|
Post by Novo Palmares on Apr 17, 2005 20:15:24 GMT
I don't know how to solve this problem (I do think it is a problem) — to me it's a very complicated one. But I think some arguments should be avoided.
The “free will” argument, for example, presupposes a mistification: that what I do to myself does not concearn others. It does, and not just because of passive smoking. Smoking is a matter of public health; the states spend a lot on medical care for smoking-related health problems. In my country (Brazil), where there isn't even health care available for everybody, this argument would not be very far from criminal. On the other hand, it would not be acceptable that the government denied treatment to a poor man with throat cancer on the grounds of this man having brought that on himself...
What, do you think, could be done to address this social nature of the the smoking problem?
As for bars being allowed to decide autonomously, it seems to me a quite typical capitalist solution.
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Seaville on Apr 20, 2005 16:33:13 GMT
In England, cigarettes are fairly heavily taxed. This tax goes on the NHS. Thus the cigarette smoker is paying for his own treatment when he gets cancer, and people are encouraged not to smoke due to the rising costs.
|
|
|
Post by Novo Palmares on Apr 20, 2005 18:55:11 GMT
In England, cigarettes are fairly heavily taxed. This tax goes on the NHS. Thus the cigarette smoker is paying for his own treatment when he gets cancer, and people are encouraged not to smoke due to the rising costs. Well, in Brazil, cigarettes are heavily taxed too, although these taxes are not automatically directed to the public health system. But unfortunately, even those taxes specifically destined (by law) to the public health system are re-routed to other uses (because so much of the government's budget is reserved to the payment of interests to external and internal creditors). So, with good reason, brazilians in general don't even believe in the idea taxation for specific purposes...
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Apr 20, 2005 20:56:38 GMT
In England, cigarettes are fairly heavily taxed. This tax goes on the NHS. . Not necessarily - for all we know the tax could be being spent on building more nuclear weapons! Sorry for being pedantic
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Seaville on Apr 21, 2005 11:51:56 GMT
Not necessarily - for all we know the tax could be being spent on building more nuclear weapons! Sorry for being pedantic touche. however, there are times when i'm happy in my naivety
|
|
|
Post by Paranoidm on Apr 21, 2005 11:57:02 GMT
aww! lol
|
|
|
Post by zhurovkastan on Sept 17, 2005 23:13:26 GMT
I think that if we encouraged some establishments to ban smoking, we could get a decent number of non-smoking venues. From there the public can basically vote with their custom. I think eventually we would find that the non-smoking venues would make an increasingly roaring trade, whilst those allowing smoking would be left with a dwindling and, dare I say, more undesirable clientele.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Sept 18, 2005 6:33:15 GMT
No. In the Republic, smoking in bars was made illegal and all it encouraged was drinking at home.
That said, I'm totally in favour of banning smoking in all public places.
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Sept 18, 2005 17:36:15 GMT
The thing is that law must be strictly enforced. I often saw police officers moving between people smoking in the Metro here in Paris without saying anything to them. Smoking in public space such as the Metro is totally forbidden, and charged of a 250€ fine... But if policemen close their eyes...
|
|
|
Post by TheMightyPump on Sept 22, 2005 16:42:45 GMT
I also agree with banning smoking in public places - with the exceptions of pubs.
If people want to smoke it is their choice but they don't have to force the smoke onto other people by smoking next to them.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Sept 23, 2005 12:17:26 GMT
Why are pubs the exception?
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Sept 23, 2005 23:18:18 GMT
Because some thinks it is fun to smoke in the same place you drink your barrel(s) of beer and look for a sex partner. Some are associating cigarettes with pleasure, so comes the link.
(not being sarcastic, but I agree that Pubs can have other functions that the two above)
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Sept 24, 2005 6:38:05 GMT
Well, there's a simple answer to that. Pubs are just another place where smokers inflict their cancer-generating filth on the rest of us so smoking should be banned there as well.
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Sept 25, 2005 0:59:46 GMT
Totally agree.
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Sept 25, 2005 23:41:59 GMT
This problem could be easily solved if bars were owned by the state. Bars could be designated individually as smoking or non-smoking. Or perhaps laws could be enacted that require bars to have partitioned smoking and non-smoking sections, like some restaurants (not sure if the latter is true in other countries, but in the US, at least, many restaurants are sectioned in such a manner).
I agree with England's policies on smoking, as long as the taxes really do go to healthcare. Don't know how we could be sure of that, though.
|
|