Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
After decades of public objection and later government restrictions on advertisements, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to minors for reasons not limited to just health and nicotine dependency, the cultivation of “green tobacco” by children exposes them often to immediately hazardous levels of nicotine at often unconscionably young ages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013 published an extensive study into the child labor practices of the tobacco growers industry in four states: North Carolina; Kentucky; Tennessee; and Virginia. According to this study one hundred and forty one children participating in the tobacco harvests of 2012 and 2013 were interviewed by HRW. Ages of these children ranged from seventeen to as young as seven.
According to this study, “nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.”
Duties assigned to children in tobacco cultivation and harvesting included seed planting, topping, thinning undesirable leaves, applying pesticides, harvesting leaves by hand or with machinery, cutting plants with sharpened tobacco knives, storage and removal of cured leaves from barns, and stripping and sorting dried leaves.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The study contained interviews consistent with their findings generally, where child workers reported being sprayed by pesticides applied to rows nearby causing illnesses contemporaneously. To mitigate this environment the children often would bring plastic garbage bags with them that they could fashion into ad-hoc raingear to resist spray landing on their clothes and skin—though this did not protect necessarily their hands and faces.
Due to the nature of tobacco cultivation and harvesting occurring within the summer months, the combination of high levels of heat and long hours of labor puts great amount of stresses on children that often culminate with heat stroke and dehydration. Compliance with break time standards is widely varied with some farms providing a reasonable break period for workers and others mandating that workers continue almost without pause.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Compounding the problem is that current U.S. child labor laws permit children to labor in tobacco farms with liberal policies that permit very young children to work simply with parental permission to do so. It is often the case where this parental permission is granted by parents who also work on these farms where low wages create a need and temptation for parents allowing their children to work to supplement household incomes. Small farms are given the most leeway to employ young children. Agriculture is permitted by federal law to employ children as young as twelve with parental permission but with these small farms children under twelve may labor with parental consent. In all other industries the employment of children under fourteen is prohibited, and children fourteen to fifteen may only be employed in certain jobs with a limited number of hours each day.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for work in tobacco farms. Some employers caused children to be paid on a piece basis which can in some respects be exploited to motivate children to perform more productively than what is reasonable for their abilities. HRW reported children interviewed expressed that they are often confused as to the actual wage they are paid and some stating they were actually paid less than the minimum permitted. Contractors were said to stoop to the level of charging children for necessities such as water and for inaccurate recording of work performed.
Internationally, treaties ratified by the United States might actually be in conflict with current federal child labor laws and their applicability to the tobacco farming industry. HRW addresses this as follows:
International Standards on Child Labor
via Human Rights Watch
In recognition of the potential benefits of some forms of work, international law does not prohibit children from working. The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, which the US has ratified, obligates
countries to prohibit certain types of work for children under age 18 as a matter of urgency, including work that is likely to jeopardize children’s physical or mental health, safety or morals (also known as hazardous labor). The ILO leaves it up to governments to determine which occupations are hazardous to children’s health. Several countries, including major tobacco producing countries such as Brazil and India, prohibit children under 18 from performing work in tobacco farming. Based on our field research, interviews with health professionals, and analysis of the public health literature, Human Rights Watch has concluded that no child under age 18 should be permitted to perform any tasks in which they will come into direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, due to the health risks posed by nicotine, the pesticides applied to the crop, and the particular health risks to children whose bodies and brains are still developing.
The ILO Worst Forms of Child Labor
Recommendation states that certain types of work in an unhealthy environment may be appropriate for children ages 16 and older “on the condition that the health, safety and morals of the children concerned are fully protected, and that the children have received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity.” Because exposure to tobacco in any form is unsafe, Human Rights Watch has determined, based on our field investigations and other research, that as a practical matter there is no way for children under 18 to work safely on US tobacco farms when they have direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, even if wearing protective equipment. Though protective equipment may help mitigate exposure to nicotine and pesticide residues, rain suits and watertight gloves would not completely eliminate absorption of toxins through the skin and would greatly increase children’s risk of suffering health related illnesses. Such problems documented by Human Rights Watch in the US seem likely to extend to tobacco farms outside the United States
HRW called upon the tobacco product manufactures and tobacco leaf companies to provide statements of their policy to address the issue of child labor. The NGO queried “companies that source tobacco from the states we visited. Eight of those companies manufacture tobacco products (Altria Group, British American Tobacco, China National Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group, Japan Tobacco Group, Lorillard, Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American), and two are leaf merchant companies (Alliance One International and Universal Corporation).”
In the months prior to the release of this report, HRW sent letters to each company and requested a response along with a request to meeting with company officials to discuss the issue. The HRW report stated the following regarding these exchanges:
Nine companies responded to Human Rights Watch and stated that they took steps to prohibit child labor in their supply chains. Only China National Tobacco did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s letter or repeated attempts to secure a meeting with company executives.
All of the tobacco manufacturing companies and leaf supply merchants that replied to Human Rights Watch expressed concerns about child labor in their supply chain. Only a few of the companies have explicit child labor policies in place. The approaches to child labor in the supply chain varied from company to company, as detailed below. Human Rights Watch correspondence with these companies is included in an appendix to this report, available on the Human Rights Watch website.
Of the companies approached by Human Rights Watch, Philip Morris International (PMI) has developed the most detailed and protective set of policies and procedures, including training and policy guidance on child labor and other labor issues which it is implementing in its global supply chain. PMI has also developed specific lists of hazardous tasks that children under 18 are prohibited from doing on tobacco farms, which include most tasks in which children come into prolonged contact with mature tobacco leaves, among other hazardous work.
Several companies stated that in their US operations they required tobacco growers with whom they contract to comply with US law, including laws on child labor, which, as noted above, do not afford sufficient protections for children. These companies stated that their policies for tobacco purchasing in countries outside of the US were consistent with international law, including with regard to a minimum age of 15 for entry into work under the ILO Minimum Age Convention, with the exception of certain light work, and a prohibition on hazardous work for children under 18, unless national laws afford greater protections. However, most companies did not specify the tasks that they consider to constitute hazardous work. Under these standards, children working in tobacco farming can remain vulnerable to serious health hazards and risks associated with contact with tobacco plants and tobacco leaves. A number of companies stated that they had undertaken internal and third party monitoring of their supply chains to examine labor conditions, including the use of child labor, as defined within the scope of their existing policies.
100 years later are we still doing enough?
To commemorate World Day Against Child Labor it is time to perhaps seek a reassessment of the need to employ children in an occupation that studies have shown is hazardous to their health, especially during their development. We as a society have said no to the notion of children consuming nicotine as end users but we have been mostly blind to the poisonous effect of the substance on children participating in its cultivation. Yet with inconsistent oversight by tobacco companies of their farm suppliers, it is likely that opposition from the tobacco states will result in protective child labor laws. The indifference to the subject by Congress is often due to lack of demands from their constituents and heavy lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry. It is not likely these children will see improvement in their young lives as long as they are employed in an industry that in many ways is shown to be detrimental to their wellbeing.
Since approximately ninety percent of the tobacco produced in the United States comes from these four tobacco states, it is probable that they industry still will survive the additional cost of a tobacco leaf that is harvested by an adult or machine instead of a child but it is unlikely tobacco agribusinesses will want you to believe such a reality.
A true measure of a society is how well it treats its most vulnerable.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
229 thoughts on “The Tobacco Industry And Child Labor”
Ken,
Thank you for the thoughtful response, twice. I did not think you were shouting, even with all the bold-face. 🙂
“I’m glad that you were required to broach this subject publicly, and I’m more than happy to respond to it publicly.”
The reason I mentioned wishing I could have brought it up privately is because I was taught that if you had a personal disagreement with someone, something that was critical of their behavior or that could be embarrassing or make someone defensive, that you should discuss it privately. I am glad you were comfortable discussing it openly.
“simply not engaging me in good faith” That does seem to be the case.
“I gave up on treating him as a good-faith interlocutor, or even as someone worthy of being taken seriously.”
I understand where you’re coming from. That is frustrating. That said, continuing to refuse to allow a division to become apparent or hardened by being extremely polite and logical might make it more likely that a productive conversation can occur at some point. Perhaps I am irrationally optimistic. 🙂
“It’s one thing to criticize someone’s behavior, e.g., their having written particular comments, but it’s quite another to denigrate them as persons by calling them personally degrading names”
Well said.
This perspective is what initiated my comments. I was concerned that you were veering away from your history of civility (not calling people degrading names, etc.) because of a frustrating conversation. Your comment just above sets a good tone for the blog–one that I want to continue to flourish.
Thank you again for responding to my concerns so thoughtfully. I appreciate your candor and look forward to future conversations.
Loading...
It was my pleasure.
Loading...
And it is my pleasure to stand behind my statements. 😉
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte,
Good grief. Your comment may have been succinct, but it did not help the conversation. Seems to me you are trying to start some mud-slinging just for the fun of it. Bad form.
Loading...
Prairie Rose – I think we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂 I only do things for the fun of it with people I like.
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 18, 2015 at 5:27 pm
“Ken Rogers – that I do not agree with you does not mean I do not comprehend, just that I comprehend better. :)”
Please. My metaphysician has me on a low irony diet, and you just exposed me to over a year’s worth.
On the bright side, though, you were able to formulate a whole, coherent sentence that, although bereft of truth value, nonetheless represents a definite improvement over “Ken Rogers–unless you are a doctor, pleas [sic] to [sic] not diagnosis.”[sic]
Loading...
Ken Rogers – I thought you were fluent in Chinglish, however it is clear you are not.
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 18, 2015 at 2:57 pm
“Ken Rogers – as is your usual tactic, you take up a lot of space to make absolutely no point.”
Why do you persist in flaunting your incomprehension? Can’t you help it?
Loading...
Ken Rogers – that I do not agree with you does not mean I do not comprehend, just that I comprehend better. 🙂
Loading...
I. Annie
1, June 18, 2015 at 2:37 pm
“May I add that when PCS throws out intensley (sic) personal comments every single day, one just cannot ignore such attacks indefinitely and must eventually defend oneself. It does not improve the situation, but it is cathartic. We are only human.”
For the record, however, you and I have very different attitudes when it comes to responding negatively to the comments of others.
It’s one thing to criticize someone’s behavior, e.g., their having written particular comments, but it’s quite another to denigrate them as persons by calling them personally degrading names, and the last time I pointed this out when you were doing just that, you told me to “butt out.”
By the way, in case you’re wondering, inasmuch as I’m quite probably as old, if not older than Schulte, my addressing him as “Old Timer” hardly qualifies as much of an “insult,” which descriptor is pretty innocuous, anyway, even if used by a comparative youngster. 🙂
Loading...
(Corrected Text with Excess Bolding Removed)
@ Prairie Rose
1, June 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
“Ken,
“I only bring this up because I was so impressed by your focus on the issues and arguments and your courteousness and civility at other times.”
“If there was a way I could have broached this subject privately, I would have.”
I’m glad that you were required to broach this subject publicly, and I’m more than happy to respond to it publicly.
“The concerning statements:
“Post at 1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 pm is full of sarcasm which will do nothing to change Paul Schulte’s mind. It will very likely only entrench his statements.
“’Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining.’
I wrote that after he had posted the following on 1, June 15, 2015 at 7:47 pm” “Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] [emphasis added]
When I then asked him what on earth he was talking about, he replied:
“Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.” I asked him what, then, was his “point,” so I could respond to it, to which he replied, “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.”
Having thereby established that he was either being irrational or simply not engaging me in good faith, I wrote what I did regarding the possible reasons for that appearance of bad faith in an attempt to get him to respond cogently. Unfortunately, he wasn’t up to the task. His “response” was just the latest instance in a long history of his gas-bagging his would-be interlocutors, and I thought it was time to call him out on it. If anything, I probably should have done it sooner.
“ ‘Herr Schulte’ (not using the name he chose, implying Nazism).”
The reason I began to refer to him as “Herr Schulte” was his having written, “There are things I expect my government to do without telling me about it.” I pointed out to him what a “Good-German” posture that was, as many authoritarian followers in Germany, too, famously didn’t want to know everything the Third Reich was doing, including building and running the concentration camps.
Moreover, even a casual perusal of his comments on a multitude of threads would provide you with a treasure trove of strikingly authoritarian comments.
“ ‘If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully’ (unnecessarily insulting his intelligence)
I wrote that because Schulte is easily the most intellectually lazy person I’ve ever encountered in my many decades on the planet. Just look at “Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] and “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.” He consistently offers up what are nothing but semi-coherent thought-gurgles bearing only fugitive relation to reality. Or look at his other asinine comments with which he attempted to discredit the survey Darren Smith called attention to.
Inasmuch as he initiated our last “exchange,” I extended him the courtesy of responding, but when it became obvious that he wasn’t interested in even saying what his purported “point” was, I gave up on treating him as a good-faith interlocutor, or even as someone worthy of being taken seriously.
If he should ever decide to bestir himself sufficiently to shake off his mental torpor, intellectual dishonesty, and authoritarian posturing, I’ll be happy to re-evaluate his having disqualified himself as someone I’m interested in having any discussion with.
PR: “Calling Karen’s defense of Paul Schulte disingenuous is essentially calling her a liar. I think she was mistaken.”
What Karen wrote that I initially found disingenuous was this:
1, June 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm
“So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.”
“Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it.”
So, she “assumed” that it was a retrospective study (which Darren’s post clearly stated that it was), but if it hadn’t been, and the kids had been vomiting all over the study’s authors, why, then, “Schulty is entirely correct.” Not “would have been”, but “is entirely correct.” Well, yes, and if pigs only had wings, it would be “entirely correct” to think that perhaps they could fly.
After seeing a couple of her later posts, however, I revised my assessment of her comment about Schulte’s question as follows:
“Karen, after reading your last two posts, I’m inclined to think that your difficulty has less to do with your being consciously disingenuous than with your having trouble logically organizing in your mind the information that you attempt to assimilate, or at least with your having trouble expressing yourself logically, both of which you can fairly easily correct by studying any good logic/critical thinking text.
“You don’t seem to know, for example, the difference between an argument against the person (ad hominem) and an argument against a person’s assertions, both with respect to the assertions’ empirical truth value and with respect to their logical coherence.
“What does being ‘divisive’ or not have to do with the logic or truth value of any of your assertions, and what is the logical relevance, to the value of its drug policies, of your having lived in Portugal?
KS: ” ‘If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.’
“What does our being ‘strangers’ have to do with the logicality and truth value of our respective assertions and arguments, pro and contra anything?
“With this ‘strangers’ remark, your not wanting to be ‘divisive,’ and your specious defense of ‘Schulty’s’ disingenuous questions in his attempt to discredit the HRW survey, you sound like you’re much more interested in making and keeping friends than you are in seeking the truth.”
PR: “Regarding the article, I, too, am concerned about kids suffering from transdermal nicotine exposure. It’s an issue that I was unaware of. I am glad Darren brought it up; I plan on investigating it further.”
Good for you.
I don’t know whether I’ve mitigated at all your expressed concern or only reinforced it, but either way, I may have more to say later regarding my evolving attitude toward some of the more callous, obtuse, ignorant, and/or fatuous comments that continuously clutter JT’s comments section.
In the meantime, thanks for inviting my comments on those of PCS and KS in this particular thread.
Loading...
May I add that when PCS throws out intensley personal comments every single day, one just cannot ignore such attacks indefinitely and must eventually defend oneself. It does not improve the situation, but it is cathartic. We are only human.
Loading...
@Prairie Rose
1, June 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
“Ken,
“I only bring this up because I was so impressed by your focus on the issues and arguments and your courteousness and civility at other times.”
“If there was a way I could have broached this subject privately, I would have.”
I’m glad that you were required to broach this subject publicly, and I’m more than happy to respond to it publicly.
“The concerning statements:
Post at 1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 pm is full of sarcasm which will do nothing to change Paul Schulte’s mind. It will very likely only entrench his statements.
“’Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining.’
I wrote that after he had posted the following on 1, June 15, 2015 at 7:47 pm”
“Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] [emphasis added]
When I then asked him what on earth he was talking about, he replied:
“Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.”
I asked him what, then, was his “point,” so I could respond to it, to which he replied, “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.”
Having thereby established that he was either being irrational or simply not engaging me in good faith, I wrote what I did regarding the possible reasons for that appearance of bad faith in an attempt to get him to respond cogently. Unfortunately, he wasn’t up to the task. His “response” was just the latest instance in a long history of his gas-bagging his would-be interlocutors, and I thought it was time to call him out on it. If anything, I probably should have done it sooner.
“ ‘Herr Schulte’ (not using the name he chose, implying Nazism).”
The reason I began to refer to him as “Herr Schulte” was his having written, “There are things I expect my government to do without telling me about it.” I pointed out to him what a “Good-German” posture that was, as many authoritarian followers in Germany, too, famously didn’t want to know everything the Third Reich was doing, including building and running the concentration camps.
Even a casual perusal of his comments on a multitude of threads would provide you with a treasure trove of authoritarian comments.
“ ‘If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully’ (unnecessarily insulting his intelligence)
I wrote that because Schulte is easily the most intellectually lazy person I’ve ever encountered in my many decades on the planet. Just look at “Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] and “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.” He consistently offers up what are nothing but semi-coherent thought-gurgles bearing only fugitive relation to reality. Or only look at his other asinine comments with which he attempted to discredit the survey Darren Smith called attention to.
Inasmuch as he initiated our last “exchange,” I extended him the courtesy of responding, but when it became obvious that he wasn’t interested in even saying what his purported “point” was, I gave up on treating him as a good-faith interlocutor, or even as someone worthy of being taken seriously.
If he should ever decide to bestir himself sufficiently to shake off his mental torpor, intellectual dishonesty, and authoritarian posturing, I’ll be happy to re-evaluate his having disqualified himself as someone I’m interested in having any discussion with.
PR: “Calling Karen’s defense of Paul Schulte disingenuous is essentially calling her a liar. I think she was mistaken.”
What Karen wrote that I initially found disingenuous was this:
1, June 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm
“So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.”
“Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it.”
So, she “assumed” that it was a retrospective study (which Darren’s post clearly stated that it was), but if it hadn’t been, and the kids had been vomiting all over the study’s authors, why, then, “Schulty is entirely correct.” Not “would have been”, but “is entirely correct.” Well, yes, and if pigs only had wings, it would be “entirely correct” to think that perhaps they could fly.
After seeing a couple of her later posts, however, I revised my assessment of her comment about Schulte’s question as follows:
“Karen, after reading your last two posts, I’m inclined to think that your difficulty has less to do with your being consciously disingenuous than with your having trouble logically organizing in your mind the information that you attempt to assimilate, or at least with your having trouble expressing yourself logically, both of which you can fairly easily correct by studying any good logic/critical thinking text.
“You don’t seem to know, for example, the difference between an argument against the person (ad hominem) and an argument against a person’s assertions, both with respect to the assertions’ empirical truth value and with respect to their logical coherence.
“What does being ‘divisive’ or not have to do with the logic or truth value of any of your assertions, and what is the logical relevance, to the value of its drug policies, of your having lived in Portugal?
KS: ” ‘If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.’
“What does our being ‘strangers’ have to do with the logicality and truth value of our respective assertions and arguments, pro and contra anything?
“With this ‘strangers’ remark, your not wanting to be ‘divisive,’ and your specious defense of ‘Schulty’s’ disingenuous questions in his attempt to discredit the HRW survey, you sound like you’re much more interested in making and keeping friends than you are in seeking the truth.”
PR: “Regarding the article, I, too, am concerned about kids suffering from transdermal nicotine exposure. It’s an issue that I was unaware of. I am glad Darren brought it up; I plan on investigating it further.”
Good for you.
I don’t know whether I’ve mitigated at all your expressed concern or only reinforced it, but either way, I may have more to say later regarding my evolving attitude toward some of the more callous, obtuse, ignorant, and/or fatuous comments that continuously clutter JT’s comments section.
In the meantime, thanks for inviting my comments on those of PCS and KS in this particular thread.
Loading...
Ken Rogers – as is your usual tactic, you take up a lot of space to make absolutely no point.
Loading...
Ken,
I only bring this up because I was so impressed by your focus on the issues and arguments and your courteousness and civility at other times.
The concerning statements:
Post at 1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 pm is full of sarcasm which will do nothing to change Paul Schulte’s mind. It will very likely only entrench his statements.
“Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining.”
“Herr Schulte” (not using the name he chose, implying Nazism)
“If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully” (unnecessarily insulting his intelligence)
Calling Karen’s defense of Paul Schulte disingenuous is essentially calling her a liar. I think she was mistaken,
If there was a way I could have broached this subject privately, I would have.
Regarding the article, I, too, am concerned about kids suffering from transdermal nicotine exposure. It’s an issue that I was unaware of. I am glad Darren brought it up; I plan on investigating it further.
Loading...
@ Prairie Rose
1, June 16, 2015 at 11:15 pm
“Ken,
“I generally enjoy your responses on this blog. They are typically quite interesting. Yet, recently, the tone of some of your posts has changed.
“When you first started responding here you refrained from harsh words and name-calling, you stuck to the debate points, and took the high road. I really appreciated that your commentary was so patient and polite.”
PR,
To which of my posts are you referring?
I can’t respond meaningfully to such a sweeping generalization as “a change in tone in some posts.”
I look forward to seeing specific examples of what you’re referring to.
Loading...
Ken,
I generally enjoy your responses on this blog. They are typically quite interesting. Yet, recently, the tone of some of your posts has changed.
When you first started responding here you refrained from harsh words and name-calling, you stuck to the debate points, and took the high road. I really appreciated that your commentary was so patient and polite. You even tried to gently chide those who could have been more patient and polite in their responses.
I hope you hear what I am trying to say. It is meant in the best spirit.
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 16, 2015 at 4:44 pm
“Ken Rogers – 1) you are an ageist 2) I am not going to remake a point that you missed.”
I’m sorry you can’t remember what your imagined “point” was, but it no doubt wouldn’t have been all that memorable for anyone else, either. 🙂
Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining. 🙂
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 16, 2015 at 2:30 pm
“Ken Rogers – ageist!!!!”
Is that all you can muster in response to my question? A misapplication of “ageist” and four exclamation points? 🙂
Does this mean that you never had a point and were just emoting, or that you can’t remember what it was?
Come on, now, be honest.
If you can’t remember, just say so.
If you had a point and can remember what it was, simply spell it out.
If you don’t, everyone reading this will know that you were just blowing smoke or passing gas.
Easy peasy.
Loading...
Ken Rogers – 1) you are an ageist 2) I am not going to remake a point that you missed.
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 16, 2015 at 1:45 pm
“Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.”
If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully, what point would that be?
Come on, now, Old Timer, what is your point? Do you remember? Are you sure you even had one?
Loading...
Ken Rogers – ageist!!!!
Loading...
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 15, 2015 at 7:47 pm
“Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic]
What, if anything, in reality and on planet earth are you talking about?
Loading...
Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.
Loading...
@ Karen S
1, June 16, 2015 at 12:23 am
Ken:
This is what you’ve said to me recently:
“This is one of the most disingenuous attempts at a defense of callous indifference that I’ve ever witnessed.”
“With this utterly specious and dishonest attempt at defending Schulte’s callous comments, you’ve not only, of course, failed miserably to justify his feeble-minded attempt to discredit the study and dismiss the effects of tobacco farming on children, but you’ve denigrated your own credibility in the process.”
“Either you don’t read very well, or you’re still having trouble being honest, as nowhere in my last post did I call you any “names.” I exclusively addressed your behavior.”
“I’ve supported protecting children, answered a question about study design, and you’ve questioned my honesty and intellect. Honesty and intellect are not “behaviors;” they refer to character and capacity. I’ve hardly said anything divisive, and even if I had, this is a truly crude debate where I’m discussion problems, solutions, and science, and you’re reduced ad hominem attacks. This has little value unless you’re emulating reality TV chair tossing, which I do not enjoy.”
Karen, after reading your last two posts, I’m inclined to think that your difficulty has less to do with your being consciously disingenuous than with your having trouble logically organizing in your mind the information that you attempt to assimilate, or at least with your having trouble expressing yourself logically, both of which you can fairly easily correct by studying any good logic/critical thinking text.
You don’t seem to know, for example, the difference between an argument against the person (ad hominem) and an argument against a person’s assertions, both with respect to the assertions’ empirical truth value and with respect to their logical coherence.
What does being “divisive” or not have to do with the logic or truth value of any of your assertions, and what is the logical relevance, to the value of its drug policies, of your having lived in Portugal?
“If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.”
What does our being “strangers” have to do with the logicality and truth value of our respective assertions and arguments, pro and contra anything?
With this “strangers” remark, your not wanting to be “divisive,” and your specious defense of “Schulty’s” disingenuous questions in his attempt to discredit the HRW survey, you sound like you’re much more interested in making and keeping friends than you are in seeking the truth.
I assure you that I’ve been perfectly calm in my every observation and expression of it in this thread, and as to our respective claims on rationality, I think the record clearly speaks for itself.
Loading...
BarkinDog – here is the interesting thing. I recall in college a professor explained that, technically, nicotine should be banned by the FDA. It is a drug with no discernible health benefit and serious adverse affects and health risks, unlike cannabis, which he felt should be legalized. If any other drug had little to no health benefit and caused cancer, emphysema, COPD, rapid aging, heart disease, etc, it would obviously be taken off the market.
The problem is that there are centuries of traditions of smoking, with American Indians having an even longer history with tobacco. Nicotine is not taken as a medication in most cases (unless it’s the Nicotine patch or similar); it’s a habit forming behavior engaged in for pleasure, I suppose.
I wonder why anyone starts smoking today. In any case, I support anti-smoking education, programs to help people quit smoking, and laws against 2nd hand smoke. 2nd hand smokes makes someone else’s choices my problem. As an asthmatic, I sometimes have a hard time visiting Vegas where the casinos have a haze.
But I think banning smoking would be similar to Prohibition, which was a failure because of the long tradition of use. Although, to be honest, there are some health benefits to occasional consumption of wine, and zero health benefits to smoking. So, this could be debated.
I think people are responsible for their own mistakes, and for what they willingly put in their body.
Here are some very interesting, surprising facts about the Netherlands:
They had to crack down on drug crimes to combat drug tourism, mainly from German addicts. In addition, it is a very common transit point for cocaine and ecstasy for the rest of Europe. But they changed their criminal code, as well as what they defined as drug crimes, and treat addiction as a (self inflicted) health problem. So it’s kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand, youth drunkenness is higher than the US but the use of cocaine and marijuana is lower (perhaps because of the de-mystificiation of no-longer-forbidden fruit), but on the other, it is a major transit point of hard drugs to the rest of Europe. And they had to enact several law changes to try to fight that.
So I think there is a lot to debate about the issue.
Loading...
Oh, and I actually lived in Portugal for 2 years, and my German grandma brewed beer in her bathtub during Prohibition, so don’t assume.
Loading...
Oh for heaven’s sake, auto correct! “Where I discuss problems”
Loading...
Ken:
This is what you’ve said to me recently:
“This is one of the most disingenuous attempts at a defense of callous indifference that I’ve ever witnessed.”
“With this utterly specious and dishonest attempt at defending Schulte’s callous comments, you’ve not only, of course, failed miserably to justify his feeble-minded attempt to discredit the study and dismiss the effects of tobacco farming on children, but you’ve denigrated your own credibility in the process.”
“Either you don’t read very well, or you’re still having trouble being honest, as nowhere in my last post did I call you any “names.” I exclusively addressed your behavior.”
I’ve supported protecting children, answered a question about study design, and you’ve questioned my honesty and intellect. Honesty and intellect are not “behaviors;” they refer to character and capacity. I’ve hardly said anything divisive, and even if I had, this is a truly crude debate where I’m discussion problems, solutions, and science, and you’re reduced ad hominem attacks. This has little value unless you’re emulating reality TV chair tossing, which I do not enjoy.
If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.
Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Ken,
Thank you for the thoughtful response, twice. I did not think you were shouting, even with all the bold-face. 🙂
“I’m glad that you were required to broach this subject publicly, and I’m more than happy to respond to it publicly.”
The reason I mentioned wishing I could have brought it up privately is because I was taught that if you had a personal disagreement with someone, something that was critical of their behavior or that could be embarrassing or make someone defensive, that you should discuss it privately. I am glad you were comfortable discussing it openly.
“simply not engaging me in good faith” That does seem to be the case.
“I gave up on treating him as a good-faith interlocutor, or even as someone worthy of being taken seriously.”
I understand where you’re coming from. That is frustrating. That said, continuing to refuse to allow a division to become apparent or hardened by being extremely polite and logical might make it more likely that a productive conversation can occur at some point. Perhaps I am irrationally optimistic. 🙂
“It’s one thing to criticize someone’s behavior, e.g., their having written particular comments, but it’s quite another to denigrate them as persons by calling them personally degrading names”
Well said.
This perspective is what initiated my comments. I was concerned that you were veering away from your history of civility (not calling people degrading names, etc.) because of a frustrating conversation. Your comment just above sets a good tone for the blog–one that I want to continue to flourish.
Thank you again for responding to my concerns so thoughtfully. I appreciate your candor and look forward to future conversations.
It was my pleasure.
And it is my pleasure to stand behind my statements. 😉
Paul C. Schulte,
Good grief. Your comment may have been succinct, but it did not help the conversation. Seems to me you are trying to start some mud-slinging just for the fun of it. Bad form.
Prairie Rose – I think we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂 I only do things for the fun of it with people I like.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 18, 2015 at 5:27 pm
“Ken Rogers – that I do not agree with you does not mean I do not comprehend, just that I comprehend better. :)”
Please. My metaphysician has me on a low irony diet, and you just exposed me to over a year’s worth.
On the bright side, though, you were able to formulate a whole, coherent sentence that, although bereft of truth value, nonetheless represents a definite improvement over “Ken Rogers–unless you are a doctor, pleas [sic] to [sic] not diagnosis.”[sic]
Ken Rogers – I thought you were fluent in Chinglish, however it is clear you are not.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 18, 2015 at 2:57 pm
“Ken Rogers – as is your usual tactic, you take up a lot of space to make absolutely no point.”
Why do you persist in flaunting your incomprehension? Can’t you help it?
Ken Rogers – that I do not agree with you does not mean I do not comprehend, just that I comprehend better. 🙂
I. Annie
1, June 18, 2015 at 2:37 pm
“May I add that when PCS throws out intensley (sic) personal comments every single day, one just cannot ignore such attacks indefinitely and must eventually defend oneself. It does not improve the situation, but it is cathartic. We are only human.”
For the record, however, you and I have very different attitudes when it comes to responding negatively to the comments of others.
It’s one thing to criticize someone’s behavior, e.g., their having written particular comments, but it’s quite another to denigrate them as persons by calling them personally degrading names, and the last time I pointed this out when you were doing just that, you told me to “butt out.”
By the way, in case you’re wondering, inasmuch as I’m quite probably as old, if not older than Schulte, my addressing him as “Old Timer” hardly qualifies as much of an “insult,” which descriptor is pretty innocuous, anyway, even if used by a comparative youngster. 🙂
(Corrected Text with Excess Bolding Removed)
@ Prairie Rose
1, June 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
“Ken,
“I only bring this up because I was so impressed by your focus on the issues and arguments and your courteousness and civility at other times.”
“If there was a way I could have broached this subject privately, I would have.”
I’m glad that you were required to broach this subject publicly, and I’m more than happy to respond to it publicly.
“The concerning statements:
“Post at 1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 pm is full of sarcasm which will do nothing to change Paul Schulte’s mind. It will very likely only entrench his statements.
“’Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining.’
I wrote that after he had posted the following on 1, June 15, 2015 at 7:47 pm”
“Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] [emphasis added]
When I then asked him what on earth he was talking about, he replied:
“Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.” I asked him what, then, was his “point,” so I could respond to it, to which he replied, “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.”
Having thereby established that he was either being irrational or simply not engaging me in good faith, I wrote what I did regarding the possible reasons for that appearance of bad faith in an attempt to get him to respond cogently. Unfortunately, he wasn’t up to the task. His “response” was just the latest instance in a long history of his gas-bagging his would-be interlocutors, and I thought it was time to call him out on it. If anything, I probably should have done it sooner.
“ ‘Herr Schulte’ (not using the name he chose, implying Nazism).”
The reason I began to refer to him as “Herr Schulte” was his having written, “There are things I expect my government to do without telling me about it.” I pointed out to him what a “Good-German” posture that was, as many authoritarian followers in Germany, too, famously didn’t want to know everything the Third Reich was doing, including building and running the concentration camps.
Moreover, even a casual perusal of his comments on a multitude of threads would provide you with a treasure trove of strikingly authoritarian comments.
“ ‘If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully’ (unnecessarily insulting his intelligence)
I wrote that because Schulte is easily the most intellectually lazy person I’ve ever encountered in my many decades on the planet. Just look at “Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] and “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.” He consistently offers up what are nothing but semi-coherent thought-gurgles bearing only fugitive relation to reality. Or look at his other asinine comments with which he attempted to discredit the survey Darren Smith called attention to.
Inasmuch as he initiated our last “exchange,” I extended him the courtesy of responding, but when it became obvious that he wasn’t interested in even saying what his purported “point” was, I gave up on treating him as a good-faith interlocutor, or even as someone worthy of being taken seriously.
If he should ever decide to bestir himself sufficiently to shake off his mental torpor, intellectual dishonesty, and authoritarian posturing, I’ll be happy to re-evaluate his having disqualified himself as someone I’m interested in having any discussion with.
PR: “Calling Karen’s defense of Paul Schulte disingenuous is essentially calling her a liar. I think she was mistaken.”
What Karen wrote that I initially found disingenuous was this:
1, June 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm
“So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.”
“Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it.”
So, she “assumed” that it was a retrospective study (which Darren’s post clearly stated that it was), but if it hadn’t been, and the kids had been vomiting all over the study’s authors, why, then, “Schulty is entirely correct.” Not “would have been”, but “is entirely correct.” Well, yes, and if pigs only had wings, it would be “entirely correct” to think that perhaps they could fly.
After seeing a couple of her later posts, however, I revised my assessment of her comment about Schulte’s question as follows:
“Karen, after reading your last two posts, I’m inclined to think that your difficulty has less to do with your being consciously disingenuous than with your having trouble logically organizing in your mind the information that you attempt to assimilate, or at least with your having trouble expressing yourself logically, both of which you can fairly easily correct by studying any good logic/critical thinking text.
“You don’t seem to know, for example, the difference between an argument against the person (ad hominem) and an argument against a person’s assertions, both with respect to the assertions’ empirical truth value and with respect to their logical coherence.
“What does being ‘divisive’ or not have to do with the logic or truth value of any of your assertions, and what is the logical relevance, to the value of its drug policies, of your having lived in Portugal?
KS: ” ‘If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.’
“What does our being ‘strangers’ have to do with the logicality and truth value of our respective assertions and arguments, pro and contra anything?
“With this ‘strangers’ remark, your not wanting to be ‘divisive,’ and your specious defense of ‘Schulty’s’ disingenuous questions in his attempt to discredit the HRW survey, you sound like you’re much more interested in making and keeping friends than you are in seeking the truth.”
PR: “Regarding the article, I, too, am concerned about kids suffering from transdermal nicotine exposure. It’s an issue that I was unaware of. I am glad Darren brought it up; I plan on investigating it further.”
Good for you.
I don’t know whether I’ve mitigated at all your expressed concern or only reinforced it, but either way, I may have more to say later regarding my evolving attitude toward some of the more callous, obtuse, ignorant, and/or fatuous comments that continuously clutter JT’s comments section.
In the meantime, thanks for inviting my comments on those of PCS and KS in this particular thread.
May I add that when PCS throws out intensley personal comments every single day, one just cannot ignore such attacks indefinitely and must eventually defend oneself. It does not improve the situation, but it is cathartic. We are only human.
@Prairie Rose
1, June 17, 2015 at 2:32 pm
“Ken,
“I only bring this up because I was so impressed by your focus on the issues and arguments and your courteousness and civility at other times.”
“If there was a way I could have broached this subject privately, I would have.”
I’m glad that you were required to broach this subject publicly, and I’m more than happy to respond to it publicly.
“The concerning statements:
Post at 1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 pm is full of sarcasm which will do nothing to change Paul Schulte’s mind. It will very likely only entrench his statements.
“’Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining.’
I wrote that after he had posted the following on 1, June 15, 2015 at 7:47 pm”
“Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] [emphasis added]
When I then asked him what on earth he was talking about, he replied:
“Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.”
I asked him what, then, was his “point,” so I could respond to it, to which he replied, “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.”
Having thereby established that he was either being irrational or simply not engaging me in good faith, I wrote what I did regarding the possible reasons for that appearance of bad faith in an attempt to get him to respond cogently. Unfortunately, he wasn’t up to the task. His “response” was just the latest instance in a long history of his gas-bagging his would-be interlocutors, and I thought it was time to call him out on it. If anything, I probably should have done it sooner.
“ ‘Herr Schulte’ (not using the name he chose, implying Nazism).”
The reason I began to refer to him as “Herr Schulte” was his having written, “There are things I expect my government to do without telling me about it.” I pointed out to him what a “Good-German” posture that was, as many authoritarian followers in Germany, too, famously didn’t want to know everything the Third Reich was doing, including building and running the concentration camps.
Even a casual perusal of his comments on a multitude of threads would provide you with a treasure trove of authoritarian comments.
“ ‘If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully’ (unnecessarily insulting his intelligence)
I wrote that because Schulte is easily the most intellectually lazy person I’ve ever encountered in my many decades on the planet. Just look at “Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic] and “I am not going to remake a point that you missed.” He consistently offers up what are nothing but semi-coherent thought-gurgles bearing only fugitive relation to reality. Or only look at his other asinine comments with which he attempted to discredit the survey Darren Smith called attention to.
Inasmuch as he initiated our last “exchange,” I extended him the courtesy of responding, but when it became obvious that he wasn’t interested in even saying what his purported “point” was, I gave up on treating him as a good-faith interlocutor, or even as someone worthy of being taken seriously.
If he should ever decide to bestir himself sufficiently to shake off his mental torpor, intellectual dishonesty, and authoritarian posturing, I’ll be happy to re-evaluate his having disqualified himself as someone I’m interested in having any discussion with.
PR: “Calling Karen’s defense of Paul Schulte disingenuous is essentially calling her a liar. I think she was mistaken.”
What Karen wrote that I initially found disingenuous was this:
1, June 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm
“So I assume that the researchers gave the kids a survey questionnaire asking if they had ever experienced these symptoms and when in relation to the harvest, past tense.”
“Otherwise, Schulty is entirely correct – the researchers would have been liable with a callous disregard if they had recognized current symptoms of acute nicotine poisoning, a dangerous condition, and just did nothing about it.”
So, she “assumed” that it was a retrospective study (which Darren’s post clearly stated that it was), but if it hadn’t been, and the kids had been vomiting all over the study’s authors, why, then, “Schulty is entirely correct.” Not “would have been”, but “is entirely correct.” Well, yes, and if pigs only had wings, it would be “entirely correct” to think that perhaps they could fly.
After seeing a couple of her later posts, however, I revised my assessment of her comment about Schulte’s question as follows:
“Karen, after reading your last two posts, I’m inclined to think that your difficulty has less to do with your being consciously disingenuous than with your having trouble logically organizing in your mind the information that you attempt to assimilate, or at least with your having trouble expressing yourself logically, both of which you can fairly easily correct by studying any good logic/critical thinking text.
“You don’t seem to know, for example, the difference between an argument against the person (ad hominem) and an argument against a person’s assertions, both with respect to the assertions’ empirical truth value and with respect to their logical coherence.
“What does being ‘divisive’ or not have to do with the logic or truth value of any of your assertions, and what is the logical relevance, to the value of its drug policies, of your having lived in Portugal?
KS: ” ‘If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.’
“What does our being ‘strangers’ have to do with the logicality and truth value of our respective assertions and arguments, pro and contra anything?
“With this ‘strangers’ remark, your not wanting to be ‘divisive,’ and your specious defense of ‘Schulty’s’ disingenuous questions in his attempt to discredit the HRW survey, you sound like you’re much more interested in making and keeping friends than you are in seeking the truth.”
PR: “Regarding the article, I, too, am concerned about kids suffering from transdermal nicotine exposure. It’s an issue that I was unaware of. I am glad Darren brought it up; I plan on investigating it further.”
Good for you.
I don’t know whether I’ve mitigated at all your expressed concern or only reinforced it, but either way, I may have more to say later regarding my evolving attitude toward some of the more callous, obtuse, ignorant, and/or fatuous comments that continuously clutter JT’s comments section.
In the meantime, thanks for inviting my comments on those of PCS and KS in this particular thread.
Ken Rogers – as is your usual tactic, you take up a lot of space to make absolutely no point.
Ken,
I only bring this up because I was so impressed by your focus on the issues and arguments and your courteousness and civility at other times.
The concerning statements:
Post at 1, June 13, 2015 at 10:37 pm is full of sarcasm which will do nothing to change Paul Schulte’s mind. It will very likely only entrench his statements.
“Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining.”
“Herr Schulte” (not using the name he chose, implying Nazism)
“If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully” (unnecessarily insulting his intelligence)
Calling Karen’s defense of Paul Schulte disingenuous is essentially calling her a liar. I think she was mistaken,
If there was a way I could have broached this subject privately, I would have.
Regarding the article, I, too, am concerned about kids suffering from transdermal nicotine exposure. It’s an issue that I was unaware of. I am glad Darren brought it up; I plan on investigating it further.
@ Prairie Rose
1, June 16, 2015 at 11:15 pm
“Ken,
“I generally enjoy your responses on this blog. They are typically quite interesting. Yet, recently, the tone of some of your posts has changed.
“When you first started responding here you refrained from harsh words and name-calling, you stuck to the debate points, and took the high road. I really appreciated that your commentary was so patient and polite.”
PR,
To which of my posts are you referring?
I can’t respond meaningfully to such a sweeping generalization as “a change in tone in some posts.”
I look forward to seeing specific examples of what you’re referring to.
Ken,
I generally enjoy your responses on this blog. They are typically quite interesting. Yet, recently, the tone of some of your posts has changed.
When you first started responding here you refrained from harsh words and name-calling, you stuck to the debate points, and took the high road. I really appreciated that your commentary was so patient and polite. You even tried to gently chide those who could have been more patient and polite in their responses.
I hope you hear what I am trying to say. It is meant in the best spirit.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 16, 2015 at 4:44 pm
“Ken Rogers – 1) you are an ageist 2) I am not going to remake a point that you missed.”
I’m sorry you can’t remember what your imagined “point” was, but it no doubt wouldn’t have been all that memorable for anyone else, either. 🙂
Keep passing the cyber-gas, Old Timer, as I’m starting to find it entertaining. 🙂
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 16, 2015 at 2:30 pm
“Ken Rogers – ageist!!!!”
Is that all you can muster in response to my question? A misapplication of “ageist” and four exclamation points? 🙂
Does this mean that you never had a point and were just emoting, or that you can’t remember what it was?
Come on, now, be honest.
If you can’t remember, just say so.
If you had a point and can remember what it was, simply spell it out.
If you don’t, everyone reading this will know that you were just blowing smoke or passing gas.
Easy peasy.
Ken Rogers – 1) you are an ageist 2) I am not going to remake a point that you missed.
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 16, 2015 at 1:45 pm
“Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.”
If you can summon enough sentience to respond meaningfully, what point would that be?
Come on, now, Old Timer, what is your point? Do you remember? Are you sure you even had one?
Ken Rogers – ageist!!!!
Paul C. Schulte
1, June 15, 2015 at 7:47 pm
“Ken Rogers – unless you are a doctor, pleas[e] to [sic] not diagnosis.” [sic]
What, if anything, in reality and on planet earth are you talking about?
Ken Rogers – Earth is capitalized. And the fact that you don’t know what I am talking about proves my point.
@ Karen S
1, June 16, 2015 at 12:23 am
Ken:
This is what you’ve said to me recently:
“This is one of the most disingenuous attempts at a defense of callous indifference that I’ve ever witnessed.”
“With this utterly specious and dishonest attempt at defending Schulte’s callous comments, you’ve not only, of course, failed miserably to justify his feeble-minded attempt to discredit the study and dismiss the effects of tobacco farming on children, but you’ve denigrated your own credibility in the process.”
“Either you don’t read very well, or you’re still having trouble being honest, as nowhere in my last post did I call you any “names.” I exclusively addressed your behavior.”
“I’ve supported protecting children, answered a question about study design, and you’ve questioned my honesty and intellect. Honesty and intellect are not “behaviors;” they refer to character and capacity. I’ve hardly said anything divisive, and even if I had, this is a truly crude debate where I’m discussion problems, solutions, and science, and you’re reduced ad hominem attacks. This has little value unless you’re emulating reality TV chair tossing, which I do not enjoy.”
Karen, after reading your last two posts, I’m inclined to think that your difficulty has less to do with your being consciously disingenuous than with your having trouble logically organizing in your mind the information that you attempt to assimilate, or at least with your having trouble expressing yourself logically, both of which you can fairly easily correct by studying any good logic/critical thinking text.
You don’t seem to know, for example, the difference between an argument against the person (ad hominem) and an argument against a person’s assertions, both with respect to the assertions’ empirical truth value and with respect to their logical coherence.
What does being “divisive” or not have to do with the logic or truth value of any of your assertions, and what is the logical relevance, to the value of its drug policies, of your having lived in Portugal?
“If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.”
What does our being “strangers” have to do with the logicality and truth value of our respective assertions and arguments, pro and contra anything?
With this “strangers” remark, your not wanting to be “divisive,” and your specious defense of “Schulty’s” disingenuous questions in his attempt to discredit the HRW survey, you sound like you’re much more interested in making and keeping friends than you are in seeking the truth.
I assure you that I’ve been perfectly calm in my every observation and expression of it in this thread, and as to our respective claims on rationality, I think the record clearly speaks for itself.
BarkinDog – here is the interesting thing. I recall in college a professor explained that, technically, nicotine should be banned by the FDA. It is a drug with no discernible health benefit and serious adverse affects and health risks, unlike cannabis, which he felt should be legalized. If any other drug had little to no health benefit and caused cancer, emphysema, COPD, rapid aging, heart disease, etc, it would obviously be taken off the market.
The problem is that there are centuries of traditions of smoking, with American Indians having an even longer history with tobacco. Nicotine is not taken as a medication in most cases (unless it’s the Nicotine patch or similar); it’s a habit forming behavior engaged in for pleasure, I suppose.
I wonder why anyone starts smoking today. In any case, I support anti-smoking education, programs to help people quit smoking, and laws against 2nd hand smoke. 2nd hand smokes makes someone else’s choices my problem. As an asthmatic, I sometimes have a hard time visiting Vegas where the casinos have a haze.
But I think banning smoking would be similar to Prohibition, which was a failure because of the long tradition of use. Although, to be honest, there are some health benefits to occasional consumption of wine, and zero health benefits to smoking. So, this could be debated.
I think people are responsible for their own mistakes, and for what they willingly put in their body.
Here are some very interesting, surprising facts about the Netherlands:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Netherlands_v_US#sthash.cnyhvQUZ.dpbs
They had to crack down on drug crimes to combat drug tourism, mainly from German addicts. In addition, it is a very common transit point for cocaine and ecstasy for the rest of Europe. But they changed their criminal code, as well as what they defined as drug crimes, and treat addiction as a (self inflicted) health problem. So it’s kind of a mixed bag. On the one hand, youth drunkenness is higher than the US but the use of cocaine and marijuana is lower (perhaps because of the de-mystificiation of no-longer-forbidden fruit), but on the other, it is a major transit point of hard drugs to the rest of Europe. And they had to enact several law changes to try to fight that.
So I think there is a lot to debate about the issue.
Oh, and I actually lived in Portugal for 2 years, and my German grandma brewed beer in her bathtub during Prohibition, so don’t assume.
Oh for heaven’s sake, auto correct! “Where I discuss problems”
Ken:
This is what you’ve said to me recently:
“This is one of the most disingenuous attempts at a defense of callous indifference that I’ve ever witnessed.”
“With this utterly specious and dishonest attempt at defending Schulte’s callous comments, you’ve not only, of course, failed miserably to justify his feeble-minded attempt to discredit the study and dismiss the effects of tobacco farming on children, but you’ve denigrated your own credibility in the process.”
“Either you don’t read very well, or you’re still having trouble being honest, as nowhere in my last post did I call you any “names.” I exclusively addressed your behavior.”
I’ve supported protecting children, answered a question about study design, and you’ve questioned my honesty and intellect. Honesty and intellect are not “behaviors;” they refer to character and capacity. I’ve hardly said anything divisive, and even if I had, this is a truly crude debate where I’m discussion problems, solutions, and science, and you’re reduced ad hominem attacks. This has little value unless you’re emulating reality TV chair tossing, which I do not enjoy.
If you ever feel ready to have a calm, rational, two-sided exchange of ideas and opinions, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I just do not get anything out of fighting with strangers on the Internet.