Originally posted by SeitseI guess where we'll have to agree to disagree is on who gets to build the fence, my friend. There are certainly instances where government intervention and regulation is necessary. I just don't happen to think this is one of them.
That is correct.
Of course, people should still be free to eat grease or booze in their homes, or somewhere else but the restaurants.
Nobody is making smoking illegal, dude, it's just being kicked from restaurants, and that is ok since the government's job is to procure the good of the community.
Non-smokers here, smokers there. Like fencing apart two rival hooligan groups inside a stadium 🙂
Originally posted by FleabittenI am glad that we both see the government as partly responsible to take care of certain issues.
I guess where we'll have to agree to disagree is on who gets to build the fence, my friend. There are certainly instances where government intervention and regulation is necessary. I just don't happen to think this is one of them.
Maybe smoking is more of an issue for me than what it is for you. Here, people are falling like flies for smoking-related diseases, and my taxes are going up and up, partly because of them.
Originally posted by FleabittenBut when government is forced to spend more of its tax revenue on the health budget even though much of the increased demand on services is self inflicted and if smoking can be linked to so many illnesses and be identified as being at the root of much of the increases in health spending, then why would government idly stand by and do nothing?
I guess where we'll have to agree to disagree is on who gets to build the fence, my friend. There are certainly instances where government intervention and regulation is necessary. I just don't happen to think this is one of them.
Originally posted by kmax87I'm not advocating that the government stand idly by. They should take action. But these bans in private establishments are nothing more than half-measures that infringe upon the rights of the business owner. I'd rather see the government outlaw smoking altogether.
But when government is forced to spend more of its tax revenue on the health budget even though much of the increased demand on services is self inflicted and if smoking can be linked to so many illnesses and be identified as being at the root of much of the increases in health spending, then why would government idly stand by and do nothing?
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirJust out of curiousity, does anyone deny that smoking is harmful for you? I don't know of anyone who denies that it is "bad" for you as where other supposide high risk endevous such as prostitution and driving and drinking alcohol have been or could be argued as not necessarily "bad" for you but acutally good for you in some circumstances. Of course, when I talk about smoking I am referring to both the smoke the smoker inhales and second hand smoke that others inhale by default.
Everywhere in the world they’re banning cigarette smoking in pubs and restaurants. Everywhere? Well, anywhere that counts…
And for good reasons too. Why should employees be condemned to breathe in the fetid excaust fumes of those nicontine addicted mingers?
And that’s where the whole anti-smoking lobby seems to lose the plot and veer of the cliff of r est does. It is good that the government scares people into obedience. Even here in Holland.
Having said that, if every one is in agreement that nothing beneficial comes from smoking and instead it is detrimintal to us, then why put up with it? I suppose the only argument could be that it provides a certain degree of pleasure so it should be legalized, however, what of second hand smoke? Should someone be allowed to pleasure themselves at the expense of ones personal health in such public environments such as restaurants and air planes etc? I really don't see how it can be justified in the public arena. As with everything else, if you desire it you may pursue it no matter the degree of your own personal detriment, howevere, that is your choice. When others begin to suffer for your poor choices a line MUST be drawn in the sand that says no more.
Originally posted by kmax87I don´t think that is the motivation otherwise they would ban smoking completely which they are not. I would hazard a guess that governments get a considerable income from duty on cigarettes which may even exceed what hey spend on health.
But when government is forced to spend more of its tax revenue on the health budget even though much of the increased demand on services is self inflicted and if smoking can be linked to so many illnesses and be identified as being at the root of much of the increases in health spending, then why would government idly stand by and do nothing?
Originally posted by whodeyAt least with this logic we have something that is consistent and can be seen to have a moral argument behind it. The current system is basically a way of appeasing some lobby groups and also to throw some government weight around without losing to much from the tax revenue. It doesn´t allow business owners to make their own choices in an area where the choice itself has no effect on those that don´t agree. I feel this is wrong.
Just out of curiousity, does anyone deny that smoking is harmful for you? I don't know of anyone who denies that it is "bad" for you as where other supposide high risk endevous such as prostitution and driving and drinking alcohol have been or could be argued as not necessarily "bad" for you but acutally good for you in some circumstances. Of course, when I ...[text shortened]... begin to suffer for your poor choices a line MUST be drawn in the sand that says no more.
Banning smoking completey makes some kind of sense at least.
I am not convinced of the seriousness of the effects of second hand smoking, particularly for those that live in cities like London where the crap spewed out of industrial towers and vehicles is at least as bad.
Originally posted by FleabittenWHAT ABOUT THE MARKET FOR SMOKERS PLACES?
Originally posted by Seitse
If the demand is great enough for non-smoking eateries, then the market will, and has, filled it without the need for government intervention.
Then by this logic the government should be able to tell restaurant owners that they can no longer serve fried foods or alcohol, since those also present a health risk to the consumer and, by extension, the general public.
THERE SHOULD BE SMOKERS PUBS AND CINEMAS FOR SURE, IT WOULD EVEN CREATE EMPLOYMENT. STAFF COULD WEAR GAS MASKS, WHY THE HELL NOT?
YEAH, SOME COUNCILS HERE ARE INTRODUCING "NO JUNK FOOD" ZONES CLOSE TO SCHOLS.
NEXT THEY'LL FIX YOUR CAR SO IT CANT EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT.
AND IMPLANT A PENILE INSERT WHICH ONLY ALLOWS AN ERECTION WHEN A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE IS DETECTED, AND ALL OF YOUR TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID, AND ALSO A BRAIN INSERT WHICH CAUSES PAIN WHEN UN-PC THOUGHTS OCCUR. YOUR TV WILL AUTOMATICALLY SHUT DOWN WHEN YOU HAVE WATCHED IT FOR 90 MINUTES AS IT CAN BE BAD FOR YOU. WHAT A GREAT NANNY FUTURE LIES AHEAD.......I JUST CANT WAIT
😕
Originally posted by FleabittenThe prohibition on alcohol was a massive failed experiment in Government trying to intervene in what society wants to do. By all accounts it also helped establish and embed organised crime into the very fabric of American society.
I'd rather see the government outlaw smoking altogether.
I think what the Government does is a very pragmatic stance. Tax the practice to the extreme and try and make the habit socially unacceptable.
Now I smoked a pack a day and used to argue vehemently about the injustice of Government saying one thing and yet still happily collecting all the taxes that go along with the continued sale of the drug. But its funny when you find yourself in an outdoor mall with your kid having lunch and some bogan comes to sit right near you and decides to light up. I know these things were sent to try us but seriously, that's when I start to take offence. But if the person were to be within their rights protected by law to smoke in that area I simply pack up shop and move on.
The thing with pubs and clubs and having been involved with many a smoke filled room as a muso, while it seems logical to staff these premises with people who already smoke, it then raises the spectre of allowing the employer to discriminate,in terms of the staff that could not work there and also allows the business to run an unsafe workplace. It was not that long ago that an Australian woman successfully sued her employer for passive smoking related illness and the payout was big enough for many in the hotel association to readily enforce the smoking bans when they came into force. Two things happened. Nothing and after an initial drop off of numbers, people who had not been in pubs for years returned to the smoke free environment and started to enjoy going out again.
Another thing was that the hoteliers and pub owners found their pubs easier to keep clean and maintain in the absence of smoke and the musos who hardly ever got to smoke on stage anyway preferring to have one out on the street prior to the show(not applicable to Holland I know) really loved that their voices held up a lot better after every smoke free gig.
Sometimes its does seem PC-ness gone mad where most people who go to clubs see a smoke filled room as part of the whole attraction(its harder to hide yourself in a smoke free environment waiting for everyone's beer goggles to adjust your looks into that willing to talk to you-my what a catch you are - zone).
I mean where will it end. Could sex workers in brothels refuse to perform acts of sexual congress with clients they deem to be unattractive or offensive. I mean if we want to ensure the mental health of all our citizens and if we want to make sure that depression does not make greater inroads into society, then shouldn't we be concerned about whether prostitutes are enjoying their work? And if it can be shown that being forced to service certain types of men actually contributes to their lack of self worth thus creating the problem why the see fit to whore around in the first place, should government intervene and insist that sex workers only ever offer their services to people that they would willingly do it for free with anyway?
Originally posted by eamon oWell its mostly here already.
NEXT THEY'LL FIX YOUR CAR SO IT CANT EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT.
AND IMPLANT A PENILE INSERT WHICH ONLY ALLOWS AN ERECTION WHEN A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE IS DETECTED, AND ALL OF YOUR TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID, AND ALSO A BRAIN INSERT WHICH CAUSES PAIN WHEN UN-PC THOUGHTS OCCUR. YOUR TV WILL AUTOMATICALLY SHUT DOWN WHEN YOU HAVE WATCHED IT FOR 90 MINUTES AS IT CAN BE BAD FOR YOU. WHAT A GREAT NANNY FUTURE LIES AHEAD.......I JUST CANT WAIT
😕
Many luxury cars are speed limited to a max of 250 km/h even though they can go much faster.
Expectations of partners wanting longer lasting, more satisfying sex, brought on by the popularisation of nasal delivery technology and pills like viagra, mean that to some extent for many to exercise sexual licence they have to prop up their performance with a chemical implant so to speak.
Your PC filters content(anti virus-spyware/firewall/anit spamming-offensive ip blocking) otherwise you will experience financial pain in recovering bricked hard-drives etc.
If you are watching more than 90 min of TV a day you don't have a job.
All in all that future for the most part is already here. The only difference is that for the moment the outcomes are choices that we choose to make.
Originally posted by SeitseI care to think that your tax increases go towards bombing, rather than health.
I am glad that we both see the government as partly responsible to take care of certain issues.
Maybe smoking is more of an issue for me than what it is for you. Here, people are falling like flies for smoking-related diseases, and my taxes are going up and up, partly because of them.