TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)

85 点作者 LaFolle超过 3 年前

46 条评论

Barrin92超过 3 年前
Simple answer, because we live in a free society and the consideration for what is outlawed isn&#x27;t how beneficial an activity is for the person who engages in it but how dangerous it is to others.<p>And so while I&#x27;m okay with banning smoking from places where others are affected, tobacco consumption in private or voluntary settings shouldn&#x27;t really be an issue.<p>Also interesting angle in the piece to declare that tobacco has &#x27;no benefits&#x27;. Is the author the enjoyment police? First thing that comes to mind for me is, I have a lot of Arab and Turkish friends and there&#x27;s a strong cafe and smoking culture within those communities that&#x27;s an important part of social gatherings.<p>In the world of health professionals which appear to attempt to pathologize everything this apparently doesn&#x27;t hold a lot of value but for most people it does.
评论 #29617174 未加载
评论 #29617066 未加载
评论 #29618136 未加载
评论 #29618131 未加载
评论 #29618180 未加载
willcipriano超过 3 年前
&gt; 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.<p>I&#x27;ve used tobacco products perhaps from 0 - 5 times a year from adulthood on. While not &quot;safe&quot;, pretty low risk. I have the same relationship with caffeine and alcohol. Nothing can be all that enjoyable if you do it everyday.<p>I&#x27;ve often thought of a sort of &quot;vice license&quot;, at the age of authority you can apply for a license that you need to buy things like alcohol and tobacco. Everybody gets one that applies and is of age. Then you can voluntarily choose to limit access to a particular vice, and if you are a danger to others a court could limit your access as well.<p>Casinos already have this model, it&#x27;s called self-exclusion[0]. It seems like the most humane solution that allows people to still be adults.<p>[0]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gamban.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;ban-yourself-from-online-gambling" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gamban.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;ban-yourself-from-online-gambling</a>
评论 #29615947 未加载
评论 #29616057 未加载
评论 #29615897 未加载
评论 #29616752 未加载
评论 #29617061 未加载
评论 #29615507 未加载
评论 #29615785 未加载
评论 #29616660 未加载
BrS96bVxXBLzf5B超过 3 年前
&gt; 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.<p>I&#x27;m sorry for their personal experience but leading with &quot;there are zero health benefits&quot;, immediately following up with &quot;there might be benefits&quot; and then continuing completely disregarding that point is irresponsible.<p>Without interjecting my own opinion, two points I feel are underdiscussed regarding this issue:<p>- as the author mentions there are studies on the cognitive benefits, many mental health patients self-medicate with tobacco including 80% of those diagnosed with schizophrenia<p>- overshadowed cultural aspects. Millennia of pre-20th century tobacco use, its role and impact (positive and negative) in societies, religion, and spirituality is much different than we&#x27;ve experienced over the last hundred years
评论 #29615929 未加载
评论 #29615806 未加载
评论 #29616603 未加载
tedajax超过 3 年前
Smoking is bad but prohibition is worse. Being subjected to the carcercal system is worse for your health than smoking.
评论 #29615469 未加载
评论 #29615417 未加载
评论 #29615403 未加载
评论 #29615368 未加载
评论 #29617247 未加载
评论 #29616555 未加载
评论 #29617077 未加载
评论 #29615333 未加载
cmrdporcupine超过 3 年前
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&#x27;m on vacation in a warm place.<p>The industrial cigarette product.. yeah that&#x27;s something else. Gross.<p>But I don&#x27;t see how the two can be reasonably separated from each other, though, and how you can realistically police cigarette consumption. You&#x27;ll just end up with a black market.<p>Seems like the current approach in western countries of high taxation and intensive education and regulation is (slowly) working.
评论 #29615749 未加载
评论 #29615479 未加载
elephanlemon超过 3 年前
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.<p>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:<p>“ 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.”<p>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.
评论 #29615770 未加载
评论 #29616117 未加载
评论 #29616836 未加载
air7超过 3 年前
This is one of my favorite questions in the area of social&#x2F;moral governance.<p>Put more generally: How much should we protect people from themselves?<p>In the not-so-distant past, I&#x27;m guessing, the answer to that for most people was: Very little. After all, adults are capable and expected to make rational choices and do so every day; for themselves, and the people they cate about. So giving them more options is just helpful...<p>But the past few decades have perhaps opened our eyes. From Kahneman &amp; Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use.<p>It&#x27;s become extremely clear that &quot;adults&quot; are not very good at being rational and self-controling. At least when they are put up aginst corporations who employe armies of professional mind hackers whos sole job is to make them lose the battle.<p>So the debate isn&#x27;t really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law.<p>And still, though we&#x27;ve realized the stakes are higher than we first thought, the right moral choice is unclear. Perhaps the idea of protecting ourselves from commercial predetors should be seen as childishly quixotic as the idea of protecting Deer from lions. Especially since the &quot;Lions&quot; are us too. We (though in smaller numbers) are also the benefactors of these questionable actions.<p>But then again, no one likes to be prohibited from doing what they want, and that&#x27;s a great, and fairly new, right that we have (with restrictions of course). We should be quick to hamper it.<p>Good question...
评论 #29616311 未加载
评论 #29617536 未加载
评论 #29616754 未加载
beloch超过 3 年前
&quot;Our governments collect $2.81 billion in tobacco sales taxes federally (2), which is &gt;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.&quot;<p>Tobacco sales taxes show up in the current fiscal year, while chronic respiratory health costs show up decades down the road. Governments tend to be better than corporations at prioritizing long-term concerns over short-term accounting. However, there is <i>substantial</i> demographic that opposes regulations on narcotics. Specific ones, at least.<p>Look at how popular legalizing cannabis was in Canada over the last decade. Smoking pot is the most popular form of delivery for that narcotic and it&#x27;s likely going to prove to have many of the same long-term consequences as smoking tobacco. Nonetheless, Canada legalized it. Doctors raised concerns and were ignored. The public willed it, and politicians don&#x27;t stay politicians by ignoring the public&#x27;s will.<p>Why do we still permit tobacco use? Because politicians have the power to prohibit it, not doctors.<p>Perhaps the doctors espousing prohibition don&#x27;t have the right of it either. Narcotics have been a part of human existence across the globe for all of recorded history. Although many people successfully abstain from them, narcotics seem to fill a basic human need.<p>Research on safe, enjoyable recreational drugs is virtually nonexistent. Perhaps we should focus on filling that human need while minimizing the side-effects. To put it another way, with all the medical and pharmacological advances we&#x27;ve made in the last century, does it really make sense that people are still sucking on burning leaves to get high?
评论 #29615664 未加载
评论 #29615582 未加载
chernevik超过 3 年前
Because some people enjoy it, and it&#x27;s a free country. Why is this even a question?
评论 #29615367 未加载
评论 #29615334 未加载
评论 #29615562 未加载
评论 #29616633 未加载
CaptArmchair超过 3 年前
Because tobacco use is deeply engrained in culture, economy, politics, etc. There are tons of social and economical interests tied into all of that.<p>Tobacco use has a long history. Archeological finds indicate that humans in the Americas began using tobacco as far back as 12,300 years ago, thousands of years earlier than previously documented.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_tobacco" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_tobacco</a><p>Also, society doesn&#x27;t consist of people who all share the same mindset or the same faculties to come to a particular notion. There&#x27;s a wild amount of diversity which defines people&#x27;s identity. It is said that you can&#x27;t reason someone out of a position they haven&#x27;t reasoned themselves into. If you were raised in an environment with tobacco use, there&#x27;s a high likelihood you&#x27;re going to be a smoker from a young age as well.<p>Wholesale prohibiting tobacco use sounds like an easy fix. But it really isn&#x27;t. Prohibitionism as a legal philosophy has its fair share of criticism as well:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Prohibitionism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Prohibitionism</a><p>Consider the complex history of Prohibition in the U.S. during the 1920s:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Prohibition_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...</a><p>That doesn&#x27;t mean tobacco, alcohol or any other drug consumption is problematic. It very much is, and it comes with immense suffering and a massive societal cost which shouldn&#x27;t be ignored. But instead of approaching consumption as a singular law enforcement issue, the bigger challenge is to approach the education, healthcare, social, culture and economical issues that lead to the promotion of such consumption.<p>Even then, it&#x27;s a pipedream to assume that the entirety of humanity will ever stop using tobacco. Or other substances for that matter.
lunias超过 3 年前
Prohibition to the rescue! We all know prohibition has the consumer at heart. I&#x27;m sure smoking tobacco post-prohibition will be much safer and more equitable for everyone!
评论 #29615589 未加载
cproctor超过 3 年前
Well this thread finally convinced me to set showdead=no in my profile. It&#x27;s scary to see how much damage a few accounts can do to the erosion of discourse on this site, and especially to think I&#x27;m reasonable in worrying that some of them are state or corporate sock puppets. I am grateful to the site moderators and to other community members (in downvoting bad-faith comments) for asserting our shared valuation of this discourse space.
评论 #29616103 未加载
JohnHaugeland超过 3 年前
I have never smoked a cigarette in my life.<p>As a pothead, I find this line of reasoning offensive.<p>As a scientist, I&#x27;d like to observe that their opening claim that tobacco has no medical benefits is hard-false; it&#x27;s by far the most effective known medication for schizophrenia, by example, helps with crohn&#x27;s, helps with IBS, et cetera.<p>Alcohol is far worse for us than tobacco. So is white sugar.<p>This person is just plying a grudge.
tptacek超过 3 年前
You could construct an equivalent argument about bacon.
评论 #29615577 未加载
评论 #29615522 未加载
11235813213455超过 3 年前
That&#x27;s also what I sometimes say to smokers &quot;it has no benefit at all, only drawbacks, it&#x27;s just an addiction and you can decide to stop if you understand it&#x27;s damaging&quot; (my mother died at 63 from lung cancer), and there are many subjects here in France. It&#x27;s also quite annoying to breath that smoke anywhere outside. That&#x27;s one of the things I hope will change, along with noise (cars, motorcycles as someone living near a street, and using a bicycle) and pollution, and overconsumerism
Zigurd超过 3 年前
The numbers here do not add up. Here (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cdc.gov&#x2F;tobacco&#x2F;data_statistics&#x2F;index.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cdc.gov&#x2F;tobacco&#x2F;data_statistics&#x2F;index.htm</a>) CDC says the US spends $225 billion&#x2F;year on treating tobacco related disease.<p>In the article the authors claim US tobacco tax revenue is $2.81 billion. But here )<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.taxpolicycenter.org&#x2F;fiscal-fact&#x2F;federal-tobacco-tax-revenue-ff-08312020" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.taxpolicycenter.org&#x2F;fiscal-fact&#x2F;federal-tobacco-...</a>) the number is about $12 billion.<p>Nevertheless, tobacco is a very large, very bad problem, but it also seems like patches and vapes for delivering nicotine could put a big dent in tobacco use, and cut a lot of the ill effects, maybe in the amount of tens of billions each year. I would guess if there was a reduced harm form of alcohol health experts would be all over it. Yet I see no PSAs that overtly tell smokers to vape or use nicotine gum. Such a message could be placed on every pack of cigarettes.<p>Because there is a low cost alternative to cigarettes, why not tax cigarettes even more than they are taxed now, offer vapes as an alternative, and see how much progress can be made using simple, obvious measures.
ThinkBeat超过 3 年前
One can make much the same argument regarding alcohol. It is a potent neurotoxin.<p>Drink too much of it, you die. (Alcohol Poisoning &#x2F; OD)<p>Drink it too often the liver will have issues.<p>For one Alcohol metabolizes into Acetaldehyde which is an even more potent poison. Usually, the liver takes care of it, but if there is too much and too often the liver can&#x27;t deal with it all. Acetaldehyde is said to damage the DNA.<p>It is also linked to developing cancer.<p>There are many studies that claim drinking in moderation is healthy for you. Mostly that deals with chemicals contained for instance in wine but not related to the Alcohol<p>All that is something that happens to your body. Whilst smoking annoys everyone who must smell it.<p>However, the overall cost of the abuse of alcohol to society is enormous. Aside from the physical damage it does, it is a huge contributing factor to sexual harassment, rape, domestic abuse, violence, child abuse (in so many ways), car crashes, homicide, impaired judgement.<p>An argument can be made that the impact of alcohol on society is much worse than tobacco.<p>Still alcohol is a popular poison. The last time the US tried to ban it, it didn&#x27;t work out too well. It is ingrained in culture in many places and many ways.<p>Personally, I think weed is much safer than alcohol. I do prefer people have it in ways that do not impact others. Walking around smelling weed smoke is not that great.<p>I have always said that people should be allowed more of a choice in how to get high&#x2F;drunk&#x2F;euphoric&#x2F;relax. Now we have weed so that gives people a choice. I think MDMA and LSD should also be legal. (But made legally in safe and pure forms)
jmclnx超过 3 年前
Well, one thing to consider, seems these days, it is OK to smoke marijuana but not tobacco.<p>So, I believe until it is illegal to put &#x27;smoke&#x27; 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.
评论 #29615725 未加载
scythe超过 3 年前
Does freedom have inherent value, or does it have to lead to something else in order to be valuable? This editorial seems to assume the latter.<p>For example, it suggests that the sole justification for alcohol legality is that it can have benefits in moderation. Notwithstanding the dubiousness of this claim, does anyone really believe that is why alcohol is legal?
评论 #29616801 未加载
sponaugle超过 3 年前
And this is why we can&#x27;t have nice things... because &quot;we&quot; don&#x27;t &quot;permit it&quot;. How does someone even write this sentence? Did they glance over at their crown, which says &quot;King We&quot;, and think &quot;thou shall not smoke!&quot;?
评论 #29615489 未加载
throwaway984393超过 3 年前
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&#x27;t give a shit about native cultures, but it would be <i>nice</i> to at least acknowledge the indigenous heritage that literally all tobacco comes from and is still used in today.<p>Personally I like cigars and hookah. I smoke maybe once a year. I&#x27;m not saying millions of people should die just so I can smoke, but I&#x27;d be fine with chewing tobacco and cigarettes being banned, while indigenous and more ceremonial &#x2F; social forms of tobacco are kept.
评论 #29615907 未加载
dionidium超过 3 年前
&gt; <i>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 (5).</i><p>This framing drives me nuts. It&#x27;s the same claim the CDC makes on their website:<p>&gt; <i>There is no safe level of smoking.</i><p>&gt; <i>Each cigarette you smoke damages your lungs, your blood vessels, and cells throughout your body. Even occasional smoking is harmful, and the best option for any smoker is to quit completely. The more years you smoke, the more you damage your body. Quitting at any age has benefits.</i><p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cdc.gov&#x2F;vitalsigns&#x2F;adultsmoking&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cdc.gov&#x2F;vitalsigns&#x2F;adultsmoking&#x2F;index.html</a><p>First of all, it&#x27;s absurd. If you smoke, let&#x27;s just say, I dunno, <i>one puff</i> off a cigarette once a year I am certain there is no measurable health effect. So the claim is <i>wrong</i>.<p>But more important, this kind of argument could be applied to all kinds of things. In a technical sense, there is no safe amount of air travel, for example. You are exposed to background radiation at measurably higher levels every time you fly and this has measurable impacts on longterm health (pilots and other flight staff have measurably higher rates of cancer). But does the CDC say, &quot;there&#x27;s no safe amount of air travel?&quot; Do they point out that every flight does some amount of damage to the cells in your body? Do they warn you that the more you do it, the more harmful it is? Do they tell you that quitting is the only way to be sure you&#x27;re doing no damage?<p>No! They give <i>actual figures</i>, explain that the risk of infrequent exposure is relatively low, and then provide a simple point of reference to help the public contextualize the risk:<p>&gt; <i>We are exposed to low levels of radiation when we fly. You would be exposed to about 0.035 mSv (3.5 mrem) of cosmic radiation if you were to fly within the United States from the east coast to the west coast. This amount of radiation is less than the amount of radiation we receive from one chest x-ray.</i><p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cdc.gov&#x2F;nceh&#x2F;radiation&#x2F;air_travel.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cdc.gov&#x2F;nceh&#x2F;radiation&#x2F;air_travel.html</a>
temp8964超过 3 年前
Is &quot;Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy&quot; a legit academic journal? This paper sounds more like a rant to be posted on reddit than a scholar paper to be published on a legit journal.<p>The author jumped from &quot;Tobacco smoking has no health benefits&quot; to &quot;tobacco has no benefit&quot;. Seriously, this shouldn&#x27;t even get passed for a high school writing class.
评论 #29616313 未加载
giantg2超过 3 年前
&quot;Why do we still permit tobacco use?&quot;<p>Because society chooses to. That&#x27;s the case for most things. Why should I want to control what others do if it doesn&#x27;t directly affect me? If we look hard enough, chances are there is one activity or another that we each engage in that could also be eliminated or highly regulated on this same basis.
wolverine876超过 3 年前
I don&#x27;t see limiting people&#x27;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?<p>At least it should be regulated to remove the addictive properties. Why hasn&#x27;t that been done? Is it technically conceivable?
rrdharan超过 3 年前
“Secondhand Smoke isn’t as bad as we thought” <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slate.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;2017&#x2F;02&#x2F;secondhand-smoke-isnt-as-bad-as-we-thought.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slate.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;2017&#x2F;02&#x2F;secondhand-smoke-isnt-a...</a>
2-718-281-828超过 3 年前
&gt; These other ‘sins’, however, have at least some benefit. ..., alcohol in moderation has benefits and gambling in moderation is entertaining for some.<p>The author is an idiot ... what is this &quot;rethoric&quot; manipulation called btw? I bet it has a Wikipedia article.
klarstrup超过 3 年前
Yeah it&#x27;s weird how there seems to be so little institutional support for regulating low-risk psychoactive substances like nicotine(and caffeine). Stimulants that increase alertness and enhances concentration, very useful for productivity.
throwaway_2009超过 3 年前
Is universal healthcare important enough to cede control over what we put into our own bodies?<p>That&#x27;s the only important question. As far as I&#x27;m concerned the answer is definitionally no, and I live in the UK where we arguably have it.<p>It&#x27;s an endless rabbit hole of authoritarianism. Ban cigarettes, ban sugar in high concentration, ban fast food, mandate vaccines. If we find out that taking an aspirin a day improves health outcomes - mandate that too. Ban unprotected sex - just use phone cameras to enforce it or whatever.<p>There is literally no end to it because if we only take into account the one metric &quot;does this thing affect aggregate health outcomes&quot; you can justify banning anything.<p>I&#x27;m sure someone will read this and get grumpy that I&#x27;ve mentioned vaccination. I have three, they&#x27;re ace.<p>The idea of authoritarian policy is that you don&#x27;t have a choice; your opinion is truly irrelevant. I don&#x27;t think its&#x27; proponents often hold that in the forefront of their mind, they only focus on &quot;well, right now I&#x27;m on the popular side&quot; or whatever.
riffic超过 3 年前
so I just watched the Get Back documentary and one of the thoughts I had is that the amount of cigarettes smoked in the production of a Beatles album likely had an effect on the band&#x27;s creative output (spoilers - there was a <i>lot of smoking, lol</i>).<p>I&#x27;m not saying that I would want to be exposed to any of that second hand smoke myself or that I would want to get addicted to the substance, but there&#x27;s something that was part of that magic formula that affects the mindset of an artist.
rapsacnz超过 3 年前
New Zealand has just banned it using a rolling age locked technique - starting from next year. This means that anyone 14 and under in NZ will never be legally able to by tobacco.
SMAAART超过 3 年前
As an ex-smoker at times I wonder the same, but I know the answer: governments the world over are addicted to the tax revenue from tobacco production and consumption.
retrac超过 3 年前
In 1994, the Canadian federal government reduced its tobacco excise tax. Quite a lot too, nearly 50%. It wasn&#x27;t a libertarian whim, or the desperate power grab of a cigar-lover. The black market was rampant. About 30% nationally approaching nearly 100% in some communities. (Clever: you can measure the rate by collecting butts from public ashtrays and the street.)<p>Prohibition doesn&#x27;t eliminate demand. And in the Canadian context, with a border with the USA and with some indigenous communities being exempt from federal excise taxes and who use tobacco in religious ceremonies, effectively prohibiting the black market trade seems daunting, both pragmatically and politically. It also raises the old question: are the harms of the substance or the harms of prohibition worse?
评论 #29616029 未加载
throwawayboise超过 3 年前
It&#x27;s a plant; it&#x27;s not going away. Some people like to dry the leaves and smoke it. If those people are adults, leave them alone.
jhallenworld超过 3 年前
We should ban US companies from marketing cigarettes to people (kids) in other countries. They are doing it right now in Africa.
tim333超过 3 年前
It&#x27;ll be interesting to see how New Zealand&#x27;s experiment with getting rid of it goes.
Ekaros超过 3 年前
Why do we still permit ethanol use?
评论 #29615450 未加载
jppope超过 3 年前
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
rubyist5eva超过 3 年前
Because outlawing it will simply allow a black market to flourish, which is worse.
evandwight超过 3 年前
2015
EamonnMR超过 3 年前
Because laws match social rules, not the other way around?
chrisgd超过 3 年前
Alcohol seems a bigger problem
JRGC1超过 3 年前
simpler answer: look what happens when you ban things
imwillofficial超过 3 年前
“Why do we still permit McDonalds use?”
sebow超过 3 年前
As it says there, nicotine is not that harmful, at all.It&#x27;s mostly the vast majority of other sh*t that makes up a cigarette that makes &quot;tobacco&quot;[whatever the hell you understand by tobacco actually] harmful.Cigs&#x2F;Cigars don&#x27;t have this problem, granted you usually don&#x27;t inhale them in lungs, or at least you&#x27;re not supposed to.<p>Just because it&#x27;s mainstream and overall damaging to the health over long periods of time doesn&#x27;t mean we should ban or restrict it&#x27;s use.No, not even in public spaces.Maybe if there were a referendum then yes, but usually people won&#x27;t really ban something if it&#x27;s really a problem or danger to society. Tobacco is a problem&#x2F;danger to the individual and not to society at large.I can&#x27;t say that it was ever addictive to me ever for a number of reasons: usually expensive, they make things smell, and it&#x27;s not really something that you enjoy most of the time,especially alone.<p>But the biggest thing that made me &quot;quit&quot; smoking(or at least dropped it significantly for me, to a lower level than &quot;socially smoking&quot;) is when i first started going to the gym more seriously.You notice how your energy level drop and other things aswell(greasy skin,lower fertility,etc).Why not promote sports more actively?It will have more effect than these restrictive initiatives, to a degree that smoking is not even than harming when you do sports.Do you need to ban it because it can become a vice and lower lifespan?No, that&#x27;s stupid(besides the fact that it erodes responsability in society).Tobacco is a decent substance that can be consumed socially, compared to others. The nicotine itself actually relaxes you and 90% of the time people smoke is to forget the stress of the moment.Also the damage to the lungs is vastly overblown. Lungs recover pretty fast actually if you don&#x27;t &quot;burn&quot; them with smoke.If i recall it was one week of smoking is recovered somewhere between a month and 3 months, with obvious factors: air quality, degree of smoking,etc.<p>Here&#x27;s a better idea than this &quot;karen&quot; mentality: improve the quality of tobacco: focus on the nicotine,you have to keep the smoke(you really can&#x27;t get rid of the aspect, people have been inhaling for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, and it won&#x27;t go away: it&#x27;s a very direct path to the brain chemistry) and finally,obviously: get rid of the bad substances.
SuoDuanDao超过 3 年前
Why do we still permit busybody bureaucrats to receive public funds?<p>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. &#x2F;s