OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to Chew on ACT
240 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
For a good discussion of 'benefits' and transfers of smoking costs, see page 45 in this report. The important line is "It is perhaps unnecessary to add that our society should not and does not count as a 'benefit' any shortening of the life-span, and the evidence for this, if evidence be required, is the ongoing provision of healthcare and pensions to retired people."
In other words: We don't stop providing healthcare to people aged over 65 because their superannuation bill will be less if they die earlier, and in the same way, we don't count it as a benefit if smokers die early and therefore incur a lower superannuation bill.
The report is also relevant to most of the rest of the discussion here as well.
For something more succint, if perhaps written in more emotive language, see also ASH's response to the argument that we'd have to spend more on pensions if smokers didn't smoke (even ex-smokers have somewhat reduced life expectancy), as well as to a whole bunch of other tobacco-apologist arguments raised in this thread, here.
-
In other words: We don't stop providing healthcare to people aged over 65 because their superannuation bill will be less if they die earlier, and in the same way, we don't count it as a benefit if smokers die early and therefore incur a lower superannuation bill.
But purely from the point of view of the public accounts it is a benefit, and it is nonsense to disagree. I certainly agree that smoking related deaths are a horrible blight on society; but I do not agree with non-smokers complaining about the cost to them of smoking, and the cost to the public health system.
-
I don't complain about the cost to me of smoking. I complain about the cost to society of smoking. The cost to society is not measured only by the public accounts.
-
I think it's a;ll bullshit. There are cause celebres, and then there's shit no-one talks about. I just get sick of it. That is all.
-
andin, in reply to
The cost to society is not measured only by the public accounts.
So whats the cost to society of lawyers for big corporations doing as Keith said:
asking the Government to change the bill specifically so they’d have less of a case to prove when they sued the government.
Seems a hell of a lot more than the people who just smoke.
Massive self interested duplicity or puffing on a fag.
I know who I'd come down harder on. -
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.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.