4 ms·

Epidemic seems a little strong...

by ProAm 8y ago

happytoexplain 8y ago
Because you feel it's not widespread enough or not damaging enough (or both)?
- RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
  I think it would be about rates of increase or decrease rather than overall numbers. If it were about overall numbers, well, its pretty clear we've ended a tobacco epidemic over the past 60 years. Not sure if any one else here remembers cigarettes in restaurants, but imagine spelling camels while getting your salad bar refill at Sizzler. We've come a long way.
  - snek 8y ago
    That doesn't mean we're finished. Pretending this problem is solved will just result in it getting out of hand again.
    - RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
      What do you mean by 'finished' and 'solved'? You speak as if there is some sort of societal goal in mind here. You've clearly got an agenda here and I think you should make it clear that you've got a goal in mind here regarding whats 'right' and 'wrong' for other people to do with their time, lives, and money. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. Is it bad for them? Yeah. Does it have a negative cost against society? Yeah. But its a slight cost that I'm willing to bear to uphold personal liberty and freedom of choice. Overall, smoking rates are pretty low, and we're probably on the other side of the overall costs smoking writ-large will have on society. So its fine. If people still want to smoke, warn them of the negatives, then let them smoke.
      - snek 8y ago
        I assume the societal goal is to help young people, whose brains aren't yet able to make sound decisions (https://www.aacap.org/aacap/families_and_youth/facts_for_families/fff-guide/the-teen-brain-behavior-problem-solving-and-decision-making-095.aspx https://www.aacap.org/aacap/families_and_youth/facts_for_fam...) and keep them from doing things which might really hurt them in life like developing nicotine or alcohol dependency. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519837/)
        ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
        They already require people be over 18, maybe the punishment should be higher on those who are supplying children with them? The reason I'm so against more regulation is that the current trend in the war against ecigs is to ban pretty much any good tasting flavors (all but menthol), and I don't like that what entails for our future. I don't even vape, but the idea that the majority will go around banning what they don't like "for the good of the children" is something I refuse to support. It's not going to stop if it gets started.
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  How about we focus on the fact that today's kids have a shorter life expectancy than their parents due to shitty eating habits? I think that is an epidemic. Never heard anything about that from the Surgeon General though. Can't upset the Big Food apple cart too much.
RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
Especially when you compare overall tobacco and tobacco derivative consumption across time. Simply put, the overall rate of tobacco and nicotine consumption now is significantly lower than 20 years ago, which was significantly lower than 20 years prior, which was significantly lower than 20 years prior, which was... well you get the idea. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/ci...
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  Well, this was due to the fact that the dangers were recognized when adoption was already widespread and, as you mention, dozens and dozens of years of PSAs, bans and medical consulting were necessary to lower consumption rates. Maybe this time it would make sense to start this process sooner?
  - RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
    I think we largely already have. If something is legal in society, there is always going to be some rate of individuals interested in participating. At some point, if you want the government to nanny over you and make your choices for your, just possessing the substance illegal. Otherwise, warn people of its ills, then let them choose.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The references go way back! (Also applies to your user name. Actually, if I press on that link, I get a blank page.)

Epidemic seems a little strong...

by ProAm 8y ago

Epidemic seems a little strong...

happytoexplain 8y ago

Because you feel it's not widespread enough or not damaging enough (or both)?

RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
I think it would be about rates of increase or decrease rather than overall numbers. If it were about overall numbers, well, its pretty clear we've ended a tobacco epidemic over the past 60 years. Not sure if any one else here remembers cigarettes in restaurants, but imagine spelling camels while getting your salad bar refill at Sizzler. We've come a long way.
- snek 8y ago
  That doesn't mean we're finished. Pretending this problem is solved will just result in it getting out of hand again.
  - RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
    What do you mean by 'finished' and 'solved'? You speak as if there is some sort of societal goal in mind here. You've clearly got an agenda here and I think you should make it clear that you've got a goal in mind here regarding whats 'right' and 'wrong' for other people to do with their time, lives, and money. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. Is it bad for them? Yeah. Does it have a negative cost against society? Yeah. But its a slight cost that I'm willing to bear to uphold personal liberty and freedom of choice. Overall, smoking rates are pretty low, and we're probably on the other side of the overall costs smoking writ-large will have on society. So its fine. If people still want to smoke, warn them of the negatives, then let them smoke.
    - snek 8y ago
      I assume the societal goal is to help young people, whose brains aren't yet able to make sound decisions (https://www.aacap.org/aacap/families_and_youth/facts_for_families/fff-guide/the-teen-brain-behavior-problem-solving-and-decision-making-095.aspx https://www.aacap.org/aacap/families_and_youth/facts_for_fam...) and keep them from doing things which might really hurt them in life like developing nicotine or alcohol dependency. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519837/)
      - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
        They already require people be over 18, maybe the punishment should be higher on those who are supplying children with them? The reason I'm so against more regulation is that the current trend in the war against ecigs is to ban pretty much any good tasting flavors (all but menthol), and I don't like that what entails for our future. I don't even vape, but the idea that the majority will go around banning what they don't like "for the good of the children" is something I refuse to support. It's not going to stop if it gets started.
Dirlewanger 8y ago
How about we focus on the fact that today's kids have a shorter life expectancy than their parents due to shitty eating habits? I think that is an epidemic. Never heard anything about that from the Surgeon General though. Can't upset the Big Food apple cart too much.

RosanaAnaDana 8y ago

Especially when you compare overall tobacco and tobacco derivative consumption across time. Simply put, the overall rate of tobacco and nicotine consumption now is significantly lower than 20 years ago, which was significantly lower than 20 years prior, which was significantly lower than 20 years prior, which was... well you get the idea. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/ https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/ci...

Kurtz79 8y ago
Well, this was due to the fact that the dangers were recognized when adoption was already widespread and, as you mention, dozens and dozens of years of PSAs, bans and medical consulting were necessary to lower consumption rates. Maybe this time it would make sense to start this process sooner?
- RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
  I think we largely already have. If something is legal in society, there is always going to be some rate of individuals interested in participating. At some point, if you want the government to nanny over you and make your choices for your, just possessing the substance illegal. Otherwise, warn people of its ills, then let them choose.
stcredzero 8y ago
The references go way back! (Also applies to your user name. Actually, if I press on that link, I get a blank page.)