Smoking (1 Viewer)

[Kim Il-Sung]

ok everyone:

I was on the LDP website taking a look as I sometimes do and I found a statement of their position on smoking - basically that they opposed any bans on smoking due to the individuals' rights to smoke if they wanted etc etc

I love individual rights and all that but it seems to me that the harm principle is the elephant in the room that the LDP are ignoring here. The adverse effects of secondhand smoke are well documented and smoking is a fucking gross habit to boot. Obviously I cannot avoid it if I'm walking down the street but it annoys the shit out of me at parties/social occasions. If it were allowed in pubs/clubs I would definitely think twice about going anywhere likely to be packed with smokers.

Yeah you could leave it up to business to decide whether smoking was allowed or not but that could actually turn out to be economically disadvantageous. Btw I'm not suggesting there should be blanket bans re public places but similar rules to what is in now seem ok.

Imo smoking is different to something like eating junk food because smoking results in direct physical harm to surrounding people. That to me is enough to justify restrictions.

discuss (opinions on plain packaging etc also ok)

 

[SylviaB]

ok everyone:
If it were allowed in pubs/clubs I would definitely think twice about going anywhere likely to be packed with smokers.

...and if enough people shared a similar dislike for cigarette smoke then they would do the same, and a market for voluntarily smoke free venues would emerge.

Yeah you could leave it up to business to decide whether smoking was allowed or not but that could actually turn out to be economically disadvantageous.

So? Allowing companies to "get hurt", so to speak, is essential for them to learn the nature of the market.

Seriously if a business, whose primary purpose is to maximise profit, sees potential for more money they'll go fir it. If they somehow don't notice this source of potential profit, then its absurd to suggest the government will.

Imo smoking is different to something like eating junk food because smoking results in direct physical harm to surrounding people. That to me is enough to justify restrictions.

Absurd to suggest it should be banned on private property. If you dont like somewhere with smoke, don't go there. You have no "right" to frequent a particular business, let alone frequent without there being smoke in the air.
And most anti-smoking laws are claimed to be necessary because its too dangerous for individuals to smoke, not because of the dangers of second hand smoke (which are very exaggerated, btw)



discuss (opinions on plain packaging etc also ok)[/quote]

 

[kaz1]

Unsafe workplace for the non-smoking workers at these clubs as they are constantly exposed to second hand smoke.

 

[Dr_Quack]

I agree on a total ban being completely ludicrous (both morally and even practically) though maybe forfeiture of free public health care benefits for smokers for diseases related to smoking would be a positive step (non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for the harmful addictions of others).

Maybe also higher taxes on companies (and thus the consumers) would be another issue needed to be discussed, though i'm sure that they'd already be pretty high (cbf looking up the stats).

 

[aussie-boy]

thats ridiculous, you cant ban something that people enjoy if they already cover all the costs for their activity

we should be getting more progressive - start producing and taxing pot and ecstacy as well

 

[Kwayera]

Absurd to suggest it should be banned on private property. If you dont like somewhere with smoke, don't go there. You have no "right" to frequent a particular business, let alone frequent without there being smoke in the air.
And most anti-smoking laws are claimed to be necessary because its too dangerous for individuals to smoke, not because of the dangers of second hand smoke (which are very exaggerated, btw)

Dangers of second- and third-hand smoke may be exaggerated in adults but certainly not in kids, and even if they aren't, the kid can't really choose, can they?

What about people who smoke around their kids on "private property"?

~devilsadvocate~

 

[SylviaB]

~devilsadvocate~

well obviously its different with kids : /


~torublesome concept~

 

[funkshen]

I agree on a total ban being completely ludicrous (both morally and even practically) though maybe forfeiture of free public health care benefits for smokers for diseases related to smoking would be a positive step (non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for the harmful addictions of others).

Well, that's the system we have at the moment.

Kim Il-sung is just reviving an already thoroughly beaten mule of an argument to provoke the same old responses from incompetent advocates of laissez-faire policy and societal intervention. delete this thread immediate

 

[Kwayera]

Confession: actually not so much of a devils advocate, I hate parents who smoke around their kids. My mum did it to me when I was young, and my aunt smokes in the car with her poor daughter (and has been doing this to her since she was a baby. She's now 11).

 

[Optimus Prime]

second hand smoke in enclosed spaces such as clubs and such can be marginally harmful, but kids aren't there. Many/most places were smoke free indoors even before the bans came about.

Edit: and I'd say an above average percentage of hospitality workers smoke, in my experience.

 

[Rothbard]

I'm p sure the second hand smoke shit was found to be hectically exaggerated

 

[Rothbard]

Confession: actually not so much of a devils advocate, I hate parents who smoke around their kids. My mum did it to me when I was young, and my aunt smokes in the car with her poor daughter (and has been doing this to her since she was a baby. She's now 11).

~adults only libertarian~

 

[SylviaB]

guess what is a safe way to smoke around children:

electronic/vapour cigarettes

guess who has prohibited the sale of electronic cigarettes:

the state



: /

 

[Richard Gilmore]

guess what is a safe way to smoke around children:

electronic/vapour cigarettes

guess who has prohibited the sale of electronic cigarettes:

the state



: /

guess what is not a safe way to smoke:

with cigarettes

guess who markets cigarettes to dumb, disadvantaged people

cigarette companies

: /

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Hey I'll agree with you - smoking laws have gone too far. But I think what we have now is quite good. Advertisements and health warnings are completely nessecary. The free market won't educate people on the evils of cigarette smoke - government, or some kind of intervention is clearly nessecary.

and i disagree on the point that most anti-smoking laws relating to public places etc is due to first-hand smoke, rather than second hand smoke. once again, citation needed.

 

[SylviaB]

guess what is not a safe way to smoke:

with cigarettes

yeah but if you're only hurting yourself then there's no problem



my point was that government regulations lead to less safety for children

guess who markets cigarettes to dumb, disadvantaged people

cigarette companies

so basically what you're saying is that a huge coercive monopoly should exist because some people are dumb and will hurt themselves

fuck that shit

Hey I'll agree with you - smoking laws have gone too far. But I think what we have now is quite good. Advertisements and health warnings are completely nessecary. The free market won't educate people on the evils of cigarette smoke - government, or some kind of intervention is clearly nessecary.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that smoking is dangerous, and warning labels have stopped exactly zero people from smoking

and i disagree on the point that most anti-smoking laws relating to public places etc is due to first-hand smoke, rather than second hand smoke. once again, citation needed.

hmm?

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

hmm?

The following was said in the second reading speech for what would become the smoke-free environment act 2000:

This is an important public health initiative which will benefit the entire community through a well-balanced, practical and commonsense approach to the regulation of passive smoking.

so yeah it looks like 2nd hand smoke is a big deal for legislators

 

[SylviaB]

I meant I wasn't sure about which claim of mine he was refering to.

Seriously though, second hand smoke is not that dangerous in indoor, private places, its even less dangerous in outdoor public areas.

if its because the smoke is "unpleasant", well, so is body odour, and I can't choose not to smell odorous people.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

yeah but if you're only hurting yourself then there's no problem

my point was that government regulations lead to less safety for children

so basically what you're saying is that a huge coercive monopoly should exist because some people are dumb and will hurt themselves

fuck that shit

Actually no, my point was that your beloved free market absolutely fails when it comes to protecting the individual who smokes from killing themselves. Bow down to the almighty dollar!

Thus, something needs to step in to put some balance on these companies. A point made further by...

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that smoking is dangerous

Thanks to governmental and academic research. I very much doubt this was thanks to the combined efforts of Phillip Morris and Japan Tobacco. In fact, at the British American Tobacco website yields a fantastic look at their approach to stopping smoking!

British American Tobacco - Health risks of smoking
British American Tobacco - Second-hand smoke

"This means that science is still to determine which smokers will get a smoking related disease and which will not."

Subtext: Hey maybe you won't die! Have a cigarette!

and warning labels have stopped exactly zero people from smoking

really? come on dude. really? stop making stuff up. come on sylvester. you can do better than this.

Smoking rates in Australia - Background on tobacco - Quit Victoria

---

These are all minor points in the long debate on proving that you're a batshit insane douchebag with zero credibility, who denies facts and makes up statistics on the spot.

I do agree with the idea that anti smoking laws have gone too far though.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

I meant I wasn't sure about which claim of mine he was refering to.

It was pretty clear.

Seriously though, second hand smoke is not that dangerous in indoor, private places, its even less dangerous in outdoor public areas.

zero credibility.

if you're going to make up outrageous shit like this, please provide some evidence. you are flying in the face of popular and (what i believe is) scientific opinion. the burden of proof is upon you.

But seriously guys, inhaling like...benzene is actually good for your health!