- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Archive: [ https://archive.is/OTfZe ]
You must log in or # to comment.
But yet when the British government does this, Lemmites claim it’s an attack on personal freedom and fascism.
They’re all ramming Snus against their gums like there’s no tomorrow though.
‘Smoke free contry’
It’s about cigarettes
Bruh
Yet they attack France for banning nicotine pouches and calling it an attack on the Swedish way of life.
The United States should ban cigarettes, but should continue to allow tobacco to be used in smoke-free forms.
If you want to poison yourself, that should be your choice, but poisoning others should not be allowed.
This is exactly what I am thinking. A person can smoke legally, expelling drug laced smoke at everyone around them … including babies. However, if a person cannistered this up and went around spraying it that would likely be considered assault.
Should they ban smoking weed too?
The United States should ban cigarettes
Go ahead, do it! You can call it the “Smoke War” and kill hundreds of thousands of additional people over the years (over and above the danger of smoking), imprison many times more, and destroy families from coast to coast!
BRILLIANT
The United States should ban cigarettes
Never read about the Prohibition?
No one ever got cancer standing beside a drinker.
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 unpopular. Smoking bans are popular. So it’s not a very good analogy.
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.
Prohibition was ridiculously popular until it wasn’t.
It failed because of widespread lawbreaking, organized crime, enforcement failures, and economic pressure (tax and jobs during the great depression)
Smoking is already on the decline, i don’t think you’ll find such fervor for cigarette running.
Smoking is already on the decline, i don’t think you’ll find such fervor for cigarette running
You’re wrong, it will also have widespread lawbreaking, enforcement failures, economic pressure, and create a new organized crime powerhouse. As always.
The smoking market is comparable to the drug market in size of users… how’s that drug war doing?
You’re wrong!
see how easy that is?
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 .
Yep.
Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.
“Controlled substance” they say. How Orwellian. Handing it over to the black market, with no control but [criminal] market forces. How controlled.
“We said don’t do it.”, like that works. Generally, good people do not obey bad rules, and bad people do not obey rules either.
Then there’s the forbidden fruit effect. Then the profiteering and price-hike for risk, and in absence of regulation oft coming in the most harmful polluted forms of whatever’s been turned into contraband. Dangerous combination.
Normalisation of controlling people’s behaviour’s an even deeper bag of rant bait yet, than just via banning substances, slippery sloping via banning delivery methods.
Funny how prohibition and “public relations” [e.g. as per Ed Bernay’s Crystallising Public Opinion] came into being at around the same time. Prohibition wouldn’t work without the accompanying psyop? Due reconsideration of the popularity of bans. … Especially in light of realising “Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.”
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.
In countries with solidary health insurance expenses to cover unnecessary, tobacco related cancers are paid by the whole population.
That’s kind of shallow IMO. People drink and smoke (unhealthy much) usually because of something, like problems and such. We were also basically given cigarettes to start smoking and alcohol is everywhere, not always so simple. People don’t do it to spite taxpayers.
But it’s good, a really good trend, banning cigarettes, NZ started it IIRC.
Taxes on tobacco don’t even begin to cover costs.
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.
Dead wrong.
The whole population benefits from what smokers pay.
From a study in NL it shows that they generate far more than what it costs in healthcare.
And it also said should the small percentage of smokers suddenly quit and live longer, the loss of income for the state and the extra cost of them living longer and needing more care would be unsustainable.And if you want to be selfish and not have solidarity then let’s start about the much bigger cost of the SELF-INFLICTED diabetic epidemic.
They require an avg of 28 years of aid.
And almost no country wants to tackle that because of their opportunistic politicians.
Who cares about antagonizing a small percentage that smokes.
But the many sugar addicts poisoning themselves are too important for their precious votes to touch.
And those same hypocrite politicians can be seen regularly with a glass of alcohol (hard drugs) in their hand.
And as an edit, I don’t want to pay for your skin cancer treatment also, should’ve stayed out of the sun.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.
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
Sugar tax is simple and highly effective.
What I see is they do not put much effort into it, certainly not compared with the witch hunt on tobacco.
Especially since a large percentage is suffering from obesity and only getting worse.
But as I said, electoral suicide.
Imagine paying 6x more for a soft drink, that would be the equivalent of tobacco taxes.It would also spend way too much time in the weeds - what types of sugars? How to distinguish “natural” from “added”? How much for what? Which sugar substitutes? Do they have their own level? How to distinguish too much sugar in orange juice from too much in bread from junk food? What about alcohol, fats, and other high calorie foods? What about all sorts of carbs?
I disagree with a sugar tax being easy.
If I were orange cult god Trump, I would find it easier to define and sell a junk food tax.
And can traditional soda (healthy, probiotic) be exempt, and so then can be more competitive on price…
… I like this idea. I’d vote for that. :) … depending on nuances of implementation. Perhaps it may prove more bureacratically complicated and expensive, and not worth doing. But all else equal, “simple and highly effective”, sugar tax seems like a savvy equaliser, especially if was weighted for things like glycemic index, complete nutrient ratio to sugar, nutritional balance… oh, darn, this could get complicated fast.
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?
why and how would smokers contribute more?
In some areas of endeavour, some smokers insist their smoking helps them perform.
For just one other example tidbit to add to your evolving calculations.
It doesn’t add up. They’re just a numpty.
I’ve read that too - elderly and end of life care is expensive, and smokers are more likely to die early before running up as much healthcare costs as a healthy person. They may be sicker, cost more in healthcare while sick, but shorter overall life resulting in smaller overall healthcare costs
Assuming that’s true, and I don’t remember if it was a reputable source, on purely financial terms for healthcare, smoking is “good”
why and how would smokers contribute more?
As I said, taxes are extremely high on tobacco. 85%
Even disregarding the amount in general taxes smokers also pay for healthcare that alone is more than the cost of smoking to healthcare.
Unfortunately couldn’t find the study I read but it came down to a few 100 million surplus (in NL).And yes not needing to pay pensions is a big part of the gains to to the state but also not having to pay for the plethora of other diseases the elderly invariably get.
And while obese people indeed have premature mortality that is often preceded by decades of chronic illnesses and care.
And same as smokers that includes increased risk of cancers.
Unlike most smokers very obese people often can’t perform physical labor the average human can.
There’s more, like logistics and how many hospital workers and specialized ambulances or equipment it takes to simply move the more extreme cases but I think this will do.
To be clear, I’m not defending smoking but the argument of how they don’t want to help smokers (basically addicts and victims) because it costs their health system is wrong.
Not to mention anti-social and selfish.
As I mentioned in the other comment, that’s a slippery slope.
Because every throat and lung cancer is caused by tobacco, we should make everyone who gets them go bankrupt and die? I’m really confused dude. What cancers are necessary.
s/unnecessary/avoidable/
Oh, so my initial assumption was correct, it’s whichever ones you personally feel like blaming the patient for getting. I take it the worst thing that’s ever happens to you is stubbing your toe and you’re a trust attorney?
smoker detected lol
No, my nephew had cancer when he was six months. Anyone who is rooting for cancer deserves to die of it.
Do you mind showing me where I was rooting for cancer?
You’re so dumb it’s funny.
That happens in the US too. We just also pay CEO salaries and shareholder disbursements.
Wait, that happens just about everywhere else too, I feel like it may just be a systematic problem
And health care for Israel
And Iran. Think of how much healthcare we’re saving them by helping school kids never needs care again. /s, dark /s
We’re such a generous nation ❤️
/s
People just need to rediscover pipes. Tolkien knew what was up 👍
Pipe smoke smell is way worse than cigarretes. Old prof used to smoke pipe in his office… Stench is worse than tobacco bars and cig smoking offices +20 years later.
My dad occasionally smoked a pipe. I do not remember the house or his clothes stinking from it (he probably didn’t smoke inside, I don’t remember) and to this day get warm feelings when smelling cherrywood smoke
Unlike cigarettes or pot, pipe smoke can be pleasant
Can’t say about wood smoke, but a cherry topped aromatic tobacco can be good 😊
or pot
Different strokes and all that.
Different tokes 😉
My best friends dad growing up smoked a pipe, he was divorced and lived in an apartment and the whole place smelled like pipe tobacco and I can still smell it like 40 years later haha.
I know nothing of pipes other than shape. What is the functional advantages to it?
They can be made from different materials. Common ones are briar, olive, or fruit trees, but also clay or corn cob… Basically anything hard enough to withstand the burning leaf and low in tannins, which are harmful to smoke.
The shapes (and finishes) are mostly about look and feel, but as another commenter mentioned, the stem length affects temperature. Hot smoke (like a hot drink) results in tongue bite, but puffing gently and not smoking like 10 bowls back-to-back makes it easier to avoid.
There’s also a wide variety of different leaves, preparation methods, and toppings to explore, and their properties can change depending how you store / treat them. The different materials influence the flavor a bit, too. Most pipe smokers have multiple pipes and rotate them to avoid mixing aromatics with non-aromatics or latakia (la-TAK-ia).
It’s not expensive or difficult to try. If you know anyone who’s interested, just find a cheap pipe (maybe something with 9mm filter), pick a tobacco that looks good, and watch a 5-minute video about how to pack and light the bowl. Then enjoy together with a good beverage. If it’s enjoyable, watch another video about cleaning the pipe, and take it from there.
Some people smoke multiple times a day, and others smoke less often. It’s not like pulling a cigarette out of the box, though, and the mild ‘inconvenience’ of packing and cleaning helps to not chain-smoke. I prefer the process, don’t mind waiting for a good thing… not in a hurry.
I’ve also read what I could find about health risks. Pipes are lower risk than cigarettes, hookahs, and smokeless tobacco (of which the loose variety is riskier than pouches). They’re a bit safer than cigars due to volume. Newer studies show vaping is also riskier than pipes, depending mostly on the liquid. Tobacco-free nicotine pouches seem to be the safest, but more research is needed. I’m not an authority, though, so #doYourOwnResearch, and definitely reply if you see any info that needs to be corrected in this comment.
The longer the stem is (the piece between the bowl and your mouth), the more time the smoke has to cool down before it hits your mouth, and some believe this gives a better smoking experience.
Some pipes also use filters, with don’t so much for chilling but remove some of the moisture from the smoke if you live in a humid area.
Longer stems also look badass
The big advantage is you can fill a pipe with whatever you want. Smoke shops at least used to have a large selection of smells and styles - think like a modern coffee aisle
Maybe that functional space is taken over by vapes these days
The parallels between coffee (or tea!) and pipe tobacco are strong. Different leaves, preparations, (non-)aromatics, etc.
Vapes - for me, at least - or closer to energy drinks. Different vibes for different tribes.
I think it’s “smoother” but I’ve never smoked one so I cannot confirm
In my very subjective opinion they taste better and are more fun.
I haven’t smoked in a long time, but I used to love my pipe. It’s been getting more and more tempting to try it again, since I have one of the few health issues where nicotine can sometimes help.
I love my pipe. Much more enjoyable experience.
Yeah as the article notes people have switched to nicotine pouches to get their fix. Which are better because they don’t produce smoke and lung cancer, but they can still give you other oral cancers and dental diseases. If anything they’re probably worse in that aspect due to being constantly pressed against the gums and lips. But at least they’re smokeless.
Well, the pouches do not produce smoke is a plus, but it’s disgusting. They spit them out during meetings to replace immediately with a new. They are in wastbaskets, on the street. Gross. For what i understood from dentist & doctors (standard question: do you drink, smoke, snuss) it’s much worse than smoking. For the user that is, not their environment
Not to mention the littering problem is even worse than with cigarette butts.
Are they not biodegradable? The claim is that cigarette filters can’t be biodegradable (or no one forced them to), but why wouldn’t these be?
Not that it’s an excuse for littering, but we ought to be able to mitigate the harm a bit
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.
it’s somewhat nice to not risk fires breaking out, though.
They are just in different places though. All the lithium batteries keep causing fires in bin lorries and recycling/waste processing places
It is actually basic and contains xylitol which is good for oral health. No link has been found to oral cancer. I don’t understand where you get those facts from?
No link has been found to oral cancer.
Stop listening to Tucker Carlson
“Xylitol’s Health Benefits beyond Dental Health: A Comprehensive Review”
“All authors are employees of DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences. DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences manufactures and markets xylitol. The authors declare no other conflict of interest.”
More research is needed. Nicotine on its own is not cancerous. Tobacco is. Nicotine pouches that aren’t tobacco might carry much lower risks, but there is other stuff in them.
Nicotine on its own is not cancerous.
Man… if you really want misinformation, read Lemmy on the subject of vapes and nicotine. Everyone just copy pastas incorrect “facts”.
and
and
The only known negatives with nicotine is that it’s apparently a bit stressful for the heart. So it’s still good to avoid taking it, but if you’re going to take nicotine anyways, it’s the safest delivery method.
Do other countries also have an ingredients list on nicotine pouches? Sweden has always had it (even on snus), as it’s classified as a food product. I’ve always found it interesting that a product that shouldn’t be swallowed has an ingredients list, but products that “should” be swallowed (such as alcohol) doesn’t.
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.
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.
well you are putting it in your mouth, so you’re effectively swallowing parts of it.
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.
I don’t think the US has strict regulations on the ingredients… I don’t know why
Unca Jesse. This cunt protected tobacco his entire sad life until he died of “natural causes”.
Vaping is very possibly much less unhealthy than chewing tobacco, but of course we don’t have long term studies yet
Nicotine pouches isn’t chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco is one of the most unhealthiest ways to consume nicotine.
That was my problem with replacing cigarettes with vaping, it worked great but you can literally use it all the time, so I was just puffing constantly when I was sitting, bathroom at work, airports, etc etc. and I don’t think a coating of vegetable glycerine on your lungs is any better tbh. I feel great after quitting that too.
At least with vaping you can taper off the nicotine.
Yeah that was nice, went from 12>8>6mg
But kids are going 6>8>12mg.
I mixed my own liquid so I was able to go down to 4, 3, 2, 1, then 0.75, 0.5, down to like 0.25 and lower I think
I was such a fiend that lowering the nicotine meant I would just hit it harder and more often for longer lol but once you get sub 1mg you literally cant hit it fast enough to feel satisfied even if you spend hours chain vaping 🤣
I also had a RDA that put out massive clouds though so that didnt help with moderation lol
Fantastic. About 75% of the people I know still smokes though. Paywall stops me from reading the article but I do wonder what the sample size is.
Anecdotally i’d say it’s probably more like 10%, however i think at this point smoking is so unusual that you REALLY notice if even a single person does it near you, which inflates how high the usage feels.
I’m pretty sure i got the whole article:
Sweden has reached its target of fewer than five percent of the population smoking regularly – and is consequently considered “smoke-free”.
“It is an incredible development that a harmful behaviour can be reduced to this extent,” Mats Ramstedt, head of research at the Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN), told the TT news agency.
For the first time in CAN’s surveys, fewer than five percent smoke regularly in Sweden, according to the 2025 annual report on smoking and snus habits, which means that the political goal for Sweden to be smoke-free by 2025 has been achieved.
The proportion of daily smokers dropped from 16 to 4.8 percent between 2003 and 2025, according to the new report.
“It is not just the proportion of smokers that has decreased; we also see that people are smoking fewer cigarettes. Given the health risks associated with cigarette smoking, this is obviously very positive,” said Ramstedt.
Smoking has been declining in Sweden since the late 1970s (for comparison: in the early 1980s, over 30 percent of Swedes smoked daily), thanks to broad preventative work, according to Ramstedt.
“The first and perhaps most vital point is that accessibility has been drastically reduced. It is both harder and more expensive to smoke today,” said Ramstedt, citing taxes and real-term prices rising by 45 percent since 2003.
FROM THE LOCAL’S ARCHIVE: How Sweden is close to stubbing out smoking for good
He also credited efforts made to deter people from starting to smoke in the first place, such as advertising bans, and to make it easier for people to quit.
Meanwhile, Sweden has seen a sharp increase in the use of snus in recent years – the small nicotine pouches popular in Sweden – a factor that the tobacco industry often highlights as a major reason for Sweden’s low proportion of smokers.
“One must keep in mind that smoking had already decreased sharply before we saw this rise in snus. In a way, that argues against it being a decisive factor in reducing smoking,” said Ramstedt, but conceded that more research into its role could provide useful insights. “My assessment is that there is a lack of studies proving this, and I would maintain that it is primarily down to preventative measures.”
Even in the us, where industry capture prevents meaningful restrictions, American Lung Association says
Long term, smoking rates … among adults, from 42.6% in 1965 to 11.6% in 2022.
We may never hit that “smoke free” threshold but there’s real progress
Kudos to Sweden for making it happen
My country is fentanyl-free. Less than 5% of the population consumes it.
That said, congrats on Sweden.
That inspired me to look up my own country’s rate of smoking over the years and I’m shocked that we’re over 10% still, and were at 20% in 09. I know everything used to stink of cigarettes all the time, but that still feels so high
If they follow the rest of the EU and start banning flavored snus in favor of only menthol flavors you can expect to see a sharp spike in cigarette usage again. It’s funny this study doesn’t mention vapes, which, anecdotally, are massively popular in Sweden.
It’s funny this study doesn’t mention vapes
Wanna know what’s even funnier? The study totally does.
Thank you. Looks like they ask 18 000 people at random yearly. Quite a good sample size for a country of 10 million citizens. But I’d take it with a scoop of salt as it’s self reported and other numbers are weirdly worded if not wrong. I recall cigarettes being 38 SEK for a pack in 2008. Now they’re 78 SEK, which is far more than +45% and in a shorter time span.
Edit: found the summary. 30% are still using nicotine, allegedly.
using Reader Mode in Firefox does work.
