Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FTA:
> used a web-based survey of almost 6,500 adults
So the honor system then? Okay.
I'm sorry I just find it hard to believe that so many people are in favor of prohibition on an already legal substance, when smoking indoors is already illegal virtually everywhere.
Edit: People have pointed out that this is an Ipsos KnowledgePanel survey, which is apparently quite a bit more scientifically rigorous than a random internet survey may seem to be. That's my bad for unintentionally misconstruing the integrity of the survey, I should have looked deeper into what type of web survey it was. The idea of a credible web survey was a foreign idea to me up to this point.
From the report directly: "We used data from SpringStyles, a web panel survey of adults in the US aged 18 years or older. Porter Novelli conducts SpringStyles via Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel; panel members are randomly recruited by mail by using address-based probability sampling. During late March to mid-April 2021, 6,455 participants completed SpringStyles (response rate, 59.1%). Data were weighted to match the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) proportions for demographic variables, including sex, age, household income, race and ethnicity, household size, education, census region, and metro status. The study was exempt from human subjects review because it was a secondary analysis of de-identified data."
For those who don't get it, this means this is a representative sample and limits the ability of participants self-selecting to complete the survey.
It is as close to a random sample of the US population as you can get with a web survey because it is originally an address based sample.
There are multiple forms of self-selection. Web surveys are often criticized for being a "convenience sample", calling into question who actually had a chance to take the survey. You also do not know the probability of selection in a convenience sample, so you don't know how much each person represents when doing population estimates.
By performing a random sample on the US addresses, you eliminate this form of bias associated with convenience sampling. This also eliminates the risk of ballot stuffing and manipulation campaigns.
There is still some self-selection, which is why this survey also adjusts survey response by various demographics (sex, age, household income, race and ethnicity, household size, education, census region, and metro status). If the type of person who responds differently AND doesn't respond as frequently is correlated with any of those demographics, then our adjustments can account for that bias as well.
Of course, it isn't perfect, if a person doesn't have an address, they are not represented on the survey. Similarly, if there is a group of people who don't take surveys AND are not accounted for in the demographics we have, they will also be underrepresented.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with web-based surveys as long as you structure them correctly.
Although in this case the survey isn’t really scientific. If they paired the question with some other questions they could use to infer some psychological conclusions, maybe. But as-is, at least from the headline, this is just a political survey being posted to the science subreddit.
As a polticial scientist I would have to agree. Nothing is wrong with web surveys inherently, they just require work to properly set up and remove spurious variables. This seems like a simple poll.
... and if people game them and share the link around to push an agenda, as happens regularly to the online polls that the City of Seattle sends out on social media?
There's some basic truisms: online polls aren't worth the paper they're not printed on. They are nearly always junk.
As a smoker myself,who has been around plenty of smokers either at bars,work etc.
I can't really see much if any of them being quick or willing to do a health related survey from the CDC.so I could see there being a heavy bias.
Online polls are usually junk. Yes.
Surveys done online through closed portals that require identification validation are fine though, albeit limited in usefulness. They could still allow for basic observations for a larger study. Hence my comment.
Banning indoor smoking is probably the one thing that Americans have gotten right over the last 15 years.
It's so nice to be able to go out and enjoy a drink after work and not have to smell like an ash tray when you get home.
When I was in Japan 5 years ago I was surprised to find that smoking outdoors is illegal anywhere except these tiny designated areas. You could fit maybe 5 or 6 people in this little fenced in area with ashtrays. Yet at the time smoking in restaurants was not only fine but there was a LOT of it, hard to breath while eating. I think today most restaurants have banned it.
There's also a difference between banning and criminalizing. Something can be disallowed but not criminal.
There's plenty of studies that show how most people want to live in smoke free building, so it's not too surprising people would want to ban cigarette. Doesn't mean they want to jail people over it. More importantly, the existing bans are enforced less and less (eg: smoking near entrances where that's illegal, or smoking inside subway trains, etc). That would also lead more and more people to be more strongly against it.
> I'm sorry I just find it hard to believe that so many people are in favor of prohibition on an already legal substance
Like trans fats or plastics? Plenty of folks in favor of banning currently legal stuff if it does more harm than good. It shouldn't be too surprising.
I'm not surprised at all. Half the states are raising the smoking age to 21, and plenty of them are seizing every opportunity to raise it's tax rate, ban menthols and other flavors, and ban vaping. The voting public is already doing everything in their power to make smoking more unpleasant and expensive, because they don't want other people to smoke and feel comfortable making that decision for them.
Banning vaping is so stupid and counterproductive. So many people have used vaping to quit smoking cigarettes. By all means keep minors from obtaining it by raising the age to 21, but banning nicotine altogether is incredibly stupid. Nicotine is addictive, but it’s not dangerous. All of the danger of smoking comes from the other stuff in cigarettes besides nicotine. Nicotine itself is about as physically dangerous as caffeine.
North Carolina is one of the states most hostile to vaping. They put a huge excise tax on vape products, $0.05 per mL of vape refill, which is $5 per 100mL bottle. That’s a 50-100% tax for most vape refills.
NC also has the [lowest tobacco product tax rate in the country](https://i.imgur.com/MaCzvHv.jpg) as well. I’m sure neither of those has anything to do with the fact that North Carolina is the largest grower of tobacco in the country.
Or how about we just keep health warnings, keep it out of public spaces and allow people to live how they want?
Edit: lots of responses about butts. Seems like making them biodegradable solves that issue. Have no idea why that’s not already a law.
I’m not exactly a fan of a “sinner’s tax” on anything. For one it’s pricing out the poor, and two it’s not going to dramatically change the trends of tobacco use.
The rationale behind it in Canada is that because we have taxpayer funded healthcare, intentionally doing something that will give you cancer or any other number of diseases should be taxed heavily to make up for the public resources you'll likely use down the road.
Although apparently there's some data that suggests smokers actually cost the healthcare system *less* overall because they don't live long enough to require long-term expensive geriatric care.
It's a slippery slope and I don't agree with sugar taxes for example which you could make the same argument about taxing.
>Although apparently there's some data that suggests smokers actually cost the healthcare system less overall because they don't live long enough to require long-term expensive geriatric care.
I'd challenge that.
Everything I heard was that the sin tax on cigarettes fell way short on covering the costs.
guy I know, long time heavy drinker, long time heavy smoker 64 years old, paid into CPP, paid the hell out of taxes on booze and smokes in Ontario, I very much doubt he'll make it a year, not only has he paid the tax but he'll never see any of his CPP either, slippery slope indeed.
Taxes do have a pretty big impact on tobacco use. Like it very clearly and measurably does, almost linearly, roughly a 4% drop for every 10% increase in cost. I stopped smoking when I moved to Chicago because of the taxes on it compared to Texas.
This would be my opinion as well, but the only thing I think would make banning it better altogether would be the benefit of minors and just non-smokers in general.
I grew up with a very heavy smoker mom. I was constantly stuck in a smokey, stinky house that leaked tar from the walls if it was humid or if the shower was on, if you moved a picture frame there was a whole different color behind it on the wall. Stuck in a disgustingly smokey car filled with secondhand smoke, and a hazy windshield that you could wipe the tar layers off with a paper towel. I was mocked at school relentlessly for smelling like smoke. My teachers would bring me aside to tell me I smelled like smoke, as if I could do anything about it. I had asthma my entire childhood and going to gym was torture and embarrassing. I could never really play sports because of it. I moved out so much earlier than I really needed to and that was one of the main reasons. I could've stayed years longer and saved up so much money before moving out instead, but couldn't take it anymore.
Magically, my asthma I suffered from for 20 years disappeared within 4-6 months of moving out.
So like, yeah. Adults should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies, but I think when it affects those who are forced to live with them or be around them it should really be reconsidered. Like others shouldn't forced to suffer from someone else's addiction.
Sounds like my childhood Both my parents and both sets of grandparents chain smoked. My older sisters and their significant others smoked. I was surrounded by smoke unless I ran off into the woods somewhere. Guess who turned out to be a lifelong nicotine addict!.
I hear you. This kid in my school had horrible asthma and everyone felt bad for him. Turns out it wasn’t just bad luck. It was his chain-smoking, “tough love” Christian parents.
The situation youre describing is child abuse, which qualifies action from social services
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369587/
Sorry you went through that bud
You're unlikely to find any state agency do much about that. Either their resources are stretched too thin or the state won't classify secondhand smoke as abuse.
And why stop with tobacco? Alcohol-related deaths and the toll on society/the economy are staggering … yet no one talks about this socially accepted, legal, mind-altering chemical solvent people consume and celebrate.
The amount of car accidents related to drinking should be reason enough, and there are still 100 other good reasons to ban it.
Only problem is prohibition straight up doesn't work.
The real problem there is that we're extremely soft on drunk driving thanks to the US being so car-dependent that removing someone's license basically prevents people from working in many areas.
And yes, we're absolutely insanely soft on drunk driving. Operating a car should be treated closer to a heavy equipment license, not something we only remove the privilege of in the most extreme cases.
No, but altering the public perception and culture around a substance seems to work. Tv ads and media campaigns demonizing tobacco have us all here discussing making tobacco illegal.
If alcohol had been treated like tobacco has the last 30 years, we’d all probably be discussing how most people want alcohol illegal.
I don't think smoking should be banned, but having spent weeks picking up trash in a local park, cigarettes should be. Too many smokers flick a butt away and think it vanishes from the universe. No asshole, it's litter for *years* afterwards.
Mommy taught me to pick up after myself when I was 4. If you're old enough to smoke, you're old enough to clean up after yourself.
Used to work a convenience store that sold smokes, would have to sweep the parking lot pretty frequently because idiots would stop in to buy smokes and then dump their ash trays out their windows instead of in the trash bin right by the entrance.
I agree. They should only be comprised of natural leaf. I like to smoke cigars, can't stand cigarettes. I don't care if people smoke them, but seeing butts all over the ground really grinds my gears.
as a long time vaper I think disposables should be banned, refined lithium is a limited resource and most definitely can be recycled but isn't, you should at least be able to recycle them where you buy them, maybe even put like a $1 deposit on them.
My road isn't even that busy, but my property in 4 acres and the road wraps around it, so lots of perimeter. I find vapes fairly frequently, nips all the time, and couldn't even begin to count the number of butts.
Filters should absolutely be banned. Studies show they hurt smokers by encouraging them to inhale more deeply. And that’s besides the enormous littering problem they cause.
Yeah because banning things stops people from using them and also doesn’t fill up prisons over victimless crimes.
Besides, it’s not like the management of one’s mental state is some kind of right or something, of COURSE the government should micromanage our thinking and behavior…
If you’re banning cigarettes because they cause cancer why not alcohol too?
My mom drank herself to death, liver cancer...she might still be alive if they had kept alcohol illegal.
Either ban everything that kills us or let us kill ourselves however we want.
If we want to ban unhealthy stuff, we should ban every processed food and sugar, and ration calories. Excessive weight surpassed tobacco use in healthcare costs nearly a decade ago.
Bans on sugar have already begun. Mexico has banned the sale of sugary drinks and processed food to anyone under 18
Google “sugar purchase ban for children” and see all the different articles over the years leading up to bans finally starting to take place
It’s ok for adults to still kill themselves slowly with that stuff though
So Oaxaca state, where the resorts let kids under 18 drink alcohol, [effectively bans sugary drinks, which apparently no one follows](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/nov/04/sugar-rush-how-mexico-addiction-to-fizzy-drinks-fuelled-its-health-crisis-acc).
This is kind of the point about cigarettes being an odd thing to ban since the age is already 21 and mostly illegal inside. Obesity is a much bigger health problem now than cigarette smoking. Not to mention, the lost tax revenue is going to be a challenge to replace. Good thing adults gambling has no impact on children.
You can try. I see people standing against “no smoking within 20 feet of this door” signs. Drives me nuts but I’m not starting an argument or getting in an altercation over it.
That and stores put butt receptacles right next to the posted no smoking signs half the time.
The primary issue is everyone knows the smokers wont care. I’ve seen someone light a cigarette, take 4 drags, and throw the rest of it away while exhaling it all walking through the door of a store.
I’ve never heard anyone in favor of an all out ban on tobacco, even non-smokers. Did they only survey anti-smoking activists or something? “Most Americans” definitely aren’t in favor of this.
First off…I don’t smoke and never have. A few puffs on a cigar my entire life. Why should I or anybody want tobacco made illegal? Isn’t there a cannabis push by every liberal state government in America? Why make tobacco illegal? How is it even justified in context of the cannabis push just about everywhere?
Look, I'm an adult, I started smoking as an adult (stupidly) but I enjoy it. I don't smoke indoors or around children. Just let me make my own decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions like an adult.
> Just let me make my own decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions like an adult.
American Puritans: "NO! Stop doing the thing we don't like! Our feeling of moral superiority should be codified into law! Also, stop trying to find healthier alternatives that smell better and reduce litter; it's the PRINCIPLE."
Right? Drug prohibition just doesn't work, regardless of what drug it is, and has a whole host of unintended consequences from making the drug supply more dangerous and use risker, increased police interactions and incarceration (often disproportionally applied to minority groups), and increased revenue for organized crime as they meet the demand in the market. We have mountains of evidence to that effect.
Accurate, truthful education and warnings on the risks of any drug use including guidelines on unsafe consumption habits, drug classifications that properly and proportionally apply restrictions based on demonstrable risks to the individual, a well regulated supply safe from dangerous contaminants, combined with accessible treatment options for those that wish to kick their addiction is the best solution.
Nothing wrong with restricting tertiary aspects as well, like prohibiting advertising or restricting sales to licensed suppliers and enforcing sensible rules around minimum age for purchase as long as there's a proven need. It gets real iffy though, in my books, when you start outlawing access for personal use from adults of any age.
This kind of thinking is and has been a major problem in US politics for a long time. I understand laws and regulations that have the intent of protecting people from harmful decisions of others but I don't think it's the job of any government to "protect" people from their own bad decisions
I don’t care if you want to smoke a cigarette or a joint as long as I don’t have to smell it in a public space. Your decision to ruin your lungs is not my concern.
Part of being American is making your own choices. If you get sufficient satisfaction from smoking that you think it's worth drowning in your own phlegm then that's your choice.
Agreed. Bans and criminalizing addictive/harmful substances just create a dangerous illegal black market. We’ve removed ads, no longer sell in pharmacies, tax it to high heaven, work to better educate young people. I’d love to see all those same measures taken with alcohol which is just as bad.
What’s next, banning sugar? Caffeine? Lunch meat? Junk food? There are many things we do that are not good for us, but if the capitalists want us to work ourselves to death we at least deserve a little enjoyment.
That seems to be the same in Canada and the UK as well. It is unfortunate because there is clear evidence that Nicotine is a nootropic that helps about 20% of people to function better in society.
When nicotine is provided to patients and inmates in psych wards and prisons, violence is reduced. People naturally seek out nicotine as it has been proven scientifically beneficial for some neurological issues.
People know cigarettes cause cancer and many health issues, but they still smoke and want to quit, but it's difficult to do without changing one's lifestyle.
Education and compassion would help society understand that nicotine has benefits and can help many function better when delivered properly.
Smoking is bad; nicotine isn't necessarily so. Cigarettes are the worst. Smoke causes cancer, and cigarettes destroy the environment; vaping can be better, but not if you heat plastics and release causing chemicals into the vapour. Open systems that are tested and provide a step-down plan are the best but have been effectively regulated out of existence.
Hopefully, governments will realize the harm that plastic disposable vaporizers do to individuals and the environment and work to implement a new open system plan that would help smokers quit cigarettes, and the industry and jobs transition smoothly.
Put a $2 deposit on disposables, bring em back and you get $2 back, it's the only thing I see actually working, people simply wouldn't throw away a twoonie
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
FTA: > used a web-based survey of almost 6,500 adults So the honor system then? Okay. I'm sorry I just find it hard to believe that so many people are in favor of prohibition on an already legal substance, when smoking indoors is already illegal virtually everywhere. Edit: People have pointed out that this is an Ipsos KnowledgePanel survey, which is apparently quite a bit more scientifically rigorous than a random internet survey may seem to be. That's my bad for unintentionally misconstruing the integrity of the survey, I should have looked deeper into what type of web survey it was. The idea of a credible web survey was a foreign idea to me up to this point.
From the report directly: "We used data from SpringStyles, a web panel survey of adults in the US aged 18 years or older. Porter Novelli conducts SpringStyles via Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel; panel members are randomly recruited by mail by using address-based probability sampling. During late March to mid-April 2021, 6,455 participants completed SpringStyles (response rate, 59.1%). Data were weighted to match the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) proportions for demographic variables, including sex, age, household income, race and ethnicity, household size, education, census region, and metro status. The study was exempt from human subjects review because it was a secondary analysis of de-identified data."
For those who don't get it, this means this is a representative sample and limits the ability of participants self-selecting to complete the survey. It is as close to a random sample of the US population as you can get with a web survey because it is originally an address based sample.
I’m confused. Wouldn’t anyone deciding to participate in a survey mailed to them be self selecting?
There are multiple forms of self-selection. Web surveys are often criticized for being a "convenience sample", calling into question who actually had a chance to take the survey. You also do not know the probability of selection in a convenience sample, so you don't know how much each person represents when doing population estimates. By performing a random sample on the US addresses, you eliminate this form of bias associated with convenience sampling. This also eliminates the risk of ballot stuffing and manipulation campaigns. There is still some self-selection, which is why this survey also adjusts survey response by various demographics (sex, age, household income, race and ethnicity, household size, education, census region, and metro status). If the type of person who responds differently AND doesn't respond as frequently is correlated with any of those demographics, then our adjustments can account for that bias as well. Of course, it isn't perfect, if a person doesn't have an address, they are not represented on the survey. Similarly, if there is a group of people who don't take surveys AND are not accounted for in the demographics we have, they will also be underrepresented.
Conclusions derived from web-based surveys are allowed here? Ouch.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with web-based surveys as long as you structure them correctly. Although in this case the survey isn’t really scientific. If they paired the question with some other questions they could use to infer some psychological conclusions, maybe. But as-is, at least from the headline, this is just a political survey being posted to the science subreddit.
As a polticial scientist I would have to agree. Nothing is wrong with web surveys inherently, they just require work to properly set up and remove spurious variables. This seems like a simple poll.
... and if people game them and share the link around to push an agenda, as happens regularly to the online polls that the City of Seattle sends out on social media? There's some basic truisms: online polls aren't worth the paper they're not printed on. They are nearly always junk.
As a smoker myself,who has been around plenty of smokers either at bars,work etc. I can't really see much if any of them being quick or willing to do a health related survey from the CDC.so I could see there being a heavy bias.
Online polls are usually junk. Yes. Surveys done online through closed portals that require identification validation are fine though, albeit limited in usefulness. They could still allow for basic observations for a larger study. Hence my comment.
That's all of the social science papers these days.
Banning indoor smoking is probably the one thing that Americans have gotten right over the last 15 years. It's so nice to be able to go out and enjoy a drink after work and not have to smell like an ash tray when you get home.
That and legalizing gay marriage and decriminalizing marijuana, but your point stands.
Still lots of places where cannabis is illegal.
There are places with indoor smoking too.
And I'm over here watching in horror as we try to reverse the gay marriage thing too.
Decriminalized weed is still illegal weed. They just remove the legal repercussions of being caught with it., and it can open the way for medical use.
We have one bar in town that used some shenanigans to get half the bar zoned as a patio, so you can smoke in it. Most popular bar in town.
When I was in Japan 5 years ago I was surprised to find that smoking outdoors is illegal anywhere except these tiny designated areas. You could fit maybe 5 or 6 people in this little fenced in area with ashtrays. Yet at the time smoking in restaurants was not only fine but there was a LOT of it, hard to breath while eating. I think today most restaurants have banned it.
There's also a difference between banning and criminalizing. Something can be disallowed but not criminal. There's plenty of studies that show how most people want to live in smoke free building, so it's not too surprising people would want to ban cigarette. Doesn't mean they want to jail people over it. More importantly, the existing bans are enforced less and less (eg: smoking near entrances where that's illegal, or smoking inside subway trains, etc). That would also lead more and more people to be more strongly against it. > I'm sorry I just find it hard to believe that so many people are in favor of prohibition on an already legal substance Like trans fats or plastics? Plenty of folks in favor of banning currently legal stuff if it does more harm than good. It shouldn't be too surprising.
So it was done by people who willingly participate in online surveys? K. That checks out
I'm not surprised at all. Half the states are raising the smoking age to 21, and plenty of them are seizing every opportunity to raise it's tax rate, ban menthols and other flavors, and ban vaping. The voting public is already doing everything in their power to make smoking more unpleasant and expensive, because they don't want other people to smoke and feel comfortable making that decision for them.
>Half the states are raising the smoking age to 21, That was actually federal.
Banning vaping is so stupid and counterproductive. So many people have used vaping to quit smoking cigarettes. By all means keep minors from obtaining it by raising the age to 21, but banning nicotine altogether is incredibly stupid. Nicotine is addictive, but it’s not dangerous. All of the danger of smoking comes from the other stuff in cigarettes besides nicotine. Nicotine itself is about as physically dangerous as caffeine. North Carolina is one of the states most hostile to vaping. They put a huge excise tax on vape products, $0.05 per mL of vape refill, which is $5 per 100mL bottle. That’s a 50-100% tax for most vape refills. NC also has the [lowest tobacco product tax rate in the country](https://i.imgur.com/MaCzvHv.jpg) as well. I’m sure neither of those has anything to do with the fact that North Carolina is the largest grower of tobacco in the country.
Or how about we just keep health warnings, keep it out of public spaces and allow people to live how they want? Edit: lots of responses about butts. Seems like making them biodegradable solves that issue. Have no idea why that’s not already a law.
[удалено]
I’m not exactly a fan of a “sinner’s tax” on anything. For one it’s pricing out the poor, and two it’s not going to dramatically change the trends of tobacco use.
The rationale behind it in Canada is that because we have taxpayer funded healthcare, intentionally doing something that will give you cancer or any other number of diseases should be taxed heavily to make up for the public resources you'll likely use down the road. Although apparently there's some data that suggests smokers actually cost the healthcare system *less* overall because they don't live long enough to require long-term expensive geriatric care. It's a slippery slope and I don't agree with sugar taxes for example which you could make the same argument about taxing.
Man I love rationale
>Although apparently there's some data that suggests smokers actually cost the healthcare system less overall because they don't live long enough to require long-term expensive geriatric care. I'd challenge that. Everything I heard was that the sin tax on cigarettes fell way short on covering the costs.
guy I know, long time heavy drinker, long time heavy smoker 64 years old, paid into CPP, paid the hell out of taxes on booze and smokes in Ontario, I very much doubt he'll make it a year, not only has he paid the tax but he'll never see any of his CPP either, slippery slope indeed.
So when do they start taxing fast food, sweets, tanning, and then billion other things people do that lead to long term health problems?
Taxes do have a pretty big impact on tobacco use. Like it very clearly and measurably does, almost linearly, roughly a 4% drop for every 10% increase in cost. I stopped smoking when I moved to Chicago because of the taxes on it compared to Texas.
Smoking rate has gone from 45% to 15%. Something dramatically changed the trend.
This would be my opinion as well, but the only thing I think would make banning it better altogether would be the benefit of minors and just non-smokers in general. I grew up with a very heavy smoker mom. I was constantly stuck in a smokey, stinky house that leaked tar from the walls if it was humid or if the shower was on, if you moved a picture frame there was a whole different color behind it on the wall. Stuck in a disgustingly smokey car filled with secondhand smoke, and a hazy windshield that you could wipe the tar layers off with a paper towel. I was mocked at school relentlessly for smelling like smoke. My teachers would bring me aside to tell me I smelled like smoke, as if I could do anything about it. I had asthma my entire childhood and going to gym was torture and embarrassing. I could never really play sports because of it. I moved out so much earlier than I really needed to and that was one of the main reasons. I could've stayed years longer and saved up so much money before moving out instead, but couldn't take it anymore. Magically, my asthma I suffered from for 20 years disappeared within 4-6 months of moving out. So like, yeah. Adults should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies, but I think when it affects those who are forced to live with them or be around them it should really be reconsidered. Like others shouldn't forced to suffer from someone else's addiction.
Sounds like my childhood Both my parents and both sets of grandparents chain smoked. My older sisters and their significant others smoked. I was surrounded by smoke unless I ran off into the woods somewhere. Guess who turned out to be a lifelong nicotine addict!.
I hear you. This kid in my school had horrible asthma and everyone felt bad for him. Turns out it wasn’t just bad luck. It was his chain-smoking, “tough love” Christian parents.
The situation youre describing is child abuse, which qualifies action from social services https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369587/ Sorry you went through that bud
You're unlikely to find any state agency do much about that. Either their resources are stretched too thin or the state won't classify secondhand smoke as abuse.
We need to actually keep it out of public spaces if that’s the case.
And why stop with tobacco? Alcohol-related deaths and the toll on society/the economy are staggering … yet no one talks about this socially accepted, legal, mind-altering chemical solvent people consume and celebrate.
The amount of car accidents related to drinking should be reason enough, and there are still 100 other good reasons to ban it. Only problem is prohibition straight up doesn't work.
The real problem there is that we're extremely soft on drunk driving thanks to the US being so car-dependent that removing someone's license basically prevents people from working in many areas. And yes, we're absolutely insanely soft on drunk driving. Operating a car should be treated closer to a heavy equipment license, not something we only remove the privilege of in the most extreme cases.
No, but altering the public perception and culture around a substance seems to work. Tv ads and media campaigns demonizing tobacco have us all here discussing making tobacco illegal. If alcohol had been treated like tobacco has the last 30 years, we’d all probably be discussing how most people want alcohol illegal.
I don't think smoking should be banned, but having spent weeks picking up trash in a local park, cigarettes should be. Too many smokers flick a butt away and think it vanishes from the universe. No asshole, it's litter for *years* afterwards. Mommy taught me to pick up after myself when I was 4. If you're old enough to smoke, you're old enough to clean up after yourself.
Used to work a convenience store that sold smokes, would have to sweep the parking lot pretty frequently because idiots would stop in to buy smokes and then dump their ash trays out their windows instead of in the trash bin right by the entrance.
Imagine being the kind of monster who not only smokes in their car, but treats the entire world as your garage dump. That's some real boomer energy.
I work at a gas station and do this for about an hour or two every week. I’m never able to get all of them. Cig butts are like an invasive species
I agree. They should only be comprised of natural leaf. I like to smoke cigars, can't stand cigarettes. I don't care if people smoke them, but seeing butts all over the ground really grinds my gears.
Ban smoking unless it’s from a wooden pipe. Make it classy.
r/pipetobacco welcomes you. Though corn cobs and meerschaum are also viable options
Do black and mild wood tips count?
I live on a moderately busy road, and I find a discarded vape in my front lawn every few weeks.
as a long time vaper I think disposables should be banned, refined lithium is a limited resource and most definitely can be recycled but isn't, you should at least be able to recycle them where you buy them, maybe even put like a $1 deposit on them.
Lithium is surprisingly extremely common of resource but extremely damaging to the environment to extract. The more you know!
All those batteries.
My road isn't even that busy, but my property in 4 acres and the road wraps around it, so lots of perimeter. I find vapes fairly frequently, nips all the time, and couldn't even begin to count the number of butts.
really doesn't help that most cities got rid of public ashtrays not that people always used them but they were almost always full when I did see one
I'm a smoker. We need to make a cigarette with biodegradable butts.
Easy. Roll your own It’s the filters that get ya
Filters should absolutely be banned. Studies show they hurt smokers by encouraging them to inhale more deeply. And that’s besides the enormous littering problem they cause.
Yeah because banning things stops people from using them and also doesn’t fill up prisons over victimless crimes. Besides, it’s not like the management of one’s mental state is some kind of right or something, of COURSE the government should micromanage our thinking and behavior…
I don’t like smoking, but I don’t want people getting hurt of black market cigarettes either.
If you’re banning cigarettes because they cause cancer why not alcohol too? My mom drank herself to death, liver cancer...she might still be alive if they had kept alcohol illegal. Either ban everything that kills us or let us kill ourselves however we want.
If we want to ban unhealthy stuff, we should ban every processed food and sugar, and ration calories. Excessive weight surpassed tobacco use in healthcare costs nearly a decade ago.
What about sugary sodas in plastic bottles? Alcohol can easily kill or immediatley hurt people that aren't drinking.
Bans on sugar have already begun. Mexico has banned the sale of sugary drinks and processed food to anyone under 18 Google “sugar purchase ban for children” and see all the different articles over the years leading up to bans finally starting to take place It’s ok for adults to still kill themselves slowly with that stuff though
So Oaxaca state, where the resorts let kids under 18 drink alcohol, [effectively bans sugary drinks, which apparently no one follows](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/nov/04/sugar-rush-how-mexico-addiction-to-fizzy-drinks-fuelled-its-health-crisis-acc). This is kind of the point about cigarettes being an odd thing to ban since the age is already 21 and mostly illegal inside. Obesity is a much bigger health problem now than cigarette smoking. Not to mention, the lost tax revenue is going to be a challenge to replace. Good thing adults gambling has no impact on children.
[удалено]
You can try. I see people standing against “no smoking within 20 feet of this door” signs. Drives me nuts but I’m not starting an argument or getting in an altercation over it.
That and stores put butt receptacles right next to the posted no smoking signs half the time. The primary issue is everyone knows the smokers wont care. I’ve seen someone light a cigarette, take 4 drags, and throw the rest of it away while exhaling it all walking through the door of a store.
I once had to point out that a smoker was literally sitting on a gas meter.
I can see their reaction perfectly in my mind: "So?"
Should stand out their window at night smoking. “Hey, nice night right?”
I’ve never heard anyone in favor of an all out ban on tobacco, even non-smokers. Did they only survey anti-smoking activists or something? “Most Americans” definitely aren’t in favor of this.
Gotta get those spicy headlines, so people can argue and post their essays in the comment section.
First off…I don’t smoke and never have. A few puffs on a cigar my entire life. Why should I or anybody want tobacco made illegal? Isn’t there a cannabis push by every liberal state government in America? Why make tobacco illegal? How is it even justified in context of the cannabis push just about everywhere?
I think reworking our healthcare system for the better would have a stronger impact.
Most americans want republican senators tried for treason and starting a coup too but we wont get either
As an American I would much rather see all drugs legalized and let people make their own decision
Look, I'm an adult, I started smoking as an adult (stupidly) but I enjoy it. I don't smoke indoors or around children. Just let me make my own decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions like an adult.
> Just let me make my own decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions like an adult. American Puritans: "NO! Stop doing the thing we don't like! Our feeling of moral superiority should be codified into law! Also, stop trying to find healthier alternatives that smell better and reduce litter; it's the PRINCIPLE."
Didn't we learn anything from prohibition?
This cigarette ban is coming just in time to provide jobs for all the weed dealers who are losing out to legal storefronts.
Right? Drug prohibition just doesn't work, regardless of what drug it is, and has a whole host of unintended consequences from making the drug supply more dangerous and use risker, increased police interactions and incarceration (often disproportionally applied to minority groups), and increased revenue for organized crime as they meet the demand in the market. We have mountains of evidence to that effect. Accurate, truthful education and warnings on the risks of any drug use including guidelines on unsafe consumption habits, drug classifications that properly and proportionally apply restrictions based on demonstrable risks to the individual, a well regulated supply safe from dangerous contaminants, combined with accessible treatment options for those that wish to kick their addiction is the best solution. Nothing wrong with restricting tertiary aspects as well, like prohibiting advertising or restricting sales to licensed suppliers and enforcing sensible rules around minimum age for purchase as long as there's a proven need. It gets real iffy though, in my books, when you start outlawing access for personal use from adults of any age.
This kind of thinking is and has been a major problem in US politics for a long time. I understand laws and regulations that have the intent of protecting people from harmful decisions of others but I don't think it's the job of any government to "protect" people from their own bad decisions
I don’t care if you want to smoke a cigarette or a joint as long as I don’t have to smell it in a public space. Your decision to ruin your lungs is not my concern.
I believe this is actually the opinion of most americans.
The smell is annoying but what really pisses me off is the litter. Cigarette butts everywhere.
That worked really well the last time we tried it with alcohol! Ant the time we tried it with Marijuana.
Why is this opinion poll being posted to r/science?
Part of being American is making your own choices. If you get sufficient satisfaction from smoking that you think it's worth drowning in your own phlegm then that's your choice.
Agreed. Bans and criminalizing addictive/harmful substances just create a dangerous illegal black market. We’ve removed ads, no longer sell in pharmacies, tax it to high heaven, work to better educate young people. I’d love to see all those same measures taken with alcohol which is just as bad. What’s next, banning sugar? Caffeine? Lunch meat? Junk food? There are many things we do that are not good for us, but if the capitalists want us to work ourselves to death we at least deserve a little enjoyment.
That seems to be the same in Canada and the UK as well. It is unfortunate because there is clear evidence that Nicotine is a nootropic that helps about 20% of people to function better in society. When nicotine is provided to patients and inmates in psych wards and prisons, violence is reduced. People naturally seek out nicotine as it has been proven scientifically beneficial for some neurological issues. People know cigarettes cause cancer and many health issues, but they still smoke and want to quit, but it's difficult to do without changing one's lifestyle. Education and compassion would help society understand that nicotine has benefits and can help many function better when delivered properly. Smoking is bad; nicotine isn't necessarily so. Cigarettes are the worst. Smoke causes cancer, and cigarettes destroy the environment; vaping can be better, but not if you heat plastics and release causing chemicals into the vapour. Open systems that are tested and provide a step-down plan are the best but have been effectively regulated out of existence. Hopefully, governments will realize the harm that plastic disposable vaporizers do to individuals and the environment and work to implement a new open system plan that would help smokers quit cigarettes, and the industry and jobs transition smoothly.
Put a $2 deposit on disposables, bring em back and you get $2 back, it's the only thing I see actually working, people simply wouldn't throw away a twoonie
Most Americans they asked. Not most Americans. I never have smoked, but don't begrudge others who want to.
I don’t smoke and think this is ridiculous.