3 ms·

There isn't really any positive associated with smoking, it's an industry that shouldn't exist in its current form. If we were just talking about raw tobacco t

There isn't really any positive associated with smoking, it's an industry that shouldn't exist in its current form. If we were just talking about raw tobacco then this would be a very different discussion, but we are not. All of the other things you are talking about while are health risks a don't carry an addictive and largely proven connection to cancer (maybe the sunscreen one but there is also a difference between making a conscious choice to do something instead of just not doing something). There is clearly a massive societal cost associated with Smoking that I really don't think can be applied to many other things. The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol but even that for most people is not on the same level as Smoking. At least I would not think so.

prirun 3y ago
> The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol Overeating IMO has become a bigger problem than smoking, at least in the US.
- valval 3y ago
  Wish it was that simple. Modern diets and mainstream diet guidelines are terrible for us, but going back to a hunter gatherer diet for everyone on earth isn’t all that realistic either.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> There isn't really any positive associated with smoking It is a highly effective antidepressant for many people.
- danielbln 3y ago
  That's a function of nicotine, not of smoking. There are plenty of less terrible ways of getting nicotine into your system.
jrochkind1 3y ago
> don't carry an addictive So you acknowledge something is addictive (indeed, nicotine is one of the most addictive things there is, by some measures more addictive than most any other drug) -- but think that is a reason to penalize addicts? If something is really bad for your health but you choose to do it anyway, that's one thing -- but if we know how very very addictive it is, how very hard it is to stop doing it -- that's a special reason we should penalize addicts by charging them higher premiums? I still don't get it. (Presumably we should charge other kinds of addicts higher premiums too? Alcoholic? Problem with opioids? Those things will surely correlate with higher health care costs -- higher premium!) [I haven't smoked in 47 months. It was very very hard to quit].

prirun 3y ago

> The closest thing I can think of would be Alcohol Overeating IMO has become a bigger problem than smoking, at least in the US.

valval 3y ago
Wish it was that simple. Modern diets and mainstream diet guidelines are terrible for us, but going back to a hunter gatherer diet for everyone on earth isn’t all that realistic either.

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> There isn't really any positive associated with smoking It is a highly effective antidepressant for many people.

danielbln 3y ago
That's a function of nicotine, not of smoking. There are plenty of less terrible ways of getting nicotine into your system.

jrochkind1 3y ago

> don't carry an addictive So you acknowledge something is addictive (indeed, nicotine is one of the most addictive things there is, by some measures more addictive than most any other drug) -- but think that is a reason to penalize addicts? If something is really bad for your health but you choose to do it anyway, that's one thing -- but if we know how very very addictive it is, how very hard it is to stop doing it -- that's a special reason we should penalize addicts by charging them higher premiums? I still don't get it. (Presumably we should charge other kinds of addicts higher premiums too? Alcoholic? Problem with opioids? Those things will surely correlate with higher health care costs -- higher premium!) [I haven't smoked in 47 months. It was very very hard to quit].