Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

Which other risky activities should be banned? American football? Alcohol? Unsustainable consumption of natural resources?

I don't see a need to ban things that don't hurt others. I'd rather plow more resources into educating members of society of the consequences of their actions.

Edit: I was under the impression that e-cigs don't produce second hand smoke harmful to others like old cigarettes, but if they do then I would change my position. I was under the impression e-cigs are harmful to their users only.

View on HN

I'm mostly pointing out that e-cigs are hugely less risky than normal cigs. So you either ban both of those or none.

Sorry, I interpreted it as both should be banned. I would say normal cigs should be banned, but not e-cigs. At least not before a million other things if we want to be consistent with doing what's "best" for others.

> I'd rather plow more resources into educating members of society of the consequences of their actions.

And how has that worked for smoking levels in Japan, South Korea - I would say they have pretty high levels of education, with no dearth of information on bad consequences of smoking.

Edit: I think people are assuming I am for the ban. I am not for the ban. I don't think bans like this work. But plowing more resources into the education system is just not particularly effective at preventing addictive behaviors.

Then that is their choice? Children play sports even though they break bones, people at desserts even though carbs and sugar are bad for you, people fly to island resorts for vacation even though it's destroying the planet.

On the scale of things causing negative externalities to society, e-cigs are not at the top of my list. Although, the smell of cigarette smoke and its effects on others's lungs is of course harmful to others, so I could get behind stricter regulations or banning of those.

I am not denying them their choice, nor am I in favor of the ban (I don't think bans work).

I am saying that education does not dissuade addictive behaviors.

I don't think it's fair to conclude that education failed just because peoples behavior deviates from the expected.

The traditional idea behind education is enabling independent reason and judgement, not promoting specific consumption patterns.

I didn't say education failed in general. I don't believe education works in dissuading addictive behaviors. Education isn't helping people pursue better diets, it is not dissuading people from binge drinking, and it is not going to prevent people from vaping.

If you measure outcomes, it has worked quite well. Japan's life expectancy is 84 years. South Korea's is 82. For comparison, the US is 78.5 and decreasing.

Measuring the outcomes of education regarding smoking with life expectancy is a big leap. The biggest difference is diet, and that is not reinforced in their education system, but just a part of their culture.

OP is obviously pointing out the hypocrisy, especially since vaping is an easy target and tobacco has deep pockets.

Smoking cigarettes hurts everyone within a 10 meter radius of the smoker.

Yes, I should have phrased it better to make it clear that my point was that the negative externalities of e-cigs are nowhere near as bad as other activities, including regular smoking.

Can someone who downvoted this comment please explain why they did so?

Passive smoking is indeed harmful for everyone in a few meters radius of the smoker, and they smell awful. Both these statements are known facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com