2 ms·

Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. But unlike alcohol prohibition, it seems like the current plan is to just try to preve

by HWR_14 4y ago

Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. But unlike alcohol prohibition, it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to).

Clubber 4y ago
>Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. Idealistically only. In reality, expect a lot of societal problems if that happens. Crime increases from black market good and increase assaults from smokers who have had their drug removed. Basically drug war 2.0. Unfortunately most people vote idealistically these days and tend to ignore or not even think about the reality of implementing laws/bans. Even after seeing the horrible effects of drug wars, people still love fighting them. Seems like an example of tyranny of the majority.
- waffleiron 4y ago
  The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. > it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to).
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >>it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to). >The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. It attempts to address it, but in banning of Juul products, which many ex-smokers used and continue to use to get and stay off cigarettes, is very obviously counterproductive to this assumed objective. Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. Full stop.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. In the short term. In the long term cigarette adoption was falling to under 5% in high-school/college kids. Juul reversed the trend and the majority started using nicotine. If we lose 7 years of people getting addicted, we can save the next 21. Plus, it's not eCigs that are being banned. It's Juul. They're the ones who cannot prove their additives are safe. They could change their juice to make it have less toxic additives.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        >In the long term cigarette adoption was falling to under 5% in high-school/college kids. Juul reversed the trend and the majority started using nicotine. If we lose 7 years of people getting addicted, we can save the next 21. You're conflating two things: cigarettes and nicotine. With a lot of propaganda, repressive sin taxes, and the development of substitutes; the US managed to lower the cigarette smoking rate since the 60s. Why do you think these techniques are even still relevant and will work the same on nicotine substitutes? That seems to be what you are using to support the ban. Also, this is a "for the children," argument. >Plus, it's not eCigs that are being banned. It's Juul. Ya that's the weird thing. The shelves are filled with competitors, have they all "proven their products are safe?" I'm assuming not. Are they going to be subject to the same outright ban? Is Juul just a test balloon for further bans, or is it being made an example of? The FDA is known for regulatory capture, is it just an issue of money? Weird stuff. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/4956945... https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-regulatory-capture-of-the-fda/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-regulat...
        HWR_14 4y ago
        The US managed to lower the smoking and all tobacco rate dramatically among new smokers. ECigs reversed this course. The development of alternatives had nothing to do with new smokers (kinda obviously). The advertising and taxes did, of course. "For the children" doesn't make sense as a fallacy here. It's children that vape. Some adults switched to vaping, but that number is negligible. > have they all "proven their products are safe?" The FDA approved 23 eCig systems using the same methodology that they used to not approve Juul. > is it just an issue of money Juul is owned by Phillip Morris. Other eCig brands owned by other big-tobacco are among the 23 approved. It's not weird. It's a first-mover who cut corners and their competitors didn't.

by HWR_14 4y ago

Clubber 4y ago

>Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. Idealistically only. In reality, expect a lot of societal problems if that happens. Crime increases from black market good and increase assaults from smokers who have had their drug removed. Basically drug war 2.0. Unfortunately most people vote idealistically these days and tend to ignore or not even think about the reality of implementing laws/bans. Even after seeing the horrible effects of drug wars, people still love fighting them. Seems like an example of tyranny of the majority.

waffleiron 4y ago
The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. > it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to).
- Clubber 4y ago
  >>it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to). >The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. It attempts to address it, but in banning of Juul products, which many ex-smokers used and continue to use to get and stay off cigarettes, is very obviously counterproductive to this assumed objective. Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. Full stop.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. In the short term. In the long term cigarette adoption was falling to under 5% in high-school/college kids. Juul reversed the trend and the majority started using nicotine. If we lose 7 years of people getting addicted, we can save the next 21. Plus, it's not eCigs that are being banned. It's Juul. They're the ones who cannot prove their additives are safe. They could change their juice to make it have less toxic additives.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >In the long term cigarette adoption was falling to under 5% in high-school/college kids. Juul reversed the trend and the majority started using nicotine. If we lose 7 years of people getting addicted, we can save the next 21. You're conflating two things: cigarettes and nicotine. With a lot of propaganda, repressive sin taxes, and the development of substitutes; the US managed to lower the cigarette smoking rate since the 60s. Why do you think these techniques are even still relevant and will work the same on nicotine substitutes? That seems to be what you are using to support the ban. Also, this is a "for the children," argument. >Plus, it's not eCigs that are being banned. It's Juul. Ya that's the weird thing. The shelves are filled with competitors, have they all "proven their products are safe?" I'm assuming not. Are they going to be subject to the same outright ban? Is Juul just a test balloon for further bans, or is it being made an example of? The FDA is known for regulatory capture, is it just an issue of money? Weird stuff. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/4956945... https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-regulatory-capture-of-the-fda/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-regulat...
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        The US managed to lower the smoking and all tobacco rate dramatically among new smokers. ECigs reversed this course. The development of alternatives had nothing to do with new smokers (kinda obviously). The advertising and taxes did, of course. "For the children" doesn't make sense as a fallacy here. It's children that vape. Some adults switched to vaping, but that number is negligible. > have they all "proven their products are safe?" The FDA approved 23 eCig systems using the same methodology that they used to not approve Juul. > is it just an issue of money Juul is owned by Phillip Morris. Other eCig brands owned by other big-tobacco are among the 23 approved. It's not weird. It's a first-mover who cut corners and their competitors didn't.