ACT supports a law to entrench wealth with those who have it. Big Tobacco could/would benefit from such a law. More happen-stance, than sock-puppetry.

Maybe a good policymaking process for reducing smoking would be to dig through every submission BAT has ever?

But wait,?

Corporations want one thing:?

Do we really think that a tobacco company's right to kill ten percent?

I want to thank Carrick Graham for?

I have always wanted to ?swan off to? somewhere though ? I assume it the art?

Heh, dude, it's Carrick Gra...

Never mind.

It amuses me that this was probably meant sarcastically, and yet a great majority of people would understand "nasty tobacco company representatives" as a tautology.

Democracy:
The term comes from the Greek: ?????????? ? (d?mokratía) "rule of the people"

Remind me again in what way BAT is a member of the people of New Zealand?

And if they can't legislate for it, they'll razor-wire it and wall it off.

And didn't Richard Prebble call for the criminalisation of trade union donations?

The industry isn't excluded.?

Don't tobacco companies often run shell companies and organisations to make submissions on their behalf for exactly this?

This was an odd one. It wasn't a select committee process, it was the Treasury taking submissions, basically on Rodney's behalf. It?

Clearly, your threshold for sock-puppetry is higher than mine.

You're conflating public policy with democracy. Not that it's any surpise. The dolts of the right seem to have a hard time distinguishing citizenship from chequebooks.

Corporations are people too, eh. There's a movie about it.

snap, Lucy

They've laid in brand trademarks some time ago. Let the astroturfing begin..

Yeah, but with a name like that can BAT claim to be a person of New Zealand?

And extra marks for throwing in 'scare quotes' around health 'researchers' ... probably better saved?

I do wish they'd told me what results to produce when I was doing government-funded health research. It would have saved so?

Well yeah, but they shouldn?t have to. It puzzles me that over maybe 60+ years of opportunity, tobacco companies don?t seem to?

Which is a point that Noam Chomsky made in Manufacturing Consent: somethig along the lines of "you don't need a conspiracy theory of backroom deals when right-wing politicans and corporates all want the same thing anyway."

Kind of like that saying about malice and incompetence, only this would be, uh...malice?

Self-interest and ideology. Big Tobacco wants to make money; individual ACT politicians don't necessarily stand to make personal profits from Big Tobacco, but their ideology supports big profits for big companies.

True as you've said, and I definitely don't want to be an apologist for oil corps. I'm just amazed that the tobacco industry didn't try to broaden its own view of the industry it was in?

When smart is synonymous with making lots of profit, I can't think why they'd?

Just looking at readily available data for BAT and Philip Morris, they?ve seen year on year profit?

It would be hard to pick up more smokers in Indonesia – close to 80% of all males?

It really isn?t, though, except that now it is because they?ve been stupid morons. If a few people in the tobacco industry had, 50 years ago, realised that the industry wasn?t going to last in the western world and taken a?

Shuddup. You're making me jealous!

Those same things are also related to?

While I think banning smoking indoors is good, I still think the 'orrible stuff should be legal.

Why? It's the only product that when used exactly as intended kills half of its users.

Make beer not cigarettes!

It's semi legal in big parts of the world now, and this hasn't happened and seems unlikely to. Mostly, given their cloudy duplicitous histories, they would likely have?

I completely agree. The world is finally waking up to the futility of marijuana being illegal?

Or we could invest properly in solving the drivers of all addiction, which I'd prefer. Just not naive enough to?

That is such bullshit. How many people die per year from skydiving, mountain climbing, flying light?

You could argue the 'mistake' is in the humans. The plants are just fine.

This graphic suggests that New Zealand's climate probably isn't great for tobacco growth (if we're talking about people growing it?

Good luck trying to survey such things in Indonesia. The 60% figure often quoted comes?

Risking a threadjack here, but I'd love to hear a bit more about this. Feeding my own bubbling theories you see..

Google 'tobacco smuggling in the UK'. Here's a couple of examples from the results:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1169049.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series6/smugglers.shtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6110778/Revealed-2bn-cost-to-UK-from-cigarette-smuggling.html

Good luck separating those.

Same. I'm thinking about us tackling the emotional and personal development issues that all addiction sits on. Needs a big investment in mental health, counselling, and other wellbeing services. Imagine the productivity and social gains from say $1b spent on that?

Can't be done. You can show people that it's both harmful and addictive. They still have to decide if the harm outweighs whatever the drivers of the addiction are, which aren't just the fear of physical cravings. They're actual pleasure in the use of the substance.?

With respect, I'm not sure you understand how addiction works.

Yep, but also the broader social and cultural issues that impinge on the personal and emotional ones. You know, capitalism and liberalism elevating the individual over the collective, the trope that happiness comes from getting rather than giving,?

Totally. You can see why I'm not holding my breath..

Because you, like Bill Clinton, didn't inhale?

A good point. However, like some aspects of piracy (as opposed to peer-to-peer?

Part of my bubbling theory is that change might actually not be so far away. Peak oil might alter more than where we go to buy fuel for our cars.

Only if the right approach can wrest power from the well-resourced interests defending the status quo. That's going to take far more competent organising that we've seen so far – and fresher ideas than street marches and brochures. Aslo means tapping the?

Perhaps not. It's really hard to say. Many people have kicked addiction, by exercising choice. It seems to be one of the most successful ways, in fact. People who don't want to quit are the main ones who don't quit,?

Saturday Night's Alright For Introducing Vouchers?

There is no depression in New Zealand

Or the original "No Depression":

I?m going where there?s no resource consent process,
to the lovely land that?s free from abrogations of my property rights.

In that bright land, there'll be no hunger,
no orphan children cryin' for bread,
no weeping widows, toil or struggle,
no shrouds, no coffins, and no death.

Smoking, as an activity on the part of a smoker, does no harm to others? Really? What about secondhand smoke? The environmental impact (not?

I already said I don't disagree with banning it in buildings...but on the street, that I don't like.

What about secondhand smoke? The environmental impact (not just of smoking but the production of cigarettes)? The terrible working conditions in the plantations where tobacco is grown and?

It?s on a tangent but there?s some interesting research from within New Zealand around the skewed risk-tolerance with people who are into things like mountain climbing and base jumping. His sample of 50 committed and experienced mountain climbers had a 10%?

Whether you view those measures as; paternalistic and unjustified,?

No, especially since a thousand seeds costs about $2.50 (and they will drop their own seeds from then on), and they're basically plant-and-forget, being a very hardy plant, well adapted to NZ,?

With plain-packaged cartons costing $40, that you buy from restricted retailers (chemists, mostly) and are free to smoke in your own home and property... and 2-5% of the population smoking. That's my speculative answer.

Because both those activities are not addictive. As I say, you really do not seem to understand what that means. In the nicest possible way, I?

Just not to the question actually asked.

Because both those activities are not addictive

Indeed, that's why they would need to be forced to do it. For their own good.

If determined to take a 'rational' economic approach

My argument is not economic. It's moral. But?

That's a confusing argument. I think you're mixing up immediate and long-term effects. Secondhand smoke clearly has implications for the?

No, its a stupid argument.

I thought you were being sincere. So I addressed tobacco.

If you mean where does the reach of public health end for other harmful activities, I have no idea. There is a societal consensus for the control of tobacco, but there are no?

And my response was that practically everything does, and that doesn't mean you have to be restricted where you appreciate your impacting good. You don't have to leave the CBD to put on your?

In a very dragged out and expensive way though, is it not? Smoker deaths don't usually?

That again, is ill informed. Quite apart from the horror inflicted on those who suffer through their last years and those who lose family members much earlier than they otherwise would (13 years earlier,?

Ya lost me.

I don't think it's of much relevance in the zealotry surrounding anti-smoking legislation.

I agree, it's not a major factor, but was just addressing your objection.

I think the whole thing is deeply?

I was being sincere, but I can see that I didn't make the question plain enough. My bad.

If you mean where does the reach of public health end for other harmful activities, I have no idea.

Yes, that was?

Fatal second-hand smoke effects exist.

Applying limited public health and social resources to treat smokers (or drinkers, for instance) means those resources are not available for other people. There seem to be moral implications..

and from George,

the costs of end-of-life healthcare, particularly for cancers, is extreme.

Convince me you've done the number on this. Considering that everyone dies in the end, and the better our healthcare gets, the more likely it?

Ben, you're the first person I've ever met, offline or on, who has referred to the evidence on tobacco as an "appeal to prejudice".

I'm also aware that my last paragraph is an appeal to authority, but I do think that if you're going to argue that there is no compelling?

Having actually looked up the word consensus, I'm rather surprised to find it doesn't mean unanimity. I'll concede this one. I guess I've only ever been in consensus decision making situations that did end up being unanimous. That is, however, probably on account of the?

I find an endless cloud of toxic smoke that I?

I don't believe you have engaged with the impact of addiction on choice – but I've already recognised you may need better information to do that with. And I don't have any to point you at?

As I recall, that was a killer live, no?

I'm not qualified to comment on health effects, but I definitely agree with the prevalence of?

Yes, when I went to Bangkok, every time I blew my nose it was black. But that wasn't because of smokers. I gather this has improved, though??

Well, if you're a utilitarian, then I think you should be agreeing with us rather than disagreeing. The public utility of restricting tobacco use (better living, everyone!) is a good?

See, I don't walk down those couple of streets that often/ever.

The skywalks in particular don't offer the upward dispersion as they have trains running above them. The clouds of smoke that filled the air up?

I?m not convinced the most relevant factors are about the size of the crowd so much as the nature of our urban layouts that place smokers into walking corridors which everyone uses with people who are smoking, or encourages them to stand near doorways?

That's a problem Climate Change Deniers have been suffering from for a long time. :)

No, and no. I don't "wave it away". I consider it an important?

assuredly

again, you're ignoring addiction.
more rebellious to choose tofu

You know I?

No wonder I missed it. To call something that you do 20-odd times a day and get genuine pleasure from "limited private utility" caused me confusion. I apologize for suggesting you forgot the actual theory, but?

b) do you not think perhaps the aim of these taxes is to offset these costs?

Arguably, the reason why governments don't ban tobacco is?

a) I accept that smoking kills people. I'm not sure how much of a burden this?

Societal goods. Utility to society as a whole. You know, the main factor in most modern forms of utilitarianism when it comes to discussion of public policy.

I think you're?

I?ll restrain my anger over that last phrase and attribute it to your naiveté.

The care?

Causes broader harms than just that (which have burdens/costs).

snap

None of this is unsettled stuff, so it makes about as much sense to me as arguing about climate change – also a popular libertarian sport. Perhaps an explanation of why (from that perspective)?

It might be how it started, but it's not how it's done now. Most of us contemporary philosophers think Socrates was a dick.

I think part of the problem in this debate is that we don't think your group (the smokers who harm no one) actually exist and thus we?

Well, we mostly have Plato?s word on Socrates, and Plato definitely was a dick. If I had a time machine, a rifle and a convenient grassy knoll?

As a minor contributor to this discussion I guess you probably aren't taking about me, but I feel obliged to say that I've just got back from seeing Fire in Babylon at the Hamilton?

I never seem to have the slightest trouble.

@kracklite
Please don?t be so glib ? there are real effects

I've not denied that.

A little taste and tact please? They?re not mere societal conventions, they?re founded on?

Wrong. Most of the harms I experience from smokers come from sharing a publicly-funded health system with them. Not because they offend my nose or pollute my lungs.

Treating people as economic facts or logical constructions tends to offend fellow humans.

I?m sorry, but that just strikes me as defensive, and a little bit smug. An immediate family member whom I love is dying of cancer, another might yet. To talk about these people as if they were ?burdens? is disrespectful.

You don?t have to?

Smokers die younger, but they don't age faster. So they work until 65, like non smokers, paying taxes all the time, and?

This shows an ignorance of probability.

Granted, smoking increases the probability of cancer substantially, but that does not mean that all cancer?

Defensive, yes. It's what happens when I'm accused of disrespect.?

Already done. I won?t redundantly elaborate.

I haven?t even spoken about people who have had to deal with loved ones who are dying!

Indeed you haven?t, because it has not even occurred to you. It?s all very well to talk?

Not without help... and over a long time. "Choice" is a very simplistic concept as you present it.

Ah, but of course, your post is explicitly a pretext for a withdrawal.

Sigh. It's not. Again, this is like arguing climate science or the roundness of the earth. There is a whole health discipline dedicated to tobacco harm, including health economists. With figures different than Jackie has just offered (but Carrick must be loving?

Smoking also has other health harms.

Yeah, someone else can tackle that one if you're unwilling to do some reading. I have another meeting of the national cancer clinical information systems leadership group to prepare for this morning. (seriously).

My point is that outdoor cigarette smoke is ubiquitous in outdoor urban places at any time?

tabagie...
The French always have a word for these things...?

I would like it very much. So would my husband and my son and my daughter. Why is what you like more important than what we like?

That's a tough one. It?

It is a stretch for you to suggest that smokers have generally agreed to most of your positions here.

Quite the opposite. New Zealand research has found tobacco control measures to be generally supported by smokers (see here.)

Ben, if your "moral" argument is that any anti-smoking action is just?

Fucking Big Cleaners. Exploiting us by making floors wet that we have to walk on.

How very Owen Glenn of you.

I'd like to understand how you see the relationship between addiction and personal choice.

great branding opportunity

I must have misunderstood this, for one:

I also think the aim of the taxes on smoking are simply sin-taxes, tickling an urge in puritans that I find quite unpleasant myself.

Ben is upset about being picked on. His basic assumption (as I gather from what has been written here) is that much of tobacco policy is primarily punitive, driven not by health needs,?

The last stats I saw ? admittedly a few years ago ? had smokers as about 20% of the general population and higher in some subgroups (esp. Maori and Pasifika women.) That?s not a majority, but it?s not ?small? by any standard. Have numbers?

No, you are completely wrong about this. I simply disagree with the punitive?

Maybe the $350 million smoking-related health bill you cited earlier could be redirected to other parts of the health system? Maybe the money spent on promoting 'stop smoking' campaigns could be spent elsewhere? Maybe smokers (a significant proportion of whom?

(In any case, I'm the apparently rare non-smoker who really doesn't give much of a shit about open-air smoking. Come, smoke?

What would it take to convince you? You seem to be simply ignoring well-established public health policy about tobacco and addiction.

I don't either, at that practical day-to-day level. It's just not where the harms or opportunities that motivate any public intervention lie. George explained the linkages quite adequately.

Ben, you have asked everyone to enter this discussion in the spirit of openmindedness and willingness to understand an alternative view, but this just demonstrates that you are making no attempt to do?

Sadly?

I think you're asking this in good faith, but I just don't really feel like answering it, because it's not especially relevant to the argument at hand. Whether choice exists or not does not alter the?

If you want to talk about personal choice, but wont to talk about addiction, you?re just... [edited, unnecessarily harsh].

Same

Fencing off private swimming pools, etc, might also be relevant comparisons – though 'punitive' might not be the right word. Language choices like that suggest an underlying belief system that is of some interest. Just not right now,?

Here?s a good place to start. World Health Organisation, Tobacco.

Edit: actually, everyone in this debate could get something from the WHO's page. There are some extremely well?

Yeah I'm struggling to make sense of that one.

which might be worth exploring, but probably not here.

Maybe we'd have to spend way more on pensions if people stopped smoking and lived longer?

To be honest I appreciate the right and need for people to light up without being sneered at, whether it?s because they?re addicted or because they want to. I?

But purely from?