OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to Chew on ACT
240 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Judge Dried...
...a red herring
red herrings become that colour after smoking,
a classic case of a cloud removing a silver lining!
:- ) -
Rich Lock, in reply to
which would most likely be opting for therapy, or going cold turkey and sucking on it
Or, y'know, not sucking on it, surely?
Just trying to lighten the mood. Coat, getting, gone.
-
Cigarettes do the smoking.....us smokers just suck :)
-
I guess we can put this one down to good old intractable differences of opinion. But my final comment would be that most of the disagreement seems to arise from beliefs about whether restrictive anti-smoking measures should be viewed as punitive. I don't think anyone here has demonised smokers as people, and those of us who support such measures probably don't see them as punishments at all, but as ways of creating conditions that make quitting a more attractive option. 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.
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.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
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.
-
bloody Sir Walter Raleigh….ah
the indigenous only smoked it on special occasions…and with great ceremony.
I believe......or perhaps Im just a romantic -
PS: Cigarettes are an anti-depressant (depression rises in nations as smoking falls), an appetite suppressant (obesity rises in nations as smoking falls), an anti-anxiety (more OCD type disorders as smoking falls), and a stimulant (much less dangerous than many other ones so powerful, but most folk use coffee instead) all rolled into one, with the individual effect controlled via rate of blood level changes depending on draw technique.
So it's not so much that cigarettes have a health cost, it's that no one bothers measuring the upside. People don't just take pleasure in smoking, they gain a real pharmacological benefit. Rather like alcohol use, which can act to dull doctrinal repression of character and enable the initialisation of good (and bad) relationships, or you can just drink it until you choke on your vomit and die.
Self-medication being a bit of an art, and prone to abuse in particular people. Ideally we wouldn't be depressed, or eat too much, or get anxious, or need a bit of pep, or to just chill and talk, even without cigarettes and booze, but we ain't ideal.
...
I smoked a cigarette once, it was awesome. I climbed a mountain once, even more awesome. Got drunk once, not so good. John Denver was right.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
Any references for any of that tussock? ‘Cos otherwise…
depression rises in nations as smoking falls
Despite having very good access to every possible respectable medical journal, I can't find a single reference supporting this statement. Not even ones planted by tobacco companies.
There is evidence that being depressed can contribute to people taking up smoking. There are a whole bunch of other ways of dealing with depression that don't involve becoming addicted to something that will severely shorten your lifespan. I don’t see an upside in depressed people being more susceptible to tobacco marketing and peer pressure.
obesity rises as smoking falls
[smoking is] anti-anxiety
is a stimulant
True, but so what? There are plenty of other pleasurable things that won't kill you or other people.
-
Further...
Noone bothers measuring the upside
Upside? Seriously? But anyway, yes, they do. See page 14.
People don't just take pleasure in smoking, they gain a real pharmacological benefit
No, they don't. A pharmacological benefit is one where the risks of the treatment are less than the benefits. So with chemotherapy, even though it makes you feel very ill, it is the treatment most likely to allow you to live longer, therefore it's a benefit. HRT is now seldom prescribed because even though it has a temporary benefit in relieving the side-effects of menopause, research found it seriously increased the risk of heart attack. Ergo, not a pharmacological benefit. No ethical psychiatrist would prescribe a medication for anxiety and/or depression that had the side effects of tobacco.
-
100% of people who are born, die.
There are plenty of other pleasurable things that won’t kill you or other people.
You want to tell us how to have fun now? And stop raising the spectre of death, unless you want to venture into deep philosophical arguments about the meaning of life, what purpose a single life has, in its 7 billion odd manifestations, and what rights a person has, that are above dispute. Or is nothing above being demonised.
Or maybe think about making some of those other "pleasurable things " you dangle in front of us legal. Or are you so straight any fun has to be sanctioned by legal decree.Ever considered pleasure might be an individual thing, that cant be prescribed for. -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
7 billion odd manifestations
or as the Land Lords of the Earth probably think of it
a man-infestation of 7 billion
:- ) -
Sacha, in reply to
to save them from harming only themselves, objectionable. This is quite possibly an intractable difference of opinion
or an intractable difference of fact. But go right ahead. Carrick is having a good laugh.
-
If it hasn’t been mentioned already, the Granny (by way of the UK Indy) has some insight on Big Tobacco’s turd-polishing machines.
And can the PM guarantee what’s happening in Aussie can’t happen to us?
-
Having read through this thread, I think it's really lost the original point of Keith's post - what the hell are these tobacco companies trying to do?
-
Sacha, in reply to
I'd have to disagree. The thread is a perfect example of what they're trying to do; we've just helped out for free.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.