News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Inside the Philip Morris campaign to 'normalize' a tobacc... by SuoDuanDao on Friday February 21, 2020 @01:25PM (#22385429)
The prevailing sentiment in my circle of friends is that substance addiction should be treated as a health, not a moral, issue. That lets us neatly draw the line at 'the user sought it out'. Health outcomes tend to improve under that kind of paradigm as well, so it's not just libertarian ideology either.

What's the rationale for drawing the line at a particular substance?

Re:Inside the Philip Morris campaign to 'normalize' a tobacc... by azinman2 on Friday February 21, 2020 @01:32PM (#22385481)
Do we also allow people to seek rotten meat, ineffective medications, or not wearing seatbelts?

There are known things we can do to substantially reduce harm to the public. It’s always a balancing act between a “parental gov” and individual liberty: there is no universal answer. But over time we learn as humans what we think those trade offs should be.

Note I’m not necessarily for making sins illegal personally, but I am for finding ways to regulate the hell out of them.

Re:Inside the Philip Morris campaign to 'normalize' a tobacc... by curryst on Friday February 21, 2020 @08:24PM (#22388760)
> Do we also allow people to seek rotten meat, ineffective medications, or not wearing seatbelts?

For the first two, we definitely do. No one says you can't let your meat rot before you eat it, and certain forms of rotten food are cultural delicacies. Most groceries have aisles full of ineffective junk medicine. Not wearing seatbelts I will grant you, although enforcement of those laws is generally very lax in my experience.

I strongly disagree with regulating them. Consumers should be given information to make a well informed decision, and then we should butt out. You don't want to wear a seat belt? It increases your risk of dying as a result of a crash by XX%. Go for it if you are willing to take that risk.

I don't feel right imposing my own personal values on someone else when their actions aren't harming others (which I know is somewhat debatable with seatbelts). Nothing makes me feel that my own values and morals are superior enough to force them on someone else.

Re:Inside the Philip Morris campaign to 'normalize' a tobacc... by jacob019 on Friday February 21, 2020 @02:01PM (#22385745)
This. Not to mention the public costs of dealing with the ill.

IMO the middle ground is to restrict the marketing, not the sale.

Re:Inside the Philip Morris campaign to 'normalize' a tobacc... by catalogia on Friday February 21, 2020 @02:16PM (#22385863)
> "Do we also allow people to seek [...] ineffective medications,"

Not that I think we should, but we do. Grocery stores like Whole Foods have entire aisles dedicated to snake-oil.

Re:Inside the Philip Morris campaign to 'normalize' a tobacc... by azinman2 on Friday February 21, 2020 @02:24PM (#22385946)
FWIW those aren’t “medications,” they’re “supplements.” Regardless of the lack of regulating supplements being good or bad, it wasn’t what I meant in this case.
Re:Inside the Philip Morris campaign to 'normalize' a tobacc... by catalogia on Friday February 21, 2020 @02:41PM (#22386075)
It seems to me that's just wordplay used to avoid regulation. These products are marketed in a way that suggests they might be used in lieu of regulated medicines.