True story: I was talking to an academic who was doing a study, aiming to get people to fill out a big questionnaire on health and lifestyle. As an incentive, people got a voucher for a gym. "Don't you think you'd get different results if you offered 200 cigarettes or a bottle of vodka instead?" I asked, "Well that wouldn't get past the ethics board!"
And my point is that this is weird and lurid, not "cool". It's like cheering that a smallpox outbreak occurred so you can study the disease progression.
The point seems to be interesting in a way which might be called "cool" if one happens to be so interested. Even if one finds it lurid they may also find it interesting or "cool".
> It's like cheering that a smallpox outbreak occurred so you can study the disease progression.
I believe I understand the point. We don't want to celebrate a negative occurrence simply because there is silver lining. However, it's hard to see past a certain false equivalence that's being made. A disease which propagates ought to be treated differently from personal choices even if the things are equally destructive to the individual.
But I'm a philosopher at heart. Let's say a person chooses to infect themselves with a disease to facilitate study of some aspect of it. Let's also say that they are able to do this in an environment that all but guarantees the disease will not propagate except possibly to other willing volunteers. Should this research be prevented? Would the results of this research definitely not be "cool", meaning "interesting"?
It's more like, suppose people are purposefully infecting themselves with smallpox, and then suddenly the common cold is legalized so people switch to that. I could consider that "cool." Possibly similar story with vaping vs. smoking but the decrease in harmfulness is less obvious there.