Hacker News Reader

Comment by nobody9999 | Hacker News Reader

>I think they should consider how much nicer things are now that so many fewer people smoke. I can still remember people smoking on planes, in restaurants, etc. It was terrible. I'm in favor of anything that keeps that from happening again.

I'm not sure that those outcomes are really related anymore.

Smoking indoors is verboten pretty much everywhere, and has been for quite some time. IMHO, raising or lowering taxes on cigarettes won't change that, nor will it change if more people start smoking.

What makes you think that adjusting cigarette taxes would have an impact on such laws/regulations? I'm not being snarky, I just don't see the connection here.

Anecdotally, as a cigarette smoker myself, I'm glad that smoking indoors (including on transport vehicles like planes, trains and buses) isn't allowed.

View on HN

I hate smokers because they they don't police their cigarette butts and leave the things littered everywhere, including parks, playgrounds, nature reserves...

If nothing else, I'd tax them for that BS. It's the shopping cart test, at least 90% of smokers are like this, unable to do function in society unless their incentivized not to cause harm, and I disdain them for it.

Seriously. Recently I participated in a community clean up event. 99% of what we picked us was cigarette butts. It is insane how much trash and litter smokers create.

Some cigarette butt's biodegrade, most don't. I'd be in favor of a law to make them all have to be biodegradable.

Still should just throw the damn things away, but changing human behaviour is difficult.

Add pet owners to the list :(. Germany seems to have a dog tax or something like that.

>at least 90% of smokers are like this

Please provide a source of data for this assertion. Thanks!

Things that are universally witnessed have low need of citation.

In this case it seems unlikely that >10% of smokers consistently transport their butts as long as it takes to find a receptacle. Outside of Scouting or military facilities, it's so rare that it commands attention.

>In this case it seems unlikely that >10% of smokers consistently transport their butts as long as it takes to find a receptacle. Outside of Scouting or military facilities, it's so rare that it commands attention.

Your assertion is a reasonable one, especially as it doesn't claim that specific numbers of people participate in a particular behavior.

However, GP stated unequivocally that "at least 90% of smokers are like this"

That assertion can't be supported by facts/data AFAIK.

I suppose you could argue that GP was being hyperbolic, but as the old saw goes, "claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Take from that what you will.

> However, GP stated unequivocally that "at least 90% of smokers are like this"

This seems like a technical gotcha that has little to do with his overall point. Not all low-hanging fruit is worth picking.

>This seems like a technical gotcha that has little to do with his overall point. Not all low-hanging fruit is worth picking.

That's as may be. But as a smoker, I took offense to their characterization of me.

Call it whatever you like, but I don't appreciate being berated -- especially when such insults aren't valid.

As I said, take from that what you will.

Great, you're in the 10%, but if you know other smokers, you know they throw their butts on the ground at least some of the time, I've seen smokers do it when a receptacle was 5 feet away. I was being hyperbolic, but having witnessed thousands of smokers in my lifetime, especially from when I was young, I'm pretty sure I have a decent sample size. All of them threw their butts on the ground, giving them 10% that didn't was being generous to people like you, which are basically unicorns as far as I'm concerned.

You're painting a whole bunch of people you don't know with a broad brush.

I hate people who do that.

Doesn't mean he's wrong.

I smoke about 1 cigarette a day and I always make it point to throw the butt away. I think they should be made with biodegradable filters at least

Toward the end of my smoking I was like this. Before I only smoked when I worked on cars - always my house or a friends'.

Also, for those of us unfortunate enough to live in apartments, tobacco smoke from neighbors gets into every open window and into ventilation shafts. I have to leave the air purifier running even when the outside air is fine because of this.

>Also, for those of us unfortunate enough to live in apartments, tobacco smoke from neighbors gets into every open window and into ventilation shafts. I have to leave the air purifier running even when the outside air is fine because of this.

Smoke-free buildings[0][1] are becoming more common. Perhaps you might consider moving to such a building?

[0] https://no-smoke.org/frequently-asked-questions-housing-prov...

[1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/smoking-s...

I imagine you apply the same hate (your word) to all people who use plastics, because some of them don't use the trash bin? Frankly, I see more plastic waste in the places you mentioned than cig butts, at least in 2021. Could be a regional thing too.

Yes, I hate litterers too, but most people don't litter, almost all smokers litter (probably the plastic too), so I'm inclined to be biased against them.

It probably has little deterrent effect on those that are already using the product. If I enjoy nicotine or alcohol or are addicted to them, I'm likely willing to pay more for it.

I wonder if there are any studies about the deterrent effect for adopting smoking / drinking.

If someone is considering taking up smoking and cigarettes cost $1 / pack vs $10 / pack, I would imagine that there would be people that would see the $10 / pack and think, "too expensive a habit, better not start."

>> Smoking indoors is verboten pretty much everywhere, and has been for quite some time.

Just stayed at a hotel this past weekend. You had to sign a release saying you won't smoke in the room. There was a sign in the room saying if you did, you would be charged an additional $250.

So yeah, its been verboten for a while, but apparently this specific hotel chain had to institute paperwork and additional in-room warnings in order to stop people from smoking in their rooms.

I'm sure some of that also has to do with weed being legalized in a good portion of the states now, too. I know it was a big problem in hotels in Oregon when they did at first. Just about any hotel you walked into was very pungent. Like it used to be with cigarettes before indoor smoking bans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com