Honestly I understand regulating cigarettes out of existence. While I understand the individual liberty argument for keeping cigarettes around, there are much safer ways to get a nicotine fix. The...
Honestly I understand regulating cigarettes out of existence. While I understand the individual liberty argument for keeping cigarettes around, there are much safer ways to get a nicotine fix. The public health benefits from these policies would be huge.
Honestly it's wild to me that countries are still banning drugs like magic mushrooms and weed and leave cigarettes unbanned. Tobacco kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal...
Honestly it's wild to me that countries are still banning drugs like magic mushrooms and weed and leave cigarettes unbanned. Tobacco kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined (in the US)
There is no reason to leave them unbanned, if people want nicotine that badly let them vape it. (Yes I know vaping isn't great either, but its way better than smoking)
Cigars and pipe tobacco aren’t nearly as problematic in use though. So people who stick to those are rightly perturbed by these initiatives. They don’t market to kids and they tend to be geared...
Cigars and pipe tobacco aren’t nearly as problematic in use though. So people who stick to those are rightly perturbed by these initiatives. They don’t market to kids and they tend to be geared towards stuffy old people anyway. And the tobacco itself tends not to be as loaded up with additives to promote addiction.
And the general shift has been to move away from banning substances in general. The real problem is just the tendency to target kids with this stuff.
Lung cancer risk may be lower but oral cancers are higher with cigars. A quick search suggests that there's also more tar in cigars. If that wasn't a risk, chewing tobacco would be perfectly safe....
Lung cancer risk may be lower but oral cancers are higher with cigars. A quick search suggests that there's also more tar in cigars.
If that wasn't a risk, chewing tobacco would be perfectly safe.
I'd have to dig into the studies themselves but the sites I'm seeing appear to be legitimate health websites.
Cigarettes have a variety of additives designed to speed up delivery of nicotine to the system and keep itself lit, as well as higher amounts of MAO inhibitors that are known to substantially...
Cigarettes have a variety of additives designed to speed up delivery of nicotine to the system and keep itself lit, as well as higher amounts of MAO inhibitors that are known to substantially enhance the addictiveness of a given dose of nicotine.
So yes, they do need additives. They’ve been designed specifically as nicotine delivery systems, it’s like comparing a single malt scotch to pure grain alcohol. There’s a lot of things people enjoy in a scotch, but grain alcohol is much more focused on the pharmacological effects over anything else. There are psycho-social consequences to that usage pattern. Especially with young people, making it easy and not require any set up or training or practice around makes them much more likely to onboard and pick up the habit in the first place.
And pipe and cigar smokers are at lower risk of lung cancers that cigarette smokers for equivalent amounts of tobacco consumption (though it tends to be less habitual so it’s hard to do a true comparison). The cooler smoke and the fact that they don’t inhale means the risk is largely oral and throat cancers rather than lungs.
I understand wanting to discorage smoking, but not trying to ban it. Illegality means you encourage an unregulated black market, where vendors can stuff them full of whatever they want. Keeping...
I understand wanting to discorage smoking, but not trying to ban it. Illegality means you encourage an unregulated black market, where vendors can stuff them full of whatever they want. Keeping them legal allows strong regulation to stop them containing even more harmful stuff (and maybe push them to reduce the tar/nicotine content going forward?).
I'm in favour of keeping it legal and taxing it higher, having better health education, and strong control of tobacco advertising.
The tax won't cover the additional cost to the NHS, which I admit is a problem, but I worry what the health risks would be for black market tobacco.
This is just my personal opinion nothing more: I don't smoke and I don't get reasons. For me its just a populist move. Why not ban alcohol, pollution, unhealthy food, working in dangerous...
This is just my personal opinion nothing more:
I don't smoke and I don't get reasons. For me its just a populist move. Why not ban alcohol, pollution, unhealthy food, working in dangerous condition, monopoly corporation?
I say this as a former smoker... Smoking is not particularly enjoyable nor beneficial nor natural. It's a simple habit that is noxious, expensive, unhealthy, and once formed, is incredibly hard to...
I say this as a former smoker...
Smoking is not particularly enjoyable nor beneficial nor natural.
It's a simple habit that is noxious, expensive, unhealthy, and once formed, is incredibly hard to break.
I've seen Narcotics Anonymous folks who smoke like chimneys. They could quit everything but cigarettes.
I've known friends try to quit multiple times and fail.
Anything that discourages younger folks from smoking is a good thing.
I say this as an occasional smoker: smoking is enjoyable and about as natural to humanity as cooking. I'll go months or years between enjoying tobacco, and the cravings I experience are easier to...
I say this as an occasional smoker: smoking is enjoyable and about as natural to humanity as cooking. I'll go months or years between enjoying tobacco, and the cravings I experience are easier to resist than those for desserts. I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm an outlier, but I'd really appreciate the arguments for restricting my freedom not to rest on pretending I don't exist.
Nothing about this law restricts your freedom. It restricts the freedom of those much younger than you. I also am an occasional smoker. I will bum a glorious cigarette every year or so. When I...
Nothing about this law restricts your freedom.
It restricts the freedom of those much younger than you.
I also am an occasional smoker. I will bum a glorious cigarette every year or so.
When I said smoking is not particularly enjoyable, I meant the addictive need to smoke constantly is not enjoyable.
I am not pretending that either you nor I do not exist, yet I still support any law that restricts smoking, as I know how much it would help my friends quit smoking, and how they do genuinely want to quit.
Your attitude sounds very American.
Most other countries are OK with laws that may impinge on the few for the good of the many. And it is these countries which are passing these laws.
And all that's fine, it just is not in accordance with your initial comment. In fact, it downright contradicts it. And yet I still care for others'. And yet it is valid. I don't know what point...
And all that's fine, it just is not in accordance with your initial comment. In fact, it downright contradicts it.
Nothing about this law restricts your freedom
And yet I still care for others'.
Your attitude sounds very American.
And yet it is valid. I don't know what point you think you're making.
It's a very American thing, to be concerned about a very specific freedom, being infringed in other countries, and largely ignore the freedoms, infringed in America, both historically and now.
It's a very American thing, to be concerned about a very specific freedom, being infringed in other countries, and largely ignore the freedoms, infringed in America, both historically and now.
It's a very european thing to presume that you understand what freedoms I care about. The whole idea that it matters to me whether my own freedoms are being curtailed or others', for example. Some...
It's a very european thing to presume that you understand what freedoms I care about. The whole idea that it matters to me whether my own freedoms are being curtailed or others', for example. Some people don't just use "principles" as a pretense, and actually care about other people.
If this is what you think Americans are like, it makes me believe that you know very few Americans. Americans constantly complain about American issues. The whole of the internet (because it was...
If this is what you think Americans are like, it makes me believe that you know very few Americans.
Americans constantly complain about American issues. The whole of the internet (because it was founded by and is dominated by Americans) is hyperfocused on American issues and largely neglects issues facing other countries, or even acts as if all other countries have the same problems that the US does, because Americans talk about their own issues to such an excessive degree.
For example, I live in Australia, and Australians spend more time talking about discrimination faced by African Americans (a demographic that is essentially nonexistent in Australia, outside the odd tourist) than they do about discrimination faced by, say, African refugees who actually live here. The American voice is so dominant that it's actually non-Americans ignoring their own countries' issues in order to talk about American issues instead.
Please, I urge you to resist this this tendency and restrain from bringing up the America/Americans whenever a different country is under discussion. Let other countries' issues get some air time, too.
If you recognize you're an outlier, you must appreciate how many people are negatively impacted by cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction. At least for me, this makes the balancing of personal...
If you recognize you're an outlier, you must appreciate how many people are negatively impacted by cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction. At least for me, this makes the balancing of personal freedoms and priorities versus community health much easier to digest.
I do, and if it were simply my ability to smoke that stood in the way of nobody developing an addiction to tobacco, I'd make that trade. But that isn't the situation, it's everybody's liberty at...
I do, and if it were simply my ability to smoke that stood in the way of nobody developing an addiction to tobacco, I'd make that trade. But that isn't the situation, it's everybody's liberty at stake.
These kinds of paternalistic regulations undermine the citizenry's abilities to develop and society's sense of mutual responsibility. If we can confuse our own sacrifices with forcing our will on others, and normalize that sleight of hand, how can ever trust ourselves not to keep on steamrolling diversity?
I don’t understand this. You would give up smoking if everyone else would give up smoking as a consequence? But you don’t want everyone else to have to quit smoking, because that would be against...
I don’t understand this. You would give up smoking if everyone else would give up smoking as a consequence? But you don’t want everyone else to have to quit smoking, because that would be against their liberty, even though it would have the same effect? Am I missing something?
Also another argument I haven’t seen in this thread: smokers affect other people’s health if they smoke next to you, for example outside bars, entrances, public transport, etc. Those people’s liberty not to smoke is restricted every day. Sure they could complain every time someone smokes, but let’s be realistic, nobody does that.
I would give up smoking if it meant that, somehow, it'd guarantee that nobody was negatively impacted by tobacco. But that's not what a ban does. It's preventing people from making their own...
I would give up smoking if it meant that, somehow, it'd guarantee that nobody was negatively impacted by tobacco. But that's not what a ban does. It's preventing people from making their own choices, at best, and usually more insidious.
Those people’s liberty not to smoke is restricted every day.
And those are the fundamental sacrifices of society that we've all somehow forgotten. Nobody has a natural right to change the world around them as they see fit, so framing this as a restriction of liberties is weird. Individuals making rude and harmful choices is a fundamentally distinct moral situation from organized efforts to control people without a say in their government yet.
This is exactly the right thing to do for our children. Combine it with early education, and warnings, then it may stand a chance; otherwise, it is also exactly how you create a black market.
This is exactly the right thing to do for our children.
Combine it with early education, and warnings, then it may stand a chance; otherwise, it is also exactly how you create a black market.
I don't believe that anyone who smokes today doesn't know the serious health implications. You're just creating more taboo and black market. Sadly, smoking is something people want to do...
I don't believe that anyone who smokes today doesn't know the serious health implications. You're just creating more taboo and black market. Sadly, smoking is something people want to do...
I’d sooner describe it as something people are compelled to do due to addiction, rather than being entirely of their volition. If nicotine had to artificially be removed from tobacco, I’d expect...
I’d sooner describe it as something people are compelled to do due to addiction, rather than being entirely of their volition. If nicotine had to artificially be removed from tobacco, I’d expect smoking would fall drastically.
Smoking cigarettes has also fallen in popularity significantly the more restrictive smoking (advertising) policy has become, so at least visibility and ease of access are driving factors. There will be a black market, but the public will sooner get their fix from electronic alternatives.
It’s really insidious that nicotine is allowed to be used as an additive to vape liquids at all, but here we are.
Nah. I’d happily smoke if you could remove nicotine addiction from the equation. I don’t mostly because of the health risks. Smoking is pleasant and meditative when done in certain social...
I’d sooner describe it as something people are compelled to do due to addiction, rather than being entirely of their volition. If nicotine had to artificially be removed from tobacco, I’d expect smoking would fall drastically.
Nah. I’d happily smoke if you could remove nicotine addiction from the equation. I don’t mostly because of the health risks. Smoking is pleasant and meditative when done in certain social contexts. You rarely see people (in the west at least) having serious problems with hookah or pipe tobacco. I think the time intensiveness of the ritual involved with packing and prepping and cleaning to enjoy in those activities discourages people from approaching them as a rapid nicotine delivery mechanism. And you can start to understand why it’s nice as a social or meditative activity when you aren’t desperately chain smoking to get a fix.
I don't claim that the prospect of nicotine addiction is keeping people from smoking. I'm not sure it's even possible to fully appreciate that aspect of it beforehand. I'm saying that many current...
I don't claim that the prospect of nicotine addiction is keeping people from smoking. I'm not sure it's even possible to fully appreciate that aspect of it beforehand. I'm saying that many current (cigarette) smokers would not continue if nicotine would not be involved. It clouds clear decision-making about a dangerous activity.
That’s almost certainly true. Cigarettes themselves are foul in large part due to them being optimized for being addicting and easy to onboard new, younger smokers into addiction, instead of for...
That’s almost certainly true. Cigarettes themselves are foul in large part due to them being optimized for being addicting and easy to onboard new, younger smokers into addiction, instead of for being enjoyable to smoke.
Oddly confrontational and misdirecting. Nicotine is a far more addictive substance than caffeine, and using it as an additive, even if it isn't inherently damaging to your health, is insidious...
Oddly confrontational and misdirecting.
Nicotine is a far more addictive substance than caffeine, and using it as an additive, even if it isn't inherently damaging to your health, is insidious outside of therapeutic applications (to get rid of nicotine addiction).
The problem is mostly with the ingestion methods, yeah? Drinking caffiene only increases your risk of oral cancers to the degree that any hot beverage does, but inhaling hot smoke is definitively...
The problem is mostly with the ingestion methods, yeah? Drinking caffiene only increases your risk of oral cancers to the degree that any hot beverage does, but inhaling hot smoke is definitively boosting your risk of oral and lung cancers, and holding an irritant like chewing tobacco against the soft tissues of your mouth will cause oral cancers. The chemical in isolation can be fine, but if the goal is safe consumption then most of the nicotine delivery mechanisms are out, pretty much only leaving the patches.
I am 100% behind this, a cigar smoker. I intend to smoke cigars for as long as I can get my hands on them... it's not an addiction, it's a thing of relaxation for me on that front. The issue now...
I am 100% behind this, a cigar smoker. I intend to smoke cigars for as long as I can get my hands on them... it's not an addiction, it's a thing of relaxation for me on that front.
The issue now is more all the kids hooked on vapes with high nicotine that's just going to continue the cycle of addiction. I've seen kids as young as 8 with them wandering around SE-London.
It's just going to create a new dark market. NY tried this by levying a massive tax on them, and now most of the cigs here come from the local indian reservations (at $25/carton, or 10 packs) vs...
It's just going to create a new dark market. NY tried this by levying a massive tax on them, and now most of the cigs here come from the local indian reservations (at $25/carton, or 10 packs) vs the gas station counter (at $12-$20 for a single pack). People near the border (like me) just drive into PA where prices are around $20 for a carton. Take a look at the map for Smokin' Joe's drive-through tobacco shops and you might notice they are all along the borders of PA, to capture a mountain of business from neighboring states. I know people who fill up a car trunk out of state, then drive back to NY to sell them all, and turn one hell of a profit doing it.
I think they'd have better luck banning additives. Cigarette companies have been quietly upping the addictiveness of their products with additives (mainly tobacco alkaloids) for a very long time, and they've started putting those same additives into their e-cigs to maintain their lock on addiction.
Basic plain tobacco - just the plant - is not the same thing and it's definitely not as addictive.
I agree on the additives. Cigarettes should just be plant matter (tobacco, and optionally cloves, mint, and the like) wrapped in paper. Get rid of the filters at this point, we know they don’t do...
I agree on the additives. Cigarettes should just be plant matter (tobacco, and optionally cloves, mint, and the like) wrapped in paper. Get rid of the filters at this point, we know they don’t do anything and it’s plastic that doesn’t degrade quickly.
I'm lucky enough to have some Amish markets in PA that are within driving distance, that's where I get mine. Big bags of pure, fresh tobacco with no added bullshit, plus I get to pick up an entire...
I'm lucky enough to have some Amish markets in PA that are within driving distance, that's where I get mine. Big bags of pure, fresh tobacco with no added bullshit, plus I get to pick up an entire galaxy of awesome Amish food products as part of the trip. I am convinced they make better quality and better tasting food than anyone else on the entire planet. :)
For those who haven't been to one before, this is your typical Amish market experience. All of those malls going out of business wish they could pull off a draw like this.
I briefly looked, and most graphs indicated NYC reduced smoking significantly more than the national average, but I couldn't find anything that clearly tied this to the tax rates. Edit:...
I briefly looked, and most graphs indicated NYC reduced smoking significantly more than the national average, but I couldn't find anything that clearly tied this to the tax rates.
I've never been a smoker but I think an outright ban to be overly draconian and will only create more problems in the long run. Better to restrict sales licenses and tax heavily to offset the...
I've never been a smoker but I think an outright ban to be overly draconian and will only create more problems in the long run. Better to restrict sales licenses and tax heavily to offset the burden on public health systems and to finance educational programmes. I believe most insurance providers already impose higher premiums on smokers, as should be the case. Let people make their own health decisions and accept the physical and financial burdens in full conscience.
New Zealand already did this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/13/new-zealand-passes-world-first-tobacco-law-to-ban-smoking-by-2025 And I think it's the best idea ever. You pick a year...
I wonder if it's the similar in the US where younger generation isn't smoking as they used to. According to the CDC, about 5.3 percent of people smoke between the age of 18 to 24 which less...
I wonder if it's the similar in the US where younger generation isn't smoking as they used to. According to the CDC, about 5.3 percent of people smoke between the age of 18 to 24 which less compared to older generation. If the smoking rate for younger generation is small enough, then banning might make more sense. Then that generation is just gonna vape instead of smoking cigarettes to get their nicotine fix.
Pippa Crerar and Rowena Mason (tap/click to know more...)
Pippa Crerar and Rowena Mason
Sources say law could gradually increase smoking age to ultimately prevent sales to people born after certain year
(tap/click to know more...)
Rishi Sunak is considering introducing some of the world’s toughest anti-smoking measures that would in effect ban the next generation from ever being able to buy cigarettes, the Guardian has learned.
Whitehall sources said the prime minister was looking at measures similar to those brought in by New Zealand last December. They involved steadily increasing the legal smoking age so tobacco would end up never being sold to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.
A New Zealand-style anti-smoking policy would mean cigarettes would be phased out completely for the next generation. Under the former prime minister Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand also legislated to reduce the nicotine content of tobacco products and force them to be sold only through specialty tobacco stores, rather than convenience stores and supermarkets.
Labour has previously said it was consulting on phasing out cigarette sales over time for younger people in a similar way to New Zealand, with the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, saying in January he wanted to find out whether there was an “appetite for change” in the country.
Sunak’s autumn reset is likely to continue during conference season and the king’s speech in November, with the party casting round for policies that could reverse its weakness in the polls.
A YouGov poll found on Friday that the prime minister’s net favourability rating fell to -45, his lowest score to date, after the net zero changes were announced. It found 68% of Britons have an unfavourable view of the prime minister.
Asked about the policy of a New Zealand style-smoking ban, a government spokesperson said: “Smoking is a deadly habit – it kills tens of thousands of people each year and places a huge burden on the NHS and the economy.
“We want to encourage more people to quit and meet our ambition to be smoke-free by 2030, which is why we have already taken steps to reduce smoking rates. This includes providing 1 million smokers in England with free vape kits via our world-first ‘swap to stop’ scheme, launching a voucher scheme to incentivise pregnant women to quit, and consulting on mandatory cigarette pack inserts.”
Honestly I understand regulating cigarettes out of existence. While I understand the individual liberty argument for keeping cigarettes around, there are much safer ways to get a nicotine fix. The public health benefits from these policies would be huge.
Honestly it's wild to me that countries are still banning drugs like magic mushrooms and weed and leave cigarettes unbanned. Tobacco kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined (in the US)
There is no reason to leave them unbanned, if people want nicotine that badly let them vape it. (Yes I know vaping isn't great either, but its way better than smoking)
Cigars and pipe tobacco aren’t nearly as problematic in use though. So people who stick to those are rightly perturbed by these initiatives. They don’t market to kids and they tend to be geared towards stuffy old people anyway. And the tobacco itself tends not to be as loaded up with additives to promote addiction.
And the general shift has been to move away from banning substances in general. The real problem is just the tendency to target kids with this stuff.
Yes they are.
The nicotine is addictive, they don't need any additives.
Lung cancer risk may be lower but oral cancers are higher with cigars. A quick search suggests that there's also more tar in cigars.
If that wasn't a risk, chewing tobacco would be perfectly safe.
I'd have to dig into the studies themselves but the sites I'm seeing appear to be legitimate health websites.
Cigarettes have a variety of additives designed to speed up delivery of nicotine to the system and keep itself lit, as well as higher amounts of MAO inhibitors that are known to substantially enhance the addictiveness of a given dose of nicotine.
So yes, they do need additives. They’ve been designed specifically as nicotine delivery systems, it’s like comparing a single malt scotch to pure grain alcohol. There’s a lot of things people enjoy in a scotch, but grain alcohol is much more focused on the pharmacological effects over anything else. There are psycho-social consequences to that usage pattern. Especially with young people, making it easy and not require any set up or training or practice around makes them much more likely to onboard and pick up the habit in the first place.
And pipe and cigar smokers are at lower risk of lung cancers that cigarette smokers for equivalent amounts of tobacco consumption (though it tends to be less habitual so it’s hard to do a true comparison). The cooler smoke and the fact that they don’t inhale means the risk is largely oral and throat cancers rather than lungs.
I understand wanting to discorage smoking, but not trying to ban it. Illegality means you encourage an unregulated black market, where vendors can stuff them full of whatever they want. Keeping them legal allows strong regulation to stop them containing even more harmful stuff (and maybe push them to reduce the tar/nicotine content going forward?).
I'm in favour of keeping it legal and taxing it higher, having better health education, and strong control of tobacco advertising.
The tax won't cover the additional cost to the NHS, which I admit is a problem, but I worry what the health risks would be for black market tobacco.
This is just my personal opinion nothing more:
I don't smoke and I don't get reasons. For me its just a populist move. Why not ban alcohol, pollution, unhealthy food, working in dangerous condition, monopoly corporation?
I say this as a former smoker...
Smoking is not particularly enjoyable nor beneficial nor natural.
It's a simple habit that is noxious, expensive, unhealthy, and once formed, is incredibly hard to break.
I've seen Narcotics Anonymous folks who smoke like chimneys. They could quit everything but cigarettes.
I've known friends try to quit multiple times and fail.
Anything that discourages younger folks from smoking is a good thing.
I say this as an occasional smoker: smoking is enjoyable and about as natural to humanity as cooking. I'll go months or years between enjoying tobacco, and the cravings I experience are easier to resist than those for desserts. I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm an outlier, but I'd really appreciate the arguments for restricting my freedom not to rest on pretending I don't exist.
Nothing about this law restricts your freedom.
It restricts the freedom of those much younger than you.
I also am an occasional smoker. I will bum a glorious cigarette every year or so.
When I said smoking is not particularly enjoyable, I meant the addictive need to smoke constantly is not enjoyable.
I am not pretending that either you nor I do not exist, yet I still support any law that restricts smoking, as I know how much it would help my friends quit smoking, and how they do genuinely want to quit.
Your attitude sounds very American.
Most other countries are OK with laws that may impinge on the few for the good of the many. And it is these countries which are passing these laws.
And all that's fine, it just is not in accordance with your initial comment. In fact, it downright contradicts it.
And yet I still care for others'.
And yet it is valid. I don't know what point you think you're making.
It's a very American thing, to be concerned about a very specific freedom, being infringed in other countries, and largely ignore the freedoms, infringed in America, both historically and now.
It's a very european thing to presume that you understand what freedoms I care about. The whole idea that it matters to me whether my own freedoms are being curtailed or others', for example. Some people don't just use "principles" as a pretense, and actually care about other people.
If this is what you think Americans are like, it makes me believe that you know very few Americans.
Americans constantly complain about American issues. The whole of the internet (because it was founded by and is dominated by Americans) is hyperfocused on American issues and largely neglects issues facing other countries, or even acts as if all other countries have the same problems that the US does, because Americans talk about their own issues to such an excessive degree.
For example, I live in Australia, and Australians spend more time talking about discrimination faced by African Americans (a demographic that is essentially nonexistent in Australia, outside the odd tourist) than they do about discrimination faced by, say, African refugees who actually live here. The American voice is so dominant that it's actually non-Americans ignoring their own countries' issues in order to talk about American issues instead.
Please, I urge you to resist this this tendency and restrain from bringing up the America/Americans whenever a different country is under discussion. Let other countries' issues get some air time, too.
If you recognize you're an outlier, you must appreciate how many people are negatively impacted by cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction. At least for me, this makes the balancing of personal freedoms and priorities versus community health much easier to digest.
I do, and if it were simply my ability to smoke that stood in the way of nobody developing an addiction to tobacco, I'd make that trade. But that isn't the situation, it's everybody's liberty at stake.
These kinds of paternalistic regulations undermine the citizenry's abilities to develop and society's sense of mutual responsibility. If we can confuse our own sacrifices with forcing our will on others, and normalize that sleight of hand, how can ever trust ourselves not to keep on steamrolling diversity?
I don’t understand this. You would give up smoking if everyone else would give up smoking as a consequence? But you don’t want everyone else to have to quit smoking, because that would be against their liberty, even though it would have the same effect? Am I missing something?
Also another argument I haven’t seen in this thread: smokers affect other people’s health if they smoke next to you, for example outside bars, entrances, public transport, etc. Those people’s liberty not to smoke is restricted every day. Sure they could complain every time someone smokes, but let’s be realistic, nobody does that.
I would give up smoking if it meant that, somehow, it'd guarantee that nobody was negatively impacted by tobacco. But that's not what a ban does. It's preventing people from making their own choices, at best, and usually more insidious.
And those are the fundamental sacrifices of society that we've all somehow forgotten. Nobody has a natural right to change the world around them as they see fit, so framing this as a restriction of liberties is weird. Individuals making rude and harmful choices is a fundamentally distinct moral situation from organized efforts to control people without a say in their government yet.
Yes, please
This is exactly the right thing to do for our children.
Combine it with early education, and warnings, then it may stand a chance; otherwise, it is also exactly how you create a black market.
I don't believe that anyone who smokes today doesn't know the serious health implications. You're just creating more taboo and black market. Sadly, smoking is something people want to do...
I’d sooner describe it as something people are compelled to do due to addiction, rather than being entirely of their volition. If nicotine had to artificially be removed from tobacco, I’d expect smoking would fall drastically.
Smoking cigarettes has also fallen in popularity significantly the more restrictive smoking (advertising) policy has become, so at least visibility and ease of access are driving factors. There will be a black market, but the public will sooner get their fix from electronic alternatives.
It’s really insidious that nicotine is allowed to be used as an additive to vape liquids at all, but here we are.
Nah. I’d happily smoke if you could remove nicotine addiction from the equation. I don’t mostly because of the health risks. Smoking is pleasant and meditative when done in certain social contexts. You rarely see people (in the west at least) having serious problems with hookah or pipe tobacco. I think the time intensiveness of the ritual involved with packing and prepping and cleaning to enjoy in those activities discourages people from approaching them as a rapid nicotine delivery mechanism. And you can start to understand why it’s nice as a social or meditative activity when you aren’t desperately chain smoking to get a fix.
These features add to the psychological addictiveness of those products.
That’s gonna need a citation. It seems like we’ll be conflating enjoyment with addiction there.
I don't claim that the prospect of nicotine addiction is keeping people from smoking. I'm not sure it's even possible to fully appreciate that aspect of it beforehand. I'm saying that many current (cigarette) smokers would not continue if nicotine would not be involved. It clouds clear decision-making about a dangerous activity.
That’s almost certainly true. Cigarettes themselves are foul in large part due to them being optimized for being addicting and easy to onboard new, younger smokers into addiction, instead of for being enjoyable to smoke.
Oddly confrontational and misdirecting.
Nicotine is a far more addictive substance than caffeine, and using it as an additive, even if it isn't inherently damaging to your health, is insidious outside of therapeutic applications (to get rid of nicotine addiction).
The problem is mostly with the ingestion methods, yeah? Drinking caffiene only increases your risk of oral cancers to the degree that any hot beverage does, but inhaling hot smoke is definitively boosting your risk of oral and lung cancers, and holding an irritant like chewing tobacco against the soft tissues of your mouth will cause oral cancers. The chemical in isolation can be fine, but if the goal is safe consumption then most of the nicotine delivery mechanisms are out, pretty much only leaving the patches.
I am 100% behind this, a cigar smoker. I intend to smoke cigars for as long as I can get my hands on them... it's not an addiction, it's a thing of relaxation for me on that front.
The issue now is more all the kids hooked on vapes with high nicotine that's just going to continue the cycle of addiction. I've seen kids as young as 8 with them wandering around SE-London.
It's just going to create a new dark market. NY tried this by levying a massive tax on them, and now most of the cigs here come from the local indian reservations (at $25/carton, or 10 packs) vs the gas station counter (at $12-$20 for a single pack). People near the border (like me) just drive into PA where prices are around $20 for a carton. Take a look at the map for Smokin' Joe's drive-through tobacco shops and you might notice they are all along the borders of PA, to capture a mountain of business from neighboring states. I know people who fill up a car trunk out of state, then drive back to NY to sell them all, and turn one hell of a profit doing it.
I think they'd have better luck banning additives. Cigarette companies have been quietly upping the addictiveness of their products with additives (mainly tobacco alkaloids) for a very long time, and they've started putting those same additives into their e-cigs to maintain their lock on addiction.
Basic plain tobacco - just the plant - is not the same thing and it's definitely not as addictive.
I agree on the additives. Cigarettes should just be plant matter (tobacco, and optionally cloves, mint, and the like) wrapped in paper. Get rid of the filters at this point, we know they don’t do anything and it’s plastic that doesn’t degrade quickly.
I'm lucky enough to have some Amish markets in PA that are within driving distance, that's where I get mine. Big bags of pure, fresh tobacco with no added bullshit, plus I get to pick up an entire galaxy of awesome Amish food products as part of the trip. I am convinced they make better quality and better tasting food than anyone else on the entire planet. :)
For those who haven't been to one before, this is your typical Amish market experience. All of those malls going out of business wish they could pull off a draw like this.
People may want to read the comprehensive science in the US Surgeon General's report The Health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress
Smoking in NYC has been halved, from 22% in 2002 to 11% in 2020.
Which is in line with the national drop
I briefly looked, and most graphs indicated NYC reduced smoking significantly more than the national average, but I couldn't find anything that clearly tied this to the tax rates.
Edit: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-citys-adult-smoking-rate-climbs-1410812653
The UK is an island with trade barriers. NY has no import controls from the indian reservation, for obvious reasons.
I've never been a smoker but I think an outright ban to be overly draconian and will only create more problems in the long run. Better to restrict sales licenses and tax heavily to offset the burden on public health systems and to finance educational programmes. I believe most insurance providers already impose higher premiums on smokers, as should be the case. Let people make their own health decisions and accept the physical and financial burdens in full conscience.
New Zealand already did this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/13/new-zealand-passes-world-first-tobacco-law-to-ban-smoking-by-2025
And I think it's the best idea ever. You pick a year and from that year on the legal age to smoke goes up one year every year.
In a decade or so nobody under 30 is allowed to smoke and we'll get to a point where only retirees are allowed one.
And when the age goes up and audience goes down the places where it's profitable to sell tobacco will become scarce.
I wonder if it's the similar in the US where younger generation isn't smoking as they used to. According to the CDC, about 5.3 percent of people smoke between the age of 18 to 24 which less compared to older generation. If the smoking rate for younger generation is small enough, then banning might make more sense. Then that generation is just gonna vape instead of smoking cigarettes to get their nicotine fix.
Pippa Crerar and Rowena Mason
(tap/click to know more...)