fair points! I should have been explicit here but I was invoking epistemological humility primarily in response to SMA’s public statements about the tobacco industry which in my view do not seriously engage with the idea that tobacco use could be a free-but-harmful or free-and-beneficial choice for any consumers.
I would push back on the idea that the harm/benefit ratio to smoking is somehow ‘medically settled’. The fact that cigarettes greatly increase risk of lung cancer, say, is settled but for the harm/benefit ratio to be settled it would require us to be able to put the harm and benefit in comparable units; the correct procedure for which is, in my view, a epistemological mystery (the problem here seems similar to trying to get an unambiguous answer with health economics whether to go on a fun-but-risky rafting trip or a safe-but-boring trip to the mall).
I do believe the freedom to choose self-destructive habits is an important principle worth defending though I don’t think that claim is necessary for the more narrow point I was making in this post.
I would argue harms vs. benefits of tobacco are settled, to the point where we don’t really need further calculations. ITs implausable that a calculation could find the small potential psychological benefits would outweigh 10 years less life expectancy. This would require a 15%-20% ish continual wellbeing improvement from smoking which is impossible.…
The problem isn’t similar to a fun and risky rafting trip which might lower your life expectancy by a day or something.
If you are a libertarian and believe in Freedom to destroy yourself and others (second hand smoke) that’s a different argument.
fair points! I should have been explicit here but I was invoking epistemological humility primarily in response to SMA’s public statements about the tobacco industry which in my view do not seriously engage with the idea that tobacco use could be a free-but-harmful or free-and-beneficial choice for any consumers.
I would push back on the idea that the harm/benefit ratio to smoking is somehow ‘medically settled’. The fact that cigarettes greatly increase risk of lung cancer, say, is settled but for the harm/benefit ratio to be settled it would require us to be able to put the harm and benefit in comparable units; the correct procedure for which is, in my view, a epistemological mystery (the problem here seems similar to trying to get an unambiguous answer with health economics whether to go on a fun-but-risky rafting trip or a safe-but-boring trip to the mall).
I do believe the freedom to choose self-destructive habits is an important principle worth defending though I don’t think that claim is necessary for the more narrow point I was making in this post.
I would argue harms vs. benefits of tobacco are settled, to the point where we don’t really need further calculations. ITs implausable that a calculation could find the small potential psychological benefits would outweigh 10 years less life expectancy. This would require a 15%-20% ish continual wellbeing improvement from smoking which is impossible.…
The problem isn’t similar to a fun and risky rafting trip which might lower your life expectancy by a day or something.
If you are a libertarian and believe in Freedom to destroy yourself and others (second hand smoke) that’s a different argument.