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

121–130 of 250 posts

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

#121

Post by adolph »

jawns wrote: post #112
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.

> rescue workers who need to scoop up what remains of a person riding a motorcycle without safety gear

If it is an obvious death, it is a crime scene until proven otherwise. The police and coroner take care of things in this case. The ambulance is usually not involved after the declaration of death.

https://www.quora.com/Do-EMTs-and-paramedics-have-to-pick-up...

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

#122

Post by _-david-_ »

woodruffw wrote: post #27
ReptileMan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to die of something eventually. We are not immortal.

I think many people would like to see their loved ones live longer, healthier lives and die with relative comfort. That doesn't require being denial about their mortality.

Let's ban allowing people to be fat. Obesity is quite deadly and is a drain on the healthcare system.

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

#123

Post by adolph »

woodruffw wrote: post #20
tedajax wrote: post #4

Smoking is bad but prohibition is worse. Being subjected to the carcercal system is worse for your health than smoking.

Being subjected to the carceral system is indeed bad for your health, but there's a gap here: you haven't explained why banning smoking means we have to put people in prison. I would have thought to just fine them, or tax purchases out of existence. No need for shackles.

> tax purchases out of existence

NYPD officers approached Garner on July 17 on suspicion of selling single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps. After Garner told the police that he was tired of being harassed and that he was not selling cigarettes, the officers attempted to arrest Garner. When Pantaleo placed his hands on Garner, Garner pulled his arms away. Pantaleo then placed his arm around Garner's neck and wrestled him to the ground. With multiple officers pinning him down, Garner repeated the words "I can't breathe" 11 times while lying face down on the sidewalk. After Garner lost consciousness, he remained lying on the sidewalk for seven minutes while the officers waited for an ambulance to arrive. Garner was pronounced dead at an area hospital approximately one hour later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by kazinator »

tptacek wrote: post #114
andybak wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The one-liner topic do not permit tobacco use. Not in the unconditional way that we permit bacon use. We permit tobacco use at the legislative level only in the sense that it's not criminalized.

Smoking is widely banned in workplaces and public spaces in many countries. I can bring a bacon lunch to work and nobody will even know. A five-year-old sent on a shopping errand can buy bacon.

Smoking is a nuisance and a harm to people around the smoker in ways that bacon isn't.

I've not read reports of bacon being addictive; that someone has to have more and more strips of bacon everyday, and has severe withdrawal symptoms when he or she tries to quit.

Therefore, no, it doesn't seem that we can take a "why do we still permit tobacoo" lament and transliterate it to bacon such that it makes sense.

Moreover, if we could do the substitution so that it makes sense, that wouldn't necessarily make the argumentation false. Presumably, the point of the substitution would be to try to discredit the argument due to it being self-evident that bacon is good and must continue to mass-produced and freely available.

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

#129

Post by ThinkBeat »

One can make much the same argument regarding alcohol. It is a potent neurotoxin.

Drink too much of it, you die. (Alcohol Poisoning / OD)

Drink it too often the liver will have issues.

For one Alcohol metabolizes into Acetaldehyde which is an even more potent poison. Usually, the liver takes care of it, but if there is too much and too often the liver can't deal with it all. Acetaldehyde is said to damage the DNA.

It is also linked to developing cancer.

There are many studies that claim drinking in moderation is healthy for you. Mostly that deals with chemicals contained for instance in wine but not related to the Alcohol

All that is something that happens to your body. Whilst smoking annoys everyone who must smell it.

However, the overall cost of the abuse of alcohol to society is enormous. Aside from the physical damage it does, it is a huge contributing factor to sexual harassment, rape, domestic abuse, violence, child abuse (in so many ways), car crashes, homicide, impaired judgement.

An argument can be made that the impact of alcohol on society is much worse than tobacco.

Still alcohol is a popular poison. The last time the US tried to ban it, it didn't work out too well. It is ingrained in culture in many places and many ways.

Personally, I think weed is much safer than alcohol. I do prefer people have it in ways that do not impact others. Walking around smelling weed smoke is not that great.

I have always said that people should be allowed more of a choice in how to get high/drunk/euphoric/relax. Now we have weed so that gives people a choice. I think MDMA and LSD should also be legal. (But made legally in safe and pure forms)

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

#130

Post by throwaway_2009 »

Is universal healthcare important enough to cede control over what we put into our own bodies?

That's the only important question. As far as I'm concerned the answer is definitionally no, and I live in the UK where we arguably have it.

It's an endless rabbit hole of authoritarianism. Ban cigarettes, ban sugar in high concentration, ban fast food, mandate vaccines. If we find out that taking an aspirin a day improves health outcomes - mandate that too. Ban unprotected sex - just use phone cameras to enforce it or whatever.

There is literally no end to it because if we only take into account the one metric "does this thing affect aggregate health outcomes" you can justify banning anything.

I'm sure someone will read this and get grumpy that I've mentioned vaccination. I have three, they're ace.

The idea of authoritarian policy is that you don't have a choice; your opinion is truly irrelevant. I don't think its' proponents often hold that in the forefront of their mind, they only focus on "well, right now I'm on the popular side" or whatever.

Post reply on HN