NationStates Jolt Archive

First things first, for my credibility: I used to smoke. I quit when my son was born.

I understand the anti-smoking crusader's need to get out the message, and I support the desire to get as many people as possible to quit. But shouldn't the guys that say Big Tobacco lies to you to get you and your kids to keep killing yourselves, also be completely truthful about how bad smoking is?

Example: Do a Google search -- "4000 chemicals cigarette." Reputable sources can't decide if it's 4000 chemicals in the cigarettes themselves or the smoke. Yes, some of them are listed, and those are definitely toxic. But it turns out the 4000 figure is made up. It gets perpetuated because the anti-smoking crusaders have a theory that anything they can do to get a convert is worth it.

Am I wrong in questioning the hypocrisy? Is "anything it takes" a valid strategy for the good guys but not the bad guys?

...Honestly? Never heard this '4000 chemicals' comment.

Is it common?

...Honestly? Never heard this '4000 chemicals' comment.

Is it common?

It is common here in Hawaii. If you go to the various anti-smoking websites, you'll see it mentioned, too. But no one ever has more than a couple listed, and they can't seem to decide which is in -- the stick or the smoke.

I don't think anyone should lie to try and promote their cause, especially in the case of cigarettes. They are dangerous enough without having to make up that 4,000 number. Even without that many chemicals they still manage to kill, there isn't a need to lie to point out how dangerous they are, they can do that honestly.

When I did research on it like, 10 years ago in high school, I thought the number was like 110 in Marlboros?

I still smoke. I'll quit when I decide to.

Now, I can't remember the exact numbers, but a Reality Check person, who came to our school and taught us to protest the promotion of tobacco by handing out free stuff by handing out free stuff, gave us two numbers, the amount of smokers that die yearly, and the amount of new underage smokers (9 out of 10 new smokers, apparentally) daily. If you do the math, it turns out that big tobacco has a net loss of about 900 (in New York alone!) customers daily. Yet somehow they're still in business...

Who cares if it's 4000 or 400 or 40? The first six or seven should be scary enough.

That said, I still smoke on occasion.

First things first, for my credibility: I used to smoke. I quit when my son was born.

I understand the anti-smoking crusader's need to get out the message, and I support the desire to get as many people as possible to quit. But shouldn't the guys that say Big Tobacco lies to you to get you and your kids to keep killing yourselves, also be completely truthful about how bad smoking is?

Example: Do a Google search -- "4000 chemicals cigarette." Reputable sources can't decide if it's 4000 chemicals in the cigarettes themselves or the smoke. Yes, some of them are listed, and those are definitely toxic. But it turns out the 4000 figure is made up. It gets perpetuated because the anti-smoking crusaders have a theory that anything they can do to get a convert is worth it.

Am I wrong in questioning the hypocrisy? Is "anything it takes" a valid strategy for the good guys but not the bad guys?

And now for a long and winding dissertation. . .

The noble lie is a longstanding tradition that goes back to Socrates: in the Republic, he argues that the citizens must be told what amounts to a noble lie in order to maintain stability in that society. Specifically, all men are to be taught that every man in that society emerged from a single group that 1) came out of the ground, and 2) because some men emerged with better alloys than others in their systems, and because those alloys can show up in different people, certain people are naturally suited to lead, to soldier, or to work, and that all people must accept this. His reasoning was that citizens must believe that they have a common origin and a common justification for the rule of the best to avoid civil strife. That being said, it's a dubious proposition, and one I've never been particularly inclined to agree with. That's not surprising, since I have a much higher opinion of the wisdom of the common man than Socrates did.

Essentially, my critique of this view is that for the past 100 years or so, many countries have built governments premised on the notion that even the least of men is sufficient to govern his own affairs and participate in the selection of those who will lead them. Despite the fact that Socrates believed such a system could not work, I think it has. Most republics today are far-better run, with far better standards of living than Plato's republic could scarce to dream, and at the same time we've come close on occasion to lapsing into Socrates' fears of anarchy or timocracy, but we've largely managed to avoid it. As such, I think the past century demonstrates that you can trust the common man to know the truth, to not be told a lie, and still not screw up a republic. This analysis, I think, holds true anywhere, so the idea that people must be lied to in order to stop smoking is one that holds no intellectual weight for me.

Who cares if it's 4000 or 400 or 40? The first six or seven should be scary enough.

That said, I still smoke on occasion.
Arsenic was the one I could never get my mind around.

Example: Do a Google search -- "4000 chemicals cigarette."Okay.Reputable sources can't decide if it's 4000 chemicals in the cigarettes themselves or the smoke.Which "reputable sources"? The CDC lists the number, yes, but I don't see where they "can't decide" what it means. From what I can tell, these are the ingredients in the cigarettes themselves.
Yes, some of them are listed, and those are definitely toxic.Yep. Dozens of them. But it turns out the 4000 figure is made up.According to whom? How do you know?

It is common here in Hawaii. If you go to the various anti-smoking websites, you'll see it mentioned, too. But no one ever has more than a couple listed,
I guess you didn't read this (http://quitclinic.tripod.com/quit1/id31.html) one, which came up on the first page of my Google results.
and they can't seem to decide which is in -- the stick or the smoke.
Would you please point me to this debate, or to the "reputable" sources that claim it is the smoke? (From what I have read, everyone seems pretty much agreed that these are the ingredients in the stick.)

The noble lie is a longstanding tradition that goes back to Socrates: in the Republic,First of all, Plato wrote the Republic, not Socrates. Socrates was his teacher and appears as the primary character in most of Plato's dialogues. It is not clear to what extent the Platonic Socrates mirrors the historical Socrates, but most scholars agree that by the time Plato wrote the Republic he had developed a distinct philosophy of his own.

he argues that the citizens must be told what amounts to a noble lie in order to maintain stability in that society.On a careful reading, Plato actually suggests that all culture is a lie, but that cultural ties are also necessary to a complex and differentiated society. The notion of the "noble" lie derives from the argument that if culture (a lie) is necessary, the lies should at least be those serving a positive purpose. Thus, rather than relying on cultural values that exist by way of pure tradition--"because that's how we've always done it"--Plato argued that we critically think about and actively engage our culture.

Specifically, all men are to be taught that every man in that society emerged from a single group that 1) came out of the ground, and 2) because some men emerged with better alloys than others in their systems, and because those alloys can show up in different people, certain people are naturally suited to lead, to soldier, or to work, and that all people must accept this.First, re-read this passage carefully. Notice that citizens are told the noble lie at the end of the process of education. They are to be told that all of their childhood was spent "in the ground," and now they are coming into the light of adulthood. Only at this point, after they have been tested and drilled for years, do class divisions appear: the best--those who have performed well in the various tests of citizenship and wisdom--will become rulers and the worst--those who do not distinguish themselves in school--will be artisans, merchants and so on.

This sort of "meritocracy" is not so different than what we like to think we have now. Of course, Plato added the additional rule that rulers--whose souls contain silver and gold--should not be allowed to handle material wealth at all. If only.

Oh, and you should say "men and women" because Plato believed that there are no fundamental differences between the sexes.

That being said, it's a dubious proposition, and one I've never been particularly inclined to agree with. That's not surprising, since I have a much higher opinion of the wisdom of the common man than Socrates did.Perhaps you would be less dubious if you understood the concept of "demokratia" that Socrates (and arguably Plato) opposed. In the first place, you need to understand that the Greeks understood "citizenship" in a much different way than we do. Aristotle's Politics is useful for deciphering their meaning: a "citizen" was a person who took part in governing, who held governing offices and participated in public decision-making. Aristotle actually goes so far as to say that people whose most direct relation to ruling was membership on a criminal jury should not be considered citizens if jury trials are too infrequent or too few people actually get to participate in one.

"Democracy," then, was a system of government in which the many (actually, the Greeks usually thought of the demos as the poor) not only elects the occasional representative (the Greeks had no concept of representation), but actively participates in government in an official capacity. Commonly, Greek offices would be filled by lottery, randomly selecting citizens (with no necessary "qualifications" other than citizenship) to fill posts for a term. Meanwhile, Greek democracies would frequently convene meetings at which any citizen could vote on substantive matters--although it seems in practice that relatively few showed up. (Thus, even the famous Athenian democracy really amounted to rule by the few.)

Plato's Socrates was really arguing that politicians should be selected according to a rational principle; namely, that they should possess the qualifications necessary to actually govern--an idea with which most of today's "democrats" would whole-heartedly agree.

Anyway, next time you read the Republic or Aristotle's Politics, try not to associate the word "democracy" with any modern country, or you'll badly misunderstand their meaning. Both Plato and Aristotle would consider the modern "democracy" a rather obvious example of oligarchy: rule by the wealthy few, who actually participate in decision-making. Aristotle would consider ours a mixed system at best.

I love Socrates as much as the next guy, but that's pretty off-topic.

Anyway, the idea that the ends justify the means is pretty prevalent in American culture these days. Politicians like to talk about slippery slopes, but if good intentions are enough to justify anything, then it really is a slippery slope. The road to Hell's paved with good intentions, remember.

I quit smoking, and I wouldn't like to see anybody start...but if a Truth person starts shouting his propaganda (so a CEO wanted to use a code-word for cancer in corporate documents, wtf's that got to do with anything?) in my vicinity, I'd be really hard pressed not to do him bodily harm.

Meh, its simple. You put chemicals into your lungs, its a dumb thing to do.

I guess you didn't read this (http://quitclinic.tripod.com/quit1/id31.html) one, which came up on the first page of my Google results.

Oops. 641 ingredients on that page. Try again.

Would you please point me to this debate, or to the "reputable" sources that claim it is the smoke? (From what I have read, everyone seems pretty much agreed that these are the ingredients in the stick.)

Link 1 (http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793) (look on page 44: "Overall, ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke] is a complex mix of over 4,000 compounds.")
Link 2 (http://www.ashline.org/ASH/cigsmoke/index.html)
Link 3 (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/smoking/chemicalfactory_00508.htm)

I can keep going...

But it turns out the 4000 figure is made up.

According to whom? How do you know?

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/chemistry.html#_Toc507135768