|
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote:
Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body.
Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero.
So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
|
I find the most mistaken opinion the economical view on the cigarettes industry. It doesn't help the economy of the country at all. You have to realize that those money that would not be spent on the cigarettes would be spent on other goods. Other goods generate other money to the budget, other jobs and so on. Simply think about it this way: how could a industry that makes nothing useful be good for economy? Unless you have good exports from this industry, your country lose anyway.
|
Do you mean smoking in public places ban? Because Ontario has done that for awhile now and its very good I don't smoke and I shouldn't have to be around second hand smoke when I go to a public place.. So I support it if that's what you mean.
|
On March 14 2009 01:11 arbiter_md wrote:
I find the most mistaken opinion the economical view on the cigarettes industry. It doesn't help the economy of the country at all. You have to realize that those money that would not be spent on the cigarettes would be spent on other goods. Other goods generate other money to the budget, other jobs and so on. Simply think about it this way: how could a industry that makes nothing useful be good for economy? Unless you have good exports from this industry, your country lose anyway.
The taxes the government gets from cigarettes is a great deal larger than from most other objects. So either they eliminate cigarettes all together (not likely with lobbying...) or they up the taxes on EVERYTHING ELSE.
What do you think the people will choose?
|
On March 14 2009 01:11 arbiter_md wrote:
I find the most mistaken opinion the economical view on the cigarettes industry. It doesn't help the economy of the country at all. You have to realize that those money that would not be spent on the cigarettes would be spent on other goods. Other goods generate other money to the budget, other jobs and so on. Simply think about it this way: how could a industry that makes nothing useful be good for economy? Unless you have good exports from this industry, your country lose anyway.
I think it's because of the high tax they put on cigarettes, so that the government can make more money easily off them than other things. So it's not that great for the economy but it gives the government a lot of easy cash, so that's a good incentive to keep them legalized.
On March 13 2009 22:47 Piy wrote:They did this in Scotland. It made life better. 
You live in Scotland? Where about? I'm in Edinburgh.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On March 14 2009 01:10 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote:
Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay. Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body. Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero. So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care.
|
Unless you live in a place without free health care. I.E: the united states
|
Brazil3409 Posts
Its so sad to read this, I JUST stopped smoking, and I have seen my self saying it should be forbidden at times, but it will never work, and its not a realistic solution, we must legalize everything and tax the shit out of it.
|
On March 14 2009 01:15 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 01:10 Jayme wrote:On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote:
Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay. Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body. Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero. So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though. The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care.
Good point when you live in a country with free health care  I don't have this luxury 
|
Brazil3409 Posts
On March 14 2009 01:21 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 01:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On March 14 2009 01:10 Jayme wrote:On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote:
Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay. Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body. Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero. So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though. The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care. Good point when you live in a country with free health care I don't have this luxury
Dont worry, Socialism has come to america.
![[image loading]](http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/obama-socialist.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 14 2009 00:44 Supah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote:
Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does"). The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves.
I'm not talking about open-air bans, I'm talking about restaurant bans. A restaurant is a private establishment, and it should be up to the restaurant/bar owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking, and then patrons can act accordingly. If the smoke from a restaurant were spilling over to a neighboring store or out into public property that's one thing, but these bans (which typically ban smoking in any private establishment) are ludicrous. You have a choice to go to an establishment or not, just as the owner of said establishment should have a choice whether or not to allow it.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On March 14 2009 01:21 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 01:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On March 14 2009 01:10 Jayme wrote:On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote:
Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay. Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body. Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero. So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though. The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care. Good point when you live in a country with free health care I don't have this luxury
Even if you pay for health care, I don't think you ever pay 100% of it... right? I remember reading news of the health system costing billions to the american government.
|
On March 14 2009 00:44 Supah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote:
Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does"). The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves.
why dont you ban the fucking car then? it stinks too, it kills people too and it also kills the environment.
its always the same, smokers are a minority so they get fucked over. democracy is soooo nice T_T
|
On March 14 2009 01:29 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 01:21 Jayme wrote:On March 14 2009 01:15 IntoTheWow wrote:On March 14 2009 01:10 Jayme wrote:On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote:
Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay. Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body. Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero. So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though. The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care. Good point when you live in a country with free health care I don't have this luxury Even if you pay for health care, I don't think you ever pay 100% of it... right? I remember reading news of the health system costing billions to the american government.
Working in the military(and by proxy their dependents) affords you health care for basically life and we have enough baby boomers/vets where this could be quite a great deal of people.
Average citizens though pay for health insurance much like you would a car and it's a decent amount of money depending on age/health and profession. Also, because it's an insurance company they try to screw you out of your money at every possible turn.
|
On March 14 2009 01:40 WhuazGoodNjaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2009 00:44 Supah wrote:On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote:
Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does"). The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves. why dont you ban the fucking car then? it stinks too, it kills people too and it also kills the environment. its always the same, smokers are a minority so they get fucked over. democracy is soooo nice T_T
Cars benefit society in some way. Again i'm not exactly a smoker.. I smoke once every 2 weeks or so but I do understand smoking bans in public places. I do think it should be at the discretion of the owner though, it is their establishments so they should be able to decide whether or not to allow smokers there.
|
Reason 1 is stupid as shit, but reason 2 is very reasonable.
You didn't actually contradict reason 2 at all. You just said a bunch of BS that has nothing to do with it and then tried to tie it together.
|
On March 14 2009 01:44 Jayme wrote:
Cars benefit society in some way. Again i'm not exactly a smoker.. I smoke once every 2 weeks or so but I do understand smoking bans in public places. I do think it should be at the discretion of the owner though, it is their establishments so they should be able to decide whether or not to allow smokers there.
You dont need the car for at least 90% of the shit you do with your car.
So you would agree to ban any kind of motor "sport"?
Cars shouldnt be baned, as smoking itself shouldnt be baned, but cars should get the fuck out of cities. there is public traffic, ppl just need to fucking use it.
|
Sexico5880 Posts
Here its forbidden to smoke on closed spaces, but fuck i hate that the aile between classrooms is 'open' everybody smokes there -_-
|
On March 14 2009 00:38 Zyrre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2009 21:01 Oystein wrote:On March 13 2009 20:36 Zyrre wrote:On March 13 2009 20:28 Oystein wrote:On March 13 2009 20:23 Loanshark wrote:On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote:
lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation. While it don`t kill you it smells like shit, and makes the air nasty to breath. Should we non smoker have to smell like ashes after going out for a dinner just so the smokers can kill themselves slowly and pollute the air for the rest of us? Smelling bad isn't really an argument to make it illegal, and them taking a few years of their lives on average is a choice they should be allowed to make. Polluting the air? If that's your worry you might want to make cars illegal instead. Its a damn good argument for making it illegal in public indoor places, I don`t care if people smoke outside (tho in ideal world smokes would be totally banned). And I did not mean it in the sense "oh noes the ozone layer is failing" I meant it in the way that I have to breath the air that smells\tastes like smoke, and as coltrane said, cars serve a purpose, smoking don`t. Like I said in my last post I want to be able to go to a restaurant for lunch and not smell like ashes coming back from it, and luckily where I live I can do that If people choose resturants depending on if they allow smoking or not, some resturants would simply not allow it to get more customers. If that is your problem, there is no problem. No reason for government to step in and not let resturant owners choose for themselves.
People here don't get it, but the major reason to make smoking illegal at public indoor places is to make the workers at the restaurants get a much healthier work environment.
Without such laws just about every place allows smoking in certain areas because it gets them more customers, which in turn forces everyone who wants to work at such places into working in an environment filled with smoke, which in turn forces them to become heavy second hand smokers and thus it ruins their health. (Smokers gets much more annoyed by not being allowed to smoke than non smokers gets annoyed by the smoke)
There is no other way to fix this really and it is not a big deal since the smokers can just go outside for a moment. This is one of the things a pure capitalistic solution don't exist, I mean how many smoking free coffee shops and such did you see before the bans? And I mean totally free, not just "smoking free areas".
|
I agree with you, man. I also think a ban on smoking is wrong.
If people want to smoke they should be able to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
