Tainted love
Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:10 I'm speaking in a debate at Oxford University tonight.
Organised by a student society called Tainted Goods, the proposition is "This House believes that the tobacco industry is responsible for its consumers' habits."
I'm told that ASH were invited to take part but declined. Instead the motion will be proposed by three students.
Ellie, Louis and Will were all members of the 2014 England Debating Team that won the World Schools Debating Championships in Thailand that year. All of them have been actively involved in Oxford debating and have represented the university at national and international tournaments, including the World and the European Universities Debating Championships.
The opposition is me and another student. Something tells me this will not end well.
PS. It could have been worse. I could have been no platformed.
Reader Comments (6)
Smoking has been popular for hundreds of years in Europe and thousands of years in the Americas. Long before so called "Big Tobacco" appeared.
James 1st of England was the first major league anti-smoker in England. It was one of his two major obsessions. The other one being anti-witchcraft. He had a complete monopoly on tobacco sales. Yet smoking remained hugely popular throughout his reign.
Good luck Simon ! I'm sure you will do well.
People might counter that today we have it on good authority that smoking is bad for you. However, James 1st was certain it was appallingly bad and he was directly appointed by God. Effectively God's spokesman on Earth. You can't get a higher authority than that. Chief medical officers and doctor's groups are very minor functionaries by comparison.
"Chief medical officers and doctor's groups are very minor functionaries by comparison."
Tony, they think they are Gods or at the very least High Priests of the New Religion of anti-smokerism
I wonder why Oxford doesn't ask an actual consumer to get involved in this debate, maybe even a lifelong consumer who really knows the answer to the question posed.
Our voice is always sidelined while our persecutors in the anti-smoker industry, or the naive and ill-informed looking for an easy cause to force their "help" on others, scramble over themselves to speak for us and usually not at all in any way that resembles what we really think or feel.
Good luck. If they try that old chestnut about Forest being funded by big Tobacco, tell them you'd love your funding to come from Govt too but smokers are not favoured enough these days to be awarded any support back for the very high tax they pay on the product which is so far anyway is still legal.
Who else can fund support for its consumer but the tobacco industry and it is the very least we expect from them, even though we would like a whole lot more.
You may wish to tell Oxford that there was a time when Govt managed a pensioners's tobacco allowance, and Govt also allowed smoking to be included in kids cartoons when today's older smokers were children - so is that Big T or Govt that is "responsible for its consumers' habits."
My argument would be that marijuana smoking has remained popular for decades while being illegal and having no branding or advertising. And, were their no legal sale of alcohol, home brewing and distilling would be widespread, as in Sweden for example, where alcohol is expensive and its sale highly regulated.
Pat Nurse is right. Why aren't long term tobacco consumers ever included in these debates ? Is it because despite the crap from ASH et al people would see that smoking doesn't kill !