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

111–120 of 250 posts

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

#111

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

retrac wrote: post #34

In 1994, the Canadian federal government reduced its tobacco excise tax. Quite a lot too, nearly 50%. It wasn't a libertarian whim, or the desperate power grab of a cigar-lover. The black market was rampant. About 30% nationally approaching nearly 100% in some communities. (Clever: you can measure the rate by collecting butts from public ashtrays and the street.) Prohibition doesn't eliminate demand. And in the Canad…

I don't know if there's provincial taxes or anything, but a similar dynamic happens in the US, there's arbitrage smuggling between states with different taxes. A bit dated, in the link the negative states are one where cigarettes are net flowing out of the state, so you can see where they are going and coming from.

At first, I was going to state that it would be interesting to compare organized crime trafficking tobacco to other drugs where there is no long running commercial history. But then I saw the southern border states are theorized high in importing smuggled cigarettes. So either wyoming, idaho, and nevada are supporting the whole western US, or some of it's coming up from mexico.

2012 https://taxfoundation.org/cigarette-taxes-and-cigarette-smug...

2017 paper arguing tax increases do not exacerbate this https://tobacconomics.org/uploads/misc/2017/11/2017-generic-...

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

#112

Post by jawns »

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…

This presumes that vices have no effects on anyone but the person partaking. Think about the secondary effects of smoking on those around you, or the societal effects of the opioid crisis, or even the effects on rescue workers who need to scoop up what remains of a person riding a motorcycle without safety gear.

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

#113

Post by tastyfreeze »

jdavis703 wrote: post #38
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue was prohibition in the USA was that it indiscriminately criminalised selling, transporting, owning and consuming alcohol. With tobacco, modern countries could simply ban selling while allowing consumption. The risk is that the black market would flourish. I think the current policy of constantly hiking the price is a compromise: it restricts availability while limiting the development of parallel sell chann…

That hasn’t worked well with cannabis. If the price is too high, that allows the black market to thrive. There are three dispensaries on my street. Yet there’s still street-level drug dealers selling illegal cannabis.

You can thank the high taxes on cannabis for that. Dispensary cannabis could be much cheaper.

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

#114

Post by tptacek »

andybak wrote: post #110
tptacek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I stand behind the one-liner that roots this subthread.

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

#115

Post by [deleted] »

cproctor wrote: post #59

Well this thread finally convinced me to set showdead=no in my profile. It's scary to see how much damage a few accounts can do to the erosion of discourse on this site, and especially to think I'm reasonable in worrying that some of them are state or corporate sock puppets. I am grateful to the site moderators and to other community members (in downvoting bad-faith comments) for asserting our shared valuation of thi…

[deleted]

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

#116

Post by [deleted] »

elephanlemon wrote: post #63

As a cigar smoker I really hate articles like this. Not everyone that uses tobacco smokes 20 cigarettes per day. Cigar smoking in moderation (all the way up to one cigar per day) has been shown to be a fairly minimal risk multiplier for cancer. And many cigar smokers such as myself smoke much less than this. Same goes for some other types of tobacco usage as well. Last I checked, the correlation between cancer and na…

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by systemvoltage »

wildrhythms wrote: post #109
systemvoltage wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

Yeah, I have the same problem with Marijuana. Our apartment complex has a courtyard which has been destroyed by the stench of Marijuana. It permeates every corner, it doesn’t go away.

I have no problem with people smoking Marijuana but people need to be more considerate.

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

#119

Post by air7 »

This is one of my favorite questions in the area of social/moral governance.

Put more generally: How much should we protect people from themselves?

In the not-so-distant past, I'm guessing, the answer to that for most people was: Very little. After all, adults are capable and expected to make rational choices and do so every day; for themselves, and the people they cate about. So giving them more options is just helpful...

But the past few decades have perhaps opened our eyes. From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use.

It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. At least when they are put up aginst corporations who employe armies of professional mind hackers whos sole job is to make them lose the battle.

So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law.

And still, though we've realized the stakes are higher than we first thought, the right moral choice is unclear. Perhaps the idea of protecting ourselves from commercial predetors should be seen as childishly quixotic as the idea of protecting Deer from lions. Especially since the "Lions" are us too. We (though in smaller numbers) are also the benefactors of these questionable actions.

But then again, no one likes to be prohibited from doing what they want, and that's a great, and fairly new, right that we have (with restrictions of course). We should be quick to hamper it.

Good question...

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

#120

Post by scythe »

Does freedom have inherent value, or does it have to lead to something else in order to be valuable? This editorial seems to assume the latter.

For example, it suggests that the sole justification for alcohol legality is that it can have benefits in moderation. Notwithstanding the dubiousness of this claim, does anyone really believe that is why alcohol is legal?

Post reply on HN