Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tester756 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tester756

Smoking is biggest shit that's widely accepted, why? idk

People argue that banning it would be against "freedom"

Please explain to me how:

1) causing harm to yourself

2) causing harm to people around you

3) paying for it additional taxes(!!!)

4) and all of that while being highly addictive

... how is it a freedom?

The nature of it being addictive removes "freedom" from the consideration.

It isn't freedom when you're addicted.

I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop this shit, but they cant.

View on HN

I want it banned because my stepmom (and father cause why not) chain smoked indoors my whole childhood. It's weird that we allow that.

> It's weird that we allow that.

Many states already prohibit exposing children to secondhand smoke.

I can't find any states that prohibit smoking with children at home.

We have such a spotless track record as far as banning addictive recreational substances, I'm sure it'd be just as easy as that.

I'm not saying that banning is best idea, but I'm arguing against ppl acting as if banning smoking would be against freedom

Banning anything is against freedom. Instead of trying to contort English and logic, explain why it's _worth_ the loss of freedom.

Forget what it does to freedom. The failure of prohibition and its complete turnaround really underscores the failure of the war on drugs. Don’t criminalize addiction and the cartels and violence probably deflate.

This isn't effectively freedom. It's just seemingly freedom.

In the end people end up with an addiction and aren't able to release themselves from it, thus it isn't freedom for them.

This logic is simple and coherent.

By that logic we should ban anything remotely pleasurable.

No, because usually other pleasurable things do not harm other like smoking does.

I wouldnt be smoking hater if it had no impact on me.

"I know smokers and a lot of them says that they'd want to drop this shit, but they can't."

Yes, they can.

Dropping requires specific traits, mindset, strong discipline, etc. That's pretty high bar.

Not everyone can, *especially when surrounded by smokers*.

There definitely should be a scientific limit for addictiveness, meth versus cigarettes for example. I dont quite care if somebody can scientifically stop taking an addictive substance with reasonable self-discipline but it becomes a problem and elimination of the freedom status if its too addictive that it effectively takes over your brain.

Capitalist society has intentionally trained the general population to believe in free will and the strength of the human mind, such that population members say "I'm better than being brainwashed by ads" and allowing corpos to get away with a lot, lot, lot more manipulative psychological than should be legal.

Believing that smoking addiction is a mind-over-matter problem is one major extension of this.

And that's why there's such a huge correlation between smoking and capitalism.

Apparently nicotine is one of the most addictive substances out there.

They can if they move to a magical place where they can get any I suppose.

Nicotine by itself is about as addictive as caffeine. Tobacco is very addictive due to the MAOI substances it contains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com