Are warnings sufficint?
Day 90, Feb 25 2010
It had rained heavily for most of the night and the forecast was for northerly and westerly winds of 20-25 knots. Both were in effect headwinds and with stretches of sheer cliffs up ahead it was a simple decision to stay put. I would hope that the south-easterly winds forecast for the following day eventuated because they would push me towards my goal. An inspection of the seas later that day from a vantage point confirmed the wisdom of the initial assessment.
It had rained heavily for most of the night and the forecast was for northerly and westerly winds of 20-25 knots. Both were in effect headwinds and with stretches of sheer cliffs up ahead it was a simple decision to stay put. I would hope that the south-easterly winds forecast for the following day eventuated because they would push me towards my goal. An inspection of the seas later that day from a vantage point confirmed the wisdom of the initial assessment.
A large surf was rolling in through the breakwater.
The day gave me a chance to reflect on the ‘best’ achievement of my adventure and that is in my not having had a cigarette in over three months. I gave this some thought whilst reading today’s New Zealand Herald which covered two stories related to smoking.
Looking south from where I'd come the previous day.
The first headline read “Smokers have lower IQs, says study”. It went on to list four ’famous smokers’, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Sigmund Freud, and Kate Moss. I’ve a feeling there is an odd one out?
The non-smokers listed four persons including George W Bush so some might argue (I would), that these lists (Kate Moss aside, unless of course she is a genius in which case my argument is strengthened), do not support the results of the study that suggests the tobacco industry targets those with lower IQs. Personally I’m not sure that a study is needed to determine that people who smoke are stupid?
The second headline read “Uproar over ‘oral sex anti-smoking ads”. Apparently feminists and pro-family activists in France are up-in-arms over a campaign to discourage young people from smoking, that shows male and female teenagers kneeling in front of a man, as if being forced to have oral sex with a cigarette taking the place of the man’s sexual organ. Quite what the activists hold so important over the deaths that smoking causes is not readily accessible to me but I’m sure it’s equally important.
I have a question. Does a government have a responsibility for its constituents’ safety and well-being and therefore health, and if so when it acknowledges the damage and death as caused by smoking, why do its own laws make it legal? Personally, I cannot understand why there are suggestions that the tobacco industry should be held to blame when the movement legalises the product that it is selling.
I know that many will say that we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions and I agree with this to a large extent, but when sophisticated companies with marketing geniuses whose task is to get people to take up what is scientifically acknowledged as being an addictive product then what chance do those with lower IQs have when the government legally condones the practice.
And to those who say we are responsible for our own actions and who might say it is not the government’s responsibility, I wonder if you disagreed when the law was passed that made wearing a seatbelt as compulsory?
