Live (cough!) like me!
m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Fri Aug 2 13:30:44 MDT 1996
>At 11:06 PM 8/1/96, Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>>Now, Doug, how about giving us the correct *non-Trot* position on smoking?
>Smoking is very bad for you, though probably not as bad for bystanders as
>purists say. Still, people like to smoke, and it's not just because of the
>tobacco industry's treachery or government subsidies. The impulse to stamp
>out tobacco takes a half-good thing and transforms it horrid moral
>campaign. It gives yuppie liberals the chance to wax anticorporate without
>seriously challenging capital. It fits in perfectly with the whole U.S.
>upper middle class tradition of moral uplift through "public health." It
>reeks of the nanny state. Cigarettes will kill you, but so do lots of other
>things people do.
Hm. So it's OK to ruin your health and kill yourself with cigarettes, cos
lots of other things do too.
And the yuppie nanny's moral uplift enrages you more than the deliberate
destruction by capital of the health of youngsters (particularly
working-class women in semi-colonial countries) by tobacco addiction?
How about asking *why* people like to smoke? They used to like
cock-fighting, bear-baiting, public humiliations and public burnings and
executions. Drug addicts 'like' dope. Alcoholics 'like' booze. People vote
Tory or Republicrat.
Do you think it's a bad thing where anti-smoking campaigns have reduced
tobacco consumption and freed public places from tobacco smoke?
How would you vote at a meeting where a majority were smokers but a
minority of non-smokers were badly affected by smoke, if a motion were put
to ban smoking in the meeting?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism