We're such a generous nation ❤️

/s

Wait, that happens just about everywhere else too, I feel like it may just be a systematic problem

diabetic epidemic. ….And almost no country wants to tackle

Almost every country has nutrition regulations and makes some effort to encourage better nutrition. It’s not enough and is too easily hijacked by industry but there is some level of effort

• not diabetic, but consider an example like trans fats being mostly banned from food chains

Carb tax may yet be a thing.

This is a cynical argument for multiple reasons. First it is basically saying if smokers stop smoking their end of life care could cost more in the long run rather than dying early of cancer.

This ignores new treatments that are targeted and much more effective than previously thought possible. Someone who gets this treatment and related services would cost a lot more if they live to an old age. So no actual savings in this increasingly common scenario.

It also ignores quality of life. It may be cheaper for someone to die early from smoking, but their quality of life is significantly reduced. This not only affects their happiness and productivity, but also their families. Dying from lung disease is a horribly way to go.

I fully agree governments should be cracking down on diabetes. Allowing addictive, processed, and engineered food should be banned. It is time for food scientist to do good and stop addicting people with overly fat, sugary, salty foods for corporate profits.

You last line is pretty ridiculous. You don't want to pay for others healthcare because of their choices. Do you want to pay for healthcare because of a companies choice to pollute the environment which leads to a significant amount of cancer.

Do you feel comfortable with subsidizing petroleum when it also causes millions of deaths worldwide from lung and cardiovascular disease.

There are slightly bigger fish to fry than sun exposure, even if it is also important to consider.

wait how does that add up? why and how would smokers contribute more?

your second argument about healthy people living longer and therefore costing more (BC of receiving more pension is the argument I guess?) would apply to any treatment, including obesity, right?

If we go that way, IMO smokers should pay higher health insurance contributions.

When I was playing full contact, injury rich sport, our club paid an additional insurance covering sport injuries for every game day - because general insurance can be stringent in such cases.

So, risky behavior = higher cost of insurance.

For context, I pay about 16% of my income towards health insurance. When I was between jobs, government paid most of it. I'm also a smoker, clearly realizing that this is a morbid self destructive habit.

s/unnecessary/avoidable/

Drinkers kill people every day, drunk driving, drunken murders and violence, etc., all would not happen without alcohol.

They kill many more people than second-hand smoke, DUIs alone.

Prohibition was ridiculously popular until it wasn't. Just like smoking bans will be.

People will choose to smoke just because it's illegal, and it will unironically be a gateway to harder drugs since the same guy selling tobacco will now be the same guy selling crack.

It’s a good analogy, because nicotine is a drug and smokers as addicts will seek it out whether or not it’s illegal.

A non-addictive drug like THC is a good comparison, as the legalization within the US is a big source of tax revenue and the period when it was more illegal made it a staple of cartels, which smuggled it into the states.

When criminals run an enterprise, they inevitably use their resources to undermine government and commit more crime. That’s the true nature of prohibition.

Prohibition of any item, meaning, making the item illegal to make or possess anywhere, is a stronger infringement on personal freedom and often leads to organized crime stepping in to provide the prohibited item, both of which make it unpopular.

Popular smoking bans generally ban smoking in certain public areas. This does not promote organized crime to sell the banned product, and is less of an infringement on personal freedom.

The proposal to “ban cigarettes” sounds like it would fall under the former category .

Completely agree

It’s funny this study doesn’t mention vapes

Wanna know what's even funnier? The study totally does.

It's the whole coronary system not just the heart. It also comes with the same swath of possible symptoms as most stimulants including high blood pressure, stress/anxiety, etc.

That said, IMO the biggest issue is the litter. Used pouches should go into the trash can and away from animals.

I don't think the US has strict regulations on the ingredients... I don't know why, likely lobbyist behavior, but also I think people just accept that if you smoke you don't give a shit and it's unhealthy by default, so it's not a big deal if they add chemicals.

Which becomes more ridiculous with nicotine pouches for this reason. Nicotine isn't cancerous, so it would be super shitty to add carcinogens in the pouches and then claim it's a tobacco product so you should expect it.

it’s the safest delivery method.

hitting your head with a 2 pound hammer is safer than hitting your head with a 10 pound hammer.

Vaping is very possibly much less unhealthy than chewing tobacco, but of course we don't have long term studies yet

well you are putting it in your mouth, so you're effectively swallowing parts of it.

They are just in different places though. All the lithium batteries keep causing fires in bin lorries and recycling/waste processing places

Are they not biodegradable?

Doesn't matter too much for the small woodland creature that comes behind you and tries to eat it, giving himself nicotine poisoning in the process.

Tucker is a baby. Wtf are you talking about with xylitol? And I don't understand how the "link" does not show any statistics, people have used it for hundreds of years very good amounts in my country. They just fuck up their gums