since poor people have shitty or no jobs at all, why does it matter if they die off of smoking?
I understand that this comment may be an expression of exasperation, but please post civilly and substantively on HN or not at all.
America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
181–190 of 196 posts
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#182This, if correctly publicized, would be the best motivation in getting huge amounts of people to stop. Think of a slogan like "Only the poor still smoke" or "it's what losers do" and how it would impact people. Suddenly you'd be embarrassed of being seen smoking.
That is like body shaming someone for eating junk food.
They know they are poor, everyone can see that they are poor, no need to point it out.
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the poor are trading years in the future for pleasantness now" This also describes how a lot of people are poor.
If you actually believe this, you have never been poor.
Perhaps not all people are poor because of bad decisions, but perhaps at least some are.
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#184There are some lovely comments about here about how the poor are stupid, they deserve it, etc. While discussing this, we should also consider that in situations where there is very little to lose (e.g. going to die soon anyhow, little chance of a successful life) risky behaviors make more strategic sense than if the subject had the promise of better opportunities. Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are…
A related thing that is often ignored is that nicotine is a stimulant and makes it easier to put your body through physical abuse that it otherwise wouldn't take. Some health conditions are improved by nicotine but I suspect in many cases it clearly makes things worse but also makes it possible to work.
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is simply not true, at least not in any even minimally developed country.
You're both talking in extremes. There is a lot of inherited wealth in the developed world [1]. There is also a relationship between "marshmallow test" impulsiveness and peoples' tendency to squander the opportunities their life presents them [2]. The relative balance between these factors is debatable. Their presence is more difficult to dismiss. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-23/how-to-st... [2…
The marshmallow test showed that people who have a well-founded lack of trust in their environment show shorter term thinking. Aka making the best of their bad situation.
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5. There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
> I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked. Given $5 for a pack, that's double the price. Expenses add up.
An orange includes 10–20 slices, so you could just as well say it's 1/10 the price. Trying to make a 1:1 comparison between oranges and cigarettes is a pretty weird idea in the first place.
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
There might be something there with economics, but a government (or any authority) calling people losers I doubt would have any effect. The "drugs aren't cool" campaign's have never really worked.
...because that wasn't true enough. Sure addiction isn't cool, but moderate amounts of light drugs (canabis) make a great party, unfortunately.
And it's not true for smoking either
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#188Among the nation’s less-educated people — those with a high-school-equivalency diploma — the smoking rate remains more than 40 percent..
This fits what I have always heard: That education is more predictive of smoking than income. I am homeless, as are my two adult sons. We do not smoke. I have about six years of college.
Some random thoughts, in no particular order and not backed up by citations:
Smoking helps control depression. One anti-depression medication has a shockingly high side effect of causing people to stop smoking.
Smoking suppresses appetite. I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons that so many homeless people smoke: Because they sometimes don't eat for up to three days at a time.
Smoking also seems to be common in certain situations where it is the only stress relief. Many years ago, I volunteered at a homeless shelter in Vacaville, CA. All the employees seemed to smoke. They had enormous difficulty giving it up because there was nothing else to do on their breaks but either smoke or sit with co workers and talk, who were themselves smoking.
If you want to combat this, trying to education the least educated peoples is probably a better path than framing it as a poor vs rich thing. Poverty grows out of lack of education, but some very educated people don't have much money for various reasons.
I run the San Diego Homeless Survival Guide in part because I am convinced that good information is sorely lacking and is a genuine means to start solving the difficult problems of the poorest of the poor in the U.S.
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#189There are some lovely comments about here about how the poor are stupid, they deserve it, etc. While discussing this, we should also consider that in situations where there is very little to lose (e.g. going to die soon anyhow, little chance of a successful life) risky behaviors make more strategic sense than if the subject had the promise of better opportunities. Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are…
> A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5. There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
That was definitely a hyperbole from the OP. $5 of alcohol would yield much more satisfaction
Re: America’s new tobacco crisis: The rich stopped smoking, the poor didn’t
#190There are some lovely comments about here about how the poor are stupid, they deserve it, etc. While discussing this, we should also consider that in situations where there is very little to lose (e.g. going to die soon anyhow, little chance of a successful life) risky behaviors make more strategic sense than if the subject had the promise of better opportunities. Also, the pleasures available to the impoverished are…
> A pack of cigarettes is one of the most luxurious pleasures available if all you have is $5. There's nothing luxurious about smelling bad and getting a wicked cough. Unless you're already addicted, nearly anything under $5 is more luxurious than a cigarette. I just ate an orange that cost 50¢ and it was more luxurious than any cigarette I've ever smoked.
[deleted]