About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, May 20 - 1:38amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
When I first started smoking, in 1980, a pack of Benson&Hedges menthols cost me 75cents. In 2003, when I finally kicked the habit, a pack of Marlboro Lights cost me $5.50 a pack. I was really "Happy" to finally be able quit that nasty habit.



Post 1

Tuesday, May 20 - 5:18amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I am sorry, Ed, but you are going to have to explain the "Toohey" thing.  I have read this a couple of times and I do not see that angle. 

Should you not enjoy tobacco?
Is pleasure bad?
Is bad pleasure good?

What, exactly, is the subtext for you in this that you want us to perceive?


Moving right along (though not with a spark of mental fire at my fingertips)...
 
Tobacco: A Cultural History of How an Exotic Plant Seduced Civilization. [by Iain Gately ] - book review
Science News,  March 9, 2002 
By the time Christopher Columbus reached the shores of North America, tobacco had reached every corner of the American continents including offshore islands such as Cuba. Europeans, like the Native Americans before them, embraced tobacco with verve. But why do some people like to smoke? And why is tobacco their plant of choice to smoke? An unabashed smoker himself, Gately helps answer these questions by relating 18,000 years of tobacco history. He reports that the plant's leaves have had many uses. They were an insecticide for other crops, and some South American tribes used tobacco juice to kill skin lice. Tobacco has also had a life as a remedy for toothaches and a tool of shamans. Early Maya and other South American cultures used it as currency. Some cultures reacted harshly to the plant and its users: Murad IV, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire from 1623 to 1640, is believed to have had 25,000 smokers killed during his reign, and Japan banned smoking five times before giving up. Yet more than 1.2 billion people in the world smoke today. Originally published in Great Britain in 2001. Grove, 2001, 403 p., hardcover, $25.00.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Science Service, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group

from Wikipedia:
According to the World Health Organization, tobacco smoke is the second biggest cause of death worldwide, and is reported to have been responsible for the deaths of 100 million people in the 20th century.[2]  [2]2008 report on tobacco smoke, World Health Organization, 2008. [Link to PDF here]

(That would put tobacco right up there with Mao and Stalin.--mem) 

According to WHO from the report:
SIX POLICIES TO REVERSE THE TOBACCO EPIDEMIC
Monitor tobacco use and prevention policies
Protect people from tobacco smoke
Offer help to quit tobacco use
Warn about the dangers of tobacco
Enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship
Raise taxes on tobacco

(Now, if we could only do that with collectivism... oh! wait!... I get it... that would be collectivism... and that raises a deeper question, perhaps the deepest in politics: why do we have to have legislation against things that are naturally bad for us?  Why is the law of cause and effect not self-enforcing?  Oh, of course.. that would be anarchy, something opposed by conservatives, liberals, and the World Health Organization...)




Post 2

Tuesday, May 20 - 8:32amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Michael Writes:

> I am sorry, Ed, but you are going to have to explain the "Toohey" thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong Ed, but I think his point is that all of the government restrictions on smoking, including driving the price of cigarettes into the stratosphere, is being couched as a great benefit to smokers who are forced to quit their habit due to it being too costly and too difficult to continue smoking. `Not only is the message that quitting smoking is a healthy benefit, but this article attempts to say that most smokers are thankful to their oppressive masters for forcing them to do something that they were not freely willing to do on their own. Not only are they thankful, they are genuinely happier at having been forced to give up their smoking.

In other words, "Hey stupid citizens, we're the government and we are coming after your freedom to choose what you do with your life. But don't worry, because you are actually going to be a lot happier with the good choices we are going to make for you, rather than that false feeling that you misinterpret as "happiness" that results from the poor choices you make on your own. And we have the 'scientific' data to back up our claim. So bend over ..."

I think this may be the "Toohey" message to which Ed is referring!

By the way Michael, when I read the rest of your post, which is like many other of your posts on various topics, I see copious amounts of information presented, but I am often at a loss to understand exactly what point all of it is in service of. Here, I cannot really decide if you are for or against a ban on smoking. I cannot tell if you favor government programs or oppose them. I find myself often left scratching my head wondering what you are trying to say.

Regards,
--
Jeff



Post 3

Tuesday, May 20 - 9:09pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
C. Jeff, to me, most things are like chandelier crystals: multifaceted.   What you see depends on how you look at them.  I have no problem with ambiguity. ( Neither do these guys -- watch the whole thing for the reference to ambiguity versus political dictatorship.) 

Should the government ban smoking?  In what context?  In public?  Perhaps...  In your home?  Definitely not.  Is smoking enjoyable?  It can become an acquired habit, apparently, though it takes some getting used to.  So what?  What's the difference?  To whom?  Who cares?

Take that whole riff with Politicians that Ted and Tibor have going with Phil and me.  Politicians are an easy target for libertarians.  ... too easy...  Is there another way to look at it?  I think so and I offered my perspective.  Of course, others were rooted to their rocks and were not willing to budge from their positions to see what I do. 

BTW, C. Jeff, as an example of that disturbing "ambiguity" I have posted a new topic in Dissent called "Government Forces -- Quis Custodiet?"  To me, Objectivism is a personal philosophy, a way to make my life better.  It is also a mode of inquiry, a way to discover questions, frame investigations and find truths.  I stress those key terms: personal philosophy and mode of inquiry.  For others with totalitarian mindsets, Objectivism is a set of answers that everyone must accept.  ...  but... if you read the new topic in Dissent, you will see that some supposedly basic truths are really quite ambiguous.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/21, 6:41am)




Post 4

Wednesday, May 21 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mike, Jeff said it well.

Ed



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.