Archive: [ https://archive.is/OTfZe ]

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 2 months ago (10 children)

The United States should ban cigarettes, but should continue to allow tobacco to be used in smoke-free forms.

If you want to poison yourself, that should be your choice, but poisoning others should not be allowed.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 months ago (23 children)

    In countries with solidary health insurance expenses to cover unnecessary, tobacco related cancers are paid by the whole population.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    That happens in the US too. We just also pay CEO salaries and shareholder disbursements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (11 children)

    Dead wrong.
    The whole population benefits from what smokers pay.
    From a study in NL it shows that they generate far more than what it costs in healthcare.
    And it also said should the small percentage of smokers suddenly quit and live longer, the loss of income for the state and the extra cost of them living longer and needing more care would be unsustainable.

    And if you want to be selfish and not have solidarity then let's start about the much bigger cost of the SELF-INFLICTED diabetic epidemic.
    They require an avg of 28 years of aid.
    And almost no country wants to tackle that because of their opportunistic politicians.
    Who cares about antagonizing a small percentage that smokes.
    But the many sugar addicts poisoning themselves are too important for their precious votes to touch.
    And those same hypocrite politicians can be seen regularly with a glass of alcohol (hard drugs) in their hand.
    And as an edit, I don't want to pay for your skin cancer treatment also, should've stayed out of the sun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • load more comments (21 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 46 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Yeah as the article notes people have switched to nicotine pouches to get their fix. Which are better because they don't produce smoke and lung cancer, but they can still give you other oral cancers and dental diseases. If anything they're probably worse in that aspect due to being constantly pressed against the gums and lips. But at least they're smokeless.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    https://www.healthline.com/health/quit-smoking/does-zyn-cause-mouth-cancer#other-risks-and-side-effects

    More research is needed. Nicotine on its own is not cancerous. Tobacco is. Nicotine pouches that aren't tobacco might carry much lower risks, but there is other stuff in them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    The only known negatives with nicotine is that it's apparently a bit stressful for the heart. So it's still good to avoid taking it, but if you're going to take nicotine anyways, it's the safest delivery method.

    Do other countries also have an ingredients list on nicotine pouches? Sweden has always had it (even on snus), as it's classified as a food product. I've always found it interesting that a product that shouldn't be swallowed has an ingredients list, but products that "should" be swallowed (such as alcohol) doesn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    It's the whole coronary system not just the heart. It also comes with the same swath of possible symptoms as most stimulants including high blood pressure, stress/anxiety, etc.

    That said, IMO the biggest issue is the litter. Used pouches should go into the trash can and away from animals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think the US has strict regulations on the ingredients... I don't know why, likely lobbyist behavior, but also I think people just accept that if you smoke you don't give a shit and it's unhealthy by default, so it's not a big deal if they add chemicals.

    Which becomes more ridiculous with nicotine pouches for this reason. Nicotine isn't cancerous, so it would be super shitty to add carcinogens in the pouches and then claim it's a tobacco product so you should expect it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [+] 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    At least with vaping you can taper off the nicotine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    I mixed my own liquid so I was able to go down to 4, 3, 2, 1, then 0.75, 0.5, down to like 0.25 and lower I think

    I was such a fiend that lowering the nicotine meant I would just hit it harder and more often for longer lol but once you get sub 1mg you literally cant hit it fast enough to feel satisfied even if you spend hours chain vaping 🤣

    I also had a RDA that put out massive clouds though so that didnt help with moderation lol

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 30 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    People just need to rediscover pipes. Tolkien knew what was up 👍

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I know nothing of pipes other than shape. What is the functional advantages to it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The longer the stem is (the piece between the bowl and your mouth), the more time the smoke has to cool down before it hits your mouth, and some believe this gives a better smoking experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 18 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Fantastic. About 75% of the people I know still smokes though. Paywall stops me from reading the article but I do wonder what the sample size is.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I'm pretty sure i got the whole article:

    Sweden has reached its target of fewer than five percent of the population smoking regularly – and is consequently considered "smoke-free".

    "It is an incredible development that a harmful behaviour can be reduced to this extent," Mats Ramstedt, head of research at the Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN), told the TT news agency.

    For the first time in CAN's surveys, fewer than five percent smoke regularly in Sweden, according to the 2025 annual report on smoking and snus habits, which means that the political goal for Sweden to be smoke-free by 2025 has been achieved.

    The proportion of daily smokers dropped from 16 to 4.8 percent between 2003 and 2025, according to the new report.

    "It is not just the proportion of smokers that has decreased; we also see that people are smoking fewer cigarettes. Given the health risks associated with cigarette smoking, this is obviously very positive," said Ramstedt.

    Smoking has been declining in Sweden since the late 1970s (for comparison: in the early 1980s, over 30 percent of Swedes smoked daily), thanks to broad preventative work, according to Ramstedt.

    "The first and perhaps most vital point is that accessibility has been drastically reduced. It is both harder and more expensive to smoke today," said Ramstedt, citing taxes and real-term prices rising by 45 percent since 2003.

    FROM THE LOCAL'S ARCHIVE: How Sweden is close to stubbing out smoking for good

    He also credited efforts made to deter people from starting to smoke in the first place, such as advertising bans, and to make it easier for people to quit.

    Meanwhile, Sweden has seen a sharp increase in the use of snus in recent years – the small nicotine pouches popular in Sweden – a factor that the tobacco industry often highlights as a major reason for Sweden's low proportion of smokers.

    "One must keep in mind that smoking had already decreased sharply before we saw this rise in snus. In a way, that argues against it being a decisive factor in reducing smoking," said Ramstedt, but conceded that more research into its role could provide useful insights. "My assessment is that there is a lack of studies proving this, and I would maintain that it is primarily down to preventative measures."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Thank you. Looks like they ask 18 000 people at random yearly. Quite a good sample size for a country of 10 million citizens. But I'd take it with a scoop of salt as it's self reported and other numbers are weirdly worded if not wrong. I recall cigarettes being 38 SEK for a pack in 2008. Now they're 78 SEK, which is far more than +45% and in a shorter time span.

    Edit: found the summary. 30% are still using nicotine, allegedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They're all ramming Snus against their gums like there's no tomorrow though.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 months ago* (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    'Smoke free contry'

    It's about cigarettes

    Bruh

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yet they attack France for banning nicotine pouches and calling it an attack on the Swedish way of life.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    But yet when the British government does this, Lemmites claim it's an attack on personal freedom and fascism.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›