Defense de fumer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand wrote an article called "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made."

Anyone who thinks the conditions of nature are the same thing (or even similar) as human generated force used against other human beings has a serious problem in understanding a basic division in reality. So to clarify the underpinning of this, let's do a basic overview of the fundamental concepts with quotes from the article.

To start, what is the fundamental observable and essential difference between the metaphysically given and the human-generated? In cause and effect, we are talking about the cause.

Any natural phenomenon, i.e., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur; any phenomenon involving human action is the man-made, and could have been different.

Notice that the metaphysical part has no cause. It just is. We can choose to learn about it or not, but it is, was and will be. Human action and the results of such actions do have a cause. First there must be a human being, but then that same person has to want to do it.

That is the cause—a person who wants to do it and is able to choose to do so.

What is the formal name of the power that allows man-made actions a special status of being able to be different? Volition. The following is only a brief overview, but covers the essentials:

Man's volition is an attribute of his consciousness (of his rational faculty) and consists in the choice to perceive existence or to evade it. To perceive existence, to discover the characteristics or properties (the identities) of the things that exist, means to discover and accept the metaphysically given. Only on the basis of this knowledge is man able to learn how the things given in nature can be rearranged to serve his needs (which is his method of survival).

The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power—and it is the only meaning of the concept "creative." "Creation" does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. "Creation" means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before.

This same power to rearrange the metaphysically given into new shapes and structures—because one wants to—can be used to perform other actions, too. For instance, smashing another person with a club. One can choose to beat on another person or choose not to. It doesn't have to be, like the metaphysically given has to be.

Now here is where I think the confusion slips in. After a man-made act is performed, it becomes a fact. Then the person making the confusion does a little time-deletion (I sometimes call this time-travel) and pretends that since the result of a man-made action NOW has to be accepted as a fact, it was a fact BEFORE it even existed.

But nothing is exempt from the law of identity. A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man's actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality.

There is another element to volition and force: sovereign ownership. Other men can force a person to obey with a small limit of immediate action (like going here, sticking out his arms to be cuffed there, etc.), but they cannot force him to engage his mind to go beyond those actions. He has to choose to do that.

The faculty of volition gives man a special status in two crucial respects: 1. unlike the metaphysically given, man's products, whether material or intellectual, are not to be accepted uncritically—and 2. by its metaphysically given nature, a man's volition is outside the power of other men. What the unalterable basic constituents are to nature, the attribute of a volitional consciousness is to the entity "man." Nothing can force a man to think. Others may offer him incentives or impediments, rewards or punishments, they may destroy his brain by drugs or by the blow of a club, but they cannot order his mind to function: this is in his exclusive, sovereign power. Man is neither to be obeyed nor to be commanded.

. . .

What one must accept is the fact that the minds of other men are not in one's power, as one's own mind is not in theirs; one must accept their right to make their own choices, and one must agree or disagree, accept or reject, join or oppose them, as one's mind dictates. The only means of "changing" men is the same as the means of "changing" nature: knowledge—which, in regard to men, is to be used as a process of persuasion, when and if their minds are active; when they are not, one must leave them to the consequences of their own errors.

. . .

To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion—which is the policy of savages, who rule men by force and plead with nature by prayers, incantations and bribes (sacrifices). It does not work and has not worked in any human society in history.

I will not speculate on why a person wants to make a mishmash of "natural force" and "human generated force" (volitional action) and condemn all such mishmashers as evil monsters and whatnot, but I do think the fundamentals need to be given prominence in discussions where the issue comes up.

If you repeat good ideas within a civil environment, this is like strewing an area with all kinds of good things to eat. They are there for anyone who want to pick them up and eat them. This also holds true for the warning signs: "This is poison" with an arrow pointing to the idea and a rational description of the causes and effects. Those who want the poison are free to eat that, too. But at least they are warned with proper explanations.

I hold the premise that most people are good inside and will choose the good things to eat on their own. They don't need to be "forced" (unless they are children who will not eat broccoli .) And they will avoid the poison if they understand what it is and what it does. I don't mean cognitive understanding alone, either. Value judgments are also part of that understanding. Thus it is a good practice to include examples with the ideas to help a person visualize how they apply to his own life.

To conclude, here is a touch of some really nasty lethal rat-poison from Rand's essay that could easily justify any cult:

A typical package-deal, used by professors of philosophy, runs as follows: to prove the assertion that there is no such thing as "necessity" in the universe, a professor declares that just as this country did not have to have fifty states, there could have been forty-eight or fifty-two—so the solar system did not have to have nine planets, there could have been seven or eleven. It is not sufficient, he declares, to prove that something is, one must also prove that it had to be—and since nothing had to be, nothing is certain and anything goes.

The technique of undercutting man's mind consists in palming off the man-made as if it were the metaphysically given, then ascribing to nature the concepts that refer only to men's lack of knowledge, such as "chance" or "contingency," then reversing the two elements of the package-deal. From the assertion: "Man is unpredictable, therefore nature is unpredictable," the argument goes to: "Nature possesses volition, man does not—nature is free, man is ruled by unknowable forces—nature is not to be conquered, man is."

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand wrote an article called "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made."

Anyone who thinks the conditions of nature are the same thing (or even similar) as human generated force used against other human beings has a serious problem in understanding a basic division in reality. So to clarify the underpinning of this, let's do a basic overview of the fundamental concepts with quotes from the article.

To start, what is the fundamental observable and essential difference between the metaphysically given and the human-generated? In cause and effect, we are talking about the cause.

The physical laws government the man-made and the natural are the same. Everything we do is natural. We cannot build or make anything in such a way as to contradict a valid physical law. A good example is the Bose-Einstein condensate, a state of matter never seen anywhere in nature. Yet it was identified as a consequence of quantum physical laws by Bose (verified by Einstein) back in the 1930's. It was finally achieved in 1995. Humans can do many things not found nature not interacted with by humans, but nothing humans do can violate the basic conservation laws (and their corresponding symmetries). That is why humans cannot make perpetual motion machines that produce energy from nothing. In point of fact, humans are as much a part of nature as trees and rocks. The main difference is that we can talk and think.

The distinction between the artificial and natural at a deep enough level is meaningless. Everything that happens or exists is physical. Humans are bags of mostly water the product of (carl sagan on) billyuns and billyuns of years of evolution. We are all made of stuhr-stuff (carl sagan off).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

It would really help sometime if you read carefully before trying teach everyone what you just read (merely adding a negative normative spin).

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Very true, but I still say that if there is significant evidence that a work environment is harmful to the health of employees then we should be trying to clean it up. It's no different than cleaning up air pollution in our cities. If, in the course of our existence we make our habitat uninhabitable we are not being very rational are we?

"'we' should be trying to clean that up"?

Whose the 'we'?

If its property owners, sure, but governments?

[tjohnson]

"'we' should be trying to clean that up"?

Whose the 'we'?

If its property owners, sure, but governments?

In my view the governments need to encourage the private sectors through various means, but only passing laws as a last resort.

[Brant Gaede]

"'we' should be trying to clean that up"?

Whose the 'we'?

If its property owners, sure, but governments?

In my view the governments need to encourage the private sectors through various means, but only passing laws as a last resort.

You have a naive view about governments.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

You have a naive view about governments.

--Brant

I think you have a naive idea that mankind can exist without governments.

[studiodekadent]

You have a naive view about governments.

--Brant

I think you have a naive idea that mankind can exist without governments.

A government with the power to take a cigarette out of your mouth also has the power to put the barrel of a gun in your mouth.

[Brant Gaede]

You have a naive view about governments.

--Brant

I think you have a naive idea that mankind can exist without governments.

No, read my profile. I'm not an anarchist.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.

I agree with this sentiment but what happens when we "inform their discretion" and they still do not listen? Of course the situation is very different in countries where there is socialized medicine, like Canada and France, where basically the government acts as your health insurance company. In the US you may be denied healthcare if you have an unhealthy lifestyle so when a government pays the healthcare costs they have some say in the lifestyles of the citizens. Only an idiot would deny that smoking and 2nd hand smoke are not good for your health and 'the people" have been informed over and over again so the government feels inclined to pass a law. There are other options like making cigarettes so expensive no one can afford them which they have done here - something like $10/pack I think, but that has only limited effect. Besides, the law doesn't "take a cigarette out of your mouth" it simply directs you to designated smoking areas.

[bmacwilliam]

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.

I agree with this sentiment but what happens when we "inform their discretion" and they still do not listen? Of course the situation is very different in countries where there is socialized medicine, like Canada and France, where basically the government acts as your health insurance company. In the US you may be denied healthcare if you have an unhealthy lifestyle so when a government pays the healthcare costs they have some say in the lifestyles of the citizens. Only an idiot would deny that smoking and 2nd hand smoke are not good for your health and 'the people" have been informed over and over again so the government feels inclined to pass a law. There are other options like making cigarettes so expensive no one can afford them which they have done here - something like $10/pack I think, but that has only limited effect. Besides, the law doesn't "take a cigarette out of your mouth" it simply directs you to designated smoking areas.

I don't have any problem at all with laws prohibiting highly addictive substances with zero benefit value and high negative value like tobacco. Alcohol is at worst harmless and possibly beneficial in small/moderate doses. Tobacco is just pure evil and tobacco companies are eviler.

Edit: to be clear I think I could probably support the right of the individual to be so profoundly stupid enough to smoke if they so chose, but most wholeheartedly support the prohibition on profiting on addiction and death - in other words the sale of tobacco is just plain immoral in the worst possible way.

Bob

Edited January 17, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[BaalChatzaf]

Edit: to be clear I think I could probably support the right of the individual to be so profoundly stupid enough to smoke if they so chose, but most wholeheartedly support the prohibition on profiting on addiction and death - in other words the sale of tobacco is just plain immoral in the worst possible way.

Bob

Apparently you have not enjoyed the flavor of a good cigar or pipe tobacco. It is a lovely taste. Cigar and pipe smoke are generally not inhaled, rather they are tasted. In small amounts neither are dreadfully harmful to most people (except perhaps, as second hand smoke). There are smoking clubs where those who enjoy the fumes can puff away and those who do not like the fumes can stay away.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Martin Radwin]

I don't have any problem at all with laws prohibiting highly addictive substances with zero benefit value and high negative value like tobacco.

Then you presumably think that the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, and to enforce its edicts with fines or imprisonment. This is the belief behind all "victimless crime" laws and the overriding theory behind the catastrophic "war on drugs", which has done more to destroy the civil liberties of Americans than any other government program. It has also led to massive destruction of countries involved in the illegal drug trade, such as Columbia and Afghanistan. It has turned American inner cities into war zones, controlled by violent gangs. It has created international drug cartels to supply a product that some Americans want. And the proceeds of illegal drug money are being used to fund terrorism. Quite a price to pay for trying to stop people from using highly addictive substances.

Alcohol is at worst harmless and possibly beneficial in small/moderate doses. Tobacco is just pure evil and tobacco companies are eviler.

Tobacco is not evil. You are anthropomorphizing a plant. People who choose to use tobacco are not evil either. It's their body. They should have the right to do with it whatever they wish. What they put into their own bodies is none of your business or mine. That's called freedom. Tobacco companies are not evil either. They are supplying a product that some people want. If they don't supply it, criminal drug cartels will. That's the way black markets develop. People are responsible for their own choices in life.

Edit: to be clear I think I could probably support the right of the individual to be so profoundly stupid enough to smoke if they so chose, but most wholeheartedly support the prohibition on profiting on addiction and death - in other words the sale of tobacco is just plain immoral in the worst possible way.

So you're proposing that people should have the right to smoke, but have no legal means to acquire tobacco. This would turn people who wish to smoke into criminals by forcing them to acquire tobacco on the black market through illegal tobacco dealers, just as people who now wish to use marijuana, cocaine, etc. are forced to acquire them illegally from drug dealers. If you think the war on drugs is bad now, with our prisons filled with non-violent drug users, just wait until millions of tobacco users are turned into criminals.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

With you on this one, Martin. I've profitted on Altria stock and will so in the future. BTW, there are benefits from smoking, even if it takes years off your life. It may help sufferers from sickle cell anemia. Or those who have trouble concentrating. Its anyone's free choice!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, Bob Mac ain't even an Objectivist, much less a libertarian. Who'd a thought? The proof is in the pudding!

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

I don't have any problem at all with laws prohibiting highly addictive substances with zero benefit value and high negative value like tobacco.

Then you presumably think that the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, and to enforce its edicts with fines or imprisonment. This is the belief behind all "victimless crime" laws and the overriding theory behind the catastrophic "war on drugs", which has done more to destroy the civil liberties of Americans than any other government program. It has also led to massive destruction of countries involved in the illegal drug trade, such as Columbia and Afghanistan. It has turned American inner cities into war zones, controlled by violent gangs. It has created international drug cartels to supply a product that some Americans want. And the proceeds of illegal drug money are being used to fund terrorism. Quite a price to pay for trying to stop people from using highly addictive substances.

Alcohol is at worst harmless and possibly beneficial in small/moderate doses. Tobacco is just pure evil and tobacco companies are eviler.

Tobacco is not evil. You are anthropomorphizing a plant. People who choose to use tobacco are not evil either. It's their body. They should have the right to do with it whatever they wish. What they put into their own bodies is none of your business or mine. That's called freedom. Tobacco companies are not evil either. They are supplying a product that some people want. If they don't supply it, criminal drug cartels will. That's the way black markets develop. People are responsible for their own choices in life.

Edit: to be clear I think I could probably support the right of the individual to be so profoundly stupid enough to smoke if they so chose, but most wholeheartedly support the prohibition on profiting on addiction and death - in other words the sale of tobacco is just plain immoral in the worst possible way.

So you're proposing that people should have the right to smoke, but have no legal means to acquire tobacco. This would turn people who wish to smoke into criminals by forcing them to acquire tobacco on the black market through illegal tobacco dealers, just as people who now wish to use marijuana, cocaine, etc. are forced to acquire them illegally from drug dealers. If you think the war on drugs is bad now, with our prisons filled with non-violent drug users, just wait until millions of tobacco users are turned into criminals.

Martin

Quite honestly I understand your argument, but its wrong. What your argument relies on is the simplistic notion of freedom and choice and how dare anybody try to take choice away - I get it. The problem you conveniently skip over, and it's the most important point of all, is addiction. Once addiction is involved, choice becomes fuzzy at best and often disappears. How many lives (including family members and not just the addicted person) have been ruined by addiction? You think that is a choice as you've described it?

Here we go with the 'fallacy of hidden double definitions' again. 'Choosing' to smoke once you've become physically addicted is hardly the same choice as choosing what colour of socks to wear today, yet you've equivocated these two ideas and your argument dies because of it.

Only you can answer why you so quickly would dismiss or ignore the most critical point about how CHOICE is actually REMOVED when addiction is involved. Do you really believe what you write?

The failure to police certain aspects of the drug world is not justification for legalization. Just because some people still drink and drive should we abandon these laws too?

Bob

To add: I've never said criminalizing users is appropriate. Treatment is appropriate. What's criminal is PROFITING from addiction.

The 'tobacco is evil' comment was not meant literally. I only meant that tobacco is an extremely powerfully addicting drug. It goes beyond the addiction power of just nicotine because of how it's delivered and the dosage delivery dynamics of smoking.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

If you wan to stop smoking it's not too hard. Just give up this nonsense that you are a victim of a powerful addiction. Victims are powerless.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

I only smoke (cigarettes or cigars) for ceremonial purposes (i.e. "Objectivist" reasons, special occasions, etc).

[Martin Radwin]

I don't have any problem at all with laws prohibiting highly addictive substances with zero benefit value and high negative value like tobacco.

Then you presumably think that the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, and to enforce its edicts with fines or imprisonment. This is the belief behind all "victimless crime" laws and the overriding theory behind the catastrophic "war on drugs", which has done more to destroy the civil liberties of Americans than any other government program. It has also led to massive destruction of countries involved in the illegal drug trade, such as Columbia and Afghanistan. It has turned American inner cities into war zones, controlled by violent gangs. It has created international drug cartels to supply a product that some Americans want. And the proceeds of illegal drug money are being used to fund terrorism. Quite a price to pay for trying to stop people from using highly addictive substances.

Alcohol is at worst harmless and possibly beneficial in small/moderate doses. Tobacco is just pure evil and tobacco companies are eviler.

Tobacco is not evil. You are anthropomorphizing a plant. People who choose to use tobacco are not evil either. It's their body. They should have the right to do with it whatever they wish. What they put into their own bodies is none of your business or mine. That's called freedom. Tobacco companies are not evil either. They are supplying a product that some people want. If they don't supply it, criminal drug cartels will. That's the way black markets develop. People are responsible for their own choices in life.

Edit: to be clear I think I could probably support the right of the individual to be so profoundly stupid enough to smoke if they so chose, but most wholeheartedly support the prohibition on profiting on addiction and death - in other words the sale of tobacco is just plain immoral in the worst possible way.

So you're proposing that people should have the right to smoke, but have no legal means to acquire tobacco. This would turn people who wish to smoke into criminals by forcing them to acquire tobacco on the black market through illegal tobacco dealers, just as people who now wish to use marijuana, cocaine, etc. are forced to acquire them illegally from drug dealers. If you think the war on drugs is bad now, with our prisons filled with non-violent drug users, just wait until millions of tobacco users are turned into criminals.

Martin

Quite honestly I understand your argument, but its wrong. What your argument relies on is the simplistic notion of freedom and choice and how dare anybody try to take choice away - I get it. The problem you conveniently skip over, and it's the most important point of all, is addiction. Once addiction is involved, choice becomes fuzzy at best and often disappears. How many lives (including family members and not just the addicted person) have been ruined by addiction? You think that is a choice as you've described it?

Choice most certainly does not disappear, even when a person is addicted to a drug. Addiction means that a person will experience unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if he stops using the drug; this does not mean that he loses the ability to choose to stop using the drug. Millions of people have chosen to quit smoking and have in fact quit smoking. The fact that they experienced some withdrawal symptoms didn't stop them from making this choice. People addicted to alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and other such substances have also managed to break these addictions as well. Their power of choice overcame their addiction.

Have lives been ruined by addiction? Certainly. But lives have been ruined by many bad choices that people make in their lives. This certainly provides no justification for the government criminalizing such bad choices. Otherwise, the government could use this justification to control virtually all aspects of people's lives.

Here we go with the 'fallacy of hidden double definitions' again. 'Choosing' to smoke once you've become physically addicted is hardly the same choice as choosing what colour of socks to wear today, yet you've equivocated these two ideas and your argument dies because of it.

There is no equivocation or double definitions here. Choosing to smoke is still a choice, and people do in fact choose to stop smoking all the time. If a person is addicted to smoking, this makes the choice to quit more difficult, but so what? Some choices are more difficult to make than others; choice is an analog sliding scale of difficulty, not a digital on/off. If a person has a high paying job that he hates but really needs the money to support himself and his family, this might make the choice to quit his job agonizingly difficult. But it is still his choice to make. The choice to break addictions is no different.

Only you can answer why you so quickly would dismiss or ignore the most critical point about how CHOICE is actually REMOVED when addiction is involved. Do you really believe what you write?

Because, as I have made very clear, choice is not removed. Yes, I really believe what I have written.

The failure to police certain aspects of the drug world is not justification for legalization. Just because some people still drink and drive should we abandon these laws too?

It is impossible to properly police the drug world. Attemps at prohibition always fail and have catastophic consequences for liberty and the rule of law. One does not help to protect people from potential addictions by turning them into criminals and imprisoning them. This is a utilitarian justification for drug decriminalization. But the real justification for drug decriminalization is moral. I will state this justification in personal terms. My body belongs to me and me alone. Noone has the right to tell me what I can do with my own body, because it's mine. It's noone else's business what I choose to put into my body. If you don't like the choices I make, too bad; what I choose to do with my own body is my own business, not yours. That's what liberty is all about.

Drunk driving is a completely separate issue, since the basis for laws against this is that a drunk driver represents an unacceptably high risk to the safety of others. The solution to drunk driving is to enforce laws against drunk driving, not to criminalize consumption of alcohol.

Martin

[bmacwilliam]

I happen to live in a country where the fight against drugs rages on, but things are going well. The inner cities are not war zones. There is nothing inherently wrong with prohibition (at least on the sale) of addictive/dangerous substances. Just because the US struggles with it doesn't mean it can't be done.

But the main thrust of your argument does most certainly rely on an equivocation. Even if I give some ground and go as far as to agree that the decision to end one's addiction is a choice, it is certainly not the same choice in any sense as a pre-addiction choice. The choice to stop smoking is a totally different 'choice' than to start smoking. Calling them both a simple 'choice' is a huge equivocation. We just happen to use the same word to describe two very different activities.

"Otherwise, the government could use this justification to control virtually all aspects of people's lives."

And there's the real problem - paranoia. I get it, and if you're really that paranoid, reason takes a back seat.

I would much much prefer a situation where tobacco is not widespread and my child never has to face the decision whether to smoke or not. Tobacco has NO benefit, only harm and that's why removing the choice is justified. It is even more justified in a socialized medicine environment, but that's another argument.

Now, for an Objectivist, is life at the top of your hierarchy of values? If it is, smoking would never be a rational choice - could never be a rational choice. It is anti-life, and is indeed evil by that definition. For an Objectivist, this issue should be even clearer than the use of force. But life isn't at the top is it? It's liberty for most - including Rand. That's why her 'logic' gets twisted into nonsensical pretzels when faced with a life or liberty problem. It's almost always politics at the top of the value heap, with a convoluted, self-contradictory philosophical mess built up around it in a vain attempt at rational justification.

Bob

Edited January 21, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

I happen to live in a country where the fight against drugs rages on, but things are going well. The inner cities are not war zones. There is nothing inherently wrong with prohibition (at least on the sale) of addictive/dangerous substances. Just because the US struggles with it doesn't mean it can't be done.

But the main thrust of your argument does most certainly rely on an equivocation. Even if I give some ground and go as far as to agree that the decision to end one's addiction is a choice, it is certainly not the same choice in any sense as a pre-addiction choice. The choice to stop smoking is a totally different 'choice' than to start smoking. Calling them both a simple 'choice' is a huge equivocation. We just happen to use the same word to describe two very different activities.

"Otherwise, the government could use this justification to control virtually all aspects of people's lives."

And there's the real problem - paranoia. I get it, and if you're really that paranoid, reason takes a back seat.

I would much much prefer a situation where tobacco is not widespread and my child never has to face the decision whether to smoke or not. Tobacco has NO benefit, only harm and that's why removing the choice is justified. It is even more justified in a socialized medicine environment, but that's another argument.

Now, for an Objectivist, is life at the top of your hierarchy of values? If it is, smoking would never be a rational choice - could never be a rational choice. It is anti-life, and is indeed evil by that definition. For an Objectivist, this issue should be even clearer than the use of force. But life isn't at the top is it? It's liberty for most - including Rand. That's why her 'logic' gets twisted into nonsensical pretzels when faced with a life or liberty problem. It's almost always politics at the top of the value heap, with a convoluted, self-contradictory philosophical mess built up around it in a vain attempt at rational justification.

Bob

Actually, tobacco has several benefits. It helps one concentrate better It can relieve the symptoms of sickcle-cell anemia. It drives the nanny-statists bonkers. All you want to do is initiate physical force against my person, even though I don't smoke, with a heavy veneer of moral righteousness to bore into my brain.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

I happen to live in a country where the fight against drugs rages on, but things are going well. The inner cities are not war zones. There is nothing inherently wrong with prohibition (at least on the sale) of addictive/dangerous substances. Just because the US struggles with it doesn't mean it can't be done.

But the main thrust of your argument does most certainly rely on an equivocation. Even if I give some ground and go as far as to agree that the decision to end one's addiction is a choice, it is certainly not the same choice in any sense as a pre-addiction choice. The choice to stop smoking is a totally different 'choice' than to start smoking. Calling them both a simple 'choice' is a huge equivocation. We just happen to use the same word to describe two very different activities.

"Otherwise, the government could use this justification to control virtually all aspects of people's lives."

And there's the real problem - paranoia. I get it, and if you're really that paranoid, reason takes a back seat.

I would much much prefer a situation where tobacco is not widespread and my child never has to face the decision whether to smoke or not. Tobacco has NO benefit, only harm and that's why removing the choice is justified. It is even more justified in a socialized medicine environment, but that's another argument.

Now, for an Objectivist, is life at the top of your hierarchy of values? If it is, smoking would never be a rational choice - could never be a rational choice. It is anti-life, and is indeed evil by that definition. For an Objectivist, this issue should be even clearer than the use of force. But life isn't at the top is it? It's liberty for most - including Rand. That's why her 'logic' gets twisted into nonsensical pretzels when faced with a life or liberty problem. It's almost always politics at the top of the value heap, with a convoluted, self-contradictory philosophical mess built up around it in a vain attempt at rational justification.

Bob

Actually, tobacco has several benefits. It helps one concentrate better It can relieve the symptoms of sickcle-cell anemia. It drives the nanny-statists bonkers. All you want to do is initiate physical force against my person, even though I don't smoke, with a heavy veneer of moral righteousness to bore into my brain.

--Brant

I really like your definition of 'relieve'

University of California Study

"Thus researchers say their data supports the hypothesis that children and adolescents with SCD who live in smoking households have more frequent sickle cell crises requiring hospitalization than do those who live in nonsmoking households.They believe programs aimed at reducing secondhand smoke exposure among these children could help reduce morbidity from the disease. "

"Researchers found that exposure to tobacco smoke increased the risk of sickle cell crisis by 90%. "

So enlighten us all on how an anemic person might benefit from carbon monoxide inhalation.

WTF are you babbling about? Nicotine maybe? Nicotine != Tobacco.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Let's digress a little...

Objectivist Limited Government Concept:

"Objectivism therefore advocates a strictly limited form of government: a republican system that has only those powers and takes only those actions required to secure our rights to freedom from force. There must be a military force for defense against external enemies."

So it's OK to protect us all against someone who wants to violate our liberty or property rights (hey - I agree), but it's not OK to protect ourselves (communally) from other, more hidden health hazards like cancer? Why is that? Where did 'Life' go all of a sudden in the "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness" thing?

Hmmm....

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

I was referring to an adult who smokes, not children exposed to second-hand smoke.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Real scientific evidence that seond-hand cigarette smoke causes any cancer including lung cancer is lacking. BS political-media propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. Obviously children should not be exposed to it for they may develop an allergic reaction.

--Brant