Hacker News Reader

Comment by Synaesthesia | Hacker News Reader

Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic. No legitimate medical use, and an unusually hugh incidence of cancer. Its certainly a harm on society. I can't really think of much benefit, most smokers are happy to quit.

But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement.

Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place, it's often due to trauma.

View on HN

> Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic.

Nicotine is a stimulant. The exact opposite of a narcotic.

Did you ever have an overdose of Nicotine? It can be pretty stupefying.

But it was Tobacco that I referred to as a narcotic, ie psychoactive drug. And it's a very harmful one.

Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.

In many languages the word narcotic is commonly used to mean any substances causing addiction.

I've thought about this carefully, it is.

Definition 1 b: " A controlled substance."

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/narcotic

That definition is overly simplified and derives directly from the controlled substances act and similar programs, which refer to many drugs but especially opiates as "narcotics".

Nicotine is not a "controlled substance".

Regarding the first: Contrary to your earlier assertion, however, it is an extant definition in a sense of the word.

You don't like the definition. The definition, however, exists.

Regarding the second: We're discussing its regulation here and now.

(Updated to clarify which aspects of comment I'm responding to, and how.)

I would argue that nicotine is not a controlled substance, so it doesn't fall under this definition anyway.

But, that said, it is totally valid to argue that a definition is wrong, misleading, or incomplete. Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, but thanks for saying that.

You'd be arguing that on a discussion concerning its regulation.

Does this dissonance not register at all with you?

It would be a tautological argument for its addition to the list of controlled substances. Like so, "It's a narcotic because it's a controlled substance and it's a controlled substance because it's a narcotic." Calling it a narcotic is not helpful.

I do wish you would stop taking jabs at me personally.

Nobody made that argument. The cause it for being on the list is "deadly addictive". See above.

See above indeed.

I gave you a direct quote. What are you referring to?

I'm not being taken for a ride where we pretend that nothing was intended nor implied by calling it a narcotic.

You are being taken for a ride for this statement:

> Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.

But also to add, drug law enforcement's tendency to refer to something as a narcotic whenever it's politically expedient is obvious FUD.

I allege that FUD was the intended effect when the word was used by OP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com