[homonculus1]

I feel blessed to live in a world where companies can "get away with" selling products to people who are informed of the risks and choose to buy them. The urge to remove the option for others to behave irrationally runs strong in some, but we mustn't be carried away by ego.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” --C.S. Lewis

[MereInterest]

How does this apply to second-hand smoke? I did not consent to have poisonous fumes near me. Second-hand smoke should be considered a form of battery, of which tobacco companies are accomplices and enablers.

How does this apply to the misinformation campaign waged by tobacco companies? Their customers were deceived, and therefore could not give informed consent.

[wutbrodo]

There are any number of things that give off poisonous fumes, from home heating to driving your kids to the park[1], at higher volumes and lower distances than cigarettes.

I abhor secondhand smoke too, and applaud legal constraints on where you can emit poisonous fumes, like smoking bans in enclosed spaces. But cigarette smoking is easily separable from the worst of its local air pollution effects, and unless you're willing to condemn even more harshly people who choose to live in the suburbs, this is a dishonest argument.

> How does this apply to the misinformation campaign waged by tobacco companies?

No argument here; this is the reason I'm no fan of tobacco companies. Though this is again a theoretically-separable evil from selling cigarettes per se.

[chachachoney]

>> Second-hand smoke should be considered a form of battery, of which tobacco companies are accomplices and enablers.

That's hyperbolic to the point of seeming like farce.

[homonculus1]

I used to think that being smart was inherently virtuous, but I've noticed that some people use it to infinitely rationalize their demands of others. It is utopian thinking, colored by some flavor of personal bias, which inevitably falls short of the real world in its attempts to optimize other people's lives.

The traditionally spiritual mindsets are necessary to be a positive fit. Wisdom, mindfulness, humility, acceptance etc. I think they are correlated to intelligence but they are not as immediately accessible as cleverness, they must be intentionally cultivated.

Everybody has to seek these for themselves and try to be a good model for those they interact with. Nobody is good enough to be good for everybody else, plan the whole system, and cure everybody by rule of force. The inability to tolerate some amount of imperfection and dirtiness is the root of a greater evil. Don't invite dragons to take care of your wolf problem.

[claudiawerner]

It also raises questions on the nature of consent, agency, and responsibility in the case of an addicted person who continues their addictive behaviour (with interesting answers depending on whether the person is willingly or unwillingly addicted). It is not a settled question in philosophy to answer that an addict has all the agency (especially to be "informed as to the risks") as others[0].

[0] "There is certainly widespread agreement about the paradigm threats to personal autonomy: brainwashing and addiction are the favorite examples in the philosophical literature. But philosophers seem unable to reach a consensus about the precise nature of these threats. They cannot agree about how it is that certain influences on our behavior prevent us from governing ourselves." From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/

[amanaplanacanal]

Cause and effect rule all things. We are formed by genetics, experiences in childhood, all of our trauma, and whether we were born rich or poor. It’s not obvious to me that addiction or brainwashing are different in kind from all of the other influences we are exposed to.

[claudiawerner]

Traditionally, following Harry Frankfurt, volitions can be separated into two camps: first-order and second-order. First order volitions are things you just want (such as food). Second order volitions are things you want to want. Someone who only has first-order desires can be said to have no free will. Addiction (and especially brainwashing) are a detriment to second-order desires in that they limit your self-control and take over the second-order desires.

Not all addictions are the same, and the fact that some people are able to stop their addictions attests to that. But they are definitely in a "meta" category of desire which childhood experiences and genetics are not.

>Consider first the unwilling addict, who is someone that has both a first-order desire to take the drug, and a first-order desire not to take the drug. Crucially, however, the unwilling addict also has a second-order volition that her first-order desire to take the drug not be her will. This is the basis for her unwillingness. Regrettably, her irresistible addictive desire to take the drug constitutes her will. Next, consider the case of the willing addict. The willing addict, like the unwilling addict, has conflicting first-order desires as regards taking the drug to which she is addicted. But the willing addict, by way of a second-order volition, embraces her addictive first-order desire to take the drug. She wants to be as she is and act as she does.

>It is now easy to illustrate Frankfurt’s hierarchical theory of free will. The unwilling addict does not take the drug of her own free will since her will conflicts at a higher level with what she wishes it to be. The willing addict, however, takes the drug of her own free will since her will meshes with what she wishes it to be.

[frogpelt]

Are alcohol companies responsible when a person drinks and drives?

[decebalus1]

> I did not consent to have poisonous fumes near me.

Me neither. However, the construction trucks driving around in front of my apartment with exhaust so thick it covered my patio with a thin layer of soot don't give a fuck about my consent.

Second-hand tobacco smoke is a non-issue, as smoking is already banned in places where people don't have a choice to be in (bus stations, building entrances, etc..).

But if we go with the 'battery' hyperbole, I would 'batter' back people who sneeze/cough and don't cover their mouths. I don't consent to have poisonous bodily fluids near me.

[aSplash0fDerp]

Lol. The tailpipe exhausts, agriculture emissions and smokestack releases are genocide by that rational.

Seeing how battery is kind of a stretch, do you see obese people as homeless (because of ruining their bodies/sanctuary)?

I still laugh when I think of how much nicotine and coffee were consumed by NASA to get the space program going back in the day. I'm pretty sure intelligent people are/were aware of the dangers of their indulgences.

Smoking in confined spaces may not be recommended, but smelling smoke (from tobacco) in an outside setting should not warrant such an irrational response.

[emiliobumachar]

How would a very smart rocket scientist go about evaluating tobacco risk back in the 60's, presumably when the disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry was well underway?

[aSplash0fDerp]

Using the scientific method? Its use does date back to the times of the pharaohs.

I guess unless you've never smoked before, you may not be aware of the pleasures of a good cup of coffee and nicotine session.

https://m.youtube.com/watch/llOvhzKr0_A

I was in a good mood this morning and thought battery was an over-reaction. Karma says otherwise, if thats to be taken into account.

I'm also an avid golfer and cigarette use among some of the greats is/was no secret, so depending on your role models, smoking is just another vice adults can enjoy (in moderation, of course).

[imiric]

> I feel blessed to live in a world where companies can "get away with" selling products to people who are informed of the risks and choose to buy them.

Except people aren't informed until laws force companies to tell the truth. Until then the advertising swindle will continue to kill millions. I wish you didn't feel blessed about any of this and rather felt sympathy towards countries that don't enforce the same laws as yours.

[throwanem]

"Omnipotent", there, is palming a card.

[TimTheTinker]

I think he’s referring to something like a surveillance state - folks in charge who know everything about you and wish to police all your behavior.

It’s a great quote from 70 years ago that speaks well to modern politics, but its application to Phillip Morris here seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.

[throwanem]

You may be right, but he still dodges the comparison. His moral busybodies are "omnipotent", while his robber barons are not. I understand why this should be the case - were it otherwise, the thought of living under robber barons would not come off nearly so well - but I see no reason why it should pass without comment.

[dmos62]

Thank you. I nodded along with the others, semi-consciously weary, but then saw your quote, and reading it felt alleviated.

It's funny how sometimes following the downvotes takes you better places than following the upvotes.

[homonculus1]

The things that most need to be said are always unpopular.

Of course, things are also often unpopular for being stupid and wrong. But if you always err on the side of leaving people alone, saying something stupid doesn't hurt anybody. So I don't worry about it too much, and I just say what I think.