4 ms·

I am not at all shocked that someone identifying themselves as a "tobacco control researcher" would take issue with their life's work being pushed back against.

I am not at all shocked that someone identifying themselves as a "tobacco control researcher" would take issue with their life's work being pushed back against. This might be my American-ness speaking but I find most kinds of bans like this to be quite distasteful, and the people pushing for them are often distasteful people as well (possibly a case of moral crusader zealotry).

xanderlewis 3y ago
I think it is your American-ness speaking, but as a Brit I’m inclined to agree. I suppose the best arguments for having such bans would relate to the secondhand effects of smoke, etc. Another would be the burden it causes to the national health service (therefore affecting non-smokers too), but the amount of tax being paid probably offsets that anyway.
- Zancarius 3y ago
  I have mixed feelings on this, partially from personal experience. In general, I'm against bans and believe primarily in personal responsibility and accountability (this probably betrays my political leanings). However... (Sorry, I'm about to rant, and I apologize to anyone who's about to suffer reading through this.) Having fairly recently watched my father pass (1.5 years ago) from the effects of COPD acquired as a direct result of cigarette smoking, the 8 months in hospice care, his struggle for every single breath, and the personal tribulations this placed upon my mother and I as his caretakers, I can say for certain there is nothing good to be had for anyone from this (and that's before the effects of second-hand smoke). During his life, smoking ruled every habit, every trip, every moment of his life. You literally couldn't go anywhere without having to break somewhere along the line for him to smoke. And it wasn't just COPD: Atherosclerosis, aortic aneurysm, high blood pressure (and the litany of medication to treat it), poor health, poor quality of life, etc.; some from smoking, some from the greatly reduced exercise tolerance resulting from smoking and subsequent sedentary life. But, I also know that banning it will never happen because our governments, too, are addicted—the revenue prospect is too great and too appealing. I admit I should have no part in this debate because of my personal experiences, and I certainly recognize the influence emotions play as a consequence, but of all things that "should" be banned, tobacco is probably one of them. I have a friend who's smoked off and on most of his life. He's about my age (early 40s) and is already seeing some of these effects. Addictions are powerful, and there's very little you can do until they decide they're ready to quit. He knows what happened to my dad. He knows it'll happen to him.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Nicotine is more addictive than weed [1], and we’ve seen how productive prohibition was with that one. [1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/nicotine-e-cigarettes-cannabis-all-pose-different-risks-and-all-are-hard-to-stop https://www.uclahealth.org/news/nicotine-e-cigarettes-cannab...

xanderlewis 3y ago

I think it is your American-ness speaking, but as a Brit I’m inclined to agree. I suppose the best arguments for having such bans would relate to the secondhand effects of smoke, etc. Another would be the burden it causes to the national health service (therefore affecting non-smokers too), but the amount of tax being paid probably offsets that anyway.

Zancarius 3y ago
I have mixed feelings on this, partially from personal experience. In general, I'm against bans and believe primarily in personal responsibility and accountability (this probably betrays my political leanings). However... (Sorry, I'm about to rant, and I apologize to anyone who's about to suffer reading through this.) Having fairly recently watched my father pass (1.5 years ago) from the effects of COPD acquired as a direct result of cigarette smoking, the 8 months in hospice care, his struggle for every single breath, and the personal tribulations this placed upon my mother and I as his caretakers, I can say for certain there is nothing good to be had for anyone from this (and that's before the effects of second-hand smoke). During his life, smoking ruled every habit, every trip, every moment of his life. You literally couldn't go anywhere without having to break somewhere along the line for him to smoke. And it wasn't just COPD: Atherosclerosis, aortic aneurysm, high blood pressure (and the litany of medication to treat it), poor health, poor quality of life, etc.; some from smoking, some from the greatly reduced exercise tolerance resulting from smoking and subsequent sedentary life. But, I also know that banning it will never happen because our governments, too, are addicted—the revenue prospect is too great and too appealing. I admit I should have no part in this debate because of my personal experiences, and I certainly recognize the influence emotions play as a consequence, but of all things that "should" be banned, tobacco is probably one of them. I have a friend who's smoked off and on most of his life. He's about my age (early 40s) and is already seeing some of these effects. Addictions are powerful, and there's very little you can do until they decide they're ready to quit. He knows what happened to my dad. He knows it'll happen to him.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Nicotine is more addictive than weed [1], and we’ve seen how productive prohibition was with that one. [1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/nicotine-e-cigarettes-cannabis-all-pose-different-risks-and-all-are-hard-to-stop https://www.uclahealth.org/news/nicotine-e-cigarettes-cannab...