Defense de fumer

[Martin Radwin]

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.

There is no "fight against drugs". Drugs are inanimate objects; they can't fight back. A better description is that the government is fighting against people who wish to take drugs of which the government does not approve. This fight can be funded forever by the government if it so chooses, but it can never be won. Governments, no matter how powerful, cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. If a certain number of people wish to use drugs banned by the government, a price will be reached at which supply and demand are balanced. The more successful the government is at suppressing the supply, the higher the price of the banned drug will go, encouraging criminal gangs and cartels to supply this demand. This constitutes a negative feedback market mechanism which insures that there will always be a supply of the banned drug. If a major supplier is put out of business, this will temporarily disrupt supply, causing the price to rise and insuring that new suppliers will enter the market to fill the temporary void. In other words, you are wrong -- it can't be done. The US tried alcohol prohibition many years ago, and the results were an unmitigated disaster, leading to the rise of large scale organized crime and societal chaos. The US has been fighting a futile war to ban narcotics and various other prohibited drugs for the last almost one hundred years. Trillions of dollars has been spent on this futile crusade, with absolutely nothing to show for it except for millions of lives ruined, not by the drugs but by the criminally stupid war.

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.

There is no equivocation. The word "choice" refers to any situation in which an individual is free to select from two or more alternatives. There is no implication in this word that all of these choices are all equally trivial or easy. There are easy choices and hard choices, choices with minimal impact on the chooser's life and choices with a huge impact. There is the choice of whether to eat a hamburger, a hot dog, or a salad. There is also the choice of whether or not to sacrifice one's life in order to save a loved one. And there is the choice of whether or not to stop smoking, even knowing that one will go through some unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. These are all choices. Some of them are more difficult choices to make than others. But they are all choices.

At the same time that you are arguing that the smoker has no real choice of whether or not to stop smoking (a belief that is contradicted in real life by the many millions of people who have chosen to stop smoking), it is you who actually propose to really deny choice to people by banning tobacco, overriding their desire to smoke by force.

"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.

It's only paranoia if they're not really out to get you. There's nothing at all paranoid about my suggestion, for this is exactly what has happened in the united nanny states of America, where our government is becoming more and more dictatorial and authoritarian in its regulation of our personal lives, using exactly the justification you have used here. Our prisons are filled with non-violent criminals, victims of the drug war (as I recall, 70% of all inmates of federal prisons are there for non-violent illegal drug use). Our police forces have entire "vice squads" dedicated to arresting drug users and prostitutes. Police justify harassing and arresting prostitutes by claiming that they don't really choose to become prostitutes either, that this is not a real choice at all. Since it's a lot more fun and less dangerous arresting prostitutes and drug users than going after violent criminals, this is how police resources are allocated. The "war on drugs" has led to the evisceration of American's rights against search and seizure without cause. It has led to the militarization of police across the country. It has led to the creation of asset forfeiture laws which enable police to seize the cash and property of innocent people by merely accusing them of being involved in the drug trade. This is all part of the price we have paid for this futile, stupid crusade.

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.

Tobacco has a benefit, one that you fail to recognize. The benefit of tobacco to users is that they enjoy using it. What they are doing is trading off the benefit of the enjoyment they get from using it against the potential health hazards that they will face as a result of their choice to use it. People make such subjective trade offs all the time, by engaging in activities that they enjoy but which have potential minor or major risks. If people eat a diet high in red meat, they are more likely to get heart disease, colon cancer, and various other afflictions. If people eat a diet high in carbohydrates, they are more likely to get diabetes. Should the government ban red meat and donuts because of their potential health hazards? Or should these choices be left up to each person to make for him/herself?

I also have a child, a daughter who is now almost eight. I really, really hope that she doesn't become a smoker. I'm sure I'd be as unhappy if she took up smoking as you would be if your child became a smoker. But I don't think that my fear of her becoming a smoker justifies me taking away the freedom of other people to smoke, if that is their choice. All I can do is try to set a good example for my daughter and do my best to teach her about the health hazards and general unpleasantness of smoking. And that's exactly what I'm doing.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Most people, even in this country, don't believe in freedom.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Real scientific evidence that seond-hand cigarette smoke causes any cancer including lung cancer is lacking.

--Brant

They used to say this about smoking as well. There is no such thnig as real scientific evidence, there is only just plain old scientific evidence. There is also no real scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming so let's just wait until there is absolutely no doubt before we change our lifestyle.

[Brant Gaede]

Real scientific evidence that seond-hand cigarette smoke causes any cancer including lung cancer is lacking.

--Brant

They used to say this about smoking as well. There is no such thnig as real scientific evidence, there is only just plain old scientific evidence. There is also no real scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming so let's just wait until there is absolutely no doubt before we change our lifestyle.

Okay. I'll go with "plain old." There ain't any much enough.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

It's only paranoia if they're not really out to get you.

Exactly...

The difference, again between tobacco and food - even 'unhealthy' food is critical. Unhealthy food can have a clear benefit (if you were starving or you needed to gain weight) or no harmful effects in small dosages. Tobacco? No benefit in any dose. Enjoyment? Bull.

I understand your argument in support of 'choice' - or your very flexible definition of the word, but the argument is simply emotional and not rational.

Bob

Go ahead - try to construct an 'Objective', logically contiguous argument for smoking.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[tjohnson]

Martin and Bob, as interesting as your arguments are you guys are getting off the topic. It's not whether someone should be allowed to smoke, it's under what conditions in public places. For some reason some substances are illegal and some are merely regulated but thats another discussion. If we go down that road SUGAR probably causes more deaths than tobacco so the best answer in most cases is education (like Thomas Jefferson said ) when it comes to using substances. But when it potentially damages others then it's no longer a personal issue.

[bmacwilliam]

Martin and Bob, as interesting as your arguments are you guys are getting off the topic. It's not whether someone should be allowed to smoke, it's under what conditions in public places. For some reason some substances are illegal and some are merely regulated but thats another discussion. If we go down that road SUGAR probably causes more deaths than tobacco so the best answer in most cases is education (like Thomas Jefferson said ) when it comes to using substances. But when it potentially damages others then it's no longer a personal issue.

Again, how many times now, sugar is BENEFICIAL in some cases, perhaps life-saving. Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Let me construct a simple argument or two in Objecto-lingo...

Life is the standard of value. Choosing life-affirming actions is moral, choosing death is an immoral choice. Ergo, smoking is clearly an immoral choice. Nobody rational could EVER smoke (at least with today's knowledge). The only argument I've heard against this is the hedonistic desire to smoke. What does Rand have to say about that I wonder??? So that's one thing, but there's more.

Most Objectivists would argue that force should be used by governments only in reaction/prevention of let's just say, 'improper' force from an external enemy or internal evil-doer. But why can't I choose to force my neighbour to give me all the money in his pockets? Well, it's wrong - I agree - to do this, a rights violation, so it's perfect legit to 'force' me not to make this choice. This puts 'choice' or liberty at the top of the value heap. Fine, I don't really have a big gripe with that.

But wait, I thought LIFE was the standard of value, not CHOICE/LIBERTY. If life was at the top of the heap, those who sought to destroy life and profit from it (Tobacco sellers) would most certainly be legitimately 'forced' to desist. But folks have the choice not to smoke right?. This is irrelevant because it's the morality/legality of the perpetrator that's at issue not the second party.

Whether or not my theft victim has the physical ability to 'choose' not to comply by clobbering me has no relevance to the morality or legality of the actions. I could coerce the person by other means or maybe use deception - doesn't matter.

So what is it then that's #1? CHOICE? LIFE? Both? It depends? Gotta pick one, can't have it both ways.

It certainly seems it switches between the two when politics gets involved doesn't it?

Bob

Edited January 22, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[sjw]

Again, how many times now, sugar is BENEFICIAL in some cases, perhaps life-saving. Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Note the dishonest tactic of arbitrarily restricting the discussion to "physiological benefits". Human life obviously does not merely consist in the physiological dimension, and Bob_Mac knows it.

I have smoked probably 5 times in my life. Most of them were cigars with friends, at most once a year. I have a particular memory of some great discussion with some great whiskey and a great cigar. Bob_Mac wants to criminalize my behavior. He wants to point a gun to my head and my friends' heads to enforce his primordial Nanny State on me. I have no civilized words to say to him.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Again, how many times now, sugar is BENEFICIAL in some cases, perhaps life-saving. Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Note the dishonest tactic of arbitrarily restricting the discussion to "physiological benefits". Human life obviously does not merely consist in the physiological dimension, and Bob_Mac knows it.

I have smoked probably 5 times in my life. Most of them were cigars with friends, at most once a year. I have a particular memory of some great discussion with some great whiskey and a great cigar. Bob_Mac wants to criminalize my behavior. He wants to point a gun to my head and my friends' heads to enforce his primordial Nanny State on me. I have no civilized words to say to him.

Shayne

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who know the joy and bliss of a fine cigar, a snifter of good brandy after an excellent meal, and those who do not know. The cigar is (when properly used) a blessing and a joy. If overused or abused you get cases like Sigmund Freud who contracted cancer of the jaw-bone from to many cigars and U.S. Grant who smoked 40 cigars a day and ultimately died of cancer of the throat. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes too many cigars is unhealthy. All good things in moderation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 22, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Extremely dogmatic. Our nervous system is part of our physiology and if smoking has a beneficial effect on some people then that's their business. But if it's bothering me in a public place it's my business.

[bmacwilliam]

Again, how many times now, sugar is BENEFICIAL in some cases, perhaps life-saving. Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Note the dishonest tactic of arbitrarily restricting the discussion to "physiological benefits". Human life obviously does not merely consist in the physiological dimension, and Bob_Mac knows it.

I have smoked probably 5 times in my life. Most of them were cigars with friends, at most once a year. I have a particular memory of some great discussion with some great whiskey and a great cigar. Bob_Mac wants to criminalize my behavior. He wants to point a gun to my head and my friends' heads to enforce his primordial Nanny State on me. I have no civilized words to say to him.

Shayne

Having a little trouble reading? I never once advocated criminalizing the behaviour of the user. It's about the sale/profit.

"I have no civilized words to say to him."

Fine, but try some rational ones maybe. Just a thought.

"Note the dishonest tactic of arbitrarily restricting the discussion to "physiological benefits"."

Really now.... How about the specific mention of the non-physiological hedonistic 'benefit" I SPECIFICALLY addressed? Oh, I see, it displays further how irrational your position is, so best to pretend it's not there.

And I'm dishonest.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Extremely dogmatic.

Then show me I'm wrong.

[bmacwilliam]

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who know the joy and bliss of a fine cigar, a snifter of good brandy after an excellent meal, and those who do not know. The cigar is (when properly used) a blessing and a joy. If overused or abused you get cases like Sigmund Freud who contracted cancer of the jaw-bone from to many cigars and U.S. Grant who smoked 40 cigars a day and ultimately died of cancer of the throat. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes too many cigars is unhealthy. All good things in moderation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But this falls under the category of knowing quite clearly that this is anti-life, immoral behaviour and is done simply for short term hedonistic pleasure reasons only. Therefore any good Objectivist should know this is at the very least, highly immoral behaviour.

Bob

Edited January 22, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[sjw]

Having a little trouble reading? I never once advocated criminalizing the behaviour of the user. It's about the sale/profit.

What a bizarre distinction to bring into an Objectivist forum. And what a bizarre evasion of the point: tobacco has benefits. Your whole statist position of making selling illegal was based on this whacky notion that it doesn't. (Not that something should have to have benefits in order to be able to sell it.)

Really now.... How about the specific mention of the non-physiological hedonistic 'benefit" I SPECIFICALLY addressed? Oh, I see, it displays further how irrational your position is, so best to pretend it's not there.

I don't classify enjoying a fine Irish whiskey and a fine cigar every year or so as hedonism. You poor sod.

And I'm dishonest.

And pathetic.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Extremely dogmatic.

Then show me I'm wrong.

"Nicotine produces pleasure by attaching to the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor found on certain nerve cells. In response to nicotine, these nerve cells release a chemical signal called glutamate, which tells connected neurons to release dopamine. The more these nerve cells are excited, the more dopamine is released and the more pleasant the feeling."

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/020328/nic...

Why are we discussing this, if not as a civil liberty "I own my own body" question?

W.

[bmacwilliam]

Having a little trouble reading? I never once advocated criminalizing the behaviour of the user. It's about the sale/profit.

What a bizarre distinction to bring into an Objectivist forum. And what a bizarre evasion of the point: tobacco has benefits. Your whole statist position of making selling illegal was based on this whacky notion that it doesn't. (Not that something should have to have benefits in order to be able to sell it.)

Really now.... How about the specific mention of the non-physiological hedonistic 'benefit" I SPECIFICALLY addressed? Oh, I see, it displays further how irrational your position is, so best to pretend it's not there.

I don't classify enjoying a fine Irish whiskey and a fine cigar every year or so as hedonism. You poor sod.

Shayne

"What a bizarre distinction "

Really?? It's 'bizarre' to point out a diference between an addicted user's 'choice' to continue smoking, compared to profiteering from harming a fellow man through his weakness and/or physical addiction? Hmm....

"I don't classify enjoying a fine Irish whiskey and a fine cigar every year or so as hedonism."

It most certainly is. It doesn't mean you're hedonistic on the whole, but clearly 'every year or so' you make the hedonistic choice.

"Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses."

Bob

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses."

Bob

Are you against pleasure? If so, why exactly?

W.

[bmacwilliam]

Tobacco has no physiological beneficial effects - none.

Extremely dogmatic.

Then show me I'm wrong.

"Nicotine produces pleasure by attaching to the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor found on certain nerve cells. In response to nicotine, these nerve cells release a chemical signal called glutamate, which tells connected neurons to release dopamine. The more these nerve cells are excited, the more dopamine is released and the more pleasant the feeling."

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/020328/nic...

Why are we discussing this, if not as a civil liberty "I own my own body" question?

W.

Nicotine != Tobacco

(let me explain a little more... Tobacco contains nicotine as well as thousands of other, extremely toxic chemicals. Want nicotine? Buy the gum. Tobacco introduces a huge, extra health risk.)

"Why are we discussing this, if not as a civil liberty "I own my own body" question?"

Well, that's what I'm getting at. The problem is then, Objectivism needs to reevaluate ethics where 'liberty' is the standard of value and not 'life'. Is there an objective ethics foundation here, and if so which is it - life or liberty?

Bob

Edited January 22, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[sjw]

Really?? It's 'bizarre' to point out a diference between an addicted user's 'choice' to continue smoking, compared to profiteering from harming a fellow man through his weakness and/or physical addiction? Hmm....

I think you're addicted to your idea about tobacco and have no "choice" but to spew this nonsense into the forum. I feel sorry for you but there's nothing I can do to help, a man without choice is fundamentally broken.

"I don't classify enjoying a fine Irish whiskey and a fine cigar every year or so as hedonism."

It most certainly is. It doesn't mean you're hedonistic on the whole, but clearly 'every year or so' you make the hedonistic choice.

"Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses."

You are a religious fanatic, aren't you? What is your particular religion? Why do you as a religious nut post to an Objectivist forum? Isn't that a sin? Or maybe you're excused because it's an addiction?

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

"Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses."

Bob

Are you against pleasure? If so, why exactly?

W.

No. I was just saying that the only pro-tobacco usage argument was the hedonic one. And that's not a good enough reason for an Objectivist is it?

Bob

[sjw]

No. I was just saying that the only pro-tobacco usage argument was the hedonic one. And that's not a good enough reason for an Objectivist is it?

Your notion of hedonism is about as good as your notion of Objectivism. (I.e., not good).

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

I think you're addicted to your idea about tobacco and have no "choice" but to spew this nonsense into the forum. I feel sorry for you but there's nothing I can do to help, a man without choice is fundamentally broken.

Ok, so we've got anger, scorn, and now pity to add to the list of substitutes for rational disagreement. What's next?

You are a religious fanatic, aren't you? What is your particular religion? Why do you as a religious nut post to an Objectivist forum? Isn't that a sin? Or maybe you're excused because it's an addiction?

Sorry to disappoint - athiest. But nice try.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

No. I was just saying that the only pro-tobacco usage argument was the hedonic one. And that's not a good enough reason for an Objectivist is it?

Your notion of hedonism is about as good as your notion of Objectivism. (I.e., not good).

Shayne

C'mon, that's just scorn, and not even good scorn - it's empty scorn. You can do better than that....

[sjw]

You can do better than that....

I can, but why bother? You have no choice but to believe as you do.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Is there an objective ethics foundation here, and if so which is it - life or liberty?

I see. Reading the whole body of work, I think it makes sense to look at man qua man in full context, a specific time and place. Objectivism doesn't provide categorical imperatives about smoking or drinking or forum posting (like LDS does, for instance). On another thread I blew raspberries at guys who claimed to be 100% honest, brave, clean and reverent. Yes, obviously it's desirable to not smoke cigarettes, just as it's desirable to never compromise, go on strike, invent a new metal alloy, be born rich, etc. We don't get everything we want in life.

W.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon