[bartekrutkowski]

Smoking is already advertised as dangerous-to-lethal and look how effective it is in preventing people from smoking.

In huge oversimplification some crazy or fraudulent people will claim it cures blindness or cold sores, some other people will believe them and will have to deal with the real danger-to-lethal consequences, with the rest of society paying for their medical care afterwards.

[defrost]

> Smoking is already advertised as dangerous-to-lethal and look how effective it is in preventing people from smoking.

Pretty effective.

In Australia throwing a few diseased lungs on the packs and increasing public awareness has seen usage drop from 35% of the population in 1980 to 11% today.

Not all the drop is purely related to advertising, price increases and restricting sale to out of sight locked access in shops have also helped.

https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1...

[bartekrutkowski]

Sure it's effective if you're looking at the reduction rate of existing number alone. But reverse the problem and the very big effort of warning about dangerous-to-lethal stuff still doesn't stop 11% of people from doing so. That's quite bad, when you think about going from zero (you can't willy-nilly use untested medicine) to 11% of the society.

[defrost]

> Sure it's effective if you're looking at the reduction rate of existing number alone.

That's exactly correct bart, it reduced smoking by over two thirds and kept it that way.

> still doesn't stop 11% of people from doing so.

Like seatbelts, vaccines, and all other health and safety procedures that also don't have a 100% total absolute success rate .. nor never claimed to.

Who wants to wrap people in bubble wrap and lock them away from the world? Are you advocating for that?

[mewpmewp2]

From another perspective it took massive change in generations and over 40 years of campaigning and it is still a problem for the 11 percent.

[defrost]

Knocking back smoking by two thirds has saved billions for the national health system.

On the books, totally worth it.

[b800h]

And cost billions in state pensions. I'm not suggesting that's any sort of counterargument but the costs should possibly be offset against other types of end-of-life care.

[defrost]

It's been discussed. The balance has so far fallen on the side of anti smoking policy.

Australia is a democracy with many small parties and several quasi independant larger party (three main large parties) members, there's been scope for almost anyone to campaign to repeal anti-smoking policy by either running directly or by lobbying their local of federal rep.

People have campaigned for hunting, for cannabis, for many things .. so far no one, to my knowledge, has campaigned to repeal the anti smoking policies.

[mewpmewp2]

Sure, but imagine doing the same effort that likely requires critical mass for actual adaption on small obscure medicines and illnesses.

[FeepingCreature]

Are they addictive? Then regulate them as addictive drugs.

Are they not addictive? Then it seems a stretch to compare them to cigarettes.