Peter Singer calls for cigarette prohibition

[Docliv]

Hi All,

Ran across this. How ridiculous is it going to get?

Singer: Should we ban cigarettes? – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

PS: The reason for my original title was a "Quick Vote" Poll on the CNN site. The question was: Should the FDA limit nicotine in cigarettes to a level where they would not be addictive? The results: 77% Yes, 23% No, freaked me out. The article it was linked to was the one above. Sorry all.

 

[Bill Godshall]

It would be helpful if those who start threads post accurate (and not inaccurate or misleading) titles for the thread.

Since Peter Singer's column calls for cigarette prohibtion (and has nothing to do with FDA regulation of nicotine), "Peter Singer calls for cigarette prohibition" would be a far more appropriate title than the totally inaccurate title stating "FDA to ban nicotine levels in cigarettes?".

Regardless, Peter Singer's column at CNN has generated more than 200 comments (most of them trashing cigarette prohibition), while his same column at the Toronto Globe and Mail at
Is it not time to ban this addictive and lethal drug? - The Globe and Mail
has generated more than 400 comments (with most trashing cigarette prohibition).

Singer's column irresponsibly (especially for an ethicist) failed to consider the resulting black markets, crime, corruption, decreased government revenue, increased government expenditures and other problems that would be caused by cigarette prohbition.

Although I staunchly oppose cigarette prohibition (although I'd probably endorse it after cigarette consumption falls below 1 billion packs per year in the US, which is 14 billion packs fewer than this year's estimated consumption), at least Singer has the guts to publicly call for cigarette prohibition (unlike many other prohibitionists who have resorted to calling for bans on e-cigarettes, dissolvables, snus and other far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes).

 

[stevejo]

That's an interesting position that he takes; my question would be what happens to harm-reduction and smokeless alternatives at that point? The way our governing bodies are going (FDA, I'm looking at you!) there doesn't seem to be much difference between dissolvables, snus, pvs, and coffin nails, according to them.

Now, banning cigarettes would be fairly stupid in my opinion. As Bill pointed out above me, the black market would blow up. Hanging out with the drug runners, and following the traditions of moonshiners during prohibition, we would have a new breed of 'criminal' growing, rolling, importing, and/or selling tobacco products.

Even if the government got it 'right' by banning cigarettes (and I use the word right very loosely), what would stop folks from buying chewing tobacco, snus, or other tobacco product, rolling it, and smoking it? That must surely be more harmful than a traditional cigarette, no?

Then there are the administrative and enforcement considerations. Take the millions we spend on ........., ......., and other illicit drug enforcement, and multiply it by what, fifteen times more smokers than drug users? how large of a Drug Enforcement Agency will we need to stop the millions of smokers?

"...cigarettes, not guns or bombs, are the deadliest artifacts in the history of civilization."

Great, let's start a war around them, shall we? Articles like this, written with no true basis in the reality of what they are asking, don't accomplish much save for enflaming (sp?) the community as a whole.

 

[Ande]

Somebody should change the title of this thread. Seriously- not related to the article.

The article makes me sad, though- I often enjoy Peter Singer's writing very very much. He sometimes argues very well. (Animal Liberation, whether you agree with it or not, makes inspiringly well crafted arguments. I enjoyed his book One World at a lot of levels, though some of its conclusions seem less well supported.)

But...to argue well, you have to consider and evaluate the premises of your argument- and this article falls well short there.

The question of deadliness is hard to calculate- and he doesn't really offer any evidence at all for premising his argument on the "fact" that cigarettes are deadlier than guns, bombs, etc.

To argue well and ethically, you also have to consider intelligently the consequences of your argument. His dismissal of the problems of prohibition simply because many smokers, like President Obama, "want to quit" is ingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

The asides about the harm smokers inflict on others through passive smoke? It's not impossible to make an argument for that- but it IS necessary to make the argument. You can't just assume that we all agree, when the degree and nature of the harmfulness of second hand smoke is relevant, significant, and not generally agreed upon.

The call for reduced nicotine cigarettes? Irresponsible, stupid, and no facts offered in support.


I am extremely disappointed in you Dr Singer.

Ande

 

[Bill Godshall]

Singer's column irresponsibly failed to distinguish between cigarettes and other tobacco/nicotine products, as he called for prohibition of cigarettes in one sentence, and called for prohibition of tobacco in another sentence.

 

[oldsoldier]

It would be helpful if those who start threads post accurate (and not inaccurate or misleading) titles for the thread.

Since Peter Singer's column calls for cigarette prohibtion (and has nothing to do with FDA regulation of nicotine), "Peter Singer calls for cigarette prohibition" would be a far more appropriate title than the totally inaccurate title stating "FDA to ban nicotine levels in cigarettes?".

problem solved.

 

[Thulium]

It would be helpful if those who start threads post accurate (and not inaccurate or misleading) titles for the thread.

IMO, the thread title is neither inaccurate nor misleading because Mr. Singer apparently knows, as we do, that the FDA is not empowered by the tobacco act to completely ban cigarettes, but can only attempt to regulate them into what they imagine (but cannot substantiate) is a de facto ban...

Proctor calls on the FDA to use its new powers to regulate the contents of cigarette smoke to do two things. First, because cigarettes are designed to create and maintain addiction, the FDA should limit the amount of nicotine that they contain to a level at which they would cease to be addictive. Smokers who want to quit would then find it easier to do so.
Second...*snip* The FDA should therefore require that cigarette smoke be more alkaline, which would make it less easily inhaled, and so make it harder for cigarette smoke to reach the lungs.

Note that the first "suggestion" is to regulate the nicotine level of cigarettes to levels unacceptable to smokers, effectively forcing them to either smoke MORE or resort to a black market. The second "suggestion" openly admits that it is attempting to make cigarettes more dangerous and less appealing...but not actually prohibited.

Bill, with respect, THIS is inaccurate and misleading....

Although I staunchly oppose cigarette prohibition (although I'd probably endorse it after cigarette consumption falls below 1 billion packs per year in the US, which is 14 billion packs fewer than this year's estimated consumption), at least Singer has the guts to publicly call for cigarette prohibition (unlike many other prohibitionists who have resorted to calling for bans on e-cigarettes, dissolvables, snus and other far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes).

You know, as well as I, that the FDA cannot ban cigarettes or require their nicotine content be reduced to zero. Anyone claiming to support "cigarette prohibition", even if cigarette consumption fell below 1B/yr, is a clear attempt to make smoking as unpleasant and unhealthy as possible. History proves that prohibition is the true cause of "Harm Escalation".

 

[stevejo]

Anyone claiming to support "cigarette prohibition", even if cigarette consumption fell below 1B/yr, is a clear attempt to make smoking as unpleasant and unhealthy as possible. History proves that prohibition is the true cause of "Harm Escalation".

But, but.... bathtub Gin was so good and not at all dangerous, right?

I cannot understand the logic behind the 'less nicotine in cigarettes' thought train. If the goal is to reduce consumption and secondhand smoke, wouldn't we want more nic in them? Manufacture a shorter cig (ala the Marlboro 72's) and make a higher nic concentration in them. More nic per cig would equate to less smoked, in theory. Less nic in cigs would equate to more smoking to achieve the same level of satisfaction for a smoker, which would increase consumption and secondhand smoke.

Ask any smoker who has ever 'switched to lights to cut back' - they end up smoking more to compensate, whether consciously or not. This would most certainly be the case should the FDA reduce nic levels across the board.

Either that, or as has been stated, we will see a backyard homebrew 'black market' of nic adding procedures to provide that 'fix' that commercial cigs used to. This would obviously be insanely dangerous, and just cause more health risks for smokers.

 

[BoiseMike]

Haven't these prohibitionists ever seen "Cold Turkey"? Cold Turkey (1971) - IMDb It wouldn't be pretty.

 

[rothenbj]

stevejo, that's ridiculous! Haven't you lost your common sense yet?

The ANTZ can't seem to make up their minds. Decades ago they pushed to lower nic/tar, even insisted levels were listed on packs. Then they complained because smokers smoked more. Now we're back full circle. Might it really be they see a drop in consumption with similar drops in funding?

 

[Shilo]

Peter Singer can go bye bye

 

[Nunnster]

Ok, disregarding the ban talk... If they did reduce the levels of nicotine where levels were no longer "addictive" how do you suppose they would do that? I would assume (I am not a chemist) by adding other chemicals into the mix to remove the nicotine. However, its not just the nicotine that is addictive in cigs, its the mix of the other harmful chemicals they add and other alkaloids produced by the tobacco plant. Would they also intend to remove those as well? Or I could even see a genetically modified version of tobacco that does not have any nic or addictive alkaloids, but by then, if one would choose to smoke that, IMO you would be better off smoking grass clippings from your yard. Sometimes (mostly when I read stuff like this) my head hurts, and I have to hang my head in shame that the people who are our "brightest" are the most mislead and uneducated.

 

[D103]

@ nunster

Don't think for one moment that 'those people' are our "brightest." Education does not necessarily translate into intelligence just as degrees do not necessarily mean competence or expertise, nor 'position held' necessarily mean 'position earned'.

I am fifty-eight years old and aside from the obvious physical ravages of time, I would say the biggest difference between me now versus when I was twenty-one, or even thirty-one is that today I have a much better idea of what I don't know.
And what I believe I do know is yet but another step on the ultimate road to not knowing. True learning is not the accumulation of knowledge, it is the gaining of acceptance and understanding. In this respect, true learning is not so much a 'bettering of oneself' as it is a 'finding oneself' through losing oneself.

The kind of arrogance and smug self-satisfaction that we see on the part of so many in the anti-movements is, at it's core, despite the vehemence and loud, clanging protestations, "a boy whistling through the graveyard." There is no safety, no peace of mind in a certainty they seek. The kind of certainty which they proclaim to possess but secretly still seek does not exist. To stand up and proclaim as they do, vociferously laying claim to "the truth" and then promoting and allowing almost any means possible in order to bring this claim to fruition, is, in itself the most insideous and profound form of manipulation and obfuscation anyone could imagine.

 

[Nunnster]

@ D103

Thank you for your wise words. I do not think they are intelligent for a second. That is why I used the quotations. But it saddens me because although what you said is truth, most people tend not to think that way. Most people assume that persons with good degrees from highly acclaimed schools and persons in positions of leadership are out smartest and brightest. I just see they had more money then the next guy.

 

[rothenbj]

D, there you go wordsmithing brilliance again.