Hacker News Reader

This is the same exact argument you made above.

You are making really good arguments for banning/regulating other harmful things - You are not making good arguments for allowing a known harmful thing to continue unregulated.

View on HN

I think the argument AlexandrB is making is: Compared to pollutants such as campfires and car exhaust, vaping is a rounding error. However much you care about banning vaping, you should care 1,000x more about limiting campfires or diesel engines. Even a tiny change in those would benefit public health vastly more than a vaping ban.

The difference is that vaping only benefits the vaper, but the harms caused by vaping affect everyone.

In contrast, everyone in society benefits from the mobility and economic activity facilitated by transportation. Even if you never drive a car, take a bus, or even leave your house, you are better off because of cars, busses, trains, and airplanes because of the increased economic growth they facilitate. The benefit and the harm are both fully socialized.

That's a fallacy of relative privation though. "B happens more frequently, is more dangerous, or causes more harm than A. Therefore A can be ignored."

AlexandrB was dismissing one argument because he found a bigger issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com