It's an interesting article, and I'm glad that you asked the question at the end. It's too easy to accept the idea that people have a desire to smoke (or drink, etc.) and that some authority apart form human ought to modify this behavior. It's as if the implicit assumption is that nothing in fact is repulsive about the habit, checking the behavior, while at the same time promoting the idea that the consequences are so grave yet too far departed to appreciate. Empirically our generation has an easy path seeing the fall in smoking in recent years coinciding with legislation and lawsuits that concur. What is less appreciated is the historic support of government for smoking.
From monopoly support for tobacco farming and distribution, to dumping free cigarettes on our soldiers from WWI to Vietnam, to AMA promoted ads and doctor sanctions pervasive in those years, what we see as uncontrolled high rates of smoking that followed from a lack of regulation actually reflected pervasive and intentional government intervention in support of smoking and tobacco farming. The rise of smoking was far beyond what historically preceeded that concerted support. It does not follow that people naturally began smoking at such a high rate, nor does it show that recent reversal demonstrates a long and important war against vice. The rate of smoking has simply reverted back to what it would have been otherwise, and was before, the schitzophrenic policy support before.
There is no justification to continue regulatory tail chasing, where social policy enters the political realm and overruns drive people to extremes. Smoking demonstrates that in spades.
Comment Reply
It's an interesting article, and I'm glad that you asked the question at the end. It's too easy to accept the idea that people have a desire to smoke (or drink, etc.) and that some authority apart form human ought to modify this behavior. It's as if the implicit assumption is that nothing in fact is repulsive about the habit, checking the behavior, while at the same time promoting the idea that the consequences are so grave yet too far departed to appreciate. Empirically our generation has an easy path seeing the fall in smoking in recent years coinciding with legislation and lawsuits that concur. What is less appreciated is the historic support of government for smoking.
October 26, 2012 - 6:50amFrom monopoly support for tobacco farming and distribution, to dumping free cigarettes on our soldiers from WWI to Vietnam, to AMA promoted ads and doctor sanctions pervasive in those years, what we see as uncontrolled high rates of smoking that followed from a lack of regulation actually reflected pervasive and intentional government intervention in support of smoking and tobacco farming. The rise of smoking was far beyond what historically preceeded that concerted support. It does not follow that people naturally began smoking at such a high rate, nor does it show that recent reversal demonstrates a long and important war against vice. The rate of smoking has simply reverted back to what it would have been otherwise, and was before, the schitzophrenic policy support before.
There is no justification to continue regulatory tail chasing, where social policy enters the political realm and overruns drive people to extremes. Smoking demonstrates that in spades.
This Comment
Reply