[avar]

> It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second.

The same is true about recreational travel. People expose themselves to high levels of radiation and travel risk purely for recreational purposes. Smokers inhale carcinogenic substances for recreational purposes.

[kaba0]

Is the risk for the two even remotely in the same ballpark?

[pas]

No, but the problem is that a scientifically informed (evidence based) public health site communicating risks should be consistent and shouldn't use inconsistent absolutist language.

[pvarangot]

Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. And of course it's to protect something like only 35% of the human population that will get addicted to it.

I stopped smoking for months or years many times and I never ever had any side effect except maybe I'm a bit tired the first days. I don't even put up extra weight or anything like that. I feel like an adult baby being treated like I need financial punishment to help me be a healthy person.

[HWR_14]

> Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works.

Really? Where do you live? Because I'm not aware of any country that does this (other than with sin taxes on tobacco).

[pvarangot]

I live in the US and the 600 extra are binary, the question is "have you used any tobacco products in the past three months?" and a yes means an extra 600 per year. It's not that unusual if you get health insurance through your employer because it drives the cost down for everyone else, and of course scamming money off smokers even if they just casually do it a couple of times every three months is socially accepted.

Also except executives no one is above 60, which is where one would argue that if you are a smoker you may actually needing to tap heavy into health insurance money for smoking related conditions. There's even research that if you quit before 40 your smoking related cancer risks go down 90% https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20211228/qui...

Of course I can drink a bottle of wine per day, not exercise, eat processed meat and not consume a gram of fiber and I don't have to pay extra health insurance. It doesn't make any sense.

[HWR_14]

I thought you were in the US.

By federal law, you cannot be charged more for smoking a cigarette every four months. You can be charged more for smoking with more regularity. There is a binary cutoff, but the level isn't zero (feds have a minimum level, but states can impose higher ones.). You may want to consult a lawyer if this is something that is really happening and concerns you. Plus, you certainly should consult a lawyer before you change your answer on a the form, in case you are in a grandfathered plan or some other special case.

[avar]

Health insurance in various places goes up if you consume tobacco products, and doesn't take the amount consumed into account:

https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-a...

[HWR_14]

That's what I figured he was referring to, but you (and he, if that's what he meant) are just wrong. Your source points out that the amount consumed is taken into account:

https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-a...

Now, it is binary. But US federal law puts "an afterdinner cigarette once every four months" very much in the "nonsmoker" category.

[avar]

Where does it say that the amount consumed is taken into account? That guideline is referring to the number of consumption occurrences per-week, not the amount used.

Which is the tobacco equivalent of classifying someone as a heavy drinker because they're using red wine as a trace ingredient in cooking several times a week, and considering that the same as consuming 4 vodka bottles over a span of 4 evenings every week.

Or, to bring this back to the example that started this thread, and which you seem to be thoroughly missing, to regulate numbers of radiation exposures per week. Without taking into account whether that's from standing outside in the sun for 10 minutes, eating a banana, or standing next to an unshielded nuclear reactor.

It's not some pedantic theoretical concern. There's an astronomical difference in the health risks between smoking a pack of cigarettes 4 times a week, using E-cigarettes 4 times a week, or applying a nicotine patch 4 times a week.

[josephcsible]

> Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel.

I find it hard to believe that smoking could be less dangerous than flying even for people who work as airline pilots or flight attendants.

[pvarangot]

Smoking every day? Sure it's more dangerous. Vaping at a party once per month? I don't think so.

[josephcsible]

If you say vaping now, then maybe. But actually smoking once a month I still doubt.