I got into an absolutely infuriating argument last night with somebody about what was essentially harm reduction 101. So this lad was making the not entirely original case that the goverment tax on cigarettes, especially one as high as New York City's, is a violation of smokers' civil rights- "facist" even. This is a sloppy regurgitation of the stance of Professor Ronald Bayer, who is apparently imagined by some MPH candidate smokers to be their personal super hero. (Even though I have seen Dr. Bayer speak, and he is by no means suggesting that measures such as high cigarette taxes are a bad thing)
I heard a similar case this week in response to this article about Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg's latest assault on tobacco: "Bloomberg hates poor people. Doesn't want them to have one of their only pleasures in life."
As a huge fan of anti-smoking campaigns, and an admirer of the progress that has been made at least in our country against the tobacco industry, my blood is boiling.
First of all, the reason governments use taxes as a means of reducing smoking, is because it works. Education and public interest campaigns can not say the same. As for injustice to the poor people, who is really inflicting greater damage? The government who wants them and all other people to stop smoking, or the tobacco industry who funnels millions of dollars into ad campaigns in poorer countries as their market in the West is diminishing? And who, I might ask, is more screwed if they get lung cancer in New York City, land of high cig taxes? Certainly not a rich guy who smokes his Cubans on the Upper West Side.
As for bans on smoking in public places, my little friend has a point- it does create a stigma. Smokers are forced to go outside in the rain and snow in New York to get their fix. However, does this amount to an abuse of civil rights? The use of that language is offensive. Smokers are allowed to enter these establishments, they are just not allowed to smoke inside, so as to RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF NON-SMOKERS TO BREATH HEALTHY AIR. There is a very important distinction between this and restaurants that would not service people based on the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN before the civil rights movement.
The root of these arguments are that most smokers have a very real addiction that they are afraid to confront. One criticism that I will concede on the tobacco taxes is that it is unfair to impose a heavy tax without helping users, especially those with limited financial resources, to quit. More than merely Bloomberg/Gates' proposed patches, I would like to see a beefer package with quitlines, support groups- public health works.
That said, I love going to bars in New York and not waking up with my hair smelling like smoke. I hope Bloomberg and his cronies continue to jack smoking taxes around the world, and to discourage more young people from stopping before they start. The tobacco industry made its bed with years of lies, deceit, and cold blooded profit. Let them sleep in it.
I heard a similar case this week in response to this article about Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg's latest assault on tobacco: "Bloomberg hates poor people. Doesn't want them to have one of their only pleasures in life."
As a huge fan of anti-smoking campaigns, and an admirer of the progress that has been made at least in our country against the tobacco industry, my blood is boiling.
First of all, the reason governments use taxes as a means of reducing smoking, is because it works. Education and public interest campaigns can not say the same. As for injustice to the poor people, who is really inflicting greater damage? The government who wants them and all other people to stop smoking, or the tobacco industry who funnels millions of dollars into ad campaigns in poorer countries as their market in the West is diminishing? And who, I might ask, is more screwed if they get lung cancer in New York City, land of high cig taxes? Certainly not a rich guy who smokes his Cubans on the Upper West Side.
As for bans on smoking in public places, my little friend has a point- it does create a stigma. Smokers are forced to go outside in the rain and snow in New York to get their fix. However, does this amount to an abuse of civil rights? The use of that language is offensive. Smokers are allowed to enter these establishments, they are just not allowed to smoke inside, so as to RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF NON-SMOKERS TO BREATH HEALTHY AIR. There is a very important distinction between this and restaurants that would not service people based on the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN before the civil rights movement.
The root of these arguments are that most smokers have a very real addiction that they are afraid to confront. One criticism that I will concede on the tobacco taxes is that it is unfair to impose a heavy tax without helping users, especially those with limited financial resources, to quit. More than merely Bloomberg/Gates' proposed patches, I would like to see a beefer package with quitlines, support groups- public health works.
That said, I love going to bars in New York and not waking up with my hair smelling like smoke. I hope Bloomberg and his cronies continue to jack smoking taxes around the world, and to discourage more young people from stopping before they start. The tobacco industry made its bed with years of lies, deceit, and cold blooded profit. Let them sleep in it.
1 comment:
You know. I think people like that are full of shit. I don't think they believe a word of what they say. They just want to play devil's advocate and get people like you and I upset...
oh well. you stand your ground!
Post a Comment