Meanwhile the LPC oppose the bill while the CPC would work to amend it.

  • off_brand_@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Flavored tobacco was literally marketed to children, to get them addicted to cigarettes from an early age. The “protect the children” arguments are often used to ban things that made no impact or even positive impact in children’s lives (DnD, sexual equality). Or it’s used to justify surveillance and overreach (porn bans and she verification laws)

    These aren’t equivalent.

    • kbal@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      If anyone’s claiming that any of these things is equivalent to another it isn’t me, but marketing campaigns aimed at children (for tobacco and in general) are also something we’d be better off without.

      • ebc@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Isn’t that already illegal? As far as I remember, ad breaks during my morning cartoons were either for other shows on the network or Swiffer and laundry detergent.

        • DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          It is illegal, but kids get most content online now. So, although many countries have laws on the books against ads targeting children, it doesn’t mean that they don’t.

          Juul got in trouble for doing this, using ads that were definitely not specifically targeting tweens/teens on websites for Seventeen magazine, cartoon network, and Nick jr.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsuit.html

          Edit: correction on the websites