| |
|
There are two main subjects being discussed here. The first is clearly stated on Hector's first post: sorry, but smoking is not cool. If one disagrees with this, the whole discussions can turn out to be irrelevant.
Then, first we should examine what's the true problem with smoking. As it was said, we look on the smokers as heathens, rebels, somewhat nihilists. This is a symbol built by BOTH the governments and the tobacco industries. It is, on some level, useful to both intents - stoping smoking on certain social layers, and incentiving it on others. It's good to remember that tobacco isn't necessarialy bad - the native americans, for an example, see tobacco as a sacred herb witch holds spiritual power (although I read on a Mckenna's book that the native's tobacco is a different sort. But I don't think this it is really important). Smoking is a individual option, and I believe it must be free - even if it comes from some sort of publicitarian brainwash (same applies for every other drug). This is the first governmental objection: smoking causes severe health problems, that onerates the public health system, thus being a cost that is distributed to everyone. I have two answers to this: first, there is a hight ammount of taxes on cigarretes, sort of "paying" for the eventual future cost of treatment. Second, the problem isn't the free individual option of smoking, but the public health system by itself. I mean, as a libertarian, I don't asked for it! Then, if people wants a public health system, then it's their carma dealing with some bad options provenient from free choices.
There's another aspect of smoking that was emphasized here, that is the passive smoking. To prevent the harm this free choice of smoking may cause to others, state can put on laws that limits the places and situations where smoking is allowed - or leave it to social agents deciding it by themselves (like shops prohibiting smoking on certain parts of their territories).
As there is a public cost involved on smoking, state may want to counter the good publicity made by the tobacco industries. All publicitary work has to focus on some specific social layers. On this specific subject, I can name a few: Children, Neutral Non-smokers, Free Individual Smokers and Prisioners of Nicotin.
Advertising for children should be centered on the ressignification of smoking. Transmiting non-smoking as being cool & stylish. More than this can cause the "heathen effect", turning smoking on a channel through what rebelion can be transmited. Many want to be rebels, but no one wants to be non-stylish at all. Of course, what "style" means for diverse layers can be a problem to be discussed.
Emphasizing the possible prejudices may be effective looking from one analytical sight, and ineffective from another. Assuming people as rational agents that calculates costs and benefits turns negative publicity effective; assuming people as skinnerian conditionable white rats turns all negative conditionants only effective when present. Both may be somwhat wrong, as people are reflexive and operates on a symbolic level.
Focusing on tobacco or on smokers? The first is essential to secure state as a clean, acessible information provider - a smithian pressuposition to the correct functioning of the free market. The second is essential when making publicity for the children and for non-smokers - dedemonizing the smoker, and thus, removing its rebel, transgressive, cool aspect. If smoking is built on a neutral, cold, calculistic way, maybe we can more easily accept the freedom of smoking.
(ironically, I smoked a cigarrete when composing this text.) |
|
|
