Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 250 posts

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#101

Post by codr7 »

throwaway984393 wrote: post #55

Tobacco has been grown and used both socially and ceremonially by native American cultures for thousands of years. I get that generally we white western Americans don't give a shit about native cultures, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge the indigenous heritage that literally all tobacco comes from and is still used in today. Personally I like cigars and hookah. I smoke maybe once a year. I'm not saying mi…

Why should anything be banned?

If it's ok to smoke once a year using whatever kind of delivery method, it's going to have to be ok to do whatever the hell you feel like with it.

Banning people from growing/harvesting/consuming plants is just silly, it's one of many ideas we will eventually have to let go of, because it makes no sense.

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#102

Post by wildrhythms »

BrS96bVxXBLzf5B wrote: post #14

> Tobacco smoking has no health benefits. None. It can be argued that nicotine, one of the thousands of compounds in tobacco smoke, can have positive effects on some cognitive functions and may even confer some neuroprotection (1), but getting nicotine from tobacco products may be likened to sucking on a tail pipe to get oxygen – it’s there but it’s not going to do you any good. I'm sorry for their personal experienc…

The quote says "Tobacco smoking has no health benefits." It goes on to make a distinction between tobacco smoking and nicotine.

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#103

Post by BrS96bVxXBLzf5B »

Zababa wrote: post #92
BrS96bVxXBLzf5B wrote: post #14

> Tobacco smoking has no health benefits. None. It can be argued that nicotine, one of the thousands of compounds in tobacco smoke, can have positive effects on some cognitive functions and may even confer some neuroprotection (1), but getting nicotine from tobacco products may be likened to sucking on a tail pipe to get oxygen – it’s there but it’s not going to do you any good. I'm sorry for their personal experienc…

You're mixing tobacco and nicotine. There are ways to get nicotine in you without consuming tobacco. I know at least of nicotine gums and nicotine patches.

On the first point, yes, health benefits may be mostly related to nicotine, but you wouldn't declare an apple useless just because other sources have the fiber and vitamins without the excess sugar.

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#104

Post by grishka »

andybak wrote: post #47
sponaugle wrote: post #21

And this is why we can't have nice things... because "we" don't "permit it". How does someone even write this sentence? Did they glance over at their crown, which says "King We", and think "thou shall not smoke!"?

Well. There's plenty of things that are illegal. How far down the libertarian rabbit hole are you prepared to go?

Things that don't endanger other people or their property should never be illegal in the first place. Your body is your property and yours only. You should be able to do with it whatever the hell you please. The only open question here is who pays for any healthcare needs resulting from any self-inflicted damage to one's health.

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#105

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

willcipriano wrote: post #45

> However, there is no moderation in tobacco. There is no level at which tobacco smoke is safe for the consumer or the people around them or, as we are seeing, even those who are exposed in a tertiary environment. I've used tobacco products perhaps from 0 - 5 times a year from adulthood on. While not "safe", pretty low risk. I have the same relationship with caffeine and alcohol. Nothing can be all that enjoyable if…

It looks like you have good dopamine hygiene. You can probably also trust yourself moderate other dangerous things like World of Warcraft, Twitter, or cocaine--if for some reason you wanted to. Keep it up.

For me the real question is: can people who have unhealthy dopamine habits heavily etched into their neural pathways be taught to change that about themselves, or is replacing unhealthy addictions with healthier ones (i.e. exercise) the best that they can do?

I wish policy would focus less on specific vices and more on helping people along such a path (if it exists). Such a license would be a good way to explore that possibility.

Ideally it would be part of something broader though. You can get a commercial endorsement on your regular driver's license, why not a "drinks-responsibly" endorsement too? While we're at it we can have "can use the 3d printers at the library without supervision" endorsement and a "licensed realtor" endorsement. You can imagine all kinds of badges people might want to collect.

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#106

Post by buttercraft »

Zababa wrote: post #92
BrS96bVxXBLzf5B wrote: post #14

> Tobacco smoking has no health benefits. None. It can be argued that nicotine, one of the thousands of compounds in tobacco smoke, can have positive effects on some cognitive functions and may even confer some neuroprotection (1), but getting nicotine from tobacco products may be likened to sucking on a tail pipe to get oxygen – it’s there but it’s not going to do you any good. I'm sorry for their personal experienc…

You're mixing tobacco and nicotine. There are ways to get nicotine in you without consuming tobacco. I know at least of nicotine gums and nicotine patches.

Okay, but if you acknowledge that nicotine has benefits and that tobacco contains nicotine, it makes no sense to say that tobacco has no benefits.

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#108

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

willcipriano wrote: post #96
jondwillis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would love to give myself a vice ban occasionally.

In a perfect world I'd be able to set a weekly calorie limit. Charge me double the cost and send the overage to the charity of my choice for any food over the limit. A government body limiting who can buy food isn't really a good idea, so it only works in utopia. It could work for non-essentials though.

What if you could opt for a custodian, and the designation can't change very often (like open enrollment)?

Give a trusted friend the right to set your calorie limit, and if it doesn't work out, try a different friend next week--but you can only change it between 10AM and 2PM on Mondays.

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#109

Post by wildrhythms »

systemvoltage wrote: post #68
paulryanrogers wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking doesn't only impact the smoker. Second hand smoke is dangerous too. That's why there is regulation on where it's permitted. Costs to health care system also impact everyone. Though in the USA private insurers are starting to pass on some of the costs to smokers. And it could be argued that smokers often die young enough to offset health care costs of later life.

> Second hand smoke is dangerous too. This is why we've banned smoking in restaurants and have designated areas. That's enough Government intervention although my personal take on this would be to leave it up to restaurants to manage this decision. If they don't want smokers in their restaurants, they can choose to ban them. If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking. This is a…

>If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking.

I remember living in the 90s where every restaurant allowed smoking indoors; smoking section or not, the stench and irritability of the smoke permeated the entire space. It was impossible to get away from, other than simply not patronizing restaurants. To this day, I experience an immediate headache when cigarette smoke wafts in my direction.

The question is: Why does somebody's unhealthy habit get to travel with them and affect people around them everywhere they go?

Re: Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

#110

Post by andybak »

tptacek wrote: post #97
andybak wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unlike opiates and methamphetamine Here you're picked the extremes to make your point stronger. There's plenty of prohibited substances and behaviours that are much closer to the gray area that this article is pondering on. I don't have a clear view on this topic myself - but there's too many people in this thread claiming that it's absurd to even have the discussion - which I think is lazy and disingenuous.

Name a prohibited substance that (1) poses no threat of destabilizing society or the health care system, (2) has centuries of cultural context, and (3) isn't on the verge of being legalized right now, like cannabis and psilocybin. The imminent legalization of psilocybin makes my argument for me. It was an argument isomorphic to the one this anti-smoking piece made that banned it in the first place. And as a society,…

See? We're now having the nuanced discussion that I was hoping for. ;-)

I probably agree with you. I just wasn't keen on your one-liners.

Post reply on HN