4 ms·

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 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.

blfr 10y ago
There are no large multinationals marketing and selling it. Massive multinationals sell antiretroviral drugs and are heavily subsidized by governments across the world. They directly profit from harm men having sex with men cause to themselves and make you (and me) pay for it on top. The average costs of such therapy is 15-50k USD a year, I googled[1], depending on strain, circumstances, etc. Wouldn't that also be quite an externality? Smokers are probably cheaper[2], because they die sooner. [1] https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-costs-medication-19139-5119 https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-costs-medication-19139-5119 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.97488...
- cromulent 10y ago
  This is just silly. These drug companies aren't selling sex, nor encouraging people to do it. They also sell chemotherapy drugs, which are also subsidized. Tobacco causes 1 in 5 deaths and it causes income inequality which is what the article is about.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
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. The same is true of gay sex, yet you seem completely uninterested in the question of why we allow this. This makes your stated reasons for opposing tobacco seem unprincipled and probably just a rationalization/cover for something else. If you are inconsistent then you are wrong about something. Why is that acceptable to you?
- cromulent 10y ago
  What do you mean "the same is true of gay sex"? Big Tobacco sells cigarettes. Who exactly is "Big Gay Sex"? You seem to be pushing an agenda here. How can they ever be consistent. I don't understand your position. The original article explains "Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking". Smoking causes income inequality. That's the topic we are talking about. Smoking is highly taxed, and highly addictive, and a simple pleasure, and a massive industry. The legal sale of tobacco products is an outlier. Let's talk consistency then: why has it not been banned already, like asbestos or other carcinogens? One in five deaths annually are caused by this industry. Why is that inconsistency acceptable to you? If (for example) oranges were found to have the same effect as smoking, the sale of them would be banned immediately. If you wanted to grow your own oranges and eat them, no-one would stop you. You just couldn't sell them. I'm trying to discuss a way that this could happen with smoking. You are trying to get me to ban gay sex for "consistency" and saying that I seem unprincipled as I don't equate the two things.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I mean exactly what I quoted: gay sex "does seem to impose quite the externality on society". Why is that inconsistency acceptable to you? It's not acceptable. I think we should legalize heroin and meth in addition to tobacco. To prevent people who consume these products from imposing harmful externalities on the rest of us, we should ban employer sponsored and state sponsored health insurance. If (for example) oranges were found to have the same effect as smoking, the sale of them would be banned immediately. And if oranges were found to have the same effect as gay sex (namely causing 29k HIV infections each year) they would also be banned. ...saying that I seem unprincipled as I don't equate the two things. And that's the problem. Your stated rationale for opposing tobacco, namely the harm it causes, applies equally well to gay sex. But you've now revealed your real rationale - you dislike "Big Tobacco" and want to harm them. It turns out that protecting people isn't really your goal at all.

blfr 10y ago

There are no large multinationals marketing and selling it. Massive multinationals sell antiretroviral drugs and are heavily subsidized by governments across the world. They directly profit from harm men having sex with men cause to themselves and make you (and me) pay for it on top. The average costs of such therapy is 15-50k USD a year, I googled[1], depending on strain, circumstances, etc. Wouldn't that also be quite an externality? Smokers are probably cheaper[2], because they die sooner. [1] https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-costs-medication-19139-5119 https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-costs-medication-19139-5119 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.97488...

cromulent 10y ago
This is just silly. These drug companies aren't selling sex, nor encouraging people to do it. They also sell chemotherapy drugs, which are also subsidized. Tobacco causes 1 in 5 deaths and it causes income inequality which is what the article is about.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

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. The same is true of gay sex, yet you seem completely uninterested in the question of why we allow this. This makes your stated reasons for opposing tobacco seem unprincipled and probably just a rationalization/cover for something else. If you are inconsistent then you are wrong about something. Why is that acceptable to you?

cromulent 10y ago
What do you mean "the same is true of gay sex"? Big Tobacco sells cigarettes. Who exactly is "Big Gay Sex"? You seem to be pushing an agenda here. How can they ever be consistent. I don't understand your position. The original article explains "Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking". Smoking causes income inequality. That's the topic we are talking about. Smoking is highly taxed, and highly addictive, and a simple pleasure, and a massive industry. The legal sale of tobacco products is an outlier. Let's talk consistency then: why has it not been banned already, like asbestos or other carcinogens? One in five deaths annually are caused by this industry. Why is that inconsistency acceptable to you? If (for example) oranges were found to have the same effect as smoking, the sale of them would be banned immediately. If you wanted to grow your own oranges and eat them, no-one would stop you. You just couldn't sell them. I'm trying to discuss a way that this could happen with smoking. You are trying to get me to ban gay sex for "consistency" and saying that I seem unprincipled as I don't equate the two things.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I mean exactly what I quoted: gay sex "does seem to impose quite the externality on society". Why is that inconsistency acceptable to you? It's not acceptable. I think we should legalize heroin and meth in addition to tobacco. To prevent people who consume these products from imposing harmful externalities on the rest of us, we should ban employer sponsored and state sponsored health insurance. If (for example) oranges were found to have the same effect as smoking, the sale of them would be banned immediately. And if oranges were found to have the same effect as gay sex (namely causing 29k HIV infections each year) they would also be banned. ...saying that I seem unprincipled as I don't equate the two things. And that's the problem. Your stated rationale for opposing tobacco, namely the harm it causes, applies equally well to gay sex. But you've now revealed your real rationale - you dislike "Big Tobacco" and want to harm them. It turns out that protecting people isn't really your goal at all.