10 ms·

Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

85 points by LaFolle 5y ago

evandwight 5y ago
2015
killallcommies3 5y ago
[flagged]
Ekaros 5y ago
Why do we still permit ethanol use?
- ufo 5y ago
  The article does address this question.
chernevik 5y ago
Because some people enjoy it, and it's a free country. Why is this even a question?
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > Why is this even a question? Again, the article explains: "I can vividly recall in the first couple of weeks into my first clinical rotation watching an elderly man with end-stage emphysema literally suffocate and die on my shift wearing just a venti mask. It was a clarion moment for me as a young health care professional even though I never smoked."
  - killallcommies3 5y ago
    again, suck a dick
  - ReptileMan 5y ago
    You have to die of something eventually. We are not immortal.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I think many people would like to see their loved ones live longer, healthier lives and die with relative comfort. That doesn't require being denial about their mortality.
      - ReptileMan 5y ago
        And yet the loved ones decision how to live their lives greatly outweigh what many people would like to see. Having more pleasurable life when young while trading for a more gruesome death after 80 is not that bad of trade off. There was a joke: - Drinking, smoking and whoring shorten your life with 6 years. - Which six? Between 92 and 98 - take it.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        I don't disagree. But it's also not clear why the government should incentivize individually cheap, collectively expensive personal decisions like current smoking patterns.
      - twofornone 5y ago
        Most people do not get the fortune of dying peacefully in their sleep, regardless of their health habits.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        Which doesn't, in itself, justify a particularly nasty form of death for hundreds of thousands of people. Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
      - febeling 5y ago
        Many people would like to see their loved ones live in freedom, too. That means in probably almost 100% of the cases making sub-optimal decisions.
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    Elderly man -- had possibly lived a good life. Why is this even a question. People can do what they want. In every other western country outside of the US, you might be able to argue that since Medicare is provided free by the state that it is an unfair load on the system -- but in the US -- you absolutely don't have that argument available in your pocket. Sorry. So -- to each his own.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      I like this straightforward argument and an honest stance. I think it is OK for Gov to provide warnings to people. Put nutrition labels. Even Tax things to a certain degree (need to put limits on how much). But, prohibiting access is crossing the line.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      I didn't even express agreement with the quote. OP asked a question. The answer to that question is given right in the VERY short article.
    - cossatot 5y ago
      The article is from the Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy and is about Canada.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Smoking doesn't only impact the smoker. Second hand smoke is dangerous too. That's why there is regulation on where it's permitted. Costs to health care system also impact everyone. Though in the USA private insurers are starting to pass on some of the costs to smokers. And it could be argued that smokers often die young enough to offset health care costs of later life.
      - systemvoltage 5y ago
        > Second hand smoke is dangerous too. This is why we've banned smoking in restaurants and have designated areas. That's enough Government intervention although my personal take on this would be to leave it up to restaurants to manage this decision. If they don't want smokers in their restaurants, they can choose to ban them. If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking. This is a bilateral choice for a non-essential service (restaurants). But, we've handed over the power to Gov in this case. Too late. I would be OK for Gov to mandate a sign outside the restaurant that informs customers if it is smoking/non-smoking as it would be horrible if you sit down for a meal and all of a sudden someone next to you just lights a Cigarette.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 63 5y ago
  The article is specifically speaking about Canada. I suppose Canada is a free country too, though.
  - tastyfreeze 5y ago
    Somewhat less free than the US. They do have government healthcare. That means unhealthy habits are a drain on government. To cut cost it is natural to look at high cost of care conditions that could be prevented. The government has to increase taxes or make things illegal to control cost. I see that as a problem with government healthcare. It will always result in either higher taxes or a restriction on behavior.
- __turbobrew__ 5y ago
  In Canada (where the article is authored) there is universal healthcare. The health effects of smoking burden the healthcare system and therefore other Canadian citizens. In the US healthcare system I have less a problem with smoking since you will have to pay for the healthcare on your own.
nikkinana 5y ago
Because Dr. Falsie hasn't banned it yet. He was a hero on AIDS and now COVID (I mean the common cold) virus.
elephanlemon 5y ago
As a cigar smoker I really hate articles like this. Not everyone that uses tobacco smokes 20 cigarettes per day. Cigar smoking in moderation (all the way up to one cigar per day) has been shown to be a fairly minimal risk multiplier for cancer. And many cigar smokers such as myself smoke much less than this. Same goes for some other types of tobacco usage as well. Last I checked, the correlation between cancer and nasal snuff usage among non-smokers is extremely limited. Here’s a fun remark from one study: “ The last reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer of the nose was described by John Hill in 1761. We describe here a case of a 69-year-old woman who developed a nasal vestibular malignancy after 30 years of snuff usage, and this, we believe, is the only reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer in the last 2 centuries.” As far as “no health benefit” goes, I would disagree. Smoking a cigar is a highly relaxing activity that I very much enjoy. I am sure that it is good for my mental health.
- jrlocke 5y ago
  > Cigar smoking in moderation (all the way up to one cigar per day) has been shown to be a fairly minimal risk multiplier for cancer Honestly curious about this one, do you have a source?
  - perfecto_maduro 5y ago
    not op, but maybe this one? https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/fda-study-cancer-risks-nearly-nil-for-1-2-cigars-per-day https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/fda-study-cancer...
- nmpennypacker 5y ago
  I'm a cigar smoker as well and I think it's unfortunate that cigars are often lumped in with other tobacco products.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jppope 5y ago
Totalitarians are creeping into academia more and more. Little to no nuance in their understanding of human behavior or what allows free societies to function. We all maybe cracking jokes and pointing out flaws in the argument... but the real problem here is that this is a real paper, and a real view being given real consideration
BrS96bVxXBLzf5B 5y ago
> Tobacco smoking has no health benefits. None. It can be argued that nicotine, one of the thousands of compounds in tobacco smoke, can have positive effects on some cognitive functions and may even confer some neuroprotection (1), but getting nicotine from tobacco products may be likened to sucking on a tail pipe to get oxygen – it’s there but it’s not going to do you any good. I'm sorry for their personal experience but leading with "there are zero health benefits", immediately following up with "there might be benefits" and then continuing completely disregarding that point is irresponsible. Without interjecting my own opinion, two points I feel are underdiscussed regarding this issue: - as the author mentions there are studies on the cognitive benefits, many mental health patients self-medicate with tobacco including 80% of those diagnosed with schizophrenia - overshadowed cultural aspects. Millennia of pre-20th century tobacco use, its role and impact (positive and negative) in societies, religion, and spirituality is much different than we've experienced over the last hundred years
- Zababa 5y ago
  You're mixing tobacco and nicotine. There are ways to get nicotine in you without consuming tobacco. I know at least of nicotine gums and nicotine patches.
  - buttercraft 5y ago
    Okay, but if you acknowledge that nicotine has benefits and that tobacco contains nicotine, it makes no sense to say that tobacco has no benefits.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      No health benefits. You're missing the key word in that statement.
  - BrS96bVxXBLzf5B 5y ago
    On the first point, yes, health benefits may be mostly related to nicotine, but you wouldn't declare an apple useless just because other sources have the fiber and vitamins without the excess sugar.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 5y ago
You could construct an equivalent argument about bacon.
- andybak 5y ago
  Anyone can throw in a silly comparison but it doesn't really help. I'm fairy certain you're smart enough to reflect on the nuance that this topic deserves. Some bad things are legal. Some bad things aren't. It's a complex thing for society to weigh up and the linked article attempts to contribute to that discussion.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    I'm not being glib. This article is premised on the idea that because there are no health benefits to tobacco (none.), it has no value whatsoever. But it clearly does have value: it is a source of pleasure for a large number of people. Pleasure has value. People shouldn't smoke, it makes perfect sense to vice-tax it to offset the externalities, and nobody should valorize the companies profiting from those externalities. But the reason we "permit" it is because we have no business not permitting it: we have centuries of experience showing that, unlike opiates and methamphetamine, there is no risk of tobacco destabilizing society. It's a comically weak argument. It could, as I just said, be applied just as readily to bacon.
    - andybak 5y ago
      > unlike opiates and methamphetamine Here you're picked the extremes to make your point stronger. There's plenty of prohibited substances and behaviours that are much closer to the gray area that this article is pondering on. I don't have a clear view on this topic myself - but there's too many people in this thread claiming that it's absurd to even have the discussion - which I think is lazy and disingenuous.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        Name a prohibited substance that (1) poses no threat of destabilizing society or the health care system, (2) has centuries of cultural context, and (3) isn't on the verge of being legalized right now, like cannabis and psilocybin. The imminent legalization of psilocybin makes my argument for me. It was an argument isomorphic to the one this anti-smoking piece made that banned it in the first place. And as a society, we're charting a course in the opposite direction of that argument, because, it turns out, that argument was dumb.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
willcipriano 5y ago
> However, there is no moderation in tobacco. There is no level at which tobacco smoke is safe for the consumer or the people around them or, as we are seeing, even those who are exposed in a tertiary environment. I've used tobacco products perhaps from 0 - 5 times a year from adulthood on. While not "safe", pretty low risk. I have the same relationship with caffeine and alcohol. Nothing can be all that enjoyable if you do it everyday. I've often thought of a sort of "vice license", at the age of authority you can apply for a license that you need to buy things like alcohol and tobacco. Everybody gets one that applies and is of age. Then you can voluntarily choose to limit access to a particular vice, and if you are a danger to others a court could limit your access as well. Casinos already have this model, it's called self-exclusion[0]. It seems like the most humane solution that allows people to still be adults. [0]https://gamban.com/blog/ban-yourself-from-online-gambling https://gamban.com/blog/ban-yourself-from-online-gambling
- ravi-delia 5y ago
  You know what, that's the first good plan I've seen for handling the issue.
  - jondwillis 5y ago
    Would love to give myself a vice ban occasionally.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      In a perfect world I'd be able to set a weekly calorie limit. Charge me double the cost and send the overage to the charity of my choice for any food over the limit. A government body limiting who can buy food isn't really a good idea, so it only works in utopia. It could work for non-essentials though.
      - ThalesX 5y ago
        I order from a service that provides me nutritionist-built meals every day; in the morning, I get exactly 2000kcal spread out across 3 meals and 1 snack. I also drink protein yogurt reaching around 2350kcal so that's my daily intake (and I guess calorie limit) with balanced macro and micronutrients. What this means is that I am aware that anything above these meals is too much for me. Do I still do it? Yes, but I have an unhealthy relationship with food.
lunias 5y ago
Prohibition to the rescue! We all know prohibition has the consumer at heart. I'm sure smoking tobacco post-prohibition will be much safer and more equitable for everyone!
- rwmj 5y ago
  It'll certainly be a lot more profitable!
cproctor 5y ago
Well this thread finally convinced me to set showdead=no in my profile. It's scary to see how much damage a few accounts can do to the erosion of discourse on this site, and especially to think I'm reasonable in worrying that some of them are state or corporate sock puppets. I am grateful to the site moderators and to other community members (in downvoting bad-faith comments) for asserting our shared valuation of this discourse space.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
11235813213455 5y ago
That's also what I sometimes say to smokers "it has no benefit at all, only drawbacks, it's just an addiction and you can decide to stop if you understand it's damaging" (my mother died at 63 from lung cancer), and there are many subjects here in France. It's also quite annoying to breath that smoke anywhere outside. That's one of the things I hope will change, along with noise (cars, motorcycles as someone living near a street, and using a bicycle) and pollution, and overconsumerism
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. As a pothead, I find this line of reasoning offensive. As a scientist, I'd like to observe that their opening claim that tobacco has no medical benefits is hard-false; it's by far the most effective known medication for schizophrenia, by example, helps with crohn's, helps with IBS, et cetera. Alcohol is far worse for us than tobacco. So is white sugar. This person is just plying a grudge.
SMAAART 5y ago
As an ex-smoker at times I wonder the same, but I know the answer: governments the world over are addicted to the tax revenue from tobacco production and consumption.
ThinkBeat 5y ago
One can make much the same argument regarding alcohol. It is a potent neurotoxin. Drink too much of it, you die. (Alcohol Poisoning / OD) Drink it too often the liver will have issues. For one Alcohol metabolizes into Acetaldehyde which is an even more potent poison. Usually, the liver takes care of it, but if there is too much and too often the liver can't deal with it all. Acetaldehyde is said to damage the DNA. It is also linked to developing cancer. There are many studies that claim drinking in moderation is healthy for you. Mostly that deals with chemicals contained for instance in wine but not related to the Alcohol All that is something that happens to your body. Whilst smoking annoys everyone who must smell it. However, the overall cost of the abuse of alcohol to society is enormous. Aside from the physical damage it does, it is a huge contributing factor to sexual harassment, rape, domestic abuse, violence, child abuse (in so many ways), car crashes, homicide, impaired judgement. An argument can be made that the impact of alcohol on society is much worse than tobacco. Still alcohol is a popular poison. The last time the US tried to ban it, it didn't work out too well. It is ingrained in culture in many places and many ways. Personally, I think weed is much safer than alcohol. I do prefer people have it in ways that do not impact others. Walking around smelling weed smoke is not that great. I have always said that people should be allowed more of a choice in how to get high/drunk/euphoric/relax. Now we have weed so that gives people a choice. I think MDMA and LSD should also be legal. (But made legally in safe and pure forms)
throwaway_2009 5y ago
Is universal healthcare important enough to cede control over what we put into our own bodies? That's the only important question. As far as I'm concerned the answer is definitionally no, and I live in the UK where we arguably have it. It's an endless rabbit hole of authoritarianism. Ban cigarettes, ban sugar in high concentration, ban fast food, mandate vaccines. If we find out that taking an aspirin a day improves health outcomes - mandate that too. Ban unprotected sex - just use phone cameras to enforce it or whatever. There is literally no end to it because if we only take into account the one metric "does this thing affect aggregate health outcomes" you can justify banning anything. I'm sure someone will read this and get grumpy that I've mentioned vaccination. I have three, they're ace. The idea of authoritarian policy is that you don't have a choice; your opinion is truly irrelevant. I don't think its' proponents often hold that in the forefront of their mind, they only focus on "well, right now I'm on the popular side" or whatever.
Zigurd 5y ago
The numbers here do not add up. Here (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/index.htm) CDC says the US spends $225 billion/year on treating tobacco related disease. In the article the authors claim US tobacco tax revenue is $2.81 billion. But here )https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/federal-tobacco-tax-revenue-ff-08312020 https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/federal-tobacco-...) the number is about $12 billion. Nevertheless, tobacco is a very large, very bad problem, but it also seems like patches and vapes for delivering nicotine could put a big dent in tobacco use, and cut a lot of the ill effects, maybe in the amount of tens of billions each year. I would guess if there was a reduced harm form of alcohol health experts would be all over it. Yet I see no PSAs that overtly tell smokers to vape or use nicotine gum. Such a message could be placed on every pack of cigarettes. Because there is a low cost alternative to cigarettes, why not tax cigarettes even more than they are taxed now, offer vapes as an alternative, and see how much progress can be made using simple, obvious measures.
EverydayBalloon 5y ago
What makes people think a bureaucracy deserves that kind of control over individuals?
rapsacnz 5y ago
New Zealand has just banned it using a rolling age locked technique - starting from next year. This means that anyone 14 and under in NZ will never be legally able to by tobacco.
tedajax 5y ago
Smoking is bad but prohibition is worse. Being subjected to the carcercal system is worse for your health than smoking.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Being subjected to the carceral system is indeed bad for your health, but there's a gap here: you haven't explained why banning smoking means we have to put people in prison. I would have thought to just fine them, or tax purchases out of existence. No need for shackles.
  - tedajax 5y ago
    How do people pay fines? If they are unable to pay what are the penalties? You also just created a black market for people who still want to smoke and that'll produce all kinds of fun.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      There's already a massive black market for people who want to smoke in the form of tax stamp fraud. It used to be even bigger than it currently is, but there are two forces working against it: the overall decline of organized crime starting in the 1980s, and the overall decline in the number of smokers. Black markets are a reality under current economic conditions, and they're a reality even in completely legal markets (there's always someone willing to pay XX% less in exchange for YY% more legal risk). Putting extreme taxes and/or fines on smoking might pour gas on that market, but long-term trends just don't support its survival. And as for fines: we already have a legal structure for that[1]. [1]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/garnishments https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/garnishments
      - tedajax 5y ago
        The knock on effects of fines and the damage the systems cause when someone can't pay a fine are far worse than the effects of smoking.
PhileinSophia 5y ago
Only a power lusting authoritarian can write something like this. Leave people to live their own lives and make their own choices.
novosel 5y ago
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  Because we need oxygen to live. A less absurd question might be "why do we still permit gambling and alcohol", which the article addresses: > One of the main arguments for the continuance of tobacco sales is that the government should not dictate what vices the public engages in. This is a valid point. Alcohol and gambling are restricted but not prohibited; fast food is unrestricted (although New York City [USA] attempted the restriction of soft drink sizes but failed miserably); and, although government intervention is on the rise, few are protesting access to these products. These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. We need gasoline, we need to eat even if we occasionally do so at fast food restaurants, alcohol in moderation has benefits and gambling in moderation is entertaining for some. However, there is no moderation in tobacco. There is no level at which tobacco smoke is safe for the consumer or the people around them or, as we are seeing, even those who are exposed in a tertiary environment (I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with the article, but I'm not sure how parent comment contributes anything to this post.)
  - oconnor663 5y ago
    > These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. Yes, that is a distinction that is true, but that is not why alcohol and gambling are permitted. It seems to me like the author is trying to brush this question aside rather than really engaging with it. (Agreed that the oxygen comment isn't very helpful, and just responding to the part you quoted.)
  - novosel 5y ago
    Fair point, it was stated in an ironic mode, but, I think, help's bringing a wider context in play.
killallcommies3 5y ago
[flagged]
sponaugle 5y ago
And this is why we can't have nice things... because "we" don't "permit it". How does someone even write this sentence? Did they glance over at their crown, which says "King We", and think "thou shall not smoke!"?
- andybak 5y ago
  Well. There's plenty of things that are illegal. How far down the libertarian rabbit hole are you prepared to go?
  - dvdkon 5y ago
    You don't even need to go that deep. Does tobacco hurt others? Except for smokers costing the state more on average, which should never be a crime by itself, not really. I don't like cigarette smoke and think we should take obnoxious smells more seriously, but the logical conclusion is not banning tobacco use.
    - sponaugle 5y ago
      Agreed. The idea that the 'concept of banning' is a rabbit hole should not prevent actually talking about the concepts. To say something should be banned with such unsubstantiated arguments and complete disregard to the actual outcome is ridiculous.
  - grishka 5y ago
    Things that don't endanger other people or their property should never be illegal in the first place. Your body is your property and yours only. You should be able to do with it whatever the hell you please. The only open question here is who pays for any healthcare needs resulting from any self-inflicted damage to one's health.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      It's only an open question because the government has inserted itself into the healthcare delivery business. If "we" were not paying for other people's health care, "we" would not need to care what they did or didn't do with regards to their own bodies.
EamonnMR 5y ago
Because laws match social rules, not the other way around?
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
I enjoy the plant. I grow it in my garden for the beautiful scented flowers, and then I dry it or buy higher quality pipe tobacco and smoke it in my pipe in the summer and fall. Or a nice cigar when I'm on vacation in a warm place. The industrial cigarette product.. yeah that's something else. Gross. But I don't see how the two can be reasonably separated from each other, though, and how you can realistically police cigarette consumption. You'll just end up with a black market. Seems like the current approach in western countries of high taxation and intensive education and regulation is (slowly) working.
- 63 5y ago
  You've hit upon the article's exact thesis.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Not really, I read the article and saw the thesis, and I took exception to the "tobacco has no benefit", hence what I was saying about the beauty of the plant and the pleasure of some of the product. Many things have no benefit when taken from that same angle of medical analysis. The tobacco plant has benefits like many other pleasures, and a long social history on this continent of North America and in this region, among the people who were here before my people. Despite people's dubious health claims about anti-oxidants and resveratrol, wine also has "no benefit" when taken from this angle. Alcohol generally, beyond its anti-septic/cleansing properties. But it has at least a 10,000 year history of pleasurable and social use, like tobacco. It just has to be taken in the right context and the culture around it one of education and management of risks and context.
    - 63 5y ago
      >"So there is the conundrum: tobacco has no benefit, yet it can’t be outlawed. So, as a society, and as health care professionals specifically, we are driven to what remains for us to use as tools for smoking cessation: rational or emotional arguments, structured cessation programs, drugs, patches, e-cigarettes and gum, among others. And these are working, albeit slowly." >"But I don't see how the two can be reasonably separated from each other, though, and how you can realistically police cigarette consumption. You'll just end up with a black market. Seems like the current approach in western countries of high taxation and intensive education and regulation is (slowly) working." The above conclusion in the article and your conclusion in your comment are identical was all I meant.
jmclnx 5y ago
Well, one thing to consider, seems these days, it is OK to smoke marijuana but not tobacco. So, I believe until it is illegal to put 'smoke' into your lungs, anything goes. But, as some US businesses are doing, increase Medical Costs for people who smoke anything. Hard to verify since I know of a few people who lie about smoking to avoid the increased rates. At least that is a start.
- klarstrup 5y ago
  What are some examples/places you've seen that have simultaneously allowed marijuana smokeing but discouraged tobacco smoking? In my country the signs are just "no smoking" they don't say what
  - throwaway277432 5y ago
    "Coffee shops" in Amsterdam had this rule when I was there. Only tobacco was specifically outlawed indoors.
  - jmclnx 5y ago
    I have seen people public smoking to leave or get a ticket with a small fine. I have yet to see that for marijuana. Also peer pressure, marijuana OK, tobacco not.
retrac 5y ago
In 1994, the Canadian federal government reduced its tobacco excise tax. Quite a lot too, nearly 50%. It wasn't a libertarian whim, or the desperate power grab of a cigar-lover. The black market was rampant. About 30% nationally approaching nearly 100% in some communities. (Clever: you can measure the rate by collecting butts from public ashtrays and the street.) Prohibition doesn't eliminate demand. And in the Canadian context, with a border with the USA and with some indigenous communities being exempt from federal excise taxes and who use tobacco in religious ceremonies, effectively prohibiting the black market trade seems daunting, both pragmatically and politically. It also raises the old question: are the harms of the substance or the harms of prohibition worse?
- gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
  I don't know if there's provincial taxes or anything, but a similar dynamic happens in the US, there's arbitrage smuggling between states with different taxes. A bit dated, in the link the negative states are one where cigarettes are net flowing out of the state, so you can see where they are going and coming from. At first, I was going to state that it would be interesting to compare organized crime trafficking tobacco to other drugs where there is no long running commercial history. But then I saw the southern border states are theorized high in importing smuggled cigarettes. So either wyoming, idaho, and nevada are supporting the whole western US, or some of it's coming up from mexico. 2012 https://taxfoundation.org/cigarette-taxes-and-cigarette-smuggling-state https://taxfoundation.org/cigarette-taxes-and-cigarette-smug... 2017 paper arguing tax increases do not exacerbate this https://tobacconomics.org/uploads/misc/2017/11/2017-generic-smuggling-report.pdf https://tobacconomics.org/uploads/misc/2017/11/2017-generic-...
  - retrac 5y ago
    Oh yes. there's absolutely analogies to that here. It's more common with liquor. Quebec has substantially lower taxes than Ontario and there's a major city straddling the border. Both ordinary individuals and bar owners do routine runs to Quebec to stock up. This is illegal, but given the unrestricted internal border, is about as likely to be caught as interstate smuggling in the USA.
temp8964 5y ago
Is "Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy" a legit academic journal? This paper sounds more like a rant to be posted on reddit than a scholar paper to be published on a legit journal. The author jumped from "Tobacco smoking has no health benefits" to "tobacco has no benefit". Seriously, this shouldn't even get passed for a high school writing class.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Seems to be the journal for the Canadian respiratory therapists’ national association. So I wouldn’t call it illegitimate, but it’s a small field in a small country that’s largely bedside rather than academic, so filling the pages may be a struggle.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
beloch 5y ago
"Our governments collect $2.81 billion in tobacco sales taxes federally (2), which is >1% of all federal government spending in 2013 (3) ... However, the direct and indirect cost of lung cancer, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada is $12.0 billion (2012 figure), of which smoking is considered to be the number one cause (4). That’s not a good trade-off, even if you only consider it economically." Tobacco sales taxes show up in the current fiscal year, while chronic respiratory health costs show up decades down the road. Governments tend to be better than corporations at prioritizing long-term concerns over short-term accounting. However, there is substantial demographic that opposes regulations on narcotics. Specific ones, at least. Look at how popular legalizing cannabis was in Canada over the last decade. Smoking pot is the most popular form of delivery for that narcotic and it's likely going to prove to have many of the same long-term consequences as smoking tobacco. Nonetheless, Canada legalized it. Doctors raised concerns and were ignored. The public willed it, and politicians don't stay politicians by ignoring the public's will. Why do we still permit tobacco use? Because politicians have the power to prohibit it, not doctors. Perhaps the doctors espousing prohibition don't have the right of it either. Narcotics have been a part of human existence across the globe for all of recorded history. Although many people successfully abstain from them, narcotics seem to fill a basic human need. Research on safe, enjoyable recreational drugs is virtually nonexistent. Perhaps we should focus on filling that human need while minimizing the side-effects. To put it another way, with all the medical and pharmacological advances we've made in the last century, does it really make sense that people are still sucking on burning leaves to get high?
- k12sosse 5y ago
  The prohibition of the sale of cigarettes, ready to smoke, would be a good start. Treat it like weed, buy it loose-leaf, roll your own. That way people still have their freedom and it's not so easy to "just have another one" when you're a kid. Also since legalization, I've eaten more weed than I smoke, the freedom to grow means I have surplus to bake with and experiment with. My inhalation is near 0. (Smoked weed and cigarettes for 18 years). Stopped smoking cigarettes thanks to "vaping" and weed thanks to "baking". Just because people are allowed to have it doesn't mean we should let them buy 25-packs, ready to go.
throwaway984393 5y ago
Tobacco has been grown and used both socially and ceremonially by native American cultures for thousands of years. I get that generally we white western Americans don't give a shit about native cultures, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge the indigenous heritage that literally all tobacco comes from and is still used in today. Personally I like cigars and hookah. I smoke maybe once a year. I'm not saying millions of people should die just so I can smoke, but I'd be fine with chewing tobacco and cigarettes being banned, while indigenous and more ceremonial / social forms of tobacco are kept.
- codr7 5y ago
  Why should anything be banned? If it's ok to smoke once a year using whatever kind of delivery method, it's going to have to be ok to do whatever the hell you feel like with it. Banning people from growing/harvesting/consuming plants is just silly, it's one of many ideas we will eventually have to let go of, because it makes no sense.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
klarstrup 5y ago
Yeah it's weird how there seems to be so little institutional support for regulating low-risk psychoactive substances like nicotine(and caffeine). Stimulants that increase alertness and enhances concentration, very useful for productivity.
savant_penguin 5y ago
CaptArmchair 5y ago
Because tobacco use is deeply engrained in culture, economy, politics, etc. There are tons of social and economical interests tied into all of that. Tobacco use has a long history. Archeological finds indicate that humans in the Americas began using tobacco as far back as 12,300 years ago, thousands of years earlier than previously documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco Also, society doesn't consist of people who all share the same mindset or the same faculties to come to a particular notion. There's a wild amount of diversity which defines people's identity. It is said that you can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into. If you were raised in an environment with tobacco use, there's a high likelihood you're going to be a smoker from a young age as well. Wholesale prohibiting tobacco use sounds like an easy fix. But it really isn't. Prohibitionism as a legal philosophy has its fair share of criticism as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitionism Consider the complex history of Prohibition in the U.S. during the 1920s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat... That doesn't mean tobacco, alcohol or any other drug consumption is problematic. It very much is, and it comes with immense suffering and a massive societal cost which shouldn't be ignored. But instead of approaching consumption as a singular law enforcement issue, the bigger challenge is to approach the education, healthcare, social, culture and economical issues that lead to the promotion of such consumption. Even then, it's a pipedream to assume that the entirety of humanity will ever stop using tobacco. Or other substances for that matter.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
scythe 5y ago
Does freedom have inherent value, or does it have to lead to something else in order to be valuable? This editorial seems to assume the latter. For example, it suggests that the sole justification for alcohol legality is that it can have benefits in moderation. Notwithstanding the dubiousness of this claim, does anyone really believe that is why alcohol is legal?
- js8 5y ago
  > Does freedom have inherent value, or does it have to lead to something else in order to be valuable? If you assume the first then you're a fundamentalist. In order to compare different moral values, we need to look at what they lead to in practice, and weigh that. So the abstract "freedom" doesn't cut it, you need to be able to say, what is the practical benefit of such freedom? So that we could compare it with practical disadvantages of the freedom, in case of smoking, things like people getting addicted and less healthy, and Philip Morris shares decreasing in value.
  - scythe 5y ago
    >If you assume the first then you're a fundamentalist. Apparently your opinion is that I should be dismissed out of hand as a "fundamentalist". >So the abstract "freedom" doesn't cut it, you need to be able to say, what is the practical benefit of such freedom? This is the conceit I intended to highlight, yes.
    - js8 5y ago
      > Apparently your opinion is that I should be dismissed out of hand as a "fundamentalist". I don't know, do you hold the position that abstract freedom is valuable, regardless of the real-world consequences? In any case, I think giving you an option to change your mind is not a dismissal. :-) I don't think anything is valuable in itself, without a real-world context. The story of Midas' gold illustrates that. And when we think about the practical context, we find that lots of freedoms (for starters, the ones in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) are actually valuable in most circumstances. But that doesn't mean we can generalize it to freedom to do anything is valuable in all contexts, which I think is a logical consequence of attributing value to freedom in the abstract.
air7 5y ago
This is one of my favorite questions in the area of social/moral governance. Put more generally: How much should we protect people from themselves? In the not-so-distant past, I'm guessing, the answer to that for most people was: Very little. After all, adults are capable and expected to make rational choices and do so every day; for themselves, and the people they cate about. So giving them more options is just helpful... But the past few decades have perhaps opened our eyes. From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use. It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. At least when they are put up aginst corporations who employe armies of professional mind hackers whos sole job is to make them lose the battle. So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law. And still, though we've realized the stakes are higher than we first thought, the right moral choice is unclear. Perhaps the idea of protecting ourselves from commercial predetors should be seen as childishly quixotic as the idea of protecting Deer from lions. Especially since the "Lions" are us too. We (though in smaller numbers) are also the benefactors of these questionable actions. But then again, no one likes to be prohibited from doing what they want, and that's a great, and fairly new, right that we have (with restrictions of course). We should be quick to hamper it. Good question...
- akira2501 5y ago
  > From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use. That new inventions often have a negative impact shouldn't be surprising, but I think it's worthwhile to try to set this against all the positive aspects. I remember life before mobile phones, and from my perspective, they have provided far greater benefits than harms. Wide access to GPS and maps, instant access to emergency communications, and many applications that improve productivity and quality of life are far better explanations of why these devices have become so prevalent. > It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. Has it? I feel that this is a refelction of them not very good at "following the agenda of the elites," but that's hardly the same thing as not being rational. As a counter example, there are more guns than people in the United States, yet there are only around 12,000 murders per year. From that view, we're exceptionally good at being rational and exhibiting self control. Likewise, we travel trillions of miles on our roads, and they're not the complete disaster that you would expect from a population that's largely unable to self-regulate. Similarly, general aviation is a thing that exists, and while it may seem largely regulated you would be surprised to learn exactly how much latitude a GA pilot has in operating their aircraft. > So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law. If that's the case.. why wouldn't you punish the abusers, rather than preempt the freedom of individuals? One is definitely a problem, the other _might_ be a problem. It seems like putting the cart before the horse to approach the problem in this way.
rrdharan 5y ago
“Secondhand Smoke isn’t as bad as we thought” https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/secondhand-smoke-isnt-as-bad-as-we-thought.html https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/secondhand-smoke-isnt-a...
imwillofficial 5y ago
“Why do we still permit McDonalds use?”
sebow 5y ago
As it says there, nicotine is not that harmful, at all.It's mostly the vast majority of other sh*t that makes up a cigarette that makes "tobacco"[whatever the hell you understand by tobacco actually] harmful.Cigs/Cigars don't have this problem, granted you usually don't inhale them in lungs, or at least you're not supposed to. Just because it's mainstream and overall damaging to the health over long periods of time doesn't mean we should ban or restrict it's use.No, not even in public spaces.Maybe if there were a referendum then yes, but usually people won't really ban something if it's really a problem or danger to society. Tobacco is a problem/danger to the individual and not to society at large.I can't say that it was ever addictive to me ever for a number of reasons: usually expensive, they make things smell, and it's not really something that you enjoy most of the time,especially alone. But the biggest thing that made me "quit" smoking(or at least dropped it significantly for me, to a lower level than "socially smoking") is when i first started going to the gym more seriously.You notice how your energy level drop and other things aswell(greasy skin,lower fertility,etc).Why not promote sports more actively?It will have more effect than these restrictive initiatives, to a degree that smoking is not even than harming when you do sports.Do you need to ban it because it can become a vice and lower lifespan?No, that's stupid(besides the fact that it erodes responsability in society).Tobacco is a decent substance that can be consumed socially, compared to others. The nicotine itself actually relaxes you and 90% of the time people smoke is to forget the stress of the moment.Also the damage to the lungs is vastly overblown. Lungs recover pretty fast actually if you don't "burn" them with smoke.If i recall it was one week of smoking is recovered somewhere between a month and 3 months, with obvious factors: air quality, degree of smoking,etc. Here's a better idea than this "karen" mentality: improve the quality of tobacco: focus on the nicotine,you have to keep the smoke(you really can't get rid of the aspect, people have been inhaling for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, and it won't go away: it's a very direct path to the brain chemistry) and finally,obviously: get rid of the bad substances.
throwawayboise 5y ago
It's a plant; it's not going away. Some people like to dry the leaves and smoke it. If those people are adults, leave them alone.
riffic 5y ago
so I just watched the Get Back documentary and one of the thoughts I had is that the amount of cigarettes smoked in the production of a Beatles album likely had an effect on the band's creative output (spoilers - there was a lot of smoking, lol). I'm not saying that I would want to be exposed to any of that second hand smoke myself or that I would want to get addicted to the substance, but there's something that was part of that magic formula that affects the mindset of an artist.
jhallenworld 5y ago
We should ban US companies from marketing cigarettes to people (kids) in other countries. They are doing it right now in Africa.
giantg2 5y ago
"Why do we still permit tobacco use?" Because society chooses to. That's the case for most things. Why should I want to control what others do if it doesn't directly affect me? If we look hard enough, chances are there is one activity or another that we each engage in that could also be eliminated or highly regulated on this same basis.
Barrin92 5y ago
Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others. And so while I'm okay with banning smoking from places where others are affected, tobacco consumption in private or voluntary settings shouldn't really be an issue. Also interesting angle in the piece to declare that tobacco has 'no benefits'. Is the author the enjoyment police? First thing that comes to mind for me is, I have a lot of Arab and Turkish friends and there's a strong cafe and smoking culture within those communities that's an important part of social gatherings. In the world of health professionals which appear to attempt to pathologize everything this apparently doesn't hold a lot of value but for most people it does.
- Volundr 5y ago
  > Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others. To be honest, I don't see how you can look at American drug laws and come to this conclusion. It's certainly what we say we do, but when you actually look at the laws it place, be it drugs, gambling, marriage or any number of other things it becomes obvious that our "free society" only extends as far as the freedom to do those things the powers that be approve of.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > It's certainly what we say we do It's what people say for their own vices and faults, freedom! Other people's vices should be banned. That's why freedom isn't meaningful when we talk about ourselves. Everyone thinks themself should be free; it's freedom for others, especially those we don't like, that is significant.
  - somenewaccount1 5y ago
    Not really. Most narcotics lead to serious drug problems that definitely put a strain on others. I wouldn't say our drug laws are perfect, but they are aimed at reducing dangers to others, and to a reasonable degree, it accomplishes that.
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
Why do we still permit busybody bureaucrats to receive public funds? Bureaucrats like the NIH have no societal benefits. None. It can be argued that public goods, one of the thousands of effects bureaucrats have, can have positive effects on some aspects of society, but getting public goods from an unelected bureaucratic institution may be likened to sucking on a tail pipe to get oxygen – it’s there but it’s not going to do you any good. /s
rubyist5eva 5y ago
Because outlawing it will simply allow a black market to flourish, which is worse.
JRGC1 5y ago
simpler answer: look what happens when you ban things
wolverine876 5y ago
I don't see limiting people's freedom to do things harmless to others, except in extreme situations. But what about limiting the production and sale of a poisonous, addictive substance? At least it should be regulated to remove the addictive properties. Why hasn't that been done? Is it technically conceivable?
chrisgd 5y ago
Alcohol seems a bigger problem
2-718-281-828 5y ago
> These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. ..., alcohol in moderation has benefits and gambling in moderation is entertaining for some. The author is an idiot ... what is this "rethoric" manipulation called btw? I bet it has a Wikipedia article.
dionidium 5y ago
> There is no level at which tobacco smoke is safe for the consumer or the people around them or, as we are seeing, even those who are exposed in a tertiary environment (5). This framing drives me nuts. It's the same claim the CDC makes on their website: > There is no safe level of smoking. > Each cigarette you smoke damages your lungs, your blood vessels, and cells throughout your body. Even occasional smoking is harmful, and the best option for any smoker is to quit completely. The more years you smoke, the more you damage your body. Quitting at any age has benefits. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/index.html First of all, it's absurd. If you smoke, let's just say, I dunno, one puff off a cigarette once a year I am certain there is no measurable health effect. So the claim is wrong. But more important, this kind of argument could be applied to all kinds of things. In a technical sense, there is no safe amount of air travel, for example. You are exposed to background radiation at measurably higher levels every time you fly and this has measurable impacts on longterm health (pilots and other flight staff have measurably higher rates of cancer). But does the CDC say, "there's no safe amount of air travel?" Do they point out that every flight does some amount of damage to the cells in your body? Do they warn you that the more you do it, the more harmful it is? Do they tell you that quitting is the only way to be sure you're doing no damage? No! They give actual figures, explain that the risk of infrequent exposure is relatively low, and then provide a simple point of reference to help the public contextualize the risk: > We are exposed to low levels of radiation when we fly. You would be exposed to about 0.035 mSv (3.5 mrem) of cosmic radiation if you were to fly within the United States from the east coast to the west coast. This amount of radiation is less than the amount of radiation we receive from one chest x-ray. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html
tim333 5y ago
It'll be interesting to see how New Zealand's experiment with getting rid of it goes.

85 points by LaFolle 5y ago

evandwight 5y ago

2015

killallcommies3 5y ago

[flagged]

Ekaros 5y ago

Why do we still permit ethanol use?

ufo 5y ago
The article does address this question.

chernevik 5y ago

Because some people enjoy it, and it's a free country. Why is this even a question?

throwawaygh 5y ago
> Why is this even a question? Again, the article explains: "I can vividly recall in the first couple of weeks into my first clinical rotation watching an elderly man with end-stage emphysema literally suffocate and die on my shift wearing just a venti mask. It was a clarion moment for me as a young health care professional even though I never smoked."
- killallcommies3 5y ago
  again, suck a dick
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  You have to die of something eventually. We are not immortal.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    I think many people would like to see their loved ones live longer, healthier lives and die with relative comfort. That doesn't require being denial about their mortality.
    - ReptileMan 5y ago
      And yet the loved ones decision how to live their lives greatly outweigh what many people would like to see. Having more pleasurable life when young while trading for a more gruesome death after 80 is not that bad of trade off. There was a joke: - Drinking, smoking and whoring shorten your life with 6 years. - Which six? Between 92 and 98 - take it.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I don't disagree. But it's also not clear why the government should incentivize individually cheap, collectively expensive personal decisions like current smoking patterns.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      Most people do not get the fortune of dying peacefully in their sleep, regardless of their health habits.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Which doesn't, in itself, justify a particularly nasty form of death for hundreds of thousands of people. Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
    - febeling 5y ago
      Many people would like to see their loved ones live in freedom, too. That means in probably almost 100% of the cases making sub-optimal decisions.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  Elderly man -- had possibly lived a good life. Why is this even a question. People can do what they want. In every other western country outside of the US, you might be able to argue that since Medicare is provided free by the state that it is an unfair load on the system -- but in the US -- you absolutely don't have that argument available in your pocket. Sorry. So -- to each his own.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I like this straightforward argument and an honest stance. I think it is OK for Gov to provide warnings to people. Put nutrition labels. Even Tax things to a certain degree (need to put limits on how much). But, prohibiting access is crossing the line.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    I didn't even express agreement with the quote. OP asked a question. The answer to that question is given right in the VERY short article.
  - cossatot 5y ago
    The article is from the Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy and is about Canada.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Smoking doesn't only impact the smoker. Second hand smoke is dangerous too. That's why there is regulation on where it's permitted. Costs to health care system also impact everyone. Though in the USA private insurers are starting to pass on some of the costs to smokers. And it could be argued that smokers often die young enough to offset health care costs of later life.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      > Second hand smoke is dangerous too. This is why we've banned smoking in restaurants and have designated areas. That's enough Government intervention although my personal take on this would be to leave it up to restaurants to manage this decision. If they don't want smokers in their restaurants, they can choose to ban them. If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking. This is a bilateral choice for a non-essential service (restaurants). But, we've handed over the power to Gov in this case. Too late. I would be OK for Gov to mandate a sign outside the restaurant that informs customers if it is smoking/non-smoking as it would be horrible if you sit down for a meal and all of a sudden someone next to you just lights a Cigarette.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
63 5y ago
The article is specifically speaking about Canada. I suppose Canada is a free country too, though.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  Somewhat less free than the US. They do have government healthcare. That means unhealthy habits are a drain on government. To cut cost it is natural to look at high cost of care conditions that could be prevented. The government has to increase taxes or make things illegal to control cost. I see that as a problem with government healthcare. It will always result in either higher taxes or a restriction on behavior.
__turbobrew__ 5y ago
In Canada (where the article is authored) there is universal healthcare. The health effects of smoking burden the healthcare system and therefore other Canadian citizens. In the US healthcare system I have less a problem with smoking since you will have to pay for the healthcare on your own.

nikkinana 5y ago

Because Dr. Falsie hasn't banned it yet. He was a hero on AIDS and now COVID (I mean the common cold) virus.

elephanlemon 5y ago

As a cigar smoker I really hate articles like this. Not everyone that uses tobacco smokes 20 cigarettes per day. Cigar smoking in moderation (all the way up to one cigar per day) has been shown to be a fairly minimal risk multiplier for cancer. And many cigar smokers such as myself smoke much less than this. Same goes for some other types of tobacco usage as well. Last I checked, the correlation between cancer and nasal snuff usage among non-smokers is extremely limited. Here’s a fun remark from one study: “ The last reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer of the nose was described by John Hill in 1761. We describe here a case of a 69-year-old woman who developed a nasal vestibular malignancy after 30 years of snuff usage, and this, we believe, is the only reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer in the last 2 centuries.” As far as “no health benefit” goes, I would disagree. Smoking a cigar is a highly relaxing activity that I very much enjoy. I am sure that it is good for my mental health.

jrlocke 5y ago
> Cigar smoking in moderation (all the way up to one cigar per day) has been shown to be a fairly minimal risk multiplier for cancer Honestly curious about this one, do you have a source?
- perfecto_maduro 5y ago
  not op, but maybe this one? https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/fda-study-cancer-risks-nearly-nil-for-1-2-cigars-per-day https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/fda-study-cancer...
nmpennypacker 5y ago
I'm a cigar smoker as well and I think it's unfortunate that cigars are often lumped in with other tobacco products.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jppope 5y ago

Totalitarians are creeping into academia more and more. Little to no nuance in their understanding of human behavior or what allows free societies to function. We all maybe cracking jokes and pointing out flaws in the argument... but the real problem here is that this is a real paper, and a real view being given real consideration

BrS96bVxXBLzf5B 5y ago

> Tobacco smoking has no health benefits. None. It can be argued that nicotine, one of the thousands of compounds in tobacco smoke, can have positive effects on some cognitive functions and may even confer some neuroprotection (1), but getting nicotine from tobacco products may be likened to sucking on a tail pipe to get oxygen – it’s there but it’s not going to do you any good. I'm sorry for their personal experience but leading with "there are zero health benefits", immediately following up with "there might be benefits" and then continuing completely disregarding that point is irresponsible. Without interjecting my own opinion, two points I feel are underdiscussed regarding this issue: - as the author mentions there are studies on the cognitive benefits, many mental health patients self-medicate with tobacco including 80% of those diagnosed with schizophrenia - overshadowed cultural aspects. Millennia of pre-20th century tobacco use, its role and impact (positive and negative) in societies, religion, and spirituality is much different than we've experienced over the last hundred years

Zababa 5y ago
You're mixing tobacco and nicotine. There are ways to get nicotine in you without consuming tobacco. I know at least of nicotine gums and nicotine patches.
- buttercraft 5y ago
  Okay, but if you acknowledge that nicotine has benefits and that tobacco contains nicotine, it makes no sense to say that tobacco has no benefits.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    No health benefits. You're missing the key word in that statement.
- BrS96bVxXBLzf5B 5y ago
  On the first point, yes, health benefits may be mostly related to nicotine, but you wouldn't declare an apple useless just because other sources have the fiber and vitamins without the excess sugar.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 5y ago

You could construct an equivalent argument about bacon.

andybak 5y ago
Anyone can throw in a silly comparison but it doesn't really help. I'm fairy certain you're smart enough to reflect on the nuance that this topic deserves. Some bad things are legal. Some bad things aren't. It's a complex thing for society to weigh up and the linked article attempts to contribute to that discussion.
- tptacek 5y ago
  I'm not being glib. This article is premised on the idea that because there are no health benefits to tobacco (none.), it has no value whatsoever. But it clearly does have value: it is a source of pleasure for a large number of people. Pleasure has value. People shouldn't smoke, it makes perfect sense to vice-tax it to offset the externalities, and nobody should valorize the companies profiting from those externalities. But the reason we "permit" it is because we have no business not permitting it: we have centuries of experience showing that, unlike opiates and methamphetamine, there is no risk of tobacco destabilizing society. It's a comically weak argument. It could, as I just said, be applied just as readily to bacon.
  - andybak 5y ago
    > unlike opiates and methamphetamine Here you're picked the extremes to make your point stronger. There's plenty of prohibited substances and behaviours that are much closer to the gray area that this article is pondering on. I don't have a clear view on this topic myself - but there's too many people in this thread claiming that it's absurd to even have the discussion - which I think is lazy and disingenuous.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Name a prohibited substance that (1) poses no threat of destabilizing society or the health care system, (2) has centuries of cultural context, and (3) isn't on the verge of being legalized right now, like cannabis and psilocybin. The imminent legalization of psilocybin makes my argument for me. It was an argument isomorphic to the one this anti-smoking piece made that banned it in the first place. And as a society, we're charting a course in the opposite direction of that argument, because, it turns out, that argument was dumb.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

willcipriano 5y ago

> However, there is no moderation in tobacco. There is no level at which tobacco smoke is safe for the consumer or the people around them or, as we are seeing, even those who are exposed in a tertiary environment. I've used tobacco products perhaps from 0 - 5 times a year from adulthood on. While not "safe", pretty low risk. I have the same relationship with caffeine and alcohol. Nothing can be all that enjoyable if you do it everyday. I've often thought of a sort of "vice license", at the age of authority you can apply for a license that you need to buy things like alcohol and tobacco. Everybody gets one that applies and is of age. Then you can voluntarily choose to limit access to a particular vice, and if you are a danger to others a court could limit your access as well. Casinos already have this model, it's called self-exclusion[0]. It seems like the most humane solution that allows people to still be adults. [0]https://gamban.com/blog/ban-yourself-from-online-gambling https://gamban.com/blog/ban-yourself-from-online-gambling

ravi-delia 5y ago
You know what, that's the first good plan I've seen for handling the issue.
- jondwillis 5y ago
  Would love to give myself a vice ban occasionally.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    In a perfect world I'd be able to set a weekly calorie limit. Charge me double the cost and send the overage to the charity of my choice for any food over the limit. A government body limiting who can buy food isn't really a good idea, so it only works in utopia. It could work for non-essentials though.
    - ThalesX 5y ago
      I order from a service that provides me nutritionist-built meals every day; in the morning, I get exactly 2000kcal spread out across 3 meals and 1 snack. I also drink protein yogurt reaching around 2350kcal so that's my daily intake (and I guess calorie limit) with balanced macro and micronutrients. What this means is that I am aware that anything above these meals is too much for me. Do I still do it? Yes, but I have an unhealthy relationship with food.

lunias 5y ago

Prohibition to the rescue! We all know prohibition has the consumer at heart. I'm sure smoking tobacco post-prohibition will be much safer and more equitable for everyone!

rwmj 5y ago
It'll certainly be a lot more profitable!

cproctor 5y ago

Well this thread finally convinced me to set showdead=no in my profile. It's scary to see how much damage a few accounts can do to the erosion of discourse on this site, and especially to think I'm reasonable in worrying that some of them are state or corporate sock puppets. I am grateful to the site moderators and to other community members (in downvoting bad-faith comments) for asserting our shared valuation of this discourse space.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

11235813213455 5y ago

That's also what I sometimes say to smokers "it has no benefit at all, only drawbacks, it's just an addiction and you can decide to stop if you understand it's damaging" (my mother died at 63 from lung cancer), and there are many subjects here in France. It's also quite annoying to breath that smoke anywhere outside. That's one of the things I hope will change, along with noise (cars, motorcycles as someone living near a street, and using a bicycle) and pollution, and overconsumerism

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. As a pothead, I find this line of reasoning offensive. As a scientist, I'd like to observe that their opening claim that tobacco has no medical benefits is hard-false; it's by far the most effective known medication for schizophrenia, by example, helps with crohn's, helps with IBS, et cetera. Alcohol is far worse for us than tobacco. So is white sugar. This person is just plying a grudge.

SMAAART 5y ago

As an ex-smoker at times I wonder the same, but I know the answer: governments the world over are addicted to the tax revenue from tobacco production and consumption.

ThinkBeat 5y ago

One can make much the same argument regarding alcohol. It is a potent neurotoxin. Drink too much of it, you die. (Alcohol Poisoning / OD) Drink it too often the liver will have issues. For one Alcohol metabolizes into Acetaldehyde which is an even more potent poison. Usually, the liver takes care of it, but if there is too much and too often the liver can't deal with it all. Acetaldehyde is said to damage the DNA. It is also linked to developing cancer. There are many studies that claim drinking in moderation is healthy for you. Mostly that deals with chemicals contained for instance in wine but not related to the Alcohol All that is something that happens to your body. Whilst smoking annoys everyone who must smell it. However, the overall cost of the abuse of alcohol to society is enormous. Aside from the physical damage it does, it is a huge contributing factor to sexual harassment, rape, domestic abuse, violence, child abuse (in so many ways), car crashes, homicide, impaired judgement. An argument can be made that the impact of alcohol on society is much worse than tobacco. Still alcohol is a popular poison. The last time the US tried to ban it, it didn't work out too well. It is ingrained in culture in many places and many ways. Personally, I think weed is much safer than alcohol. I do prefer people have it in ways that do not impact others. Walking around smelling weed smoke is not that great. I have always said that people should be allowed more of a choice in how to get high/drunk/euphoric/relax. Now we have weed so that gives people a choice. I think MDMA and LSD should also be legal. (But made legally in safe and pure forms)

throwaway_2009 5y ago

Is universal healthcare important enough to cede control over what we put into our own bodies? That's the only important question. As far as I'm concerned the answer is definitionally no, and I live in the UK where we arguably have it. It's an endless rabbit hole of authoritarianism. Ban cigarettes, ban sugar in high concentration, ban fast food, mandate vaccines. If we find out that taking an aspirin a day improves health outcomes - mandate that too. Ban unprotected sex - just use phone cameras to enforce it or whatever. There is literally no end to it because if we only take into account the one metric "does this thing affect aggregate health outcomes" you can justify banning anything. I'm sure someone will read this and get grumpy that I've mentioned vaccination. I have three, they're ace. The idea of authoritarian policy is that you don't have a choice; your opinion is truly irrelevant. I don't think its' proponents often hold that in the forefront of their mind, they only focus on "well, right now I'm on the popular side" or whatever.

Zigurd 5y ago

The numbers here do not add up. Here (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/index.htm) CDC says the US spends $225 billion/year on treating tobacco related disease. In the article the authors claim US tobacco tax revenue is $2.81 billion. But here )https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/federal-tobacco-tax-revenue-ff-08312020 https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/federal-tobacco-...) the number is about $12 billion. Nevertheless, tobacco is a very large, very bad problem, but it also seems like patches and vapes for delivering nicotine could put a big dent in tobacco use, and cut a lot of the ill effects, maybe in the amount of tens of billions each year. I would guess if there was a reduced harm form of alcohol health experts would be all over it. Yet I see no PSAs that overtly tell smokers to vape or use nicotine gum. Such a message could be placed on every pack of cigarettes. Because there is a low cost alternative to cigarettes, why not tax cigarettes even more than they are taxed now, offer vapes as an alternative, and see how much progress can be made using simple, obvious measures.

EverydayBalloon 5y ago

What makes people think a bureaucracy deserves that kind of control over individuals?

rapsacnz 5y ago

New Zealand has just banned it using a rolling age locked technique - starting from next year. This means that anyone 14 and under in NZ will never be legally able to by tobacco.

tedajax 5y ago

Smoking is bad but prohibition is worse. Being subjected to the carcercal system is worse for your health than smoking.

woodruffw 5y ago
Being subjected to the carceral system is indeed bad for your health, but there's a gap here: you haven't explained why banning smoking means we have to put people in prison. I would have thought to just fine them, or tax purchases out of existence. No need for shackles.
- tedajax 5y ago
  How do people pay fines? If they are unable to pay what are the penalties? You also just created a black market for people who still want to smoke and that'll produce all kinds of fun.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    There's already a massive black market for people who want to smoke in the form of tax stamp fraud. It used to be even bigger than it currently is, but there are two forces working against it: the overall decline of organized crime starting in the 1980s, and the overall decline in the number of smokers. Black markets are a reality under current economic conditions, and they're a reality even in completely legal markets (there's always someone willing to pay XX% less in exchange for YY% more legal risk). Putting extreme taxes and/or fines on smoking might pour gas on that market, but long-term trends just don't support its survival. And as for fines: we already have a legal structure for that[1]. [1]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/garnishments https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/garnishments
    - tedajax 5y ago
      The knock on effects of fines and the damage the systems cause when someone can't pay a fine are far worse than the effects of smoking.

PhileinSophia 5y ago

Only a power lusting authoritarian can write something like this. Leave people to live their own lives and make their own choices.

novosel 5y ago

throwawaygh 5y ago
Because we need oxygen to live. A less absurd question might be "why do we still permit gambling and alcohol", which the article addresses: > One of the main arguments for the continuance of tobacco sales is that the government should not dictate what vices the public engages in. This is a valid point. Alcohol and gambling are restricted but not prohibited; fast food is unrestricted (although New York City [USA] attempted the restriction of soft drink sizes but failed miserably); and, although government intervention is on the rise, few are protesting access to these products. These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. We need gasoline, we need to eat even if we occasionally do so at fast food restaurants, alcohol in moderation has benefits and gambling in moderation is entertaining for some. However, there is no moderation in tobacco. There is no level at which tobacco smoke is safe for the consumer or the people around them or, as we are seeing, even those who are exposed in a tertiary environment (I'm not expressing agreement or disagreement with the article, but I'm not sure how parent comment contributes anything to this post.)
- oconnor663 5y ago
  > These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. Yes, that is a distinction that is true, but that is not why alcohol and gambling are permitted. It seems to me like the author is trying to brush this question aside rather than really engaging with it. (Agreed that the oxygen comment isn't very helpful, and just responding to the part you quoted.)
- novosel 5y ago
  Fair point, it was stated in an ironic mode, but, I think, help's bringing a wider context in play.

killallcommies3 5y ago

[flagged]

sponaugle 5y ago

And this is why we can't have nice things... because "we" don't "permit it". How does someone even write this sentence? Did they glance over at their crown, which says "King We", and think "thou shall not smoke!"?

andybak 5y ago
Well. There's plenty of things that are illegal. How far down the libertarian rabbit hole are you prepared to go?
- dvdkon 5y ago
  You don't even need to go that deep. Does tobacco hurt others? Except for smokers costing the state more on average, which should never be a crime by itself, not really. I don't like cigarette smoke and think we should take obnoxious smells more seriously, but the logical conclusion is not banning tobacco use.
  - sponaugle 5y ago
    Agreed. The idea that the 'concept of banning' is a rabbit hole should not prevent actually talking about the concepts. To say something should be banned with such unsubstantiated arguments and complete disregard to the actual outcome is ridiculous.
- grishka 5y ago
  Things that don't endanger other people or their property should never be illegal in the first place. Your body is your property and yours only. You should be able to do with it whatever the hell you please. The only open question here is who pays for any healthcare needs resulting from any self-inflicted damage to one's health.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    It's only an open question because the government has inserted itself into the healthcare delivery business. If "we" were not paying for other people's health care, "we" would not need to care what they did or didn't do with regards to their own bodies.

EamonnMR 5y ago

Because laws match social rules, not the other way around?

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

I enjoy the plant. I grow it in my garden for the beautiful scented flowers, and then I dry it or buy higher quality pipe tobacco and smoke it in my pipe in the summer and fall. Or a nice cigar when I'm on vacation in a warm place. The industrial cigarette product.. yeah that's something else. Gross. But I don't see how the two can be reasonably separated from each other, though, and how you can realistically police cigarette consumption. You'll just end up with a black market. Seems like the current approach in western countries of high taxation and intensive education and regulation is (slowly) working.

63 5y ago
You've hit upon the article's exact thesis.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Not really, I read the article and saw the thesis, and I took exception to the "tobacco has no benefit", hence what I was saying about the beauty of the plant and the pleasure of some of the product. Many things have no benefit when taken from that same angle of medical analysis. The tobacco plant has benefits like many other pleasures, and a long social history on this continent of North America and in this region, among the people who were here before my people. Despite people's dubious health claims about anti-oxidants and resveratrol, wine also has "no benefit" when taken from this angle. Alcohol generally, beyond its anti-septic/cleansing properties. But it has at least a 10,000 year history of pleasurable and social use, like tobacco. It just has to be taken in the right context and the culture around it one of education and management of risks and context.
  - 63 5y ago
    >"So there is the conundrum: tobacco has no benefit, yet it can’t be outlawed. So, as a society, and as health care professionals specifically, we are driven to what remains for us to use as tools for smoking cessation: rational or emotional arguments, structured cessation programs, drugs, patches, e-cigarettes and gum, among others. And these are working, albeit slowly." >"But I don't see how the two can be reasonably separated from each other, though, and how you can realistically police cigarette consumption. You'll just end up with a black market. Seems like the current approach in western countries of high taxation and intensive education and regulation is (slowly) working." The above conclusion in the article and your conclusion in your comment are identical was all I meant.

jmclnx 5y ago

Well, one thing to consider, seems these days, it is OK to smoke marijuana but not tobacco. So, I believe until it is illegal to put 'smoke' into your lungs, anything goes. But, as some US businesses are doing, increase Medical Costs for people who smoke anything. Hard to verify since I know of a few people who lie about smoking to avoid the increased rates. At least that is a start.

klarstrup 5y ago
What are some examples/places you've seen that have simultaneously allowed marijuana smokeing but discouraged tobacco smoking? In my country the signs are just "no smoking" they don't say what
- throwaway277432 5y ago
  "Coffee shops" in Amsterdam had this rule when I was there. Only tobacco was specifically outlawed indoors.
- jmclnx 5y ago
  I have seen people public smoking to leave or get a ticket with a small fine. I have yet to see that for marijuana. Also peer pressure, marijuana OK, tobacco not.

retrac 5y ago

In 1994, the Canadian federal government reduced its tobacco excise tax. Quite a lot too, nearly 50%. It wasn't a libertarian whim, or the desperate power grab of a cigar-lover. The black market was rampant. About 30% nationally approaching nearly 100% in some communities. (Clever: you can measure the rate by collecting butts from public ashtrays and the street.) Prohibition doesn't eliminate demand. And in the Canadian context, with a border with the USA and with some indigenous communities being exempt from federal excise taxes and who use tobacco in religious ceremonies, effectively prohibiting the black market trade seems daunting, both pragmatically and politically. It also raises the old question: are the harms of the substance or the harms of prohibition worse?

gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
I don't know if there's provincial taxes or anything, but a similar dynamic happens in the US, there's arbitrage smuggling between states with different taxes. A bit dated, in the link the negative states are one where cigarettes are net flowing out of the state, so you can see where they are going and coming from. At first, I was going to state that it would be interesting to compare organized crime trafficking tobacco to other drugs where there is no long running commercial history. But then I saw the southern border states are theorized high in importing smuggled cigarettes. So either wyoming, idaho, and nevada are supporting the whole western US, or some of it's coming up from mexico. 2012 https://taxfoundation.org/cigarette-taxes-and-cigarette-smuggling-state https://taxfoundation.org/cigarette-taxes-and-cigarette-smug... 2017 paper arguing tax increases do not exacerbate this https://tobacconomics.org/uploads/misc/2017/11/2017-generic-smuggling-report.pdf https://tobacconomics.org/uploads/misc/2017/11/2017-generic-...
- retrac 5y ago
  Oh yes. there's absolutely analogies to that here. It's more common with liquor. Quebec has substantially lower taxes than Ontario and there's a major city straddling the border. Both ordinary individuals and bar owners do routine runs to Quebec to stock up. This is illegal, but given the unrestricted internal border, is about as likely to be caught as interstate smuggling in the USA.

temp8964 5y ago

Is "Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy" a legit academic journal? This paper sounds more like a rant to be posted on reddit than a scholar paper to be published on a legit journal. The author jumped from "Tobacco smoking has no health benefits" to "tobacco has no benefit". Seriously, this shouldn't even get passed for a high school writing class.

Scoundreller 5y ago
Seems to be the journal for the Canadian respiratory therapists’ national association. So I wouldn’t call it illegitimate, but it’s a small field in a small country that’s largely bedside rather than academic, so filling the pages may be a struggle.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

beloch 5y ago

"Our governments collect $2.81 billion in tobacco sales taxes federally (2), which is >1% of all federal government spending in 2013 (3) ... However, the direct and indirect cost of lung cancer, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada is $12.0 billion (2012 figure), of which smoking is considered to be the number one cause (4). That’s not a good trade-off, even if you only consider it economically." Tobacco sales taxes show up in the current fiscal year, while chronic respiratory health costs show up decades down the road. Governments tend to be better than corporations at prioritizing long-term concerns over short-term accounting. However, there is substantial demographic that opposes regulations on narcotics. Specific ones, at least. Look at how popular legalizing cannabis was in Canada over the last decade. Smoking pot is the most popular form of delivery for that narcotic and it's likely going to prove to have many of the same long-term consequences as smoking tobacco. Nonetheless, Canada legalized it. Doctors raised concerns and were ignored. The public willed it, and politicians don't stay politicians by ignoring the public's will. Why do we still permit tobacco use? Because politicians have the power to prohibit it, not doctors. Perhaps the doctors espousing prohibition don't have the right of it either. Narcotics have been a part of human existence across the globe for all of recorded history. Although many people successfully abstain from them, narcotics seem to fill a basic human need. Research on safe, enjoyable recreational drugs is virtually nonexistent. Perhaps we should focus on filling that human need while minimizing the side-effects. To put it another way, with all the medical and pharmacological advances we've made in the last century, does it really make sense that people are still sucking on burning leaves to get high?

k12sosse 5y ago
The prohibition of the sale of cigarettes, ready to smoke, would be a good start. Treat it like weed, buy it loose-leaf, roll your own. That way people still have their freedom and it's not so easy to "just have another one" when you're a kid. Also since legalization, I've eaten more weed than I smoke, the freedom to grow means I have surplus to bake with and experiment with. My inhalation is near 0. (Smoked weed and cigarettes for 18 years). Stopped smoking cigarettes thanks to "vaping" and weed thanks to "baking". Just because people are allowed to have it doesn't mean we should let them buy 25-packs, ready to go.

throwaway984393 5y ago

Tobacco has been grown and used both socially and ceremonially by native American cultures for thousands of years. I get that generally we white western Americans don't give a shit about native cultures, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge the indigenous heritage that literally all tobacco comes from and is still used in today. Personally I like cigars and hookah. I smoke maybe once a year. I'm not saying millions of people should die just so I can smoke, but I'd be fine with chewing tobacco and cigarettes being banned, while indigenous and more ceremonial / social forms of tobacco are kept.

codr7 5y ago
Why should anything be banned? If it's ok to smoke once a year using whatever kind of delivery method, it's going to have to be ok to do whatever the hell you feel like with it. Banning people from growing/harvesting/consuming plants is just silly, it's one of many ideas we will eventually have to let go of, because it makes no sense.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

klarstrup 5y ago

Yeah it's weird how there seems to be so little institutional support for regulating low-risk psychoactive substances like nicotine(and caffeine). Stimulants that increase alertness and enhances concentration, very useful for productivity.

savant_penguin 5y ago

CaptArmchair 5y ago

Because tobacco use is deeply engrained in culture, economy, politics, etc. There are tons of social and economical interests tied into all of that. Tobacco use has a long history. Archeological finds indicate that humans in the Americas began using tobacco as far back as 12,300 years ago, thousands of years earlier than previously documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco Also, society doesn't consist of people who all share the same mindset or the same faculties to come to a particular notion. There's a wild amount of diversity which defines people's identity. It is said that you can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into. If you were raised in an environment with tobacco use, there's a high likelihood you're going to be a smoker from a young age as well. Wholesale prohibiting tobacco use sounds like an easy fix. But it really isn't. Prohibitionism as a legal philosophy has its fair share of criticism as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitionism Consider the complex history of Prohibition in the U.S. during the 1920s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat... That doesn't mean tobacco, alcohol or any other drug consumption is problematic. It very much is, and it comes with immense suffering and a massive societal cost which shouldn't be ignored. But instead of approaching consumption as a singular law enforcement issue, the bigger challenge is to approach the education, healthcare, social, culture and economical issues that lead to the promotion of such consumption. Even then, it's a pipedream to assume that the entirety of humanity will ever stop using tobacco. Or other substances for that matter.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

scythe 5y ago

Does freedom have inherent value, or does it have to lead to something else in order to be valuable? This editorial seems to assume the latter. For example, it suggests that the sole justification for alcohol legality is that it can have benefits in moderation. Notwithstanding the dubiousness of this claim, does anyone really believe that is why alcohol is legal?

js8 5y ago
> Does freedom have inherent value, or does it have to lead to something else in order to be valuable? If you assume the first then you're a fundamentalist. In order to compare different moral values, we need to look at what they lead to in practice, and weigh that. So the abstract "freedom" doesn't cut it, you need to be able to say, what is the practical benefit of such freedom? So that we could compare it with practical disadvantages of the freedom, in case of smoking, things like people getting addicted and less healthy, and Philip Morris shares decreasing in value.
- scythe 5y ago
  >If you assume the first then you're a fundamentalist. Apparently your opinion is that I should be dismissed out of hand as a "fundamentalist". >So the abstract "freedom" doesn't cut it, you need to be able to say, what is the practical benefit of such freedom? This is the conceit I intended to highlight, yes.
  - js8 5y ago
    > Apparently your opinion is that I should be dismissed out of hand as a "fundamentalist". I don't know, do you hold the position that abstract freedom is valuable, regardless of the real-world consequences? In any case, I think giving you an option to change your mind is not a dismissal. :-) I don't think anything is valuable in itself, without a real-world context. The story of Midas' gold illustrates that. And when we think about the practical context, we find that lots of freedoms (for starters, the ones in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) are actually valuable in most circumstances. But that doesn't mean we can generalize it to freedom to do anything is valuable in all contexts, which I think is a logical consequence of attributing value to freedom in the abstract.

air7 5y ago

This is one of my favorite questions in the area of social/moral governance. Put more generally: How much should we protect people from themselves? In the not-so-distant past, I'm guessing, the answer to that for most people was: Very little. After all, adults are capable and expected to make rational choices and do so every day; for themselves, and the people they cate about. So giving them more options is just helpful... But the past few decades have perhaps opened our eyes. From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use. It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. At least when they are put up aginst corporations who employe armies of professional mind hackers whos sole job is to make them lose the battle. So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law. And still, though we've realized the stakes are higher than we first thought, the right moral choice is unclear. Perhaps the idea of protecting ourselves from commercial predetors should be seen as childishly quixotic as the idea of protecting Deer from lions. Especially since the "Lions" are us too. We (though in smaller numbers) are also the benefactors of these questionable actions. But then again, no one likes to be prohibited from doing what they want, and that's a great, and fairly new, right that we have (with restrictions of course). We should be quick to hamper it. Good question...

akira2501 5y ago
> From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use. That new inventions often have a negative impact shouldn't be surprising, but I think it's worthwhile to try to set this against all the positive aspects. I remember life before mobile phones, and from my perspective, they have provided far greater benefits than harms. Wide access to GPS and maps, instant access to emergency communications, and many applications that improve productivity and quality of life are far better explanations of why these devices have become so prevalent. > It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. Has it? I feel that this is a refelction of them not very good at "following the agenda of the elites," but that's hardly the same thing as not being rational. As a counter example, there are more guns than people in the United States, yet there are only around 12,000 murders per year. From that view, we're exceptionally good at being rational and exhibiting self control. Likewise, we travel trillions of miles on our roads, and they're not the complete disaster that you would expect from a population that's largely unable to self-regulate. Similarly, general aviation is a thing that exists, and while it may seem largely regulated you would be surprised to learn exactly how much latitude a GA pilot has in operating their aircraft. > So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law. If that's the case.. why wouldn't you punish the abusers, rather than preempt the freedom of individuals? One is definitely a problem, the other _might_ be a problem. It seems like putting the cart before the horse to approach the problem in this way.

rrdharan 5y ago

“Secondhand Smoke isn’t as bad as we thought” https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/secondhand-smoke-isnt-as-bad-as-we-thought.html https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/secondhand-smoke-isnt-a...

imwillofficial 5y ago

“Why do we still permit McDonalds use?”

sebow 5y ago

As it says there, nicotine is not that harmful, at all.It's mostly the vast majority of other sh*t that makes up a cigarette that makes "tobacco"[whatever the hell you understand by tobacco actually] harmful.Cigs/Cigars don't have this problem, granted you usually don't inhale them in lungs, or at least you're not supposed to. Just because it's mainstream and overall damaging to the health over long periods of time doesn't mean we should ban or restrict it's use.No, not even in public spaces.Maybe if there were a referendum then yes, but usually people won't really ban something if it's really a problem or danger to society. Tobacco is a problem/danger to the individual and not to society at large.I can't say that it was ever addictive to me ever for a number of reasons: usually expensive, they make things smell, and it's not really something that you enjoy most of the time,especially alone. But the biggest thing that made me "quit" smoking(or at least dropped it significantly for me, to a lower level than "socially smoking") is when i first started going to the gym more seriously.You notice how your energy level drop and other things aswell(greasy skin,lower fertility,etc).Why not promote sports more actively?It will have more effect than these restrictive initiatives, to a degree that smoking is not even than harming when you do sports.Do you need to ban it because it can become a vice and lower lifespan?No, that's stupid(besides the fact that it erodes responsability in society).Tobacco is a decent substance that can be consumed socially, compared to others. The nicotine itself actually relaxes you and 90% of the time people smoke is to forget the stress of the moment.Also the damage to the lungs is vastly overblown. Lungs recover pretty fast actually if you don't "burn" them with smoke.If i recall it was one week of smoking is recovered somewhere between a month and 3 months, with obvious factors: air quality, degree of smoking,etc. Here's a better idea than this "karen" mentality: improve the quality of tobacco: focus on the nicotine,you have to keep the smoke(you really can't get rid of the aspect, people have been inhaling for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, and it won't go away: it's a very direct path to the brain chemistry) and finally,obviously: get rid of the bad substances.

throwawayboise 5y ago

It's a plant; it's not going away. Some people like to dry the leaves and smoke it. If those people are adults, leave them alone.

riffic 5y ago

so I just watched the Get Back documentary and one of the thoughts I had is that the amount of cigarettes smoked in the production of a Beatles album likely had an effect on the band's creative output (spoilers - there was a lot of smoking, lol). I'm not saying that I would want to be exposed to any of that second hand smoke myself or that I would want to get addicted to the substance, but there's something that was part of that magic formula that affects the mindset of an artist.

jhallenworld 5y ago

We should ban US companies from marketing cigarettes to people (kids) in other countries. They are doing it right now in Africa.

giantg2 5y ago

"Why do we still permit tobacco use?" Because society chooses to. That's the case for most things. Why should I want to control what others do if it doesn't directly affect me? If we look hard enough, chances are there is one activity or another that we each engage in that could also be eliminated or highly regulated on this same basis.

Barrin92 5y ago

Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others. And so while I'm okay with banning smoking from places where others are affected, tobacco consumption in private or voluntary settings shouldn't really be an issue. Also interesting angle in the piece to declare that tobacco has 'no benefits'. Is the author the enjoyment police? First thing that comes to mind for me is, I have a lot of Arab and Turkish friends and there's a strong cafe and smoking culture within those communities that's an important part of social gatherings. In the world of health professionals which appear to attempt to pathologize everything this apparently doesn't hold a lot of value but for most people it does.

Volundr 5y ago
> Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others. To be honest, I don't see how you can look at American drug laws and come to this conclusion. It's certainly what we say we do, but when you actually look at the laws it place, be it drugs, gambling, marriage or any number of other things it becomes obvious that our "free society" only extends as far as the freedom to do those things the powers that be approve of.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > It's certainly what we say we do It's what people say for their own vices and faults, freedom! Other people's vices should be banned. That's why freedom isn't meaningful when we talk about ourselves. Everyone thinks themself should be free; it's freedom for others, especially those we don't like, that is significant.
- somenewaccount1 5y ago
  Not really. Most narcotics lead to serious drug problems that definitely put a strain on others. I wouldn't say our drug laws are perfect, but they are aimed at reducing dangers to others, and to a reasonable degree, it accomplishes that.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago

Why do we still permit busybody bureaucrats to receive public funds? Bureaucrats like the NIH have no societal benefits. None. It can be argued that public goods, one of the thousands of effects bureaucrats have, can have positive effects on some aspects of society, but getting public goods from an unelected bureaucratic institution may be likened to sucking on a tail pipe to get oxygen – it’s there but it’s not going to do you any good. /s

rubyist5eva 5y ago

Because outlawing it will simply allow a black market to flourish, which is worse.

JRGC1 5y ago

simpler answer: look what happens when you ban things

wolverine876 5y ago

I don't see limiting people's freedom to do things harmless to others, except in extreme situations. But what about limiting the production and sale of a poisonous, addictive substance? At least it should be regulated to remove the addictive properties. Why hasn't that been done? Is it technically conceivable?

chrisgd 5y ago

Alcohol seems a bigger problem

2-718-281-828 5y ago

> These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. ..., alcohol in moderation has benefits and gambling in moderation is entertaining for some. The author is an idiot ... what is this "rethoric" manipulation called btw? I bet it has a Wikipedia article.

dionidium 5y ago

> There is no level at which tobacco smoke is safe for the consumer or the people around them or, as we are seeing, even those who are exposed in a tertiary environment (5). This framing drives me nuts. It's the same claim the CDC makes on their website: > There is no safe level of smoking. > Each cigarette you smoke damages your lungs, your blood vessels, and cells throughout your body. Even occasional smoking is harmful, and the best option for any smoker is to quit completely. The more years you smoke, the more you damage your body. Quitting at any age has benefits. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/index.html First of all, it's absurd. If you smoke, let's just say, I dunno, one puff off a cigarette once a year I am certain there is no measurable health effect. So the claim is wrong. But more important, this kind of argument could be applied to all kinds of things. In a technical sense, there is no safe amount of air travel, for example. You are exposed to background radiation at measurably higher levels every time you fly and this has measurable impacts on longterm health (pilots and other flight staff have measurably higher rates of cancer). But does the CDC say, "there's no safe amount of air travel?" Do they point out that every flight does some amount of damage to the cells in your body? Do they warn you that the more you do it, the more harmful it is? Do they tell you that quitting is the only way to be sure you're doing no damage? No! They give actual figures, explain that the risk of infrequent exposure is relatively low, and then provide a simple point of reference to help the public contextualize the risk: > We are exposed to low levels of radiation when we fly. You would be exposed to about 0.035 mSv (3.5 mrem) of cosmic radiation if you were to fly within the United States from the east coast to the west coast. This amount of radiation is less than the amount of radiation we receive from one chest x-ray. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html

tim333 5y ago

It'll be interesting to see how New Zealand's experiment with getting rid of it goes.