[Gatsky]

They are banning sale, not use. It seems totally reasonable to say we don’t want anyone to profit from selling highly addictive health damaging products. This is ok. Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.”

The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a terrible idea, and impossible to implement.

[bustin]

>Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.”

Yes this is my argument.

>The suggestion that we should restrict healthcare based on the degree to which a person is culpable for their disease is a terrible idea, and impossible to implement.

We talked past each other here.

I did not mean that we should remove an individual's access to healthcare due to their habits.

My intent is that if we're OK with spreading out the cost of health care to every citizen, we must also be OK with the fact that some people will cost more due to their habits. If we feel the need to dictate which habits are proper in order to make the costs more lean, maybe we should reconsider spreading out the costs at all, and hold off on socializing medicine.

Socializing the cost of medicine is not a bad idea, but telling people which habits are proper in order to make the costs more lean is a dangerous idea with no limiting principle.

[Gatsky]

> Yes this is my argument

I don't find this very convincing, considering the large downsides for the individual and community. I work in healthcare, so perhaps I have a different perspective to you.

[bustin]

I may not work in healthcare, but I work in health-tech, most of my family worked at a health insurance company for most of their lives, and previous generations were tobacco farmers in KY.

We can build a city on a hill, but what's the point if we can't let loose in the way we want?

[EpicEng]

>Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.”

So when do we ban highly processed foods that are killing far more people every day? Not sure what the difference is aside from it's acceptible to play Mommy to smokers but not the overweight/obese.

[jdhn]

>Your argument boils down to “I want the right to poison myself and the convenience to do it at easily accessible retail outlets.”

That is the argument, and I find that it holds up just fine. It's not like cigarettes appeared on the market yesterday, their dangers are well known. Adults should have the ability to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are harmful to themselves.

[kristjansson]

> Adults should have the ability to make their own decisions

How many people actually really make their own decisions, and have all of the information available to do so? Does the right of those people to take that decision and have their chosen product available cheaply and conveniently outweigh the incremental harm that accrues to everyone else merely tempted by the cheapness and convinence?

[jdhn]

Yes.

[fitzie]

Eric Garner was killed because of the policies that created the a huge black market for cigarettes in NYC. the absurdity is they are banning flavor which isn't the harmful element. at the same time they are legalizing marijuana including edibles across this country. in a free country you have to allow people the liberty to make poor choices. putting out health information and reasonable restrictions is as far as the govt should go.

[sangnoir]

> Eric Garner was killed because of the policies that created the a huge black market for cigarettes in NYC

I don't think that's why he was killed.

[Gatsky]

Two parts to this: - You are highlighting the negative consequences of a ban. There are of course negative consequences to a ban, the black market issue is far from the most important one. But as inidicated in the press release, smoking is a huge health problem causing untold suffering, loss of income, loss of productivity, unnecessary healthcare costs etc etc. These pros and cons of a ban need to be compared in a sane manner.

- The 'Whatabout' argument, whatabout alcohol, marijuana, gambling etc. This is not an argument which can guide us on what to do with tobacco. If the question is, why are we doing something about tobacco but not any other X problems, the basic answer is because tobacco causes a huge burden of problems, and there are only very small upsides to smoking for an individual, and very large downsides for the individual and almost everyone else.

I think there is a lot of research showing that 'putting out health information and reasonable restrictions' doesn't achieve much. If you are agreeing that something rather than nothing should be done, why do something that doesn't really work?

[hackinthebochs]

>the basic answer is because tobacco causes a huge burden of problems, and there are only very small upsides to smoking for an individual

Doubtful. The real answer is that public opinion on smoking has turned so strongly against it that these bans won't create enough vocal opposition. The anti-vice authoritarians only stop here because they would be eviscerated if they tried to ban something like alcohol. But we should be careful about emboldening the moral busybodies with national victories.

[bustin]

>The anti-vice authoritarians only stop here because they would be eviscerated if they tried to ban something like alcohol. But we should be careful about emboldening the moral busybodies with national victories.

Bingo. The state is dictating virtuousness for our own good.