4 ms·

This isn't entirely true. I was told and all my peers about the dangers of cigarette and yet in college half of my class was smoking regularly (decades ago in E

by ta988 2y ago

This isn't entirely true. I was told and all my peers about the dangers of cigarette and yet in college half of my class was smoking regularly (decades ago in Europe). The only thing that really reduced consumption was when it became banned in public places and the prices increased beyond what most kids could afford (richer kids didn't care), but still compared to countries like US people are still smoking a lot there even nowadays.

_heimdall 2y ago
My point, though, was only that its up to individuals to smoke as long as they know the risks. Smoking in public is one caveat where regulations make sense, if someone next to me deciding to smoke can harm me that's a different story. But for anyone was that was aware of the risks and smokes anyway, why do the need to he stopped?
- ta988 2y ago
  Because addictions are hard to get off and it is not just a question of willingness? Most smokers tried to stop at least once. Because some people may have disabilities that may impede their ability to quit? Because of collective costs? Because of family costs?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Are regulations really the best answer for addictions though? My dad was an alcoholic and, unfortunately, died young and alone. No level of regulation would have helped him. Sure, when he could stay away from drinking he was better off during those periods. But his problem wasn't access to alcohol, his problem was an inability to deal with traumas going back to his childhood when his own dad, also an alcoholic, died even younger and left behind a widow and 6 young kids. I hope that anyone with an addiction can get whatever help they need to hold off their addiction long enough to discover and deal with the underlying problems manifesting as addiction. I also hope, though, that our concern for anyone with addiction doesn't lead us to think that forcing regulation on everyone and further growing the power of our governments is a brute force solution to problems much deeper than the symptom of addiction.

by ta988 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

My point, though, was only that its up to individuals to smoke as long as they know the risks. Smoking in public is one caveat where regulations make sense, if someone next to me deciding to smoke can harm me that's a different story. But for anyone was that was aware of the risks and smokes anyway, why do the need to he stopped?

ta988 2y ago
Because addictions are hard to get off and it is not just a question of willingness? Most smokers tried to stop at least once. Because some people may have disabilities that may impede their ability to quit? Because of collective costs? Because of family costs?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Are regulations really the best answer for addictions though? My dad was an alcoholic and, unfortunately, died young and alone. No level of regulation would have helped him. Sure, when he could stay away from drinking he was better off during those periods. But his problem wasn't access to alcohol, his problem was an inability to deal with traumas going back to his childhood when his own dad, also an alcoholic, died even younger and left behind a widow and 6 young kids. I hope that anyone with an addiction can get whatever help they need to hold off their addiction long enough to discover and deal with the underlying problems manifesting as addiction. I also hope, though, that our concern for anyone with addiction doesn't lead us to think that forcing regulation on everyone and further growing the power of our governments is a brute force solution to problems much deeper than the symptom of addiction.