OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to Chew on ACT
240 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
Fucking Big Cleaners
great branding opportunity
-
Sacha, in reply to
If you think I said that, then you're not paying attention
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.
-
I’m going save everyone the bother (warning, assumptions about others here, if symptoms persist see your doctor).
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, but by a societal wish to sanction those who violate norms. Society must be defended. He says that he is not driven by this, but I don’t believe him, insomuch as he claims to be comfortable only with measures that do not impinge much on his freedom. This is an approach/response also frequently adopted by those who challenge the state’s efforts to promote health in other areas (including diet). I’ll only address tobacco here, because each has a tangle of ideas and assumptions that need unpacking and f*’d if I’m going to debate (for example) obesity today too.
However. This isn’t actually a driver of policy, at least as far as I can tell from reading and listening to health ministries and tobacco-control activists. If this motive is here, it’s well hidden.
What is at stake are a number of things. Reducing the number of social contexts in which it is possible to smoke actually has significant effects on use. If it’s no longer possible to smoke at your desk, while at a bar, in a park, or on public transport, your physical opportunities are limited. People do of course smoke in between these, but the evidence I understand is pretty clear on this. Reducing consumption also reduces nicotine levels, meaning that breaking addiction is easier. Difficult, but easier. Reducing the acceptability of smoking in a large number of contexts also breaks a lot of psychosocial links, further helping smokers to quit. Reducing these contexts also severely limits the contexts in which new smokers are exposed to tobacco as a ‘normal’ activity. Ben persists in the idiotic assertion that smoking is a choice made by rational adults, rather than a addiction fallen into by teenagers. So, this part is important. Reducing their exposure to even small amounts of nicotine is important. Tobacco is extremely addictive, and even small amounts make regular tobacco use much more likely. Finally, the raft of other measures (including point of sale control, packaging control, and pricing) all help prevent future smokers from acquiring the addiction, and help existing users to quit. Most users who are aware of the health effects (in NZ is the great majority are aware) want to quit.
Second hand smoke is very serious, and although there are some situations (a park, for example). Nevertheless, Ben is chosing to ignore this part of things, because it does not coincide with his argument.
Apologies for the length. I feel like I have to spell everything out.
-
Jackie Clark, in reply to
So George, acknowledging that secondhand smoke is dangerous, why do you want smokers to stop smoking? None of any of what you said above addresses quite why so much money is spent every year attempting to stop a small part of the population from partaking of a habit which, if they are considerate and aren't blowing smoke in others' faces, or smoking in their houses thereby damaging their children, is entirely their own business. Is it because you believe that tobacco companies are evil? Is it because it benefits society if we all live long lives uninterrupted by any disease? Why? If it's in the public's interest, why is it so?
-
a small part of the population
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 of smokers really decreased that much in the last five years?
And I think the key is as George says: most smokers become addicted as teenagers, with health consequences for the rest of their lives. I think it’s pretty obvious why it’s a public good to minimise the chances of people taking up a very highly addictive and unhealthy habit at a young age.
-
I don't agree agree with the idea that smoking outside has no effect on others. What happens to the tonnes of ash flicked onto the ground and washed to the sea or is it that all the nasties are now in the air. And butts after filtering the toxins they are feed to the fish we eat. I have been on the beach in Cadiz where the Mediteranian meets the Atlantic and kicked the 1/2 mtr high football field sized drifts of butts on the beach and can't believe these have not in some way impacted on the surrounding population.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
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, but by a societal wish to sanction those who violate norms.
No, you are completely wrong about this. I simply disagree with the punitive motives where they exist in tobacco policy, and have a fundamental difference of values about society's right to inflict such punishment.
Society must be defended. He says that he is not driven by this, but I don’t believe him, insomuch as he claims to be comfortable only with measures that do not impinge much on his freedom.
Eh? I absolutely think society must be defended. I never claimed only to be comfortable with measures that don't impinge much on my freedom. I simply have some rules about when such impingement is justified. When the purpose is to punish people for doing something that only harms them, then I hate the idea. When the purpose is to prevent harms to others, like the indoor smoking ban, I think that's a good law.
Ben persists in the idiotic assertion that smoking is a choice made by rational adults, rather than a addiction fallen into by teenagers. So, this part is important.
It is indeed. Most smokers are rational adults. They are not mentally ill. They are not children. They're not criminals. They're people who deserve respect and fair treatment.
Second hand smoke is very serious, and although there are some situations (a park, for example). Nevertheless, Ben is chosing to ignore this part of things, because it does not coincide with his argument.
What tosh. Anyone who is capable of reading can see the number of times I've said I agree with the indoor smoking ban, because of the harm caused by second-hand smoke. I'm not, however, convinced about the harms of this inflicted out of doors, except in quite specific circumstances (crowds). I do not count being offended by a smell as an important social harm, I'm sorry. Please indicate to me any studies that show that second hand smoke picked up out of doors is a significant health risk, and I'll make the necessary adjustments to the average gap between humans required to protect people from harm.
Apologies for the length. I feel like I have to spell everything out.
Thank you for misrepresenting me so clearly. I feel I really understand what you want me to be saying now.
-
John Armstrong, in reply to
If it's in the public's interest, why is it so?
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 come from socio-economically deprived communities) would have a bit more money to spend on things that bring them benefits as opposed to making them sick? Maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if the non-smoking public didn't have to sit inside or go elsewhere to avoid smoke in some public places? Maybe my father (and 5000 other people each year) would live long enough for his gransdon to remember him and learn from him, thereby becoming a slightly more rounded and worldy member of society than he otherwise have become? Less litter?
-
This rather reminds me of the breastfeeding discussion. "You individuals are doing something bad!" vs "this issue is far less to do with individual agency than it is structural!"
(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 vaguely near me in a park, you hapless addicted souls! I will happily move six inches to the left!)
-
Sacha, in reply to
I'm not, however, convinced about the harms of this inflicted out of doors
What would it take to convince you? You seem to be simply ignoring well-established public health policy about tobacco and addiction.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I'm the apparently rare non-smoker who really doesn't give much of a shit about open-air smoking
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.
-
John Armstrong, in reply to
It is indeed. Most smokers are rational adults. They are not mentally ill. They are not children.
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 so yourself. I haven't got the numbers, but I think it is fair to assume that most smokers start reasonably young. It is also reasonably fair to assume that most are smart enough to understand the risks. And it is also fair to assume that chemical addiction is a significant factor in their continuing to smoke. Sure, they become rational adults later, but by then the chemical addiction compromises their ability to exercise rationality.
And its disingenuous to imply (as you do) that acknowledging addiction as a factor alongside rational choice is to depict smokers as 'mentally ill' or 'children'. No-one is saying that.
-
a win-no win for tobaccaddicts
& a wind win for those downwind
To keep the alfresco nightshade consumer happy and still able to seek solace in the Solanaceae family, may I put in a plug for chewing tobacco ...
- but please take a jar with you to spit in!Sadly while users may save their lungs this way, they'll still be running the risk of contracting oral cancers.
Also, just wondering how the non-smoking in prisons is going, I haven't heard of any recent riots...
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I'd like to understand how you see the relationship between addiction and personal choice.
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 morality of using punitive measures to influence the decision making process. You've been asking it over and over, and I've only delayed because I've been tempted to answer at length and just haven't had the time. But now I'm sure I just don't want to do it in this context, and certainly not now, as I absolutely have to get back to work.
What would it take to convince you? You seem to be simply ignoring well-established public health policy about tobacco and addiction.
A clearer elucidation of the actual harms at work here. The outdoor passive smoking harm is quantified somewhere? I could easily change my opinion on seeing it. Do you have other harms in mind as well? Say what they are. I'm not ignoring public health policy - I'm just not aware of it, it's not my field, nor an interest of mine.
-
I just don’t really feel like answering it, because it’s not especially relevant to the argument at hand.
If you want to talk about personal choice, but wont to talk about addiction, you’re just... [edited, unnecessarily harsh].
-
Sacha, in reply to
certainly not now, as I absolutely have to get back to work
Same
-
Sacha, in reply to
the morality of using punitive measures to influence the decision making process
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, perhaps.
-
I’m not ignoring public health policy – I’m just not aware of it, it’s not my field, nor an interest of mine.
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 produced resources there.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it's not especially relevant to the argument at hand
Yeah I'm struggling to make sense of that one.
-
I'm sure Carrick can suggest some references..
-
Whether choice exists or not does not alter the morality of using punitive measures to influence the decision making process.
And I've explained, that while measures cause you inconvenience, they are not punitive. They are preventative. They reduce consumption and reduce the likelihood of others smoking, and make it easier to break the addiction (which most want to do). You still feel like society is trying to punish you - when that is not what the policy wonks in MOH and tobacco control are trying to do. (Well, there are those youth ads which are aimed at making smokers uncool). But for the most part, punitive sanctions are a limited part of the policy mix.
-
Sacha, in reply to
feel like society is trying to punish you
which might be worth exploring, but probably not here.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
As above, so below...
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.
Deja vu - how Brash of you...
see him do exactly this at about 6:30 in...
(watch the whole documentary if you haven't before) -
Maybe the $350 million smoking-related health bill you cited earlier could be redirected to other parts of the health system?
Maybe we'd have to spend way more on pensions if people stopped smoking and lived longer?
-
izogi, in reply to
Come, smoke vaguely near me in a park, you hapless addicted souls! I will happily move six inches to the left!
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 just wish public spaces would be built with more thought towards encouraging and sometimes shifting people who want to smoke away from commonly used public places and thoroughfares. I’d be happier if we treated smoking in the same way that we often restrict people from taking bikes or food or dogs into certain areas because of how it changes a place and the annoyance it causes to others who are there for different reasons, as long as there are other reasonable places set aside for it. Presently, especially with things like cafes pushing all their smokers out into big long lines on sheltered public footpaths that continue to be pushed as major walking routes between points A and B, we’re encouraging smokers into crowded places.
As I said earlier though, I think the question of there being a “right to fresh air” is a separate issue that’s not being discussed here. I’m mostly taking exception to the claims that effects of outdoor smoking — whatever they are — are easy to get away from. For many people I don’t think it’s true.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.