Hacker News Reader

Comment by fithisux | Hacker News Reader

So, why do they sell cigarettes?

People vary in what gives them pleasure and in their valuation of the time/pleasure trade-off. Cigarettes are a tool for some people to move pleasure from the future to the present (i.e., shorter life/less future pleasure in exchange for more pleasure now); they adress intertemporal pleasure-flow needs for some, much as loans address intertemporal cashflow.

One of the best explanations I have ever heard, for why someone might choose to smoke.

I absolutely loved this explanation.

Money

Because people like to smoke. It's more than pleasurable, but only iff you are able to either ignore or accept the consequences (or you are simply not aware of them).

It is not your business to decide what other people should do with their lives.

Go live in North Korea or Venezuela if you desire having a dear leader who tells you what you should do with your life and leave us alone.

I guess the difficulty with this is that we're faced with groups that are actively telling us what to do by ways of advertising. They ask more nicely, and are at times much less obvious, but it's still has a great influence.

I'm perfectly fine with cigarette advertising being illegal, mandatory blank packages, and so on. I'd be very angry if they completely banned cigarettes, though.

Me too. I'm just weary of it appealing via marketing to those without the skills to fully understand their choices or to understand that their are being advertised to, like children.

Then move to North Korea, I already wrote this before.

If you want to live here you either accept that you are in a society of free people who actually have a free will or you move somewhere else where you'll find like minded drones serving their dear leader who in turn takes care of them like a father figure.

We are not going to give up our freedom and turn into weak minded persons just to accommodate you.

I'm not even in your country, and honestly, I don't want to live there. Where you see people shouting "freedom" the loudest, I see fear, distrust, and anger. I'm just pointing out that no one is as free as you think you are because you always have influences. But I appreciate your willingness for open thought and reflection.

You just "point it out" to convince me to casually accept regulating other peoples or other companies freedom to advertise away because you suppose that people are just sheep who can't help being controlled by it.

On top of that you probably do not even realise that you are arguing here for limiting freedom of speech.

> Where you see people shouting "freedom" the loudest, I see fear, distrust, and anger.

Am I supposed to feel bad now? I don't, I still want to keep freedom of speech.

> I'm just pointing out that no one is as free as you think you are because you always have influences.

Ominous and sometimes invisible influencers everywhere. Best way to deal with it: Censorship.

Sorry, I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech. In fact I don't believe in anything absolute. But enjoy your black and white world. It appears to be a very angry place where one either lives in a fictional idealized America or North Korea.

I know that you don't. And I'm not moved in the slightest by your appeal to pathos.

As If in other countries they don't tell you what you should do with your life.

As if they don't tell you what you should do with your life in the US.

Tell you or order you? I wrote "nobody gets the right to decide for someone else".

Well, here's how I see it. I understand what you are trying to say, it is not your (or anyone's) business to decide what other people should do with their lives, specially if it doesn't affect others. And, so no one (or governments) should intervene and regulate/ban sale of cigarettes. Would you feel absolutely the same way about all banned substances? If not, well you should agree that different people would draw the line differently.

> Would you feel absolutely the same way about all banned substances?

Yes, absolutely. If people want to ruin their lives it's not my responsibility to keep them from doing it. It's their own decision and all consequences are their own problem.

This is an absolutist view, while it is quite a compelling argument for certain extreme cases, I am afraid the world is never that black and white. Since we are talking about regulating/banning substances, let me try to point it out with a relevant example. While it might seem fair to say that if someone wants to ruin their own life by substance abuse, why should it be my (or the government's) responsibility to keep them from doing it. But, consider this, one of the growing problems right now in the US is opioid dependence and addiction. In these cases, these opioids are medication that is prescribed by doctors to treat acute pain. But, along with providing pain relief, this medication can cause opioid dependence and addiction over time. A sizable population of regular people who were just seeking treatment for their illness, unfortunately ended up with opioid addiction. This could just as easily happen to any of us or our loved ones. I can't speak for you but I would definitely want the government to step in, fund relevant research to study the problem, based on that perhaps regulate (or ban, if necessary) the availability and/or prescription of such medication because though it provides pain relief, it has unintended consequences that ruin lives of unsuspecting people.

Government regulation isn't necessarily always bad. There is no absolutist one-size-fits-all solution for all problems. Would I like the government to tell me what I can and cannot do, absolutely not. I would protest with you if I think government is overreaching. But, would I concede that there are certain issues (which might not affect me, but might affect lot of others) where the government has to intervene, of course, yes.

Why do they sell richly marbled steak when we know it causes high cholesterol?

I don't think it actually does. That was just 'sympathetic magic' - you eat cholesterol, it doesn't really end up in your blood vessel lining?

Red meat doesn't cause high cholesterol? Huh?

No offense, but unless you post some really reputable source, I'm gonna trust my cardiologist over some guy on the internet.

I guess the last few years of news contradicting that fat is bad for you, salt is bad for you and so on had made me believe the legend was long ago punctured.

Here's a bunch of references: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014...

I would look into Ancel Keys and the diet heart hypothesis.

This idea isn't, and never was grounded in evidence. It's based on very poor science done in the 20th century. The old guard of doctors and health officials will be looked at in the same way we look at geocentrists now. They hold a lot of the blame for the current obesity crisis we have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com