OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to Chew on ACT
240 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
it is nonsense to disagree
the moon is also made of cheese
-
Giving up on this.
If you think that controlling an addictive disease that kills ten percent of New Zealanders and twenty five percent of Maori every year is unreasonable, then we have no common ground, and we can't have a useful conversation.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
If you think that controlling an addictive disease that kills ten percent of New Zealanders and twenty five percent of Maori every year is unreasonable, then we have no common ground, and we can’t have a useful conversation
That's 10% of NZers and 25% of Maori *who die*, right? I'm sort of boggling to imagine the effects of the way you put that...
< / pendant >
-
No Sacha, it is indisputably true that if every 65 y.o went out and shot themselves, that would be a very good thing for the state of the government books. Of course, it would also be a bizarrely horrible thing to happen, and I would support massive state intervention to stop that happening the same way I support massive state intervention against tobacco and tobacco companies.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
If you think that controlling an addictive disease that kills ten percent of New Zealanders and twenty five percent of Maori every year is unreasonable, then we have no common ground, and we can’t have a useful conversation.
I don't think there any useful conversation to be had when you're bad touching statistics like that - srsly. Please don't tell ACT that Maori women are breeding like Ellen Ripley's worse nightmare to maintain the race with tobacco-related mortality like that.
ETA: Oh, snaps to Lucy.
-
I think perhaps the problem with these sorts of arguments in general is that it's difficult for some people (not necessarily anyone here) to differentiate between righteous anger at tobacco companies and the structures which enable them, and (what I consider mostly pointless) seething resentment at the addicted person inconveniencing other people. (Maybe because we're increasingly focussed on this individualist 'every person for themselves' sort of vibe at the moment in NZ? Not sure.) So then the argument becomes about the moral failings of the smokers, being all visible and addicted, how dare they ruin everything, and people get... distracted. That's certainly the baggage I'm bringing to this, anyway.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Well, yeah - I could be a thoroughly obnoxious sober alcoholic and euthanise what I laughingly call my social life by lecturing everyone with a drink in their hands about the social cost (and drain on the public purse) caused by alcohol abuse.
What that would achieve beyond a matching pair of thick ears currently escapes me, though. :)
-
John Armstrong, in reply to
it is indisputably true that if every 65 y.o went out and shot themselves, that would be a very good thing for the state of the government books.
This is totally disputable if you accept that it is impossible to fully quantify in economic terms all the benefits that experienced people bring to society. As I hinted at yesterday, one of the reasons that I would love to see my father give up smoking is so he can be involved in my son's life long enough to make an impression. I hesitate to quantify those benefits because I also believe that to do so involves so many arbitrary decisions about 'worth' that it's practically meaningless. But if you want to play that game, is it so hard to accept that his interaction with older people might influence his personality in ways that, in the long term, might make him a more 'productive' citizen, or at least one who doesn't drain the coffers as much as he might have?
I don't think there any useful conversation to be had when you're bad touching statistics like that - srsly.
It was clear to me that George made a genuine error of expression, which did nothing to undermine the validity of his overall sentiment.
-
it is indisputably true that if every 65 y.o went out and shot themselves, that would be a very good thing for the state of the government books.
It would also be a good thing (on that sole measure) to kill disabled people. Your point is?
It was clear to me that George made a genuine error of expression, which did nothing to undermine the validity of his overall sentiment.
Badly phrased, yes. But clear as the day what I meant.
I could be a thoroughly obnoxious sober alcoholic and euthanise what I laughingly call my social life by lecturing everyone with a drink in their hands about the social cost (and drain on the public purse) caused by alcohol abuse.
Which is why public health advertising is rarely haranguing or accusatory. It doesn’t work. Look at the recent ALAC ads – they’re about a person who has a problem, not someone who is one.
pointless seething resentment at the addicted person inconveniencing other people. (Maybe because we’re increasingly focussed on this individualist ‘every person for themselves’ sort of vibe at the moment in NZ? Not sure.) So then the argument becomes about the moral failings of the smokers, being all visible and addicted, how dare they ruin everything, and people get… distracted.
You’re imposing a lot of moral judgement there, but I’m not sure who it’s aimed at. I’ve explained at length how it isn’t about any of that, but how it is about reducing the number of spheres in which a person can smoke, to reduce the possibility of transmission of the disease to others, and to reduce the severity of the disease burden on themselves (and because tobacco is an addictive disease, reduce nicotine, helping them stop). These control measures are relatively restrained – and they’re not designed to punish people, or based on judgements of those people. In fact, you’d have to assert that addiction was not the key component of continued smoking to make such a judgement.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Which is why public health advertising is rarely haranguing or accusatory.
Similarly, public health measures to reduce sun exposure are effective without being haranguing or accusatory. Shade and sunhat policies in schools, strong and unambiguous information about the risks of sun exposure (leaving aside for now the slightly thorny issue of Vit D), UV indexes in the newspaper and weather forecast, free sunscreen given out at sports games and so on.
I sure wish all that had been around when I was growing up. -
Sacha, in reply to
indisputably true
you might want to tone down your confidence level there
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It would also be a good thing (on that sole measure) to kill disabled people. Your point is?
I'd say the point is that while it would be financially profitable in the short term, it'd be socially bankrupt in the long run. The same goes for any bean counter who says siccing the Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais on Otara and Cannons Creek would be far cheaper than a few extra kindy teachers and Plunket nurses.
-
Danielle, in reply to
You’re imposing a lot of moral judgement there, but I’m not sure who it’s aimed at.
Jesus Christ on a bike. No, I’m specifically NOT imposing a lot of moral judgement or, indeed, reacting to anything you’ve said, which is all very sensible. (Let me reiterate that once more: VERY SENSIBLE.) My comment was a meta-comment: I’m saying that the reason these conversations tend to become a bit fraught is that people are bringing *less* sensible baggage to them from other, more accusatory conversations and other, more accusatory experiences (of smoking in public and being yelled at, or of having a public confrontation with an overly aggressive smoker, for example). The broader issues become more specific. People find themselves personalising things. I even said that *I’m doing that*. You dig?
ETA: And my argument is also a broader thing about public health campaigns not being accusatory. As people, we aren't very good at not accusatorifying* them. The campaign is very non-judgeypants, but we somehow manage to make it so. See also: breastfeeding.
*Yes, that is a word I just made up.
-
You dig?
Ah! Yes, my comment flew right over the top of yours. I dig that, entirely.
-
It would also be a good thing (on that sole measure) to kill disabled people. Your point is?
That when Sacha says `Most of the harms I experience from smokers come from sharing a publicly-funded health system with them' he is talking nonsense, or `For both smokers and drinkers, that would mean paying for *all* of the health and social system impacts, if you want to claim total freedom' he fails to understand that then he'd have to pay for the extra years of super that his non-smoking is going to cost us, (again `Applying limited public health and social resources to treat smokers (or drinkers, for instance) means those resources are not available for other people', which misunderstands the economics of healthcare massively.)
I have no larger point. I think smoking is something the government should commit to eradicating in New Zealand. I don't think it should do this because cost-benefit analyses tell it so.
-
izogi, in reply to
I think smoking is something the government should commit to eradicating in New Zealand.
I've often wondered what this sort of goal might do for tourism if fully implemented, and potentially for business relationships if rich people from overseas who want to visit NZ for some reason might not be allowed to smoke. Would they be put off?
-
Danielle, in reply to
They’d just smuggle cigarettes in and do it anyway, I imagine. (I have had two heavy smokers from the USA visit me in the last decade. I have nothing to say about how many separate packs of much-cheaper-in-the-USA Marlboros they may have secreted in various places in their luggage. Nothing at all. :) )
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
much-cheaper-in-the-USA Marlboros
they also taste better
-
BenWilson, in reply to
So then the argument becomes about the moral failings of the smokers, being all visible and addicted
Whether they actually are addicted or not. The existence of individuals that are able to give up tobacco with ease doesn't really fit with the story of people suffering from a disease of the body and mind. The question of whether addiction really is a disease or not is actually controversial. It differs from other diseases, in that it can (sometimes) be cured by force of will, which no other disease can. You can't get rid of your calcified arteries by force of will, as in heart disease. You can't will away syphilis. But many people have willed away an addiction to smoking.
I don't know if the disease theory is correct, but I know that it is not proven correct, the alternatives have not been proven incorrect, and that the alternatives have some strong support.
That's the best answer I can really give to Sacha's question about addiction and choice. The answer is "medical opinions differ on the matter". For personal reasons, I favor the idea of presuming choice is possible, and the possibility of choice valuable to society. Mainly because I myself have kicked several addictions through force of will, and found doing that incredibly empowering, whereas the disease model (which I seriously considered and applied to myself in one attempt to kick the issue) encourages an over-medicalized response to the problems I had, transferred all responsibility for, and all power to fix my own problems to other people. It didn't work for me, and the alternative did work.
I also think my opinion on this matter is not relevant to the moral issue of whether punitive measures against addicted people is a good policy, which is why I abstained earlier to allow this thread to cool off a bit. Punishing people for their disease actually fully undermines the disease model, since it suggests that it is a choice after all, and that the punishment will help the person to their cure, which would most likely be opting for therapy, or going cold turkey and sucking on it. In the case of severe restrictions on outdoor smoking, it's clearly punitive, since it will force smokers to endure the symptoms of withdrawal, being unable to find anywhere to smoke, and they will have to settle for a massive fix when they get home. Or they will have to act like a junkie, and take their fix in a toilet, or a back alley, or on the roof of their building. I find that perverse.
Just to repeat myself to avoid confusion, there are many anti-smoking measures I do support. They have been working very well for many years, and other non-punitive measures are most likely righteous too, if they are effective. The entire source of heated discussion and numerous quite nasty and personal ad-hominems boils down to my disagreement about enforcing abstinence on smokers in situations where the harm they might cause people is nothing more than an offense to their sensibilities. My favorite was being called a sociopath! All I was doing was having a discussion on a discussion forum - I don't have a fucking disease, just because I have an idea, that might be wrong. I especially don't think believing children "catch the disease of smoking" just by seeing it is sensible. Instead of thought-crime, we have thought-disease? Fuck that and the ship it sailed in on. The idea of preventing children from seeing something that is actually true "that people smoke" is bad. Education is about bringing truth to people, not propaganda.
-
Sacha, in reply to
many people have willed away an addiction to smoking.
I don't know if the disease theory is correct, but I know that it is not proven correct, the alternatives have not been proven incorrect, and that the alternatives have some strong support.
That's the best answer I can really give to Sacha's question about addiction and choice. The answer is "medical opinions differ on the matter".
If you want to argue against the prevailing consensus of evidence you'll need to supply some of your own. Much like climate change. Arguing that "some doctors/scientists disagree" has been a well-documented and deliberate tactic of the tobacco industry for decades. You can do better.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The existence of individuals that are able to give up tobacco with ease doesn't really fit with the story of people suffering from a disease of the body and mind.
Logic like that is not helping your case.
-
Sacha, in reply to
he'd have to pay for the extra years of super that his non-smoking is going to cost us
Why do people assume that we all stop contributing at age 65, or that you can even quantify the economics without some effort - and expertise? Though don't get me started on the crap assumptions in DALYs as a concept.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Logic like that is not helping your case.
Why not?
Sacha, you haven't produced any evidence either, nor has George. He just linked to the WHO website, which on the dangers of second hand smoke defines that as something that happens indoors. You've only asserted that there is a "prevailing consensus of evidence" about this scientific theory. You asked me repeatedly for my opinion, which I've now given. Now you are asking me for extensive research? I knew that was going to be your follow up, and resisted giving the opinion for that reason, because this whole approach is a red herring, designed to stop me talking. EVEN IF the disease model is correct, that still does not give anyone the right to punish people for their disease. In fact, an honestly applied disease model would actually abhor the idea. That is why I repeatedly said it was irrelevant to the purposes under discussion.
I'm sorry if this point is subtle. I figured an intelligent crowd like PAS denizens would probably get it, and some clearly did. I didn't really want to waste so much time on it.
If we can possibly separate the points under discussion, I'm quite happy to share what research I have done in the past couple of days on the subject of addiction. It is, after all, quite interesting. The main difficultly with it, as a scientific study, is that it's tied in so tightly with public policy, that it becomes difficult to separate the science from the politics. It is indeed quite tightly paralleled by climate change debate, except that it seems to be more controversial amongst experts than that one, coming down for the disease model.
-
I'll let people draw their own conclusions, but I'm not going to waste another moment arguing about this. Or about climate change. Or scientology for that matter.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I'm quite interesting in any links you do have to the actual economic effects of smoking, Sacha. It is a complicated equation, and from discussions I've had with your about your work, I can see why you feel that getting the economic arguments on your side would be helpful, since there are neoliberals and other money-heads around who might find that much more convincing than any arguments from compassion or the importance of controlling corporatized outputs that generate social harms. It's a sad fact of the political world you move in. But it doesn't have to be a sad fact about this forum - I don't find the economic arguments around smoking compelling much. People who get sick need treatment. Most people get sick one day, and everybody dies. Compassionate moral society treats those people, whether it costs or not. But I am interested in whether it does actually cost more for smokers or not, it could be grist for my generalized dislike of the capitalist machine, that treats humans as machines that it discards when finished with them, to find that things like smoking and obesity actually make it stronger.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.