Posts by John Armstrong
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
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.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to BenWilson,
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.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Jackie Clark,
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?
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to BenWilson,
or go all quiet, as is the more common practice in this particularly polite debating club.
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 film fest, and have not been sulking.
Although, I must say that I too have detected a whiff of bad faith, particularly in the light of all the clever, reasoned stuff Ben has said here over the last few years. I just can't be bothered 'debating' with anyone who would seriously offer the line that young folks not living to be old folks because of addiction (or a rational choice to experience pleasure - whatever) can be viewed as an economic good. I agree that my earlier appeal to 'commonsense' was weak (I was tired and looking forward to the film), but I retain the right to appeal to basic human values. These are real peoples' lives we are talking about here.
And I speak from experience: there is very little pleasure in succumbing to your addiction,
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to BenWilson,
that doesn't mean you have to be restricted where you appreciate your impacting good.
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 Christian, frankly, and fuck that.
I really don't think that Christianity is a major factor either. I don't really even see the zealotry you are talking about. Isn't tightening access to cigarettes just, you know, commonsense?
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to BenWilson,
This is a poor argument for it, though.
No, its a stupid argument.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to BenWilson,
That's not harm the smoker is doing to anyone, any more than the shirt you wear on your back from China does the person sitting next to you any harm
That's a confusing argument. I think you're mixing up immediate and long-term effects. Secondhand smoke clearly has implications for the person sitting next to you. Wearing clothes from China doesn't (necessarily). Fair enough. But I thought that HORansome's point was that smoking also has broader environmental and social impacts. The fact those impacts mainly happen to people who aren't sitting next to you doesn't mean they aren't real.
Do you really think that purchasing decisions (milk, oil, whatever) have no wider influence?
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Sacha,
You can see why I'm not holding my breath..
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.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Sacha,
tackling the emotional and personal development issues that all addiction sits on.
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, and an advertising industry that reinforces both with the message that happiness will be yours if you will just buy their damn abdominizer. But I suspect that's probably beyond the power of any government to change.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Sacha,
Or we could invest properly in solving the drivers of all addiction, which I'd prefer.
Risking a threadjack here, but I'd love to hear a bit more about this. Feeding my own bubbling theories you see..