4 ms·

I must have missed the memo that Prohibition worked after we banned alcohol and weed. This is a ridiculous overreach. The end game is for people to stop smokin

by bustin 5y ago

I must have missed the memo that Prohibition worked after we banned alcohol and weed. This is a ridiculous overreach. The end game is for people to stop smoking altogether, and while that would be good for American health, this is so unnecessary. It is not the prerogative of our peers to maintain our health. It is our free right to poison ourselves in the ways we desire. In ten years from now when cigarettes are fully illegal and those "darn ignorant poor people who just can't help themselves because they don't know any better" continue to swell up and die from overeating, are we, the wealthy class, going to dictate what they are allowed to eat? I wish these were rhetorical questions but as we continue to socialize the cost of medicine we need to be very explicit that we are OK paying for others' bad decisions as part of the package. If not, we should not socialize the cost. Dictating what risky behavior is allowed is the wrong move, because there is no limiting principle. For example, in a world where we dictate like this, how long until we ban climbing rope because it makes it too easy to climb rock faces, which leads to injury and socialized health-care costs? This ban is a serious assault on American freedom and a return to puritan morality. EDIT: some phrasing, may affect the comment below :(

atlasunshrugged 5y ago
I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure it will be the same. The companies that make cigarettes are few and far between and are much more likely to obey government rules to make sure they stay in good graces of the government and can keep selling their other highly profitable products. With alcohol people could make it in stills in their basements and with pot it came from across the border - maybe menthols will too but I'm not sure it's a high value enough product to do so that I would consider it a 1:1 comparison to pot.
Gatsky 5y ago
They are banning sale, not use. It seems totally reasonable to say we don’t want anyone to profit from selling highly addictive health damaging products. This is ok. Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.” The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a terrible idea, and impossible to implement.
- jdhn 5y ago
  >Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.” That is the argument, and I find that it holds up just fine. It's not like cigarettes appeared on the market yesterday, their dangers are well known. Adults should have the ability to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are harmful to themselves.
  - kristjansson 5y ago
    > Adults should have the ability to make their own decisions How many people actually really make their own decisions, and have all of the information available to do so? Does the right of those people to take that decision and have their chosen product available cheaply and conveniently outweigh the incremental harm that accrues to everyone else merely tempted by the cheapness and convinence?
    - jdhn 5y ago
      Yes.
- fitzie 5y ago
  Eric Garner was killed because of the policies that created the a huge black market for cigarettes in NYC. the absurdity is they are banning flavor which isn't the harmful element. at the same time they are legalizing marijuana including edibles across this country. in a free country you have to allow people the liberty to make poor choices. putting out health information and reasonable restrictions is as far as the govt should go.
  - Gatsky 5y ago
    Two parts to this: - You are highlighting the negative consequences of a ban. There are of course negative consequences to a ban, the black market issue is far from the most important one. But as inidicated in the press release, smoking is a huge health problem causing untold suffering, loss of income, loss of productivity, unnecessary healthcare costs etc etc. These pros and cons of a ban need to be compared in a sane manner. - The 'Whatabout' argument, whatabout alcohol, marijuana, gambling etc. This is not an argument which can guide us on what to do with tobacco. If the question is, why are we doing something about tobacco but not any other X problems, the basic answer is because tobacco causes a huge burden of problems, and there are only very small upsides to smoking for an individual, and very large downsides for the individual and almost everyone else. I think there is a lot of research showing that 'putting out health information and reasonable restrictions' doesn't achieve much. If you are agreeing that something rather than nothing should be done, why do something that doesn't really work?
hnrodey 5y ago
This is a super coherent argument. Well done.

by bustin 5y ago

atlasunshrugged 5y ago

I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure it will be the same. The companies that make cigarettes are few and far between and are much more likely to obey government rules to make sure they stay in good graces of the government and can keep selling their other highly profitable products. With alcohol people could make it in stills in their basements and with pot it came from across the border - maybe menthols will too but I'm not sure it's a high value enough product to do so that I would consider it a 1:1 comparison to pot.

Gatsky 5y ago

They are banning sale, not use. It seems totally reasonable to say we don’t want anyone to profit from selling highly addictive health damaging products. This is ok. Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.” The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a terrible idea, and impossible to implement.

jdhn 5y ago
>Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.” That is the argument, and I find that it holds up just fine. It's not like cigarettes appeared on the market yesterday, their dangers are well known. Adults should have the ability to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are harmful to themselves.
- kristjansson 5y ago
  > Adults should have the ability to make their own decisions How many people actually really make their own decisions, and have all of the information available to do so? Does the right of those people to take that decision and have their chosen product available cheaply and conveniently outweigh the incremental harm that accrues to everyone else merely tempted by the cheapness and convinence?
  - jdhn 5y ago
    Yes.
fitzie 5y ago
Eric Garner was killed because of the policies that created the a huge black market for cigarettes in NYC. the absurdity is they are banning flavor which isn't the harmful element. at the same time they are legalizing marijuana including edibles across this country. in a free country you have to allow people the liberty to make poor choices. putting out health information and reasonable restrictions is as far as the govt should go.
- Gatsky 5y ago
  Two parts to this: - You are highlighting the negative consequences of a ban. There are of course negative consequences to a ban, the black market issue is far from the most important one. But as inidicated in the press release, smoking is a huge health problem causing untold suffering, loss of income, loss of productivity, unnecessary healthcare costs etc etc. These pros and cons of a ban need to be compared in a sane manner. - The 'Whatabout' argument, whatabout alcohol, marijuana, gambling etc. This is not an argument which can guide us on what to do with tobacco. If the question is, why are we doing something about tobacco but not any other X problems, the basic answer is because tobacco causes a huge burden of problems, and there are only very small upsides to smoking for an individual, and very large downsides for the individual and almost everyone else. I think there is a lot of research showing that 'putting out health information and reasonable restrictions' doesn't achieve much. If you are agreeing that something rather than nothing should be done, why do something that doesn't really work?

hnrodey 5y ago

This is a super coherent argument. Well done.