Addictive?

Anti-smoking authorities have a thirst for ever more shocking graphics to be printed on tobacco packaging in an effort to put people off. It may work to a point (provided that the government can persuade the public that its pictures are genuine). But surely at some point people become inured to so-called shocking images and the tactic ceases to have any impact.

The official reasoning is that tobacco is addictive. I was in Edinburgh listening to a talk about censorship, in which the question was raised of exposing children to pornographic images. The speaker talked about how pornography stimulates (especially in children) a desire for more of the same. Satiation doesn't come into it, the mind requires more and more of the stuff – especially young minds that are not fully developed.

This does not happen with tobacco. At least, I am not aware of consumption of tobacco increasing to maintain satiation, in the way that can happen with many other things: alcohol, gambling, cocaine. Consumption remains steady, and while deprivation is irritating, it can be lived with.

Quite unlike the thirst to curb tobacco consumption. From Velvet Glove, Iron Fist (the byline): "When politicians start legislating for private behaviour they find it very hard to quit."

FDA goes photoshopping

TBY has covered this story, and supplied the graphics.

But consider the irony. Accepting money from interest groups is reprehensible ... until They do it. Embellishing the truth is reprehensible ... until They do it – at which times it becomes a positive duty and an artistic way to get their essential message across. Writer Charlie Hurt concludes:

Visually, in terms of repulsiveness, there is little difference between the tactics of the abortion protesters and those of the federal government. In fact, the only difference is that the government doctored its pictures.

And you paid for them.