On 18/09/2013 4:18 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
If you ask why someone would do something unhealthy like smoking then perhaps you should also ask why people do unhealthy things like playing computer games which are very common in our community. Obviously people consider that the short term pleasure of such activities outweighs the health costs.
Yes, that is true to a point. But smoking effects more third parties in bad ways than gaming (on the whole). Walking down the street with cigarette smoke wafting into my face and beard isn't pleasant at all. Even in the gaming arena, I have strong views .... I heard an interesting comment on a podcast -- let's say your emails are being monitored and you mention doing things that are part of a violent game, but the context in that single email makes it look like you are talking real life stuff. Ignore the fact that you just bought the game hours earlier and maybe sent an email about that earlier. Replace email with tweet or instant message ... SMS or any other medium. Context counts, but if the game wasn't so horrifically violent in nature, then their would be cause for concern about the latter communication. If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
In terms of regulating tobacco I don't think that adults choosing pure tobacco products such as cigars has ever involved a significant portion of the population. It's cigarettes that have chemicals to make them more addictive that are advertised to children that are the biggest problem.
Yes, but even though cigarettes have so many chemicals, that doesn't make cigars the answer, there are other alternatives.
If prohibition is ended by having government run medical centers administering heroin then it wouldn't encourage people to take up the habit. What encourages people to take it up is pressure from other addicts who want to make money dealing.
Yes, I agree, if it must happen, then it must be done in a controlled manner that really does help.
Also to reduce drug use we could work on policies to make people's lives not suck. If things are going well for someone then heroin just won't appeal to them.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world. Cheers A.