The problem with smoking in particular is that it costs taxpayers obscene amounts of money compared to the other things you listed, in addition to straining the healthcare system which affects people who didn’t intentionally poison themselves.
Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.
It already seems to be somewhat more fashionable than it was, say, ten years ago here in the UK, and in France it still seems like all the young people smoke.
The numbers are way down on thirty years ago, but I don’t think it’s ever going to go to zero on its own. Especially when the image of smoking is so embedded into parts of popular culture that aren’t likely to become less cool over time.
You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.
In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.
In 2048, it would be 40.
In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.
So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.
Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.
> Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
Don’t pivot. You claimed that I didn’t understand the law. Then you explained the law to me (thanks, by the way) exactly as I understood it.
> Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.
> The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?
Oh I see: if the law is implemented and there is no backfire effect for 65 years then how could there be a backfire effect! This is like arguing in 1920 that Prohibition won’t backfire since people in 2020 won’t remember what alcohol being legal was like.
> If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.
Oh give me a break! I am not changing my argument! I corrected your “correction” of how I “don’t understand” the law. That was the whole point of my comment.
You can have your “argument victory” for all I care.
That's not at all in their comment. Their comment even says if they get caught with the override on.
Filing a report would be interesting, although I'm not sure feasible it would be to track and intercept every vehicle filing a report. Not to mention, the habitual offenders will just use old cars without the tech, or bypass it.
It would be ridiculous if the car just shut down and stopped immediately. I really shouldn’t have to point out that it obviously doesn’t work this way.
In-vehicle breathalysers have existed for decades. They way they work is they give you a warning that the vehicle will shut off in X amount of time. Eg 5 minutes. The car doesn’t just shut off without warning leaving you without boosted brakes or power steering mid-corner.
With modern technology, most cars could also take over control from the driver when they deem safe to do so.
If you are driving like your life depends on it, you just go "Why is my car beeping at me?" and either don't worry about it, or try and figure out what is flashing on the dash, if you can spare the attention, speaking from experience, while drifting in empty corn fields, the car was beeping at me about a flat tire...
If your car just cuts off after beeping at you for something it has never beeped at you before for, you are likely to just continue straight on ... thus ending up exactly in the situation you say it won't work.
I’m just saying that’s how the old systems worked, as that was a limitation of the time.
A modern system doesn’t have to beep. It can tell you what it’s doing, in your language, visually on the dash and audibly. Also, there’s no reason a modern vehicle designed for this type of system needs to cut all power immediately. It could cut power or limit speed over a period of time, allowing the driver to safely pull over. And there’s no reason for it to ever cut power to steering or brakes.
I think a lot of people, yourself included, are having a visceral gut reaction instead of looking at this rationally. The people responsible for the safety of vehicles aren’t going to write a law that requires a vehicle to cut its steering and brakes while the driver is cornering, when there are so many alternatives that would be equally effective but safer. You need to take a step back and apply logic and common sense to the situation.
So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?
I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way.
Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?
Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.
Typically, the person responding to a question gets to decide their response. I hope that clears things up for you. I disagree with your conclusion, but yes, I will refuse to engage further.
There’s a common saying, “you can’t outrun a bad diet.”
I hate this saying so much. I can’t imagine how many people don’t bother to exercise because they already have a bad diet, read stuff like this, and think “what’s the point then” and give up. Despite the fact that exercising on a bad diet is so much better than not exercising on a bad diet.
Google pays creators out of the revenue they make from ads, and Google doesn’t make revenue from ads that were blocked. I think that would be fraud.
I think this is fair TBH. If you want Google to pay creators, but you also want to access YouTube for free without paying or viewing ads, something isn’t lining up.
This is why I let the ads roll. Even though it’s crumbs for the creator, if enough people do it, they do make money.
Same experience for me. The first video I watched after my premium sub expired, I was given two preroll ads. Then, 30 seconds into the video, an ad. Finally, at the end of the 5 minute video, another ad.
It was jarring. But I’m also not sure complaining is fair. Hosting and serving video is expensive. I definitely don’t expect to receive it for free.
I don't expect it for free either. But they already get my user data. This seemed to work well for the last 20 years.
Now they want my user data AND want me to pay on top by creating such a bad user experience for the free tier that one feels like Pavlov's dog being conditioned to wait for the "skip" button to appear to get the movie rewards.
It’s shocking because Alphabet is in the business of making money at the expense of their users. They aren’t building Chrome because they believe in the open web, they build it to extract every last cent out of us. Ad blockers cost them millions, perhaps even billions, a year. Despite having the ability to stop it, they allow it to occur. And that is shocking from a capitalistic point of view.
Every lithium battery in every device you’ve used has degraded. It’s not a manufacturing issue, it’s a chemistry issue.
If you haven’t had an issue, then you aren’t paying attention, or you don’t keep your devices for long enough for the degradation to be a problem. This doesn’t mean there’s no issue, this just means the issue doesn’t affect you personally.
A small change in charging habits could prolong the life of billions of devices, a huge win for the environment. You shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the idea just because you personally aren’t affected.
Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.