8 ms·

The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk

The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? I hope lives are saved, but dang, it just hurts me a little bit to see personal liberty curbed. There’s no way this will result in an illegal drug market for cigarettes, right?

crate_barre 5y ago
It’s weird right? Some times I look at interesting places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi and think, ‘I wouldn’t mind going there for a bit, see what it’s like’. Then I realize they banned alcohol, and the women are constricted, and so on. Nice mountains New Zealand, wish I could have a smoke on one of them, you know, like Gandalf.
MayeulC 5y ago
> If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? FWIW, it's easier to justify when the government pays for expensive healthcare bills that ensue. Like making helmets and seatbelts mandatory, etc. I know people who are mad at helmet-less cyclists because they will cost tax money if they have an accident: it isn't only their personal life they put on the line, they're risking other people's money. However small the final amount is on an individual level, it adds up. In the US, there are talks of making voluntarily unvaccinated patients fit their entire Covid-19 hospitalization bill.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Synaesthesia 5y ago
Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic. No legitimate medical use, and an unusually hugh incidence of cancer. Its certainly a harm on society. I can't really think of much benefit, most smokers are happy to quit. But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement. Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place, it's often due to trauma.
- NoSorryCannot 5y ago
  Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.
  - andrewshadura 5y ago
    In many languages the word narcotic is commonly used to mean any substances causing addiction.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Definition 1 b: " A controlled substance." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic
    - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
      That definition is overly simplified and derives directly from the controlled substances act and similar programs, which refer to many drugs but especially opiates as "narcotics". Nicotine is not a "controlled substance".
      - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
        But also to add, drug law enforcement's tendency to refer to something as a narcotic whenever it's politically expedient is obvious FUD. I allege that FUD was the intended effect when the word was used by OP.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        Regarding the first: Contrary to your earlier assertion, however, it is an extant definition in a sense of the word. You don't like the definition. The definition, however, exists. Regarding the second: We're discussing its regulation here and now. (Updated to clarify which aspects of comment I'm responding to, and how.)
        NoSorryCannot 5y ago
gautamdivgi 5y ago
Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. In general, I don't support these kinds of things. I just think vices are something humans have pursued in general and will continue to pursue regardless of government control. It's just cost of being in a society. Education can help and has helped greatly reduce smoking along with policies restricting where one can smoke. Any sort of prohibition creates a very wealthy "criminal class" who are adept at covering the gaps. And now the government will spend way more money trying to bring that "criminal class" down.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Maybe this was incorrect information, but I was under the impression that smokers were generally less of a cost on healthcare, as they tended to die earlier and use less medical resources.
  - Angostura 5y ago
    They die earlier, but I'm no sure if this outweighs the substantial treatments many need before they die.
    - jjgreen 5y ago
      A smoker's heart attack at 57 is cheap, it's the non-smoker's 15 years of Alzheimer's that costs.
      - hackeraccount 5y ago
        Or is that the smoker's emphysema, copd, lung cancer - I've heard it both ways but in my mind it's at least an open question as to who costs more.
        jjgreen 5y ago
        True enough, it could go either way, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Unless you're a Kiwi, there the state makes that choice for you; Mummy knows best.
wepple 5y ago
One consideration here that many folks (US in particular) may not consider is that smokers put a very substantial burden on the NZ healthcare system which is taxpayer funded. Of course, there are plenty of counter examples to this such as obesity (NZ is #2 in obesity only to US at #1) where the costs don’t result in any substantial regulation or prohibition. Alcohol is a ginormous topic too, NZ has an extremely unhealthy relationship with it. I think I agree that the stripping of liberties is uncomfortable, even if I’m totally opposed to smoking.
- benmmurphy 5y ago
  I remember looking at the figures ages ago for a different country and if you netted everything out smoking saved the government money. For example here is something from the UK from the IEA: https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-drinking-save-public-purse-money https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-dri... The Smoking and the Public Purse report argues that the government spends £3.6bn treating smoking-related diseases on the NHS and up to £1bn collecting cigarette butts and extinguishing smoking-related house fires. The government saves £9.8bn annually in pension, healthcare and other benefit payments due to premature mortality, the IEA said. Meanwhile, the government brings in £9.5bn a year in duty paid on tobacco, the IEA said. Suggesting this means smoking produces a net saving to public finances of £14.7bn a year, at current rates of consumption. I think people just assume automatically smokers are a drain on the healthcare system but I wouldn't assume this without having a deep look at the figures.
  - wepple 5y ago
    Wow, fascinating. I’m not entirely surprised that the taxes cover the healthcare costs (probably similar in NZ where taxes on smoking are very high), but I was startled by the idea of early mortality being a saving. I would point out that healthcare isn’t an entirely financial game; struggles to get nurses and doctors still mean that smokers will pull resources away from other areas
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Metrics are useless, by this line of logic we should encourage older people to kill themselves because they consume more resources than the younger who produce them.
derefr 5y ago
Unlike most drugs, people don't tend to consume cigarettes medically or "recreationally" (i.e. for their experiential effects.) Instead, cigarette use is caused initially by 1. a viral meme of "coolness" driven by corporations, followed by 2. addiction. There's no upside for an individual in consuming their first cigarette. The only upside is to the corporations making the cigarettes. (And doubly bad, from a government's perspective, these manufacturers are probably international conglomerates, where all the money they make from the inelastic demand of addicted locals, gets funnelled out of the country.) > What makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? Why do entities the FDA exist, you mean? Imagine if instead of cigarettes, a cartel of corporations decided to try to make a chewing gum containing a tiny amount of cyanide "cool." You'd want someone to stop them, right? Mostly everyone would. But no individual has the power to stop a cartel of corporations. You'd need the collective use-of-force of an entire country to stop them. And no individual's whims should dictate the use of that collective force in these cases. You can't trust your neighbour to know what cyanide even is. You'd want some kind of ...objective standard, or maybe a consensus of scientific experts. Perhaps a requirement for scientific studies showing safety and efficacy.
- unmole 5y ago
  > There's no upside for an individual in consuming their first cigarette. Nicotine is a potent cognitive enhancer.
- cheeseomlit 5y ago
  >There's no upside for an individual in consuming their first cigarette https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018192/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018192/ >Preclinical models and human studies have demonstrated that nicotine has cognitive-enhancing effects. Attention, working memory, fine motor skills and episodic memory functions are particularly sensitive to nicotine’s effects. Recent studies have demonstrated that the α4, β2, and α7 subunits of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) participate in the cognitive-enhancing effects of nicotine. Imaging studies have been instrumental in identifying brain regions where nicotine is active, and research on the dynamics of large-scale networks after activation by, or withdrawal from, nicotine hold promise for improved understanding of the complex actions of nicotine on human cognition. Not that I advocate for smoking, or that I think it needs to be justified with some kind of 'benefit' to not be outlawed, but one could argue it does have demonstrable cognitive effects that some find desirable. Even if it didn't, some people just find it enjoyable and don't give a shit about the health effects. Given these facts we could replace the word 'cigarettes' in your post with 'coffee' and it'd make just as much sense, but that's a drug you (probably) find enjoyable personally so we won't be seeing any calls for criminalizing that any time soon.
pharmakom 5y ago
because it's (arguably) incompatible with socialised healthcare. a counter-question might be: why should non smokers pay for smokers healthcare? no, the tax doesn't usually cover it.
- unmole 5y ago
  > because it's (arguably) incompatible with socialised healthcare. Being obese is even more so. When do we start banning fatties? /s
  - pharmakom 5y ago
    Well some people argue for that too in the form of sugar taxes and mandatory exercise in state run schools
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Well, I'd be okay with people smoking cigarettes if non-smokers literally never had to breathe in their second-hand smoke. So, if someone without any children lived in a single-family home (as opposed to an apartment building or complex) and never left for long enough to need a smoke break while out in public—I'd say sure, go ahead and smoke, that's none of my business. How many people does that describe? How many people can truly predict they will never want kids? How many people never need to go out during the day, now and forever in the future?
- t_sawyer 5y ago
  There’s a ton of people who dip or use chewing tobacco… no second hand smoke there.
  - EForEndeavour 5y ago
    14% of US adults smoke: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adul... Only 2.4% of US adults use smokeless tobacco: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/smokeless/use_us/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/smok... This second link also says that 3.5% of adult smokers also use smokeless tobacco. 3.5% of 14% is 0.49%. So about 0.49% of US adults are dual users of both smoked and smokeless tobacco, leaving about 1.91% of US adults as exclusive smokeless tobacco users.
vertis 5y ago
Those freedoms impact on others. It's well known that passive smoking is a major problem[1]. If they want to smoke away from everyone else (and that means everyone), fine. If they want to hang out in a group of consensual smokers, then fine. But they don't, they sit around in bars and blow smoke in your face or smoke walking down a street so that you either have to pass them or walk through the smoke. This is leaving alone the impacts on the environment every time one of them flicks a cigarette into a drain, and impacts on healthcare and taxation every time I have to pay for their healthcare (universal healthcare). To be clear, I'm pro universal healthcare. Australia and New Zealand have done a superb job of reducing the amount of tobacco smoke. The difference between going to a bar/cafe in Australia and one in Croatia/Serbia is substantial (not singling them out, I've just visited). I don't know whether this plan will work, and I understand the concerns around personal freedom, I'm just not sure whether protecting the 'rights of smokers' is the right hill to die on. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...
em-bee 5y ago
because they are not only putting themselves at risk but they affect everyone around them.
foxrider 5y ago
The problem here is how tobacco smokers are affecting people around them. Passive smoke consumption is very dangerous, and the smokers tend to ingore any regulations for smoking. Take public bus stops for example, if someone starts smoking while waiting for the bus you usually don't want to start a scene by asking them to stop, and you wouldn't call the police on them, because it's really stupid to bother the cops for such a tiny thing they wouldn't even catch in time. The workplace can be really affected too. Offices may be free of smoke now, but have you ever been a construciton worker? And hell, even living next to a smoker is really uncomfortable, if you live in an apartment building it's always a nuisance when they smoke and it gets sucked into your place if you have a window open. I just really don't want smokers anywhere near me, but the reality is - they are all over the place, and when you try to limit the places they can partake in their habit or complain they always act like they're the victim and their rights are getting violated.
yodsanklai 5y ago
> The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? I'm not for drug prohibition either but there should be very specific legislation around use of tobacco for minors. No informed adult in their right mind would start smoking tobacco. It's incredibly deadly and addictive, and not even enjoyable before you're an addict. The problem is that people start smoking when they are kids or teenagers and are unable to stop when they become conscious of the problem. In my country, selling tobacco to minors would lead to an insignificant fine. This is insane. I can't make any sense of it.
remus 5y ago
I think it's important to remember that tobacco is highly addictive. This makes it harder for individuals to make an informed decision which I think should be a factor in deciding whether to control a particular substance.
chomp 5y ago
I was going to write up a devil's advocate post, but I think I'm mostly fine with people having the freedom to keep smoking as long as externalities are priced in. If smokers cost the country ~NZ$2.5 billion for their personal freedom, then the revenue produced by the tax should be ~NZ$2.5 billion. I think it boils down to if a regressive tax like that is palatable or not. However, as the smoking population dwindles (due to costs, but also increasing public awareness) and you get less people paying in, but more people pulling out of the pot, you're going to have to bump the tax that much more, causing tobacco related crime. At some point, you have to pull the plug if the smoking cohort can't pay for themselves without causing widespread crime. I don't think it should be illegal to smoke or grow your own, but a ban on selling substances does make some amount of sense.
thrwy_918 5y ago
>Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? More than 2/3 of smokers say they want to quit [1]. What kind of freedom is it to be addicted to a deadly product, to want to stop using it but to be unable to do so? At a certain point, legally preventing people from becoming addicted in the first place protects freedom more than allowing people to become addicted to something deadly. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/cessation/smoking-cessation-fast-facts/index.html
- unmole 5y ago
  > More than 2/3 of smokers say they want to quit. I would assume a larger portion of obese people say they want to lose weight. Should we ban sugar too?
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Sugar is natural, so many animals live on sugar, it is just a quick cheap energy storage medium so you find it in most plants and milk produced by animals. The only unnatural and bad part about modern sugar consumption is how much of it we are able to distil and consume. Also people could live on sugar 50 years ago as well, but people weren't fat then. However smoking still killed a ton of people even 50 years ago when they lived a healthier lifestyle, smoking is just plain bad, sugar isn't.
    - unmole 5y ago
      Tobacco is plant. The processing of tobacco doesn't make it any less natural than sugar. We have known that type 2 diabetes is triggered by obesity for more than 1500 years. It's no surprise that the earliest records are from India, where sugar processing was invented. Tobacco smoking is bad. But only a small fraction of smokers actually die from smoking.
downrightmike 5y ago
It doesn't hurt that they are killing themselves, the problem is they put higher healthcare costs on everyone else and then the second hand smoke is deadly. Plus the last place I worked, all the higher level guys smoked off 2 to 5 hours a day, then they complained about staying late to finish their work, and I'd walk out after 8 hours because I was done. The bosses didn't care, because they also smoked.
ksec 5y ago
>The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Most people I know smoke not because they are a drug addict or real smokers. They smoke because there are million things in life and work they cant get it out. And smoking is a pressure relieve system. That is why the trend is cigarettes with little Nicotine and fancy taste profile. Or E-cigarettes. I am willing to bet one could even create "cigarettes" with no nicotine and it will still sell. May be cigarettes should be taxed by their content, where high Nicotine would be taxed higher or even ban. These sort of policy and system should be progressive.

crate_barre 5y ago

It’s weird right? Some times I look at interesting places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi and think, ‘I wouldn’t mind going there for a bit, see what it’s like’. Then I realize they banned alcohol, and the women are constricted, and so on. Nice mountains New Zealand, wish I could have a smoke on one of them, you know, like Gandalf.

MayeulC 5y ago

> If it’s “for their own good”, what makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? FWIW, it's easier to justify when the government pays for expensive healthcare bills that ensue. Like making helmets and seatbelts mandatory, etc. I know people who are mad at helmet-less cyclists because they will cost tax money if they have an accident: it isn't only their personal life they put on the line, they're risking other people's money. However small the final amount is on an individual level, it adds up. In the US, there are talks of making voluntarily unvaccinated patients fit their entire Covid-19 hospitalization bill.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Synaesthesia 5y ago

Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic. No legitimate medical use, and an unusually hugh incidence of cancer. Its certainly a harm on society. I can't really think of much benefit, most smokers are happy to quit. But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement. Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place, it's often due to trauma.

NoSorryCannot 5y ago
Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.
- andrewshadura 5y ago
  In many languages the word narcotic is commonly used to mean any substances causing addiction.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Definition 1 b: " A controlled substance." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic
  - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
    That definition is overly simplified and derives directly from the controlled substances act and similar programs, which refer to many drugs but especially opiates as "narcotics". Nicotine is not a "controlled substance".
    - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
      But also to add, drug law enforcement's tendency to refer to something as a narcotic whenever it's politically expedient is obvious FUD. I allege that FUD was the intended effect when the word was used by OP.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Regarding the first: Contrary to your earlier assertion, however, it is an extant definition in a sense of the word. You don't like the definition. The definition, however, exists. Regarding the second: We're discussing its regulation here and now. (Updated to clarify which aspects of comment I'm responding to, and how.)
      - NoSorryCannot 5y ago

gautamdivgi 5y ago

Maybe NZ has socialized healthcare? In which case you need to relinquish "personal liberties" to access medical resources. In general, I don't support these kinds of things. I just think vices are something humans have pursued in general and will continue to pursue regardless of government control. It's just cost of being in a society. Education can help and has helped greatly reduce smoking along with policies restricting where one can smoke. Any sort of prohibition creates a very wealthy "criminal class" who are adept at covering the gaps. And now the government will spend way more money trying to bring that "criminal class" down.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
Maybe this was incorrect information, but I was under the impression that smokers were generally less of a cost on healthcare, as they tended to die earlier and use less medical resources.
- Angostura 5y ago
  They die earlier, but I'm no sure if this outweighs the substantial treatments many need before they die.
  - jjgreen 5y ago
    A smoker's heart attack at 57 is cheap, it's the non-smoker's 15 years of Alzheimer's that costs.
    - hackeraccount 5y ago
      Or is that the smoker's emphysema, copd, lung cancer - I've heard it both ways but in my mind it's at least an open question as to who costs more.
      - jjgreen 5y ago
        True enough, it could go either way, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Unless you're a Kiwi, there the state makes that choice for you; Mummy knows best.

wepple 5y ago

One consideration here that many folks (US in particular) may not consider is that smokers put a very substantial burden on the NZ healthcare system which is taxpayer funded. Of course, there are plenty of counter examples to this such as obesity (NZ is #2 in obesity only to US at #1) where the costs don’t result in any substantial regulation or prohibition. Alcohol is a ginormous topic too, NZ has an extremely unhealthy relationship with it. I think I agree that the stripping of liberties is uncomfortable, even if I’m totally opposed to smoking.

benmmurphy 5y ago
I remember looking at the figures ages ago for a different country and if you netted everything out smoking saved the government money. For example here is something from the UK from the IEA: https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-drinking-save-public-purse-money https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/smoking-and-dri... The Smoking and the Public Purse report argues that the government spends £3.6bn treating smoking-related diseases on the NHS and up to £1bn collecting cigarette butts and extinguishing smoking-related house fires. The government saves £9.8bn annually in pension, healthcare and other benefit payments due to premature mortality, the IEA said. Meanwhile, the government brings in £9.5bn a year in duty paid on tobacco, the IEA said. Suggesting this means smoking produces a net saving to public finances of £14.7bn a year, at current rates of consumption. I think people just assume automatically smokers are a drain on the healthcare system but I wouldn't assume this without having a deep look at the figures.
- wepple 5y ago
  Wow, fascinating. I’m not entirely surprised that the taxes cover the healthcare costs (probably similar in NZ where taxes on smoking are very high), but I was startled by the idea of early mortality being a saving. I would point out that healthcare isn’t an entirely financial game; struggles to get nurses and doctors still mean that smokers will pull resources away from other areas
- maccolgan 5y ago
  Metrics are useless, by this line of logic we should encourage older people to kill themselves because they consume more resources than the younger who produce them.

derefr 5y ago

Unlike most drugs, people don't tend to consume cigarettes medically or "recreationally" (i.e. for their experiential effects.) Instead, cigarette use is caused initially by 1. a viral meme of "coolness" driven by corporations, followed by 2. addiction. There's no upside for an individual in consuming their first cigarette. The only upside is to the corporations making the cigarettes. (And doubly bad, from a government's perspective, these manufacturers are probably international conglomerates, where all the money they make from the inelastic demand of addicted locals, gets funnelled out of the country.) > What makes the government the best entity to decide what’s good for one’s self? Why do entities the FDA exist, you mean? Imagine if instead of cigarettes, a cartel of corporations decided to try to make a chewing gum containing a tiny amount of cyanide "cool." You'd want someone to stop them, right? Mostly everyone would. But no individual has the power to stop a cartel of corporations. You'd need the collective use-of-force of an entire country to stop them. And no individual's whims should dictate the use of that collective force in these cases. You can't trust your neighbour to know what cyanide even is. You'd want some kind of ...objective standard, or maybe a consensus of scientific experts. Perhaps a requirement for scientific studies showing safety and efficacy.

unmole 5y ago
> There's no upside for an individual in consuming their first cigarette. Nicotine is a potent cognitive enhancer.
cheeseomlit 5y ago
>There's no upside for an individual in consuming their first cigarette https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018192/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018192/ >Preclinical models and human studies have demonstrated that nicotine has cognitive-enhancing effects. Attention, working memory, fine motor skills and episodic memory functions are particularly sensitive to nicotine’s effects. Recent studies have demonstrated that the α4, β2, and α7 subunits of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) participate in the cognitive-enhancing effects of nicotine. Imaging studies have been instrumental in identifying brain regions where nicotine is active, and research on the dynamics of large-scale networks after activation by, or withdrawal from, nicotine hold promise for improved understanding of the complex actions of nicotine on human cognition. Not that I advocate for smoking, or that I think it needs to be justified with some kind of 'benefit' to not be outlawed, but one could argue it does have demonstrable cognitive effects that some find desirable. Even if it didn't, some people just find it enjoyable and don't give a shit about the health effects. Given these facts we could replace the word 'cigarettes' in your post with 'coffee' and it'd make just as much sense, but that's a drug you (probably) find enjoyable personally so we won't be seeing any calls for criminalizing that any time soon.

pharmakom 5y ago

because it's (arguably) incompatible with socialised healthcare. a counter-question might be: why should non smokers pay for smokers healthcare? no, the tax doesn't usually cover it.

unmole 5y ago
> because it's (arguably) incompatible with socialised healthcare. Being obese is even more so. When do we start banning fatties? /s
- pharmakom 5y ago
  Well some people argue for that too in the form of sugar taxes and mandatory exercise in state run schools

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

Well, I'd be okay with people smoking cigarettes if non-smokers literally never had to breathe in their second-hand smoke. So, if someone without any children lived in a single-family home (as opposed to an apartment building or complex) and never left for long enough to need a smoke break while out in public—I'd say sure, go ahead and smoke, that's none of my business. How many people does that describe? How many people can truly predict they will never want kids? How many people never need to go out during the day, now and forever in the future?

t_sawyer 5y ago
There’s a ton of people who dip or use chewing tobacco… no second hand smoke there.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  14% of US adults smoke: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adul... Only 2.4% of US adults use smokeless tobacco: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/smokeless/use_us/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/smok... This second link also says that 3.5% of adult smokers also use smokeless tobacco. 3.5% of 14% is 0.49%. So about 0.49% of US adults are dual users of both smoked and smokeless tobacco, leaving about 1.91% of US adults as exclusive smokeless tobacco users.

vertis 5y ago

Those freedoms impact on others. It's well known that passive smoking is a major problem[1]. If they want to smoke away from everyone else (and that means everyone), fine. If they want to hang out in a group of consensual smokers, then fine. But they don't, they sit around in bars and blow smoke in your face or smoke walking down a street so that you either have to pass them or walk through the smoke. This is leaving alone the impacts on the environment every time one of them flicks a cigarette into a drain, and impacts on healthcare and taxation every time I have to pay for their healthcare (universal healthcare). To be clear, I'm pro universal healthcare. Australia and New Zealand have done a superb job of reducing the amount of tobacco smoke. The difference between going to a bar/cafe in Australia and one in Croatia/Serbia is substantial (not singling them out, I've just visited). I don't know whether this plan will work, and I understand the concerns around personal freedom, I'm just not sure whether protecting the 'rights of smokers' is the right hill to die on. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...

em-bee 5y ago

because they are not only putting themselves at risk but they affect everyone around them.

foxrider 5y ago

The problem here is how tobacco smokers are affecting people around them. Passive smoke consumption is very dangerous, and the smokers tend to ingore any regulations for smoking. Take public bus stops for example, if someone starts smoking while waiting for the bus you usually don't want to start a scene by asking them to stop, and you wouldn't call the police on them, because it's really stupid to bother the cops for such a tiny thing they wouldn't even catch in time. The workplace can be really affected too. Offices may be free of smoke now, but have you ever been a construciton worker? And hell, even living next to a smoker is really uncomfortable, if you live in an apartment building it's always a nuisance when they smoke and it gets sucked into your place if you have a window open. I just really don't want smokers anywhere near me, but the reality is - they are all over the place, and when you try to limit the places they can partake in their habit or complain they always act like they're the victim and their rights are getting violated.

yodsanklai 5y ago

> The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? I'm not for drug prohibition either but there should be very specific legislation around use of tobacco for minors. No informed adult in their right mind would start smoking tobacco. It's incredibly deadly and addictive, and not even enjoyable before you're an addict. The problem is that people start smoking when they are kids or teenagers and are unable to stop when they become conscious of the problem. In my country, selling tobacco to minors would lead to an insignificant fine. This is insane. I can't make any sense of it.

remus 5y ago

I think it's important to remember that tobacco is highly addictive. This makes it harder for individuals to make an informed decision which I think should be a factor in deciding whether to control a particular substance.

chomp 5y ago

I was going to write up a devil's advocate post, but I think I'm mostly fine with people having the freedom to keep smoking as long as externalities are priced in. If smokers cost the country ~NZ$2.5 billion for their personal freedom, then the revenue produced by the tax should be ~NZ$2.5 billion. I think it boils down to if a regressive tax like that is palatable or not. However, as the smoking population dwindles (due to costs, but also increasing public awareness) and you get less people paying in, but more people pulling out of the pot, you're going to have to bump the tax that much more, causing tobacco related crime. At some point, you have to pull the plug if the smoking cohort can't pay for themselves without causing widespread crime. I don't think it should be illegal to smoke or grow your own, but a ban on selling substances does make some amount of sense.

thrwy_918 5y ago

>Why shouldn’t an adult have the freedom to smoke and put themselves at high risk of lung cancer? More than 2/3 of smokers say they want to quit [1]. What kind of freedom is it to be addicted to a deadly product, to want to stop using it but to be unable to do so? At a certain point, legally preventing people from becoming addicted in the first place protects freedom more than allowing people to become addicted to something deadly. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/cessation/smoking-cessation-fast-facts/index.html

unmole 5y ago
> More than 2/3 of smokers say they want to quit. I would assume a larger portion of obese people say they want to lose weight. Should we ban sugar too?
- Jensson 5y ago
  Sugar is natural, so many animals live on sugar, it is just a quick cheap energy storage medium so you find it in most plants and milk produced by animals. The only unnatural and bad part about modern sugar consumption is how much of it we are able to distil and consume. Also people could live on sugar 50 years ago as well, but people weren't fat then. However smoking still killed a ton of people even 50 years ago when they lived a healthier lifestyle, smoking is just plain bad, sugar isn't.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Tobacco is plant. The processing of tobacco doesn't make it any less natural than sugar. We have known that type 2 diabetes is triggered by obesity for more than 1500 years. It's no surprise that the earliest records are from India, where sugar processing was invented. Tobacco smoking is bad. But only a small fraction of smokers actually die from smoking.

downrightmike 5y ago

It doesn't hurt that they are killing themselves, the problem is they put higher healthcare costs on everyone else and then the second hand smoke is deadly. Plus the last place I worked, all the higher level guys smoked off 2 to 5 hours a day, then they complained about staying late to finish their work, and I'd walk out after 8 hours because I was done. The bosses didn't care, because they also smoked.

ksec 5y ago

>The amount of support for drug prohibition in this thread really surprises me. Most people I know smoke not because they are a drug addict or real smokers. They smoke because there are million things in life and work they cant get it out. And smoking is a pressure relieve system. That is why the trend is cigarettes with little Nicotine and fancy taste profile. Or E-cigarettes. I am willing to bet one could even create "cigarettes" with no nicotine and it will still sell. May be cigarettes should be taxed by their content, where high Nicotine would be taxed higher or even ban. These sort of policy and system should be progressive.