Anti-Tobacco Harm Reduction stance makes no sense

Vocalek;3970291 said:

To us, it looks like "stupid"; but "delusional" is a more accurate description of the mind-state of folks like her.

The point she seems to miss is that she IS doing harm by preventing smokers from switching to products that won't give them COPD or lung cancer, and that will reduce their risks of cancer and cardiovascular disease by 90 to 99%.

I have heard folks with medical degrees hide behind the "do no harm" mantra. "I took an oath to do no harm, so I can't recommend that a smoker switch to another tobacco product."
8-o

First of all, it is imposible for anyone, even a doctor, to do zero harm. Everything involves making choices about following the path that is the least harmful. Do you sick a needle into a child, inflicting pain and triggering screaming? Or do decide to "do no harm" leaving the illness untreated? Either way is harmful. In the long run, however, treating the child's illness is the least harmful path.

Second of all, those who claim that tobacco Harm Reduction actually inflicts harm are induging in a logical trap called a false dichotomy.

False Dichotomy

In the case of THR deniers, the two alternatives are not exhaustive. There ARE other alternatives.

They pretend that the only two choices available are "a" becoming totally abstinent or or option "c" continue smoking. They falsely believe that if they refuse to allow any other options, that everyone will select option "a". And if smokers insist on sticking with option "c" they deserve everything that happens to them.

They refuse to accept the fact that for some smokers, option "a" is actually not harm-free. They pretend that "health" only encompasses organ systems from the neck down, and pretend that mood impairments and cognitive deficits are not real medical conditions. They refuse to accept the fact that option "b" involves removing most, if not all, the harmful effects of option "c" without creating harmful effects of option "a."

I'm not saying that all smokers experience harmful effects if they follow option "a". Obviously, many do not. But many people are dependent on nicotine to keep the symptoms of underlying conditions involving the cholinergic system under control: Example, attention deficit disorder. Labeling this dependence on nicotine "addiction" and viewing smokers who can't quit as nothing more than hopeless (stupid, filthy, disgusting) "addicts" relieves the medical folks of all responsibility (in their minds) by blaming the victim.

Another reality they refuse to face is a growing body of evidence that option "b" -- switching the smoker to non-combusted sources of nicotine--is nowhere near as harmful as option "c". They continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence, that all forms of tobacco are equally harmful to health.

Let us pray for their quick recovery from a delusional state.

Click to expand...