So don’t get me wrong, I fully support this kind of measure.
But there’s potentially an argument to be made that there is an issue (or more likely multiple issues) that isn’t being addressed properly that is leading people to choose to smoke. It’s well known to be harmful, addictive, and frankly doesn’t have many upsides. What that bigger issue could be is kind of up for debate- is it a failure of the education system or health system not doing enough to educate people about the harm and risks? Is it a mental health issue leading people to choose self destructive behaviors or possibly a conscious or subconscious attempt to self medicate those issue? Is it a societal issue like peer pressure, portrayals in the media, people emulating role models, or just plain old rebellion? Is it due to regulations or enforcement being too lax?
Whatever it is, there may a root cause that isn’t being sufficiently addressed that makes people choose destructive behaviors like smoking, which makes smoking a symptom of that bigger issue. And what other vices are those same factors pushing people towards? Maybe addressing those kinds of underlying issues the right way might do more good than just getting people to stop smoking, maybe we’d kill 2 birds with one stone and also make headway on other substance abuse issues, or gambling addictions, etc.
Now again, I’m totally in support of this kind of regulation. Sometimes you need to treat the symptoms before/while to treat the underlying disease. But we need to be sure we’re looking at it from both angles.
I take the view that smoking is a behavior that is largely impacted by socioeconomic factors. To put it plainly, it’s something you mostly see among the poor.
Not saying that I agree with RS’s policy proposal but what is wrong with targeting smoking cessation especially amongst the poor? If poor people quit smoking, that’s better for their health, the health of those around them/who live with them (secondhand smoke), and their wallets.
I don’t have a problem with the intended result, but I would rather see an approach that is reformative rather than punitive or prohibitive, since those methods tend to create dark markets; in my town quite recently, illegal cigarettes worth more than a small home were seized from a single shop. I come from America, where we have had issues with prohibition-style laws, so I feel that I see where it leads.
I would rather see community funding for smoking cessation resources and support groups, education initiatives in schools, and broader policies aimed at decreasing the underlying wealth inequality that drives the behavior.
Any perspective that isn’t being deliberately obtuse (if you cared you’d have looked it up and seen for yourself all of the evidence that exists, but it’s easier to go the “personal responsibility” route and ignore the societal and economical factors, because acknowledging those makes you too uncomfortable)…
Punishing the symptom, great idea
In a physical health perspective, smoking is the cause, or contributing factor, to a lot of problems. In what perspective is smoking a symptom?
So don’t get me wrong, I fully support this kind of measure.
But there’s potentially an argument to be made that there is an issue (or more likely multiple issues) that isn’t being addressed properly that is leading people to choose to smoke. It’s well known to be harmful, addictive, and frankly doesn’t have many upsides. What that bigger issue could be is kind of up for debate- is it a failure of the education system or health system not doing enough to educate people about the harm and risks? Is it a mental health issue leading people to choose self destructive behaviors or possibly a conscious or subconscious attempt to self medicate those issue? Is it a societal issue like peer pressure, portrayals in the media, people emulating role models, or just plain old rebellion? Is it due to regulations or enforcement being too lax?
Whatever it is, there may a root cause that isn’t being sufficiently addressed that makes people choose destructive behaviors like smoking, which makes smoking a symptom of that bigger issue. And what other vices are those same factors pushing people towards? Maybe addressing those kinds of underlying issues the right way might do more good than just getting people to stop smoking, maybe we’d kill 2 birds with one stone and also make headway on other substance abuse issues, or gambling addictions, etc.
Now again, I’m totally in support of this kind of regulation. Sometimes you need to treat the symptoms before/while to treat the underlying disease. But we need to be sure we’re looking at it from both angles.
I take the view that smoking is a behavior that is largely impacted by socioeconomic factors. To put it plainly, it’s something you mostly see among the poor.
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/30/4/380
Not saying that I agree with RS’s policy proposal but what is wrong with targeting smoking cessation especially amongst the poor? If poor people quit smoking, that’s better for their health, the health of those around them/who live with them (secondhand smoke), and their wallets.
I don’t have a problem with the intended result, but I would rather see an approach that is reformative rather than punitive or prohibitive, since those methods tend to create dark markets; in my town quite recently, illegal cigarettes worth more than a small home were seized from a single shop. I come from America, where we have had issues with prohibition-style laws, so I feel that I see where it leads.
I would rather see community funding for smoking cessation resources and support groups, education initiatives in schools, and broader policies aimed at decreasing the underlying wealth inequality that drives the behavior.
It is, until it isn’t.
And when it isn’t, we should all cheer.
Okay.
I’m just sorta reading what the researchers said. Did I misread it? Are they wrong?
no shot they read it
Any perspective that isn’t being deliberately obtuse (if you cared you’d have looked it up and seen for yourself all of the evidence that exists, but it’s easier to go the “personal responsibility” route and ignore the societal and economical factors, because acknowledging those makes you too uncomfortable)…
So is drinking.
I guess we ban alcohol too, huh. Oh wait, we tried that.
You must be one of the, “I don’t like it so neither should anyone else” people.
Most countries have set a legal age for drinking alcohol.
“we tried that” do you know who sunak is?
What a weird take. Nobody is punishing people who smoke.