171–180 of 250 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This, to me, is the only compelling reason. Prohibition is almost always worse. Even just prohibition of production -- not use -- has substantial negative externalities. Almost every other argument is absurd on-face. Even base appeals to "freedom" fall flat given the significant secondary and tertiary effects of smoke exposure, as well as the huge cost imposed on society by smoking.
> the huge cost imposed on society by smoking. On your last point, from what I've seen smoking saves society money because it kills people at much younger ages so governments don't have to pay for their health care for nearly as long.
But if we're limiting this to monetary costs only, I believe you're right. I saw a similar study from the UK circa ~2008ish that compared long term smoker/obese/healthy medical costs, and healthy people are indeed the most expensive (mostly because of tremendous end of life care costs).
Edit: I dug around a bit and found the study I was thinking of. It was actually a study on obesity (also not done by the UK), but used (non-obese) smokers as a group for comparison.
Link to article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225430/
See Table 1 for lifetime medical costs.
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.
Bureaucrats like the NIH have no societal benefits. None. It can be argued that public goods, one of the thousands of effects bureaucrats have, can have positive effects on some aspects of society, but getting public goods from an unelected bureaucratic institution 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. /s
> 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…
A friend of mine spent some effort acquiring one , and shows it off very enthusiastically :)
https://www.wikihow.com/Obtain-an-Alcohol-Permit-in-Maharash...
Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn't how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others. And so while I'm okay with banning smoking from places where others are affected, tobacco consumption in private or voluntary settings shouldn't really be an issue. Also interesting angle in the piece to declare that tobacco…
We aren’t consistent in that regard, or at least, we often consider that someone who sells a harmful substance is harming another person.
Our laws often prohibit Pfizer from selling dangerous drugs, as well as your local street drugs dealer.
These decisions are always a tradeoff between cultural expectations and harm. There’s no hard and fast rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This, to me, is the only compelling reason. Prohibition is almost always worse. Even just prohibition of production -- not use -- has substantial negative externalities. Almost every other argument is absurd on-face. Even base appeals to "freedom" fall flat given the significant secondary and tertiary effects of smoke exposure, as well as the huge cost imposed on society by smoking.
> the huge cost imposed on society by smoking. On your last point, from what I've seen smoking saves society money because it kills people at much younger ages so governments don't have to pay for their health care for nearly as long.
Smoking is bad but prohibition is worse. Being subjected to the carcercal system is worse for your health than smoking.
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…
IMO, the principle is sound, but you could certainly argue about the rate at which the age should increase. 1 year per year seems like it would do the least harm overall.