World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Has prohibition ever worked? Wouldn't this just create a black market for selling tobacco?
Have you ever tried taking peoples coffee away at work. My office did that once a long time ago and it lasted all of a few hours, people literally refused to work until it was given back. It was hilarious to me since I make my own coffee at home and got to watch the chaos unfold fully caffeinated. I can’t imagine the inability to ~~work~~ function for nicotine addicts.
Their coffee isn't being taken away though, it's never being given to them in the first place.
Prohibition of the history tend to prohibit the sale of such substance for everyone, this one is kinda like a new-ish idea, merely prohibit people born after a certain year from ever purchasing tobacco, preventing them to even starting, or at least in theory. It however did not prevent people who already smoke from purchasing it. It's a less severe form of prohibition, akin to prohibition from selling to people younger than 18, no-smoking zone. Smoking decline in a lot of country didn't happened by chance, its a result from a shit tons of rule set on tobacco industry, short from blanket ban.
As for black market, you can't create something that's already exists.
There are quite a few Asian & Middle Eastern countries that have similar bans. A few Muslim countries have prohibition laws saying Muslims can't buy alcohol, but it's still legal for Christians, etc.
It's certainly not common, but less of a new idea than you might think. My knowledge runs out there, though - I genuinely don't know how well/poorly those kinds of laws perform even in those areas.
Imo, as someone living in a muslim country with alcohol sales ban on muslim only, there's nothing similar to this. For one, if the law isn't being amended later on, the sales ban will only and ever only imposed on muslim, prohibiting them from ever purchasing alcoholic drink. This has been a thing since the begining of Islam. What different from the generation ban is there's in no point in time alcohol would be prohibited to anyone. The generation ban on tobacco sales however will adjust the age of smoking up by one year, every year, automatically without amending the law, so by the time the last person born after a certain year dies the prohibition will only then take effect for everyone. This is what i mean it's new-ish, because it's not a hard blanket ban like everything we used to see, but a soft ban that slowly take effect in a time span of a few decades.
As for it being effective or not, if we compared to the alcoholic drinks ban for muslim, does it stop muslim from drinking? No. But does it significantly decrease it? Yes. It also mean it's significantly harder for muslim to be addicted to alcohol exactly because it's harder to obtain and consume it, they can't just walk into a store and get it, they have to get from other source.
Can you really judge how effective it is when we're talking about a cohort whose religion prohibits drinking alcohol? What % of those people were never going to try to buy it anyway?
While smoking isn't explicitly mentioned in the quran(because tobacco industry isn't much a thing back then), the religion basically said any substance that cause self harm or impede judgement is haram. Guess what tobacco is.
In Malaysia, tobacco use in 2023 is around 19.5%, if we then divide this using the current demographic which is 70% Muslim, around 13.65% of tobacco user who is also a muslim. That's the number of muslim that wilfully defy the islamic teaching and using substance that is considered harmful to one self. Yet when we look at alcoholic use the number is really minute to the point you will only read about it in the news, but never seen a drunk muslim. It's exactly because one substance is banned for them while another is not.
But you know what is also banned for muslim but it still so prevalent? Gambling. Here we have this lottery where people buy a 4 digits number and the prize is given if your number matched the drawn. Because this game is simply number and have no physical form, illegal bookie can appear anywhere, and it's so easily accessible that a lot of the bookie is set up just to serve muslim.
Depends what you mean by work. Before I finally quit for good, I had several attempts that failed. If I could drive for more than 30 seconds without passing a place where I could get smokes in less than a minute, I'm pretty sure one of the earlier attempts would have stuck. I sure as hell wouldn't have engaged in any black market activity to get them.
I'm not in favor of restricting other people's choices due to my lack of willpower, so I'm not in favor of bans. But if your definition of working is a very large percentage drop in smokers, it might work despite adding tobacco to the black market.
It would certainly be a lot harder to get pack-a-day addicted. It would probably be a more occasional indulgence for those that did get them.
The issue is that during the prohibition, the governement started selling poisoned alcohol on the black market. Its not wild to speculate that the government currently has a hand in all the fenanyl going around. The issue with banning it isnt that it works/doesnt, or that it limits people or anything like that. The issue is that when it is banned, there is no governmental oversight on ensuring the product is safe, and the government has every reason to poison those getting it from the black market. People are going to die over this in preventable ways.
I don't get the reasoning that "prohibition has never worked" and "there will be a black market".
Yes there will be, and a number of people will still smoke.
But it will be a minority of people that would normally smoke. It will also remove smoking from the public image.
I really can't imagine there being a larger number of smokers just because it's prohibited.
It can work if there's a safer legal alternative. Like theres a black market for moonshine but it's miniscule compared to the whole alcohol market because most people would rather go to a normal store and buy vodka instead cause they know what they're getting. Same with tobacco, they aren't banning all nicotine products, just smoking, so if the options are to smoke this probably contaminated tobacco you get off the black market or vape / chew nicotine products that have some quality assurance most people will choose the latter.
That's a good point - with a safer / more convenient alternative it no longer makes sense to get the prohibited item from a suspicious source.
I didn’t see much for alternatives mentioned in the article, so I'd imagine something like this would then boost other nicotine options like chewables or patches...? I'm curious to see where it goes. I can't help but think it just pushes the issue somewhere else rather than solving it.
It at least solves the problem of - those who don't want to inhale it having to inhale it along with the air they breathe.
If people want to fill their own bodies with random drugs that make them fake-happy, might as well let them.
Oh, and using peer pressure to make someone use drugs need to be in a similar category to assault.
You understand that they're not planning on cutting off people who already smoke, right?
You did actually read something and didn't just kneecirclejerk your response?
Is using a dictionary a "kneecirclejerk" response? If so, then I'll accept it:
Today You Learned - "Prohibition" is a law forbidding whatever. It does not imply it forbids everyone from the thing. The term is commonly used to describe alcohol prohibition, which usually takes the shape of a total ban on alcohol, so I understand how you could get so confused.
However, Iran only prohibits alcohol for Muslims. Sri Lanka only prohibits women from buying alcohol. Still prohibition. This article? It's about the Maldives introducing the prohibition of tobacco products to anyone born after a certain date.
"kneejerk". Or "circlejerk". Never heard of "kneecirclejerk".
~Not~ ~the~ ~person~ ~you~ ~are~ ~arguing~ ~with~
Me neither. Surely it's some kind of dance?