6 ms·

What great news. Congratulations to all those working hard in that area. "Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking and improved nu

What great news. Congratulations to all those working hard in that area. "Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking and improved nutrition, and a major cause is social policies that target the most disadvantaged." It will be interesting how history treats smoking in the long term (next century). I am still interested in the solutions proposed (and defeated) in Singapore and Tasmania where persons born after 200x may not purchase cigarettes. I lean libertarian but this is one area I think government is needed. Taking (or taxing) a pleasure away from someone who has enjoyed it for years is not nice, but preventing people from falling into the trap is different.

oxide 10y ago
taxes don't discourage smokers, though. smokers are addicts, you can't price an addict out of an addiction. it's effectively taxing the impoverished, anyway. the people who are scrounging to buy smokes will just take that money from elsewhere in the budget. it's food out of children's mouths, in the most literal way possible. the people who aren't scrounging will just pay the increased price without batting an eye. the price of cigarettes had no impact on my decision to quit. I would have continued to pay whatever the cost might have been, 5 dollars a pack or 50 dollars a pack. switching to a personal vaporizer got me to quit smoking. I spend about 25% of what I spent on cigarettes for a month's supply of juice and replacement coils for the tank I use. I'm still addicted to nicotine, though.
- thatswrong0 10y ago
  And tons of people are addicted to caffeine. Nicotine isn't so bad on its own (like caffeine).. So I guess the question is how safe the rest of the stuff in vapes is.
- repsilat 10y ago
  > taxes don't discourage smokers, though. This has not been New Zealand's experience. In recent years our government has substantially (and steadily) increased the tax on tobacco, and sales have plummeted: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426107 http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...
yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm curious about the moral justification for banning things that cause harm primarily to the people who do them. I recently learned that gay (man to man) sex is actually super dangerous - having gay sex for a year costs between 0.088 and 0.97 QALYs (due to spreading HIV). This is significantly higher than most of the estimates I've heard for a year of smoking. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_more_dangerous.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_mor... Should we adopt some of your solutions for that too? Perhaps reintroducing sodomy laws for people born after 200X? If not, what principle distinguishes these two cases? (Note: I'm perfectly ok with people engaging in self harm. So I obviously don't favor such solutions. I'm just pointing out that this reasoning is applied incredibly inconsistently.)
- actuallyalys 10y ago
  The big difference seems to be the risk of AIDS is not an intrinsic part of gay sex, just a consequence of what diseases are prevalent today. Also, safe sex is an option, but "safe smoking" isn't. Finally—and I realize this is subjective—I think people feel like regulating sex is more invasive than regulating the purchase of tobacco.
- cromulent 10y ago
  I'm not saying things should be consistent, but dealt with case by case. Definitely not a blanket ban things that cause harm primarily to the people who do them. I'm talking specifically about smoking. In the case of smoking, we have an industry that sells addictive items that kill you, and has a history of lies and cover ups. I'm not sure of the benefits, as I don't smoke, but I hear from people who have smoked and quit that they are happier not smoking. I'm no expert, just someone who's interested, as I said. Growing your own tobacco and smoking it would be a different thing. If tobacco smoking was introduced today, I think it wouldn't get past the FDA and similar. Can we "turn off" a legal industry that is grandfathered in? Should we? Your slippery slope question of sodomy is different. There are no large multinationals marketing and selling it. Just free individuals engaging. The sale of tobacco products does seem to impose quite the externality on society. Are we willing to put up with it long term? That's the question I'm interested in.
ams6110 10y ago
Certainly laws against purchasing marijuana (where they still exist) don't do much to stop young people from buying it. And smoking weed isn't any better for your lungs than tobacco is.

oxide 10y ago

taxes don't discourage smokers, though. smokers are addicts, you can't price an addict out of an addiction. it's effectively taxing the impoverished, anyway. the people who are scrounging to buy smokes will just take that money from elsewhere in the budget. it's food out of children's mouths, in the most literal way possible. the people who aren't scrounging will just pay the increased price without batting an eye. the price of cigarettes had no impact on my decision to quit. I would have continued to pay whatever the cost might have been, 5 dollars a pack or 50 dollars a pack. switching to a personal vaporizer got me to quit smoking. I spend about 25% of what I spent on cigarettes for a month's supply of juice and replacement coils for the tank I use. I'm still addicted to nicotine, though.

thatswrong0 10y ago
And tons of people are addicted to caffeine. Nicotine isn't so bad on its own (like caffeine).. So I guess the question is how safe the rest of the stuff in vapes is.
repsilat 10y ago
> taxes don't discourage smokers, though. This has not been New Zealand's experience. In recent years our government has substantially (and steadily) increased the tax on tobacco, and sales have plummeted: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11426107 http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I'm curious about the moral justification for banning things that cause harm primarily to the people who do them. I recently learned that gay (man to man) sex is actually super dangerous - having gay sex for a year costs between 0.088 and 0.97 QALYs (due to spreading HIV). This is significantly higher than most of the estimates I've heard for a year of smoking. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_more_dangerous.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_mor... Should we adopt some of your solutions for that too? Perhaps reintroducing sodomy laws for people born after 200X? If not, what principle distinguishes these two cases? (Note: I'm perfectly ok with people engaging in self harm. So I obviously don't favor such solutions. I'm just pointing out that this reasoning is applied incredibly inconsistently.)

actuallyalys 10y ago
The big difference seems to be the risk of AIDS is not an intrinsic part of gay sex, just a consequence of what diseases are prevalent today. Also, safe sex is an option, but "safe smoking" isn't. Finally—and I realize this is subjective—I think people feel like regulating sex is more invasive than regulating the purchase of tobacco.
cromulent 10y ago
I'm not saying things should be consistent, but dealt with case by case. Definitely not a blanket ban things that cause harm primarily to the people who do them. I'm talking specifically about smoking. In the case of smoking, we have an industry that sells addictive items that kill you, and has a history of lies and cover ups. I'm not sure of the benefits, as I don't smoke, but I hear from people who have smoked and quit that they are happier not smoking. I'm no expert, just someone who's interested, as I said. Growing your own tobacco and smoking it would be a different thing. If tobacco smoking was introduced today, I think it wouldn't get past the FDA and similar. Can we "turn off" a legal industry that is grandfathered in? Should we? Your slippery slope question of sodomy is different. There are no large multinationals marketing and selling it. Just free individuals engaging. The sale of tobacco products does seem to impose quite the externality on society. Are we willing to put up with it long term? That's the question I'm interested in.

ams6110 10y ago

Certainly laws against purchasing marijuana (where they still exist) don't do much to stop young people from buying it. And smoking weed isn't any better for your lungs than tobacco is.