|
Post by Jako on Feb 12, 2005 14:12:40 GMT
Here in the UK, and throughout the Western world generally I believe, there's increasing debate about banning smoking - at least in public places.
What are your thoughts?
Mine are quite authoritarian. I must confess, I'm for banning. Smoking is encouraged by multinational corporations who don't give a f*** about their product slowly killing you, as long as they make a profit. The image is reinforced by mass media which encourages conformity - smoking is cool. Let's face it, why does anyone start smoking? To be cool, to fit in, to be like everyone else, to seem grown-up, etc. And then the burden on health services of treating ill/dying smokers is huge.
The state has a responsibility to discourage smokers. For their own good, for the public good.
|
|
|
Post by Mathom on Feb 12, 2005 19:17:22 GMT
Ah, there's an interesting wrap-up. I would say...
For their own good - never. For the public good - possibly.
I dislike the nanny state - I think it encourages people into dependancy and unquestioning belief in the system.
In this case, though, there is significant harm in secondary smoke. There is also a public detriment due to additional costs to the health service, although I am very sceptical of this argument.
For me, I think the clincher is the safety of workers. No-one should be forced to endure passive smoking in the workplace. This would probably result in similar coverage, but with a different rationale.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Feb 12, 2005 19:19:39 GMT
Oh definitely it's all about the workers. ;D
My girlfriend worked in a bar for a bit, but she's refusing to go back because of the smokey atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Universal Acceptance on Feb 13, 2005 6:39:48 GMT
I think smoking should be: - banned in public
- up to the business in private enterprize
- allowable in your own home
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Feb 13, 2005 14:40:10 GMT
Comrades such as Jako are often very harsh against us humble smokers and are so quite often on the grounds that its too expensive to pay the health care costs of someone who is potentially taking a few risks with their health in the long run by smoking. Nobody should be forced to pay the medical bill of somebody who is increasing them by smoking. I don't disagree with the logic behind this thought, but while we're at it, would it not be fair for the state to render it illegal for people to have high blood pressure, cholesterol or just being fat in general and unable to loose weight? These, along with inhalating tobaco on a regular basis are all risk factors for various heart diseases whom are very expensive treatements. Considering that in most cases, the patients can stop these by simply eat less fat, stop smoking or do some exercise, we shouldn't be forced to give them healthcare should we? Perhaps the ones who fail their tests should be forced to exercise three times a week in order to reduce the health cost?
I am against banning smoking. We are all entitled to pleasures such as this one. While the state should discourage smokers, it should under no circumstances dictate what I am allowed to do with my body or not and thus, is not entitled, in my opinion, to ban smoking.
|
|
|
Post by Universal Acceptance on Feb 13, 2005 21:59:11 GMT
What about my reasoning? Second hand smoke is just as dangerous, if not more, than first hand smoke because first hand smoke is filtered. You are killing me just as much as yourself with every ounce of vaporized rat poison and arsenic you inhale.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Feb 13, 2005 22:09:37 GMT
We are all entitled to pleasures such as this one. While the state should discourage smokers, it should under no circumstances dictate what I am allowed to do with my body or not and thus, is not entitled, in my opinion, to ban smoking. The argument is, as UA has said, passive smoking means that when you're indulging your peculiar habit in a public place it is harmful to other peoples' bodies. So it's not just about your freedom to smoke, it's our freedom to be protected from your smoke. Yeah - I'd prob go along with UA's plan of banning it in public places and allowing it in your own home. But at the same time perhaps all tobacco advertising should be banned and stricter controls introduced over the media's capability to encourage young people to start in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Southern Tasmania on Feb 14, 2005 0:06:47 GMT
Oh definitely it's all about the workers. ;D My girlfriend worked in a bar for a bit, but she's refusing to go back because of the smokey atmosphere. In Australia the bar can be liable for staff getting cancer from second hand smoke. That brought in soem really good changes: Smoking at the bar was banned, and inside the pub they introduced some really tough ventilation laws. The result isn't bad. The monetary argument comes from economics and is only a motivation for treasury - treasury has worked out that healthcare costs of the next 30 years as baby-boomers start going to hopital will drop if they can reduce the curable but expensive lung disease and related heart cases (bypasses, etc). The human argument is that excessive smoking in public removes individuals rights not to have to inhale. That especially used to be the case on rainy days where all the smokers would light up in the very limited covered parts of the station - unbearable. I don't object to people smoking as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. It just so happens that treasury has a motive to stop people smoking period. Treasury's motive funds the public awareness campaigns that take advantage of why individuals should give up smoking. 1. Nicotine isn't that bad for you 2. The tar, smokey rubbish and assorted chemicals that you breathe in every time is really bad for you - the lighter the ciggy the deeper you breathe it in! 3. Not all the damage is permanent. Lungs, over a long period of time, will actually repair themselves by replacing some cells and cleaning out stuff. *stops*eatsbreakfast*leaves* ~ST
|
|
|
Post by Universal Acceptance on Feb 14, 2005 3:13:42 GMT
I really do not see the need to read to deeply into things like smoking, or much of anything. The facts are clear, smoking hurts the people around you. Frankly, I do not think it is the job of the state to tell you whether or not you can hurt yourself. But it is the job of the state to protect the innocent citizens. Smoking in public should be banned for that. As far as advertising goes, I think that is reading to deeply into the thing again. Let them advertise as much as they want because if the actual lighting up is banned, non-smokers don't get hurt. And because you let them advertise, you are justified in taxing the bejeebers out of them!
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Feb 15, 2005 16:56:28 GMT
Of course. Banning smoking from places where it could harm each others is acceptable. That includes closed spaces, such as busses. However, banning smokers from public parks is pure and simple discrimination.
The point of view of Jako though, it seems, is banning smoking altogether. That is more than discrimination, that could qualify as oppression.
|
|
|
Post by Universal Acceptance on Feb 15, 2005 17:02:51 GMT
You know Americans. Always oppressing those rich, white, Protestant (smokers).
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Feb 16, 2005 11:11:43 GMT
Yeah, indeed. What about Marijuana Jako? I don't know, but I got a feeling you actually smoke it from time to time, considering the posts you once made in the CV HQ ... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paranoidm on Feb 16, 2005 11:14:43 GMT
Hmm..... Ban advertising altogether if you ask me... If they ban smoking in public places in the UK, I'll start smoking. Every chance I get. Yup... [edit] Maybe we could ban drinking too eh? I'm more likely to get 'permanent damage' from a drunk person than a smoker. Smokers also tend to be more polite than anyone else. They're made to feel so guilty about their addiction they're constantly asking "Do you mind if I smoke? No? Ok, I'll stand in your garden in the snow, just so you don't have the discomfort of doing that fake cough and giving me filthy looks the minute I light up." Drunk people never ask "Excuse me, do you mind if I puke all over you/act like an obnoxious c**t?" Believe me, I drink and my friends smoke, and they're definitely nicer people than me at the end of the night.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Feb 16, 2005 22:00:50 GMT
But I didn't inhale I promise Come on RF, I'm just very open-minded about radical solutions to problems. I accept that banning smoking probably wouln't stop people like you killing themselves with such a pointless habit. I was just putting forward the proposal that it is worth considering...
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Feb 17, 2005 0:15:34 GMT
Point one) Cigarettes are the only legal product on sale which harm when used correctly.
Point two) Smokers are unable to agree with any arguement which conflicts with their habit. Thus, they cannot come to a logical conclusion on the issue. Furthermore, smokers are unpaid spokespersons for the tabacco industry.
My unswaying opinion: Ban smoking
Failing that, I propose we introduce faulty washing machines which electrocute users upon contact. We'll then form a frontal group called WASH who'll maintain that user's have the right to jump start their hearts. The government will perpetually jack-up the price of washing machines and the average user will perpetually claim they'll not buy another washing machine if the price rises again... excpet, they will. The government will laugh manically and the washing machine companies will laugh manically, but the washing machine users will stutter whilst they convulse on the floor. [/parody]
|
|