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

211–220 of 250 posts

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

#211

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

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…

and those powerful people like to smoke ... cigars for example.

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

#212

Post by 2-718-281-828 »

> These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. ..., alcohol in moderation has benefits and gambling in moderation is entertaining for some.

The author is an idiot ... what is this "rethoric" manipulation called btw? I bet it has a Wikipedia article.

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

#213

Post by DanBC »

throwaway2331 wrote: post #209
wyre wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> Do you have any evidence?

Do you?

This is pretty much settled science, and has been since 1986. Page 30: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_N...

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

#214

Post by Maursault »

throwaway2331 wrote: post #170
kompatible wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

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…

I'm not going to condone abusing Whippets, but it takes an awful large amount of long term repeated abuse of Nitrous Oxide to have adverse effects, which I believe are neuronal... losing feeling in the legs is one symptom I've heard. But it is well known among all the substances that are abused to be the least harmful. Even so, Nitrous Oxide abuse is no laughing matter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Neurotoxicity_an...

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

#215

Post by DanBC »

Maursault wrote: post #214
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…

I'm not going to condone abusing Whippets, but it takes an awful large amount of long term repeated abuse of Nitrous Oxide to have adverse effects, which I believe are neuronal... losing feeling in the legs is one symptom I've heard. But it is well known among all the substances that are abused to be the least harmful. Even so, Nitrous Oxide abuse is no laughing matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide…

Tinnitus has been reported in a few people who've only used nitrous occasionally.

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

#216

Post by Maursault »

DanBC wrote: post #215
Maursault wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to condone abusing Whippets, but it takes an awful large amount of long term repeated abuse of Nitrous Oxide to have adverse effects, which I believe are neuronal... losing feeling in the legs is one symptom I've heard. But it is well known among all the substances that are abused to be the least harmful. Even so, Nitrous Oxide abuse is no laughing matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide…

Tinnitus has been reported in a few people who've only used nitrous occasionally.

Every so often you hear about asphyxiation deaths from nitrous oxide abuse because it is being used in an enclosed space, such as a vehicle with the windows closed because it is heavier than air, it displaces the air, thus there is a danger of asphyxiation. But you probably won't get hepatitis or AIDS from sharing a cream dispenser, nor develop lung cancer or emphysema, nor will it make your heart explode or cause heart disease. But tinnitus is probably maddening, as well as the realization one has caused their own chronic symptoms due to poor judgement. But N2O is of vital importance to medicine as the most harmless and effective anesthetic known when properly administered with proper amounts of O2.

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

#217

Post by dang »

dvlsadvoxate6 wrote: post #95
Veen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would have thought to just fine them What happens when they don't pay their fines? There has to be some backup plan and it's usually jail. You could keep increasing the fine for as long as they don't pay, but they you end up with loads of bankrupt people. > or tax purchases out of existence That creates a black market. In the UK, where tobacco taxes are high, it's quite easy to find small shops and individuals wh…

Quoted post unavailable.

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#218

Post by Maursault »

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 is making the same mistake of many here and the author of the linked article, which is equating smoking cigarettes to smoking tobacco. Smoking tobacco may not be healthy, but it is not nearly as lethal as smoking (national brand and major brand) cigarettes, because cigarettes include a lot of extra stuff that is not tobacco, namely, an infusion of 300+ known carcinogens in order to increase addictiveness.

What should be banned and made illegal is the method Big Tobacco uses to process tobacco into such a lethal product [1]. If we banned this process, but permitted manufacture, sale and consumption of smoking products containing only unadulterated natural (i.e. no additives except water) tobacco, within 10-20 years, the mortality rates of smokers would plummet and return to what they were prior to the chemical revolution of the 1950s, which is probably far less though we don't know by how much because the studies only appeared after the chemical revolution.

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

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

#219

Post by ByteJockey »

DangitBobby wrote: post #183
ByteJockey wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if the op was talking about non-monetary costs. 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 actua…

Surely most living people are worth more than the economic cost of keeping them alive. They don't seem to even mention the economic value of a living person, other than to say that they didn't take into account the difference in productivity between obese and non-obese people.

Given that most smokers/obese people tend to die right around retirement age, we probably aren't leaving much on the table (from a purely economic perspective). Smokers probably aren't missing enough days of work to cancel out the $60k they save the system by smoking (not to mention all the extra taxes they pay).

But there's more value to human beings than their economic value, hence my talk about non-monetary costs. There's very real suffering that happens, and I'm not sure that's something you can put down in a spreadsheet somewhere.

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

#220

Post by Turing_Machine »

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.

Tobacco has psychoactive substances besides nicotine.

In particular, it has monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which are effective against depression, panic disorder, and social phobia.

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

Some believe that this is why replacements that contain only nicotine (e.g. nicotine gum and patches) aren't really all that effective as smoking cessation aids.

Post reply on HN