129
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by activistPnk@slrpnk.net to c/anticonsumption@slrpnk.net

I think it was the prime minister (or spokesperson) who made this very clever argument: (paraphrasing) “we are not taking away choice… cigarettes are designed to inherently take away your choice by trapping you in an addiction.”

I’m not picking sides here, just pointing out a great piece of rhetoric to spin the policy as taking away something that takes away your choice. Effectively putting forward the idea that you don’t have choice to begin with.

(sorry to say this rhetoric was not mentioned in the linked article; I just heard it on BBC World Service)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

I'll happily pick a side as a kid who grew up in a house constantly full of smoke and a parent who's a total mess at least partially because of this. Good. It's about time some serious steps were taken. Not to mention the effects of second hand smoke.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 7 months ago

You're parent(s) not having the sense to go outside and stay away from you while smoking shouldn't impact my ability to smoke alone.

[-] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

And it won't, unless you were born after 2009.

this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
129 points (100.0% liked)

Anticonsumption

345 readers
3 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS