Peace said:

Is there anyone on Phatmass who can take this seriously?

How do they enforce laws where you live?

Here's how they do it where I live.Harding Street raid

The exception is that there's a public outcry after a drug raid, even when they (as they so often do) turn up no drugs.

[truthfinder]

Soooo illegal tobacco trading is a thing. Will they raid the kid with a pack of ciggies - no. Will there be raids as illegal tobacco is trafficked into the country at some point - probably. 

[Winchester]

18 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

Soooo illegal tobacco trading is a thing. Will they raid the kid with a pack of ciggies - no. Will there be raids as illegal tobacco is trafficked into the country at some point - probably. 

Raid? Likely not. Arrest, create a "criminal" record for? Occasionally.

 

Now, would a Catholic be obliged to follow these prohibitions? Since they don't require you to commit a sin, then that answer is yes. It can very well be sinful for a Catholic to disobey one of the dumbass government's nanny state the essence of cow edicts. That doesn't make it moral for the state to crack skulls, nor does it make cracking skulls in the name of fighting vice "pro life". Nor does it make it moral for a Catholic to help the state crack skulls. So if you snitch, you might well be sinning, since initiating violence is sinful. It's possible that everyone, from the cop to the seller to the buyer/user would be committing a sin. Of course, they might not be culpable.

[little2add]

10 hours ago, Winchester said:

I agree that it is a harmful vice. I don't believe that getting violent over it is moral.

its a little more than a harmful vice. its deadly!

[little2add]

however when something like this was tried in the US, back in 1930s this  well intended act failed, miserably.

the Prohibition in the United States  ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages (from 1920 to 1933) didn't work well 

 

[Peace]

12 hours ago, Winchester said:

How do they enforce laws where you live?

Here's how they do it where I live.Harding Street raid

The exception is that there's a public outcry after a drug raid, even when they (as they so often do) turn up no drugs.

For smoking? You pay a $20 fine mate.

Oh your precious money gone forever.

12 hours ago, little2add said:

 Emphysema, lung cancer caused by tobacco use is a violent painful way to die too!

tobacco really is a nasty, disgusting, highly addictive habit and the world would be better off without it.

just saying...

Que? I didn’t write that! The last thing I want in life is to get mixed up with Winchester, trust me.

[Nunsuch]

14 hours ago, Winchester said:

I agree that it is a harmful vice. I don't believe that getting violent over it is moral.

YOU are the only one here who has brought up violence. You seem to be obsessed, and in a very unhealthy way.

[Mercedes]

7 hours ago, little2add said:

however when something like this was tried in the US, back in 1930s this  well intended act failed, miserably.

the Prohibition in the United States  ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages (from 1920 to 1933) didn't work well 

 

Prohibition did subsequently improve the awful drinking culture existing prior to it though.  It was generally women who were fighting for the welfare of women and children who were the victims of drunk violent husbands spending all the family income on drink, who were agitating for prohibition and with good cause.  Although the 18th Amend. was eventually repealed, much good did come from it.

Quote

 

Nevertheless, once Prohibition became the law of the land, many citizens decided to obey it. Referendum results in the immediate post-Volstead period showed widespread support, and the Supreme Court quickly fended off challenges to the new law. Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period.32

Prohibition affected alcoholic beverages differently. Beer consumption dropped precipitously. Distilled spirits made a dramatic comeback in American drinking patterns, reversing a three-quarters-of-a-century decline, although in volume spirits did not reach its pre-Prohibition level. Small-scale domestic producers gave wine its first noticeable, though small, contribution to overall alcohol intake, as wine-grape growers discovered that the Volstead Act failed to ban the production and sale of grape concentrate (sugary pulp that could be rehydrated and fermented to make wine).

UNINTENDED AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES

Unexpected prosperity for wine-grape growers was not the only unintended consequence of National Prohibition. Before reviewing other unexpected outcomes, however, it is important to list the ways in which National Prohibition did fulfill prohibitionists’ expectations. The liquor industry was virtually destroyed, and this created an historic opportunity to socialize rising generations in a lifestyle in which alcohol had no place. To some degree, such socialization did take place, and the lessened consumption of the Prohibition Era reflects that. Although other forces contributed to its decline, Prohibition finished off the old-time saloon, with its macho culture and links to urban machine politics.34 To wipe out a long-established and well-entrenched industry, to change drinking habits on a large scale, and to sweep away such a central urban and rural social institution as the saloon are no small achievements.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

[little2add]

5 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

YOU are the only one here who has brought up violence. You seem to be obsessed, and in a very unhealthy way.

When you see friends die from smoking related cancer, it effects the way you look at things 

BTW : look in the mirror

merry Christmas  

Didn’t  the moderator just warn you about your unhealthy post?

[Nunsuch]

2 minutes ago, little2add said:

When you see friends die from smoking related cancer, it effects the way you look at things 

BTW : look in the mirror

merry Christmas  

Not sure when you think I have suggested violence, as your “look in the mirror” remark suggests. I’m a firm believer in and practitioner of non-violence. And, by the way, a 21-year lung cancer survivor. 

[little2add]

sorry, I mispoke

 

 

 

[Luigi]

Mercedes wrote: "Prohibition did subsequently improve the awful drinking culture existing prior to it though.  It was generally women who were fighting for the welfare of women and children who were the victims of drunk violent husbands spending all the family income on drink, who were agitating for prohibition and with good cause.  Although the 18th Amend. was eventually repealed, much good did come from it."

And that's the way all of these issues should be handled - persuasion, not government mandates, taxes, fines, or prison sentences. 

[Ice_nine]

On 12/15/2021 at 8:42 PM, Peace said:

Is there anyone on Phatmass who can take this seriously?

whud up

[Credo in Deum]

Banning something which is not intrinsically evil seems like a waste of time and an abuse of civil power/authority.