Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to John Armstrong,
I guess you could argue that smokers feel coerced or punished by those measures, but given the addictive nature of the product, you could also see it as assistance.
Measures taken, that are likely to create a scenario of physical discomfort and emotional distress, like being unable to find anywhere to smoke for many hours certainly does cause for nearly everyone who fits the addict tag, are punitive. Punitive measures like that are attempts at coercion. I find the use of punitive coercion on adult people to save them from harming only themselves, objectionable. This is quite possibly an intractable difference of opinion, yes.
> I'm sorry if this point is subtle. I figured an intelligent crowd like PAS denizens would probably get it, and some clearly did.
Ben, nothing kills goodwill in a conversation faster than painting people who disagree with you as stupid or drunk.
If you read what I'm saying in your quote, it is an apology for making too subtle a point. It stood out to me, but I can see in hindsight, that that is because I already understood what I was trying to say. So again, I'm sorry that I made you think I was calling you stupid. Genuinely sorry, and also to anyone else so offended. It seemed obvious to me why I had been calling the point irrelevant, but sometimes these things aren't obvious.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Danielle,
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.
-
Hard News: Te Qaeda and the God Squad, in reply to Rich Lock,
My wife sometimes expreses concern at the bruises I acquire at training. I usually tell her that nothing could be more harmlessly hetrosexual than rolling around on the floor grappling with other sweaty muscular men.
Yes, hard to think of anything more masculine than seizing a young man, and pinning him helplessly until he submits. If he was sore afterwards, though, I was doing it wrong.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to George Darroch,
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.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Cheers Jacks. That's how I see it, although I do think guilts might be more powerful than you credit, if coming from the right source at the right time. I just don't think that source is random strangers.
Ben, if your "moral" argument is that any anti-smoking action is just puritanical and punitive then you're not paying attention.
If you think I said that, then you're not paying attention. I support quite a few anti smoking initiatives, although some of them for different reasons than others. Mass education, because it treats the addict as an adult human. Indoor smoking bans, because passive smoking causes real harm to others. Help lines and therapy services, because they work. Nasty packaging, because it might work. Promotion of non-smoking role models. Strict prevention of sales to children. Banning many kinds of advertising.
But there are things that I don't support. I might go into them later, if I get a sense that this debate is heading in a direction of attempting to understand each other, rather than preaching to the choir.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Kracklite,
OIC, you're drunk and belligerent again. 'Night all.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Kracklite,
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.
Defensive, yes. It's what happens when I'm accused of disrespect. Smug, no. It's an honest request. Find where I said what you accuse me of here, and I will apologize.
You don’t have to agree, but you do seem to be very naive about people who have had to deal with addiction, or people who have had to deal with loved ones who are dying.
I haven't even spoken about people who have had to deal with loved ones who are dying!
As for the addiction question, I've hardly spoken about that at length, other than to say that generally it is broken by choice, if it is broken at all. No one else has really gone into any more detail, certainly no one has made any kind of case relying on knowledge of the ins and outs of it, for anything I was disputing. It's been lifted a couple of times to speak of my "bad faith", like some kind of bullet point from a slide we wrote years earlier and can't remember the details of.
Sociopathy is a poor substitute for machismo, and I’ve never seen the worth of machismo anyway.
Riddles are for wimps.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 531 532 533 534 535 … 1066 Older→ First