Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015) • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by js8 » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:25 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #42

tedajax wrote: post #4

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

Or phrased differently, "we don't know how to stop it without causing something worse". Outright prohibition is massively expensive (prisons, police, loss of taxes), is a gift to criminals who will grow/import it illegally and sell it, and has outsized negative consequences on the people who use it anyways. Partial prohibition (under X years of age), taxes, and public education work to reduce the amount of it, withou…

There might be a way to actually ban it without causing harmful effects: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775

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

#152

Post by kompatible » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

throwaway2331 wrote: post #137

Zababa wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nicotine is fairly non-addictive (in gum and patch form. Vapes, may be slightly more addictive due to oral fixation -- but still nothing compared to actual tobacco). Benefits are mostly in appetite suppression (if one is prone to overeating/unhealthy binging), mental stamina (usually due to the aforementioned appetite suppression), emotional anti-lability, and greatly improved saliva production (from nicotine gum, er…

It seems as though the beginning argument is incorrect - [0] seems to state that nicotine itself is in fact addictive. While there may be pseudo-benefits to both tobacco and nicotine, the overuse does indeed negate said effects as you've mentioned, though.

[0] - https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-...

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

#153

Post by gpm » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #151

gpm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or phrased differently, "we don't know how to stop it without causing something worse". Outright prohibition is massively expensive (prisons, police, loss of taxes), is a gift to criminals who will grow/import it illegally and sell it, and has outsized negative consequences on the people who use it anyways. Partial prohibition (under X years of age), taxes, and public education work to reduce the amount of it, withou…

There might be a way to actually ban it without causing harmful effects: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775

That will be an interesting experiment to watch in the years to come.

I have my doubts that it will work, or at least that it would work here (in Canada). When I was in high school I knew too many people who were smoking illegally for me to think that you could just slowly creep the law up the age groups and not end up with a thriving black market. Hopefully I will be proven wrong though!

To describe why I think this is unlikely to work in another way, I think banning it for young people is really only effective because they have almost no money, and the illegal sales to supply them mostly aren't done through criminal gangs using it to fund terrible things, but slightly older people who are just using it to earn a little extra money. Both of those break down once you start banning it for older people, even if it's always been illegal for them.

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

#154

Post by Mavvie » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

retrac wrote: post #78

beloch wrote: post #53

"Our governments collect $2.81 billion in tobacco sales taxes federally (2), which is >1% of all federal government spending in 2013 (3) ... However, the direct and indirect cost of lung cancer, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada is $12.0 billion (2012 figure), of which smoking is considered to be the number one cause (4). That’s not a good trade-off, even if you only consider it economically.…

> The public willed it [...] because politicians have the power to prohibit it, not doctors At face value you seem to be arguing for a medical technocracy to replace democracy. Pre-legalization I expected the government to strongly discourage /smoking/ cannabis. Edibles and sprays and non-combusting vapes would be emphasized. But nope, my local cannabis shop prominently sells rolling papers and bongs. You can buy pre…

I may be in the minority here but my family hasn't smoked any pot since legalization. It's now so much easier and safer to get edibles, why smoke it?

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

#155

Post by Zigurd » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

The numbers here do not add up. Here (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/index.htm) CDC says the US spends $225 billion/year on treating tobacco related disease.

In the article the authors claim US tobacco tax revenue is $2.81 billion. But here )https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/federal-tobacco-...) the number is about $12 billion.

Nevertheless, tobacco is a very large, very bad problem, but it also seems like patches and vapes for delivering nicotine could put a big dent in tobacco use, and cut a lot of the ill effects, maybe in the amount of tens of billions each year. I would guess if there was a reduced harm form of alcohol health experts would be all over it. Yet I see no PSAs that overtly tell smokers to vape or use nicotine gum. Such a message could be placed on every pack of cigarettes.

Because there is a low cost alternative to cigarettes, why not tax cigarettes even more than they are taxed now, offer vapes as an alternative, and see how much progress can be made using simple, obvious measures.

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

#156

Post by nemo44x » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

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…

I would love to acquire power and label a bunch of things I dislike as “vices” so I can control opposition.

Posting too much on social media is a vice. It releases dopamine according to my experts and can be harmful to others. It shouldn’t be done often. So now your “vice license” needs to have this “badge”.

I don’t want any part of the nanny state you describe.

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

#157

Post by throwawayboise » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

air7 wrote: post #119

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 help…

> It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling.

Consequence of several generations of "self-esteem-oriented" child rearing. If people are not taught self-control when they are young, why will they suddenly exhibit it when they are adults?

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

#158

Post by Maursault » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

wildrhythms wrote: post #102

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.

I think also that developing software has no health benefits, none, but only as a counterpoint I do not wish to argue. The better argument is that something is deadly, not that something has no health benefits.

What I do wish to argue is that the author failed to recognize the difference between tobacco, and what is in nearly all manufactured cigarettes, that is killing people. What is killing people is that most smokers are not smoking tobacco, but half-tobacco, half recorrugated garbage off the floor made into a paper before shredding and infused with additives like 300 carcinogenic chemicals intended to increase the addictiveness of nicotine and smoking.

Pipe tobacco is just plain old tobacco, with no additives but water. Pipe smokers don't seem to suffer the fates of cigarette smokers.

Death rates for current pipe smokers were little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years. [1]

Among the pipe smokers.... The US mortality ratios are 0.8 for non-inhalers and 1.0 for inhalers. [2]

This means pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.

I don't really want to criticize the author, who is merely expressing frustration and compassion and attempting to persuade smokers to quit and non-smokers to never start. But his beef is not really with natural tobacco. Big Tobacco (with their chemical death sticks) is the enemy here.

[1] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/tobacco/nnbbmq.pdf No. 1103, p.112

[2] ibid., No. 1103, page 92

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

#159

Post by woodruffw » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

tedajax wrote: post #138

woodruffw wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already a massive black market for people who want to smoke in the form of tax stamp fraud. It used to be even bigger than it currently is, but there are two forces working against it: the overall decline of organized crime starting in the 1980s, and the overall decline in the number of smokers. Black markets are a reality under current economic conditions, and they're a reality even in completely legal marke…

The knock on effects of fines and the damage the systems cause when someone can't pay a fine are far worse than the effects of smoking.

I think they can be, although I'd like to see specific numbers on that. Killing roughly half a million Americans a year is a high bar to clear in terms of harmful social policy changes.

But there's also a trend against long term damage here: smoking rates have been declining for decades, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that higher taxes and civil penalties (like fines for smoking in parks) do reduce smoking across all ages and demographics. Fewer people smoking overall means fewer people who are subject to any sort of systemic abuse. That feels like a decent tradeoff to me, especially when we consider the knock-on effects of smoking itself (individual and community health, pollution, dental outcomes, &c).

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

#160

Post by throwawayboise » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

grishka wrote: post #104

andybak wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's only an open question because the government has inserted itself into the healthcare delivery business. If "we" were not paying for other people's health care, "we" would not need to care what they did or didn't do with regards to their own bodies.