You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread, Feb 8 - Feb 15, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Elo 08 February 2016 04:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (215)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (215)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Old_Gold 10 February 2016 02:13:56AM 5 points [-]

But when I put forward a policy position, it isn't to maximise political tractability, but rather to maximise public health gains.

So why didn't you simply propose a ban?

Comment author: Lumifer 10 February 2016 02:18:13AM 4 points [-]

So why didn't you simply propose a ban?

Oh, maximising public health gains would probably require force-feeding vegetables (in prison, if necessary) and mandatory exercise (ditto). But in the meantime you can start by banning sugar.

Comment author: Clarity 10 February 2016 04:29:32AM *  -1 points [-]

why

keep things simple, but never simpler than they are

force-feeding vegetables (in prison, if necessary) and mandatory exercise (ditto). But in the meantime you can start by banning sugar.

because that wouldn't maximise public health gains. Would people be overall less or more happy? It's pretty obvious and that's a pretty dumb solution.

Bans are bad because smoking is addictive and withdrawal is harmful. It would be cruel. This kind of black and white thinking and slippery slope argumentation is really suprising to see on LW.

edit: maybe you're on to something. Take a read of this about options for a tobacco endgame. The number of good options available to the regulatory community is sufficient to make any gentle-nudge policy researchers and advocates feel like they're wasting their time (and maybe they are!)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit