Hacker News Reader

Comment by cromulent | Hacker News Reader

What great news. Congratulations to all those working hard in that area.

"Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking and improved nutrition, and a major cause is social policies that target the most disadvantaged."

It will be interesting how history treats smoking in the long term (next century). I am still interested in the solutions proposed (and defeated) in Singapore and Tasmania where persons born after 200x may not purchase cigarettes. I lean libertarian but this is one area I think government is needed. Taking (or taxing) a pleasure away from someone who has enjoyed it for years is not nice, but preventing people from falling into the trap is different.

View on HN

I'm curious about the moral justification for banning things that cause harm primarily to the people who do them.

I recently learned that gay (man to man) sex is actually super dangerous - having gay sex for a year costs between 0.088 and 0.97 QALYs (due to spreading HIV). This is significantly higher than most of the estimates I've heard for a year of smoking.

https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/are_gays_or_guns_mor...

Should we adopt some of your solutions for that too? Perhaps reintroducing sodomy laws for people born after 200X?

If not, what principle distinguishes these two cases?

(Note: I'm perfectly ok with people engaging in self harm. So I obviously don't favor such solutions. I'm just pointing out that this reasoning is applied incredibly inconsistently.)

The big difference seems to be the risk of AIDS is not an intrinsic part of gay sex, just a consequence of what diseases are prevalent today. Also, safe sex is an option, but "safe smoking" isn't. Finally—and I realize this is subjective—I think people feel like regulating sex is more invasive than regulating the purchase of tobacco.

I'm not saying things should be consistent, but dealt with case by case. Definitely not a blanket ban things that cause harm primarily to the people who do them. I'm talking specifically about smoking.

In the case of smoking, we have an industry that sells addictive items that kill you, and has a history of lies and cover ups. I'm not sure of the benefits, as I don't smoke, but I hear from people who have smoked and quit that they are happier not smoking. I'm no expert, just someone who's interested, as I said. Growing your own tobacco and smoking it would be a different thing.

If tobacco smoking was introduced today, I think it wouldn't get past the FDA and similar. Can we "turn off" a legal industry that is grandfathered in? Should we?

Your slippery slope question of sodomy is different. There are no large multinationals marketing and selling it. Just free individuals engaging.

The sale of tobacco products does seem to impose quite the externality on society. Are we willing to put up with it long term? That's the question I'm interested in.

There are no large multinationals marketing and selling it.

Massive multinationals sell antiretroviral drugs and are heavily subsidized by governments across the world. They directly profit from harm men having sex with men cause to themselves and make you (and me) pay for it on top.

The average costs of such therapy is 15-50k USD a year, I googled[1], depending on strain, circumstances, etc. Wouldn't that also be quite an externality? Smokers are probably cheaper[2], because they die sooner.

[1] https://www.poz.com/article/hiv-costs-medication-19139-5119

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.97488...

This is just silly. These drug companies aren't selling sex, nor encouraging people to do it. They also sell chemotherapy drugs, which are also subsidized. Tobacco causes 1 in 5 deaths and it causes income inequality which is what the article is about.

The sale of tobacco products does seem to impose quite the externality on society. Are we willing to put up with it long term? That's the question I'm interested in.

The same is true of gay sex, yet you seem completely uninterested in the question of why we allow this. This makes your stated reasons for opposing tobacco seem unprincipled and probably just a rationalization/cover for something else.

If you are inconsistent then you are wrong about something. Why is that acceptable to you?

What do you mean "the same is true of gay sex"? Big Tobacco sells cigarettes. Who exactly is "Big Gay Sex"? You seem to be pushing an agenda here. How can they ever be consistent. I don't understand your position.

The original article explains "Underlying explanations include declines in the prevalence of smoking".

Smoking causes income inequality. That's the topic we are talking about. Smoking is highly taxed, and highly addictive, and a simple pleasure, and a massive industry.

The legal sale of tobacco products is an outlier. Let's talk consistency then: why has it not been banned already, like asbestos or other carcinogens? One in five deaths annually are caused by this industry. Why is that inconsistency acceptable to you?

If (for example) oranges were found to have the same effect as smoking, the sale of them would be banned immediately. If you wanted to grow your own oranges and eat them, no-one would stop you. You just couldn't sell them.

I'm trying to discuss a way that this could happen with smoking. You are trying to get me to ban gay sex for "consistency" and saying that I seem unprincipled as I don't equate the two things.

I mean exactly what I quoted: gay sex "does seem to impose quite the externality on society".

Why is that inconsistency acceptable to you?

It's not acceptable. I think we should legalize heroin and meth in addition to tobacco. To prevent people who consume these products from imposing harmful externalities on the rest of us, we should ban employer sponsored and state sponsored health insurance.

If (for example) oranges were found to have the same effect as smoking, the sale of them would be banned immediately.

And if oranges were found to have the same effect as gay sex (namely causing 29k HIV infections each year) they would also be banned.

...saying that I seem unprincipled as I don't equate the two things.

And that's the problem. Your stated rationale for opposing tobacco, namely the harm it causes, applies equally well to gay sex. But you've now revealed your real rationale - you dislike "Big Tobacco" and want to harm them. It turns out that protecting people isn't really your goal at all.

That's not exactly what you quoted though - you quoted "The sale of...". Fairly inconsistent for someone who insists on consistency. Surely you can see how those words are important.

This is the problem: Tobacco causes 20% of deaths and is industry and lobby driven, and is discussed here as a cause of unequal mortality. That's the topic. I think that anything that causes 20% of deaths should be avoided if possible. You saying that "protecting people isn't my goal" is obnoxious and rude. Forget "harm Big Tobacco" - I don't want all those people to die prematurely if possible. How you can twist that into me being the problem is perverted.

Gay sex is a completely different issue. It's not industry driven, and it's a rounding error compared to tobacco deaths. There's no nuance. It's not relevant to the topic. I haven't stated a position on it as it is not relevant (whether you wrote a blog post on it or not). Yet you invent my position on it, and call me unprincipled. Again, obnoxious and rude.

You are committing several logical fallacies here, but most importantly: This topic is not about my position on gay sex. Not at all.

When I point out that gay sex causes harm (your original concern), you suddenly retreat to "industry and lobby driven" and now "unequal mortality". (Gay sex disproportionately kills blacks, but I guess that inequality is ok?)

The reason this is relevant to the topic at hand is that you are making an argument that you know to be flawed. It's clear that you know it's flawed because you refuse to apply it anywhere else, and immediately retreat from "don't want all those people to die prematurely" when those people are dying prematurely from something you don't want to ban.

What do you gain from making an argument you know to be incorrect?

There are lots of things that cause harm, but they aren't what I am talking about and they are different topics. We don't have to be consistent for all types of harm. That's asinine.

I'm not "retreating", I am clarifying why there is a difference between an industry whose products causes 20% of deaths and free people engaging in activities as you can't seem to tell the difference, but you are being deliberately obtuse. How can I be retreating by mentioning "unequal mortality"? That's the title of the article. You are just being silly.

You are playing games by placing words in my mouth: "I guess that inequality is ok?". Straw man. You are saying that if one form of harm could be regulated or banned, all must be. Slippery slope. "What do you gain..." - again, focusing on me instead of addressing the topic. Ad hominem.

I think you understand all of this but you are trolling. Intellectual dishonesty.

taxes don't discourage smokers, though.

smokers are addicts, you can't price an addict out of an addiction.

it's effectively taxing the impoverished, anyway.

the people who are scrounging to buy smokes will just take that money from elsewhere in the budget. it's food out of children's mouths, in the most literal way possible. the people who aren't scrounging will just pay the increased price without batting an eye.

the price of cigarettes had no impact on my decision to quit. I would have continued to pay whatever the cost might have been, 5 dollars a pack or 50 dollars a pack.

switching to a personal vaporizer got me to quit smoking. I spend about 25% of what I spent on cigarettes for a month's supply of juice and replacement coils for the tank I use. I'm still addicted to nicotine, though.

And tons of people are addicted to caffeine. Nicotine isn't so bad on its own (like caffeine).. So I guess the question is how safe the rest of the stuff in vapes is.

> taxes don't discourage smokers, though.

This has not been New Zealand's experience. In recent years our government has substantially (and steadily) increased the tax on tobacco, and sales have plummeted:

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...

Certainly laws against purchasing marijuana (where they still exist) don't do much to stop young people from buying it. And smoking weed isn't any better for your lungs than tobacco is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com