this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
173 points (94.4% liked)

politics

19135 readers
3345 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Funny how often these changes target minorities first and then go no further

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is there a “predominantly white” flavor of cigarette? Can you explain how you would take steps to ban cigarettes, without “targeting minorities” and without an immediate outright ban?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn't take steps to ban cigarettes. Prohibition never stops people from doing what they want to do, usually makes things worse, and usually disproportionally affects minorities.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, okay. What steps towards making cigarettes less appealing to the general population would you take?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Stay the course. Smoking is trending down. Continue educational programs so everyone knows the risks, but ultimately leave it up to adults to make their own decisions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And yet, overall. Smoking reduction efforts in the US have been pretty effective.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How many of these smoking reduction efforts have banned cigarettes

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

One would think tobacco being criminalized would have been bigger news

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Well, since this isn't proposing "banning cigarettes", and nothing in the parent comments was about banning them outright (in fact the opposite was the point), then it made no sense that you would be asking about that.

I thought you meant banning SOME cigarettes (or ban smoking in some cases) which would have been way more relevant.

But there are many kinds of cigarettes that are banned (and this would be another one), and many scenarios where smoking is banned. Those sorts of things have been part of why smoking has dropped significantly, without outright banning.

Hence, you know, the context of the things you were replying to here.