Companies banning smoking vs. Countries banning smoking
Former Finnish PM Paavo Lipponen (Social Democrat) said a few months ago that Finland should consider banning tobacco altogether, possibly by the year 2040 - And many Finns applaud this!
Workplaces in both Finland and the United States have begun banning smoking both inside and outside of the premises. Some U.S. companies have even gone so far as to forbid their employees to smoke outside of work hours, even in the privacy of their own homes!
While many people are applauding Paavo Lipponen and his tobacco ban, most of those same people are furious about some company banning employees smoking outside the workplace. How is this? What’s worse - some companies banning smoking, or an entire nation throwing people in prisons for smoking?! Both bans are insane, but surely Lipponen’s is crazier? One is voluntary, the other is mandatory (you can always strike or quit). One might you fired, the other puts you in jail!
Surely they would ban the sale of tobacco like they have the sale of nuuska. They won’t criminalise its use altogether.
I also think there’s a good argument for preventing people from using anything which is highly addictive. If you are addicted to something then you are not free and I believe very strongly in freedom.
Comment by Finnsense — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Tobacco is shitty product anyway, causes cancer and numerous other diseases, even for passive smokers.
Banning that crap and allowing marihuana would be a fair trade-off. Nobody has ever died because of marihuana but millions have died because of tobacco that does not even PRODUCE any “highs”! You might as well inhale asbestos.
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
#1 Well if you ban anything addictive, you could argue to ban coffee, playing music (..and loudly for christ sakes..!), internet connections etc. Hail for the Amish!!!
I don’t smoke anymore (and only used to when I was in the army) but “the war on cigarettes” has gone too far already and should stop, imo.
Comment by Kez0nat0r — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Finally the mystery is solved as to Tim73’s visionary answers. Check the long term health and mental issues connevted to smoking pot and then make an informed comment.
As a smoker I find the bans ridiculous however I have said for a long time now that if all we smokers do is harm people and cost the State so much, why don’t they ban it altogether? The simple reason is because they can’t afford to. All that revenue from us dirty smaokers is simply worth too much.
Comment by Punter — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
If there were to be a ban on tobacco in Finland, there would need to be similar moves made in Sweden, Estonia and Russia, and I can’t see that happening. Thus, I think this move on these grounds alone would be madness, creating more problems than it would solve.
Comment by Salopian — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Maybe the state healthcare costs are getting too high in Finland.
Spending time in both offices that permit and don’t permit smoking, the ones where you can smoke are pretty damn disgusting. All it takes is one person and they can smoke out a whole office. I think one reason why the rules keep getting more drastic is because many smokers are hard core and decide to break lesser rules as it is.
One benefit, those offices also permit drinking during lunch meetings.
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
50 years ago inhaling asbestos was all right. Tobacco is just as dangerous in the long term. Like cocaine, industrial grade tobacco is dangerous and addictive, containing thousands of chemicals, with no benefits whatsoever. It is like inhaling from car exhaust, added with nicotine.
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
If you are addicted to something then you are not free and I believe very strongly in freedom.
I’m addicted to coffee, sex, masturbation, blogging, internet, music, movies, a whole lot more. So let’s ban then.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
industrial grade tobacco is dangerous and addictive, containing thousands of chemicals, with no benefits whatsoever.
A cigar after dinner with a cognac every now and again is quite nice.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
“A cigar after dinner with a cognac every now and again is quite nice.”
Well, Romeo y Julieta is not exactly industrial
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Lipponen acted like a grumpy old man, poorly adjusted to his loss of position and power. Maybe he felt overwhelmed by girlpower at home and just wanted to ban something. He used to be a smart politician, especially so for a sos dem. Earlier he would have admitted that it is poor policy to legislate non-enforceable laws. But even suggesting something like this shows that he has lost his statesmanship and interest to consider the indirect and long run consequences. The proposal was like a move by a player on the very last round of a game.
Comment by Mara — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
At least he stated a realistic number of 2040. I wonder how many of us will even be alive then
I guess the smokers will die early. I don’t smoke, so I might still be here.
Isn’t it true that Americans smoke much less than Europeans? Someone recently told me that it’s not in-fashion there anymore. Here in Europe—judging by the cigarette butts strewn everywhere—quitting hasn’t caught-on yet.
With that said, I feel like doing some Coke.
Comment by Kristian — Thu, Jul 26th, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
tim73:
tobacco that does not even PRODUCE any “highsâ€Â
Tell that to the drug users who mistook IV injections of nicotine for cocaine. Nicotine is quick-acting and highly reinforcing, just like crack.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press/990202.html
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 12:01 am
“Tell that to the drug users who mistook IV injections of nicotine for cocaine. Nicotine is quick-acting and highly reinforcing, just like crack.”
Of course friggin even forced drinking 20 litres of pure water (4 gallons) produces DEATH quite nicely.
Comment by tim73 — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 12:15 am
In Washington state, they passed a pretty comprehensive ban on smoking indoors in public places. This includes bars. You can’t even smoke within 25 feet of a doorway, lest you get fined. Many other US states have similar laws on the books now.
The only place they haven’t banned it yet is in private homes, and I think you’d have a hard time convincing most people that this should be forbidden.
Comment by PhoneBoy — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Of course friggin even forced drinking 20 litres of pure water (4 gallons) produces DEATH quite nicely.
Read again. The doses were comparable to those gotten from smoking.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 1:14 am
If “banning tobacco” means the illegality of selling it anywhere but not forbidding to actually use it, I’m quite sure that smuggling would become a big problem. Either by sea from Estonia and Sweden or by the border from Russia, the stuff would find it’s way to finnish sidestreets. If Lipponen meant to illegalize smoking altogether, he’s become senile. First, there’s no way to observe this, second, crimerates would increase astronomically, and third, it would cost MUCH for the state to fund the recovery of every single already addicted.
But the idea’s nice.
Comment by Emperor — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 5:30 am
Smoking is dramatically decreasing in developed countries, we are moving in the right direction even without (all the recent) bans and, Deus avertat, prohibition. There are still millions who like to enjoy their smoke, so why be such a nazi* about it?
* http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450
Comment by aet75 — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 8:05 am
“I’m addicted to coffee, sex, masturbation, blogging, internet, music, movies, a whole lot more. So let’s ban then.”
That’s facetious. Nicotine is highly chemically addictive to such an extent that people spend colossal amounts of money trying to quit - and still fail. Nothing bar heroin even compares - and I’ve read several articles arguing that nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
Face it Phil, you just hate freedom.
Comment by Finnsense — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 9:40 am
tim73:
tobacco that does not even PRODUCE any “highsâ€Â!
It’s obvious you’ve never been a smoker.
Finnsense:
Face it Phil, you just hate freedom.
Less choice = more freedom? Only in Finland…
Comment by mh — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 10:51 am
I don’t like health facism. Then again I don’t like some retard using up my tax money for his busted lungs either.
Not a simple question, but I do think the finnish alcohol and tobacco tax-model has always had the cruel justice, that the tax pays the costs incurred to the goverment for their usage (and at least in the case of alcohol, so much more).
And I like cruel justice, for despite being cruel, it is justice.
Comment by philtard — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Face it Phil, you just hate freedom.
LOL!! You just don’t understand freedom.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
“..you just hate freedom.”
That sounds like something the Heaven’s Gate followers might have said. You know, the ones who castrated themselves for sake of ‘freedom’ from the physical plane.
Or George Bush.
Take your pick.
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Look, the state needs to give Cigaretes to all teenagers. Then they become users, call that high tax payers, then when they get old, they die faster and young.
It is a income generator, and it saves the social meical system from the burdon of long term care.
Numerious studies show the Government makes a lot of money on smokers.
So I say give it away……
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Higher taxes for cigarettes!
Comment by kk — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
NO NO NO
you give them away
they will then generate MONEY for the government
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Winter,
It sounds like you are suggesting to keep Finns smoking, drinking & driving, paying high taxes for those pleasures, and dying quick, cheap & early deaths. You are clearly a double agent for the welfare conspiracy!
Comment by Mara — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
“LOL!! You just don’t understand freedom.”
You know thinkers who have written about freedom like Mill and Berlin never saw freedom as being simply about having less government intervention. They understood that freedom can be reduced by other people in general. They would certainly have agreed that physical addiction makes one less free.
What you are talking about is freedom from the state interfering in your life. That’s just one kind of freedom. If you understood anything about discussions of liberty by political thinkers from Aristotle to Hobbes to Mill to McCallum and Berlin, you would understand that. Come by my house and borrow a few books, read them and then let’s discuss who understands what about freedom.
“Less choice = more freedom? Only in Finland…”
If you are not addicted to something, surely you have more choice under any sensible interpretation of the word. The freedom to make yourself unfree should not be valued by anyone who is interested in freedom.
Comment by Finnsense — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
#28:
“The freedom to make yourself unfree should not be valued by anyone who is interested in freedom.”
Finnsense,
I’m not big on the government or any coersive authority to set my choice alternatives for me, but just speaking on the conceptual level, I do think that freedom to make myself unfree is valuable to me. I value the opportunity to choose to make a commitment = being able to choose to make myself unfree. Without the opportunity to make commitments I would be totally exposed to manipulation. If there are such things as “self” and “free will”, I would not have them without the option to make commitments of my choosing.
Of course I agree with you that choosing a debilitating addiction is probably not a wise choice, but usually it is a free choice. IMO the people who have become addicted usually argue that somehow somebody or something made them do the wrong things. And with that attitude they stay addicted. Once they admit that they chose for themselves they have a chance to commit themselves to environments and habits that help them choose otherwise.
Comment by Mara — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Smoking is a bit like farting: both can be enjoyable, but only an inconsiderate moron would do it when others are around. Farting is smarter, though, because it doesn’t harm you or others.
Comment by Someone from Espoo — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
Mara,
Underlying your argument is the notion that there are more important things than freedom. You value the freedom to make commitments not because you value freedom as such but because you value whatever the commitment is. You think it’s a fair trade off to give up some freedom for whatever it is you’re committed to. I agree. I think freedom is only instrumentally valuable in that it is a means to certain valuable ends.
If, unlike us, you think freedom is the highest good, then your only interest is in maximising freedom. The freedom to do something may be valuable but if actually carrying out that something restricts your freedom in any significant way, on balance it would be better in freedom terms if you didn’t have the option. The ideal situation would be that you freely chose not to perform freedom restricting actions - but people do all the time and as a policy maker you cannot ignore what is a fact.
Comment by Finnsense — Fri, Jul 27th, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Finnsense,
I see your point. I’ll elaborate a bit more.
When I think about the value of freedom, I tend to think in terms of valuable things I’ll want to do in my life. All of them require me to forego some other potential things, and I’d be stuck in indecision if I chose to keep a “maximum choice set time path” as my objective. For instanse, I would forego significant human relationships and developing expertise in any skill or interest. And without those I could not do or experience things I do want to do and experience.
Through exercising my freedom to choose I realize a meaningful life.
A time path with maximum freedom at each point would be interesting only if I believed I am going to live forever: then the sum of net discounted values of all my alternative potential future time paths would always outweigh any outcome from a choice. Every time I make a choice, most of the potential future paths disappear and only the chosen ones are taken one step towards realizing. Freedom to choose becomes meaningful only when I exercise that freedom to make commitments,and I’m motivated to do so because I know I’m not going to live forever.
I do not remember where I read it or heard it, but some wise person has said that only people who have considered the option of suicide and have come to the decision that they will not do it, are really alive. We tend to not value things we take for granted, our own existense included.
I sometimes suspect that people get depressed, addicted or take totally insane risks in “too ready and solved” environments, because life loses meaningfulness when one doesn’t have any real choices to make. I’ve sometimes thought that the discrepancy between the illusion of a large choice set and the feeling of a small socially accepted choice set may very well explain the stereotypically Finnish mentality of being confused, alcoholic, and suicidal.
Comment by Mara — Sat, Jul 28th, 2007 @ 1:33 am
“Farting is smarter, though, because it doesn’t harm you or others.”
yea, it just adds to global warming, so no harm done.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, Jul 28th, 2007 @ 4:10 am
Winter, you finally made a comment I sympathize with and applaud. Don’t laugh thopugh, these green fools beleiving in man made global warming will soon have us paying fines for farting. Mark my words, I can see it now. Compulsory wearing of fart monitoring underwear which must be submitted at tax time for an evaluation on farts during the past year. A tax based on this farting will be levied and a final settlement made with our tax statement.
(Oops, hope the green police don’t monitor this site)
Comment by Punter — Sat, Jul 28th, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Winter, even if us humans really contributed to this global warming thing, one person’s lifetime of farts wouldn’t kill anybody. However, one person’s smoking can easily kill not only the smoker himself, but people he lives with.
Comment by Someone from Espoo — Sat, Jul 28th, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
It’d be much easier to believe in man-made global warming if the flames in internal combustion motors were visible. Just try to visualize what an average city scene would be like if you could see the flames of the combustion.
There’s a hell of a lot of burning going on all around us and that extra heat does go somewhere. To avoid warming we’d need new type of energy sources, which would function more like a heat pump: for every unit of heat produced, there’s an equal amount of cold. Current energy sources like oil and nuclear only add to the heat.
Both the population of the world and the energy use are growing. Where does this energy disappear to and how if it does not contribute to the warming of the planet?
Comment by Pedalpower — Sat, Jul 28th, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
But not smoking makes you live longer, then you mooch longer off the producers (Young folks paying the taxes), so why not smoke and help the state out?
Look, folks, it is in the welfare states interest to have smoking. Not the other way around.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, Jul 28th, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
36: “But not smoking makes you live longer, then you mooch longer off the producers (Young folks paying the taxes), so why not smoke and help the state out?”
Because, my dearest moron, smoking very rarely, if ever, kills you instantly. Smoking causes progressively more debilitating effects as the time goes on, before the possible lung cancer hits. Each and every phase brings some possible fiduciary expenses in the individual’s health care costs, both personally and collaterally. These expenses must be paid by someone, because common decency dictates that even the destitute should receive some sort of relief.
Therefore it is only fair that the very substance instigating these expenses should be taxed to offset the financial burden of treating the afflicted.
Comment by Fat Bastard — Sun, Jul 29th, 2007 @ 4:19 am
“smoking very rarely, if ever, kills you instantly.”
wow not so true
Actually smokers have a fast ending, with less medical support required, in the final year of life. Over time they do cost less.
A normal non smoker will just linger on and on and on, and cost the state more money.
Its all in the literature, not on BBC. The tobacco firms were going to use this well know fact in their defenses here in the USA, but caved in and paid the extortion money at the end.
So taxing something that saves the state money is not the way to go. Give it away, save the tax payer.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Jul 29th, 2007 @ 5:14 am
Actually smokers have a fast ending, with less medical support required, in the final year of life.
It has also been studied that smokers are absent from work more often than non-smokers.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Jul 29th, 2007 @ 10:34 am
#40:
The smoker’s more frequent absence from work only strengthens the welfare state: less efficient people are more likely to support the welfare system that promises to take from the more productive and give to the less productive. So if we make the assumption that people taking extra smoke breaks suspect that those breaks make them less productive, they will not only pay more (cigarette) taxes and thus support the government revenue flow. They will also strengthen the political support for the welfare state because their self-perceived shirking probably enhances their belief that they are on the receiving side of the government transfers.
The welfare state can keep the cost-per-death low if it follows this procedure, with variations according to the disease in question:
- make people queue for initial routine medical testing, classified as “not urgentâ€Â,
- use an older model of test taking and analysing equipment,
- deny the more costly tests which could determine the exact variant of the disease and could provide a possibility to look for the new (and expensive) “patient customized†medications
- with stubborn patients, lie that better medications/operations don’t exist or are highly experimental and therefore not in the patient’s interest,
- resort to one useless exploratory operation,
- conclude that the exact variant is still unknown, but that the information is no longer needed because the illness is incurable as it is already in late stage,
- offer opiates for pain relief, and
- promote the idea of avoiding “useless†and costly operations/medications and instead accepting more opiates and death.
One difference between HMOs and socialized health care is that the HMO is not a state legislated monopoly, but operates as a contestable organization, if not in outright competition with other HMOs. State organization has more captive customers.
- - - - - - - - - -
Off topic but may be of interest:
This (one hour) clip might interest the politically oriented discussants of this blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNLP88aTg_8
It’s an interesting AtGoogle -talk by prof. George Lakoff, a semiotist/linguistic from Berkeley. He’s clearly on the left side of the political spectrum, but has nontheless interesting ideas about political rhetorics.
He also demonstrates his message by associating his project’s values with Google’s values, associating the leftist mental frames with “the truthâ€Â, and letting the audience feel it is its moral calling to spread his good word. In one hour he seems to convince his audience that it should promote the democratic party’s political cause.
IMO the problem with political rhetoric is not only the division into two mental frames: nurturing left vs. punitive right, but the outcomes of the policies the frames produce. Prof. Lakoff doesn’t analyze the policy outcomes, but associates the leftist mental frames with higher quality political outcomes, ostensibly because Bush uses right wing mental frames.
We all are surely victims of political rhetoric everywhere, but my personal experience here in Finland is that there has been more harm coming from the socialist than the non-socialist frames.
To continue prof. Lakoff’s associative technique: instead of associating nurturing and protection of the individual with the left, one could as legitimely associate totalitarian government monopoly rule with the left. An likewise, instead of associating punitive top-down authority with the right, one might associate democratic free agents with the right.
But I’m pretty convinced that the associative thinking process he describes is a truer picture of our mental processes than the enlightenment era ideal of a logical “self†and “free willâ€Â, however practical concepts those are. What prof. Lakoff doesn’t mention is that he is not the first one to notice that. He is gloriously beating a dead opponent there.
The most viewed AtGoogle Talk seems to be the Ron Paul talk, though.
Comment by Mara — Sun, Jul 29th, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
“smokers are absent from work more often than non-smokers.
does the welfare state care? No they gave them the time off. Its all free.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Mon, Jul 30th, 2007 @ 4:13 am
#41 Mara, good points. Even some that I hadn’t thought of. Thanks.
Comment by Kristian — Tue, Jul 31st, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
“Check the long term health and mental issues connevted to smoking pot and then make an informed comment”
And what might those be? Are they worse than long term nicotine usage? Long term Alcohol consumption?
Comment by Dude — Thu, Aug 2nd, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Should smokers receive hospital (public) care for tobacco related illness?
Comment by Liz — Wed, Aug 15th, 2007 @ 3:45 pm