The dangers of cigarette smoke vs diesel fumes.

[Thurlor]

I'll begin by stating that I'm not wanting to debate whether or not the two are harmful.

My interest lies in the conscience of the policy makers who are pushing for smoking bans yet refuse to consider 'diesel bans' despite equally strong evidence for each.

Is it all about money or is there something else going on? Could this be something like The Fireplace Delusion?

I'm actually interested in the workings of any mind that can be so 'fickle' (not sure if that's the right word).

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

It's not fickle it's totally incoherent and inconsistent.
The best are those non-smokers who cough loudly everytime they see a smoker but drive everywhere in their SUVs. I know which i'd rather breathe - at least nicotine seems to assist thought whilst exhaust fumes suppress it in the manner of a narcotic :

"On the other side of the spectrum, and the world, Israeli researcher Itzhak Schnell suggests that small amounts of car exhaust actually reduces stress in those living in the city. As professor at the Tel Aviv University, Schnell claims small doses of exhaust could cause a calming effect, much like a narcotic, that helps city residents handle the fast paced lifestyle of living in the city"
http://healthishblog.com/exhaust-fumes-affect-the-brain-in-good-and-bad-ways/

- keep them numb so they don't realise the horror of life in the city and try to do something about it.
Banning smoking is a good way for governments to look like they are doing something about health problems whilst in fact they are killing us all whilst they make a few bucks.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Humans suck at risk assessment, which is reflected in policy.

Automobiles vs ... every other mode of transportation, nuclear power vs coal, diet, antibiotics...

 

[The Gopher]

The best are those non-smokers who cough loudly everytime they see a smoker but drive everywhere in their SUVs.

Haha I do this sometimes (but without the SUV) just for fun. The difference is compared to some other people I have asthma and can create the greatest fake cough I have ever heard. I can go from perfectly normal to dying in seconds if I want to.

Personally I don't like either.

 

[Etheri]

If you have a proper exhaust with catalysts, much of the harms of diesel can be reduced. There are more and more laws to make diesel safer.

There are much healthier uptake methods for nicotine and other substances that are often smoked. Vapourising / ecigs / pads / etc.

Easy enough to do the 'unhealthy' stuff without the disadvantages. The only thing I still truly want to try to smoke is DMT... because as far as i'm aware there's no real alternative other than ayahuasca, which has it's own disadvantages and is somewhat diffrent.

Society in general is stupid. When 5 rich / healthy / young people in society die, it's a tragedy. When the people making our clothes are 12 years old and still work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop, it's economy. We claim freedom, but we use force to impose it upon others... How is this not logically flawed?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Haha I do this sometimes (but without the SUV) just for fun. The difference is compared to some other people I have asthma and can create the greatest fake cough I have ever heard. I can go from perfectly normal to dying in seconds if I want to.

Personally I don't like either.

I HATE you!!!!
Try doing the cough for the benefit of people with stinky cars instead. At least smokers look cool!

 

[Thurlor]

Don't get me wrong. I smoke. I know it is bad for me and those around me. I know I am addicted to the crap. I know I haven't quit because I cba. Just because I'm a smoker doesn't make me so arrogant so as to claim smoking isn't harmful.

I think I really dislike inconsistencies and hypocrisy (and the arrogance that goes with it).

 

[Thurlor]

Humans suck at risk assessment, which is reflected in policy.

Automobiles vs ... every other mode of transportation, nuclear power vs coal, diet, antibiotics...

It seems to me that we only really suck at risk assesment for the medium to long term risks. Most people seem to do quite well dealing with immediate risks.

 

[Architect]

There's no special reason for it probably other than ordinary human obstinance. Plus a diesel ban would be much more difficult to implement.

 

[Thurlor]

@Architect

That all makes perfect sense.

I just wish other people would be honest enough (at least with themselves) to admit that.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It seems to me that we only really suck at risk assesment for the medium to long term risks. Most people seem to do quite well dealing with immediate risks.

Except for the part where <~0.00000000001% of risks occur in the present.

Plus a diesel ban would be much more difficult to implement.

I don't see how, given everything else we ban that's practically unenforceable. Yesterday's convenient example (ignore the subject, as it practically begs for a derail): http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/tech/social-media/texas-filibuster-twitter/index.html

 

[Etheri]

Except for the part where <~0.00000000001% of risks occur in the present.

I don't see how, given everything else we ban that's practically unenforceable. Yesterday's convenient example (ignore the subject, as it practically begs for a derail): http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/tech/social-media/texas-filibuster-twitter/index.html

A complete diesel ban has pretty big economic consequences, making it entirely unpractical.

Banning SUVs / fuel-eating cars would be a far better solution, but less practical.

In all honesty, banning diesel completely would have giant economic consequences. I'm not sure how it goes for the US, but that's what it'd be like for certain industries in europe as far as i'm aware.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm certainly not going to charcoal grill anymore, then. O.O

-Duxwing