|
My city just passed a smoking-ban.
Perhaps it is relevant that I enjoy smoking on sporadic occasions -- probably less than 10 smokes a month. On the other hand, the idea of being able to go to bars and not come home reeking of smoke is appealing – I hate that smell. However, I think the smoking ban recently passed in my city is wrong.
The smoking ban is justified by either: (1) A form of paternalism ((getting rid of man’s right to live as he chooses)) (2) or maintaining that smoking is a threat to man’s rights (second hand smoke). Let me clarify these positions.
(1)
The basic argument here is that an individual does not know what, in fact, is good for him. The individual makes the foolish decision to start smoking at some point. He either does not know or is currently too irresponsible to care about the fact that smoking is a serious danger to his long term health and well-being. So, as the analogy goes, like a parent monitoring how much junk food their child can eat, the city government is out to protect the long-term interests of college station residents.
(2)
The basic argument here is of a different sort. This argument seems to grant the right in dispute in (1) – that man has the inalienable ability to select his future even if it is bad for him. In fact, it uses the concept of right to make its case – as some commentators on my local newspaper wrote, : “It's about time CS has protected my rights to breath healthy air in a bar and/or restaurant” or “FREEDOM THAT USURPS SOMEONE ELSES FREEDOM IS NOT FREEDOM AT ALL. I have a right to clean air, wherever I go, be that a daycare, or a bar.” [Caps not mine]
Before examining each argument in isolation, I think it is important to note that these arguments are often used simultaneously. This is a blatant contradiction unless a more refined distinction is brought up.
(1)
If we were to take this argument seriously then the smoking ban would have to be extended not only to bars. Any activity that is at all dangerous – that is, which jeopardizes long term well being for short-term pleasure -- may be called into question. Skydiving, for example, causes about 30 deaths per year --all this for the adrenaline rush of jumping out of a plane? Reign in those irresponsible thrill-seekers! The same goes for hiking, biking, running, skiing and crossing the street. The list could and would become very large.
However, some of the more consistent proponents of the ban may, after all, claim: “Yes, I think the government should do this. The government should make itself the parent-like figure in order to maintain the longevity and well-being of its citizens.”
This leads us to the basic question: What is the justification of this?
My view is that the most basic right I have is the right to my own life. Is my life my own or does it belong to someone else? Laws against suicide provide a convenient point of investigation. If I no longer wish to live, can the government can force me to? Where does it get that kind of authority? How is it possible that the government is given the authority to make a metaphysical value judgment about the overall worth of existence itself. The separation between church and state was crafted specifically to prevent the government from enforcing such a judgment. It is not the government’s prerogative, said the founders, to endorse (through force, as that is the essential distinguishing characteristic of government) a religious/philosophic view of reality into its citizens. Instead, it is the government’s job to ensure that all citizens are given the ability to live according to their own metaphysical/ethical views up until the point that it positively and literally interferes with another individual’s ability to do so. (You are not allowed to sacrifice your neighbors or their property to your god). This discussion of rights leads us directly to
(2)
To clarify this argument we need to agree upon a definition of “rights”. There are two distinct characteristics of a right.
First, rights are trump cards. When the term right is used in an argument it takes up the weight of infinite value. For example, you really don’t like what I’m saying? It is making a lot of people cry? So what – I have the right to free speech. The government really doesn’t want to give me a trial? So what – I am guaranteed it. A group of people really want to kill me – and they can show how it would be really great for their community? Sorry – I have a right to life.
Second, rights are negative obligations – and necessarily so. A right guarantees freedom to act and to possess ownership to the results of one’s actions -- nothing else. So, for example, my right to property does not ask more of you than you respecting it. It does not ask you to give some of your property to me but only that you leave my property alone. The same structure applies to free speech. I can’t force you to listen to me but you can’t force me to not voice my view. Or, more succinctly: “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.”
The point? There is no justification for a smoking ban -- no right to attend a smoke-free bar. An individual or group of individuals owns the bar and they get to decide how to run it. If you don’t want to inhale second hand smoke, and the bar allows smoking, don’t go. The bar can’t force you to go and likewise you shouldn’t be able to force the bar to operate against their wishes.
One reply is to concede the above argument but make the case that the workers at the bar don’t get to choose if they go or not, they are forced to work in a smoking environment. The implicit assumption here is that the worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment -- and more abstractly, a right to a job. They don’t have either of these rights because these rights impose positive not negative obligations.
[edit: deleted typo]
|
Australia has had a no smoking in places where meals/drinks are served for a while now, and I think it's a really good thing.
BUT, in a place like America, where healthcare isn't provided free to all citizens it's a bit rich of the government to stop people doing it, it makes sense in Australia because all these arseholes who are sucking down smoke 24/7 are costing the taxpayer millions of dollars every year in medical costs, not to mention lost productivity of days off because they're too sick to go to work. The government would actually save themselves money by outlawing smoking (unless the money they make from taxing cigarettes etc. is really that huge, in which case at least they'd free up the health system to look after people with other problems instead of ones who could have stopped themselves being sick in the first place). I really don't get it though, how could anyone enjoy smoking? Sucking searing hot embers into my lungs really doesn't sound like my cup of tea tbqh, not to mention smokers smell horrible and in public places force their smoke upon other people. Smoking should at least be allowed only in private, I hate the fact that at university every day every second wanker blows a cloud of smoke into my face.
sorry for missing the whole philosophical argument of your post, I don't really have the energy to digest it all right now.
|
I think your arguments about government sponsored instutions (health-care, universities, etc) are dead on. I don't think those government institutions should exist, but if they do I think you have an important point. That is, argument (2) can be utilized (albeit, in an ultimately contradictory manner)
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
OP, can you specify where someone can and cannot smoke?
I'm guessing you could still smoke in your car or house at least.
|
Smoking has been banned in indoor public places here for a while now, it really doesn't bother me because I don't smoke and I agree it's nice to come home not stinking of cigarette smoke. At first I was kind of against it for similar reasons to you but the smokers themselves don't seem to mind going outside for five minute to smoke so I don't think it's a big deal.
@TheTyranid
If it's anything like the ban here then it's for indoor public places only, so outside, in your car, in your house are all fine.
|
Yep, car and house is still allowed.
|
Welcome to the club. NY's had it for years =(
|
Sweden's had it for years. since -05 I think. And I mean the entire country.
|
The government should limit the freedoms of the citizens, and make the choices that are obviously stupid for them (the citizens). For example i'm a smoker, i wish i didn't smoke if i could choose i would stop but i can't make myself. Now if the government would ban cigarettes that would be a good thing for me and i'd support it.
|
|
|
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
|
Smoking is a very complex issue because smokers could be indirectly hurting others. Its not like smoking can be isloted so that smokers can do it in peace. The smoke goes out in the air its not right if someone else has to breath it in. I've always thought that you should be able to do whatever you want if you don't hurt anyone else. But when its something environmental like smoking, the issue is pretty complex. I still don't know where I stand with this.
|
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
Why would the government ban something that gives them millions of dollars in revenue each year through heavy taxation, theres a reason that its like 11$ australian for a packet of smokes where the rest of the world its a fraction of the cost.
|
"The government should limit the freedoms of the citizens, and make the choices that are obviously stupid for them."
Freudian slip?
|
i said i wish they would, i know they have no intention of doing it because they are greedy
i value health over revenue anyway
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
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
it does if your parachute doesnt open and you land on somebody
|
But when you're skydiving it's done in a place where you won't land on someone, like landing in fields and stuff, sure you could land on someone but that's a freak accident that has a low possibility of happening. Smoking on the other hand, well, as long as people are near you when you exhale smoke there is a high possibility they will breathe that smoke in.
|
On March 13 2009 20:13 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +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 it does if your parachute doesnt open and you land on somebody
=/
|
On March 13 2009 20:06 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
"The government should limit the freedoms of the citizens, and make the choices that are obviously stupid for them."
Freudian slip?
Most likely just a case of less than perfect English grammar, you understood what he meant didn't you? =p
|
On March 13 2009 20:06 Scaramanga wrote:Show nested quote +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 Why would the government ban something that gives them millions of dollars in revenue each year through heavy taxation, theres a reason that its like 11$ australian for a packet of smokes where the rest of the world its a fraction of the cost.
I think you need to take a trip to Norway if you think smokes are cheap everywhere else, 10 US$ or so for a pack.
On topic Norway started using this law around 03-04 or so, and I as a non smoker find it great and I think the smokers got pretty quick accustomed to it also. Tho they complain a bit in the winter when they have to leave bars to go outside in -5 degrees just to feed their abstinence's. In retrospect its pretty insane that they actually allowed smoking everywhere before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=llama1.jpg)
