• set_secret@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The argument you’ve presented oversimplifies complex public health issues by lumping together unrelated substances and policies.

    Tobacco, universally acknowledged for its lack of health benefits and high harm potential, is incomparable to substances like cannabis or alcohol, which may have varied effects and potential positive uses.

    The term ‘nanny state’ is a reductive way to dismiss nuanced health policies that aim to balance regulation with individual freedom.

    Regarding obesity, it’s a multifactorial issue. A simplistic approach like banning sugar or fast food ignores the broader socio-economic and lifestyle factors at play (although a sugar tax is probably not a terrible idea).

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      How so? Tobacco is a vice which has health benefits such as organic pesticides and cognitive research against dementia and Alzheimer’s. It’s a vice just like cannabis and alcohol is. Neither of which when used in the way the majority of people use them have any health benefits.

      Nanny state is exactly what trying to ban a vice is. Prohibition is a nanny state response.

      What does that have to do with my comments pointing out obesity is a way bigger problem than tobacco is? Tobacco is being used as a scapegoat, while increased alcoholism and obesity is at epidemic levels. Tobacco is no longer an issue of public health in western nations. Education has basically fixed this.