How to Respond to "but they are still addicted!"

[sonicdsl]

Another excellent article by Dr. Carl Phillips!

Responding to, “but they are still *addicted*!!!” | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

Key point to paste to your notepad and save for use when getting into this situation:

I will start with the simple response, because that is what most of us need to use most of the time. If someone argues that THR should not be endorsed because it is just replacing one addiction with another, the one-sentences response should usually be:

If some people are addicted, then isn’t it better than they use a product with very low risk instead of smoking?

Boom! This response, all by itself, is remarkably effective at winning over many people who have been tricked by anti-THR lies and have not really given the topic any serious thought. Should this response steer the conversation in the direction of, “but it is better if they just quit entirely”, as it often does, then the next response is equally easy (though it does require a bit of scientific knowledge, which I presented in a previous post):

Smoking for just a couple of more months creates more health risk, on average, than a lifetime of using a smoke-free alternative. Do you really think that everyone who would switch is going to quit entirely within two or three months?

This can also be supplemented with:

Once someone has switched, if you still think it is best for them to quit entirely, then you can try to get them to that point. But shouldn’t we go ahead and almost eliminate the health risk in the meantime?

Admittedly, this is potentially slightly disingenuous depending on your beliefs, because it takes advantage of the other side’s rhetoric (making it fair and downright enjoyable, but also a bit cynical). Many of us believe that if someone is using a low-risk product that makes their lives happier, then the powers that be have no business trying to push them to stop, but we can still quite legitimately say “go ahead and give abstinence promotion your best shot, but do so after the risk has been removed.” However, we also know that — contrary to ANTZ rhetoric — most support for abstinence campaigns will probably collapse once most people are using low-risk products.

 

[subversive]

From the article: "Also that slight bit of disingenuity is a great legitimate way to corner the ANTZ and the lie-based disingenuous motive many of them have. They pretend to care about health while actually trying to keep the risk high to support their abstinence-only approach. Thus, their honest response to the previous argument is, “but most people are not going to want to quit once they have found they like a smoke-free alternative and they understand how low the risks are.” But let us just see what happens when they offer that response."

That's one thing I have seen people say and post on other forums and no one actually stops to think and find it horrible, harmful reasoning. If you ever check out a quit smoking forum, they will basically say exactly what the author hopes to hear from an vehement anti-smoker and no one even blinks.

Of course, these responses are more for those whose minds can be changed.

 

[Erncig]

I suspect these ...... consume processed food, chocolate, energy drinks, soft drinks, coffee, alcohol on a regular basis and dont eat enough fruits and vegies. YET they want to lecture vapers/smokers?!!!??

Bunch of ignorant sheep!

 

[Vocalek]

From the article: "Also that slight bit of disingenuity is a great legitimate way to corner the ANTZ and the lie-based disingenuous motive many of them have. They pretend to care about health while actually trying to keep the risk high to support their abstinence-only approach. Thus, their honest response to the previous argument is, “but most people are not going to want to quit once they have found they like a smoke-free alternative and they understand how low the risks are.” But let us just see what happens when they offer that response."

That's one thing I have seen people say and post on other forums and no one actually stops to think and find it horrible, harmful reasoning. If you ever check out a quit smoking forum, they will basically say exactly what the author hopes to hear from an vehement anti-smoker and no one even blinks.

Of course, these responses are more for those whose minds can be changed.

Possible comeback:

So are you saying that you believe it is healthier to continue smoking until they are ready to quit completely--even if that means that they smoke for another year, 5 years, or 10 years? Did you know that smoking for just a couple of more months creates more health risk, on average, than an entiire lifetime of using a smoke-free alternative?