Just think if this group turned there attention to the eradication of poverty, climate change, or racism. There simplistic solutions would be laughable, irrelevant and reckless.
The description of this tobacco control activist conference is sooooooo similar to the woke dictatorship in many campuses (mostly in the US, Canada and the Anglosphere). Woke extremists are also well intended, also want to achieve a perfect paradise utopia, also have hated totemic villains blamed for the world misfortunes and a black and white tunnel vision: the evil of the patriarchy of White colonialist males. They also "cancel" anyone expressing disagreement or even nuances to strict DEI. This wokeness has generated a lot of public rejection, not only from the lay public but also from the elites, even from left wingers and liberals. While not a MAGA supporter I think Trump's administration is right in trying to eradicate wokeness and DEI enforcement. Unfortunately, tobacco control wokeness is still tolerated (and even encouraged) by global elites, their DEI is still accepted dominant narrative. The conference you describe most likely was seen as positive and appropriate by the European Commission, when similar wokeness on other issues would be regarded as extreme.
Well, they already are pushing for 'nicotine free', and given that nicotine occurs naturally (and in non-therapeutic ways) in nightshade plants, tomatoes are caught. As are eggplant, peppers, potatoes . . .
But I am confident that they are not so ignorant as to be unaware of that. So it likely just means they want yet more enforcement to tackle the inevitable emergence of veggie traffickers.
Here is a taster of something I am going to push on fb. It involves what i think philosophers would have to say in parliament on the issue of vaping. This is only one of 9.
KANT — Addresses Parliament
Foreword
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher known for his rigorous moral reasoning and the principle that actions must be judged by universal rules, is invited to address a modern Parliament on the subject of vaping, harm reduction, and public health.
MP: Professor Kant, we hope you can confirm that vaping is morally wrong.
Kant: Morality is not determined by your feelings about an object, but by the principle behind your action.
MP: We want people to stop using nicotine.
Kant: Then you must ask whether the rule “No one shall use nicotine” could be willed as a universal law.
MP: Well… perhaps not. Many people do use it.
Kant: Then your rule fails the test of universality.
MP: But we must protect the young.
Kant: Protection is a duty, yes. But duties must be grounded in truth, not convenience.
MP: We tell the public that vaping is dangerous.
Kant: Is it as dangerous as smoking?
MP: No.
Kant: Then you have spoken contrary to reason. A falsehood cannot be justified by good intentions.
MP: We banned flavours to discourage use.
Kant: And what was the outcome?
MP: Young people turned to illicit products.
Kant: Then your maxim produced a contradiction in practice. A policy that undermines its own purpose is irrational.
MP: We fear that admitting vaping is safer will encourage use.
Kant: Truth is not yours to manipulate. To lie for a desired outcome is to treat citizens as means, not ends.
MP: So what should we do?
Kant: Act only on principles you could defend openly, honestly, and universally.
Closing Monologue
Kant: I depart with a heavy impression: that you wish to legislate morality without first understanding it. You speak of duty, yet you abandon truth. You speak of protection, yet you obscure distinctions essential to reason. You speak of intention, yet you neglect consequence. A moral law must be clear, universal, and grounded in reality. If you distort facts to shape behaviour, you do not govern ethically; you manipulate.
A Parliament worthy of respect must treat its citizens as rational beings, capable of understanding risk and choosing wisely when given honest information. If you wish to act morally, begin by speaking truthfully. For without truth, no duty can be fulfilled, and no law can be just.
Just think if this group turned there attention to the eradication of poverty, climate change, or racism. There simplistic solutions would be laughable, irrelevant and reckless.
Haven't their views always been simplistic, irrational self serving, and basically useless as far as THR & "Public Health"?
I love " the tobacco control priesthood".
The Inquisition, was dangerous and caused so much misery throughout history.
These guys with their beliefs of fighting the good fight and saving humanity and future generations are really dangerous.
Somebody said that the EU is becoming the next Soviet Union.
Absolutely right 💯👍🏽
The description of this tobacco control activist conference is sooooooo similar to the woke dictatorship in many campuses (mostly in the US, Canada and the Anglosphere). Woke extremists are also well intended, also want to achieve a perfect paradise utopia, also have hated totemic villains blamed for the world misfortunes and a black and white tunnel vision: the evil of the patriarchy of White colonialist males. They also "cancel" anyone expressing disagreement or even nuances to strict DEI. This wokeness has generated a lot of public rejection, not only from the lay public but also from the elites, even from left wingers and liberals. While not a MAGA supporter I think Trump's administration is right in trying to eradicate wokeness and DEI enforcement. Unfortunately, tobacco control wokeness is still tolerated (and even encouraged) by global elites, their DEI is still accepted dominant narrative. The conference you describe most likely was seen as positive and appropriate by the European Commission, when similar wokeness on other issues would be regarded as extreme.
Next, it will be nicotine-free tomatoes...
They may be going for gold, but there is strong competition from the Australian tobacco-control cult.
Well, they already are pushing for 'nicotine free', and given that nicotine occurs naturally (and in non-therapeutic ways) in nightshade plants, tomatoes are caught. As are eggplant, peppers, potatoes . . .
But I am confident that they are not so ignorant as to be unaware of that. So it likely just means they want yet more enforcement to tackle the inevitable emergence of veggie traffickers.
That would anger a whole bunch of people in the global South.
Here is a taster of something I am going to push on fb. It involves what i think philosophers would have to say in parliament on the issue of vaping. This is only one of 9.
KANT — Addresses Parliament
Foreword
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher known for his rigorous moral reasoning and the principle that actions must be judged by universal rules, is invited to address a modern Parliament on the subject of vaping, harm reduction, and public health.
MP: Professor Kant, we hope you can confirm that vaping is morally wrong.
Kant: Morality is not determined by your feelings about an object, but by the principle behind your action.
MP: We want people to stop using nicotine.
Kant: Then you must ask whether the rule “No one shall use nicotine” could be willed as a universal law.
MP: Well… perhaps not. Many people do use it.
Kant: Then your rule fails the test of universality.
MP: But we must protect the young.
Kant: Protection is a duty, yes. But duties must be grounded in truth, not convenience.
MP: We tell the public that vaping is dangerous.
Kant: Is it as dangerous as smoking?
MP: No.
Kant: Then you have spoken contrary to reason. A falsehood cannot be justified by good intentions.
MP: We banned flavours to discourage use.
Kant: And what was the outcome?
MP: Young people turned to illicit products.
Kant: Then your maxim produced a contradiction in practice. A policy that undermines its own purpose is irrational.
MP: We fear that admitting vaping is safer will encourage use.
Kant: Truth is not yours to manipulate. To lie for a desired outcome is to treat citizens as means, not ends.
MP: So what should we do?
Kant: Act only on principles you could defend openly, honestly, and universally.
Closing Monologue
Kant: I depart with a heavy impression: that you wish to legislate morality without first understanding it. You speak of duty, yet you abandon truth. You speak of protection, yet you obscure distinctions essential to reason. You speak of intention, yet you neglect consequence. A moral law must be clear, universal, and grounded in reality. If you distort facts to shape behaviour, you do not govern ethically; you manipulate.
A Parliament worthy of respect must treat its citizens as rational beings, capable of understanding risk and choosing wisely when given honest information. If you wish to act morally, begin by speaking truthfully. For without truth, no duty can be fulfilled, and no law can be just.