Good going anti smokers

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by freakinacage

Originally posted by Trevor
Interestingly what started me off on this train of thought is a new law they are trying to introduce here in NSW that would make it illegal to smoke in your car. Yes you read that right. And that is illegal even if you are the only one in the car

i say fair enough. it\'s illegal to drive while on a mobile phone. why not when you are smoking? i know 2 people who have had bad car crashes (that affected other people) because they dropped a ciggy in their lap

Oh, well then, why not ban kids in cars, since I know parents who have gotten into wrecks while yelling at their kids, or ban old people, since I know quite a few of them that have caused wrecks, or morons?
Or take out the radios since I have been hit (twice) by people who were changing the channels.
Do you see where I\'m going with this?
There is a concept, it\'s a very ellusive thing these days, thats called Personal Responsibility.
If people want to smoke and possibly die of cancer, let them.
If people want to drink sugary drinks and get obese, let them.

Given all the unhealthy, living our forefathers did it\'s a wonder our race has survived. lol
I mean lets look back at our childhoods.
I never wore a seatbelt as a child, much less an entire child seat.
I never wore pads or helmets on my bike or skateboarding.
I ate hotdogs, with mayo while drinking sugar laced Kool-Aid all the time.
I was outside all the time.

Americans have gotten bigger in the last 40 years, well yeah, most of our physical labor that used to be done by people is now being done by machines.
Our children are not thrown outside to play as we were when we were that age, they sit on their asses and watch the boob tube, play X-Box, or on their computers.
You now have to pay to go to a gym and do what you could\'ve done for free in the fields 40 to 60 years ago.
Coke hasn\'t made people obese, technology has.

 

[Avelorn]

Well.. ehm. I\'m sure no-one here is advocating absolute personal responsibility for everything (even you Evil Dave if you think it through ). Principles like that tend not to hold their ground when faced with reality. I\'m advocating another apporach: Pragmatism.

If we\'re in a car we ought to minimize the risks of carcrashes, if legislating against something helps in saving lives we much at least consider it. Then think it through.. is it an important freedom for us to be able to smoke in cars? Would it gravely influent our everyday life (like banning kids and such) if not, why not?

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Avelorn
Well.. ehm. I\'m sure no-one here is advocating absolute personal responsibility for everything (even you Evil Dave if you think it through ). Principles like that tend not to hold their ground when faced with reality. I\'m advocating another apporach: Pragmatism.

If we\'re in a car we ought to minimize the risks of carcrashes, if legislating against something helps in saving lives we much at least consider it. Then think it through.. is it an important freedom for us to be able to smoke in cars? Would it gravely influent our everyday life (like banning kids and such) if not, why not?

Because quite simply: It sets precedents, that can be used to pass similar but more infringing laws.
The government should not be involved in any way.

And to be honest, a Nic-fitting driver is more apt to be an agressive driver.


And lets be honest here, what do you think the largest cause of auto accidents is?
I gaurantee cigarettes are not very high up there.

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
There is a concept, it\'s a very ellusive thing these days, thats called Personal Responsibility.

you can only take the personal responsibility thing so far. thing is, people don\'t take responsibilty for them selves. hence speed limits etc. i agree that some things are taking it too far - this tax thing etc. but the only way for some people to act in a sociable manner to others is to force them

anyway, if you can\'t wait to the end of a car journey to have a smoke, you need to take stock of the way you are heading

it\'s like the whole smoking in public thing. i don\'t give a damn if you want to smoke in a public place, as long as it isn\'t enclosed. i see no reason why i should suffer because of the vices of others. you can\'t say \'don\'t go to these places\' because if i didn\'t, i wouldn\'t be able to leave my house

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by freakinacage
you can\'t say \'don\'t go to these places\' because if i didn\'t, i wouldn\'t be able to leave my house

Actually, I can. Don\'t go to those places. See.

The simple fact of the matter is I agree with you on public places.
However, a bar/pub/personal vehicle are not public places.
They are privately owned.
By setting these precedents for your government to dictate what goes on in privately owned businesses/cars/homes, you are setting it up for them to dictate what you can or cannot eat, what your lifestyle must be, what you can or cannot do in your very home.
These are not good things.

 

[Avelorn]

Well all laws are infringing personal freedom. And lack of laws are also infringing personal freedom. Different societies and legislations give and takes freedom to different people. Can we agree that a state of nature is not a state of total freedom?

I am not sure what you mean by \"the goverment should not be involved in any way\". Do you mean that the legislative authority should be sepparated more from the implementing authority? In that case.. I agree. I also agree that the legislators often take small steps to pass more controlling laws. And control is needed (or thought to be needed) by the goverment to remain in control of the people (tautology). But is this such a case? As many people, including me, noted earlier there are far more worrying examples.

If you think that smoking drivers aren\'t a problem, that\'s fine. Then if you convinced me to believe the same we could agree on the same premises. You might for example argue that a driver with abstinence is not a good driver, while I might say that the driver could take a break etc. etc.

oh. and I agree with the points made by freakinacage. Actually I\'m dealing with the very issue of cooperation in a paper on political philosophy. Why do people choose to defect, why do we need a state? It\'s not necessary for being irrational.

 

[airhead]

They are already taxed, it is called \"Sales Tax\" here - an additional 7% of everything I buy goes to the Government after 20% of my paycheck has already gone to the government. So I get to keep 74% of my income (80% of 93%) not counting medicare, social security, and anything the company takes out for my benefit (life insurance, medical insurance, etc.)

The government is getting enough of my money. This is not a revenue tax anyway, it is a prohibitive tax which has been proven again and again not to work.

This is more of someone else telling you how you should live your life. Yet lots of you seem to think it is fine for the government to tell you what you should be doing and to take care of you from cradle to grave. I defy you to name one service that the government performs where it does it better and more efficiently than the private sector.

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Actually, I can. Don\'t go to those places. See.

well to you too!!

it\'s all very well giving the whole - it\'s a private establishment thing. they aren\'t normal private places so normal rules don\'t apply. no-one is stopping people smoking. the only experience of the whole non smoking thing is in ireland and it works fine there. people pop out for a smoke and then come back in - what\'s wrong with that? everyone was having a good time. ok, so it\'s a little bit of an inconvenience to pop outside every now and again but not as big a consequence as either copd/cancer or not ever being able to go out. hardly a fair trade off in my opinion

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by freakinacage

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Actually, I can. Don\'t go to those places. See.

well to you too!!

it\'s all very well giving the whole - it\'s a private establishment thing. they aren\'t normal private places so normal rules don\'t apply. no-one is stopping people smoking. the only experience of the whole non smoking thing is in ireland and it works fine there. people pop out for a smoke and then come back in - what\'s wrong with that? everyone was having a good time. ok, so it\'s a little bit of an inconvenience to pop outside every now and again but not as big a consequence as either copd/cancer or not ever being able to go out. hardly a fair trade off in my opinion

Of course, it benefits you.
People are funny that way, they really don\'t care that others rights are broken as long as it benefits themselves.
The next law might not be beneficial to you though.

And why aren\'t they \"normal\"?
A pub/bar can throw you out if they so choose, for whatever reason, at the owners discretion. Just like a home.
Here in the states, many of our states consider the car to be an extension of one\'s home.

Edit: on second thought, public places:
Aren\'t smokers paying the same amount of taxes to upkeep those places?
Isn\'t it discreminatory to demand they pay the same taxes and then forbid them to use the areas that are partially theirs , to their enjoyment?
Shouldn\'t they get a tax break?

 

[dauber22]

Back towards the original point about extra taxes on soda because of obesity:

While I am a Libertarian and, therefore, a believer in minimalist government I will admit that one valid concern of the government is control of infectious diseases. That is one of the types of things a government should control for the safety of all of its citizens. However, the last time I checked obesity was:
-NOT a disease at all, and
-NOT CONTAGIOUS
Therefore, the government has no business sticking their nose in. Oh, okay, they can advise people that obesity can lead to greater health problems and the like, but that\'s as far as it goes.
Okay, with smoking in enclosed public spaces, you can show that there can be direct physical effect on an unwilling fellow citizen. I will concede that point. Now, show me the direct physical effect that obesity has on an unwilling fellow citizen.
Notice, I said physical, not fiscal. Everything everyone does has potential fiscal effect on others. My sitting here typing this post while at work undermines the productivity of my nation. Should I be fined for it? Or perhaps an Internet Tax is in order?

 

[Evil Dave]

speaking of Fiscal, I found out that one of the corporations funding the scientists behind this \"study\" are the owners of Lipton Tea. hmmm

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by airheadI defy you to name one service that the government performs where it does it better and more efficiently than the private sector.

Spending other peoples money.

Taxing soda as a prohibitive tax is stupid. Taxing soda to make money isn\'t bad in terms of ideas, think of how much pop is consumed in a day, but wouldn\'t be well accepted.

What they should tax is large oil companies that post the largest profit in years but claim to not be gouging while we pay the highest gas prices in years. (Not that we can complain compared to Europeans but the mass transit system is generally different too.)

 

[Shawn R. L.]

The tax vampires seem to not have gotten the memo that there is not an endless supply of money to suck up...No country has ever taxed it\'s way into prosperity.

 

[funnymouth]

udoubtedly it was funded by lipton. the money to do research has to come from somewhere. pharmaceutical companies fund cancer research - does that make it invalid? i do agree however, that you shouldnt rely on crap like this, always reference articles published in scientific jounals (well known ones) for dependable, peer reviewed research.

precedent has been set, already: cigarettes, the california seatbelt law, helmet laws etc etc etc. our government seems relatively unwilling to educate - they\'ed rather spend our money on prisons and wars, and keep the general populace stupid and apathetic. what can they do? tax things and make warning labels (a pathetic attempt to educate after the purchase has been made). its simply a more practical solution given our inept government. do i agree with it, theoretically? no.

@ airhead one the government can do many things much better than the private sector - and all of them are things that the private sector is unwilling to do, because there is no money to be made (eg environmental protection).

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by airheadI defy you to name one service that the government performs where it does it better and more efficiently than the private sector.

Food Safety - without the FDA and the USDA, meat producers would still be dying the beef red so you couldn\'t tell it had gone bad.

Dauber: does being squeezed by an obese person on a bus or plane count as physical harm? There\'s also the argument that facilities wear out faster under the greater weight of heavy people, but that\'s more fiscal anyway.

Public/Private - a pub/bar is a public place even if it\'s not publicly owned. It makes its business by offering services to the public and opening its doors to invite the public in. (unlike your house) Therefore it is a public place. If you have to be specifically a named invitee, then it\'s a private place. Such places can allow indoor smoking.

As to publicly owned places, smokers may be contribiting equally with their tax dollars, but they are contributing unequally to the harm. A famous European example is the Sistene Chapel. They wouldn\'t have had to spend all that money lighting and then cleaning the ceiling if people hadn\'t been smoking in there.
So, smoking in publicly owned buildings does 2 things - it causes damage to the building, and it prevents a portion of the public from having access to that building.
The first place smoking was banned was the post office. It was due to a law suit by some people with severe smoke allergies. They said they had a disability and that permitting smoking in the post office prevented them from entering the building and partaking in the services there.

p.s. The post office is privately owned, not part of the government, yet they cannot kick people out. Are they public or private by your dichotomy?

 

[dauber22]

I think, perchance, we should put an extra tax on all the damn healthy people. Afterall, they live longer and therefore are a much greater strain on all government resources I mean, look at all the extra years of Social Security and retirement benefits we have to pay for. And all those damn community senior centers and Meals On Wheels and years of police and fire protection. And don\'t even get me started on natural resources! How much extra gas, oil, fresh water, and fresh air do they consume in all those extra years? Not to mention how many trees worth of paper! How many more tons of toxic chemicals do their cars produce or do they dump on their lawns and gardens? How many more cows, chickens, pigs, and vegetables have to die just so we can keep tehm alive? How much extra sewage do they produce? Damn healthy people with their damn healthy lifestyles!!!

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by airheadI
Public/Private - a pub/bar is a public place even if it\'s not publicly owned. It makes its business by offering services to the public and opening its doors to invite the public in. (unlike your house) Therefore it is a public place. If you have to be specifically a named invitee, then it\'s a private place. Such places can allow indoor smoking.

That\'s one way of looking at it, here\'s another:
When a bar/pub opens, who puts forth the capital? The public or a private individual?
If someone sues the bar/pub, who pays? The public or a private individual?
If a natural disaster destroys said bar/pub who has to rebuild it? The public or a private individual?
Who decides what music is to be played, or the decoration? The public or a private individual?
A Private Individual takes all the risks and all the rewards/losses.
The public\'s only options are to patronize or not to patronize, they can ask the owner to make changes, but there should be nothing forcing said owner to change his business, the public can vote with their dollar, and patronize somewhere else that fufills their criteria.
A Bar/pub also has an age limit, some have dress codes, something that rarely can be done on public lands, thereby making it a private club through the act of excluding anyone it wants, or does not meet up to their criteria.

Now the proper thing would have been for a private individual or group of private individuals to put their money where their mouths are and open up non-smoking bars, but why take that risk when you can trample all over someone else instead, and feel all nice, smug and superior while saying \"It\'s for your own good.\" When in fact, what was good for the smokers or the bar owners was not even considered at all, it was all about what you wanted, nothing more.

 

[funnymouth]

the term \"pub\" comes from \"public house,\" and precident for governmental restrictions (in england) on them dates back to 965 CE (and probably earlier in rome).

the street is a two way. why cant the smokers simply go elsewhere? its not like we (and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH) dont regulate consumption of other substances, why should anything else be any different? if you support bans on drugs of any type you are endorcing this kind of regulation. then again, who gives a crap if crack-cocaine is illegal.
remember that all it takes is a single smoker to make it a smoking bar - and expose everyone to secondhand smoke. this is where the importance of government comes in- an establishment may be unwilling to ban smoking because they want the buck - and as a result employees and patrons are exposed to the smoke.

regardless of wheather its right, or wrong or whatever, in the end its the community that enforces the law. in santa cruz california you can smoke yourself to death in a bar and no one will care. the bars that are ok with smoking allow it, the ones that dont now have some legal kick to back up the bouncers. laws mean nothing without people going along with them. make your own soda, grow your own tobacco, and dont pay the tax. smuggle it in to the state, if no one cares, than it doesnt matter.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by funnymouth
the street is a two way. why cant the smokers simply go elsewhere? its not like we (and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH) dont regulate consumption of other substances, why should anything else be any different? if you support bans on drugs of any type you are endorcing this kind of regulation. then again, who gives a crap if crack-cocaine is illegal.

See if I were a smoker (I quit some time ago, but man, I crave one to this day) I would agree to that and take my money to an establishment that allowed my legal activity, however, there was no pretence at all of being fair, it was all or nothing all bars/pubs had to ban smoking.

And while I agree with the if nobody cares attitude, the problem is someone does, and it\'s someone with enough pull to make these silly right infringing laws.

Here in Louisiana (known as one of the cancer alley states) our brilliant governor is trying to put the blame of all cancer on cigarettes(but she fails to mention we have some of the laxest laws on our huge industries). She has put a law through that a person smoking outside in a public park can be fined $800 or jailed up to 6 months.
This means I can beat my wife and get a lesser penalty.
This means I can have an ounce of cocaine and get a lesser penalty.
This means I could have 2 DWI\'s and have a lesser penalty.
For doing something that is still LEGAL.

 

[johnboyjjb]

Ugh! Stupid politicians.