Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, School of Public Health and Health University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14214-3079, USA.
Tob Control. 2013 May;22 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i31-2. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050813.
Even though interest in reducing or eliminating tobacco-caused diseases is a common goal in tobacco control, many experts hold different views on addiction as a target of intervention. Some consider tobacco-caused addiction as a tobacco-caused disease to be eliminated alongside the other diseases. Some consider tobacco-caused addiction as a much lower priority disease to be eliminated, and a subset of this group is prepared to employ addiction to tobacco (nicotine) as a tool to reduce other tobacco-caused disease. These varying attitudes towards ending, controlling or employing tobacco addiction to reduce damage from tobacco use constitute quite different approaches to tobacco control and cause conflict among those in tobacco control. Moral psychological analyses argue that there is more than scientific evidence involved in supporting this continuum of approaches. Divergent values also influence positions in tobacco control. Attention to these values as well as the scientific evidence should be included in policy and practice in tobacco control. It is not that one constellation of values is necessarily superior, but debates need to be informed by and engage discussions of these values as well as the scientific evidence.
尽管减少或消除烟草引起的疾病是烟草控制的共同目标,但许多专家对成瘾作为干预目标持有不同的观点。一些人认为烟草引起的成瘾是一种与其他疾病一起消除的烟草引起的疾病。一些人认为烟草引起的成瘾是一个优先级较低的疾病,需要消除,而这一组的一个子集准备将烟草(尼古丁)成瘾用作减少其他烟草引起的疾病的工具。这些对结束、控制或利用烟草成瘾以减少烟草使用造成的损害的不同态度构成了烟草控制的截然不同的方法,并在烟草控制人员中引起冲突。道德心理学分析认为,支持这一系列方法的不仅仅是科学证据。不同的价值观也影响着烟草控制的立场。在烟草控制的政策和实践中,应该关注这些价值观以及科学证据。并不是说一组价值观一定更优越,但辩论需要以这些价值观以及科学证据为依据,并进行讨论。