I would say the difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k). At least in the country I currently live in, anti-smoking measures were not introduced to protect smokers but to protect those around them. At least that was the official narrative.
The vast majority of problem drinking is done by like 10% of americans. I don't think a warning label is going to stop them when they already consume a HUGE amount of alcohol every week
Sure, but abolishing all alcohol because of possible consequences of too much alcohol is hard to sell. Even when talking about people getting really pissed, I would bet that more often than not nothing too bad happens to their environment.
> he difference is that smoking has a bystander effect while alcohol doesn't (besides bar fights, j/k)
I don't think we were talking about abolishing alcohol. Parent claimed alcohol consumption does not have an effect on others which is objectively wrong.
Then you have a poorly configured bullshit detector. Second hand smoke was studied in depth, and plenty of children have ended up with health problems from their parent's smoking. It is only a "controversial" fact among people who refuse to give up smoking for the benefit of their families.
I've never smoked, and neither has anyone in my family except my mom who quit before I was born. I've never smoked marijuana, either, though I voted to legalize it.
For one thing, the concentration has to be a thousand times less. For another, you're just not around it that much. For a third, how can one reliably measure the exposure? Far too many variables.
PM2.5 concentrations tend to be very high around smokers. I live next to one, and even though we're separated by a door and he smokes in his own apartment, the smoking frequently pushes air in my apartment above 200 µg/m³. (I have 3 years of data to prove it.)
Since the outside air is typically even more dangerous here, I can't simply open a window and have to use air filters to combat this.
Conclusions: Our overview of systematic reviews of observational epidemiological evidence suggests that passive smoking is significantly associated with an increasing risk of many diseases or health problems, especially diseases in children and cancers.
> I always thought the "bystander effect" was a load of propaganda.
I can personally confirm that standing by smokers / staying in smokers' houses is quite good for triggering asthma. So I suggest you tampen down your propaganda claims.
Funny you're mentioning that. I've got a relative who counters onset of asthma by smoking, though with very light tobacco and long, thin filters, and on demand only.
I do similar things after eating, because I seem to have varying intolerances against the foods which are common now. Making my nose run, sometimes going to the eyes, giving me tears, over to coughing, and in more rare cases even constricting my throat. All that is going away instantly after a few draws of a selfmade small cigarette with long thin filter, exhaling the smoke through the nose.
Furthermore I don't wan't to lose the ability to smoke light weed from time to time, without coughing and spitting fits :-)
But it was never actually fun though. Maybe it was advertised that way. But there was no positive effect from it.
Drinking on the other hand DOES effect peoples mood, behaviour, confidence etc.
This is what always mystified me about smoking: at least other drugs have some effect, nicotine just gets you addicted.
Edit:
To be clear: smoking has no meaningful affect unless you're already addicted. A non smoker who tries their first cigarette is no more relaxed or confident or calm than they were before.
The same is not true for alcohol or marijuana or basically any other drug people use recreationally...
> A non smoker who tries their first cigarette is no more relaxed or confident or calm than they were before.
Heh, I can tell you've never smoked.
I'm not a smoker, but did try a cigar once. Combined with alcohol, it was an utterly euphoric experience. Think caffeine times ten, at least. I quite literally dreamed about smoking for a couple of days after that experience.
Does that effect persist for regular users? Nope. But for non-smokers it can be a very pleasurable experience.
>smoking has no meaningful affect unless you're already addicted
This isn't true. I started smoking socially in the summer and nicotine absolutely gives you a head rush and relaxing feelings. It also suppresses my appetite quite a bit. I found if I just ate and I'm full and then smoke a cigarette it makes me want to throw up.
And on the topic of fun, it is a social thing and you meet all kinds of interesting people by smoking. It's such a great ice breaker at the bar to meet people.
I gave it up because it's winter and I don't go out to bars as much. Plus it's cold and I have no desire to go outside and smoke anyways. I'll definitely pick it up socially again next summer though, it was one of the best summers of my life.
No positive effect from it? I take it you haven't been a smoker yourself. You being mystified about why smoking was seen as a desirable drug by many is evidence of the massive culture shift that occured surrounding that particular drug.
this is why we are taught in HS how insidious smoking is. We were taught that with many drugs (say heroin), one is always chasing that "first high", as it is tremendous feeling, and subsequent usages never are the same. While with cigarettes, almost universally people will tell you that their initial usage is terrible, they can't stand it.
The only reason people are able to keep doing it is because they get used to it, and their body develop a dependency on it.
I disagree. While a lot of people might not like the taste of their first beer, they tend to not have the same feelings about the effects of it.
E.g., the first time i tried mezcal, I was not really into the flavor of it, but I liked how it made me feel afterwards. Eventually I developed an appreciation for the flavor and started genuinely liking it (just like it happened with beer for a lot of people). But I liked the effects of it the first time around just like I liked them later on, all that's changed is flavor.
Had a similar experience in terms of flavor with some cheeses as well, it is just an acquired taste. And in case of cheeses (unlike with mezcal), there was no "feeling" that I liked the first time around, I just eventually started enjoying the flavor.
With cigarettes, the first time I tried it, there was not a single feeling I liked about it at all.
as he said, there's a difference between disliking the taste of something and something physically making you ill (i.e. it making you cough and feel terrible). i.e. your body is telling you "this is poison". so yeah, you can acclimate to the poison, but its still poison. Even if one considers ethanol to be poison, the first consumptions of it (say in wine) doesn't give the same reaction.
