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

81–90 of 250 posts

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

#81

Post by klarstrup »

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

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

#82

Post by 63 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #80
63 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've hit upon the article's exact thesis.

Not really, I read the article and saw the thesis, and I took exception to the "tobacco has no benefit", hence what I was saying about the beauty of the plant and the pleasure of some of the product. Many things have no benefit when taken from that same angle of medical analysis. The tobacco plant has benefits like many other pleasures, and a long social history on this continent of North America and in this region,…

>"So there is the conundrum: tobacco has no benefit, yet it can’t be outlawed. So, as a society, and as health care professionals specifically, we are driven to what remains for us to use as tools for smoking cessation: rational or emotional arguments, structured cessation programs, drugs, patches, e-cigarettes and gum, among others. And these are working, albeit slowly."

>"But I don't see how the two can be reasonably separated from each other, though, and how you can realistically police cigarette consumption. You'll just end up with a black market.

Seems like the current approach in western countries of high taxation and intensive education and regulation is (slowly) working."

The above conclusion in the article and your conclusion in your comment are identical was all I meant.

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

#83

Post by woodruffw »

tedajax wrote: post #41
woodruffw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being subjected to the carceral system is indeed bad for your health, but there's a gap here: you haven't explained why banning smoking means we have to put people in prison. I would have thought to just fine them, or tax purchases out of existence. No need for shackles.

How do people pay fines? If they are unable to pay what are the penalties? You also just created a black market for people who still want to smoke and that'll produce all kinds of fun.

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 markets (there's always someone willing to pay XX% less in exchange for YY% more legal risk). Putting extreme taxes and/or fines on smoking might pour gas on that market, but long-term trends just don't support its survival.

And as for fines: we already have a legal structure for that[1].

[1]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/garnishments

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

#84

Post by 34679 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #48
hungryforcodes wrote: post #22

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.

Unless you can prove that my actions are directly harming you, you have no claim to control over what I do. My skin demarks the beginning of a sovereign dictatorship ruled by me. Your rules and desires do not apply here.

Second hand smoke = direct

Economic impact = indirect

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

#85

Post by ivanhoe »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #24

I enjoy the plant. I grow it in my garden for the beautiful scented flowers, and then I dry it or buy higher quality pipe tobacco and smoke it in my pipe in the summer and fall. Or a nice cigar when I'm on vacation in a warm place. The industrial cigarette product.. yeah that's something else. Gross. But I don't see how the two can be reasonably separated from each other, though, and how you can realistically police…

In many countries it's illegal to grow tobacco on your own, while it's perfectly legal to buy the industrial product - because government wants their tax money - and I think that's also the reason why the tobacco industry is not more regulated. It's still a huge money not just for the manufactures, but also for governments, and you don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

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

#86

Post by dvdkon »

andybak wrote: post #47
sponaugle wrote: post #21

And this is why we can't have nice things... because "we" don't "permit it". How does someone even write this sentence? Did they glance over at their crown, which says "King We", and think "thou shall not smoke!"?

Well. There's plenty of things that are illegal. How far down the libertarian rabbit hole are you prepared to go?

You don't even need to go that deep. Does tobacco hurt others? Except for smokers costing the state more on average, which should never be a crime by itself, not really. I don't like cigarette smoke and think we should take obnoxious smells more seriously, but the logical conclusion is not banning tobacco use.

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

#87

Post by nmpennypacker »

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…

I'm a cigar smoker as well and I think it's unfortunate that cigars are often lumped in with other tobacco products.

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

#88

Post by cmrdporcupine »

63 wrote: post #82
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, I read the article and saw the thesis, and I took exception to the "tobacco has no benefit", hence what I was saying about the beauty of the plant and the pleasure of some of the product. Many things have no benefit when taken from that same angle of medical analysis. The tobacco plant has benefits like many other pleasures, and a long social history on this continent of North America and in this region,…

>"So there is the conundrum: tobacco has no benefit, yet it can’t be outlawed. So, as a society, and as health care professionals specifically, we are driven to what remains for us to use as tools for smoking cessation: rational or emotional arguments, structured cessation programs, drugs, patches, e-cigarettes and gum, among others. And these are working, albeit slowly." >"But I don't see how the two can be reasonab…

Ok, fair.

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

#89

Post by Veen »

woodruffw wrote: post #20
tedajax wrote: post #4

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

Being subjected to the carceral system is indeed bad for your health, but there's a gap here: you haven't explained why banning smoking means we have to put people in prison. I would have thought to just fine them, or tax purchases out of existence. No need for shackles.

> 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 who will sell illegally imported cigarettes at a fraction of the price.

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

#90

Post by sidpatil »

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…

The country of Oman has something like this. If you are not Muslim, you can apply for a permit which will allow you to purchase alcohol in restaurants and state-owned liquor shops.
Post reply on HN