View Full Version: Smoking bans, progression towards socialism?

Evolution > Off Topic > Smoking bans, progression towards socialism?



Title: Smoking bans, progression towards socialism?


Drake - April 12, 2007 11:22 AM (GMT)
It's true. Individual freedoms and rights are being trampled by an overstepping government. They pretty much regulate what we eat, drink, say, hear, see and in a way breathe. This is not a pro-smoking post, it's a pro-freedom post. The only way to retain our rights as individuals from a government who steals our land to build strip malls and tells us what we can and cannot do in our own homes is to make ourselves heard, stand up for your rights and don't let small groups of people who scream loudly control our lives.

I just had to rant.

_MetalliX_ - April 12, 2007 11:36 AM (GMT)
I agree to a point, in that its our bodies we should be able to do what we want to them. However, so that society operates peacefully, you can do what you like, as long as its not at the expense of others.

The reason smoking is being outlawed is because of the risk it poses to others. People don't want to have to inhale second-hand tobacco smoke, and so they shouldn't. Even if a smoker only ever does it in the comfort of their own home, its potentially a hospital bed taken away from someone who hasn't spent a large portion of their life slowly killing themselves.

Bottom line, as long as you don't bother others with your smoking, and don't come crying to the hospital when you develop lung cancer or gangrene, then sure - smoke.

Cubeoid - April 12, 2007 11:48 AM (GMT)
I'll be happy when they ban smoking in nightclubs. I hate going out only to come home having inhaled some massive amount of second hand smoke, and smelling like it too. If people want to smoke when they're out they can go outside damn it.

Though this is actually going to be a problem now as a 1am lockout has come into effect in Bendigo. You can't get into a club after 1am even if you just came out. Hopefully it won't last long though, it'll freaking kill the nightlife here.

Drake - April 12, 2007 12:20 PM (GMT)
We of course have the right to go to a non-smoking bar. Demand creates the economic environment that society desires. Government is pushing the insurance company and health care agenda. The oddest thing is that most of the people who want to squash the rights of others are the ones who cry about equality in society. They want everyone to have the same rights, which would specifically be none. Well, that is unless it's their own rights, you dare not touch those.

BrotherEstapol - April 12, 2007 03:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cubeoid @ Apr 12 2007, 09:48 PM)
I'll be happy when they ban smoking in nightclubs. I hate going out only to come home having inhaled some massive amount of second hand smoke, and smelling like it too.

Come to Canberra my good friend, as of last Novemberish, it is now an offence to smoke inside licenced clubs and bars. :D

It's so much better, you don't come home smelling like an ashtray anymore! :dance3:

Decman - April 12, 2007 04:07 PM (GMT)
I agree with smoking bans completely. I've never smoked before, but I know what it can do to somebody: my dad is a prime example. He's had three heart-attacks and a minor stroke from smoking (yeah, he's still alive :P (and surprisingly healthy)).

Sure, it's a personal choice but the fact is, when people light-up a cigarette, they usually aren't by themselves, and doing so is causing people to passively inhale hundreds of extremely dangerous chemicals. I'm sorry, but I don't want to get lung cancer because some randomer over there needs to relieve stress by inhaling smoke. <_<

In Ireland, it's against the law to smoke on a public premises. You have to be outside or in your own home. We have smoke-free pubs and restaurants, and it's all the better for it, really it is. I think this law has been in practice for about two or three years now, and it's working. If my terrestial politics are correct, the UK goes smoke-free too in July. :D

Many argue that the government loses out on taxes when smoking is banned or monitored: that's not true. There's no way that the money earnt from tobacco taxes can make up for the money that the country fritters away by giving away beds and using up expensive equipment to people that voluntarily pollute themselves.

borgster101 - April 13, 2007 12:51 AM (GMT)
It's hardly a progression towards socialism. LOL, a bit dramatic :P And even if it was is that a bad thing? Thats probably for another disucssion :P

Metalix pretty much nailed it on this particular issue though, if people want to smoke and knowing all the risks that we do, then thats fine, it's their choice, but the problem is that those who don't smoke are exposed through inhaled second-hand tobacco smoke, and can even get cancer from it! So thats why its regulated/essentially banned.

QUOTE (Decman)
Many argue that the government loses out on taxes when smoking is banned or monitored: that's not true. There's no way that the money earnt from tobacco taxes can make up for the money that the country fritters away by giving away beds and using up expensive equipment to people that voluntarily pollute themselves

Quite true :thumbsup:

Qubert - April 13, 2007 05:13 AM (GMT)
I can personally say that I hate smoking. I can't stand the way it the smoke smells and I don't think I'll ever be able to rationalize why someone would do it. That said, I don't think it should ever be banned. It's not the job of the government to baby sit us, there has to be some personal responsibility left to the individuals themselves.

zsa-zsa tofu - April 13, 2007 05:58 AM (GMT)
Butbut...I think it's a good idea! In NJ that is. They're getting rid of smoking in carsss. :] I think that's good. NO LUNG CANCER PLZTHX.




Hosted for free by InvisionFree