I don't think the Brits are being honest because they're just swell people. I believe they are being honest about the benefits of vaping because it saves them lots of loot. Both can be true at the same time. While there are other "free" healthcare countries around I would argue the UK system is in the worst shape of all of them. vaping is considered a Godsend for their system and they know it could significantly help to keep them afloat for awhile.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Well yeah both could be true. But I genuinely believe in the "good" in the sense that they don't want people dying of emphysema, cancers the list goes on. That may certainly be a financial good, but it is also a sociocultural "good." I am of the belief that the brits (and I have visited often and have relatives there) genuinely give a rat's ... about that sort of stuff.
The actions of politicians HERE do not make me believe that they care for an economic OR social GOOD. You could march a million "victims of smoking diseases" down there to testify in front of Congress and not only would they probably ACTIVELY not care, they would probably turn people away.
There is no sociocultural "good" about vaping in the American culture. It may well be that the taxation gained is good enough for them, since the "private" system bears the cost... Although in fact MANY smokers are on Medicare/Medicaid so the taxpayer DOES bear the burden, there, too.
But I see NO "Wow, we can prevent these totally preventable diseases in the US!" be it for economic OR moral reasons.
Anna
The actions of politicians HERE do not make me believe that they care for an economic OR social GOOD. You could march a million "victims of smoking diseases" down there to testify in front of Congress and not only would they probably ACTIVELY not care, they would probably turn people away.
There is no sociocultural "good" about vaping in the American culture. It may well be that the taxation gained is good enough for them, since the "private" system bears the cost... Although in fact MANY smokers are on Medicare/Medicaid so the taxpayer DOES bear the burden, there, too.
But I see NO "Wow, we can prevent these totally preventable diseases in the US!" be it for economic OR moral reasons.
Anna
It may just be to do with how organisations are structured. An equivalent group to PHE in the US would be directed by the government of the day and staffed with political appointees, who would change after each election and whose actual job beneath the smokescreen is to promote the policies of the government without regard to science or any other form of reality. PHE seems to have a different structure that gives it a more independent mandate.
There is a tradition to some degree in the UK for this kind of semi-independent organization. In the US you are more likely to see either party political control, or the outright capture of these groups by corporate interests. It's not black and white though, just a tendency. I think right now it happens to be working well for objective positions on health issues over there. In the US it happens to be an unholy alliance between the corporations and the political parties.
Having said that I'm 30 years out of date with how stuff works in the UK so I might be wrong.
When I was doing my former job I was frequently confronted the question of the motivation for certain behaviors. One party would be performing some desirable behaviors that should be continued. The other party would claim the desirable behavior arose from a "bad" motivation. I was then asked by the second party to ignore the desirable behavior due to the bad motives. I had to think about that some. On one level, I could understand the objection to motivation; on the other I approved of the behavior and knew that it should be continued and expanded. I also know that reading motivation is little more than mind reading. What did I want, pure motives or did I want to see the "good" behavior continued or even expanded? My conclusion was that I was more interested in continuing the behavior than I was interested in the perceived purity of the motivation for that behavior. I elected to reward behavior and ignore interpretations of motivation.
All of this is to wonder what do we care of about motives if the behavior is desirable. An otherwise bad man does a good thing, reward the good and perhaps get more of it. Or should we decide that we don't like the "why" of the action and demand good motivations. Say a thief decides to thieve no more, do we care if the change in behavior is stark fear of prison or a desire to be a law abiding citizen?
As a side note, who is the person of pure motivation even I, a paragon of virtue, often have very mixed motivations. I want to do good but why? Sometimes a component of my motive is that I want to be seen as wise (not the purist of motive). And, at the very same time I want to change a life for the better (a pure motivation). Mixed motives? I'll take good behavior and ignore the perceived motivation.
Ramblings of an old man conclude.
All of this is to wonder what do we care of about motives if the behavior is desirable. An otherwise bad man does a good thing, reward the good and perhaps get more of it. Or should we decide that we don't like the "why" of the action and demand good motivations. Say a thief decides to thieve no more, do we care if the change in behavior is stark fear of prison or a desire to be a law abiding citizen?
As a side note, who is the person of pure motivation even I, a paragon of virtue, often have very mixed motivations. I want to do good but why? Sometimes a component of my motive is that I want to be seen as wise (not the purist of motive). And, at the very same time I want to change a life for the better (a pure motivation). Mixed motives? I'll take good behavior and ignore the perceived motivation.
Ramblings of an old man conclude.
Very nice ramble, thanks.
Back in the 70's I read an editorial ramble that hit on similar points in the Guardian newspaper. It was addressing the British Labour Party, which was going through a bloody battle between the traditional wing and the radical wing. It was so spot on that I still look at politics through that lens today.
It divided the different players into three groups. Dirty Hands, Pure Thoughts, and High Minds. Dirty Hands might believe in socialism but they would compromise with the Devil in order to gain power, on the grounds that some socialism was better than no socialism. The High Minds said that the Party should stand for all out socialism and work to persuade the voters to go along. The Pure Thoughts didn't really care about getting in power, it was enough to state the truth at all times.
It was more complex than that. And the ideas behind it can be applied to any political movement. I can see all three groups right now in both political parties in the US. Your distinction between motive and outcome is a similar way of looking at the world. But that's all too much work for a lot of people these days. It's a lot easier to see it in terms of Good v Evil.
Thank you for the kind words. As I grew (or shrunk if you ask some) in my job, I began to just ask people, "What do you want out of this person, good motives or good behavior"? The answer would be, as though I was found to be a complete fool, "Well, both, of course". My next question was, "How do I know your motives for asking me to do 'X' to this person? A long silence frequently ensued. If a light went on in them, I figured that there was some intellectual integrity there for me to work with, they began to understand the dilemma of motivation.
I always floated in the cloud of uncertainty and rarely saw hats that were only white or black. But decisions had to made even with incomplete information. I gave up on motive and focused on behavior. Behavior I could see, motive was almost always impossible to discern and generally mixed.
I always floated in the cloud of uncertainty and rarely saw hats that were only white or black. But decisions had to made even with incomplete information. I gave up on motive and focused on behavior. Behavior I could see, motive was almost always impossible to discern and generally mixed.
Nope, that was quite a lovely summary of behavioral principles. And do we sit around WONDERING if the dog is GREEDY when it earns a treat? I for one, do not. I KNOW that sucker is being motivated by pure greed..
Also, sometimes "rewards" don't actually MATTER, the motivations. I was attending a DBT group for me (and I was a DBT therapist. too) and I rather haughtily told the therapist running the group that I did not WANT or NEED stickers. I was capable of self-motivation. Her response was, "You are getting stickers like EVERYONE ELSE.."
A few weeks in. I was pretty cool with the dang stickers. A few months IN I HAD TO HAVE the Yoda sticker. I did not achieve it sadly, but I was petty happy with my PTSD "easy" button. You know, from staples.
Magic happens when you reward. Period.
I had no clue I could crave a Yoda Sticker so much. if you reward it. THEY will come.
Anna
Putting aside tax stuff, which I don't know enough to say yes or no to. We all know that vaping is less harmful than smoking. They do too.
But, having lived in the UK for a couple of years, I will say that they are less puritanical than here. So, more accepting of "vices" and I think they understand that kids will do as kids will do. We're so pathetic.
Note the British study was lead by Cardiff University in cooperation with universities in Bristol, Edinburgh, and Stirling. Using this approach a single researcher cannot reach a conclusion and then try to support that conclusion with questionable data. While the NHS never has enough money, I doubt this process would be influenced by that issue.
Uh oh, someone is in trouble.
Yeah... JUUL's Worst Nightmare (as well as just about Anyone who has Anything to do with e-Cigarettes) is if Durbin became the Senate Majority Whip.
In other words, "In keeping with our political ideology, we reserve the right to control everyone's lives".
For Durbin, I would say that this is more of a Secondary Motivation. Because Durbin is Emotionally FUBAR when it comes to "Tobacco".
It's Ironic. Because maybe if there had been e-Cigarettes when Durbin's Father Smoked, things would have turn out Better for him?
The Long and the Short of it is I Don't Care who is running against Durbin. Whoever it is, I'm sending them a Check for $100.00
Never liked that idiot.
Well, Juul accepting that Altria investment enlarged the target on their back many times over. Did they really need that investment at this point in time, or were they cashing out while they could because they saw a bleak future for the company? It doesn't even matter on the motivation, taking what was it, $16 Billion dollars from BT? That was never going to demonstrate good will and wishes for the vaping community.
Maybe Altria figured it could muscle and lobby its way through as it's done in the past, but unfortunately that just tars the reputation of Juul specifically and vaping in general. It's tough to argue about harm reduction and smoking cessation IF it's true that the majority of REGULAR users were never smokers. However, unlike Durbin, I'd really like to see that data before drawing any conclusions. Misinterpreted surveys aren't the answer, but I would not object to seeing properly structured and independently validated surveys before buying that one.
Maybe Altria figured it could muscle and lobby its way through as it's done in the past, but unfortunately that just tars the reputation of Juul specifically and vaping in general. It's tough to argue about harm reduction and smoking cessation IF it's true that the majority of REGULAR users were never smokers. However, unlike Durbin, I'd really like to see that data before drawing any conclusions. Misinterpreted surveys aren't the answer, but I would not object to seeing properly structured and independently validated surveys before buying that one.
Signed by eleven Senators. If one were to check their each of their party affiliations, I wonder of some of pattern might emerge? Oh, and one of them is running for President in 2020...
Everyone is running for president in 2020. It's hard to find someone who isn't. The gas station attendant near me has his own "exploratory committee". Too bad no one told him you need to be a citizen and born in the US. And speak English (well, highly preferred but not required).
I can assure you that I'm not running.
And if I'm nominated, I will not campaign.
And if I'm elected, I will not serve.
I'll be your non-running mate (I am still a US citizen, and since we aren't running, my non-residency shouldn't be an issue).I can assure you that I'm not running.
And if I'm nominated, I will not campaign.
And if I'm elected, I will not serve.
Similar threads
- Locked
