Live data from Hacker News

Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

61–70 of 250 posts

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

#61
post #40

You could construct an equivalent argument about bacon.

It would be weaker though. Second hand bacon is not a thing. Unless one is a fecal transplant donor.

It is not difficult to rattle off potent externalities from the bacon production business!

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

#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 nasal snuff usage among non-smokers is extremely limited. Here’s a fun remark from one study:

“ The last reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer of the nose was described by John Hill in 1761. We describe here a case of a 69-year-old woman who developed a nasal vestibular malignancy after 30 years of snuff usage, and this, we believe, is the only reported case of nasal snuff causing cancer in the last 2 centuries.”

As far as “no health benefit” goes, I would disagree. Smoking a cigar is a highly relaxing activity that I very much enjoy. I am sure that it is good for my mental health.

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

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this even a question? Again, the article explains: "I can vividly recall in the first couple of weeks into my first clinical rotation watching an elderly man with end-stage emphysema literally suffocate and die on my shift wearing just a venti mask. It was a clarion moment for me as a young health care professional even though I never smoked."

Elderly man -- had possibly lived a good life. Why is this even a question. People can do what they want. In every other western country outside of the US, you might be able to argue that since Medicare is provided free by the state that it is an unfair load on the system -- but in the US -- you absolutely don't have that argument available in your pocket. Sorry. So -- to each his own.

I like this straightforward argument and an honest stance. I think it is OK for Gov to provide warnings to people. Put nutrition labels. Even Tax things to a certain degree (need to put limits on how much). But, prohibiting access is crossing the line.

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

#66
Totalitarians are creeping into academia more and more. Little to no nuance in their understanding of human behavior or what allows free societies to function. We all maybe cracking jokes and pointing out flaws in the argument... but the real problem here is that this is a real paper, and a real view being given real consideration

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

#67
post #40

You could construct an equivalent argument about bacon.

Anyone can throw in a silly comparison but it doesn't really help. I'm fairy certain you're smart enough to reflect on the nuance that this topic deserves. Some bad things are legal. Some bad things aren't. It's a complex thing for society to weigh up and the linked article attempts to contribute to that discussion.

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

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elderly man -- had possibly lived a good life. Why is this even a question. People can do what they want. In every other western country outside of the US, you might be able to argue that since Medicare is provided free by the state that it is an unfair load on the system -- but in the US -- you absolutely don't have that argument available in your pocket. Sorry. So -- to each his own.

Smoking doesn't only impact the smoker. Second hand smoke is dangerous too. That's why there is regulation on where it's permitted. Costs to health care system also impact everyone. Though in the USA private insurers are starting to pass on some of the costs to smokers. And it could be argued that smokers often die young enough to offset health care costs of later life.

> Second hand smoke is dangerous too.

This is why we've banned smoking in restaurants and have designated areas. That's enough Government intervention although my personal take on this would be to leave it up to restaurants to manage this decision. If they don't want smokers in their restaurants, they can choose to ban them. If you don't like smoke in restaurants, don't go to ones that allow indoor smoking. This is a bilateral choice for a non-essential service (restaurants). But, we've handed over the power to Gov in this case. Too late. I would be OK for Gov to mandate a sign outside the restaurant that informs customers if it is smoking/non-smoking as it would be horrible if you sit down for a meal and all of a sudden someone next to you just lights a Cigarette.

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

#69
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 prohibition of the sale of cigarettes, ready to smoke, would be a good start. Treat it like weed, buy it loose-leaf, roll your own.

That way people still have their freedom and it's not so easy to "just have another one" when you're a kid.

Also since legalization, I've eaten more weed than I smoke, the freedom to grow means I have surplus to bake with and experiment with. My inhalation is near 0. (Smoked weed and cigarettes for 18 years).

Stopped smoking cigarettes thanks to "vaping" and weed thanks to "baking".

Just because people are allowed to have it doesn't mean we should let them buy 25-packs, ready to go.

Post reply on HN