6 ms·

When can people finally stop to interfere in other peoples lives? If Bloomberg doesn’t want to vape flavors: fine, but give me the liberty to do so... Seriously

When can people finally stop to interfere in other peoples lives? If Bloomberg doesn’t want to vape flavors: fine, but give me the liberty to do so... Seriously, if I look back at my youth, I wonder how we all survived -.-

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shpongled 7y ago
Bloomberg just loves to use his money to try to enforce his beliefs on other people.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  There isn't even a coherent belief here. This is a $160M emotional reaction.
  - hos234 7y ago
    I am waiting for Cambridge Analytica 2.0 that purely targets and triggers billionaires.
- gnu8 7y ago
  The mere fact that Bloomberg is wealthy proves that he knows best and we should bend to his will. After all, someday when you sell your startup to SoftBank, don’t you want to use your money to improve society and get your way?
  - namewasmypw 7y ago
    This is satire, right?
- jakebasile 7y ago
  It's a pattern with him and others like him. Bloomberg has been spending obscene amounts of money trying to restrict civil rights such as the right to keep and bear arms for a long, long time. Somehow I bet he still has armed guards, though. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-control-fund-raising.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-contr...
- siruncledrew 7y ago
  "Let's Take Away Everything Fun!" - Michael Bloomberg 2020
throw554 7y ago
People who smoke cigarettes and otherwise have an unhealthy lifestyle overburden the health system and take away government spending that can be spent elsewhere. Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer?
- mpfundstein 7y ago
  Anecdotal counter evidence: All of my grand parents and their siblings smoked and drank alcohol and not one of them died of young age or a smoking releated disease. But I get your point. I pay a heavy tax on cigs though. I just hope the government puts that into a fund for cigarette relate health care issues instead of financing some wars in the middle east. Ah no, they don’t. They just exploit the addiction.
  - blang 7y ago
    I believe a bulk of that tax on the federal level goes to funding health insurance for children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States#Under_the_Obama_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_... State level taxes of course depend on the state.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer? Why should I pay taxes for schools and roads and services I don't use?
  - jimhefferon 7y ago
    We all pay taxes for schools so there will be engineers to build the airplanes, cars, dishwashers, etc., that we do use. Likewise, we pay for roads so that trucks carrying our dinners can get to the store.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      Guess I should've added a </rhetorical>
appleshore 7y ago
I 100% agree with you as long as we ban all advertising in TV news and online news. A million forces tell you what to do, very very few of them are telling you to do good things.
crispyporkbites 7y ago
Like it or not your decisions have an impact on other people’s lives and vice versa. Public health is important, we know the general public will not look out for their best interests on aggregate (see smoking or the opioid epidemic). As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives. Just say no?
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    And how did the DARE program work out?
    - kortilla 7y ago
      And how did banning marijuana work out?
    - knightofmars 7y ago
      Ah yes, "Big Brother" DARE. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/22/us/fingerprinting-of-children-spreading.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/22/us/fingerprinting-of-chil...
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > And how did the DARE program work out? As I recall, the research found it was highly effective at improving subjects (vs. non-subjects) images of law enforcement, but had no discernable effect on subjects (compared to non-subjects) when looking at drug use, drug abuse, or drug-related crime.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    Man, where is this attitude when opiates are in the news!
IshKebab 7y ago
Yeah exactly - stop blowing flavoured vapour in my face!
sbuttgereit 7y ago
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
freehunter 7y ago
>if I look back at my youth, I wonder how we all survived Many people didn't, which is why so many regulations exist now.
- giggles_giggles 7y ago
  What? There hasn't been significant child mortality in developed countries since the second world war (when there was a spike due to the depression and war). In the 19th century, child mortality wasn't because of lack of regulation, it's because modern medical science was in its infancy. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
  - freehunter 7y ago
    Your own source contradicts what you're saying... looking at US child mortality rates on your own link shows 4% child mortality rate in 1949 down to 0.7% by 2016. That's a pretty damn significant reduction. But beyond child mortality, here's another example that regulation does impact: traffic deaths [1]. Government regulations surrounding car safety, seatbelt use, airbags, etc have had a massive impact. Looking at the data from 1970 (a time when older HNers would say "when I was young") to today, there were 4.74 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, compared to 1.16 today. And even as the US has added 120 million new Americans to the population since then and vehicle miles traveled has basically tripled, not only have we reduced deaths per mile traveled, we've reduced deaths period, without worrying about normalizing the data to population or VMT. I hear quite a bit "when I was young we didn't have seatbelts or airbags and we rode on the back dashboard and didn't have child seats and we survived just fine" except a lot of people didn't. A lot of people died, and that's why regulations were created and that's why fewer people are dying now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
- ryandrake 7y ago
  If you simply ban anything that’s even remotely risky, then yes, it will save some lives. Is it worth it? Do you want to live in a world where we are all walking around inside padded plastic bubbles? Some time between my childhood and today, society collectively lost its mind and decided that the only acceptable way to manage risk is to relentlessly drive it towards zero through the force of law. We are going to end up with a boring, sterile and ultra-safe world.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

shpongled 7y ago

Bloomberg just loves to use his money to try to enforce his beliefs on other people.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
There isn't even a coherent belief here. This is a $160M emotional reaction.
- hos234 7y ago
  I am waiting for Cambridge Analytica 2.0 that purely targets and triggers billionaires.
gnu8 7y ago
The mere fact that Bloomberg is wealthy proves that he knows best and we should bend to his will. After all, someday when you sell your startup to SoftBank, don’t you want to use your money to improve society and get your way?
- namewasmypw 7y ago
  This is satire, right?
jakebasile 7y ago
It's a pattern with him and others like him. Bloomberg has been spending obscene amounts of money trying to restrict civil rights such as the right to keep and bear arms for a long, long time. Somehow I bet he still has armed guards, though. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-control-fund-raising.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/nra-gun-contr...
siruncledrew 7y ago
"Let's Take Away Everything Fun!" - Michael Bloomberg 2020

throw554 7y ago

People who smoke cigarettes and otherwise have an unhealthy lifestyle overburden the health system and take away government spending that can be spent elsewhere. Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer?

mpfundstein 7y ago
Anecdotal counter evidence: All of my grand parents and their siblings smoked and drank alcohol and not one of them died of young age or a smoking releated disease. But I get your point. I pay a heavy tax on cigs though. I just hope the government puts that into a fund for cigarette relate health care issues instead of financing some wars in the middle east. Ah no, they don’t. They just exploit the addiction.
- blang 7y ago
  I believe a bulk of that tax on the federal level goes to funding health insurance for children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_States#Under_the_Obama_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_taxes_in_the_United_... State level taxes of course depend on the state.
mieseratte 7y ago
> Why should I pay more because you drinks coke, diabetic and smoke yourself towards lung cancer? Why should I pay taxes for schools and roads and services I don't use?
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  We all pay taxes for schools so there will be engineers to build the airplanes, cars, dishwashers, etc., that we do use. Likewise, we pay for roads so that trucks carrying our dinners can get to the store.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    Guess I should've added a </rhetorical>

appleshore 7y ago

I 100% agree with you as long as we ban all advertising in TV news and online news. A million forces tell you what to do, very very few of them are telling you to do good things.

crispyporkbites 7y ago

Like it or not your decisions have an impact on other people’s lives and vice versa. Public health is important, we know the general public will not look out for their best interests on aggregate (see smoking or the opioid epidemic). As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives.

mieseratte 7y ago
> As individuals we’re not equipped to defend against profit seeking products that are bad for our health, hence we need action from our elected representatives. Just say no?
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  And how did the DARE program work out?
  - kortilla 7y ago
    And how did banning marijuana work out?
  - knightofmars 7y ago
    Ah yes, "Big Brother" DARE. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/22/us/fingerprinting-of-children-spreading.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/22/us/fingerprinting-of-chil...
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > And how did the DARE program work out? As I recall, the research found it was highly effective at improving subjects (vs. non-subjects) images of law enforcement, but had no discernable effect on subjects (compared to non-subjects) when looking at drug use, drug abuse, or drug-related crime.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  Man, where is this attitude when opiates are in the news!

IshKebab 7y ago

Yeah exactly - stop blowing flavoured vapour in my face!

sbuttgereit 7y ago

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

freehunter 7y ago

>if I look back at my youth, I wonder how we all survived Many people didn't, which is why so many regulations exist now.

giggles_giggles 7y ago
What? There hasn't been significant child mortality in developed countries since the second world war (when there was a spike due to the depression and war). In the 19th century, child mortality wasn't because of lack of regulation, it's because modern medical science was in its infancy. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
- freehunter 7y ago
  Your own source contradicts what you're saying... looking at US child mortality rates on your own link shows 4% child mortality rate in 1949 down to 0.7% by 2016. That's a pretty damn significant reduction. But beyond child mortality, here's another example that regulation does impact: traffic deaths [1]. Government regulations surrounding car safety, seatbelt use, airbags, etc have had a massive impact. Looking at the data from 1970 (a time when older HNers would say "when I was young") to today, there were 4.74 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, compared to 1.16 today. And even as the US has added 120 million new Americans to the population since then and vehicle miles traveled has basically tripled, not only have we reduced deaths per mile traveled, we've reduced deaths period, without worrying about normalizing the data to population or VMT. I hear quite a bit "when I was young we didn't have seatbelts or airbags and we rode on the back dashboard and didn't have child seats and we survived just fine" except a lot of people didn't. A lot of people died, and that's why regulations were created and that's why fewer people are dying now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
ryandrake 7y ago
If you simply ban anything that’s even remotely risky, then yes, it will save some lives. Is it worth it? Do you want to live in a world where we are all walking around inside padded plastic bubbles? Some time between my childhood and today, society collectively lost its mind and decided that the only acceptable way to manage risk is to relentlessly drive it towards zero through the force of law. We are going to end up with a boring, sterile and ultra-safe world.