survey about snus - Moral questioning

[tom502]

I think SM, and other snus makers are moral, because they strive to produce and quality product that has helped many people switch away from a known harmful product, to one that is negligible at best. The immoral ones are those that wish to tax it to death and limit it's avilablity.

[Ulsterman]

The immoral ones are those that wish to tax it to death and limit it's avilablity.

Well said. 8)

[Ainkor]

All I will say is that your original question is impossible to answer, unless you ask it to a cross section of people.

Whether something is moral or immoral is completely dependent of the frame of reference.

Take alcohol, it is immoral for a Muslim to use it, but it is considered a big part of life for many other world religions.

Does that make it moral or immoral? It depends on your frame of reference.

Asking a bunch of avid tobacco users if something we are passionate about it immoral is about as useful as asking a fish if water is good or bad.

A better method of research would be do ask as many different types of people what their thoughts are and compile the results and if your intention is to publish it, then do so. If you are doing that, I'm sure we would love to hear about who else is being asked the same question!

If not, and your fishing for easily agitated nicotine users, then proceed with caution!

[Redbeard]

All I will say is that your original question is impossible to answer, unless you ask it to a cross section of people.

Whether something is moral or immoral is completely dependent of the frame of reference.

Yeah, what he said. 8)

[texasmade]

which, if you revert back to my first post here basically says....so ...thread closed :twisted:

[Redbeard]

In so many words, true. I concede, Good Sir Tex. I basically restated your idea in my first post on the topic.

[dupee419]

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.

This isn´t just about the product snuff(Snus) itselft but also about what measures the government has the right to take, agianst the sale of snus.

Is it their responsibility to protect its citizens from harmful products by increasing the tax on snuff, or prohibiting people from using these products in public places such as restaurants, cafes, concerts and football matches?

it is not a citizen's right to decide over their own lives?

We can take a look at other products. Coffee, for example, it is the world's second most sold and purchased product. Again, the sale based on people's addiction. Has anybody the right to say to you that you are not permitted to buy or use coffee due to its characteristics?

Nackademin AB huh?? sounds like a company rather then a school, but regardless.

Who´s morals are we using for a measure?
And why just Swedish match?

Government is already heavily taxing tobacco among many other items like alcohol and gasoline.
What rights do they have to take measures against snus? In this country? What ever the hell they want, and they are ever since the tax hikes in the last years, when they out of nowhere realized "we can tax tobacco nobody´s gonna quit anyway."

Yes Government is responsible to protect citizens from harmful things, hence it´s forbidden to dump the anthrax you have in the pocket on the street among many things. Since the smoking ban of 2004 or 2005 , cant remember now, it´s forbidden to smoke in restaurants and other public places, which is quite nice since I don´t care too much for the smoke.

But banning public snusing? what harm does it do to anyone else?

If governments would tax anything because it´s dangerous in order to keep consumption low ( and they are ) it certainly isn´t because they want you to stop using it, rather a way for them to increase the budget for more funds to squander.

The final question, is it morally wrong of SM to sell snus? No it isnt´, the only immoral institution is the government and it´s 1543 subsidaries who are still allowing this deadly poison to be sold. The last part is a joke, just like the government.

Nackademin AB is apparently a high school. although privately owned it seems. see www.nackademin.se

still... seems like a forum full of nicotine addicts is not exactly the best place to be asking if it's morally wrong to sell tobacco.

my personal opinion here is: I'm of legal age to consent to putting a habit forming substance into my body completely aware of the relevant risks associated with its use, so where do anyone have any right to tell me I can't? Companies like SM provide me with a quality product devoid of many of the additives commonly seen in other tobacco products (ie., cigarettes). I believe companies manufacturing swedish-style snus to traditional specifications are among the only tobacco companies you can actually trust. Not to mention Snus is the only tobacco product on earth to have a full ingredient disclosure on the label of every package handed to consumers.

[shikitohno]

Like I mentioned before, everyone is straying away from the question itself. Everyone has given out a hundred reasons why Swedish Match is not immoral but I haven't heard a single person tell me why they ARE moral.

So, to clear this up, please tell me your reasoning on how it IS moral.

Okay, let's apply a little bit of logic here. I think we can generally agree if something is moral, then it isn't immoral. Conversely, if something is immoral, then it isn't moral. So, when people have told you why it isn't immoral, that's the same thing as telling you why it is moral. Make sense?

Immoral→¬Moral
¬Immoral→Moral

Something about ↑ that is striking me as a logical fallacy, but I think that may just be because of how long it's been since I set up a proof, that I did it wrong.

Anywise, it's dichotomous, either moral or immoral. Because people can say why they aren't immoral, they can say why they are moral. As previously noted, it's also entirely subjective.

[snusjus]

Tobacco companies shouldn't be held accountable for consumer's poor lifestyle choices. Snus is not as harmful as cigarettes, but its still an "unhealthy" choice if you previously never used tobacco. If someone has never been exposed to nicotine before and decides to start using snus, they should be held accountable for the decision they made, not the tobacco company. People know tobacco isn't good for their health. They realize nicotine is a highly addictive substance.

I'm glad I live in a world where people can make choices, whether they are healthy or not. Tobacco companies are simply supplying a product that people voluntarily choose to consume. The same can be said for fast food chains; McDonald's is supplying products that people choose to consume. I eat McDonald's on occasion and I'm not overweight. If someone eats it everyday and becomes morbidly obese, its their own fault.

[Undersökning]

~bump~

[RedMacGregor]

why bump a 2 month old thread really? it's dead, get over it

[Paul]

I thank SM for selling SNUS
otherwise i'd still damagging my health through cigarrettes

[daruckis]

anti bump. this thread sucks.

[Bam_48192]

in one way or another anything can be immoral. Take condoms, theyre great and help stop disease and pregnancy...or can be used to have an affair.


I am a gun dealer...I sell weapons to protect and defend....or maim and kill

every thing out there can be viewed in different ways.

blaming snus..or guns..or whatever for killing someone is like blaming the spoon for making rosie o donnell a blimp.