You can cut your finger off at the 2nd knuckle or the 3rd knuckle.
Comment on After all, why not?
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago…and your lungs
Sure they are probably better than cigarettes but the bar is extremely low
Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
endless_nameless@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
I’m not one to complain about what harms people choose to expose themselves to. Everyone owns their own body. The environmental damage effects us all though.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
I personally don’t want to smell your substance use
endless_nameless@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
You think I’m advocating for people to smoke in public? You think I’m advocating for people to smoke at all? Why don’t you re-read my comment and pay close attention to my wording.
affenlehrer@feddit.org 18 hours ago
It makes health insurance more expensive for everyone, at least here in Germany
endless_nameless@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
It is crucial to draw a distinction between direct and indirect harms, tangible and abstract harms. Does the problem lie in the individual’s right to bodily autonomy and self determination? Or does it lie in the design of a system that forces the consequences of individuals’ decisions to be diffused across the entire population? I don’t really know, but it raises a lot of questions. Is it fair to punish those who don’t make the choice to smoke? Is it fair to treat those who make the choice to smoke differently? Discussion around smoking induces a very, very strong bias.
Consider something else: Should I be made to feel guilty for the economic impact if I choose to cut myself with a knife vs. if someone else chooses to cut me with a knife? Obviously, any compassionate person would be more focused on what caused the decision. Anybody would know in this scenario that inducing guilt over the economics of self harm is fucked. Now, if someone else cut me, the obvious way to repair the situation would be to punish the perpetrator.
Do you see what I’m getting at? You shouldn’t be mad at the smoker. Generally, nobody chooses to harm themselves. They misunderstood the risks, fell for it, and got addicted. You should be mad at the cigarette companies for not paying restitution for their societal harm. Maybe smokers should be held responsible for those they spread the social contagion of smoking to, but they are in no way culpable for the indirect, abstract harms you perceive. They aren’t choosing to cost you money, your government is choosing it by not holding the perpetrator responsible.
affenlehrer@feddit.org 13 hours ago
Fair. However, what do you think about people who drive recklessly? They risk their own life and spend more money for fuel, perhaps also for a sports car but they also put others in danger, increase traffic deaths and pollution.
Is it an underlying psychological disorder that makes them do it? Is it the marketing of the auto industry and they fell for it or are they directly responsible?
It’s a bad direct comparison with smoking but there is a line somewhere where people are either directly responsible or everything is predetermined and a result of outer circumstances.
I’m glad the social democracy in Germany can (so far) account for “selfish” individual decisions. It’s also one of the fields where taxation could be very effective. E.g. taxes on tobacco are quite high in Germany but less for fuel and cars, mostly because of our own car industry but also because pretty much everyone depends on them, regardless of their driving style.
My comment sounded pretty salty but I just wanted to point out that harmful individual choices can affect others. What I’m actually mad about is that the social security in Germany is slowly deteriorating. There’s enough money and resources to uphold it but US inspired management and economy styles direct the resources into billionaires pockets while at the same time playing the “look over there, the poor people and immigrants took your money and get everything for free” game.