{"id":32,"date":"2018-05-17T15:12:15","date_gmt":"2018-05-17T14:12:15","guid":{"rendered":"\/?page_id=32"},"modified":"2018-05-19T11:35:28","modified_gmt":"2018-05-19T10:35:28","slug":"demonic-possession","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/smokingoutthetruth.com\/the-paper\/challenging-the-conventional-wisdom\/demonic-possession\/","title":{"rendered":"Demonic possession"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201c\u2026 being a smoker is not a matter of free choice; they’re gripped by an addiction fuelled by the tobacco industry and they need support to give up<\/em><\/strong>\u201d
\nDeborah Arnott, Head of ASH<\/a><\/p>\n

The first and most important issue to raise is the one which is least often discussed in polite company, namely the fundamental question as to why someone should choose to smoke in the first place, and then continue to smoke, despite the risks of doing so. Maybe, just perhaps, smokers like smoking<\/a>?<\/span><\/p>\n

This is fundamental to the question of \u201ctobacco control\u201d as control is only required if consumers are acting in an entirely irrational manner, causing harm to themselves and (in the next logical development of the argument) harm to others. This, it is implicitly argued, is because tobacco is \u201caddictive\u201d, and customers are lured into smoking through aggressive marketing by \u201cBig Tobacco\u201d as the comment from Deborah Arnott above suggests. <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>his has been eloquently described as the \u201ctheory of demonic possession<\/a>\u201d whereby the individual\u2019s responsibility for their actions has been subverted by some greater (and inherently, therefore, evil) force. The implication of this theory is that any intervention can be justified in the name of “public health” including punitive taxation; ever increasing regulation of both the product and the ways in which consumers use the product; and outright stigmatisation of the consumer by \u201cdenormalisation\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Figure 3: Government-mandated commentary on smokers<\/p><\/div>\n

For this characterisation of smokers to be true we would have to believe that there was no personal choice being exercised and that smokers derive absolutely no utility (in an economic sense, i.e. \u201cpleasure\u201d) from smoking at all. The obvious fallacy of the argument is that, despite everything, millions of people around the world continue to smoke in knowledge and therefore acceptance of the apparent risks<\/strong>. A rational view must be that smokers have accepted the potential risks of their habit, and borne the obvious financial cost imposed on them for maintaining in their habit, because they \u201cvalue\u201d smoking \u2013 for the taste, the sensation, the stimulation, the relaxation, the conviviality or for whatever other reason or combination of reasons.<\/p>\n

On a personal level we may not see that trade off in the same way as we ourselves have either chosen not to smoke or to cease smoking. But then people may well disagree with our personal life choices, each of which themselves may come with their own costs, risks and pay backs.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Figure 4: Risk of a “healthy” commute in London
Source: R. Maile, courtesy of an altercation with a Boris bike which was in the wrong place, Feb 2016<\/p><\/div>\n

The counter to this is, inevitably, the survey data which suggest that the vast majority of smokers want to give up and\/or wish they had never started. But then asked if you think you really should lose some weight, drink less, eat more healthily and give more to charity you would probably agree with all of those sentiments, especially if asked by an interviewer who catches you on the High Street. Each is within your gift if, that is, you want to forego that chocolate cake, not finish that bottle of claret (and open a second), eat more kale (really?) and hand over more cash to every worthy cause that asks. Each of these would, however, require a reduction in utility (pleasure) in the short term which may not be balanced by the promised benefit in terms of increased longevity in the very long term.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We discuss the question of “Addiction\u201d more fully below, but at this point we make a number of points. <\/span><\/p>\n