New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern

Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence

New Zealand is repealing the world’s first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Arden’s government to pave the way for a smoke-free generation amid backlash from researchers and campaigners over its risk to Indigenous people.

The new coalition government led by prime minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the repeal will happen on Tuesday, delivering on one of the actions of his coalition’s ambitious 100-day plan.

The government repeal will be put before parliament as a matter of urgency, enabling it to scrap the law without seeking public comment, in line with previously announced plans.

raspberriesareyummy,

right wing politicians are cunts. all of them.

Varyk,

Wtf, it’s difficult to imagine a more directly harmful and scientifically evidenced habit.

absurd

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

What about the fact that Nicotine improves concentration, constricts blood vessels, medicates a host of psychological disorders such as schizophrenia, eases the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, and feels good?

HopeOfTheGunblade,
HopeOfTheGunblade avatar

Did you know that you can vape nicotine as well as getting it in gum and patches? Don't get me wrong, seeing the headline triggered an itch in the fingers to roll one and a craving in the lungs to breathe the smoke, but it's a godawful habit to have.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Did you know that you can vape nicotine as well

I think both should be legal and vaping should be encouraged (over smoking).

Varyk,

Seems like you’re incorrectly equating some conditionally positive effects of nicotine with cigarettes, which are wildly different substances.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Seems like you’re incorrectly equating some conditionally positive effects of nicotine with cigarettes, which are wildly different substances.

Smoking Specifically has been linked to amelioration of the effects of and protection against ulcerative colitis.

Smoking also possess quala not present in i.e. vaped glycerin suspensions or snus.

While I actually agree nicotine alternatives should be encouraged over smoking, I don't think burning a plant and inhaling the smoke should be a crime. Someone might have a reason to want to do it and that's not your damn business.

Varyk,

More false equivocation.

I don’t see anyone arguing against conditionally positive effects of nicotine or inhaling plant smoke.

This complaint is specifically about cigarettes.

People have lots of reasons for lots of things, and sometimes those reasons, like deriving profit from purchasing scientific studies and marketing demonstrably carcinogenic indulgences, affect others.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

like deriving profit from purchasing scientific studies and marketing demonstrably carcinogenic indulgences

If a company engaged in untoward practice, punish that company for that practice. Don't punish unrelated smokers by illegalizing their activities.

Alot of stuff, also, causes cancer. We gonna ban maillard reactions and The Sun now?

Varyk,

Can you cite the comparable artificial carcinogenic additives to the maillard reaction and the Sun that makes the maillard reaction and the Sun cancer-causing, and how the maillard reaction and the Sun have been marketed by their respective industries to addict several generations to their harmful products?

Or are you making further false equivocations?

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Can you cite the comparable artificial carcinogenic additives to the maillard reaction and the Sun that makes the maillard reaction and the Sun cancer-causing, and how the maillard reaction and the Sun have been marketed by their respective industries to addict several generations to their harmful products?

Whoa now, are you arguing for additive free cigarettes or illegalizing tobacco? Keep up.

And The Sun is absolutely addictive. Block it out and see the shakes society experiences.

Varyk,

Neither, you’re confusing your insincerity with superiority.

The sun is necessary, not addictive.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

The sun is necessary, not addictive.

Oh, I'm sure you "could quit any time" you want.

Varyk,

You’re sure that people can quit the Sun? The source of literally all life on the planet?

Love to hear your reasoning there.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

You’re sure that people can quit the Sun? The source of literally all life on the planet?

I'm not. My position is that the sun is addictive. You're the one who seems to think they can quit anytime they want, as indicated by your forwarding of the stance that the sun is not addictive.

Varyk,

Air isn’t an addiction, it is a necessity. Food is not an addiction, it is a necessity. Sunlight is not an addiction, but a necessity.

Cigarettes are an addiction, not a necessity.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Air isn’t an addiction, it is a necessity.

Try going cold turkey on air or telling someone experiencing a nic fit it "isn't necessary" that they smoke.

Varyk,

Have done.

Their upset doesn’t make the difference between an addiction and a necessity any less stark.

Cold turkey - incorrect addictive metaphor for a necessity: air.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Cold turkey - incorrect addictive metaphor for a necessity: air.

I feel it is apt, and reject your assertion a thing can not be both necessary and addictive.

And air isn't exactly "necessary". Life got on just fine without it before getting hooked around the Cambrian. Also air is terrible and harmful. Oxidises things. Causes rust. Toxic stuff.

Should we ban air while we're illegalising substances with negative facets?

Varyk, (edited )

We won’t ban air, but feel free to stop taking it up for so many other people.

Yes, air is necessary for humans. Not an addiction.

I appreciate that you agree with everything else I’m saying and you’re just trying to pick one thing out to eke out your survival while perpetually losing side of this debate, but you probably should have chosen a simpler target to attack than air not being important for people.

You’re wrong again, a consistent six logical fallacies for you? You’re incorrect on so many things I’ve lost count.

Please keep trying, it is fun watching how much deeper you can dig yourself into this ditch.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Yes, air is necessary for humans. Not an addiction.

Had a guy tell me heroin was necessary once. You admit you can't quit air but won't face the fact you have an addiction? First step is admitting you have a problem.

your perpetually losing side of this debate

Actually, I think you will find I am winning.

You’re incorrect on so many things I’ve lost count.

I'm right about smoking being cool. Why do you want to illegalise cool things?

Varyk, (edited )

I admit you have a problem.

A junkie telling you they need heroin does not make heroin a biological human necessity.

With your addiction to being wrong, it isn’t surprising you don’t understand what’s right.

Keep swinging.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

With your addiction to being wrong

Have we established I have an addiction? What addiction are you talking about and by what metric are you deeming it "wrong"?

Sounds like a value judgement, that.

Varyk,

Your being incorrect is an objective fact.

You don’t believe the sun is a human necessity. That’s incorrect.

You don’t believe food is a human necessity. That’s incorrect.

You don’t believe the air is a human necessity. That’s incorrect.

You use metaphors incorrectly.

You can’t tell the difference between anecdotes or established scientific fact.

Regardless of being continually incorrect, you state what are obviously incorrect conclusions repeatedly.

You’re addicted to being wrong.

While I’m not addicted to being right, it does feel good to continually be right and read your incorrect responses.

Keep going.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Your being incorrect is an objective fact.

No, as is evidenced by my being right. If you can't even keep simple fact like that straight, how can you propose possessing knowledge of what should be a crime.

Varyk,

You repeating your false statements only further proves my point.

I understand you’re confused and you don’t know what you’re talking about, so you might want to try asking questions instead of doubling down on obvious falsities.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

I want you to know that even though you are clearly addicted to "arguing with some faggot on the internet" I wouldn't deign to ban you from doing so, even though it is obviously bad for your health.

Varyk,

You are confusing that misattributed quote with someone else, I never wrote that.

Further proving your confusion and addiction to being wrong!

You’re batting .000 now!

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

What quote are you talking about? You are demonstrably arguing with some annoying faggot when you could be doing anything else.

Varyk,

Are you kidding?

I have a ton of free time.

I like it when you prove me correct and prove yourself incorrect. Go ahead. Keep telling me I’m right.

Repeatedly winning arguments is a fun pastime for me.

Keep it up with the language, I’m sure you can get yourself deleted if you try harder.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

This is clearly not good for you but I don't think you should be legally enjoined from engaging in the self-harm you are currently effecting.

Because again, I'm right about not banning people from doing things they shouldn't if they really wanna.

Varyk,

You’ve never mentioned that before, so weird to say “again”(keep trying, you’ll eventually be correct statistically), but at this point it appears you’re just copying the things that I’ve stated because you’re aware of how wrong you’ve been this whole time.

Flattering, thanks.

fidodo,

I see people on this site say all the time that all drugs should be legalized and we should allocate the money used to enforce drug laws on addiction resources instead. I’m not sure why this harmful drug is different. I totally support anti cigarette campaigns but I’m not sure bans are a good tool in general.

Draedron,

Smoking directly harms people around you even if you just walk by.

fidodo,

Smoking in public is already very widely banned, and I do support that ban since as you say it impacts others.

Varyk,

There are a few good reasons.

  1. cigarettes are more harmful than any of the other harmful drugs you’re referencing, and all of those “harmful drugs” combined.
  2. cigarettes were unnecessarily designed to be more harmful and addictive than necessary
  3. bans come in many forms and have many uses

I’ll preface this by saying I’m one of those people that think all drugs should be legally regulated and available.

That won’t result in all drugs having equal regulations, just as the regulations for driving a bicycle versus driving a car are different, auto drivers requiring more regulations because of how much more dangerous they are.

Drugs, even the illegal ones, are nowhere near as harmful as cigarettes or kill as many people as cigarettes, and a lot of these drugs may be mixed with a few chemicals, not hundreds.

Magic mushrooms are biologically harmless, for example: shrooms are about half as toxic as caffeine, one of the most common and addictive legal regulated chemicals in the world.

When I talk about supporting this ban on cigarettes, I’m specifically supporting this ban in this country at this time as a good way to show cigarette corporations the consequences of continuing to market a known harmful product at the expense of society.

If that ban had lasted for even a couple of years, the companies would be forced to adapt their manufacturing or even mission statement so that they were producing less harmful cigarettes.

Even with the short amount of time it was active, it’s a clear shot around the bow globally to cigarette companies and other companies purposely using cheaper and more toxic ingredients for their products, telling them that they’re going to have to change what they’re doing.

Because of worldwide lax regulations, the historical popularity of smoking plants, the enormous profit margin, corporate legal lobbying supremacy and modern mercantilism(capitalism), we have the result that at least 7 million people are directly dying every year from a product designed to addict you with toxic compounds and is scientifically, indisputably proven to violently harm you.

We aren’t including plantation slavery, second hand smoke, manufacturing deaths, or any other processes and infrastructures that have gone into propping up the industry

So quick math, well over a billion people in the last century, well over 10% of the Earth’s current population, has died because of cigarettes, most of them from directly known toxic substances and processes sold to people under false pretences.

Prohibitions don’t work, but regulations do, which are simply targeted prohibitions.

Lowering the amount of mercury and lead in the water and air of the United States has significantly lowered the amount of birth defects, chronic illnesses and cancers in the United States.

Not using a particular red dye that was found to be carcinogenic meant m&m and cake shops had to take a decade to reformulate a non-toxic red dye, but because of that regulation requiring a safer product, cancer and illness rates dropped.

Banning cigarettes is not going to stop people from smoking cigarettes, but a nationwide ban on an indisputably toxic substance is practically and politically important so that companies know the momentum that they’ve built up pushing their unnecessarily toxic products is losing steam.

fidodo,

Totally agree on regulating cigarettes and I think pretty much all the additive chemicals added to cigarettes should be banned, the same way dangerous chemicals are banned in food regulations. I think it’s ridiculous that it hasn’t happened yet.

reverendsteveii,

I’m not sure why this harmful drug is different

work in the smoking section of a restaurant for a bit and the phlegm ball you cough up every morning will be your proof that smoking isn’t just an individual’s choice.

nom_nom,

Alcohol.

Palerider,
@Palerider@feddit.uk avatar

As someone who struggles with alcohol, ban that shit as well…

circuscritic,

Because that worked so well before.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

My heart goes out to you because alcohol is a cruel mistress.

But banning a substance never works, if it did we wouldn’t have people addicted to illegal substances.

Palerider,
@Palerider@feddit.uk avatar

I appreciate the sentiment but I hold down a full time job (I absolutely don’t drink on the job. I work heavy machinery) and have a normal (as it gets) family life… I should just drink less.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

So drink less, don’t ban it for everyone else.

Cryophilia,

…unless it’s nicotine, because that’s different, for some reason

  • Lemmy
lanolinoil,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

lol except tabacco for some reason right?

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

You’re the second person to talk about cigarettes which I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned.

Am I missing something here?

I’m not for banning anything besides personal WMDs and carnies.

lanolinoil,
@lanolinoil@lemmy.world avatar

I think it was the vibe of the thread

natecox,
@natecox@programming.dev avatar

Alcohol is indeed bad for you, but not on the level of cigarettes. Cigarettes are intentionally filled with additive chemicals that both cause them to be hyper addictive and substantially raise the risk of cancer. They are designed to be deadly from the ground up in the name of making a few extra bucks.

Vast sums of money have also been spent on inveigling the public into believing that cigarettes are better for you than they actually are, up to and including the purchasing of scientists to draw false conclusions in public studies in order to present cigarettes as healthy.

The sheer maliciousness of the cigarette industry is shocking and terrible, I just don’t think there’s a real comparison here.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod, (edited )
Semi-Hemi-Demigod avatar

Also, tobacco is a lot harder to grow and process than alcohol. I've got everything I need in my house right now to mix up a batch of mead, and I don't even have any specialized equipment. A quick trip to the hardware store and I've got a still. It's also not like weed where you can have a plant in a closet and get a couple months worth of flower.

corymbia,

Red flag for scummy people. It’s handy but smelly.

jobby,

Smoking makes lots of money for the tobacco companies and for governments. Hence not wanting to ban it.

It’s a weird drug of choice; -Super addictive. -Doesn’t really do anything except briefly offset addiction withdrawl symptoms. -Very expensive. -Makes people smell really awful.

GiddyGap,

And it’s potentially very harmful to the health of yourself and those around you.

jobby,

Oh that’s a bonus feature!

BreadstickNinja,

When your product kills half your customers, that just makes it more important to keep finding new customers!

jobby,

Sooooooo, let’s guess who has lots of shares in the industry?

werefreeatlast,

Cold Turkey… I mean New Zealand, cold New Zealand.

Raiderkev,

Cold kiwi?

PoliticallyIncorrect, (edited )
@PoliticallyIncorrect@lemmy.world avatar

Tobacco smugglers in 3, 2, 1…

Prohibitions historically never worked anyway.

Draedron,

Much harder to smuggle stuff in when ypu are surrounded by water

Rediphile,

That just makes smuggling more profitable.

Cosmicomical,

It says repeal, so the smugglers should already be there if it was the case

OhmsLawn,

I don’t think it was ever implemented.

Cosmicomical, (edited )

Ok but the smugglers comment makes no sense in any case

ikidd,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

Lemmy: ban cigarettes because they’re bad for you, but not alcohol which is worse and, oh btw, legalize marijuana because it’s totally not like cigarettes.

mojofrododojo,

I’ve never seen people struggle with alcohol and pot like I’ve seen (and struggled myself with) nicotine. YMMV, but perhaps getting some actual life experience around addicts might give you some perspective. I’ve known heroin addicts that had tougher times leaving tobacco behind.

Kroxx,

Alcohol/benzo withdrawal is the only kind of withdrawal that kills people, it can cause a seizure that literally kills you

ikidd,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

You’ve never seen how people are destroyed by alcohol?

Dying is one thing; the suffering alcoholism can bring to everyone in the situation is heartbreaking, and it can take decades to play out before it finally kills the addict. And nobody can change anything except them. But of course, they don’t.

I’ve watched family kill themselves with hard drugs, it’s pretty quick comparatively. It’s ugly, but after they manage to ignore all help, they do themselves in fast when they get serious about it.

I hardly need your condescension about addictions there, buddy. I’ve seen it all too closely.

kaffiene,

People can have a occasional drink without doing harm. There’s no non harmful level of smoking

BluesF,

Cigarettes do fuck all and then kill you. As a former smoker - ban cigarettes, please. Let us have the fucking fun drugs for god’s sake, not the pointless cancer sticks!

timbuck2themoon,

I still don’t understand why Lemmy likes these sort of laws. There are plenty of vices that people have. Who cares? What’s the harm in letting adults make their own decisions so long as it affects just them?

Like ban smoking in public thoroughfares and such where one couldn’t avoid secondhand smoke, etc but what does anyone need to be concerned with if an adult smokes a cigarettee otherwise?

Kroxx,

I agree.

Raise the age to 21 so high schoolers have less access, educate all children/teens on the dangers of tobacco use, restrict smokers to designated areas in public that allow sufficient ventilation from the non smoking population, let adults make their own health choices. Prohibition just isn’t effective and tobacco is a plant, educate and regulate.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Like ban smoking in public thoroughfares and such where one couldn’t avoid secondhand smoke

Smokers are members of the public too, and have a right to public thoroughfares as well.

If a non-smoker wants to forbid tobacco in their own house that's one thing but banning it in public affects everybody.

timbuck2themoon,

I’m more talking like right by the door and such of places. Not like everywhere in public it being banned.

Pulptastic,

That’s fair if it harms no one else and costs true societal cost to do. Two giant ifs that are never true. Yesterday I inadvertently walked through a vape cloud at the entrance to my gym because you can’t vape inside so they took a yuge puff just outside the door otw in. Secondhand happens and many smokers are totally indifferent about it.

The tax on cigarettes should cover the amortized lifetime health care cost added by taking on the added risk. If it’s a million bucks to take care of a lung cancer victim at 65, add that cost less interest divided by the # of cigarettes smokes to the price of each one.

Grimy,

Smokers do not live in vacuum with their own healthcare that is only paid by them.

Smoking has huge impacts on our healthcare system, the high is shit and they only exist to make rich people richer and keep poor people poor.

I say this as someone that recently restarted, I wish it was banned when I first started. It’s easily the thing that I’ve wasted the most money on uselessly and has caused the most damage to my health.

timbuck2themoon,

So your bad choices dictate life for everyone else?

Sorry for your struggles but what’s next? Ban alcohol, ban soda, ban fast food, ban ANYTHING at all harmful? People also get in crashes so let’s ban cars. After all, that’s paid for by healthcare.

Grimy, (edited )

I never said any of those things. It’s also worth noting that it doesn’t take anything away from current users but stops new ones from starting.

I’m advocating this because of my bad choice, something that came about mostly because I was a stupid kid that got caught in their propoganda. Back when I started it was still “cool”. I don’t want other kids to make those same mistakes and there isn’t a situation where it isn’t a mistake.

But sure, keep licking malboros boots lol

timbuck2themoon, (edited )

Wanting to make personal choices? Sure. That’s " licking boots."

Do you realize how utterly stupid that sounds? And i don’t even smoke.

And you’re doing exactly what i said- wanting to limit others because of your poor choices. At least own it.

Grimy,

I did own it.

If you spent your time making home made explosives as a kid and one blew up in your face, should your first hand experience be ignored because it turned out badly?

And it’s not so crazy when the personal choice can only harm the person and it’s only being given to line the pockets of Marlboro and co. You’re acting like if this is abortion we are talking about.

If your so confident, go out and buy a pack, and then buy one a day for the next two years and then try to quit. You don’t know what you are defending.

timbuck2themoon,

I’ve smoked for months while on a trip then stopped as son as i got back. So yeah, I do know.

So yeah, stop putting your poor choices on everyone else. Thanks.

kofe,

Cannabis was illegal when I started smoking it. We tried banning alcohol, and look how that turned out.

Grimy,

I think there’s a huge difference between them. Alcohol and weed is used occasionally by most and is more of a social activity(“lets go for drinks, lets smoke a J”). Smoking affects all it’s users negatively while the others really only do so for a small subset of the population.

No one only smokes occasionally, it is much more addicting then the others for the general population and isn’t done in a social context neither. No one invites their friends for a cigarette on a Friday night.

There is just nothing positive about cigarettes. I don’t think it’s at all comparable.

Cryophilia,

Yeah but we could ban all sorts of things by that logic. Alcohol, obviously. Sports. Any foods that a lot of people are allergic to. Suntanning. It’s holding smoking to a standard that we don’t hold any other vices or hobbies to.

kaffiene,

It’s possible to consume alcohol responsibly and a small amount doesn’t appear to be harmful.

Cryophilia,

Why do you want to legislate people away from harming themselves and only themselves?

kaffiene,

Smoking doesn’t just effect the smoker

Cryophilia,

Yeah it does.

Grimy,

There is also the impact on our healthcare system and our economy. Another albeit minor consequence compared to the other two is littering.

Cryophilia,

There are already laws against littering. And lots of things affecting our healthcare system and economy. Sports, processed food, alcohol

Grimy,

Comparing sports, processed food and alcohol is a false equivalence.

In any case, it’s not because problems exist elsewhere that we can’t solve this one. It’s also much easier to stop the damage by banning cigs like it was done in New Zealand (where thee age limit rises as the population ages) then to fix any of your other examples.

Cryophilia,

Sure, it’s much easier to force people to be healthy, if your goal is a healthier population. But it’s morally wrong. People should have the right to make unhealthy decisions.

Grimy,

Most of those are social activities. A lot of places did ban tanning booths because of their link to skin cancer.

Alcohol and smoking is not at all comparable. No one invites each other for a pack of smokes on a Friday night. There aren’t any casual smokers because it’s much more addicting than anything you mentioned.

Imagine if alcohol was brutally addicting for 98% of the population and then ask yourself if you would ban it.

Cryophilia,

Addiction alone is no reason to ban something. And what does being a social activity have to do with anything?

Solo weightlifting alone causes 450,000 major injuries a year. Why no ban on that?

Grimy,

A harmful substance being highly addicting with zero benefit is a valid reason to ban it.

I’m bringing up social activities to highlight that alcohol and weed, while also being much less addictive and damaging, are also part of our social culture.

It’s a false comparison same with weight lifting.

Cryophilia,

Well, since you’ve just declared it a false comparison, now I’m convinced. Thanks for clearing that up.

A harmful substance being highly addicting with zero benefit is a valid reason to ban it.

I cannot disagree strongly enough. The State should not tell me how to live my life. My body, my choice.

Grimy,

What are the health benefits of weight lifting when compared to cigarettes? Whats the impact monetarily of both on the health system?

Whats the cost on the users for partaking in it. Where do they sit relative to each other and different substances/activities in terms of addiction. How many weightlifters end up having real health complications because of their addiction compared to smokers? How many of them die? How many weightlifters regret doing it compared to smokers?

This is why its a false comparison and rhetoric. If you want to live in a world where every activity that has health complication is comparable to cigarettes in the present context, then stop responding to my comments and pretend.

“You wouldn’t ban weightlifting” is not an argument.

Cryophilia,

So we’re weighing health effects good vs bad and choosing, on behalf of society, how bad is too bad?

It’s like a theocracy, but without the religion.

Clearly there’s no hard criteria, like “has the potential to cause personal injury on a wide scale”. Which means inevitably it gains a moralistic/tribalistic quality, something that has no place in government, especially when talking about government restrictions.

Grimy,

There is a hard criteria, “Causes serious health issues to all it’s users with no benefit and is highly addicting”. There is literally nothing else in our society currently legal that crosses that line except smoking.

The rest of your argument doesn’t make much sense to me, you will have to explain. Most of our laws fall under that umbrella. The potential for damages is weighed against the benefits and the liberties it restricts. Lots of things are outlawed that really aren’t as clear cut as cigarettes.

Cryophilia,

Smoking has social benefits. Same as alcohol.

bigschnitz,

New Zealand has publically funded health care. If the government can force me to pay for your medical treatment (via tax), why is it a stretch for them to prevent you from running up those costs by engaging in self destructive drug use?

In any democracy, the voting public should choose how tax money is spent. If the majority don’t want to pay to manage smoking related illness, or pay to enforce a two tiered medical system, a democratic system would restrict or ban smoking.

Cryophilia,

why is it a stretch for them to prevent you from running up those costs by engaging in self destructive drug use?

We’ve been over this. It’s a standard that other activities are not held to.

bigschnitz,

It’s a democracy, the people have the right to value different things differently if they choose. The previous administration ran for office with the cigarette restrictions as part of their policy package and people voted for that. They didn’t vote for alcohol or fast food or whatever else your claiming is the same, if people wanted to ban other things they have the right to vote accordingly.

Cryophilia,

We’re not mob rule here. There are (or should be) checks against the tyranny of the majority. Just because most voters want a thing doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the right thing.

bigschnitz,

Most new zealnders don’t smoke, if most new zealanders don’t want to fund smoking how is that different than any other drug being illegal? Would you describe illegal cannibas or prescription only medications as tyranny of the majority?

There are checks and balances in place to prevent actual human rights abuses. You still haven’t answered why tax paying new zealanders should be forced to pay health costs for smokers when the majority don’t support it. If banning smoking is tyranny of the majority, forcing taxpayers to fund smokers against their will is surely tyranny of the minority.

Cryophilia,

You still haven’t answered why tax paying new zealanders should be forced to pay health costs for smokers when the majority don’t support it.

I didn’t want to get too deep into it because it’s an open question. But there have been some studies suggesting that smokers cost the healthcare system less, because they die younger.

The main point though is that we don’t, and shouldn’t, exclude people from the healthcare system for their personal choices. Nor should we restrict people’s freedom to make personal choices because it would save the government money. That’s a terrible precedent.

bigschnitz,

If you’re saying it’s tyranny to prevent people from taking actions, that the majority feel shouldn’t be allowed, that drive up healthcare costs then that’s one thing. However if your position on this is based on a liberal ideal of people being allowed to do what they want, then it should surely equally apply to the taxpayers (particularly if they are majority voters) who don’t want to pay for the decisions of others. Either way that is government intervention restricting individuals freedom.

I think it’s not right to say “the governments money” as if an administrative body that is beholden to the voters has true autonomy over how it’s spent - that is the populations money and should be their choice on how it’s spent. One can argue it’s immoral to refuse migrants access to the country and healthcare but that isn’t accepted as justification for open borders. I also don’t understand, assuming cigarettes are some special case different than immigration where morality should trump democracy, why it’s more valid to say this taxpayer control over how their money is spent should be restricted based on your moral judgement compared to someone else’s moral judgement who’s claim is cigarettes are immoral (for whatever their chosen reason).

The claim of smokers dying younger and therefore costing less is something I didn’t consider and is an interesting point (that very well could prove true). But even if you discredit the taxpayer funded health argument, there’s moral arguments around selling addictive substances, human pain caused by premature death and sickness etc. that could just as readily be made as any argument based around individual freedoms. Why should your claims on what’s moral have precedence over someone else’s?

Cryophilia,

However if your position on this is based on a liberal ideal of people being allowed to do what they want, then it should surely equally apply to the taxpayers (particularly if they are majority voters) who don’t want to pay for the decisions of others.

Taxes have forever been an exception to the liberal idea of freedom to do whatever. They’re a social and economic necessity.

Taxpayers decided to fund universal healthcare. If we start picking and choosing who is “deserving” of that care…that’s a terrible precedent.

In several ways, a cigarette ban is an exception to how democracies have traditionally dealt with issues around freedom. There’s really no precedent or defense for it except that cigarettes are currently unpopular.

But even if you discredit the taxpayer funded health argument, there’s moral arguments around selling addictive substances, human pain caused by premature death and sickness etc.

And I think it’s nearly universally acknowledged that ceding to the government the power to decide how its individual citizens should live their lives is a terrible idea. If we were talking about almost anything else, there would be an uproar. Government says religion makes no objective sense and causes a lot of fighting and mental stress, decides to ban worship. Uproar. Government decides that having children when you can’t afford to offer them a good life is immoral, decides to ban children for poor people. Uproar.

A cigarette ban only feels like it makes sense because it’s cigarettes. Copy the justification for the ban to anything else and you realize how bad an idea it is.

bigschnitz,

And I think it’s nearly universally acknowledged that ceding to the government the power to decide how its individual citizens should live their lives is a terrible idea. If we were talking about almost anything else, there would be an uproar.

Marijuana among many other drugs are illegal in New Zealand with no uproar. How is that different than cigarettes?

Cryophilia,

I’d argue it’s not, and I’m disappointed that there’s no uproar. My only explanation is cognitive dissonance.

Timecircleline,

I think I remember reading that smokers, paradoxically, cost less to the social security net systems including healthcare because they die so young. So I guess don’t feel so bad? Other than the money and health problems.

For real, I’m sorry that you have this addiction that forces you to take part in an activity it sounds like you don’t enjoy (or at least the enjoyment does not even out the downsides for you.)

Grimy,

I will quit again but I ultimately wish I had never started, and I’m fairly certain that sentiment is found in practically all smokers.

I understand the importance of having choice, even bad ones. But if 99% seriously regret one of the choice and are affected negatively with no gain by it, why even offer it?

And society can easily shrug off the negative effects but it’s just not healthy imo. A solid percentage of our population is a slave to this stuff and it’s just bad form.

The 99% might be an exaggeration, I’m clearly not impartial about it.

Timecircleline,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533014/

Canada did a separate study in 2017 which includes lost productivity for shorter years of life and that obviously was a huge cost to the system.

GBU_28,

Odd the article photo has a guy wearing a US army hat

homesweethomeMrL,

Hey New Zealand, how’s it goin’?

reads article

Oh. Right wing garbage huh. Sorry. It’s everywhere.

kaffiene,

I’m so fucking angry with my fellow citizens. Voting for these assholes was either selfish, hateful or disturbingly stupid and unthinking.

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

I really do not get why this is the current political climate.

mindbleach,

“The free marketplace of ideas” turns out to promote emotional manipulation by fascists.

Who knew.

lorty,
@lorty@lemmy.ml avatar

There’s no other way to keep the race for the first trillionaire going other than moving towards the right.

Snowpix,
@Snowpix@lemmy.ca avatar

There’s a lot of fear and uncertainty in the world. Fear is the basis behind conservatism, as is hate.

spacecowboy,

…m.wikipedia.org/…/International_Democracy_Union

There are a bunch of groups such as ^this one and they have a lot of money and influence.

chuckleslord,

There’s a lot of money to be made telling people who are afraid of things new things for them to be afraid of. You could also use it to grab power.

Cryophilia,

You don’t see the irony, do you? This type of propaganda is why smoking was banned in the first place. It works for the left as well as the right. GMOs, gluten, nuclear power.

chuckleslord,

The difference being that those are naive solutions to complex problems, but correctly identifying the problems. The right has no solutions, only scape goats that block them from some “perfect” past that we’ve progressed away from. There’s no irony here, just a misunderstanding, on your part, of what divides the left and right.

Cryophilia,

Sure, I get that.

I’m just saying that the impetus can be propaganda on either side. Left gets taken in by propaganda, they want to do something (even banning something is couched as a proactove measure). Right gets taken in by propaganda, they want to stop things (even taking action is couched as a reversion to previous times).

In this case, the right has no solutions while the left has bad solutions. The right doesn’t see smoking as a problem, therefore no solutions are required. I agree with the right on this issue.

chuckleslord,

But the right is wrong as well. There need not be restrictions on who wish to purchase tobacco, that we can agree on, but there do need to be on those who would sell tobacco. Tobacco kills and is addictive, to allow it to be sold without restrictions (on advertising, or the sale to minors) would be a cruelty to those who would’ve never started smoking with those restrictions in play. Only those who can understand the decision they make, with an adult mind unswayed by propaganda (advertising), should be able to make that choice.

Cryophilia,

to allow it to be sold without restrictions

Is anyone arguing for that? If so, it’s new to me

VirtualOdour,

Probably because the left doesn’t really have a vision to offer, we should be promoting a better future for all and showing how we can achieve it but instead we’ve got infighting, purity culture, self destructive idealism, and calls for making life harder on regular people in pretty much every way possible.

Cosmicomical,

The only problem of the left is they are bad at marketing or consider it immoral

alekwithak,

deleted_by_author

    •
    VirtualOdour,

    If you’ve never seen leftwing infighting then you’ve never been involved in any form of left wing politics lol

    alekwithak,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    VirtualOdour,

    Ha yeah that’s a horrendously naive perspective, I’ve been involved in a lot of leftwing movements over the years especially eco and economic reform and I can tell you that if all the infighting comes from outside agents then we should thank the three letters because there would be no movement at all without them.

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don’t think the left has any issues? It’s all good honesty lefties working together?

    And the others, they’re not lefties or Scotsmen, they’re agents who must rightly be obliterated… hmm, I think I might have seen this one before 🤔

    alekwithak,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    VirtualOdour,

    You said nothing of substance and now you’re questioned on it you back away because you know you were just trying to sound tough without really thinking through your position.

    Badeendje,
    @Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

    The vibe I get is that the left usually points at things that need to change and offers solutions to the problems they see.

    And the right campaigns on “not that”

    aStonedSanta,

    Same. I ponder if it’s an echo chamber but then realize I consume such a variety of news…. Sad state of things.

    homesweethomeMrL,

    The answer is very simple: Propaganda works. Consistently and very predictably. All those arguments we should have had in the 70’s about “television” were right, instead, cable and streaming won and here we are in the belly of the beast.

    Boingboing,

    People are desperate for change from the status quo. The right offer simple answers for very complex questions. No critical thinking required.

    rimu,
    @rimu@piefed.social avatar

    A senior MP in the govt is a former tobacco industry goon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bishop

    Thcdenton,

    But I bet this ban and subsequent repeal was the best advertisement for tobacco this century.

    Tyrangle,

    Came in here to criticize the concept of a smoking ban based on comparisons to prohibition and the “war on drugs” in America, but reading through the article it actually sounds somewhat reasonable. Using regulation to reduce nicotine content sounds fantastic - no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to, and making tobacco less addicting might actually help to accomplish that.

    Still not a fan of prohibition as a means of addressing health issues, but I suppose it’s different when your country has universal healthcare.

    Cryophilia,

    no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to

    In what universe is anyone being forced to smoke??

    tigeruppercut,

    2nd hand?

    Cryophilia,

    a) studies don’t show it’s harmful unless you live or work with someone who smokes indoors*

    b) smoking in public areas, even outdoors, is mostly banned already

    *note: you will find some proclamations from official and pseudo-official bodies saying things like “there is no safe level of secondhand smoke”. These are shameful goddamn lies and when you try to find the science they’re based on, you find nothing at all. When you look at the actual report collating every study ever done on secondhand smoke you’ll find that every single study has only measured effects of prolonged exposure to indoor smoking. There has been no study, ever, that I’m aware of, that has shown a correlation between occasional outdoor secondhand smoke and increased cancer or other negative effects

    But all that being said, again, smokers (in the West) are mostly relegated to certain designated outdoor areas which you are free to not go to.

    Buffaloaf,

    Conclusions

    The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.

    The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.

    Seems pretty clear.

    Cryophilia,

    Only if you pick and choose the parts you read. Look at the study subjects. Every single one of them has prolonged exposure to indoor smoke. The majority of study subjects are spouses of longtime smokers.

    Dasus, (edited )

    They’re literally quoting the conclusions part of the study, and you claim they are cherrypicking quotes and distorting the actual data… ?

    You’ve been mixing some “whacky” in your “tobaccy”, haven’t’cha?

    Cryophilia,

    The conclusions are biased and in some cases outright not supported by the underlying data.

    The surgeon general set out to report that cigarettes are scary and by god he’d do so, data be damned.

    Look for yourself. The data is right there.

    Dasus,

    It’s insane that people have devolved to the point where they will actively provide the proof against themselves and then ignore it.

    I looked myself.

    I read the “conclusions” part and it was rather adamant about the study being conclusive for that part.

    I assume you “don’t have the time” to actually explain your argument, and I’ll just have to “look myself”, to see that the opposite of what they conclude is true?

    Cryophilia,

    It’s literally on the same page, I already linked it. This isn’t a “do your research” YouTube conspiracy video thing. The conclusions say one thing, the studies say something else.

    Dasus,

    Oh, another “oh yeah, it totally says the opposite of what it concludes but I can’t actually explain how”. I’m shocked.

    I’m gonna place a personal bet that you haven’t even looked at any of it. Trying to argue “we haven’t proved tobacco smoke is harmful” in 2024. You’re cracking me up, man.

    Is smoking harmful? No, it’s the science which is wrong!

    Cryophilia,

    Comment looks pretty dumb now huh? I quote you the report and you claim I’m the one not reading it

    Dasus, (edited )

    Yes, all of your comments do look pretty dumb. That’s why I keep engaging with you. You’re veeerry entertaining. :D

    You haven’t made an argument.

    Linking a piece showing they’ve looked at lifetime smokers and then you making an indoor/outdoor argument when the conclusions say “REGARDLESS OF LOCATION”, is pretty funny.

    You still don’t have an argument.

    This is funny, but it’s also sad to see that while the science is very clear on the subject, there are still trolls like you.

    This isn’t a debate any more than “the Earth is actually flat” is.

    I could link you literally thousands upon thousands od studies showing how harmful smoke is and you can’t link a single one showing it isn’t, and you’re not making any rational point about this one either.

    It’s funny, but also, slightly worrying.

    Cryophilia,

    nonsmoking women married to smokers

    Pooled estimates associated with secondhand smoke exposure from spouses, at the workplace, and during childhood

    These cohort studies used questionnaires that asked about spousal smoking behaviors

    men married to women who smoked

    Many larger studies have since been conducted in the United States (Brownson et al. 1992; Stockwell et al. 1992; Fontham et al. 1994) and elsewhere (Wu-Williams et al. 1990; Boffetta et al. 1998; Nyberg et al. 1998a; Zaridze et al. 1998; Zhong et al. 1999; Kreuzer et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2000; Seow et al. 2002) that expanded the assessment of the exposure to include smoking habits of other household members during childhood and adulthood, and exposure at work and in other social settings.

    And so on. It’s all over the article. Do a ctrl+f of “outdoor” and similar terms if you like.

    Dasus,

    The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.

    Yeah, seems pretty clear.

    “It” being your lack of an argument against science that has a literal metric ton of evidence behind it, not to mention common sense?

    “No no, smoke isn’t actually harmful”

    What are you, a 1950’s ad company? XD

    Cryophilia,

    You just keep not reading, even when I copy paste it for you. I don’t know what else I can do here. The conclusion is disingenuous and the proof is right there in the report. Continuing to regurgitate the same words that I’m saying are wrong is not an argument.

    Dasus,

    You’re not making an argument.

    You’re saying “no the data doesn’t agree with their conclusions”, without any argument. “It was lifetime smokers they were married to, and they smoked indoors btw.”

    So what? That doesn’t meant that lless exposure isn’t harmful. That’s what they conclude as well. Stomping your foot and saying “no no no it’s not true” won’t change the conclusions, and you’ve shown nothing that shows their conclusions are false.

    This is hilarious

    Cryophilia,

    The conclusions are an inaccurate representation of the data. Let’s start there. We can move on to the larger point later since it’s too much for you to grasp apparently. Can you agree with me that there have been no studies about occasional outdoor secondhand smoke?

    Dasus,

    “They conclude that it’s very clear that all smoke exposure is harmful. But they never studied people who only get exposed outdoors. I’m betting smoke magically becomes non-harmful when there aren’t walls around you, despite them clearly concluding ALL smoke is harmful. Also, I don’t need to provide any evidence for my ridiculously asinine and illogical premise, it’s enough that I can recognise that this specific instance wasn’t studied by itself, so it can mean whatever I want it to, despite reality”

    You’re honestly like one of those Flat Earth nuts who’s trying to convince us that NASA is guarding the icewall at the end of the Earth. “But like, can you agree with me that no-one’s ever seen the actual edge of the Earth?”

    No, I really really can’t, because you’re crazy. :D

    First, there are several studies looking into the effects of “outdoor smoking”. We understand very well how aerosols work indoors and outdoors, so it really doesn’t matter where you are during the exposure, it matters how much you are exposed to.

    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22870289/

    bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007554

    There’s literally almost a century of data on this. You’re like an antivaxxer. :D “Nooo, we haven’t actually established that smoke exposure is always harmful, and I don’t need to provide evidence that it isn’t.”

    We have established with insanely high certainty that all smoke exposure is harmful.

    It’s like if you tried arguing that we don’t know for certain that asbestos exposure is harmful, because you say we haven’t actually looked at asbestos exposure outdoors. :DD

    Cryophilia,

    It’s kind of funny how you obviously take the time to come up with the worst insults you can think of and then throw them at me even when they don’t make sense. Try “MAGA” next.

    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22870289/

    Study shows outdoor particulate matter in smoking areas is almost the same level as indoor areas where smoking is banned (43.64 µg/m3 vs 36.90 µg/m3, respectively).

    bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007554

    Even the conclusion here supports what I’m saying. Almost half of the surveyed smokers report smoking outside, yet only 24% of nonsmokers report being exposed to smoke at all outdoors. Also, this study doesn’t deal with the concentration.

    Results Smokers reported smoking outdoors most in bars and restaurants (54.8%), followed by outdoor places at work (46.8%). According to non-smokers, outdoor SHS exposure was highest at home (42.5%) and in bars and restaurants (33.5%).

    You have to understand that there is a huge anti-smoking bias in top-level discussions. Younger generations just consider smoking gross. But the data itself doesn’t lie. Look beyond the conclusions and look at the actual data.

    Dasus,

    “Worst insults”? :D

    Thanks for letting me know you’re offended, those are apt descriptors, not attempts at insults. I could show you some actual insults, but that’d be rude and against the rules.

    There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That’s it.

    You can equivocate all you want that “there isn’t enough evidence”, but don’t be surprised when people laugh at you, since that’s exactly the thing the tobacco companies have been trying to repeat for almost a century. “Noo, the evidence isn’t in yet!” Yes, it is.

    yet only 24% of nonsmokers report being exposed to smoke at all outdoors

    Ah yes, asking people “were you bothered by smoke” definitely proves that they weren’t exposed to any smoke at all. It’s not like people’s subjective experiences are worse than objective science.

    All smoke-exposure is harmful. When you prove there is a level of smoke exposure that’s safe, then you have an argument. Before that, you don’t. You simply do not. You’re exactly like a Flat Earther, who refuses to believe the evidence in favour of some contrived bullshit that doesn’t even support the facts they think it does.

    “Look at the actual data.”

    It’s honestly hilarious how you keep stomping your foot, crying “no no no no no muh data”, but you don’t even have any, and then you pretend like some data on reported experiences about the levels of smoke they were exposed to proves that smoke exposure isn’t harmful?

    My stomach is hurting I’m laughing so much :DDD

    Cryophilia,

    You can equivocate all you want that “there isn’t enough evidence”, but don’t be surprised when people laugh at you

    The laughter of idiots is equivalent to the approval of thinking people. So, thank you.

    Now that you’re arguing against the concept of data, where do we go from here? I mean if you fundamentally disagree with reality, well…dunno what to tell you dude. The data ain’t saying what you want it to. That sucks. But it is what it is.

    Dasus, (edited )

    Again, there is no safe level of exposure to smoke.

    There is no level of smoke exposure that is safe.

    No level of exposure to smoke is safe. Outdoors or indoors.

    That has been proved, objectively, for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.

    What you don’t see is that I’ve been asking “what is your argument” for several comments, but you simply do not have one. You’re trying to equivocate that “b-bb-but there are no studies which studied only outdoors exposure and that is actually safe because there’s no evidence to prove that it isn’t”, when we do have evidence proving that, since we have evidence that all smoke exposure is harmful. “Just look at the data.”

    I could start pasting dozens of studies which have been done on this over almost a century, but you’re the one making the argument (or rather, not-making an argument, since you don’t actually have one, you’re just saying “lol look there’s no specific outdoors studies thus I’m right in my non-argument”), so the burden of proof is on you.

    The irony in you saying “the conclusions aren’t supported by the data”, when they clearly show why it is, and then you being unable to actually explain why you think it isn’t… is again, h-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s.

    Try to make an argument instead of this teenagey pseudointellectual equivocating and wannabe deep quotes. :D

    Why does subjective reports about people’s perceived level of smoke exposure matter in this conversation? Why does it invalidate the data that shows all smoke exposure is harmful?

    Cryophilia,

    That has been proved, objectively

    Yet you can’t find a study showing it?

    It’s reasonable to assume that a level of smoke particulate matter equal to that of areas in which there is no smoking is nonharmful. Right? Maybe a higher level is still not harmful but there’s no data so we don’t know.

    My theory is that occasional outdoor smoke exposes you to particulate matter at such low concentrations, it’s indistinguishable from regular daily fluctuations when not exposed to smoke. Just a theory, because no real data, but I think it’s a reasonable one. The one study you linked about particulate matter in outdoor areas seems to support it.

    Also

    Why does subjective reports about people’s perceived level of smoke exposure matter in this conversation?

    You’re the one who linked the study, dude, I just read it.

    Dasus,

    The burden of proof is on you.

    You’re the one screeching against established science. You’re the one saying that “the data doesn’t support the conclusions” while refusing to actually even make an argument.

    “My theory”

    You don’t seem to understand what the word means. That’s a hypothesis, and one not supported by any science, despite you saying that the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study isn’t supported by the data they have, that the data in fact supports your notion, but you still can’t seem to show how or why?

    So your argument is “if you’re not exposed to smoke, then you’re not harmed by it”? Wow. What a great argument. Unfortunately, when you’re exposed to smoke, no matter the amount, it is harmful. This has been proven time and time and time again, but despite you childishly arguing against it, you haven’t even tried looking if there’s data available on it, because you know of course there is and it all proves you wrong.

    The burden of proof is on you. You’re simply unable to produce any supporting evidence for any of your anti-vaxxer, flat-earth level garbage, instead preferring to write vague pseudointellectual garbage. :D

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    “Widely recognised.”

    Almost as if that’s what the evidence points towards and your pathetic little “b-b-b-b-but what about if you’re only outdoors and you’re 100 meters upwind from the closest smoker so then you’re not exposed to smoke at all so then it’s safe so there is actually a safe level of second hand smoke exposure which is literally to not be exposed at all and that’s my mighty smart argument that I’m now making and the fact that there’s a literal library full of studies which prove that there is no safe level of second hand smoke is completely irrelevant as I’m not even gonna look at it I’m just gonna pretend like I won the argument I didn’t even actually manage to make”

    SEe why I’m entertained? D:DD

    Cryophilia,

    you still can’t seem to show how or why?

    That’s a problem with your comprehension, not with my explanation.

    Run spell check please.

    Dasus,

    … deep sigh

    So in your previous comment you ask “but you can’t find evidence for it?” after I’ve explained that you need to find the evidence, because the burden of proof is on you because you’re the one trying to argue against scientific consensus.

    Despite the burden of proof being on you, not me, I show you studies that show how widely recognised it is that there is no safe level of SHS exposure.

    You refuse to acknowledge it.

    So tell me, how exactly are you different from a Flat Earther or an Anti-vaxxer? Because you can’t seem to make an argument of any sort, you’re just grasping at something like “no but see the measurements of exposure from an outdoor smoking area were almost as low as…” which isn’t an argument. It’s an observation, that in no way disproves that all SHS is harmful.

    What aren’t you getting? Why are you ignoring when I show you proof? What is your argument? Oh you don’t have any so you end up with these childish games like pretending you didn’t see anything I just wrote and linked and are unable to Google “is second hand smoke dangerous” yourself?

    Make. An. Argument. Please?

    But you won’t.

    Cryophilia,

    after I’ve explained that you need to find the evidence

    My entire point is that there is no evidence since there’s no studies. You can’t prove a negative, but a massive analysis of previous studies comes close.

    show you studies that show how widely recognised it is that there is no safe level of SHS exposure.

    The studies don’t show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you this whole time.

    just grasping at something like “no but see the measurements of exposure from an outdoor smoking area were almost as low as…” which isn’t an argument.

    That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything. What tiny amount of data we have on the subject does in fact support what I’m saying. And I’m not even saying it’s conclusive evidence, just some level of support that I’m only bringing up for lack of real good data.

    And you still haven’t sent any proof. You find a study, you read the conclusion, you throw it at me, I read the data, I throw that at you, you ignore it and find a new study, rinse and repeat.

    I agree it’s very unfortunate that there’s such a ridiculous bias in studies’ conclusions. I suspect it’s related to funding and PR. We shouldn’t have to dig into the data of a study to see if it supports the conclusion that the authors wrote. But that’s where we’re at.

    I don’t think this is the norm. I hope not. I suspect smoking is just a very charged topic and no scientist wants to lose funding by being known as the guy who put out a pro-smoking study.

    Dasus, (edited )

    No evidence of what? That second hand smoke is harmful? Are you on meth?

    The studies don’t show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up.

    “No, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and don’t even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I haven’t even read it.” - You

    That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything.

    Yes, it is grasping. Because you’re not even refuting that SHS is harmful, you’re trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, you’re admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.

    And you still haven’t sent any proof.

    My stomach can’t take much more of this :DDD

    See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?

    This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    “Widely recognised.”

    Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. I’ve been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about “you need to understand there’s a huge bias with tobacco…” when I replied to it with this? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

    Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

    By the early 1960s—despite categorical research findings indicating the harms of smoking—a significant “controversy” had arisen (at the behest of the tobacco industry) over the validity and meaning of these findings. Indeed, given the widespread acceptance of the conclusion, especially among those who had analyzed and evaluated the research most closely, the persistence of debate about the harms of smoking is a striking demonstration of the powerful impact of the tobacco industry’s public relations campaign. The industry insistence, at the direction of Hill & Knowlton, on the notion of no proof and the need for more research was an inspired if cynical manipulation of the natural tendencies within science to encourage skepticism and seek more complete answers to important questions.

    Completely unlike what you’re doing, amirite? :DDDDDD That’s what is so hilarious; you’re using century old rhetoric. It’s like arguing someone who’s genuinely insistent that “reefer madness” is a thing :DDD

    You haven’t linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying “NYAAAH NO NO NO THEY’RE WRONG AND I DON’T NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEY’RE WRONG THEY’RE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAH”

    Cryophilia,

    No evidence of what? That second hand smoke is harmful?

    Straw man. Don’t be stupid. Argue against what I said, not what you want me to have said

    Dasus,

    “No, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and don’t even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I haven’t even read it.” - You

    That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything.

    Yes, it is grasping. Because you’re not even refuting that SHS is harmful, you’re trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, you’re admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.

    And you still haven’t sent any proof.

    My stomach can’t take much more of this :DDD

    See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?

    This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    “Widely recognised.”

    Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. I’ve been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about “you need to understand there’s a huge bias with tobacco…” when I replied to it with this? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

    Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

    By the early 1960s—despite categorical research findings indicating the harms of smoking—a significant “controversy” had arisen (at the behest of the tobacco industry) over the validity and meaning of these findings. Indeed, given the widespread acceptance of the conclusion, especially among those who had analyzed and evaluated the research most closely, the persistence of debate about the harms of smoking is a striking demonstration of the powerful impact of the tobacco industry’s public relations campaign. The industry insistence, at the direction of Hill & Knowlton, on the notion of no proof and the need for more research was an inspired if cynical manipulation of the natural tendencies within science to encourage skepticism and seek more complete answers to important questions.

    Completely unlike what you’re doing, amirite? :DDDDDD That’s what is so hilarious; you’re using century old rhetoric. It’s like arguing someone who’s genuinely insistent that “reefer madness” is a thing :DDD

    You haven’t linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying “NYAAAH NO NO NO THEY’RE WRONG AND I DON’T NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEY’RE WRONG THEY’RE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAH”

    1

    You ignored 98% of the comment.

    Cryophilia,

    I mean yeah when it looks like you had a seizure and started flopping around on your keyboard, I tend to ignore that

    Dasus, (edited )

    Oh, I didn’t realise that you’re delusional to the point that it distorts your perceptions. My bad. I’ll try to format it even simpler for you.

    Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke.

    Because all the science on the subject says there isn’t one, but you keep arguing there is.

    Now I’m going to paste URL’s, they might look a bit weird, they’re like links to pages on the internet. Hang in there!

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    Here are a few things the studies behind these URL’s say:

    level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways

    is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    I find it hard to believe that you didn’t actually understand my previous comment, but who am I to say that the cognitively challenged don’t browse Lemmy? But if you made it this far in the comment, then you’re probably not challenged that severely, so we can both admit that you’re just pretending not to understand, because you’re willfully ignoring the evidence. Exactly like Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers do in every debate they engage in.

    You’re (poorly) parroting 1960’s tobacco companies rhetoric. It’s ridiculous. :D

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

    The story of the tobacco “controversy” and the industry’s deliberative attempts to disrupt science is now, fortunately, fairly well known. In large measure, this story emerged only as a result of whistle blowers and litigation that led to the revelation of millions of pages of internal tobacco documents that both laid out this strategy and documented its implementation.39 But what has often gone overlooked in the assessment of the tobacco episode was the highly articulated, strategic character of seizing the scientific initiative, the engineering of science. This, however, was a factor well understood by John Hill and the public relations teams that advised the companies. They carefully documented what the scientific investment would buy and how best for the companies to protect and defend that investment.

    “What you need to understand… is that there’s a huge bias against tobacco” - you :DDD

    Cryophilia,

    :DDD

    Dasus, (edited )

    “Ofc I can’t reply to any of what you wrote, because I’d have to address how deeply wrong I am in this, but my obsession over getting ‘the last word’ means I literally can’t stop replying no matter how stupid I look in the thread”

    Please. By any means, prove me wrong and produce data on safe SHS levels.

    Oh wait, all the data says there is no safe level of exposure.

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    Cryophilia,

    I stopped reading bc I assumed you’d shortly die from laughter, and there’s no sense debating a dead man

    Dasus, (edited )

    “I’m obsessed over this to the point I need to reply, but I also need to pretend I didn’t see a single line of text whole entire three sentences you just wrote. I just have to reply, despite knowing how wrong I am. I can’t admit that Israel is genociding people. I’d rather pretend I can’t read than admit that I have been influenced by propaganda.”

    Please. By any means, prove me wrong and produce data on safe SHS levels.

    Oh wait, all the data says there is no safe level of exposure.

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    Cryophilia,

    RIP @Dasus

    Dasus,

    See? If you can’t argue the matter, why are you replying?

    You’re incapable of saying why you are in this thread to begin with. Everyone knows, it’s written right there.

    So defend your argument, stop replying, or (and this I assume is the one you choose) keep acting like a five-year old and pretend like you don’t even know what I’m talking about.

    All the data says there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    But please, prove to everyone that you are a petulant kid by replying once more, but without being able to address why you’re ignoring everything and acting like a toddler.

    Cryophilia,

    m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkQk_1OV9Y&pp=ygUKdGFwcyBi…

    Dasus,

    See? If you can’t argue the matter, why are you replying? Just like I said. Dancing to my exact tune. Why not just give up, why make a fool of yourself?

    You’re incapable of saying why you are in this thread to begin with. Everyone knows, it’s written right there.

    So defend your argument, stop replying, or (and this I assume is the one you choose) keep acting like a five-year old and pretend like you don’t even know what I’m talking about.

    All the data says there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

    news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

    tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

    It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

    But please, prove to everyone that you are a petulant kid by replying once more, but without being able to address why you’re ignoring everything and acting like a toddler.

    Dasus,

    You have to understand that there is a huge anti-smoking bias in top-level discussions.

    I can’t get over how hilarious you saying this is.

    Like, quite literally, you’re a textbook case of trying to copy 1950’s tobacco company rhetoric.

    So probably you’re doing it on accident, because you’ve actually bought into it, which is hilarious.

    So here’s something to enlighten you on the subject

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

    Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

    Abstract

    Confronted by compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harms of smoking, the tobacco industry, beginning in the 1950s, used sophisticated public relations approaches to undermine and distort the emerging science.

    The industry campaign worked to create a scientific controversy through a program that depended on the creation of industry–academic conflicts of interest. This strategy of producing scientific uncertainty undercut public health efforts and regulatory interventions designed to reduce the harms of smoking.

    A number of industries have subsequently followed this approach to disrupting normative science. Claims of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof also lead to the assertion of individual responsibility for industrially produced health risks.

    ANY SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATION of the modern relationship of medicine and science to industry must consider what has become the epiphenomenal case of the tobacco industry as it confronted new medical knowledge about the risk of cigarette smoking in the mid-20th century. This, of course, is not to argue that the approach and strategy undertaken by big tobacco are necessarily typical of conventional industry–science relationships. But the steps the industry took as it fashioned a new relationship with the scientific enterprise have become a powerful and influential model for the exertion of commercial interests within science and medicine since that time…

    Well, “rwad it yourself”, no point in me pastingthe whole thing.

    Hagdos,

    There are unnecessarily large amounts of nicotine in cigarettes, making them very addictive.

    Forced is a strong word, but many smokers aren’t smoking out of free will either

    Cryophilia,

    Sure, and I’d support smoking cessation resources at public expense. Not banning though

    Hagdos,

    I think I would. But at least I’d like to ban the practice of adding unnecessary amounts of nicotine.

    Why allow companies to make their cigarettes unnecessarily addictive, and then use public funds for smoking cessation resources. That’s the world upside down.

    Cryophilia,

    That’s the function of government.

    Hagdos,

    That is certainly an opinion!

    Cryophilia,

    It’s written into most democratic countries’ constitutions.

    tillimarleen,

    what exactly do you mean?

    Cryophilia,

    “Ensure liberty” and “provide for the common good” or similar language.

    It’s entirely within character for a good government to promote freedom of choice on the one hand (including freedom to make bad decisions) and provide resources to help people (not force people) to make healthier decisions on the other hand.

    tillimarleen,

    Kinda

    I wouldn’t conflate democratic with good government because it gives us certain freedoms. The liberty in contemporary democratic societies is of a certain kind. Foremost it is the liberty of trade, property and production. Other liberties follow through that. The consumer side freedom of choice follows just as the freedom to theoretically take any job. The state may allow you that, but you may still be excluded by the choices of those whose liberty is guaranteed as well. I mean a government that treats everyone the same, isn’t necessarily good, if its citizens have different means to begin with.

    Cryophilia,

    Sure but none of that changes my point. It’s not really within scope for a good democracy to force its citizens to make healthy choices.

    tillimarleen,

    Yeah, that’s true. I just made the point because you said good government, and that, I think, is debatable.

    Cryophilia,

    Fair enough.

    Hagdos,

    Ensure liberty is a very broad statement, and usually not an absolute one.

    In most countries you aren’t free to sell, buy or consume meth, for example, because it clashes with the common good. You could make the same arguments for an abundance of nicotine in cigarettes, or even cigarettes as a whole. You could even make that argument against alcohol, speeding, wearing helmets, having guns, or eating fast food.

    There’s a line somewhere, and where that line is exactly is not “written in the constitution” for most countries. It’s one that can be, and is argued all the time.

    Cryophilia,

    It’s pretty well understood that meth heroin, etc cause harm to others because addicts tend to lose their jobs and turn to crime to support their addiction. It’s not about their personal health, it’s about the harm done to others.

    For most democracies, the line is (and imo should be) “your right to swing your first stops where my face begins”. Individuals have the right to make their own choices, good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, until those choices begin to harm others.

    Jaysyn,
    Jaysyn avatar

    Morons.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • worldnews@lemmy.world
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •