4 ms·

Frankly this seems paternalistic. It's hard for me to read this and not translate it as: "We found something non-white people enjoy and we're going to ruin it.

Frankly this seems paternalistic. It's hard for me to read this and not translate it as: "We found something non-white people enjoy and we're going to ruin it. For their own good."

toomuchtodo 5y ago
New Zealand has an age requirement for tobacco, and has also (edit: proposed) to ban sales of it entirely based on birth year (2004 and forward) to phase out its consumption. I’d say this doesn’t go far enough. We’ve known for over half a century the damage tobacco consumption does to a person’s body. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-ai...
- howeyc 5y ago
  Amazing how positions differ. I'm of the opinion you can ruin your own body all you want. As long as you don't breath it into my face, have at it. I wouldn't advise anyone to take up smoking though. I think you should be able to buy cocaine (as an example) as easily as tobacco.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I have seen too many addicts slowly kill themselves (tobacco, opioids, cocaine) to be able to morally maintain this position. It’s easy to say when you assume everyone is of sound mind and capable of self regulation, which is not the case. People have demons and mental health challenges that make them vulnerable. You’d need a model like Portugal, where they fund treatment programs and social services along side liberal drug policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      But of how unsound a mind must someone be before we say "I know better than you?" There are 10s of thousands of addicts on the street that the government does not feel it has the grounds to institutionalize. So we trust them to make every decision except which psychoactive chemicals that aren't alcohol they can consume?
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        We don’t trust them, we gave up on them.
        aidenn0 5y ago
        fair enough
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      > People have demons and mental health challenges that make them vulnerable. Maybe some small number of people do. But why should their problems result in everyone else being deprived of choice?
    - howeyc 5y ago
      Who decides you're too vulnerable to make your own decisions. At what percentage of the overall populace being classified as vulnerable do we start removing the decision from the whole population. But yes, something similar to Portugal would be my preference. Health treatment provided by government, possibly a "Health Premium" tax paid on tobacco, drugs, alcohol, etc at point-of-sale to help cover costs. Different tax rates based on how "bad" for your health it is.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        These are all great questions, and the purpose of government and democratic governance.
        int_19h 5y ago
        Governments - even democratic ones - do not exactly have a good track record on that. For example, it was mostly democratic governments that enacted compulsory sterilization laws back in the day.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  Same with Alcohol no? Same with burning and inhaling Cannabis no? >but we should let folks kill themselves slowly with tobacco? This is a very slippery slope. It's possible to responsibly smoke, just like it's possible to responsibly consume foods high in sugar. Of course, people want to ban(or hate tax) sugar/high fat foods as well, so perhaps this is what you'd like to have happen.
- jfk13 5y ago
  > has also started to ban sales of it entirely based on birth year (2004 and forward) "has started to" may not be quite correct; it sounds to me like this is a proposal that is being considered.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  > We’ve known for over half a century the damage tobacco consumption does to a person’s body. Sorta. We don’t have any randomized trials in people. Even harder to blind the participants for extra science. We have tons of epidemiological evidence that it’s bad, but that’s piled with pesky cofounders. Being the type of person that could become/does become dependent on tobacco does terrible things. Being the type of person that can shake off that addiction does great things.
dcolkitt 5y ago
I’d like to imagine an alternative universe where the federal government bans wood burning fireplaces. After all fireplaces produce an enormous quantity of indoor air pollution, and sitting by a fire for the night is about the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes. How would this policy proposal be received? My guess is that the public would be up in arms and decry the move as ridiculous government over reach. The only operative difference between this and the menthol ban is that fireplaces are associated with rich people living in upscale houses. The thought experiment tells me that at some level we’re more willing to force paternalism on low status poor people.
- MarkSweep 5y ago
  Well, at least in the SF Bay Area, you are not allowed to install a new wood burning fireplace. And you are not allowed to operate one on “spare the air” says, unless it is your only source of heat. https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/wood-smoke https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/wood-smoke

Frankly this seems paternalistic. It's hard for me to read this and not translate it as: "We found something non-white people enjoy and we're going to ruin it. For their own good."

toomuchtodo 5y ago

New Zealand has an age requirement for tobacco, and has also (edit: proposed) to ban sales of it entirely based on birth year (2004 and forward) to phase out its consumption. I’d say this doesn’t go far enough. We’ve known for over half a century the damage tobacco consumption does to a person’s body. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-ai...

howeyc 5y ago
Amazing how positions differ. I'm of the opinion you can ruin your own body all you want. As long as you don't breath it into my face, have at it. I wouldn't advise anyone to take up smoking though. I think you should be able to buy cocaine (as an example) as easily as tobacco.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  I have seen too many addicts slowly kill themselves (tobacco, opioids, cocaine) to be able to morally maintain this position. It’s easy to say when you assume everyone is of sound mind and capable of self regulation, which is not the case. People have demons and mental health challenges that make them vulnerable. You’d need a model like Portugal, where they fund treatment programs and social services along side liberal drug policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    But of how unsound a mind must someone be before we say "I know better than you?" There are 10s of thousands of addicts on the street that the government does not feel it has the grounds to institutionalize. So we trust them to make every decision except which psychoactive chemicals that aren't alcohol they can consume?
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      We don’t trust them, we gave up on them.
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        fair enough
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > People have demons and mental health challenges that make them vulnerable. Maybe some small number of people do. But why should their problems result in everyone else being deprived of choice?
  - howeyc 5y ago
    Who decides you're too vulnerable to make your own decisions. At what percentage of the overall populace being classified as vulnerable do we start removing the decision from the whole population. But yes, something similar to Portugal would be my preference. Health treatment provided by government, possibly a "Health Premium" tax paid on tobacco, drugs, alcohol, etc at point-of-sale to help cover costs. Different tax rates based on how "bad" for your health it is.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      These are all great questions, and the purpose of government and democratic governance.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Governments - even democratic ones - do not exactly have a good track record on that. For example, it was mostly democratic governments that enacted compulsory sterilization laws back in the day.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Same with Alcohol no? Same with burning and inhaling Cannabis no? >but we should let folks kill themselves slowly with tobacco? This is a very slippery slope. It's possible to responsibly smoke, just like it's possible to responsibly consume foods high in sugar. Of course, people want to ban(or hate tax) sugar/high fat foods as well, so perhaps this is what you'd like to have happen.
jfk13 5y ago
> has also started to ban sales of it entirely based on birth year (2004 and forward) "has started to" may not be quite correct; it sounds to me like this is a proposal that is being considered.
Scoundreller 5y ago
> We’ve known for over half a century the damage tobacco consumption does to a person’s body. Sorta. We don’t have any randomized trials in people. Even harder to blind the participants for extra science. We have tons of epidemiological evidence that it’s bad, but that’s piled with pesky cofounders. Being the type of person that could become/does become dependent on tobacco does terrible things. Being the type of person that can shake off that addiction does great things.

dcolkitt 5y ago

I’d like to imagine an alternative universe where the federal government bans wood burning fireplaces. After all fireplaces produce an enormous quantity of indoor air pollution, and sitting by a fire for the night is about the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes. How would this policy proposal be received? My guess is that the public would be up in arms and decry the move as ridiculous government over reach. The only operative difference between this and the menthol ban is that fireplaces are associated with rich people living in upscale houses. The thought experiment tells me that at some level we’re more willing to force paternalism on low status poor people.

MarkSweep 5y ago
Well, at least in the SF Bay Area, you are not allowed to install a new wood burning fireplace. And you are not allowed to operate one on “spare the air” says, unless it is your only source of heat. https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/wood-smoke https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/wood-smoke