As long as the manufacturer is forthright about the ingredients and health risks of the ingredients are public knowledge, companies should be allowed to produce items that are that dangerous. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves about the health risks and to make a decision about whether to consume the product anyway.NukeBan wrote: ↑December 20th, 2020, 11:34 am
The tobacco companies, which are run by a collection of people who are already very rich, have been killing about 1,000 Americans a day for decades, with many more around the world. If we are to allow this kind of activity then I should be allowed to open a cookie factory which knowingly and deliberately kills 1,000 people a day when my cookies are consumed as directed. In other words, from this perspective corporations would be allowed to do any damn thing they want, no matter the damage inflicted upon the public.
All drugs should be legal
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All drugs should be legal
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
There are so many moral crimes being committed at massive scale all over the globe. The effort spent nationalising cigarettes could be used to release people from slavery, for instance.
There is so much going wrong so profoundly in so many ways in so many places, one has to choose one's cause. There are many more important causes than anyone can possibly support in a lifetime without spreading themselves thin to the point of irrelevance. There is no shame in choosing one's own causes and leaving others to do the same.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
But are the tobacco companies killing smokers or are smokers killing themselves?NukeBan wrote: ↑December 20th, 2020, 8:10 pmWell, any politician who doesn't have the balls to confront the deliberate killing of 1,000 people a day for decades should look for another line of work. That is, pretty much all of them.
Philosophers too. How can one claim to be rational while ignoring a moral crime of such scale?
We are a strange species. We love to whine and complain and point the accusing finger etc, but the tobacco companies somehow escape our notice.
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
This is a common sentiment, which ignores the reality of human beings. Quick evidence...Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 20th, 2020, 8:26 pmAs long as the manufacturer is forthright about the ingredients and health risks of the ingredients are public knowledge, companies should be allowed to produce items that are that dangerous. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves about the health risks and to make a decision about whether to consume the product anyway.
1) Here in the US almost half the population voted for Trump. Twice.
2) As you drive around town notice how most other drivers will tailgate you, risking their lives for no benefit.
3) Observe that while philosophy forums are supposedly about logic and reason, they are in fact overwhelming dominated by emotional agendas.
Point being, generally speaking the human experience is not a neat and tidy orderly logical affair. All of us are weak in some way or another. As example, while I quit smoking 50 years ago, I'm still addicted to philosophy forums, an activity I long ago determined to be a waste of time. And yet, here I still am.
We shouldn't be allowing very rich people running giant corporations to prey on such human weakness in an organized systematic blatantly destructive manner.
Today's drugs are just the beginning. There is so much money to be made preying on human weakness that we can be assured ever more powerful drugs are coming. If everything is legal, sooner or later somebody will make a destructive drug that you too can not resist.
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
Can we assume that members will not object if I launch a cookie company that we know in advance will make me very very rich at the cost of 1,000 dead a day? As the death toll starts to mount will I still be a welcome member of the forum? There will be no outrage, no scolding, no arguments against, and no banning, right?
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
Robert66 wrote:Steve 3007: 'I started smoking at the age of 15, when you could buy 10 B&H for 50p from a vending machine in the local amusement arcade while playing Pacman and listening to Howard Jones.'
What, now you think listening to Howard Jones should be legalised? Howard Jones' songs are "gateway songs". You have no-one else to blame for the fact that you are now listening to this:
I like the idea of "gateway songs". I think it's a genuine problem. There's a lot of music that I used to think I liked in an ironic way but it turned out I just actually like it. Similar process, I think.
How does that work? Do you stand outside office buildings at 9am on a Monday morning, smoking a Camberwell carrot, looking at the office workers cowering in their corners smoking those fags? When I first started working in an office, and was still smoking, you could do it in the office sitting at your desk. Then you had to go outside. I always quite liked that. It meant a nice break. A bit of fresh air (in between drags) and a chat with people you wouldn't normally have a chance to chat with. A bit of networking and flirting. Almost makes me wish I still smoked.And some people simply like smoking - also a problem. I am one of them. I especially like to smoke a big joint at 9am on Monday. I always smile and say hello to people cowering in stinky corners with their guilt-laden fags, and I always glare back at the self-righteous wankers, or pull a face at them, and yell "I hope you paid your fresh air tax".
---
But anyway, as I said a few months ago on this thread, I'm in favour of the high taxes on cigarettes and I'm not in favour of making the funding of the health service something that people can opt out of. I'm not in favour of making people live with the long term consequences of their short term decisions, particularly where addiction is involved. I don't think I'd like it if, when a teenager is about to start their smoking career but is a bit short of cash, a lawyer comes up and says: "Do you want to pay less for your smokes? Just sign this document irreversibly waiving your rights to future healthcare (the parts that are deemed necessary as a result of smoking) and you'll get a hefty tax reduction!". On things like that I'm in favour of the nanny state.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
People can engage or disengage in causes as they see fit, rather than just doing as others see fit.
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
There's a larger point here regarding what issues philosophers, and people in general, choose to focus on. Are the choices we make rational, or more a case of being swept up in the emotional tides of the moment?
As example, here's a popular cause chosen at random, black lives matter. This is clearly an important worthy cause. But is there a racist company out there which is selling a product which they know will kill 1,000 black people EVERY DAY, proven by the fact that it has been doing so for decades? As bad as racism truly is, is it killing something like 400,000 people each and every year?
Please observe how members here (and everywhere else as well) will look for any opportunity to dismiss this concern and somehow or another rationalize the actions of the tobacco companies, say for example by shifting the focus of blame to the victims. Note the complete lack of any sense of outrage. And of course it's not just philosophy forums but the culture at large which finds such profit driven mass death to not merit our attention.
The great irony is that our culture has become very blame oriented. It seems everyone is pointing the finger of shame at someone and lecturing them etc. And yet, somehow companies which make millions killing millions rarely come to our attention.
Is reason as much a fantasy as the Virgin Mary?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All drugs should be legal
You'd have to explain how you're inferring that my view implies that I believe that "human experience is a neat and tidy, orderly, logical affair."
Are you suggesting that it's not actually someone's decision to take whatever risks they're taking (on public "knowledge" of the risks)?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All drugs should be legal
"What I should choose to do," at least on a root or foundational level, has nothing to do with rationality, because there are no normative facts to get right.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
Well, regular cookies contribute to obesity which though less deadly that smoking, is way more prevalent and increasing, whereas smoking is declining.NukeBan wrote: ↑December 21st, 2020, 10:18 am So are you saying that if members should discover that I'm the owner of the Cancer Cookie Company which is causing 1,000 people a day to die while I rake in millions that I would still be a welcome member of the forum and that you would not choose to engage my career because of the large number of other worthy causes? After all, my customers chose to eat the Cancer Cookies, so there's nothing in this story to be concerned about?
There's a larger point here regarding what issues philosophers, and people in general, choose to focus on. Are the choices we make rational, or more a case of being swept up in the emotional tides of the moment?
As example, here's a popular cause chosen at random, black lives matter. This is clearly an important worthy cause. But is there a racist company out there which is selling a product which they know will kill 1,000 black people EVERY DAY, proven by the fact that it has been doing so for decades? As bad as racism truly is, is it killing something like 400,000 people each and every year?
Please observe how members here (and everywhere else as well) will look for any opportunity to dismiss this concern and somehow or another rationalize the actions of the tobacco companies, say for example by shifting the focus of blame to the victims. Note the complete lack of any sense of outrage. And of course it's not just philosophy forums but the culture at large which finds such profit driven mass death to not merit our attention.
The great irony is that our culture has become very blame oriented. It seems everyone is pointing the finger of shame at someone and lecturing them etc. And yet, somehow companies which make millions killing millions rarely come to our attention.
Is reason as much a fantasy as the Virgin Mary?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 20th, 2020, 8:26 pmAs long as the manufacturer is forthright about the ingredients and health risks of the ingredients are public knowledge, companies should be allowed to produce items that are that dangerous. It's up to the consumer to educate themselves about the health risks and to make a decision about whether to consume the product anyway.
Tobacco and Alcohol are not regulated as drugs in the U.S. Covid Vaccines are, Any substance which claims to "cure, mitigate, treat or prevent" a disease is regulated as a drug by FDA.
Manufacturers may attempt to be "forthright about the ingredients and health risks of the ingredients", but it's not so easy. Think of Covid vaccines. If drugs were universally legal, we would have had a Covid vaccine months and months ago. It might have been effective or it might have been toxic and dangerous. We can argue about how much testing the FDA should require before approving such a vaccine, but allowing anyone to sell the vaccine before testing and approval might be risky (although it might also have prevented many deaths).
Drug manufacturing facilities in the U.S. are closely regulated. FDA demands adherence to standards of quality control, cleanliness, and a paper trail in case a recall becomes necessary (such recalls are fairly frequent). Regular audits are required. Food manufacture is also regulated by FDA, but the standards for safety, cleanliness and paper trails are lower, and audits occur infrequently (or not at all). Recalls of contaminated food also occur.
Luxury taxes on alcohol and tobacco sound like a good idea, but there are often negative consequences. Before heroin and cocaine became popular in Naples in the late 1970s, the Camorra (the Neopolitan Mafia) made most of its money smuggling cigarettes. High taxes on addictive and desirable goods lead to black markets, criminal enterprises, violence and death.
If we are going to "deregulate" heroin, does that mean we should cease requiring standards of quality control and cleanliness for the manufacture of all drugs? Should we allow manufacturers to sell any drugs they want, and refrain from pre-approving treatment claims? We could, I suppose, allow the market and libel suits to eliminate frauds, fakes, and phony elixers, but I don't think the public wants that. IN cases of life and death (as is the case in many drug treatments) many of us would prefer that FDA (or some responsible party) approve the claims, instead of our relatives seeking restitution after we are dead.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
In this world of "shoulds" you should be more specific. "The government"? Are you talking about the US government? Have a look at what one government DID about tobacco:NukeBan wrote: ↑December 20th, 2020, 11:34 amPerhaps it would be helpful to make a distinction between smoking, and being in the tobacco business?
The tobacco companies, which are run by a collection of people who are already very rich, have been killing about 1,000 Americans a day for decades, with many more around the world. If we are to allow this kind of activity then I should be allowed to open a cookie factory which knowingly and deliberately kills 1,000 people a day when my cookies are consumed as directed. In other words, from this perspective corporations would be allowed to do any damn thing they want, no matter the damage inflicted upon the public.
The government should nationalize the tobacco industry (ie. seize all their assets) and take over management of the tobacco supply chain. The product should be steadily re-engineered to make it ever less addictive. Tobacco company profits and ad dollars should be reinvested in further public education.
Smoking would still be legal. Tobacco would still be available. But instead of the goal of the distributor being to sell as much product as possible, the goal of the government would be to make the product ever less appealing.
Anybody can smoke if they are stupid enough to do so. Nobody but the government can distribute tobacco products. Smoking is legal, tobacco business illegal.
COVID will probably wind up killing in one year the same amount of people that the tobacco companies routinely kill every year. We're VERY interested in COVID, and have almost no interest in the tobacco companies. It's not just smokers who are being irrational.
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstre ... sequence=7
To summarise a long report, the Australian government succeeded, thanks mainly to the efforts of the most impressive politician I have ever known of, the then Attorney General Nicola Roxon, in forcing tobacco companies to sell their products in plain packaging, with graphically illustrated health warnings prominent. It is a surprisingly good read, especially the accounts of Big Tobacco's "arguments" against the proposed packaging laws.
The point is that it takes a willing government and a star performer to win against Big Tobacco - do you think "the government" you refer to has what it takes to do the things that "should" be done?
One thing routinely absent from the world of "shoulds" envisaged by first-world philosophers is an answer to the following question:
What should happen to the millions of contract farmers growing tobacco in the third world?
Before you answer "They should grow a different crop" note:
The typical contract grower of tobacco is very poor, and may not even own the meagre plot of land they grow their crop on;
The land itself is typically poor, infertile, often very steep-sloped, often remote from transport links and markets, and in areas prone to drought and other natural disasters;
Not well educated, the tobacco grower, while possibly knowing of the harm caused by tobacco, is probably unaware of the fact that in many cases they would be better off growing a different crop (they probably have not read this qualitative analysis
Why Do Farmers Grow Tobacco? A Qualitative Exploration of Farmers Perspectives in Indonesia and Philippines
Adriana Appau, Jeffrey Drope, Firman Witoelar, Jenina Joy Chavez and
Raphael Lencucha)
published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, for example);
Tobacco companies offer a guaranteed price for the contract farmer's crop; they come and get the harvested crop;
In some places, tobacco companies have been quasi-institutional, providing infrastructure including schools for poor remote communities, and doing more for these needy people than the government ever could.
Now for my "should": we in the first world should pay for the changes we want to make to the world.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023