Craig Hill
KC Hill
Paladin
Oracle of DelphiBelieve it or not tobacco is still legal
October 10th 2006 23:38
Recently on Crikey, Professor Simon Chapman, professor of public health at the University of Sydney, asked how a tobacco company can be given a favourable ethical rating in a survey by the St James Ethics Centre of business practices. Although it is almost heresy to say it, tobacco is still a perfectly legal product, freely chosen by the people who smoke and enjoy it. It is a relatively innocent pleasure, since tobacco, unlike alcohol and other drugs, does not interfere with the smoker's cognitive ability nor is it so addictive that the absence of it will drive the smoker to crime. While tobacco is legal (a situation the WHO aims to remedy through its "Tobacco Free Initiative") the production, distribution and retailing of tobacco is not in itself unethical, especially in the light of the extensive information we all now have about the ill effects of tobacco. Unique in the commercial world, tobacco advertising consists of almost nothing but warnings to potential customer not to use the product being advertised.
It's not accurate for Professor Chapman to clam that the World Health Organisation's estimate of tobacco related deaths is unchallenged. Roger Scruton, in his paper, Who What Why (pdf) asks the question "What is meant by 'tobacco-related' [deaths]? Anybody who has pursued that question with an open mind knows the extent to which the evidence against tobacco has been manipulated, often by people with an emotional or political commitment to a pre-conceived result." Scruton points out that the statistic quoted by Professor Chapman "relies on statistical correlations which may or may not be causally significant, and which may or may not be as applicable to smokers as to non-smokers."
Scruton's comments concerning the mortality rate among smokers occur within the context a wider criticism of the WHO in which he points out non democratic nature of the organisation and the dangers of transnationals interfering in the legislation of nation states. The WHO would save many more lives by concentrating on its core business of prevent communicable diseases in third world countries rather than interfering in the legislative processes of elected governments.
The ill favour in which tobacco is now held is largely a cultural fad which will surely pass. As Morgan Spurlock pointed out in Super Size Me , it's socially acceptable to berate a smoker about his filthy habit and to badger him about giving up, but it's not acceptable to criticise an overweight person for eating junk food. Both are bad for your health but one is socially acceptable.
It's not accurate for Professor Chapman to clam that the World Health Organisation's estimate of tobacco related deaths is unchallenged. Roger Scruton, in his paper, Who What Why (pdf) asks the question "What is meant by 'tobacco-related' [deaths]? Anybody who has pursued that question with an open mind knows the extent to which the evidence against tobacco has been manipulated, often by people with an emotional or political commitment to a pre-conceived result." Scruton points out that the statistic quoted by Professor Chapman "relies on statistical correlations which may or may not be causally significant, and which may or may not be as applicable to smokers as to non-smokers."
Scruton's comments concerning the mortality rate among smokers occur within the context a wider criticism of the WHO in which he points out non democratic nature of the organisation and the dangers of transnationals interfering in the legislation of nation states. The WHO would save many more lives by concentrating on its core business of prevent communicable diseases in third world countries rather than interfering in the legislative processes of elected governments.
The ill favour in which tobacco is now held is largely a cultural fad which will surely pass. As Morgan Spurlock pointed out in Super Size Me , it's socially acceptable to berate a smoker about his filthy habit and to badger him about giving up, but it's not acceptable to criticise an overweight person for eating junk food. Both are bad for your health but one is socially acceptable.
| 78 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
Comment by Homer Joyce
Forget about George Orwell’s thought police. What about today’s tobacco police? It’s high time someone wrote a sequel to 1984 … (Anything would be better than TVs Big Brother)…
Smokers all know it is not the healthiest pastime to indulge in, but where are the signs on abortion clinics that say: There is a 100% chance that your child will die if you have an abortion? Imagine the outrage if they added graphics of aborted foetuses … rather than gangrenous toes and rotting gums.
Tobacco related deaths are where someone is either pissed or spaced out (or just fed up with all this anti-tobacco lobbying) and falls asleep with a burning cigarette dangling from his/her mouth, and the house burns down. It is not recognised statistically as an alcohol or drug related death, nor a propaganda stress related death.
I’d fight for this issue but the modern world stresses me out too much. I need a durrie. I’m going out into the fresh air to have one.
Oh, are passive smokers people who remain passive? I don’t think so. They’re very aggressive.
If anyone starts ranting and raving at me for being a smoker in that judgemental way that certain people do, and they try to convince me to stop, I challenge them. You stop sticking your bib in other people’s lives, and fumigate your own soul, and I’ll give up smoking. They generally never talk to me again … Thank God for that …
Great post btw …
Homer …
Comment by Damo
If smoking is heroic then I prefer the company of the cowards.
Comment by Homer Joyce
I didn't realise that you were so passionate about the issue of smoking.
The argument 'the rest of society has to pay' .... is a broad one ... and that's where it does come down to personal issues.
I might not like having to pay taxes to fund abortions ... and yet indulge in smoking, whereas the non-smoker has no problem with govt funded abortions but doesn't like tax-funded smoking campaigns. I might have an issue about how much they spend on anti-smoking campaigns. Who pays for that?
Where does the argument end or begin if not at personal issues?
Why is a greenie hellbent on chaining him/herself to a tree, while the forest worker is hellbent on chopping down the tree? Who pays for the police to intervene? The greeny taxpayers or the forest worker taxpayers? Who pays for the media to commentate on it? (We consumers of media who have our newspapers delivered, yet slag the media, yet desire to be part of the media, yet hate the media ... etc ) ... It's just an endless argument based on personal issues and tastes ...
Accpetance has just become my favourite word ...
And, I'm having a go at you ... But the beauty of blogging is ... we all get to express our opinion ...
There is nothing like indulging in apologetics ... ]
Homer ...
PS. I will still read your posts ... and comment on them ...
HJ