• Ashy
    link
    fedilink
    -89 months ago

    Just make sure you apply this consistently and you also ban all other non essential recreational activities that have an higher than average risk of injury.

    Just think of all the money the healthcare system could save if you simply banned fun.

    • @indomara
      link
      59 months ago

      I am not necessarily for a ban, but pointing out that it’s not a decision that doesn’t affect others.

      I personally believe in harm reduction. Alcohol? drugs? Smoking? Sex work?

      Focus on reducing harm and the negative impacts become much less.

      • Ashy
        link
        fedilink
        -79 months ago

        The effect on others is no more relevant than those of a myriard of other recreational activity and certainly doesn’t justify a flat ban.

        • @indomara
          link
          49 months ago

          It may not justify a flat ban, and such heavy handed measures often fail, as this one has.

          Perhaps instead we could focus on harm reduction? The amount of tar and nicotine in commercially available cigarettes today is astronomical compared to historically available tobacco.

          “In the 1970s, Brown & Williamson cross-bred a strain of tobacco to produce Y1, a strain containing an unusually high nicotine content, nearly doubling from 3.2 to 3.5%, to 6.5%.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Contemporary

          The average cigarette today has around 10.2mg of nicotine.

          We do not ban people from driving cars, but we have laws that require seat belts.

          We do not ban drinking alcohol but we have responsible service laws, age limits, and don’t allow driving while intoxicated.

          We do not ban extreme sports, but we have mandates for helmets and protective gear.

          Not having these measures in place affects everyone.

          • Ashy
            link
            fedilink
            -39 months ago

            By all means, smoking is disgusting and should be reduces. But that’s really not my point.

            • @indomara
              link
              39 months ago

              Your point was originally that it doesn’t affect others, and we were discussing the ways that it does, and how those negative effects might be reduced.

              I’m actually really glad to see these sorts of exchanges here more and more.

              I love lemmy. <3

        • @voracitude
          link
          1
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          So first it doesn’t affect others, now it does but it doesn’t matter? The effect on others is cancer, friend. Not to mention it stinks. Smoking is “fun”, according to you? Yeah, calling bullshit. At best, you’re a troll. At worst…

          • Ashy
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Those effects are about as much as any other activity you do in private. Neglibably.

            It affect others when you take a walk the woods? Not really. Unless you fall and break a leg and “others” have to come get you in an amblance. Literally every can have some effects on others. But it’s ridiclous to pretend that would be a valid argument for a ban.

            Smoking is “fun”, according to you? Yeah, calling bullshit.

            A lot of people sure seem to enjoy it. Maybe more pleasure then fun

            The effect on others is cancer, friend

            If someone smokes in private it causes less cancer than your comments. Banning smoking in public palces isn’t the issue, the total ban is.

            Not to mention it stinks

            So should we ban your mum, too?

    • @Modva
      link
      -19 months ago

      This level of neurodeath is the perfect use case for why huffing chemicals should be phased out.

      All the other problems you refer to may continue for now