[kenty]

Very happy to see this pass. It's idiotic that kids, while going to school, can be exposed to multiple tobacco ads that make tobacco appear as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable". These ads obviously work or else no company would do them.

The arguments used by the "No" lobby are: * slippery slope of meat and alcohol being banned in advertizing; when meat is not even a drug (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). * free market disruption; when smoking is obviously a harmful substance and this law applies to all of the competing tobacco companies. * little events like festivals, bars, and shops get less money; this is probably true but festivals can simply raise their prices a bit. For small owner-led shops, yes, less tobacco consumption => less sales and tobacco is a high-margin product.

It's a great example of direct democracy sometimes leading to better political decisions. It's easier for big tobacco to buy off just the legislators (whom actually made an extremely toned down counterproposal) than all of the public.

[nix23]

>as "cool" and "hip" and "desirable"

Like redbull aka sugar?

[kenty]

In general, two wrongs don't make a right.

Additionally for the given example: orange juice contains as much sugar as redbull, a cup of coffee as much (or even more, depending on the type) caffeine and the rest (Taurin, etc...) probably has no effect on the body at all.