this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
35 points (94.9% liked)

Public Health

360 readers
3 users here now

For issues concerning:

🩺 This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.

Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link ([email protected])

Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
35
New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That’s what taxes are for. Tax the sh*t out of cigarettes to account for the increased public health spending. Banning a substance is not the only, neither the best, solution to addiction.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How far does this go though.... Should we still be able to use asbestos in literally everything? Why not just tax it?

Part of the responsibility of the government is to protect the health of its population, particularly from industries that profit from leeching funding from the public.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, asbestos are not banned and they are actually pretty toughly regulated. So maybe find a better analogy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Pedantry....

EPA also banned new uses of asbestos which prevent new asbestos products from entering the marketplace after August 25, 1989

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I’m sorry my response came out pedantic, it was not my intention. But I stand by my comment. Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.

Notice how much work the “new uses” is doing in that sentence.

Some articles on it:

Even though asbestos is known to cause deadly diseases, the U.S. still allows companies to import hundreds of tons of the raw mineral. It is primarily used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine

The EPA has missed some legislative deadlines to enact the ban but says it will finalize the regulation by October.

(Deadline they missed, again)

https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-ban-poisoning-workers-factories

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.

Right, but are we assuming that a ban on nicotine would ban all commercial uses of it, or just the sale of it as a consumable?

Nicotine has plenty of non-consumable applications as well such as its capabilities as a pesticide.

used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine

Yes, as a reagent that doesn't come in contact with the general public. They aren't selling asbestos, they're selling a byproduct of one of its chemical reactions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I yield. Thanks for the information!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Haha, no reason to turn it into a contest or anything. Just two people exchanging different perspectives for educational purposes. Though I do commend you for your mental plasticity. Not many people possess the mental flexibility to change their opinions based on newly introduced information anymore. Cheers.