4 ms·

I understand that menthol cigarettes are more attractive because they make smoking more pleasant. I also understand they can be more dangerous, because part of

by mcthro 8y ago

I understand that menthol cigarettes are more attractive because they make smoking more pleasant. I also understand they can be more dangerous, because part of being more pleasant is inhaling being more comfortable[0], so one might take bigger drags and/or hold them longer. As someone trying to quit (menthols particularly), I can see this move helping some (and I also see it incredibly frustrating for anyone not looking to quit, though they should be!). Part of my difficulty in quitting is how widely available smokes are - in my day to day life, they're only ever 5 minutes away, and that ease of access is a huge barrier in staying smoke-free. I've tried the non-menthols in my brand and I can't stand them. Banning menthols solves the availability problem (for me), and while I disagree with it ideologically, it's hard to argue with it practicality. [0] https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/8xdx7k/are-menthol-cigarettes-worse https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/8xdx7k/are-menthol-ciga...

provolone 8y ago
Which is more practical? Tackling your lack of self discipline and perhaps growing as a person, or appealing for the government to punish the sellers of the product you enjoy?
- wild_preference 8y ago
  What kind of cost does society bear because of smoking? Since we share finite resources like insurance pools and the medical system, there's a case for society to restrict the actions of others.
  - provolone 8y ago
    Maybe we should force them to exercise too? Or perhaps we should take a vote on what is definitively healthy and restrict the public's diet to pre-approved items? If China has social credits, maybe the west needs government enforced health credits? As it is, FDA bureaucrats are appointed, not elected. What are the costs of deferring individuals' choices to a mob's vote or to the whims of appointed bureaucrats? Advocates of centrally planned societies will always point to the purported benefits of their authoritarian models. At what point is the individual responsible for his own health? If we absolve the individual of all personal responsibility and replace it with a set of all encompassing dictates - What does it mean to be a free human being in such a society? How would this differ from being property of the state?
    - cyphar 8y ago
      Watch out for that slippery slope, the first step is a doozy!
      - justtopost 8y ago
        But its not wrong, hes just arguing poorly. Explain to me why I should not have ultimate control of what I do with my body?
        CptFribble 8y ago
        Imagine you're a farmer with a bunch of free-range chickens. Your responsibility is to make sure they all live long, healthy, happy, and free. There's a poisonous plant that sticks through the fence in a corner of the range. You tell all the chickens to stay away, that it will make them sick and kill them, but every year about 10-15% of them eat it anyway, and you're constantly dealing with the illness and death it causes. And you can't tear out the plant, because it's not growing on your property, it's just coming through the fence. The problem, is that the plant didn't get there on it's own. A pack of wolves planted it, and at night they plaster the side of the coop with flyers saying how smooth and cool the plant is. But when you try to tear down the posters, or cut back the plant, all the libertarian chickens come out and yell about individual freedoms. Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising. If anything, we shouldn't ban the item in question, we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. If we take away tobacco companies' power to emotionally manipulate humans, maybe not as many people will choose to throw their health away.
        provolone 8y ago
        You're joined by Akerlof & Shiller when you claim: >Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising Adbusters would agree with your claim that: >we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulation-Deception-ebook/dp/B00WAM14RE https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbu... https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fake https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fak... Your comparison of a farmer owning chickens for profit/consumption to a government benevolently lording over citizens is illustrative. For the sake of being explicit, I don't think humans should be regarded as chattel. If you find this an apt comparison, we may have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
  - true_religion 8y ago
    By and large, smokers die faster than non smokers, and at an earlier age. This saves costs in health care, pension funds, and social security. There is a lot of downside to smoking, but the shared burden is not it.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Smokers take more sick leave and they live for a long time with disability before they die.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed here. We ban accounts that do this, so please review the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do it again, regardless of how right you are or superior you feel. Edit: it looks like you've been posting a lot of unsubstantive comments to HN, as well as a lot of ideological comments. Both of those things are against the guidelines as well. If you'd please use the site as intended instead, we'd be grateful.
fest 8y ago
Have you tried cytisine (Tabex brand in Europe)? On the contrary to some other nicotine replacements, it seems to take the enjoyment of nicotine away, so you only get the bad taste from a smoke, which made a lot easier to quit for me.
pessimizer 8y ago
I quit by using swedish snus; it gave me my nicotine fix, broke all of the habits that had accumulated over 20 years, and was not cool or fun. Quitting snus cold turkey was an order of magnitude easier than quitting cigarettes cold turkey had ever been; it was the same week and a half of frustration with the world, but none of the not knowing what to do with my hands or how to concentrate or how to have a stressful conversation.

by mcthro 8y ago

provolone 8y ago

Which is more practical? Tackling your lack of self discipline and perhaps growing as a person, or appealing for the government to punish the sellers of the product you enjoy?

wild_preference 8y ago
What kind of cost does society bear because of smoking? Since we share finite resources like insurance pools and the medical system, there's a case for society to restrict the actions of others.
- provolone 8y ago
  Maybe we should force them to exercise too? Or perhaps we should take a vote on what is definitively healthy and restrict the public's diet to pre-approved items? If China has social credits, maybe the west needs government enforced health credits? As it is, FDA bureaucrats are appointed, not elected. What are the costs of deferring individuals' choices to a mob's vote or to the whims of appointed bureaucrats? Advocates of centrally planned societies will always point to the purported benefits of their authoritarian models. At what point is the individual responsible for his own health? If we absolve the individual of all personal responsibility and replace it with a set of all encompassing dictates - What does it mean to be a free human being in such a society? How would this differ from being property of the state?
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Watch out for that slippery slope, the first step is a doozy!
    - justtopost 8y ago
      But its not wrong, hes just arguing poorly. Explain to me why I should not have ultimate control of what I do with my body?
      - CptFribble 8y ago
        Imagine you're a farmer with a bunch of free-range chickens. Your responsibility is to make sure they all live long, healthy, happy, and free. There's a poisonous plant that sticks through the fence in a corner of the range. You tell all the chickens to stay away, that it will make them sick and kill them, but every year about 10-15% of them eat it anyway, and you're constantly dealing with the illness and death it causes. And you can't tear out the plant, because it's not growing on your property, it's just coming through the fence. The problem, is that the plant didn't get there on it's own. A pack of wolves planted it, and at night they plaster the side of the coop with flyers saying how smooth and cool the plant is. But when you try to tear down the posters, or cut back the plant, all the libertarian chickens come out and yell about individual freedoms. Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising. If anything, we shouldn't ban the item in question, we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. If we take away tobacco companies' power to emotionally manipulate humans, maybe not as many people will choose to throw their health away.
        provolone 8y ago
        You're joined by Akerlof & Shiller when you claim: >Humans aren't rational actors. We're emotional creatures of habit who are highly susceptible to advertising Adbusters would agree with your claim that: >we should just make it really expensive, and disallow any forms of advertising. That means besides no TV, no magazines, no billboards, no visible smoking anywhere in media, not visible on shelves on any store anywhere, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulation-Deception-ebook/dp/B00WAM14RE https://www.amazon.com/Phishing-Phools-Economics-Manipulatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbusters https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athedailybell.com+adbu... https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+shiller https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fake https://www.google.com/search?q=nobel+prize+in+economics+fak... Your comparison of a farmer owning chickens for profit/consumption to a government benevolently lording over citizens is illustrative. For the sake of being explicit, I don't think humans should be regarded as chattel. If you find this an apt comparison, we may have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
- true_religion 8y ago
  By and large, smokers die faster than non smokers, and at an earlier age. This saves costs in health care, pension funds, and social security. There is a lot of downside to smoking, but the shared burden is not it.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Smokers take more sick leave and they live for a long time with disability before they die.
dang 8y ago
Personal attacks are not allowed here. We ban accounts that do this, so please review the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do it again, regardless of how right you are or superior you feel. Edit: it looks like you've been posting a lot of unsubstantive comments to HN, as well as a lot of ideological comments. Both of those things are against the guidelines as well. If you'd please use the site as intended instead, we'd be grateful.

fest 8y ago

Have you tried cytisine (Tabex brand in Europe)? On the contrary to some other nicotine replacements, it seems to take the enjoyment of nicotine away, so you only get the bad taste from a smoke, which made a lot easier to quit for me.

pessimizer 8y ago

I quit by using swedish snus; it gave me my nicotine fix, broke all of the habits that had accumulated over 20 years, and was not cool or fun. Quitting snus cold turkey was an order of magnitude easier than quitting cigarettes cold turkey had ever been; it was the same week and a half of frustration with the world, but none of the not knowing what to do with my hands or how to concentrate or how to have a stressful conversation.