stonedemoman @ stonedemoman @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

172

Joined

2 yr. ago

usage rates did not surpass pre-prohibition levels.

How many times do I have to tell you that this is impossible to know based off indirect estimates before you get it? Because this is the third time.

Then where's your data?

Sure, and I agree that this should be approached with scepticism and not blind bias.

I'm basing this off tobacco being the third most addictive substance on the planet.

Being that dependent on a substance suggests that practical decision-making and rational thinking, such as adding motivation to quit through price, is certainly not going to be the most effective way to reduce dependency while also further harming those that fail to break their dependency.

Edit: Also I just want to point out, again, that I was never referring to tax. From what I saw there's not enough conclusive data for me to form an opinion one way or the other on the effectiveness of increasing tobacco tax . All of my comments are about this ridiculously assanine ban, or the increased prices that come as a result of this ban.

Thanks for your opinion.

When supply does not meet demand, prices rise.

Thanks for proving my point for me. I appreciate it.

Your link shows an estimate of alcohol consumption during prohibition based on mortality, but there is. Zero. Accurate. Data. of alcohol consumption during the prohibition.

Incorrect. Prohibition decreases supply. Supply and demand have an inverse relationship. This is economics 101.

There exists no accurate data of consumption during prohibition because it was a black market.

Yeah I definitely flubbed the terms, but if you extrapolate what I'm saying it should be obvious I was talking about tobacco. And I feel like the people in this conversation are so eager to hate on me that they'll just incorrectly use this as evidence that I'm wrong lol

Hooray for your dad, but one anecdotal claim is hardly a proven method.

Okay thanks, but we are talking about tobacco. I understand that I messed up the terminology, but why are you replying this to me and not the one that is denying it?

Edit: Wait...you do know that cigarettes contain tobacco right?

One of the most well-known studies, by Nutt et al. [12] in the UK, ranked tobacco third in dependence, following heroin and cocaine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797716/

You call bullshit on scientific study?

How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?

Tobacco, the main ingredient in cigarettes, is more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than tobacco alone.

Also, I would be inclined towards believing that the habit is mostly spread through peers. Price as a barrier to entry wouldn't be effective at preventing peer pressure if they're your first supplier.

There's a reason why people tend to hit rock bottom before they finally kick their drug addiction. If they don't have the means, they will attempt to find it. Your logic is flawed, and only serves to disproportionately impair the poor while bolstering the very industry you fight.

"That guy happened to tangentially mention tax so you must've been talking about tax, herp derp"

Edit: Is it really that hard to figure out that I started this whole thread in reference to the topic of prohibition as the title suggests? I'm not talking about taxes. I never mentioned taxes. I don't care that anyone else is talking about taxes.

Go ahead and look at the post title

You're both very welcome and a class act. It's no small feat to kick cancer's ass. Lol

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42237299

Edit: lol stay mad

Wrong. Prohibition increases demand.

Edit: Based off some replies, I think a lot of people are forgetting some rudimentary aspects of the concept of "demand", so allow me to help:

Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.

When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls

That's not in anyone's own interests. Smokers have to pay more, tobacco industry gets more money. Literally a lose-lose. Dumb. As. Fuck.

Nah, this ban accomplishes absolutely nothing except producing more expensive alternatives that do the exact same thing.

I'm glad you survived your battle, but this ban would only serve to disproportionately affect the poor.

They've already banned menthol in California and it did nothing. Alternatives are already being marketed and sold and some of the better ones recreate the exact same effect but cost $1.20 more per pack at the low end. To put it simply, this is dumb as fuck.