4 ms·

Harm reduction? Why not ban alcohol? Why not cap cars at 55mph? People have lost money in the stock market, so I assume you'd like that banned as well. What is

Harm reduction? Why not ban alcohol? Why not cap cars at 55mph? People have lost money in the stock market, so I assume you'd like that banned as well. What is your limiting principle?

ketzo 5y ago
I mean, the short answer is risk vs. reward. Smoking is insanely bad for you, very addictive, and the benefits are, uh, marginal. To walk down your list: - Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. This comes the closest, though. - Cars have lots of places where they can be safely operated above that speed, and fast travel has lots of benefits. - The potential benefits of the stock market are fairly obvious. The risks are extremely, immediately obvious, including to the person doing the money-losing.
- donatj 5y ago
  > Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. Tobacco can be consumed in moderation. I'll smoke a Wood Tip Wine Black and Mild about once a month, and my pipe on an occasional beautiful day. The benefits are the extreme joy it brings me. It's one of my favorite things in life, and they're going to take it away. Nicotine is amazingly pleasant and performance boosting unlike alternatives. A good read: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
catillac 5y ago
All of these things are okay in moderation and have some driving principle that weighs cost versus benefit. Same with cigarettes. Hugely harmful with a long tail of harmfulness and external effects on society with little or no gain. Seems like a good risk analysis to me in this case.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  This ban also includes flavored cigars, which most users only smoke occasionally. But even so, why is society bothered with someone's individual choice to smoke a menthol cigarette away from others? I don't see the "external effects" you're alluding to, so it feels like the "long tail" is small in magnitude. If I have to take a guess, you might be thinking of healthcare costs and having to subsidize smokers. But if that's a concern, I feel we should avoid universal healthcare proposals (like Medicare for All) and instead let people choose what insurance coverage they want from private companies, from a menu of choices, so that they pay for what the coverage they want based on who they are and the habits they have. I suggest this path because everyone has a different idea about what they want covered. Some may not want to subsidize smokers, some may not want to subsidize abortions, some may not want to subsidize healthcare for the obese, some may not want to subsidize puberty blockers for children, and so on. Ultimately, all of this is leading us back to what I feel the US got right in the past - favoring choice, control, and responsibility at the individual level instead of increased government size, regulation, and paternalism.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    Do I need to rush out and stock up on Swisher Sweets? (Cherry-flavored cigars.) This is kind of a serious question. I haven't smoked one in twenty years, but now I have an intense craving.
tharne 5y ago
I don't understand all the downvotes to this. Any harm reduction initiative is by nature paternalistic and somewhat arbitrary. In most societies, a "vice" is a just a habit that the upper middle class disapproves of. In the 1950's, the upper middle class enjoyed smoking cigarettes so that was fine and dandy, but marijuana was the devil. Today, the upper middle class loves marijuana and finds cigarettes distasteful, so we have smoking bans alongside marijuana legalization.
ImprovedSilence 5y ago
Excatly. I get the feeling the same group of people in favor of this ban is heavily overlapping with the large population segment that wants legal marijuana? Like, its gotta be all or nothing here, you want this stuff legal, or not? Otherwise your gonna get contraband, perverse incentives, and very likely excessively harsh punishment on petty drug crimes....

Harm reduction? Why not ban alcohol? Why not cap cars at 55mph? People have lost money in the stock market, so I assume you'd like that banned as well. What is your limiting principle?

ketzo 5y ago

I mean, the short answer is risk vs. reward. Smoking is insanely bad for you, very addictive, and the benefits are, uh, marginal. To walk down your list: - Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. This comes the closest, though. - Cars have lots of places where they can be safely operated above that speed, and fast travel has lots of benefits. - The potential benefits of the stock market are fairly obvious. The risks are extremely, immediately obvious, including to the person doing the money-losing.

donatj 5y ago
> Alcohol can be safely consumed in moderation, and is less prone to addiction. Tobacco can be consumed in moderation. I'll smoke a Wood Tip Wine Black and Mild about once a month, and my pipe on an occasional beautiful day. The benefits are the extreme joy it brings me. It's one of my favorite things in life, and they're going to take it away. Nicotine is amazingly pleasant and performance boosting unlike alternatives. A good read: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

catillac 5y ago

All of these things are okay in moderation and have some driving principle that weighs cost versus benefit. Same with cigarettes. Hugely harmful with a long tail of harmfulness and external effects on society with little or no gain. Seems like a good risk analysis to me in this case.

throwawaysea 5y ago
This ban also includes flavored cigars, which most users only smoke occasionally. But even so, why is society bothered with someone's individual choice to smoke a menthol cigarette away from others? I don't see the "external effects" you're alluding to, so it feels like the "long tail" is small in magnitude. If I have to take a guess, you might be thinking of healthcare costs and having to subsidize smokers. But if that's a concern, I feel we should avoid universal healthcare proposals (like Medicare for All) and instead let people choose what insurance coverage they want from private companies, from a menu of choices, so that they pay for what the coverage they want based on who they are and the habits they have. I suggest this path because everyone has a different idea about what they want covered. Some may not want to subsidize smokers, some may not want to subsidize abortions, some may not want to subsidize healthcare for the obese, some may not want to subsidize puberty blockers for children, and so on. Ultimately, all of this is leading us back to what I feel the US got right in the past - favoring choice, control, and responsibility at the individual level instead of increased government size, regulation, and paternalism.
- kbelder 5y ago
  Do I need to rush out and stock up on Swisher Sweets? (Cherry-flavored cigars.) This is kind of a serious question. I haven't smoked one in twenty years, but now I have an intense craving.

tharne 5y ago

I don't understand all the downvotes to this. Any harm reduction initiative is by nature paternalistic and somewhat arbitrary. In most societies, a "vice" is a just a habit that the upper middle class disapproves of. In the 1950's, the upper middle class enjoyed smoking cigarettes so that was fine and dandy, but marijuana was the devil. Today, the upper middle class loves marijuana and finds cigarettes distasteful, so we have smoking bans alongside marijuana legalization.

ImprovedSilence 5y ago

Excatly. I get the feeling the same group of people in favor of this ban is heavily overlapping with the large population segment that wants legal marijuana? Like, its gotta be all or nothing here, you want this stuff legal, or not? Otherwise your gonna get contraband, perverse incentives, and very likely excessively harsh punishment on petty drug crimes....