governments telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies is never good
>New Zealand will phase in a near-total tobacco ban from next year.
>Legislation passed by parliament on Tuesday means that anyone born after 2008 will never be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products.
Holy based!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63954862
No. I have a coworker that stinks up the office with his smoking habit. You wouldn't expect to work next to some hobo that stinks like piss and shit. But somehow it is ok to work next to someone that stinks extremely like smoke all the time.
On the ground floor of the house I life in lives a pensioner who smokes. I can't open up the door to my balcony in summer because then the smoke comes into my living room. I can't open the window of my bedroom because sometimes he decides to smoke at 3am and the smoke stinks up my bedroom waking me up. Kill all smokers!
I had a similar problem with a neighbor and it was so fucking annoying that I did some not very nice stuff to spite him but I still wouldn't ban smoking altogether; if anything you could declare balconies public spaces and make laws to forbid smoking there
as for the smelly coworker - why don't you talk to your boss? it's a health hazard if anything; also, I had a colleague who was a smoker and he smelled super nice, so I guess it comes down to personal hygiene
I feel like everyone would benefit if casual drug use wouldn't be possible anymore. I don't care about smoking weed once a month but daily consumption will ruin the consumer. Everyone would benefit if the addicts would get clean, especially the addicts themselves. The only problem is that prohibition does not work. A ban would at least force the addicts to do that shit away from the public.
how would you enforce those rules you propose? and how do you think it would solve anything?
if you want to eliminate alcoholism/smoking then you'd have to travel back in time to before alcohol/nicotine was discovered (but I guess someone else would discover it sooner or later), now the cat is out of the bag and it would be impossible to enforce; and you shouldn't be making laws that cannot be enforced
To defend liberal democratic values of course...
I take it you proverbial joggers wish only to take conservative and/or right-leaning folk and turn them into anarchist-adjacent. This is the only logical move for such a retarded policy. I can't think of much else other than the tired tripe of "think of the children" boomer-tier Reagan-tier 1980's-tier "conservave" move. Sorry for only using American examples but I expect the world to be smarter than butter-guzzling cheeseburger-munching fatass crowd.
Any respectable White North American should have already made planes of moving north by now. There's no way in hell you can rationalize living in the Sonora Desert with the US FedGov at the helm who manages the US Colorado River // Lake Meade // US Hoover Dam.
You have to be functionally retarded to think otherwise.
>how do you think it would solve anything?
drugs fill a void that is created by somewhere else in your life. They don't get to the cause of your problems but rather dampen the symptoms.
Imagine what would happen to all the hobos in the streets. Most of them are alcoholics. None of them would have to live there because in the wect you get free monies from the state. Drugs are a bane of human existence that keep you from getting your life in order.
>how would you enforce those rules you propose?
start by taxing it to death. Make everything 2-3 times more expensive and keep on making it more expensive over the years. After a decade start to limit the places where it can be bought. Ban it from supermarkets. Maybe only let it be sold in bars. You can't take it home anymore. After another decade treat it like "hard drugs".
>A society should take care of its citizens. We could at least agree that a society should actively try to minimize drug use among its citizens.
And there's two solutions, how to accomplih that, yknow?
You're failing to think outside the box and realise that instead of nannying hard, you might instead want to - simply strip druggies of citizenship. That way, you have completely eliminated drug use among your citizens without doing anything.
And it's even more effective, because the people who are predisposed to becoming druggies, tend to develop bad habits anyway. So you have also improved your citizenry by allowing them to opt out of it.
Sounds lame. What would you do with all the non-citizens? They have nowhere to go.
Here is a creative solution: Give every citizen a the possiblity to use soft drugs once every two weeks and hard drugs once every 4 weeks. For that you create specific institutions where you can take those drugs. You are not allowed to take them home with you. Hopefully this would be enough for most people to get their fix once in a while while it would be too little to get seriously addicted. All other drug use beside that would be prohibited.
How do you like Schizospain swissy? Do you like him more or less than Paul since both of you don't have all their candles on the cake?
Sounds like it's time to set up a cigarette smuggling operation to New Zealand. Imagine how much money they'll pay for the cheapest Ukrainian Priljoe.
Creating secret smoke rooms in pubs and well just about any business there is. Bribe cops, judges, politicians, organize hits on rival tobacco mob families...