Skip to content

Comment on New Zealand Bans Cigarette Sales to Everyone Born After 2008parent

Comments

> Prohibition perfectly illustrates the exact opposite of your argument

What do you think my argument is? For me it is not hard to imagine things ever happening when they already happened.

Trying to extrapolate how people would feel about a new law based solely on the existence of a similar law is disingenuous at best. You're ignoring that the law was massively unpopular, was seldom enforced, almost never respected, and it was the only amendment to have been repealed.

Saying that Americans would take a ban on tobacco because they banned alcohol doesn't hold up because alcohol was never actually banned. The law existed, yes, but alcohol was always available to pretty much everyone.

Repealing a constitutional amendment is massively difficult. That should tell you a lot about how Americans felt about it.

I'm saying prohibition is a perfect example of why Americans won't support a total ban on tobacco because it very explicitly and very definitively shows how much they did not support a total ban on alcohol. They hated the ban so much that they had to change the constitution. You can't get any more definitive than that.

> Repealing a constitutional amendment is massively difficult

But passing one isn't?

Massively unpopular?

Please tell me how a massively unpopular law ever becomes a constitutional amendment. It does not happen.

"Ratification was achieved on January 16, 1919 when Nebraska became the 36th of the 48 states to ratify the amendment. On January 29, acting secretary of state Frank L. Polk certified the ratification. By 1922, 46 states had ratified the amendment.

The following states ratified the amendment:

Mississippi: January 7, 1918

Virginia: January 11, 1918

Kentucky: January 14, 1918

North Dakota: January 25, 1918

South Carolina: January 29, 1918

Maryland: February 13, 1918

Montana: February 19, 1918

Texas: March 4, 1918

Delaware: March 18, 1918

South Dakota: March 20, 1918

Massachusetts: April 2, 1918

Arizona: May 24, 1918

Georgia: June 26, 1918

Louisiana: August 3, 1918

Florida: November 27, 1918

Michigan: January 2, 1919

Ohio: January 7, 1919

Oklahoma: January 7, 1919

Idaho: January 8, 1919

Maine: January 8, 1919

West Virginia: January 9, 1919

California: January 13, 1919

Tennessee: January 13, 1919

Washington: January 13, 1919

Arkansas: January 14, 1919

Illinois: January 14, 1919

Indiana: January 14, 1919

Kansas: January 14, 1919

Alabama: January 15, 1919

Colorado: January 15, 1919

Iowa: January 15, 1919

New Hampshire: January 15, 1919

Oregon: January 15, 1919

North Carolina: January 16, 1919

Utah: January 16, 1919

Nebraska: January 16, 1919

Missouri: January 16, 1919

Wyoming: January 16, 1919

Minnesota: January 17, 1919

Wisconsin: January 17, 1919

New Mexico: January 20, 1919

Nevada: January 21, 1919

New York: January 29, 1919

Vermont: January 29, 1919

Pennsylvania: February 25, 1919

New Jersey: March 9, 1922"

Massively unpopular.

That's your actual argument. Massively unpopular.

You're still hanging your entire argument on the mere existence of the law and ignoring the reality of the situation.

You should read into the history of the law, because the facts disagree with you.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.