This statement tells me that you are part of the problem that we are facing as a community. The logic you point to is that inflation of the tobacco-related-death statistics is benign because it is for the good of the people that the statistics are being misrepresented to.
We all know that tobacco is bad for you, but the statistics are what give the viewer a frame of reference in which to make their decision to use or not us the product. The logic that allows the statistics to be inflated steal away the right of the individual to make an informed choice. Of course, this is all done for their "own good".
We've determined that tobacco is bad for you, and, even after we informed people of that, they failed to yield to our caution, so they couldn't possibly know what is best for them. We gave them the opportunity to make a choice and they chose incorrectly, so now we have no choice but to force their hand.
It starts with "benign" lies, and ends with out-right bans. Michael Bloomberg tried telling the people of New York that large sodas were bad for their health, but they failed to yield to his superior wisdom.
These lies are not without their consequences. We decided as a culture that cigarettes are bad for you. Exactly how bad, I don't think any of us can say at this point because of how the facts and statistics have been twisted. Still, we know they are "bad", and, still, people like them, so we've had to twist the facts in an attempt to convince the sheep how serious we are when we say they are bad.
If you ask the average person, smoker or non, why cigarettes are so bad for you, they'll say "because they contain nicotine". And, if you ask them why nicotine is so bad, they'll say "it causes cancer". This, of course, is not true, but the goal of the benevolent liars was to goad people into staying away from tobacco products for their own good. The unintended consequence is that people who still wish to use nicotine continue using cigarettes, instead of one of smokeless alternatives, because they don't think they're any safer.
How many fewer smokers would there be if we had been honest about chew, or, even better, snus? Forget how many people actually die from smoking, I want to know how many people have died because they never switched to a smokeless nicotine vehicle because of the lies they were told. Their blood is on the hands of the benevolent liars.
IMO, smoking, like everything else is actually neutral and is given meaning by the individual (mostly) and by the population / general consensus (though indirectly).
I have never understood the benefit for lying about smoking. And enjoy pointing out that the lying has the opposite of the intended effect. I noted this point in my FDA comments but didn't elaborate on it because of the audience. Yet, I am convinced that telling the public, and kids for sure, to not vape will guarantee that people will vape, and will relish going to the black market to do so. And the lies just add icing to the proverbial cake as the ACTUAL gateway. As in, "if they lied to me about vaping, then what else have they lied about? Smoking perhaps?"
The first and second time that I quit smoking cold turkey, I found it most helpful to weigh the pros and cons about smoking, so that I would have understanding of what am I giving up and what am I (possibly) gaining. I had second list that was made from the first which listed "anticipated pros for not smoking" which came from the cons listed for smoking. I realize this list is personal, as it was intended to be, but I'm compelled to share that in this thread though am doing this off top of my head as that list is now more than a decade old.
Pros for smoking
- helps relax, ease stress
- social aspect, enjoy smoking with smokers
- keeps me motivated, something to look forward to hourly/daily
- in an odd way, keeps me resilient. Little health problems are treated as very minor.
- helps with focus at times
- can at times help with digestive issues, though is rare
- taking breaks outside has me enjoy a meditative/contemplative state of mind
Cons with smoking
- heavy use quickly manifests health concerns (incessant cough, wheezing, low energy)
- fairly expensive habit, about $10 a day
- long term health risks, my parents had smoking related health issues, thus greater personal concern
- smell permeates house, clothes, car
- cravings can detract from many social situations, pre-occupied with when I'll have my next smoke
- slight fear that I'll burn something with my lit cigarette
- stigma of being an addict, sometimes leads to low self esteem
- stigma of being a smoker, many places/people discriminate against smokers
That's about what my list back in the day looked like. And for life of me, I don't get why that sort of list isn't what is shared with 'potential smokers,' allowing them to make up their own mind when hearing honest pros and actual cons (from actual smoker) rather than rely on statistics, which often seem couched in deception.
I would note that with vaping in the picture my pros/cons list would easily be updated. But also wish to note that now that I am a non-heavy smoker (and instead a moderate smoker), my cons list would be far shorter.
The idea that the lies are justified is simply the stuff that hilarious hypocrisy is made of. I've noticed that WILL come back and bite you. Honesty isn't just the best policy, it's the only policy that actually works.
I've also noticed that the puritanism that comes from this lying for the greater good and justification for bans beats whatever the olden days came up with in terms of puritanism. I think the 1400's puritan would be in awe of the 2000's puritan.
