I dont smoke and it's easy to pick on smokers. I think the totalitarianism we see today has its roots, or at least it's proving ground, in the ostracism of smokers we saw in the 90s and early 2000s. Of course it's best to start with an easy target that is widely reviled, but once it is realized we can repress them, pressure mounts to do the same thing to other groups we disagree with or want to push our agenda on, and we get the current disregard for any personal freedom. This is a loss for all of society, not because smoking is good, but because personal choice is.
(And that ignores the fact that prohibition doesn't work. Guess what just became the most coveted drug for New Zealanders 14 and under)
I don't do heroin and it's easy to pick on heroin users. I think the totalitarianism we see today has it's roots, or at least it's proving ground, in the ostracism of heroin users we saw in the 90s and early 2000s. Of course it's best to start with an easy target that is widely reviled, but once it is realized we can repress them, pressure mounts to do the same thing to other groups we disagree with or want to push our agenda on, and we get the current disregard for any personal freedom. This is a loss for all of society, not because using heroin is good, but because personal choice is.
(and that ignores the fact that prohibition doesn't work. Guess what just because the most coveted drug for New Zealanders 21 and under).
I write this out because freedom of choice becomes moot when something directly removes choice through its addictive properties. Particularly when other people pick up the bill for your human imperfections
I don't have much of a view on what other people should do with themselves or how drugs ought to be controlled, I just wanted to throw out this fact I had seen before.
An estimated 65% of people who inject heroin don't develop an addiction compared to only 20% of cigarette smokers [1]. I wouldn't bet my life on these exact numbers but everything I've read suggests that occasional heroin users exist [2] and may exist in similar proportions to occasional smokers.
You mentioned cigars, which might be different, but the original article is primarily about cigarettes.
Again, I'm not endorsing anyone smoking or using heroin, nor any particular policy. I'm just bringing up some findings that contradict the idea that responsible use of heroin is much less likely than responsible smoking.
Its funny that these new laws are being written/supported by big tobacco. Because Big Tabacco moved to non-smoked nicotine products already and need better market penetration for there get healthy campaigns.
Maybe we can all get along. The goal is to reduce the burden on public health services and incidental harm to non-smokers. Even if harmful effects of non-tobacco nicotine products can be demonstrated, they would need to be just as bad as smoked tobacco to get a similar response. Maybe next we will see the fossil fuel industry pivot to renewables...
Harm to non-smokers has largely been solved by banning smoking in indoor public spaces and many outdoor spaces.
The issue of burden on health services is political and often actually a fallacy:
Political because it is politically unpalatable to tell smokers that they'll have to deal with the health consequences from their own pocket.
A fallacy because in many Western countries the heavy taxes on cigarettes cover, or more than cover, the financial cost on public health services (so smokers do pay from their own pocket).
> A fallacy because in many Western countries the heavy taxes on cigarettes cover, or more than cover, the financial cost on public health services (so smokers do pay from their own pocket).
They also die earlier so they don't use as much government resources in retirement.
I thought the War on Drugs had failed, but if it's NZ that does it, because they've done plenty good things recently, it's ok and everybody celebrates?
I can't wait for this to backfire spectacularly, perhaps this time politicos will learn that prohibition doesn't bloody work.
But it's so easy and buys you more voters to put a "no!" into law than trying to deal with the problem at a deeper and more compassionate level.
There are two major differences with cigarettes compared to alcohol, with the biggest being the very low cultural support around cigarettes. A country can ban a lot of things and 99.99% of it is unknown to the general public because there isn't any cultural push for it.
The second reason is that nicotine isn't that strong. People can use harder drugs to escape life and stress a bit, but a cigarette doesn't have that effect. Even playing a video games is arguable a stronger and more effective than smoking a cigarette, and it has a higher cultural pull.
The prohibition in the United States tried to force a culture change. That is a recipe for failure, especially if there is no easy alternatives except for abstinence.
I think this is really terrible. If I want to smoke and I don't hurt anybody that is my business. Specially Pipe smoking and cigar smoking is a hope for people. Some people, prefer to smoke weed with tobacco.
I was fully in favor of banning smoking in many places, and even using social pressure against people who smoke in public places. This however just goes to far.
20 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 53.2 ms ] thread(And that ignores the fact that prohibition doesn't work. Guess what just became the most coveted drug for New Zealanders 14 and under)
(and that ignores the fact that prohibition doesn't work. Guess what just because the most coveted drug for New Zealanders 21 and under).
I write this out because freedom of choice becomes moot when something directly removes choice through its addictive properties. Particularly when other people pick up the bill for your human imperfections
Just like you can drink wine responsibly, you can smoke responsibly. I don't think you can do heroin responsibly.
I'm not ok with being stripped of a wide variety of possible enjoyable experiences just because somebody is going to abuse them.
Why not, out of interest?
It's not like information about heroin is hard to come by.
An estimated 65% of people who inject heroin don't develop an addiction compared to only 20% of cigarette smokers [1]. I wouldn't bet my life on these exact numbers but everything I've read suggests that occasional heroin users exist [2] and may exist in similar proportions to occasional smokers.
You mentioned cigars, which might be different, but the original article is primarily about cigarettes.
Again, I'm not endorsing anyone smoking or using heroin, nor any particular policy. I'm just bringing up some findings that contradict the idea that responsible use of heroin is much less likely than responsible smoking.
[1] https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/whats-the-most-addictive-...
[2] https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/27/health/functioning-heroin...
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/2/182#ref-1
The issue of burden on health services is political and often actually a fallacy:
Political because it is politically unpalatable to tell smokers that they'll have to deal with the health consequences from their own pocket.
A fallacy because in many Western countries the heavy taxes on cigarettes cover, or more than cover, the financial cost on public health services (so smokers do pay from their own pocket).
They also die earlier so they don't use as much government resources in retirement.
I can't wait for this to backfire spectacularly, perhaps this time politicos will learn that prohibition doesn't bloody work.
But it's so easy and buys you more voters to put a "no!" into law than trying to deal with the problem at a deeper and more compassionate level.
Smoking tobacco = bad.
Smoking cannabis = good.
The second reason is that nicotine isn't that strong. People can use harder drugs to escape life and stress a bit, but a cigarette doesn't have that effect. Even playing a video games is arguable a stronger and more effective than smoking a cigarette, and it has a higher cultural pull.
The prohibition in the United States tried to force a culture change. That is a recipe for failure, especially if there is no easy alternatives except for abstinence.
I was fully in favor of banning smoking in many places, and even using social pressure against people who smoke in public places. This however just goes to far.