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

201–210 of 250 posts

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

#201

Post by randombits0 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #167

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…

If a cigarette was considered an occasional treat rather than a 20x a day ritual, it wouldn’t be a big deal. That’s my present take. I was a long time smoker that eventually quit, more from physical symptoms than anything else.

But an occasional smoke is no biggie. Six cigarettes a year has little affect. Some can’t walk that without relapse, of course. It’s different for everyone.

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

#202

Post by wolverine876 »

Volundr wrote: post #184
Barrin92 wrote: post #167

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…

> 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. To be honest, I don't see how you can look at American drug laws and come to this conclusion. It's certainly what we say we do, but when you actually look at the laws it place, be it drugs, gambling, marriage or any number…

> It's certainly what we say we do

It's what people say for their own vices and faults, freedom! Other people's vices should be banned.

That's why freedom isn't meaningful when we talk about ourselves. Everyone thinks themself should be free; it's freedom for others, especially those we don't like, that is significant.

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

#203

Post by wolverine876 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #167

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…

> In the world of health professionals which appear to attempt to pathologize everything

What does that refer to? That's not my experience.

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

#204

Post by wolverine876 »

I don't see limiting people's freedom to do things harmless to others, except in extreme situations. But what about limiting the production and sale of a poisonous, addictive substance?

At least it should be regulated to remove the addictive properties. Why hasn't that been done? Is it technically conceivable?

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

#206

Post by Maursault »

tpm wrote: post #181
Maursault wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 smo…

> Pipe smokers don't seem to suffer the fates of cigarette smokers. Oh yes they do. See eg [1]. Also logically, both are inhaling smoke from burning organic matter. There is no way it is not going to be very unhealthy, once you look at the chemical composition of the smoke. [1] Between pipe and cigarette smokers, no or only minor differences were found in mortality from any cause and the specified smoking-related dis…

According to the US Surgeon General report I cited, my statement is true.

> Also logically, both are inhaling smoke from burning organic matter.

No, that is my point. At least half of what is in national brand cigarettes is not organic. [1]

> There is no way it is not going to be very unhealthy, once you look at the chemical composition of the smoke.

Since I made no mention of health, this is a straw man. Please take better note of what my claim is, which concerns mortality, not health. But yes, the chemical composition of cigarette smoke is terrifying, though there is confusion here. Cigarettes are not tobacco, and what is in (nearly all) cigarettes is not natural tobacco.

Regarding your endnote, what you are (effectively) claiming is that the infusion of 300+ known carcinogens in cigarette tobacco has no effect on mortality, which is absurd on its face. Also, it is possible to likely that popular pipe tobaccos have in the last 45 years changed to include these carcinogens. If so, these participants were not smoking natural tobacco, and the study says nothing whatsoever about smoking natural tobacco.

So please produce a study showing the differences in mortality rates between smokers of national brand cigarettes (which since the 1950's chemical revolution or thereabouts have intentionally added carcinogens [1]) compared to mortality rates of smokers of unadulterated natural tobacco, as in tobacco that is merely grown, dried and smoked without any processing.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdV_1u-TodY&t=13m25s

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

#207

Post by throwaway277432 »

klarstrup wrote: post #81
jmclnx wrote: post #30

Well, one thing to consider, seems these days, it is OK to smoke marijuana but not tobacco. So, I believe until it is illegal to put 'smoke' into your lungs, anything goes. But, as some US businesses are doing, increase Medical Costs for people who smoke anything. Hard to verify since I know of a few people who lie about smoking to avoid the increased rates. At least that is a start.

What are some examples/places you've seen that have simultaneously allowed marijuana smokeing but discouraged tobacco smoking? In my country the signs are just "no smoking" they don't say what

"Coffee shops" in Amsterdam had this rule when I was there. Only tobacco was specifically outlawed indoors.

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

#208

Post by perfecto_maduro »

jrlocke wrote: post #165
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…

> 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 Honestly curious about this one, do you have a source?

not op, but maybe this one? https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/fda-study-cancer...

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

#209

Post by throwaway2331 »

wyre wrote: post #197
throwaway2331 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FDA doesn't source those claims. It seems more political, than empirical. Having used nicotine, tobacco, and been around people that have used nicotine and tobacco, there is little observational evidence that is addictive, relative to every other drug out there (including caffeine). From my experience, the effects of nicotine are exceptionally mild compared to caffeine. The most serious is usually severe nausea/v…

Nicotine is addictive. Patches and gum contain extended release nicotine which might be why you think it isn’t addictive. Zyn pouches are a freebase nicotine product that the user puts in their gum like tobacco chew and is an addictive product.

Do you have any evidence?

I've done free base nic, salt nic, and nic polacrilex. Salt nic would be, in my opinion, the most habit-forming (but not addictive), due to a quick and high "peak," and quicker clearance -- leading to a need to re-dose more often. That's also granted that the route of administration (vaping) allows for an insane amount of nicotine to be absorbed, much more than you can ever get with pouches, gums, and patches.

As well, I'm not certain, but I believe Zyn uses salt nic, and not free base.

I've done snuff as well, and it's similar to nicotine gum (except being more of a nuisance).

I haven't seen evidence for basic nicotine products being addictive. I have little comprehension how something so mild can become addictive. Habit-forming? Yes. Full-blown addiction? No.

Cigarettes are different. They're a cocktail of various psychoactive chemicals that get dumped straight into the bloodstream in large amounts. I understand how they can become addictive. I have first-hand experience of all the necessary things that must come together for the "addiction" switch to come on.

In my experience, nicotine alone is not enough for that switch to be flipped.

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

#210

Post by Maursault »

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…

> 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).

You are somewhat mistaken. Natural tobacco is fairly non-addicting because it doesn't contain nearly the amount of nicotine than what is in cigarettes, and what is in cigarettes is not natural tobacco. Nicotine, itself, is highly addictive, and there are myriad reference of studies to back this up. The addictiveness of nicotine is often compared to that of heroin. Vaping with nicotine is most likely just as addictive as smoking national brand cigarettes only due to the amount of nicotine present, thus natural tobacco is most likely not as addictive as vaping nicotine. Nicotine gum, due to the difference in delivery system, is likely just as addicting as chewing tobacco (which is also not natural tobacco but highly manipulated tobacco product to increase addictiveness). But nicotine, itself, beyond it's addictiveness, is not all that bad to consume, it won't kill you (below the lethal dose of 30-60mg), thus, vaping nicotine or nicotine gum is not all that bad, maybe not bad at all (but, again, addiction is bad in and of itself, not due to killing you, but due to messing with your free will, making you a slave to the addiction).

Post reply on HN