new | show | ask | jobs Github

hahahahhaah 5 hours ago

I think broadly prohibition didn't work but smoking bans do. Where "work" means fewer people smoke and passive smoke.

▲

tayo42 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If that's how you you define work, prohibition worked.

▲

parineum 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Prohibition works to stop some people.

It doesn't stop addicts from craving and it doesn't curb the appeal of the product. People who think tobacco/nicotine bans would work are people who think they don't have any positive effect associated with them.

People don't smoke because the evil cigarette companies tricked them and now they are addicted. It's a drug, it feels good to do it.

A tobacco/nicotine ban will end up exactly like aby other recreational drug prohibition.

▲

normie3000 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> People don't smoke because the evil cigarette companies tricked them and now they are addicted.

Isn't this exactly what happens, and why cigarette advertising is banned in many countries, and why marketing child-friendly tobacco products is commonly restricted, and why there are even regulations/guidelines around portrayal of smoking on TV in some regions?

▲

parineum 2 hours ago | parent [-]

People have been smoking for thousands of years.

▲

prmoustache an hour ago | parent [-]

People have been stealing and killing other people as many years if not longer. That doesn't mean you cannot do a bit of legislation and obtain some positive results against that.

I think not banning the cigarette and non reusable vape is the wrong solution but banning smoking in lots of public spaces has improved the situation, maybe not to curb consumption but at least non smokers can breath a little. I wish it would also applies to outdoors cafe/restaurant terraces too as smokers effectively ban to non smokers by spreading their poison around them. They could walk away for a couple of minutes to get their hit but they don't on purpose. There should be a radius around an outdoor terrace where smoking is effectively prohibited.

▲

laken 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

Outdoor cafes/restaurant terraces that allow smoking effectively are marketing to smokers. Smokers generally stay longer (therefore may order more), and basically are giving themselves dopamine at this venue, therefore creating associations to possibly draw them back in the future. These places could just not provide ashtrays and could just not allow smoking, but they do allow it, because it's good for business.

If you really don't like it, you could just not visit these establishments. To these businesses, the benefit of allowing smoking doesn't outweigh the negatives (some people not liking it). Obviously you don't not like it enough to just not go there. Not a smoker, but i've never understood this puritanical attitude towards smoking and only smoking. Yeah, it's not great to breathe in an enclosed space, but in an outdoor space, I don't see how much worse it is than car exhaust, air quality, etc.

	▲	prmoustache 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> If you really don't like it, you could just not visit these establishments. Well I go inside, because there are no establishment in my area that ban smoking in their terrace. > it's not great to breathe in an enclosed space, but in an outdoor space, It is exactly the same unless there is significant wind is in a direction that push the fumes away. Obviously it depends on how tightly the tables are put as well but it is just super annoying. I have a friend whose eyes turn red immediately when exposed to tobacco product fumes and he suffers way more than I do. Also it ruins the taste of food and drinks. > I don't see how much worse it is than car exhaust, air quality Usually those that are close to traffic and car exhaust are less popular than those that are less directly Unless you live in a complete smog, cigarettes/vapes fumes that goes directly to your face are always more annoying. You would have compared to sweaty and smelly bodies in a dance club you would have got a point.