| |
|
Now what I did there was an attempt to demonstrate that personal abuse (which, incidentally, includes accusing your interlocutor of being a lung-rapist, an addict or a weak fool unless you have conclusive evidence that they actually are any or all of those things) not only sidetracks the topic, but frequently further avenues for discussion are shut off at the same time.
(On cyphers - the Haus suit is a construction, but in general I think it's wise to stick to suitnames, since some people are concealing their names for a reason. Barbequette, if you will...also barbetiquettelicious is spinning off threads addressing larger or tangential issues off the topic abstract - Jack might ask mildly why, if you do not give a monkey's about smoking in the workplace, you have not started a thread the stated intention of which was to discuss it)
The cases Nick describes above are primarily offshoots of the acceptability of smoking - thus, that it is not smoking in restaurants per se that is immediately bad, but that the acceptability conferred upon smoking by it being allowed in public places encourages bad behaviours, for example the pregnant woman who has a cigarette or the woman (or, presumably, man) who smokes near her infant. If smoking in workplaces were to be banned, this would presumably a) make certain of these behaviours impossible and b) generally make other behaviours less acceptable.
This is objection one (i) - essentailly a restatement of the "smoking is bad for you and others" position, but with the proviso that smokers, or at least some smokers, are incapable of understanding that this is a problem. This could presumably be resolved by increasing state intervention, or by people "having some sense" (much like cannabis smoking, drinking, fossil fuel consumption, buying clothes made in sweatshops and personal car ownership).
Objection (ii) is that smoking is, in effect, a massive snow-job by multinational superconglomerates, whose product is tobacco and who are sustained by the demand for cigarettes. And that this is a particular tragedy when smoking is sold so successfully as a representation of "rebellion".
Now, personally, I would be far more concerned about the way cigarette consumption taxes the resources of people who may well be addicted, but also have severely limited resources; people for whom smoking is perhaps their one indulgence, who are being repeatedly whacked on the head by the state. At the same time I would suggest that point (ii) would profit from broadening the discussion to include areas other than the increasingly moribund western markets. Perhaps in another thread about the ethics of smoking.
However, if this is the case then is the way forward to move tobacco consumption onto a personal level? By applying to the NHS or their health insurer, smokers who do not wish to give up can instead be supplied with the mechanisms to grow and prepare small amounts of tobacco. This provides enough tobacco to meet the needs of a regular smoker, without putting any money in the pockets of Big Tobacco. People are rewarded for cutting down on their consumption by generating a surplus that they can trade with heavier smokers for goodwill, services, or nominal amounts of cash (prison-style).
Or, if that is considered a threat to civil liberties in itself (the right not to smoke roll-ups?), why not abolish cigarette branding not jsut in advertisements but also on products? Make producers set their cigarettes at one of, say, five standard tariffs, then distribute them according to those tariffs, with no mention of brand, in unmarked white cardboard packets? I for one would be interested to see what this would do to levels and patterns of smoking in public places... |
|
|
