[alienbeast]

For an example of how shame can be useful in discouraging bad choices, look at cigarettes. They're legal, but society and government have successfully campaigned to publicize their negative effects, to shame smokers and to praise quitters.

[ml-anon]

You're so close. Tobacco companies used to be allowed to actively advertise their product as healthy and employed statisticians and doctors to publish fake science in order to do so. Cracking down on Tobacco advertising has nothing to do with shame. On the other hand, people with a nicotine addiction are encouraged to seek treatment in order to quit. Again, this is the exact opposite of using shame to discourage "bad choices".

Perhaps if you thought about it just a little bit more you'd understand that treating addiction and substance abuse as a normal medical problem as opposed to a shameful sin to be hidden actually results in positive outcomes.

Hell, look at Indonesia, a nation which has a huge amount of shame-based societal pressures including the death penalty for drug smuggling and in some places corporal punishment for sex out of wedlock. They have one of the highest rates of smoking. Want to guess why? Thats right, Tobacco companies have practically zero restrictions in terms of who and how they market, including to children.

How about instead of shaming people we treat public health issues as health issues and stop allowing corporations to subject millions of people to catastrophic addictions.

[valval]

I agree that addiction should be treated like a medical issue, but I also think shame plays a role. We're social creatures, after all. Sometimes, the fear of being shamed can deter bad behavior. It's not about using shame to punish addicts, but about recognizing its part in our social dynamics.

Also, I'd suggest a friendlier tone in your discussions. Being condescending can push people away, even if you have great insights. Respectful communication can make a big difference.

[ml-anon]

There is nothing friendly or respectful about suggesting that people are becoming slaves to addiction and dying destitute in the streets of the richest goddamn nation on earth because of a lack of shame. I'm simply returning the courtesy and it happens to be one of the most well-received sentiments in this miserable thread. If you don't like it, well shame on you I guess.

[valval]

I understand you're passionate about this issue and rightfully so. But the point isn't to shame addicts—it's to acknowledge that social factors like shame can influence behavior. It's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire solution.

I also want to emphasize that we're all here to discuss and learn. Just because a view is well-received doesn't mean it's the only valid one. Everyone's perspective adds to the conversation. This isn't about who's the center of the universe—it's about discussing solutions to a complex problem together. No need to take it personally.

[mzmzmzm]

I don't think it's been empirically demonstrated that shame-based public information campaigns contributed to the drop in smoking as much as tax increases, bans in restaurants and other semi-public spaces, and changing preferences (eg, adoption of ecigs and marijuana products). At least for personal health risks like drug addiction or obesity, pretty big mounds of evidence do exist that shame is mostly ineffective for changing behavior. Here's one analysis for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273581...

[godelski]

What? You're telling me that you're denying the overwhelming evidence of the success of Nancy Regan's Dare program!? It's overwhelmingly uncommon to see anyone smoking weed, which we know is just a gateway drug to harder things like crack and heroin. Gen Xers and Millennials, who grew up under this program, are overwhelmingly known to be anti-pot and similarly just last week HN cheered about MasterCard's decision to deny service to dispensaries, which are also uncommon and no state would legally allow them. Similarly, you don't see the overwhelming evidence of abstinence based contraception? I mean how many Catholic girls get pregnant? Who needs a coat hanger abortion when you have Jesus? There is undeniable evidence that shame, fear based education, and harsh punishments stop these kinds of immoral behavior. (If for one moment anyone thinks I needed to add a sarcasm tag, please reevaluate your perception of the world. This is as obvious as it gets)

[542354234235]

It wasn't shame. It was age restrictions, banning smoking in most public spaces, addiction acknowledgement and smoking cessation resources, public health awareness campaigns, and increased taxation. "Shaming" smokers was just the cultural byproduct in the change in smoking, and arguably a negative one.

[wizofaus]

In Australia at least there's been a government sponsored advertisement campaign "Every cigarette is doing you damage" that rather obviously conveys smoking as an unpleasant "shameful" habit, while graphically describing the health impacts. I very much doubt the "shaming" part of the campaign would work on its own, but whoever made the ads were obviously attempting to make cigarette smoking look as unappealing as possible. More importantly, given the article this thread is supposed to be discussing, I'd be wary of assuming what works in helping reduce the usage of a "soft" drug like nicotine by a significant percentage of the population would work with hard drugs used (and abused) primarily by marginalised individuals. In fact we have had similar advertising campaigns against heroin/ice etc. (*) but I'm not aware of convincing evidence that they've really done all that much to help reduce problem usage.

(*) https://youtu.be/jxOlwO_WHrg

[dragonwriter]

> They’re legal, but society and government have successfully campaigned to publicize their negative effects, to shame smokers and to praise quitters.

I dunno, seems to me the effective thing wasn’t “shame”, but:

(1) Making it progressively more difficult for tobacco companies to recruit new customers by prohibiting many forms of advertising/marketing and forcing countermarketing about harms to be included in what marketing (including product packaging) is allowed, and

(2) Driving up costs with targeted taxes, and

(3) Prohibiting smoking in most workplaces and other public places, limiting environmental exposure to the addictive substances for people not actively choosing to participate and narrowing the contexts where people who do choose to partake are permitted to do so.