5 ms·

Tobacco. We saw a similar question. It is a human choice. I have not heard anyone suggesting that driver cars would be banned. They could not ban tobacco.

rpeden 10y ago
Tobacco could be banned. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it could be done. It seems that governments in many countries are playing the long game when it comes to an eventual tobacco ban. The first step is to require stern warnings on packaging of tobacco products. The next step is to include graphic pictures along with the warnings. Where I live, these warnings and graphic pictures take up most of the package surface on cigarette packs. I suppose the next step would be to ban branding from tobacco packages so the only thing on the package is the warnings and images. The end goal of this, I think, is to slowly erode public support for tobacco products. Then, when the eventual ban comes, the public response will be more of a whimper than an outcry. I don't necessarily like legislation that bans people from choosing to do something, but I think there's a decent case for it in countries with publicly funded health care, where tobacco uses costs everyone, and not just the individual who chooses to use it. I enjoy freedom of choice, but I'm no libertarian. It seems to me that in any reasonably sized society, you end up needing to find a balance of tradeoffs between individual liberty and the well-being of society. The tricky part is finding that balance. The line between what's allowed and what isn't can feel capricious and arbitrary to anyone stuck on the wrong side of it. I wonder if governments might try a similar tactic on route to eventually banning human-driven vehicles. Start with warnings, escalate to graphic images and video. Eventually, you might get to the point where the majority of people see anyone who doesn't use a self-driving vehicle as a selfish barbarian.
- jperras 10y ago
  > I suppose the next step would be to ban branding from tobacco packages so the only thing on the package is the warnings and images. We're already going in that direction here in Canada: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/31/well-consult-canadians-on-tobacco-packaging-says-philpott.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/31/well-consult-... > I don't necessarily like legislation that bans people from choosing to do something, but I think there's a decent case for it in countries with publicly funded health care, where tobacco uses costs everyone, and not just the individual who chooses to use it. Bingo. While I am in favour of individual liberties, smoking is not one of them if I am required to subsidize the healthcare that smokers will inevitably need.
  - rpeden 10y ago
    Thanks for the link. I'm in Toronto, and I'd heard that plain packaging was being considered, but I didn't realize the the gov't had committed to it. Since I don't know any smokers, and places that sell cigarettes aren't allowed to display them in a visible location, I haven't really even seen what cigarette packages here look like for the past couple of years.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Bingo. While I am in favour of individual liberties, smoking is not one of them if I am required to subsidize the healthcare that smokers will inevitably need. That's a slippery slope. Are we going to ban fatty or high sugar foods next? How about extreme sports? Motorcycles? You pay for the outcomes of all those activities as well.
    - rpeden 10y ago
      I'm not sure about bans, but I wouldn't be surprised to see warning labels becoming required on foods that are tasty but terribly unhealthy. It might be a way to change behavior slowly over time. Activities with a high risk of physical injury are more difficult. For things like extreme sports, the relatively small number of participants might mean that the net increase in health care costs in negligible. For activities like motorcycling that have relatively large numbers of participants, mandatory supplemental medical insurance is an option. It's probably already a good idea to have it right now, even when you aren't required to. This is another slippery slope, though. If motorcyclists are required to have extra insurance to cover medical expenses, they'll inevitably ask "why us, and not skydivers, scuba divers, etc?". It would be difficult to know where to draw the line.
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  The UK combined plain + warning + images recently - http://ash.org.uk/media-and-news/press-releases-media-and-news/media-advisory-standardised-plain-packaging-starts-20th-may-2016/ http://ash.org.uk/media-and-news/press-releases-media-and-ne... They also banned the display of tobacco products back in 2012 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tobacco-displays-in-shops-to-end-from-today https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tobacco-displays-in-shops...
- Jarwain 10y ago
  > don't necessarily like legislation that bans people from choosing to do something, but I think there's a decent case for it in countries with publicly funded health care, where tobacco uses costs everyone, and not just the individual who chooses to use it. Couldn't a government put the taxes on tobacco products into the budget of their public health care, so that those who smoke tobacco products end up using more of their money and overall contributing more to make up for their own costs?
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    No, instead of actually pricing in costs, we need to simply make those costs go away. It worked so well with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, so why not this time? /s
- joesmo 10y ago
  "I wonder if governments might try a similar tactic on route to eventually banning human-driven vehicles." I'm certain it will be even faster and more expedient than tobacco, especially if manufacturers of self-driving cars pick up the insurance bill for the cars they make. Eventually, the insurance rates for non self-driving cars should be unaffordable and if that's not enough, penalties for causing accidents should be ramped up until it's no longer feasible to have a human drive on public roads (they will have to be more than just monetary to prevent rich people from being assholes and driving regardless). At some point most manufacturers will cease making human-driven cars except as expensive toys for the rich. Not only is there a decent case for this, I don't see any other alternatives. If people want to continue to drive manually, there will be race tracks and private courses where they can do whatever they want. Otherwise, making driving on public roads illegal is the only way I can see us getting close to the zero fatalities line that's ideal.

rpeden 10y ago

Tobacco could be banned. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it could be done. It seems that governments in many countries are playing the long game when it comes to an eventual tobacco ban. The first step is to require stern warnings on packaging of tobacco products. The next step is to include graphic pictures along with the warnings. Where I live, these warnings and graphic pictures take up most of the package surface on cigarette packs. I suppose the next step would be to ban branding from tobacco packages so the only thing on the package is the warnings and images. The end goal of this, I think, is to slowly erode public support for tobacco products. Then, when the eventual ban comes, the public response will be more of a whimper than an outcry. I don't necessarily like legislation that bans people from choosing to do something, but I think there's a decent case for it in countries with publicly funded health care, where tobacco uses costs everyone, and not just the individual who chooses to use it. I enjoy freedom of choice, but I'm no libertarian. It seems to me that in any reasonably sized society, you end up needing to find a balance of tradeoffs between individual liberty and the well-being of society. The tricky part is finding that balance. The line between what's allowed and what isn't can feel capricious and arbitrary to anyone stuck on the wrong side of it. I wonder if governments might try a similar tactic on route to eventually banning human-driven vehicles. Start with warnings, escalate to graphic images and video. Eventually, you might get to the point where the majority of people see anyone who doesn't use a self-driving vehicle as a selfish barbarian.

jperras 10y ago
> I suppose the next step would be to ban branding from tobacco packages so the only thing on the package is the warnings and images. We're already going in that direction here in Canada: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/31/well-consult-canadians-on-tobacco-packaging-says-philpott.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/31/well-consult-... > I don't necessarily like legislation that bans people from choosing to do something, but I think there's a decent case for it in countries with publicly funded health care, where tobacco uses costs everyone, and not just the individual who chooses to use it. Bingo. While I am in favour of individual liberties, smoking is not one of them if I am required to subsidize the healthcare that smokers will inevitably need.
- rpeden 10y ago
  Thanks for the link. I'm in Toronto, and I'd heard that plain packaging was being considered, but I didn't realize the the gov't had committed to it. Since I don't know any smokers, and places that sell cigarettes aren't allowed to display them in a visible location, I haven't really even seen what cigarette packages here look like for the past couple of years.
- refurb 10y ago
  Bingo. While I am in favour of individual liberties, smoking is not one of them if I am required to subsidize the healthcare that smokers will inevitably need. That's a slippery slope. Are we going to ban fatty or high sugar foods next? How about extreme sports? Motorcycles? You pay for the outcomes of all those activities as well.
  - rpeden 10y ago
    I'm not sure about bans, but I wouldn't be surprised to see warning labels becoming required on foods that are tasty but terribly unhealthy. It might be a way to change behavior slowly over time. Activities with a high risk of physical injury are more difficult. For things like extreme sports, the relatively small number of participants might mean that the net increase in health care costs in negligible. For activities like motorcycling that have relatively large numbers of participants, mandatory supplemental medical insurance is an option. It's probably already a good idea to have it right now, even when you aren't required to. This is another slippery slope, though. If motorcyclists are required to have extra insurance to cover medical expenses, they'll inevitably ask "why us, and not skydivers, scuba divers, etc?". It would be difficult to know where to draw the line.
zimpenfish 10y ago
The UK combined plain + warning + images recently - http://ash.org.uk/media-and-news/press-releases-media-and-news/media-advisory-standardised-plain-packaging-starts-20th-may-2016/ http://ash.org.uk/media-and-news/press-releases-media-and-ne... They also banned the display of tobacco products back in 2012 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tobacco-displays-in-shops-to-end-from-today https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tobacco-displays-in-shops...
Jarwain 10y ago
> don't necessarily like legislation that bans people from choosing to do something, but I think there's a decent case for it in countries with publicly funded health care, where tobacco uses costs everyone, and not just the individual who chooses to use it. Couldn't a government put the taxes on tobacco products into the budget of their public health care, so that those who smoke tobacco products end up using more of their money and overall contributing more to make up for their own costs?
- snrplfth 10y ago
  No, instead of actually pricing in costs, we need to simply make those costs go away. It worked so well with Prohibition and the War on Drugs, so why not this time? /s
joesmo 10y ago
"I wonder if governments might try a similar tactic on route to eventually banning human-driven vehicles." I'm certain it will be even faster and more expedient than tobacco, especially if manufacturers of self-driving cars pick up the insurance bill for the cars they make. Eventually, the insurance rates for non self-driving cars should be unaffordable and if that's not enough, penalties for causing accidents should be ramped up until it's no longer feasible to have a human drive on public roads (they will have to be more than just monetary to prevent rich people from being assholes and driving regardless). At some point most manufacturers will cease making human-driven cars except as expensive toys for the rich. Not only is there a decent case for this, I don't see any other alternatives. If people want to continue to drive manually, there will be race tracks and private courses where they can do whatever they want. Otherwise, making driving on public roads illegal is the only way I can see us getting close to the zero fatalities line that's ideal.