Anti-Smoking lobby and political correctness etc

[Dis]

that's not the same thing.

one activity only affects one person's health. While smoking affects the health of everyone around them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obesity affects people's pocketbooks (it costs money to stop heart attacks). Wouldn't having less money affect your health?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian
Gepap,

Does the state also have a right to put you on a diet if you decide to eat outrageously, to the point of turning yourself into a whale with a 300 cholesterol? That's pretty harmful to the health too, isn't it?

Where do you stop?

-Arrian

The flip side of people commplaining about the gov. regulating things like tabacco smoking is that they never acknowledge society as a whole does end up paying for peoples choices in the form of medical care and so forth. I have no problem with the satte regulaitng certain behavior since the government will end up paying for your actions. Ditto for not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet on a motorcycle. You fly off, or get into a crash and get badly messed up, and someone other than you ends up shelling out tens of thousands of dollars. That is a direct consequence of your action on another human being. Either accept that you ractions do have consequences for others, or seek to minimize those consequences on others. Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Then accept that the paramedics won;t treat you the same as someone who did, cause you chose to endanger your life, so why should the state seek to safeguard what you don't? Ditto for smoking.

Overeating is similar, but not the same. The gov. could always refuse to fund choleserol drugs, or make you paty very high premiums for your choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then I also hope that you will support that those that mess up their livers with alcohol should pay for it themselves.

I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem, like Sava does, with telling private businesses that none of them can allow a legal activity within their walls.

[GePap]

The state choses what is legal behavior in a private office or not. Sex between two consenting adults (of different sexes and not married, just to be sure) is legal: but if you start having sex with your coworker at your public desk, that may not only be breaking the rules of the private company, but the crime of indecent exposure.

The state already regulates all sorts of actions within the public sphere (a business is privately owned, but public in nature). This is nothing new or different, and the state has plenty of justification for it.

So boo hoo hoo for the smokers: go outside.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is nothing new or different, and the state has plenty of justification for it.

Still doesn't mean it is RIGHT! Having the ability to do something and actually doing it is subject to different questions.

[Arrian]

Overeating is similar, but not the same.

I don't really see much of a distinction.

Having said that, I do understand what you're saying. And I'm sympathetic to the argument that others shouldn't have to pay to treat my cancer if I get it. Here's the problems:

1) I pay for others when they get sick, often from lifestyle choices (overeating, overdrinking, doing drugs, failure to exercise, driving like a maniac, and a bunch of other things I can't think of right now)

2) If I get cancer, I may or may not get it because of smoking (more accurately, it is probable that smoking played a role, but so did genetics and chance).

And the fact is that I'd rather shell out some money for the stupidity of others than allow the government to attempt to regulate stupidity. Because we all know just how brilliant the U.S. government is!

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Still doesn't mean it is RIGHT! Having the ability to do something and actually doing it is subject to different questions.

The state is right in trying to protect the health of it citizens, as poor health leads to greater costs of healthcare and lost productivity. The state has a far better claim to regulate smoking than it does consenting sex between individuals of age.

The "market solution" would be to demand licenses to allow smoking in a bar (like with alcohol), and to make such business have contratcs in which they will contribute towards health funds (NOT out of the pockets of workers) to pay for smoking related health issues (though since smoking has been found to increase the risk factor of basically every cancer and heart disease, it makes finding what constitutes smoking related issues difficult, due to the second hand smoke issue)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian
1) I pay for others when they get sick, often from lifestyle choices (overeating, overdrinking, doing drugs, failure to exercise, driving like a maniac, and a bunch of other things I can't think of right now)

Yes, you do now. Which is why the state gets to regulate all of those, in different forms.

2) If I get cancer, I may or may not get it because of smoking (more accurately, it is probable that smoking played a role, but so did genetics and chance).

BUt smoking has been shown statistically to greatly increase the chance. As it were, if you don;t smoke and don;t spend large amounts of time around smokers, then if you got cancer, smoking is surely not the issue (there is a very small chance that one of the few times you were with a smoker, that was the reason, but it is statistically insignificant): if you did smoke, there is nor eason tot hink it was NOT the reason. It might very well not be, but it might just as well be.

And the fact is that I'd rather shell out some money for the stupidity of others than allow the government to attempt to regulate stupidity. Because we all know just how brilliant the U.S. government is!

-Arrian

The government is as brilliant as any large organization.

[Arrian]

Which is why the state gets to regulate all of those, in different forms

Excuse me?

How does the government get to regulate how much I eat and what I eat? How does it get to regulate whether or not I exercise?

Or do you mean it should?

If so, your point of view on this matter worries me.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

What does anti-smoking lobbying have to do with political correctness?

It's a health conscious issue.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by MrFun
What does anti-smoking lobbying have to do with political correctness?

It's a health conscious issue.

well the thread was supposed to be about this sort of movement.

I mean, does forcing people to say chalk board and not black board also constitute supression of freedom?

I meant broadly speaking, do these sorts of movements and groups limit our freedom, and could they take us somewhere dangerous?

[Japher]

I don't like being called a smoker it is so belittling... what would be a good PC term for a smoker?

If they ban cigs there are a lot of other things they will have to ban... caffine comes to mind.

[St Leo]

Smoking kills others. Ban it. Alcohol kills. Ban it. Chocolate doesn't kill. Keep it legal. Pot doesn't kill anyone. Legalize it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian


Excuse me?

How does the government get to regulate how much I eat and what I eat? How does it get to regulate whether or not I exercise?

It certainly regulates what you eat. Plenty of things are banned. It aso forces corporations to tell you what you are eating. And your point goes to the heart of why I said smoking and overeating are not the same. Eating is a fundamental human urge and necessity, like Drinking water and breathing. Smoking is not. Man has reasons to overeat , reasons which are now less valid due to technology. Man has never had a reason to smoke other than cultural fashion. Thus comparing overeating and smoking is inaccurate. NOthing in food is inhreantly dangeorus to your health (thanks to government regulations, that is). Plenty of things in cigarettes are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The state is right in trying to protect the health of it citizens

But I don't think the state is 'right' in doing whatever it wants to 'protect' the health of its citizens. You could justify prohibition saying the state was trying to protect the health of its citizens. I also don't agree with the criminalization of drugs, one argument which is used to support it is 'health of the citizens'. I don't think a state is right in being a nanny state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The state is right in trying to protect the health of it citizens

But I don't think the state is 'right' in doing whatever it wants to 'protect' the health of its citizens. You could justify prohibition saying the state was trying to protect the health of its citizens. I also don't agree with the criminalization of drugs, one argument which is used to support it is 'health of the citizens'. I don't think a state is right in being a nanny state.

"nanny state"? By being a nanny state you get a more prodcutive citizenship, which means more people as cannon fodder, more factories to churn out weapons, more tech to crush internal dissent! Why not be a nanny state?

Smoking has not been banned, it has been regulated in public spaces, just like many other things have been regulated in public spaces (like no walking around with open containers of alcohol). The "freedom" to smoke is non-existant. As far as freedom goes, I worry more about important intrusions into civl rights one's rights in the criminal justice system.

Edit: this is also why the state gets to regulate pollution, and chemicals in food and drugs, and how things are manufactured. Why, in theory, shoudl the state care if somene is selling drugs with unhealthy amounst of arsenic or mercury, or whatever? so people drop dead, big deal: the next guy will know not to drink or use that..shees, why should the state be such a nanny?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Smoking has not been banned, it has been regulated in public spaces

The question is is this 'regulation' right? I don't believe it is. I say let private businesses decide for themselves if they wish to ban smoking. If enough people are fed up with it, they will flock to those establishments that do not have smoking.

[GePap]

Why is it not right? the state gets to regulate lots of things about how one can run a small business. if it has the right to demand a license to sell alcohol, and health guidelines for the kitchen and establishement, then smoking is no different. fter all, why shouldn't someone allow their workers to cooks the food without washing their hands after goign to the bathroom? So a few people get food poisoning? Big deal, the place then goes out of business, problem solved! right?

People have the power to undo these laws democractically (as they have done to helmet laws for motorcycles in some states and the speed limits). If so many people care to smoke in bars, take it up come election time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why is it not right? the state gets to regulate lots of things about how one can run a small business. if it has the right to demand a license to sell alcohol, and health guidelines for the kitchen and establishement, then smoking is no different. fter all, why shouldn't someone allow their workers to cooks the food without washing their hands after goign to the bathroom? So a few people get food poisoning? Big deal, the place then goes out of business, problem solved! right?

Do you really think that I support licenses to sell alcohol? No, I think whoever wants to sell booze should be able to and not have to apply for liquor licenses.

And a lot of 'health guidelines' are a joke. If you got enough cash, you'll come out fine... not like inspections do much anyway (ask anyone that has been a waiter). Food poisioning does suck for business, so you'll see many bosses crack down on that.

People have the power to undo these laws democractically (as they have done to helmet laws for motorcycles in some states and the speed limits). If so many people care to smoke in bars, take it up come election time.

That's fine, but what if people, democratically, in a state, decide that alcohol is unsafe and (ignore the 21st Amendment) decide to ban all alcohol sales. I wouldn't think that would be ok, even though the majority has spoken, would you?

[chequita guevara]

The state regulates many things in private establishments. You cannot expose yourself in a private establishment. You cannot strike someone in a private establishment without cause. You can't spit in someone's food. You can't do all sorts of things which cause harm to others. This is nothing different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The state regulates many things in private establishments. You cannot expose yourself in a private establishment. You cannot strike someone in a private establishment without cause. You can't spit in someone's food. You can't do all sorts of things which cause harm to others. This is nothing different.

No, this IS something different. You don't consent to the harm causing activity you've described. If you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, you just did comply with their 'harm causing' activity, because you knew about the activity and you didn't leave. You assumed the risk.

[Ming]

Let's start with the cost to society issue.

Taxes on smoking would cover ALL the medical expenses... but the government doesn't apply all the tax money for that purpose. They rob peter to pay paul... Smokers are already taxed... they pay for their habit.

Next... the "it effects me crap". Well you effect ME everytime you get in a car and turn it on. Polution in most major cities is worse on you then second hand smoke... So if you want to say... it effects me so don't do it... you are a hypocrit if you drive an automobile. You are doing damage to other people.

Private vs Public.

Let's use Che's lame example...
"The state regulates many things in private establishments. You cannot expose yourself in a private establishment. You cannot strike someone in a private establishment without cause. You can't spit in someone's food. You can't do all sorts of things which cause harm to others. This is nothing different. "

Hmmm... yes it is different. The activities you mention are AGAINST the LAW no matter where you are. Smoking is legal.

It all comes down to PC... Since most people would whine if you made them take Mass transit or force them to buy cars that got 50 miles to a gallon... we still are allowed to drive SVU's.... and not only have mass transit as our only transportation option.

When more people smoked, the government would never have dreamed of passing these kind of laws. But now... they do. So it is a matter of PC... Period. Don't give me this health crap... because I see too many gas guzzeling cars that are just as bad for me still on the road poluting the air I have to breath.

Imran is right (GOD, DID I JUST SAY THAT)... what next.
Is the majority going to continue taking away people's freedoms... Is booze next... fast food... cars that go faster than 10 miles an hour... vehicles that don't get 50 or more miles to a gallon... sporting events...
any dangerous activity?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Smoking has no good effects.

Of course it does. The people that do it feel calmer when doing so. For many it lowers stress .

They only feel calmer because the rush of nicotine temporarily alleviates the withdrawal symptoms they were having when their nicotine level began to fall some X minutes after their last cigarette.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Do you really think that I support licenses to sell alcohol? No, I think whoever wants to sell booze should be able to and not have to apply for liquor licenses.

No, which is why I am not surprised over our opinion on this either. But then, it is an opinion.

And a lot of 'health guidelines' are a joke. If you got enough cash, you'll come out fine... not like inspections do much anyway (ask anyone that has been a waiter). Food poisioning does suck for business, so you'll see many bosses crack down on that.

Do you have numbers and facts to back such allegations? And if this were true, it only argues for TOUGHER laws.

That's fine, but what if people, democratically, in a state, decide that alcohol is unsafe and (ignore the 21st Amendment) decide to ban all alcohol sales. I wouldn't think that would be ok, even though the majority has spoken, would you?

If the majority spoke and passed a law that, while limiting what I could do did not limit my political freedoms, then I would follow than law. Fine, I may argue against it, but the law in itself is not immoral, or in any way fundamentally wrong. It is different from what i think would be the best policy, but it is a valid policy nonetheless.

No, this IS something different. You don't consent to the harm causing activity you've described. If you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, you just did comply with their 'harm causing' activity, because you knew about the activity and you didn't leave. You assumed the risk.

The laws were passed based on worker protection issues, the notino being that workers don't have that option. Fine, I do think that is disingeneous (so quit working there then), but the courts OK'd it, so it is legal.

And as I said above, no, I don;t care that people now can't stick a burning roll of weeds into their mouths inside of restaurants.

[GePap]

Hmmm... yes it is different. The activities you mention are AGAINST the LAW no matter where you are. Smoking is legal.

That could always change.

It all comes down to PC... Since most people would whine if you made them take Mass transit or force them to buy cars that got 50 miles to a gallon... we still are allowed to drive SVU's.... and not only have mass transit as our only transportation option.

The differences are too large for this annalogy to work. The ones ebing forced are business, not individuals. The analogy would be to force automakers to make cars with 50 mpg efficiency.

Is the majority going to continue taking away people's freedoms... Is booze next... fast food... cars that go faster than 10 miles an hour... vehicles that don't get 50 or more miles to a gallon... sporting events...
any dangerous activity?

You are speaking here about the difference between license and liberty. There is no fundamental freedom to drive fast, smoke, drink, do cocaine, moon people, so forth and so on.

[chequita guevara]

Just go hide in the alleys like the rest of the drug addicts.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obesity affects people's pocketbooks (it costs money to stop heart attacks). Wouldn't having less money affect your health?

Obesity is a minor risk factor for coronary artery disease. Passive exposure to cigarette smoke is also.

The major risk factors are heredity (a family history of CAD at a young age), smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. Please note that hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia are all largely hereditary just as is the family history. While some people can control their hypertension by loosing some weight and shuning salt, the majority can't. Likewise some people can control their diabetes or hypercholesterolemia with diet, but most can't. In fact a major medical task force recently removed diet as the recommended first step towards controlling cholesterol because it so rarely works.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man



but passive smoking is not harmfull, unless you worked in a smokey night club for 50 yrs, every night.


anyway, this is about the attack on freedom.

I'm an asthmatic. Passive smoke is very bad for me. In fact passive smoke may have been what gave me asthma in the first place. Studies have shown that early childhood exposure to cigarette smoke is a major factor in the developemnt of asthma. It's also a factor in the development of myopia, which I also have. Exposure to smoking parents also definitely increases a child's lifetime risk for lung cancer.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
That could always change.

But it hasn't yet.

The analogy would be to force automakers to make cars with 50 mpg efficiency.

Fine... but they don't do that... they make PC laws about overall gas milage by car company fleet so that yuppies can still drive their SUV's... Yes... it's PURELY PC.

You are speaking here about the difference between license and liberty. There is no fundamental freedom to drive fast, smoke, drink, do cocaine, moon people, so forth and so on.

I see you managed to slip in cocaine and mooning people... what the hell do they have to do with this... They're illegal, smoking isn't

You can argue "words"... but look at reality. Fast food is legal... drinking is legal... smoking is legal... they all cause long term health problems... yet the PC crowd is picking on second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is no worse than air polution that comes from automobiles.

So let me ask you... do you drive a car? If you do, don't tell me I can't smoke... because you are as bad as I am then. You are poluting the air I breath as well. You are are a hypocrit.

Driving a car and smoking are LEGAL... But since less people smoke... it's ok for drivers to polute the air I have breath every second, but not smokers in a bar or restaurant... Yep, it's all about PC... Admit it.