Comments on: Smoking bans and presumed consent http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/socialbrain/smoking-bans-and-presumed-consent/ Politics, brains, social action and the day to day life of the RSA’s chief executive Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:43:03 +0000 hourly 1 By: Fritz Lickint http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/socialbrain/smoking-bans-and-presumed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Fritz Lickint Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:07:57 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=5#comment-6 The smoking ban is widely seen as a success? I suppose if people listen to ASH it's seen as a success. They always are successes for ASH. For the smokers who stopped going to pubs the ban was not a success. For the communities it broke up it was not a success either. But their voices and their opinions don't count. They were not consulted. And in what way are the demands of nonsmokers egalitarian? They wanted a 'smokefree' environment, and that was necessarily a 'smokerfree' environment as well. They - or rather the antismokers - set to out to expel the smokers, and to remove the equal rights they had formerly enjoyed. That's hardly egalitarian. And what evidence is there against passive smoking? There is none! It is a complete fraud. Most of the passive smoking studies showed insignificant near-zero risks. The medical establishment wasn't really concerned about the 'risks' of passive smoking. They wanted to 'denormalise' smoking through a coercive piece of social engineering. In the long run, the losers in this are going to be the anti-smoking medical establishment, as they come to be identified with a coercive healthism that first made its appearance, along with antismoking research and public bans and even passive smoking' in - guess where? - Nazi Germany. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1424 http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp The smoking ban is widely seen as a success? I suppose if people listen to ASH it’s seen as a success. They always are successes for ASH. For the smokers who stopped going to pubs the ban was not a success. For the communities it broke up it was not a success either. But their voices and their opinions don’t count. They were not consulted.

And in what way are the demands of nonsmokers egalitarian? They wanted a ’smokefree’ environment, and that was necessarily a ’smokerfree’ environment as well. They – or rather the antismokers – set to out to expel the smokers, and to remove the equal rights they had formerly enjoyed. That’s hardly egalitarian.

And what evidence is there against passive smoking? There is none! It is a complete fraud. Most of the passive smoking studies showed insignificant near-zero risks. The medical establishment wasn’t really concerned about the ‘risks’ of passive smoking. They wanted to ‘denormalise’ smoking through a coercive piece of social engineering.

In the long run, the losers in this are going to be the anti-smoking medical establishment, as they come to be identified with a coercive healthism that first made its appearance, along with antismoking research and public bans and even passive smoking’ in – guess where? – Nazi Germany.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1424

http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp

]]> By: west2 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/socialbrain/smoking-bans-and-presumed-consent/comment-page-1/#comment-5 west2 Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:58:07 +0000 http://www.matthewtaylorsblog.com/?p=5#comment-5 "Behaviour change as a concept is hierarchical, being as it is about people in authority deeming a behaviour to be unacceptable and then maintaining that, through the use of expertise and authority, they can solve it. " Yet do they solve it? You mentioned the smoking ban. How has success been judged and by whom? If you look at a history of smoking bans they are a failure. People still smoke and contrary to a possible marginal decrease in smoking as you say, in some countires with bans (Ireland for example) there has been an increase. What this lead to is calls for more draconian measures from the 'authorities' to justify their pronouncements. Once the authroity changes so do the other aspects you mention. So using your prisms, the hierarchical, the egalitarian, the individualist and the fatalist. The hierachical maintains its view only as long as they remain powerful and in control. The egalitarian can no longer claim that people are being treated equaly. The authority does try to invoke the message 'level playing field' which of course it isn't. Not for business, where choice is restricted, people lose their jobs and pubs close. People are treated differently depending on 'life style choice'. Clearly the egalitarian can no longer claim that individuals have the same rights. The individual wants to avoid a criminal record and fines. Interesting that those in the illegal drugs market are not so concerned. They accept their place outside the law. The smoker is generaly law abiding and does fear being labeled a criminal. The fatalist will adapt :) Your comments about about the medical profession are interesting. Remembering in times gone past they too supported controlling governments and yet are seen as benevolent and apart. What will be the affect of this changing? 'Presumed consent' could well affect this. Though I suspect their reputation is declining anyway because of the support for measures to 'help' people make the 'right' choices. The medical profession are advisors not policy makers and as such should tend the sick and leave politics alone, their ultimate reputation depends on it. west ---- “Behaviour change as a concept is hierarchical, being as it is about people in authority deeming a behaviour to be unacceptable and then maintaining that, through the use of expertise and authority, they can solve it. ”

Yet do they solve it? You mentioned the smoking ban. How has success been judged and by whom?

If you look at a history of smoking bans they are a failure. People still smoke and contrary to a possible marginal decrease in smoking as you say, in some countires with bans (Ireland for example) there has been an increase. What this lead to is calls for more draconian measures from the ‘authorities’ to justify their pronouncements.

Once the authroity changes so do the other aspects you mention.

So using your prisms, the hierarchical, the egalitarian, the individualist and the fatalist.

The hierachical maintains its view only as long as they remain powerful and in control.

The egalitarian can no longer claim that people are being treated equaly. The authority does try to invoke the message ‘level playing field’ which of course it isn’t. Not for business, where choice is restricted, people lose their jobs and pubs close. People are treated differently depending on ‘life style choice’. Clearly the egalitarian can no longer claim that individuals have the same rights.

The individual wants to avoid a criminal record and fines. Interesting that those in the illegal drugs market are not so concerned. They accept their place outside the law. The smoker is generaly law abiding and does fear being labeled a criminal.

The fatalist will adapt :)
Your comments about about the medical profession are interesting. Remembering in times gone past they too supported controlling governments and yet are seen as benevolent and apart. What will be the affect of this changing?

‘Presumed consent’ could well affect this. Though I suspect their reputation is declining anyway because of the support for measures to ‘help’ people make the ‘right’ choices.

The medical profession are advisors not policy makers and as such should tend the sick and leave politics alone, their ultimate reputation depends on it.

west
—-

]]>