Hacker News Reader

Comment by newswriter99 | Hacker News Reader

Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species.

Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good"

Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.

View on HN

At this point drilling is objectively evil. Climate scientists have been saying for a while that we can't afford to burn our existing reserves, let alone burn what comes out of new wells, if we're to have any chance of averting catastrophic climate change.

Smoking bans are probably debatable.

But to be fair, it wouldn't be political neutral even if it weren't for those particular statements. There are plenty of people in the world (and the US in particular) who think it's a debatable political statement to say that anthropogenic climate change is real, or that evolution and the big bang are science fact. In fact there are people in the US who would think that whole article is a perfect example of everything wrong with the "evil liberal agenda".

There's no such thing, really, as a politically neutral statement.

Your characterization of climate science is incorrect. If you read the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they understand that there are trade offs to carbon controls. These controls are expensive and those costs harm humanity.

Drilling for oil and gas greatly increased human well-being by improving transportation options. You can argue about carbon restrictions and where to draw the line, but saying that drilling is objectively evil is not a statement based on science.

For example, some scientists argue some moderate warming is net beneficial. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-economic-imp...

"Some of these are objectively good"??? I skimmed the list and these are all good unless you're employed an oil or tobacco company. If you are it's time to make a career change.

Supposedly unbiased "both sides" journalism is a sham anyway. Better to read a couple biased articles and make up your own mind.

Less smoking is very good for the population health.

While population increases are not good by themselves, all reduction in mortality is very good for everyone who has not to die. Interestingly this seems to have the consequence that the birth rates decline strongly as observed in many places.

Drilling is not bad because of "evil corporations", but because it regularly is accompanied by harming the environment, be it through the drilling, building roads through natural forests or oil spills.

> Less smoking is very good for the population health.

But what is population health good for if not enjoying life? Including (for some people) things like smoking a cigarette.

An interesting question. With many things we have to balance the fun of the moment with the long term consequences, even with plain food. But with smoking, especially cigarettes, this is a quite one-sided balance. Even without the risk of cancer, every single cigarette will do considerable, irrevocable harm to your lungs. And I know few people wo smoke lightly, Nikotin is extremely addictive. Finally, there is the impact on other people, if one smokes in their presence.

I guess I shortened my point too much to make it sound pretty. The real fun being taken away here is of course not smoking, but making your own choices. I myself kicked a very bad smoking habit for the exact reasons you mention.

Isn't a big part of the enjoyment satiating the addiction? With fewer people smoking (and non-smoke methods of getting a nicotine fix), I still see this as a great thing.

As a former nicotine addict, that's the only part. But what difference does it make? The pleasure is as real as any other.

Of course fewer people smoking is a great thing. It's just not great enough to justify taking away somebody's freedom to choose for themselves.

You assume the majority of smokers are either a) not new smokers and b) aren't actively trying to quit.

> Less smoking is very good for the population health.

No doubt but when smoking bans start to overreach to include things like outdoor places it's getting dangerously close to a form of discrimination. What's next? Banning overweight people from ordering certain items at restaurants?

It's hard to argue against public smoking bans being a huge positive for society. As long as it's legal in your own home, I don't have a problem with regulating it in public areas.

I disagree: telling consenting adults what they may and may not do _in private_ (because 'public smoking bans' have so far almost been bans on smoking in private establishments) is never good for society.

And anyone who thinks that smoking in actual outdoor public spaces is a health threat is simply incorrect.

They were initially called "pubs" because they are public areas, as opposed to fully private areas. See also "saloon" derived from private "salons".

Smoking bans or taxes are good as long as you have socialized medicine or regulations which prohibit private insurance from charging higher premiums for smokers. You're free to harm yourself as long as health-conscious people don't have to pay for it. The same for soda taxes and the like.

Even world literacy increasing can have a dark side. Could just mean more despots are realizing that having a superficially-literate population gets you off the hook for not having further education worth a damn.

The world is great and all, but politics is (and always will be) sinister; politics now owns education.

> Smoking bans are good.

Sorry not sorry. Happy to not be paying for people's lung cancer treatment or dealing with secondhand in bars when I want to listen to live music. The vape bans are pretty preposterous though.

> drilling = evil

If it's in the ground it's not in the air.

That's an argument against tax-subsidized healthcare rather than for a smoking ban. Because otherwise you've just nationalized people's bodies.

Why stop at smoking after all? Anyone not doing an hour of cardio daily is being irresponsible with the body entrusted to them by society and is in need of a visit to a reformation camp.

The linked article is about improved health outcomes due to secondhand smoke bans in public areas:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005992...

You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home.

> You're free to continue smoking in the privacy of your own home.

Not where I live, was banned years ago.

Where is that, and is that in your own house or is it a apartment that is owned by a landlord/collection of tenants?

Apartment.

*For now.

Making it to where people don't have the right to put certain things into their body, healthy or unhealthy, is a stepping stone to a more fascist world. And a bit hypocritical if you're pushing for assisted suicide. Second-hand smoke bans, that's great. But I'd tell someone who vapes to quit peacocking in a bar before I'd tell a cigarette smoker that they're destroying their body in the privacy of their own home.

AFAIK, there are no smoking bans on people in their own homes, and even in that case it might be reasonable in apartments without airtight party walls.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com