I think everyone stopped, we fixed all the problems and then got lots of back pats.

I always attributed it to general education being the real mover. I think as the public became more educated we looked for solutions to help curb use and the decline was the leveling out once people were able to make a more informed decision.

Some folks will always choose to smoke knowing what it is and I think we have just moved closer to that number. Certainly advertising and exposure have a large role to play as well, I just feel as though it’s a whole host of elements that have changed the usage rates.

I feel as though banning something makes certain demographics less likely to take it up but I feel like the measures we had in place already target that crowd. I think we are very close to the market cap on people we can sell abstinence to.

Just my thinking on it, the numbers might bare out different results. I just personally think illegality is not the major barrier to uptake that folks think it is. I would point to coke usage and how ubiquitous it is with young adults in the UK right now.

In the end I think making something illegal that is already on the decline is a misstep, let it fade out on its own rather than call attention to it. People get up in arms about change, a great way to make something popular is to tell folks they can’t have it.

Honestly curious, why pro ban? I don’t smoke/condone smoking but I don’t think of it as so heinous an activity as to be made illegal.

I feel like gambling is a far greater issue and only seems to have it’s popularity on the rise recently.

Smoking falls in my “vices that don’t totally ruin your life” category. Alcohol seems an obvious and fair bit worse a vice so why is there not a call for change there?

I was living in Canada for the change in weed prohibition and all and all seemed like a somewhat positive change overall.

Folks are going to smoke regardless, why give up taxation to pay for the treatment? I only see making it illegal as means to create a criminal element. Once that is robust enough you loose any real ability to regulate as well.

Again, honest question curious if any of this resonates or if you have a completely different view of how the situation will play out.

I have all sorts of anxiety surrounding AI. Most of the anxiety comes from the misuse, copyright issues and departure from critical and creative thinking. However, one of the fields I actually think it could be very useful and of great benefit is medicine.

That being said, I’d be a no as well. The way this is worded and he track record we’ve seen with privacy doesn’t fill me with much confidence. Feels like another instance off loading of thinking rather as a tool for better diagnosis.

It sounds like America from the process. The confluence of commercialization of healthcare and tools that can make it look like time and attention has been used leads to some bad places. I’d be very sceptical about any advice medical or otherwise I recieved.

The unfortunate truth is that without these tools the cost of care will be higher for health companies not using the tools. Which means bespoke human led care will be a luxury in America in the near future. I don’t think it’s a reality you are going to be able to avoid.

I would push back at every opportunity, double check all of the information you are getting, ask pointed “why this” questions, make doctors clearly communicate that they are the ones giving the recommendation. At the end of the day a good doctor with AI tools is likely to do a better job.

Arnie slept with his maid