this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
56 points (100.0% liked)

World News

2030 readers
888 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Deceptichum@quokk.au
Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com
56
UK lawmakers approve lifetime smoking ban for today's under-18s (www.reuters.com)
submitted 19 hours ago by veggibles@lemmy.wtf to c/world@quokk.au
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Tobacco is considerably worse.

In any case, this doesn't appear to criminalize possession, which is the usual sticking point for people against drug prohibition.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Tobacco is considerably worse.

That isn't really a claim you can make without support of any kind.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Not a single source in that article actually quantifies the difference that you just described as "significant". Want to try again? Or do you just want to admit that you said a thing that seemed like it was true and then googled it for the first time when I asked you to?

I think the main point here is: why does this matter even if its true?

Either the state is in charge of forcing you not to buy things that are unhealthy or it isn't. If it is then there is no reason not to also ban Marijuana for the same reason even if it is "less bad" than tobacco. No one is arguing that its good for you. Why not bad refined sugar and caffein and thousands of other things that are bad for you?

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not a single source in that article actually quantifies the difference that you just described as “significant”. Want to try again? Or do you just want to admit that you said a thing that seemed like it was true and then googled it for the first time when I asked you to?

Holy fucking shit, did you not read even the first three paragraphs of the link

For example, federally funded research at the University of California, Los Angeles compared the lifetime risk of lung cancer among more than 2,000 long-term marijuana smokers, tobacco smokers, and non-smokers.

Investigators determined that those who regularly smoked cigarettes possessed a 20-fold higher lung cancer risk than non-smokers. Those who only smoked marijuana had no elevated risk.

Either the state is in charge of forcing you not to buy things that are unhealthy or it isn’t. If it is then there is no reason not to also ban Marijuana for the same reason even if it is “less bad” than tobacco. No one is arguing that its good for you. Why not bad refined sugar and caffein and thousands of other things that are bad for you?

You're absolutely right, time to abolish the FDA and go back to heroin cough syrup over-the-counter.

Imagine having such a childishly boolean view of the world.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Holy fucking shit, did you not read even the first three paragraphs of the link

Do you know what the word "quantify" means? Maybe look it up before you reply?

You’re absolutely right, time to abolish the FDA and go back to heroin cough syrup over-the-counter.

You know that the UK doesn't have the "FDA" right?

Imagine having such a childishly boolean view of the world.

Hilarious perspective from a person that forgot what country we are talking about.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Do you know what the word “quantify” means? Maybe look it up before you reply?

express or measure the quantity of:

20-fold higher

You know that the UK doesn’t have the “FDA” right?

I'm sorry that you don't understand that, when arguing from principle, the principle can be applied to various real-world examples to demonstrate absurdity? Your argument was explicitly about "the state", conceptually, not Britain specifically.

Since your own grasp on the English language is tenuous, considering your Dunning-Kruger moment above, I think this conversation is over.