Live data from Hacker News

Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

fau.edu

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#21

Smoking is biggest shit that's widely accepted, why? idk People argue that banning it would be against "freedom" Please explain to me how: 1) causing harm to yourself 2) causing harm to people around you 3) paying for it additional taxes(!!!) 4) and all of that while being highly addictive ... how is it a freedom? The nature of it being addictive removes "freedom" from the consideration. It isn't freedom when you're…

[deleted]

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#22

Smoking is biggest shit that's widely accepted, why? idk People argue that banning it would be against "freedom" Please explain to me how: 1) causing harm to yourself 2) causing harm to people around you 3) paying for it additional taxes(!!!) 4) and all of that while being highly addictive ... how is it a freedom? The nature of it being addictive removes "freedom" from the consideration. It isn't freedom when you're…

I want it banned because my stepmom (and father cause why not) chain smoked indoors my whole childhood. It's weird that we allow that.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#23
post #20

Smoking is biggest shit that's widely accepted, why? idk People argue that banning it would be against "freedom" Please explain to me how: 1) causing harm to yourself 2) causing harm to people around you 3) paying for it additional taxes(!!!) 4) and all of that while being highly addictive ... how is it a freedom? The nature of it being addictive removes "freedom" from the consideration. It isn't freedom when you're…

We have such a spotless track record as far as banning addictive recreational substances, I'm sure it'd be just as easy as that.

I'm not saying that banning is best idea, but I'm arguing against ppl acting as if banning smoking would be against freedom

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#24
post #7

Strange that the counties with major cities like Chicago with high gun violence don't even register?

Chicago and/or Cook County isn't particularly high on a per capita basis for violence. Generally the most violent places in the US are in the Southeast. (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-th...)

There are certain very specific parts of Chicago where violent crime rates are astronomical, but if you are worried about widespread violent crime, your best bet is to avoid the southern states.

Where did you learn that Chicago is so violent?

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#26
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop this shit, but they can't." Yes, they can.

Dropping requires specific traits, mindset, strong discipline, etc. That's pretty high bar. Not everyone can, *especially when surrounded by smokers*.

Capitalist society has intentionally trained the general population to believe in free will and the strength of the human mind, such that population members say "I'm better than being brainwashed by ads" and allowing corpos to get away with a lot, lot, lot more manipulative psychological than should be legal.

Believing that smoking addiction is a mind-over-matter problem is one major extension of this.

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#28

I think I read somewhere recently that the majority of Americans were in favour of stricter gun reforms, yet no real change I laws seem to happen and all the current presidential candidates over in the US seems to not even dare touch the subject. I find it reprehensible and puzzling how they’ve got this weird relationship with guns, but it’s interesting how often people are using a certain interpretation of their con…

Seems like, just with many issues in the US, it's become another "The other side is against it, so we're for it!" problem... "Our kids are getting shot up in school, but the Democrats want to ban guns, so we're pro guns, there must be other solutions! Maybe Ivermectin also creates bullet-proof kids!".

The opposition also becomes saboteurs because any wins they give the ruling party means the ruling party gets to look better, and hell no, we can't have that, we have to destroy them!

Funnily enough when lockdowns started, the billions of bailout got bipartisan support. It seems like both sides knew a hungry populace would go for their heads, whatever the label after their name is. EDIT: then again, Dems are a more conscionable bunch (which makes fighting against a win-by-whatever-means-possible bunch hard), they knew people needed the money. The hypocrisy was GOP saying money doesn't grow on trees, until it does...

Re: Geographic ‘hot spots’ for cigarette and firearm deaths in the U.S.

#30
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop this shit, but they can't." Yes, they can.

Dropping requires specific traits, mindset, strong discipline, etc. That's pretty high bar. Not everyone can, *especially when surrounded by smokers*.

There definitely should be a scientific limit for addictiveness, meth versus cigarettes for example. I dont quite care if somebody can scientifically stop taking an addictive substance with reasonable self-discipline but it becomes a problem and elimination of the freedom status if its too addictive that it effectively takes over your brain.
Post reply on HN