But this isn’t am age limit, its using an age limit as a hack to basically grandfather in a smoking ban. It is about finding the right approach, and this ain’t it.
For the same reason prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, for the same reason the drug war didn’t work, for the same reason prescription requirements for medically useful narcotics doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter what the law is, people will make their own choices, and if the things are available, legally or not, people that want to use them will use them.
Look at the US. For all it’s faults, it has handled smoking very very well. The younger generation basically doesn’t smoke cigarettes. They’re not banned from it for life, they just were informed about it and so they find it disgusting and don’t really do it. You can’t even really get a date anymore with someone if you smoke cigarettes and you’re under like 40.
Whilst I agree with you in that I don’t think this is an optimal approach, at the same time I’m curious as to whether this would create a significant black market for cigarettes.
Anybody already addicted will continue to have access. Anyone not addicted has to overcome the barrier of acquiring it illicitly, which works in tandem with education about the harm it does.
Considering how bulky cigarettes are compared to most other drugs, I wonder whether most dealers would carry around loads of cigarettes - particularly if they’d be at risk of being prosecuted for having them (which I don’t think is the case here, though).
However, it would probably increase the rate at which weed is cut with tobacco as it increases the addictiveness and ensures customer dependency for the dealers.
But this isn’t am age limit, its using an age limit as a hack to basically grandfather in a smoking ban. It is about finding the right approach, and this ain’t it.
Why isn’t this it?
For the same reason prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, for the same reason the drug war didn’t work, for the same reason prescription requirements for medically useful narcotics doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter what the law is, people will make their own choices, and if the things are available, legally or not, people that want to use them will use them.
Look at the US. For all it’s faults, it has handled smoking very very well. The younger generation basically doesn’t smoke cigarettes. They’re not banned from it for life, they just were informed about it and so they find it disgusting and don’t really do it. You can’t even really get a date anymore with someone if you smoke cigarettes and you’re under like 40.
This really varies by state, based on the smoking policies. In Republican led states, smoking policies have led to shorter life spans.
Making things easily available increases their rates of use
Whilst I agree with you in that I don’t think this is an optimal approach, at the same time I’m curious as to whether this would create a significant black market for cigarettes.
Anybody already addicted will continue to have access. Anyone not addicted has to overcome the barrier of acquiring it illicitly, which works in tandem with education about the harm it does.
Considering how bulky cigarettes are compared to most other drugs, I wonder whether most dealers would carry around loads of cigarettes - particularly if they’d be at risk of being prosecuted for having them (which I don’t think is the case here, though).
However, it would probably increase the rate at which weed is cut with tobacco as it increases the addictiveness and ensures customer dependency for the dealers.
I got my first cigarette from a uda (local gang) dealer. So yes there would be a black market for cigs