7 ms·

The last time I checked Iceland's population was 323,002 mostly homogeneous racially similar people in geographically and economically similar region. Good for

• sean_patel 10y ago
  > Smoking is going out of fashion pretty fast in USA too. Source? Yes, Smoking traditional tobacco is going out of fashion pretty much around the world. It's been replaced by the increasing popular E-Cigarrettes / "Vaping", which is also Tobacco and poses the same health risks as traditional tobacco. Especially very prevalent among-st Teenagers and young people. Heavily marketed by Big Tobacco as "Safe". Sources: 1) CDC: Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011–2015: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm?s_cid=mm6514a1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm?s_cid=mm... 1) England: Smoking rate continues to decrease while vaping gains in popularity http://www.vapingpost.com/2016/09/22/england-smoking-rate-continues-to-decrease-while-vaping-gains-in-popularity/ http://www.vapingpost.com/2016/09/22/england-smoking-rate-co... 2) The good news is that cigarettes are out these days. The bad news is that tobacco is still in. http://www.teenvogue.com/story/vaping-tobacco-popularity http://www.teenvogue.com/story/vaping-tobacco-popularity
  • jdminhbg 10y ago
    > poses the same health risks as traditional tobacco I'm sorry, what? It may pose health risks, but I have not seen anything remotely resembling evidence it poses the same health risks as smoking or chewing.
  • saiya-jin 10y ago
    burning leaves doesn't produce same amount of harmful stuff as vaping (which still isn't healthy, but com on, lets use some common sense here)
  • voxic11 10y ago
    You sound like the US government, somehow redefining the word tabacco to include things which have nothing to do with tabacco.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    >E-Cigarrettes / "Vaping", which is also Tobacco and poses the same health risks as traditional tobacco. This is wrong, and absolutely harmful information to spread. Cigarette smoking causes cancer through burning tobacco plant matter, a process that releases a variety of toxic chemicals. Vaporization of e-liquid does not burn tobacco plant matter, and thus doesn't have the same issues. E-liquid is basically nicotine, glycerol and/or proplyene glycol solute, and flavoring. Nicotine replacement products aren't associated with cancer risk. The solute is much the same stuff as in asthma inhalers. There isn't really good research for the flavoring, but it's generally ingredients that are recognized as safe to put in food. Overall, vaping is likely at least an order of magnitude safer than smoking. Probably two. That's not anywhere near "the same health risks as traditional tobacco." I'm personally more worried about spending lots of time near busy roads. If a policy causes X more people to vape per person that no longer smokes, X would have to be at least 100 for me to think it's a net negative.
    • manarth 10y ago
      Nicotine replacement products aren't associated with cancer risk There is evidence that Nicotine replacement products do increase the risk of cancer. Every source I've read says that the risk is less than smoking cigarettes, but vaping (for example) is still an increased risk over not using nicotine at all. Current NHS advice puts vaping at 95% less risk than smoking, which is to say an increased risk (5% of the smoking risk), compared to not vaping. - https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/e-cigarettes https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/e-cigarettes - http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/04/24/can-nicotine-gum-cause-mouth-cancer/ http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/04/24/can-nicot... - http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/04April/Pages/NicotineGumCancer.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/04April/Pages/NicotineGumCancer.... - http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/prevention-and-healthy-living/stopping-tobacco-use-after-cancer-diagnosis/health-risks-e-cigarettes-smokeless-tobacco-and-waterpipes http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/prevention-and-...
      • ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        Yeah, the research on nicotine replacement products isn't very mature. The links you gave are interesting, but more along the lines of "nicotine can do the same sort of things to mouth cells that happens when you have mouth cancer", not "we took a look at X number of people and looked at mouth cancer incident rates". The NHS advice is interesting, thanks for contributing it. It's a good sign that I'm on the right track - I put it at "one to two orders of magnitude", or to use the same units, 1% to 10% of the cancer risk of cigarettes. The NHS is likely biased towards saying things cause cancer (because incentives - nobody causes a ruckus if something they thought causes cancer is safe, but everyone gets way riled up if something the NHS thinks is safe causes cancer). So my updated belief is now that vaping causes less than 1% of the cancer that smoking does, per user.
  • civilian 10y ago
    Vaping is safer: https://wallethub.com/blog/is-vaping-bad-for-you/23907/ https://wallethub.com/blog/is-vaping-bad-for-you/23907/ Conflating tobacco with nicotine is also a bad move.
    • sean_patel 10y ago
      wallethub.com link? Really? Ever heard of Astroturfing? The Big Tobacco and Vaping Lobbyists have tons of "blog posts" and "research" news that "debunk" all the bad things about Vaping and Smoking. Required Viewing: Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDx https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
      • civilian 10y ago
        I'm familiar with the idea of astroturfing. I majored in biochemistry. And while I haven't read the research, it seems fairly straight-forward. Nicotine and some flavors are dissolved into food-safe glycerin. Then that mixture is raised to a temperature where it becomes a gas, but not a temperature high enough for it to burn. Then it is inhaled. If you compare that to smoking--- a cigarette actually _burns_, and during that oxidation process it'll make thousands upon thousands of variants of chemicals. And because they've been oxidized, they're more reactive. I'm not saying vaping is safe. But I'm saying that it's obvious that it's safer than cigarettes. You should also check out this. I am open to the idea that vaping might be _as bad_ as cigarettes, but currently the evidence shows that they're way better, and can be a good tool for quitting. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
        • sean_patel 10y ago
          > I'm not saying vaping is safe. But I'm saying that it's obvious that it's safer than cigarettes. Agreed. Saying something is 'safer' than something else, doesn't make the original thing 'Safe'. Vaping causes Cancer, so does Tobacco smoking. All of you are saying "Vaping is Safer because it isn't AS BAD AS smoking Tobacco". Agreed. But another way of saying is "We think Vaping is Safer because it causes Cancer in 20 years, whereas Tobacco smoking is will cause Cancer in 10 years"
• Zigurd 10y ago
  "mostly homogeneous racially similar people" Arf. Arf.
  • legodt 10y ago
    I appreciate your joke but I don't think the HN populace gets the full context because there are a couple of steps that need to happen to connect the parent quote and your punchline.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • tritosomal 10y ago
      Just spell it out. D-O-G W-H-I-S-T-L-E
      • legodt 10y ago
        I've been seeing you around HN a lot recently and I've gotta say with your -5 points and all you are winning my heart
        • tritosomal 10y ago
          Ha! I just noticed this. My comments don't karma whore, and I'm not interested in appeasing the whims of the mods. It doesn't do the community much good to pull punches, if that means putting a diplomatic muzzle on valid points and opinions that contrast with a preferred norm.
    • Zigurd 10y ago
      It is appalling that calling out an obvious dog-whistle phrase is either not understood or unwelcome here. This is what leads to "race realism" becoming an acceptable topic in some circles.
      • prodontilate 10y ago
• edejong 10y ago
  I think it's rather peculiar to come to the conclusion that there is little information for other countries. 1. Using various policies, Iceland has been able to strongly reduce the amount of substance abuse in their country. 2. Other countries suffer from substance abuse as well 3. The article notes that the method is mostly data driven. This implies similar methods should apply to different countries. How do you come to the conclusion that the information presented in the article is not applicable to other countries? Why would a racial dissimilar, larger and heterogeneous population not benefit from a data-driven approach to limit substance abuse? I'd go the opposite way: because the populations are larger, noise has less influence on the data-driven approach and tests can be accelerated.
  • harry8 10y ago
    With a population as small as iceland's there is no such thing as anonymity. Maybe these policies would work in a small town without much population turnover? Cultural context of cultural policies is actually really important. What works in Japan might not work in Springfield. Data driven is very good though, the temptation to reclassify failure as success on such problems is extremely high, unfortunately - and I am absolutely not being critical of those who are genuinely making the attempt to improve socail conditions - it's a human failing we all have. The road to hell is paved in good intentions etc. etc.
• jameshart 10y ago
  If you're trying to argue that Iceland's population is therefore just not culturally predisposed to juvenile delinquency, underage drinking, smoking, or drug abuse, you must have missed the part where Iceland started out with high measured levels of those things, then staged interventions, and wound up with low levels of those things.
• flubert 10y ago
  Don't forget to mention the religious diversity, where only 71% of the population belongs to the official Luthern Church of Iceland, while the heathens of the Free Luthern church in Reykjavík and Hafnarfjörður only comprise 5% of the population. http://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/Samfelag__menning__5_trufelog/MAN10001.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=39377d4c-13a5-43f6-af24-6663ca48c5a3&displaypanel=savequery1 http://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/Samfelag__menni...
• Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  This sounds like the old, worn-out argument that "we're too big and diverse to have nice things like the Nordics". With that can't do attitude of course things will never get fixed in the US.
  • forkandwait 10y ago
    This argument is more palatable than the truth it masks, which is that we are unwilling to spend money and time making nice things like the Nordics do, and many wealthy people like it that way because it keeps their taxes low.
    • dinkumthinkum 10y ago
      I invite all of you that hold this position to travel across the country and do in-depth qualities one studies with interviews, surveys, actual population observations and see if these very simplistic ideas still hold true. How's that for data?
  • tn13 10y ago
    I never mentioned "can't do". We cant do it the Nordic way. End the drug war is a simple solution to all of America's drug problems. American politicians and prison-industrial-complex likes drug addicts. That is why USA has a drug problem.