4 ms·

So then I guess the next question is if it's worse than caffeine or sugar or alcohol; and, if that's enough to require legislation to regulate what people put i

So then I guess the next question is if it's worse than caffeine or sugar or alcohol; and, if that's enough to require legislation to regulate what people put into their bodies.

trcollinson 7y ago
Alcohol is legislatively regulated. Here's a study on Caffeine. I haven't read it all the way yet, but so far the effects are not nearly what nicotine is. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5445139/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5445139/ As for sugar, that's an interesting debate. Sugar is pretty bad for you. The short answer seems to be that sugar kills more people than tobacco and nicotine and lots of other things. But sugar comes in many forms and is hard to regulate, I guess. It's a tough one for sure.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  Alcohol is legislatively regulated by requiring labels on the box and limiting age of consumption. Tobacco has legislation of the same, as well as advertisements. Should nicotine be _more_ regulated than that?
  - trcollinson 7y ago
    Potentially. What would be the harm in further regulation? I feel there is no benefit to a lack of regulation. But that's just my opinion. If my legislators were to ask me if I thought we should have more regulation on nicotine advertisement, I would say yes. Which is what we have legislators for.
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      > What would be the harm in further regulation? I generally err on the side of freedom, even if it's potentially self-harming once someone's an adult. Would adding more law around advertising be too much? I don't think so. Labels on packaging? Sure. Should we make it illegal altogether, or make non-bland flavors illegal, like some states have done? No. I think that's a bridge too far.