now that aspartame is considered carcinogenic, is it still moral to invest in companies that sell products that contain it?

The sun is considered carcinogenic, is it still moral to let your kids play outside?

I think how carcinogenic a thing is, how the thing is delivered, and what the thing is replacing, if anything, all matter, along with a hundred other factors. A highly carcinogenic habit that is addictive is morally much worse than a potentially carcinogenic sugar replacement, especially when you consider diabetics exist.

I don't see how morality comes into it when it's a choice made by adults. Marketing to children, sure. I'm a smoker and I own tobacco stocks. Hell, the dividends are helping me pay for my future cancer care. It's not like the taxes I pay on cigarettes [roughly $1800 / year, tax for my habit] are going to help with that.

I gotta ask, you're anticipating getting lung cancer? Like, this is a life event you're budgeting for?

I'm not trying to judge your choices (I've smoked cigarettes at times), I'm just taken aback.

I mean, I hope not. But I'd be a fool not to plan for the worst.

[edit: you can phrase your question differently. I won't be offended and I'm happy to explain my view on it.]

"If it doesn't hurt anyone else, e.g. I'm not robbing people for meth or ruining anyone else's lungs or raiding my kid's college fund, etc, I'm okay with it"

"foie gras are a few of the things that make it worth living"

... you know what they do to the duck to make your foie gras, right?

There are ethical ways to produce foie gras without force feeding. Anyway no, I don't think animals should suffer but this is beside the point about tobacco. It does line up nicely with my theory that a huge portion of the population enjoys feeling superior to others based on an off-the-rack set of identity politics masquerading as ethics, which hasn't changed much from the religiosity that preceded it.

> It does line up nicely with my theory that a huge portion of the population enjoys feeling superior to others based on an off-the-rack set of identity politics masquerading as ethics, which hasn't changed much from the religiosity that preceded it.

Worrying about that makes you a victim of the same fallacy.

You don't need to point out a vaguely defined group as bad or wrong. The same way "they" do it to look down on "you", that statement is "you" looking down on "them".

In both cases, it's a moot observation.

It's not a worry, that most people are trying to prove their moral superiority (religious or secular). It's what I take into account when I choose to forgive them. Nor is it moot. Choosing to overlook their zeal is a conscious decision, because I know they aren't thinking for themselves and it's not entirely their fault.

On what basis do you believe any given person is "trying to prove their moral superiority" versus some other motivation?

If it's because of some objective observation about that specific individual displayed over the course of the discussion, then your musings about some greater pattern or group are moot. If it's anything else, then you're the one not engaged in a good faith conversation.

I do understand a lot of that. I agree that many people have weird ideas about cumulative risk, in that they don't seem to believe in it. They seem to believe that the risk of a set of activities is the maximum rather than the sum.

And I do see how, if you've committed to being a smoker, reducing your risk and planning for the worst makes total sense. "I don't need to live past age 60" does sound a lot like passive suicidal ideation, and it may be worth speaking to a professional about it, but that's all I'll say on the matter, I don't want to be intrusive.

[I want to disclaim this as jawboning, I end up quiting smoking weed in this story, but I don't mean to imply anything by it and I understand quitting weed and quitting tobacco are worlds apart anyhow.]

I don't smoke tobacco anymore, but gosh I do love to smoke cannabis. I love the ritual of it, I love passing a bowl around with friends and listening to music, I love the texture of smoke, I love blowing smoke rings. It also helped to manage my anxiety. If I was having a panic attack, I could reliably terminate it by smoking. And it turned down the volume on the the anxious thoughts that I have bouncing around my brain.

Recently I've had episodes of terrible GI symptoms. Enough to briefly put me in the hospital. I'm not entirely sure, because many of the symptoms don't fit, but I think I've developed Cannaboid Hyperemesis Syndrome with an unusual presentation, the only cure for which is to quit using cannabis.

But I'm okay with it. By the time I came to this conclusion, I was making sure my will was in order, I just didn't know what was happening to me. So I was just happy that the best hypothesis seemed to be something curable.

So far, I haven't had an episode in a few days, the last episode I did have was milder. I'm starting to have more energy and feel like I just be thinking more clearly. The anxious thoughts that I smoke weed to treat are coming back strong, which has been difficult, but I'll find some other way to manage them.

I'll miss cannabis dearly, it served me well for a long time. I'm hoping I can smoke once a year at least. But man, I will do anything not to have an episode like that again.

Here's to the gift of life.

Gee I hope you don't have that. The thing I feel the most sorry for with my friend who's stage 3 is that he can't smoke pot or eat a decent meal. I enjoy weed - it's a go-to when I want to stop drinking, smoke less and sleep better. I'm also emetophobic as hell, and I've been scared of ever developing a reaction to it, so I smoke it sparingly.

My friend who had terrible eating habits before (fried fish and chips daily) has discovered making his own pot edibles and the enjoyment of growing his own arugula salads. I think we work with what we've got, and we've got less to work with as we get older. There's no contradiction between wanting to live and wanting to enjoy life. Wanting to smoke or not caring if I live past 60 isn't a death wish - it's an affirmation to myself that I'm alive in the moment and not living in fear of age or death.

> I don't see how morality comes into it when it's a choice made by adults

It's not black and white. Morality is a continuum of cause and effect.

Shooting someone is bad. Shooting bullets recklessly and accidentally hitting someone is bad, but less so. Shooting a bunch of bullets safely but leaving the lead in the ground to leach into a neighboring properties well is bad, but lesser still. Etc.

There are moral consequences to literally everything you do, it's just a matter of each individual's threshold for caring, and the social contract formed when people become part of a group. Some people care about the first and second order effects of smoking (increased burden on healthcare, land use competition, agricultural pollution, microplastic pollution, etc.) and some don't.

> I don't see how morality comes into it when it's a choice made by adults

Does morality not apply to adults? Are adults immune to human psychology?

Processed meat is also a known carcinogen. Yogurt and dairy increase risk for breast cancer, but you might find them under a pink label. If you spend any time in California, you’ll notice many carcinogens are around us all the time.

Tobacco stands out above others as being a very strong, addicting carcinogen.

That is not medically accurate. There are some low-quality observational studies which show a weak correlation between cancer rates and subject-reported consumption of certain types of preserved meats. Those studies were mostly junk science with multiple uncontrolled variables.

It's specifically the nicotine in tobacco that is somewhat addictive. But nicotine isn't generally considered to be a carcinogen by itself.

Your argument reminded me of that scene from "Thank you for smoking"

Nick Naylor: Oh, this from a Senator who calls Vermont home.

Senator Lothridge: I don't follow you, Mr. Naylor.

Nick Naylor: Well, the real demonstrated #1 killer in America is cholesterol. And here comes Senator Finistirre whose fine state is, I regret to say, clogging the nation's arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. If we want to talk numbers, how about the millions of people dying of heart attacks? Perhaps Vermont Cheddar should come with a skull and crossbones.

Senator Finistirre: That is lu --. The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!

Senator Lothridge: Mr. Naylor, we are here to discuss cigarettes -- not planes, not cars -- cigarettes. Now as we discussed earlier these warning labels are not for those who know but rather for those who don't know. What about the children?

Nick Naylor: Gentlemen, it's called education. It doesn't come off the side of a cigarette carton. it comes from our teachers, and more importantly our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older they can choose for themselves. I look at my son who, was kind enough to come with me today, and I can't help but think that I am responsible for his growth and his development. And I'm proud of that.

What's your point? Cheese doesn't cause heart attacks. Cholesterol in the arteries isn't caused by cheese consumption.

That is still highly debated and the worst part is the dangers of sugar are well known.

You're wrong. Aspartame was added to group 2B, which is the group for "possibly" carcinogenic. It's not known whether it's carcinogenic or not yet.

Here's how they define items in group 2B:

> This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.

Source (Page 23, PDF Page 25): https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/C...