Friends, It seems to me that the tobacco companies must bear a lot of responsibility for cigarette addiction and its many attendent evils. For one thing they do target young people in their advertising, because they know that it will be difficult for teenagers to stop as adults once the addiction has begun and because young people are more gullible. For another, I wonder if the tobacco companies haven't used wars to promote cigarette addiction. Soldiers have such easy access to cigarettes in a situation in which a smoke no doubts gives comfort. But if a soldier gets addicted to cigarettes in the stress of battle, is this to mean that he chose to be addicted? Or that the danger of smoking gave it some attraction? Anyway, I'm not in favor of banning drugs, but I don't see whats wrong with going after the tobacco companies anymore than going after the merchants of war (and in a way, they are the same bunch of people). My father died of emphysema. slowly and painfully. He said that he would never sue the tobacco companies because it was his choice to smoke. I wonder about this. A Depression, a war, a stressful job, lies from the companies (the chesterfield ad: "not a cough in a carload"). Surely it was a constrained choice, and with more humane constraints, a different choice might have been made. michael yates William S. Lear wrote: > On Mon, August 10, 1998 at 13:43:35 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: > >William S. Lear wrote: > > > >>I think Doug makes a mistake of too easily letting the tobacco > >>companies off the hook for helping to shape preferences for smoking. > > > >I've never let them off the hook. I said that anyone who believes that > >people smoke only because evil tobacco companies manipulate us into doing > >so... > > Well actually, you said that "Blaming smoking on evil tobacco > companies is a crock", but perhaps I was being uncharitable and read > that too narrowly. > > I guess I was trying to take things in a different direction. Sure, > pleasure is wonderful, but is there no room for us to discuss what > free people might provide for themselves without advertising, without > assuming that we will all lunge for greaseburgers and butts as some > sort of overriding, uncontrollable desire that must remain uncontested? > (I'm not saying you are necessarily claiming this). > > Another thing that separates "man" from animals, by the way, is the > ability to recognize self-destructive behavior and to channel/control > it. I know the word "control" is not too much in favor among > Foucauldians (certainly for good reasons), but I have had the notion > of "workers' control" buzzing in my head lately, and I think that > unbridled consumption is in some ways harmful. So, perhaps consumers' > (self-) control over their consumption (via democratic formations) is > not just an aesthetic, liberal Galbraithian concern, but something > central to the future of democratic economies. > > Lastly: presumably, part of the attraction of automobiles is also > their danger. Perhaps the swerve of the American consumer to steering > hefty SUVs, from the dangerous (hence liberating) "limit experiences" > generated by piloting smaller caves about town, is a signal of our > (ever) increasing domestication, a further turn from the wild side of > unions, feminism, sit-ins, solidarity, and other more radical forms of > social protest? > > Bill
