4 ms·

I'm so skeptical of "if just 1% of X happens, we'll all be rich!" arguments. It's like when startups say "If we just get 1% of <giant market X> we'll be worth b

I'm so skeptical of "if just 1% of X happens, we'll all be rich!" arguments. It's like when startups say "If we just get 1% of <giant market X> we'll be worth billions." All you're really doing is emphasizing the size of the market while handwaving away how actually difficult it is to get that 1% (because hey, 1% sounds like such a small number, how hard can it be??) When it comes to smoking, at least in the US, it has largely become an affliction of the poor and uneducated. This has definitely changed in the past 40 years or so - smoking used to be something that was very common, but now I'm actually pretty shocked when I hear someone in my social class (highly educated, upper middle class) smokes. "What's wrong with you?" is honestly my first thought. So the main issue is that tackling smoking rates among the poor (this article was about Medicaid after all) is really about tackling many of the issues of poverty itself. When you're bored and don't have much hope in your upward mobility, smoking (and other drugs) doesn't seem like such a bad trade - a temporary little joy, when life is generally tough anyway. When you talk about tackling the root causes of poverty in the US, that's a much more difficult (and realistic) conversation than just saying "let's just get 1% of Medicaid recipients to stop smoking."

RhysU 3y ago
That's funny, because when I see someone from that same social class not be condescending about people's personal choices I think "What's right with you?"
bb88 3y ago
> When it comes to smoking, at least in the US, it has largely become an affliction of the poor and uneducated. We all are capable of addictions. Smoking is the one most available to the poor. A lot of smart people get hooked on drugs -- even though they probably shouldn't. Wall street investment bankers and cocaine come to mind -- even though they are maybe some of the smartest people on the planet. > So the main issue is that tackling smoking rates among the poor ... is really about tackling many of the issues of poverty itself. You're right, but your cause and effect are switched: Addiction is more likely to create poverty than the reverse. Not only does it create poverty, but persistent poverty. People would rather get high than clean themselves up and own a house.
- RhysU 3y ago
  Yeeeeech, I can't handle "the poors are addicted" narrative. Smoking was high-class fashionable awhile back. Then the lower classes caught on as disposable incomes rose and factories made tobacco products within their reach. Necessarily the high class abandoned it because it no longer distinguished them. Your high-class grandchildren will smoke(+). It's purely cyclical fashion and health be damned. To be crude, they will have to compete to get into each others' beds somehow and what better way than eschewing 100 years of their class' ground-truth advice about far-distant medical outcomes? (+) As they wore jeans and played guitars in the 60s. Because those were counter-cultural, low-class markers.
  - bb88 3y ago
    >Yeeeeech, I can't handle "the poors are addicted" narrative Jesus dude you made that point yourself -- but with smoking. I'm just saying, solve the addiction problem overall, and you solve a huge problem across all of humanity.

RhysU 3y ago

That's funny, because when I see someone from that same social class not be condescending about people's personal choices I think "What's right with you?"

bb88 3y ago

> When it comes to smoking, at least in the US, it has largely become an affliction of the poor and uneducated. We all are capable of addictions. Smoking is the one most available to the poor. A lot of smart people get hooked on drugs -- even though they probably shouldn't. Wall street investment bankers and cocaine come to mind -- even though they are maybe some of the smartest people on the planet. > So the main issue is that tackling smoking rates among the poor ... is really about tackling many of the issues of poverty itself. You're right, but your cause and effect are switched: Addiction is more likely to create poverty than the reverse. Not only does it create poverty, but persistent poverty. People would rather get high than clean themselves up and own a house.

RhysU 3y ago
Yeeeeech, I can't handle "the poors are addicted" narrative. Smoking was high-class fashionable awhile back. Then the lower classes caught on as disposable incomes rose and factories made tobacco products within their reach. Necessarily the high class abandoned it because it no longer distinguished them. Your high-class grandchildren will smoke(+). It's purely cyclical fashion and health be damned. To be crude, they will have to compete to get into each others' beds somehow and what better way than eschewing 100 years of their class' ground-truth advice about far-distant medical outcomes? (+) As they wore jeans and played guitars in the 60s. Because those were counter-cultural, low-class markers.
- bb88 3y ago
  >Yeeeeech, I can't handle "the poors are addicted" narrative Jesus dude you made that point yourself -- but with smoking. I'm just saying, solve the addiction problem overall, and you solve a huge problem across all of humanity.