survey about snus - Moral questioning

[Liandri]

Its your choice and your choice alone to start, use, and stop tobacco use. Don't give me that "I'm addicted, woe is me" bullshit. If you don't like it so much then quit.

They built their company around the same basis and coffee makers and fast food joints which are just as addictive as tobacco. Or around any other company, addictive or not.
Truth me told, they are a company that provides a product that you have the choice to use or not to use.

[lxskllr]

Its your choice and your choice alone to start, use, and stop tobacco use. Don't give me that "I'm addicted, woe is me" bullshit. If you don't like it so much then quit.

:^O

Are you saying *I'M* accountable?!?! Clearly you're mistaken. It's the company's fault for addicting me, and the government's fault for allowing that to happen.

[Liandri]

Its your choice and your choice alone to start, use, and stop tobacco use. Don't give me that "I'm addicted, woe is me" bullshit. If you don't like it so much then quit.

:^O

Are you saying *I'M* accountable?!?! Clearly you're mistaken. It's the company's fault for addicting me, and the government's fault for allowing that to happen.

NONONO! Never you! It has never been and never will be your, of all peoples, fault. You're like a pharaoh sitting atop your pyramid taunting and mocking us lesser folks! Obviously in your case the government has clearly deemed you unworthy and has clouded your mind and judgment by getting you hooked on drugs! Filthy drugs and filthy government!

EDIT: Big tobacco companies fault as well because they want to tip you off your throne so they can become a galactic super-power.

[lxskllr]

NONONO! Never you! It has never been and never will be your, of all peoples, fault. You're like a pharaoh sitting atop your pyramid taunting and mocking us lesser folks! Obviously in your case the government has clearly deemed you unworthy and has clouded your mind and judgment by getting you hooked on drugs! Filthy drugs and filthy government!

EDIT: Big tobacco companies fault as well because they want to tip you off your throne so they can become a galactic super-power.

:^D

[Undersökning]

Me and my group asks this question since we´re writing an academic paper on the subject.

In this academic paper we discuss the moral and ethical questions around snus and tries to find out what the general view is on the matter.

...Okay.


And your group is : 3 students from Stockholm

And the academic institution your group is associated with is: Nackademin AB

And the funding for this paper, if any, is provided by: The swedish goverment

You'll forgive us, I hope, if some of us are a bit guarded about this.

[Undersökning]

Two problems:

First, your survey has not established what constitutes an addiction. As beja demonstrated the notion of addiction may be expanded to the point of becoming so inclusive that it becomes non-descriptive as a category. You have not defined your term but only assumed it.

Second, your survey assumes that all addictions by default are morally wrong. However, to assume this utterly begs the question that your survey seeks to answer. In other words, your survey assumes the answer to the survey in order to even pose the question. The real survey question should be: are all addictions morally wrong?

If all addictions are morally wrong then promoting them is morally wrong. If no addiction is morally wrong then promoting any one of them is not morally wrong. If only certain addictions are wrong then it is morally wrong to promote only those. You cannot assume the main component of your question if your question is to have any meaningful answer. As it stands now your survey will yield only emotive results at best.

However, before we enter the long and tortuous debate over addictions, I think we may be able to find the resolve we seek by looking at the question from another perspective: that being the notion of “risk”.

Most, if not all, activities that we do involve a degree of risk.

The moral question then is twofold

One, are those risks clearly and accurately stated (thus big American tobacco’s concealing the risk of cigarettes, manipulating the chemical properties of the product, and using ads and legislation to perpetuate the dishonesty is morally wrong)

Two, do the risks unfairly burden others who are excluded from the risk taking decision (Thus, driving drunk, driving at “reckless” rates of speed, or keeping a live puma in your New Your City apartment- all place others at risk without those others having a say so in the risk taking. Note this same principle extend beyond the risk of physical harm. Thus a foolhardy act may well put dependents or society at an undue financial risk without giving them a voice in the risk taking decision).

In the case of snus, it does not violate either of our two risk factors and therefore its sale is not in and of itself immoral, any more than selling a pair of skies might be.

Hope this helps

:idea:

We thank you for your answer

[thatguyjeff]

Re: survey about snus - Moral questioning

Is it morally right of Swedish Match to build a company's operations, on people's snuff addiction?

yes? no? why?

Please share your opinions!

Yes, because the act of selling something such as this causes no harm.

The harm, if any, is done in the using - not the selling. The using is the decision of the consumer and not the producer.

[justintempler]

Here's a twist for you.

Is it moral for a governemnt to tax snus at a high tax rate, knowing it's citizens will use the product regardless of the price?

This in turn takes away resources from the poorer customers that they could otherwise to buy healthier food. Also on almost a daily basis I see news reports in Sweden of robberies where snus is being taken for resale because the government has made snus into an expensive commodity.

[weeg3]

Here's a twist for you.

Is it moral for a governemnt to tax snus at a high tax rate, knowing it's citizens will use the product regardless of the price?

This in turn takes away resources from the poorer customers that they could otherwise to buy healthier food. Also on almost a daily basis I see news reports in Sweden of robberies where snus is being taken for resale because the government has made snus into an expensive commodity.

you've got a point here.

in economics, tax is a deterrent to prevent people from doing things. if a company has a fixed amount of capital, there is only so much they can pollute, for example (in a system where, let's say, each cubic meter of sludge a factory produces costs them $ in tax). in this scenario, the company is forced to reduce the amount at which it pollutes at a rate that optimizes profit. this does not mean that it will not pollute, but will do so to a less extent.

however, a tax on a product that you or i consume can make it more desirable, especially proportionate to the amount of tax. if tomorrow the price of triumph snus where i live suddenly rose to $10 a can, it would be considered a more rare commodity. but this is superficial value, because that snus was produced at the same costs as the snus that i bought yesterday. regardless, would this incite me to use more or less triumph? it depends on the finances of the individual, but if i could swing it, yes i would continue to buy it. in fact, i might even buy more if i felt that the price volatility was high (for instance, if i felt that tax were apt to increase). in smaller amounts (as this is an extreme case), the amount of the tax is less likely to affect demand. if triumph rose in price, say, $0.25 tomorrow, it would be almost imperceptible to me and i would consume the same amount tomorrow as i do today.

i don't believe that "sin taxes" work for this reason. people who cannot afford their rent and their cell phone bills still buy cigarettes. you can blame addiction or whatever you want, but if the tax on cigarettes were really deterring people from buying them, then why do these companies continue to make profits?

[CivicSI]

Here's a twist for you.

Is it moral for a governemnt to tax snus at a high tax rate, knowing it's citizens will use the product regardless of the price?

This in turn takes away resources from the poorer customers that they could otherwise to buy healthier food. Also on almost a daily basis I see news reports in Sweden of robberies where snus is being taken for resale because the government has made snus into an expensive commodity.

you've got a point here.

in economics, tax is a deterrent to prevent people from doing things. if a company has a fixed amount of capital, there is only so much they can pollute, for example (in a system where, let's say, each cubic meter of sludge a factory produces costs them $ in tax). in this scenario, the company is forced to reduce the amount at which it pollutes at a rate that optimizes profit. this does not mean that it will not pollute, but will do so to a less extent.

however, a tax on a product that you or i consume can make it more desirable, especially proportionate to the amount of tax. if tomorrow the price of triumph snus where i live suddenly rose to $10 a can, it would be considered a more rare commodity. but this is superficial value, because that snus was produced at the same costs as the snus that i bought yesterday. regardless, would this incite me to use more or less triumph? it depends on the finances of the individual, but if i could swing it, yes i would continue to buy it. in fact, i might even buy more if i felt that the price volatility was high (for instance, if i felt that tax were apt to increase). in smaller amounts (as this is an extreme case), the amount of the tax is less likely to affect demand. if triumph rose in price, say, $0.25 tomorrow, it would be almost imperceptible to me and i would consume the same amount tomorrow as i do today.

i don't believe that "sin taxes" work for this reason. people who cannot afford their rent and their cell phone bills still buy cigarettes. you can blame addiction or whatever you want, but if the tax on cigarettes were really deterring people from buying them, then why do these companies continue to make profits?

Sorry for quoting this whole message but I didn't know how to change it to make it smaller :-)

But, I have two points I want to make: Weeg, you sound like an economics major! lol Your post brought back horrible memories from macro- and microeconomics.

Anyways, back to the main question. Is it moral? Absolutely not. Before everyone disagrees with me, hear me out. The main arguments behind people's answers on this thread is that it is moral because other companies do the same things (Krispy Kreme, McDonald's, etc.). But, you have to remember that you can't measure morality through the actions of other companies.

Is it moral to sell a product that is addictive and can POTENTIALLY harm someone? No. Imagine that heroin became legal tomorrow. Would it be moral for a company to manufacture heroin and sell it? Absolutely not.

It is important to distinguish the difference between laws and morality. Something can be legal and still be immoral. Something can be illegal and still be moral.

Moral or not, it doesn't change the fact that I have a portion in right now :-)

[CivicSI]

Here's a twist for you.

Is it moral for a governemnt to tax snus at a high tax rate, knowing it's citizens will use the product regardless of the price?

This in turn takes away resources from the poorer customers that they could otherwise to buy healthier food. Also on almost a daily basis I see news reports in Sweden of robberies where snus is being taken for resale because the government has made snus into an expensive commodity.

One more question I wanted to throw in there: the state I live in has a tax on moist snuff of 100%. Are other states like this?

[weeg3]

Sorry for quoting this whole message but I didn't know how to change it to make it smaller :-)

But, I have two points I want to make: Weeg, you sound like an economics major! lol Your post brought back horrible memories from macro- and microeconomics.

Anyways, back to the main question. Is it moral? Absolutely not. Before everyone disagrees with me, hear me out. The main arguments behind people's answers on this thread is that it is moral because other companies do the same things (Krispy Kreme, McDonald's, etc.). But, you have to remember that you can't measure morality through the actions of other companies.

Is it moral to sell a product that is addictive and can POTENTIALLY harm someone? No. Imagine that heroin became legal tomorrow. Would it be moral for a company to manufacture heroin and sell it? Absolutely not.

It is important to distinguish the difference between laws and morality. Something can be legal and still be immoral. Something can be illegal and still be moral.

Moral or not, it doesn't change the fact that I have a portion in right now :-)

depends on how you define "addiction" and "harm."

"addiction" is a physiological dependence on a thing or substance. ie sex, drugs, stealing, etc.

"harm" i assume that you mean something that could incapacitate or kill someone.

there are hundreds of studies on the addictive nature of sugar (esp corn syrup) and it's effects on the human body when consumed in large quantities (obesity, cancer, etc). yet it is hard to find a food product sold that does not contain these items. is this also moral under your definition?

what about diet items? there is a massive link between sugarfree items and multiple sclerosis. however, these items are still allowed to be sold and no one makes a stink about it.

hormones in milk (american, at least) cause girls to reach puberty faster. soda pop takes oxygen out of your system and turns a small layer of your teeth into chalk. red meat causes heart disease.

don't get me started on caffeine.

is there a question if any of these substances can be called addictive and harmful? and if so, why does tobacco get such a bad rap?

edit: yeah, a pretty dedicated econ major

[CivicSI]

Sorry for quoting this whole message but I didn't know how to change it to make it smaller :-)

But, I have two points I want to make: Weeg, you sound like an economics major! lol Your post brought back horrible memories from macro- and microeconomics.

Anyways, back to the main question. Is it moral? Absolutely not. Before everyone disagrees with me, hear me out. The main arguments behind people's answers on this thread is that it is moral because other companies do the same things (Krispy Kreme, McDonald's, etc.). But, you have to remember that you can't measure morality through the actions of other companies.

Is it moral to sell a product that is addictive and can POTENTIALLY harm someone? No. Imagine that heroin became legal tomorrow. Would it be moral for a company to manufacture heroin and sell it? Absolutely not.

It is important to distinguish the difference between laws and morality. Something can be legal and still be immoral. Something can be illegal and still be moral.

Moral or not, it doesn't change the fact that I have a portion in right now :-)

depends on how you define "addiction" and "harm."

"addiction" is a physiological dependence on a thing or substance. ie sex, drugs, stealing, etc.

"harm" i assume that you mean something that could incapacitate or kill someone.

there are hundreds of studies on the addictive nature of sugar (esp corn syrup) and it's effects on the human body when consumed in large quantities (obesity, cancer, etc). yet it is hard to find a food product sold that does not contain these items. is this also moral under your definition?

what about diet items? there is a massive link between sugarfree items and multiple sclerosis. however, these items are still allowed to be sold and no one makes a stink about it.

hormones in milk (american, at least) cause girls to reach puberty faster. soda pop takes oxygen out of your system and turns a small layer of your teeth into chalk. red meat causes heart disease.

don't get me started on caffeine.

is there a question if any of these substances can be called addictive and harmful? and if so, why does tobacco get such a bad rap?

edit: yeah, a pretty dedicated econ major

Addiction can be a physical or mental addiction. And, yes, I would add sex, drugs, and stealing to the list.

By harm I anything. Gum disease, tooth loss, heart disease, etc. I'm not saying snus causes that... but that's what I mean.

Sugar can go both ways. Sugar is a naturally occurring substance in many of the foods that we eat. I can't go to the store and buy a sugar-free banana. However, if a company were to add sugar to a product as a means of "addicting" someone to their product, then I would have to conclude that, to some extent, something immoral has taken place.

Diet items are also on the fence. On one side, there are benefits of eating a product that has lower sugar, fat, etc. On the flip side, there are consequences, such as the health concerns that you mentioned. With more and more of these products being introduced all the time, it will take some time to establish what the net gain/loss is from these products.

As far as hormones in milk, it depends. Some of those hormones are naturally produced in the cow. Others are added by dairy farmers as a means of producing more milk. If that addition of hormones by the farmer causes negative health effects on the consumer of the product, then that would also be immoral. But, in my own personal opinion, I find that drinking milk from a different species of animal to be immoral no matter what :-)

Caffeine is even worse. And, yes, it is immoral to produce Mountain Dew.

Everything you bring up is a very valid point :-) However, you have got me on your last question: Why does tobacco get such a bad rap? Somewhere along the line, someone had to develop a strong hatred for tobacco! Just like all of the other products you mentioned, tobacco has negative health effects. I'll be thinking about that question for a while :-)

Don't get me wrong on all of this. I used to smoke, I love snus, and I drink Mountain Dew daily. I am not at all trying to advocate that anything should be prohibited or products should not be allowed to be sold. All I am saying is that it is immoral.

[PsychoHazard]

All I am saying is that it is immoral.

Actually, you are saying that you believe it to be immoral within the confines of your reality tunnel. :lol:

(Yes, I like playing with semantics. It kinda goes with the whole social subversive thing.)

But seriously, a thing is not good or bad in and of itself, nor is the creation of a thing, what makes something good or bad, moral or immoral, is entirely subjective and predicated on the use one puts it to, otherwise all moral and ethical standings merely exist in potentia. For example, there are many who enjoy a good microbrew beer who are not alcoholics, yet alcohol has arguably caused more pain and suffering than any other drug or vice in the history of humanity. Among my other hobbies, I happen to brew. Am I immoral? Is my hobby immoral? Should those of us who enjoy a pint here and there be penalized because there are some who cannot handle their vices? I believe not. I would also apply this belief to any recreational chemical, be it nicotine, THC, or anything else one might desire. I could continue on here, but I think you get my point. I relinquish the soap box to the next contestant. 8)

[weeg3]

Addiction can be a physical or mental addiction. And, yes, I would add sex, drugs, and stealing to the list.

By harm I anything. Gum disease, tooth loss, heart disease, etc. I'm not saying snus causes that... but that's what I mean.

Sugar can go both ways. Sugar is a naturally occurring substance in many of the foods that we eat. I can't go to the store and buy a sugar-free banana. However, if a company were to add sugar to a product as a means of "addicting" someone to their product, then I would have to conclude that, to some extent, something immoral has taken place.

Diet items are also on the fence. On one side, there are benefits of eating a product that has lower sugar, fat, etc. On the flip side, there are consequences, such as the health concerns that you mentioned. With more and more of these products being introduced all the time, it will take some time to establish what the net gain/loss is from these products.

As far as hormones in milk, it depends. Some of those hormones are naturally produced in the cow. Others are added by dairy farmers as a means of producing more milk. If that addition of hormones by the farmer causes negative health effects on the consumer of the product, then that would also be immoral. But, in my own personal opinion, I find that drinking milk from a different species of animal to be immoral no matter what :-)

Caffeine is even worse. And, yes, it is immoral to produce Mountain Dew.

Everything you bring up is a very valid point :-) However, you have got me on your last question: Why does tobacco get such a bad rap? Somewhere along the line, someone had to develop a strong hatred for tobacco! Just like all of the other products you mentioned, tobacco has negative health effects. I'll be thinking about that question for a while :-)

Don't get me wrong on all of this. I used to smoke, I love snus, and I drink Mountain Dew daily. I am not at all trying to advocate that anything should be prohibited or products should not be allowed to be sold. All I am saying is that it is immoral.

so does intent make something immoral or moral?