3 ms·

Its funny that these new laws are being written/supported by big tobacco. Because Big Tabacco moved to non-smoked nicotine products already and need better mar

• stubish 5y ago
  Maybe we can all get along. The goal is to reduce the burden on public health services and incidental harm to non-smokers. Even if harmful effects of non-tobacco nicotine products can be demonstrated, they would need to be just as bad as smoked tobacco to get a similar response. Maybe next we will see the fossil fuel industry pivot to renewables...
  • mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Harm to non-smokers has largely been solved by banning smoking in indoor public spaces and many outdoor spaces. The issue of burden on health services is political and often actually a fallacy: Political because it is politically unpalatable to tell smokers that they'll have to deal with the health consequences from their own pocket. A fallacy because in many Western countries the heavy taxes on cigarettes cover, or more than cover, the financial cost on public health services (so smokers do pay from their own pocket).
    • belval 5y ago
      > A fallacy because in many Western countries the heavy taxes on cigarettes cover, or more than cover, the financial cost on public health services (so smokers do pay from their own pocket). They also die earlier so they don't use as much government resources in retirement.