Some of these replies seriously make me roll my eyes. And cringe.
I don’t know why I clicked, but I did.
In the end, people who are greatly harmed by gross negligence DO have a right to some fair compensation, but people need to be accountable for thier own behaviors. The notion that tobacco companies can be sued by people with lung cancer is INSANE.
There is also a part where a guy comments how his grandfather smoked for decades and finally stopped, but it was too late, he got lung cancer and died. Somebody replies by saying that quitting might have caused his lung cells to regenerate too fast, leading to cancer. And that he still would have been alive today if he hadn’t stopped smoking.
There is also a guy that claims he has been smoking cigarettes “only over the weekend” for years and still hasn’t gotten addicted.
I could make the argument that the rise of MAGA comes from people living in a world where the repercussions for bad decisions come on too slowly and weakly.
Protecting people from bad decisions prevents them from learning. Likewise, keeping people from needing to learn how to wade through information to find the real deal, just means that they pick whatever reaffirms their own beliefs and carry on, not having to ever evaluate past that.
And when they die because of the bad “choices”, the people who would benefit either don’t know that these others died, or believe it’s fake news.
My understanding is that there are some people who simply are less likely physically addicted to tobacco smoking. That guy could well be one of those “lucky” ones. Or, he could, of course, be a troll.
I know, I just find it hilarious that he claims he’s not addicted because he smokes twice a week instead of every day.
The problem with the first part is that the sorts of things that get banned or restricted either (a) have very bad immediate consequences that harm you so much that learning from them is moot or (b) naturally take a long time to produce consequences. We don’t ban things that people naturally choose to avoid, as there’s no point.
The problem with the second part is that we already exist in that world. We already do have to wade through information to find the real deal. That’s the Internet. That’s social medial. And it did not result in things getting better. The more information you have, the more you seek information silos to help you make sense of it.
So, sure, strong (but not essentially fatal) immediate consequences would probably go a long way in helping people learn. But they’d pretty much have to be imposed on people. Removing regulation isn’t going to provide those consequences.
And the removal of restraints on information by the Internet is the cause, not the solution to the problem.
It’s not “ridiculous”. It is the logical outcome of an amoral ideology driven by the interests of money. I mean it’s ridiculous that ordinary people buy into what the Nick Naylors of the world are selling without understanding that he is simply arguing the position he is paid to argue. But that’s sort of the point of the film Thank You For Smoking (I never saw the other one).
I think the idea, even if not articulated well in those posts or even this post, is that any fool should know that lighting something on fire and inhaling it into your lungs is probably not a positive thing healthwise. And if you do so for decades, get cancer and/or die, it’s probably your fault from doing it from the outset and not the fault of the guy selling you the stuff to set on fire and inhale into your lungs. Personal freedom/responsibilities and all.
The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but it can be helpful. Bars, restaurants, car manufacturers, gun manufacturers, candy stores, pizza joints, doctors prescribing necessary medicine, etc. You can see the argument, and it is real.
Where in a free society do we protect people from themselves? You didn’t have to buy any pack of smokes in your life. You knew they were addictive and even back when the tobacco companies said that they were not, you didn’t believe it. You saw smokers with your own eyes craving them.
Advertising and/or propaganda doesn’t work.
Got it.
Sure those things work. I don’t dispute that. But if we want to preserve freedom, then that must mean the freedom to make bad choices. I don’t think anyone would believe that the state lottery could be subject to suit even if I am a gambling addict and there ads were just so good as to make me blow my paycheck.
Y’know, there are points on the scale between “BAN IT ALL!!” and “FREEDUMB!!”.
That’s rather trite, but I’ll respond.
You and I and that guy’s brother knows that cigarettes are bad. Our state and the federal government knows that. But all of these actors allow legal cigarette sales. Full disclosure, buy them from the local convenience store. As many as you want. The state permits it.
I understand the concept of a scale, but this has been a known issue for 400 years and we have allowed the advertisement and consumption of tobacco. It is not fair to say that they mislead us. Any fucking idiot knew that they were lying.
Knowing something isn’t nearly enough. That’s why advertising, exposure, peer pressure etc. etc. work.
It is fair to say that people right now should know better. 400 years though is a stretch. That is 1622. The cigarette was not even invented, nobody knew what cancer was, and living until the age of 10 was a pretty big deal.
And yet obviously many many people don’t.
You have people referenced above who believe that its stopping smoking too quickly that causes lung cancer, or that people don’t actually get addicted. Even if they do understand that its bad for them don’t appreciate how bad it is and how hard it is going to be to quit once they start. It is easy to convince yourself that unlike everyone else you will have the will to stop, in the same way it is easy to convince yourself that unlike everyone else that you can drive just fine when you’re drunk.
Regarding the slippery slope. 88% of smokers wish they never started, this number excludes those who started and managed to quit, who presumably also regretted starting, so the actual number of people who started smoking later regretting it is probably in the 92-95% range. A quick show of hands. What percentage of the people reading this thread regret ever trying pizza, or candy, or ever buying a car.
So you have a company that is convincing people to take actions that they are invariably going to regret, to no useful good and general harm to society, then yes I think that its worth while trying to put them out of business.
Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.
— James 1604[2]
You understand that James I wasn’t a scientist, right? A guy not liking smoking in the 17th century doesn’t prove that the negative health effects were demonstrated and widely known.