5 ms·

I'm all for higher taxation or, better yet, banning smoking altogether. The difference between smoking and eating unhealthy/not exercising enough is that smoki

by amag 11y ago

I'm all for higher taxation or, better yet, banning smoking altogether. The difference between smoking and eating unhealthy/not exercising enough is that smoking affects other people in a very real way through second-hand smoking. So smoking is not just about a single person's freedom of choice because it affects every one around the smoker. It affects those who have decide not to smoke but are now forced to either hold their breath waiting for the bus or breath in the smoke.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
We did that with alcohol. It didn't work out. I hate to be that guy, but the effects of second-hand smoke studies happened long enough after this all got sufficiently politicized to where I'll (conveniently) take them at face value, but I'll never completely trust them. Simple bias confirmation is sufficient to explain the preponderance of the literature. The latency times for tobacco effects in general make it a doozy of a thing to study. By the time the information gets to lunkheads like me, it's hash.
- amag 11y ago
  I'd argue that alcohol is a completely different beast. Most people start smoking to be "cool" or because their friends smoke (or both). It's a fact that very few people start to smoke after their eighteenth birthday. If we remove the access to cigarettes and make it uncool to smoke, I firmly believe very few people would start. (I'd be ok with a period of cigarette prescriptions, so all those who smoke now and want to keep doing it could in non-public spaces.) With alcohol it's different, most people start to drink to get wasted, of course some level of "coolness" is involved and to a large degree friends, but the lure of getting high is there. Alcohol seems to fill an almost universal need for intoxication (and if it's not alcohol it's some other drug). > The latency times for tobacco effects in general make it a doozy of a thing to study Sure, but given that the damaging effects of smoking has been proven, I for one would rather play it safe. I want to have my freedom to choose when to expose myself to something that may be damaging to my body and my body alone. I don't want that choice to be done for me by someone else just because they feel like lighting up while we wait for the bus or whatever.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Oh, I think that a full legal prohibition on tobacco would backfire in startling ways. Smoking even now is decidedly unrational; imagine if it was even more illegal. I get not wanting to be exposed , but the science is still not exactly slam dunk even today, in the same way that even the 1965 Surgeon's General report is. The datasets ( which are admittedly very slow and expensive to cultivate ) aren't of very high diversity.
- mamon 11y ago
  It didn't work out with alcohol mainly because it is too easy to produce from common food products like fruits or grains - almost everybody can do it at home. Cigarettes are not so easy to produce, so it is completely different matter.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    I remain skeptical. Heroin is not easy to produce and yet it continues smuggled in apace.

by amag 11y ago

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

We did that with alcohol. It didn't work out. I hate to be that guy, but the effects of second-hand smoke studies happened long enough after this all got sufficiently politicized to where I'll (conveniently) take them at face value, but I'll never completely trust them. Simple bias confirmation is sufficient to explain the preponderance of the literature. The latency times for tobacco effects in general make it a doozy of a thing to study. By the time the information gets to lunkheads like me, it's hash.

amag 11y ago
I'd argue that alcohol is a completely different beast. Most people start smoking to be "cool" or because their friends smoke (or both). It's a fact that very few people start to smoke after their eighteenth birthday. If we remove the access to cigarettes and make it uncool to smoke, I firmly believe very few people would start. (I'd be ok with a period of cigarette prescriptions, so all those who smoke now and want to keep doing it could in non-public spaces.) With alcohol it's different, most people start to drink to get wasted, of course some level of "coolness" is involved and to a large degree friends, but the lure of getting high is there. Alcohol seems to fill an almost universal need for intoxication (and if it's not alcohol it's some other drug). > The latency times for tobacco effects in general make it a doozy of a thing to study Sure, but given that the damaging effects of smoking has been proven, I for one would rather play it safe. I want to have my freedom to choose when to expose myself to something that may be damaging to my body and my body alone. I don't want that choice to be done for me by someone else just because they feel like lighting up while we wait for the bus or whatever.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Oh, I think that a full legal prohibition on tobacco would backfire in startling ways. Smoking even now is decidedly unrational; imagine if it was even more illegal. I get not wanting to be exposed , but the science is still not exactly slam dunk even today, in the same way that even the 1965 Surgeon's General report is. The datasets ( which are admittedly very slow and expensive to cultivate ) aren't of very high diversity.
mamon 11y ago
It didn't work out with alcohol mainly because it is too easy to produce from common food products like fruits or grains - almost everybody can do it at home. Cigarettes are not so easy to produce, so it is completely different matter.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I remain skeptical. Heroin is not easy to produce and yet it continues smuggled in apace.