4 ms·

Public usage can and should be managed locally as another topic though don't you think? As far as recreational use, fundamentally, should it be the responsibil

Public usage can and should be managed locally as another topic though don't you think? As far as recreational use, fundamentally, should it be the responsibility of the government to tell you what you can and can't ingest? I don't think it is. I think sin taxes are stupid too. But I do understand drug usage is a concern and suboptimal for a lot of people. I don't smoke nor have I ever tried it, except for one cigar. I'm asthmatic and I didn't like people smoking cigarettes in public places because smoking sections back in the day weren't contained. Now - smoking is generally considered uncool and it's hard to do in most public places. I've been to smoke free cities which is their right and I think that's how it should be. Whatever side you're on - the evidence doesn't back up all the claims to keep it criminal.

viraptor 10y ago
> sin taxes are stupid too They do work for health benefits though. Tax on tabacco for example does limit the number of people who smoke, which does in turn limit the number of people with cancer and public spending on helping them. Same for sugary drinks tax and obesity.
- robbrown451 10y ago
  Actually reducing tobacco use can increase public spending on health. Lung cancer tends to take people out pretty quickly, while those who live longer run up higher costs. (that said, I tend to be "pro sin tax")
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Lung cancer caused by smoking took about a generation to show up in the statistics. That's very much the converse of "takes people out pretty quickly". That said, most drugs that are schedule I have much more immediate side effects.
    - robbrown451 10y ago
      That's not what I meant by "takes people out quickly." I mean that once someone gets symptoms of lung cancer and needs health care as a result, they die more quickly than someone who is starting to see the symptoms of old age and needs health care for that. I.e. someone who dies at age 60 from lung cancer is less cost to the system than someone who live to 95 and dies of "natural causes." That's not saying lung cancer is good, but it is saying that reducing health care costs is not a good reason to try to reduce smoking.

viraptor 10y ago

> sin taxes are stupid too They do work for health benefits though. Tax on tabacco for example does limit the number of people who smoke, which does in turn limit the number of people with cancer and public spending on helping them. Same for sugary drinks tax and obesity.

robbrown451 10y ago
Actually reducing tobacco use can increase public spending on health. Lung cancer tends to take people out pretty quickly, while those who live longer run up higher costs. (that said, I tend to be "pro sin tax")
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Lung cancer caused by smoking took about a generation to show up in the statistics. That's very much the converse of "takes people out pretty quickly". That said, most drugs that are schedule I have much more immediate side effects.
  - robbrown451 10y ago
    That's not what I meant by "takes people out quickly." I mean that once someone gets symptoms of lung cancer and needs health care as a result, they die more quickly than someone who is starting to see the symptoms of old age and needs health care for that. I.e. someone who dies at age 60 from lung cancer is less cost to the system than someone who live to 95 and dies of "natural causes." That's not saying lung cancer is good, but it is saying that reducing health care costs is not a good reason to try to reduce smoking.