4 ms·
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
by 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 agoOh, 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.