Legal age for smoking

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:
And saying 'you really must try harder' is just a cheap way of saying that you disagree with another's POV in a dismissive way.

You seek to infringe other individual's liberty - it is for you to justify this, not for others to justify their right to that liberty!

'What crap you spout...'

Twat!

Svetty ... your first two sentences were well stated and very valid ... shame how you signed your name on the last word!

Eloise

You may have a point but to be fair anyone who first espouses infringing others of their individual freedoms and then describes as 'crap' valid observations against their POV frankly deserves the attribution made.

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:


Burn books we don't approve of - another good one

Round up Homosexuals and the Jews - yup, I'm up for that too

THESE are the valid observations of which you speak? These advance the argument? Well, if you say so. OK, so you've convinced me. Let's not burn books. Let's not round up the Homosexuals and Jews. Wouldn't dream of it now, given the razor-sharp logic of your argument. And there was me, just about to head out in my book-burning van. Apologies that I ever considered it.

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:


You seek to infringe other individual's liberty - it is for you to justify this, not for others to justify their right to that liberty!

Anyway, back to the debate. Yes, you're right. I have to make the case. I am trying to make it based on the well-documented harm and addictive nature of smoking. People take it up when they are vulnerable (young, impressionable, interested in "fitting in", perhaps stressed) and then find it very difficult to quit. Many smokers wish they had never started. Why is the market for nicotine patches and gum so large? It easier to not start in the first place than stop once you have begun. People who have never smoked, don't feel like they're missing out on something.

It is on this basis that we, as a society already attempt to influence behaviour for the "greater good" by imposing a minimum age, restricting advertising and levying high taxes and duties. We also have chosen to limit the effects of "second hand" smoke on others by restricting smoking in many public places, but this is perhaps a separate argument.

My argument is that we should simply consider taking already significant smoking restictions one step further. We already have agreed to do this for very many addictive drugs.

Please don't extrapolate the suggestion that smoking should be more restricted to become an unbridled assault on your civil liberties.

Back briefly to Mountain climbing. It is a poor analogy. Smoking is perhaps pleasurable, whereas mountain climbing, for the most part, is not. It is hard and painful. Mountain climbing is objectively pointless (many pursuits are), but gives one a tremendous, life-affirming sense of achievement that sucking on a cigarette would perhaps not achive. People devote their lives to climbing because of the satisfaction it gives them. I doubt even the most ardent somkers are that passionate about the habit.

quote:

Originally posted by Svetty:


And saying 'you really must try harder' is just a cheap way of saying that you disagree with another's POV in a dismissive way.

I'm very glad that you received my message clearly.

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:
winky, I feel the need to get involved here....

-What if 'experts' suddenly decided that listening to music was a dangerous, subersive culturally unacceptable behaviour that prevented you from contributing to society? Or maybe just certain kinds of music?

Experts didn't "suddenly decide" that smoking was harmful and addictive. It is one of the best documented links in medical history. The conclusion is drawn based on evidence. No one "decided" that smoking was harmful and addictive. It is not a matter of opinion.

Over 100,000 people die each year in the UK due to smoking-related illness. Imagine now that the tobacco companies invented an otherwise perfectly safe super-ciggies that had one design flaw. Random super-ciggies exploded in peoples mouths, blowing their heads off. They worked to reduce the fatality rate and got it down to the point that exploding super-ciggies would only kill 10,000 people per year. No further improvement is possible (due to quantum effects). You are the Prime Minister. Do you legalise super-ciggies and save over 90,000 lives per year?

To answer a question posed earlier, yes I would legalise all currently proscribed substances provided they were available at known levels of purity, from properly licensed premises, at not unreasonable price, and suitably taxed.

Adults should be presumed to be responsible (even though some are not) and it would destroy almost overnight the criminal activity that always results from prohibition.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:
-What if 'experts' suddenly decided that listening to music was a dangerous, subersive culturally unacceptable behaviour that prevented you from contributing to society? Or maybe just certain kinds of music?

Experts didn't "suddenly decide" that smoking was harmful and addictive. It is one of the best documented links in medical history. The conclusion is drawn based on evidence. No one "decided" that smoking was harmful and addictive. It is not a matter of opinion.

Winky, i think you are missing my point, perhaps deliberately. But if you insist take out the word 'suddenly' from my sentence. It doesn't change what i'm getting at.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada: ...on this basis that we, as a society already attempt to influence behaviour for the "greater good"

I get very worried when phrases like 'for the greater good'. Like Svetty says we've been here before.

Who got very worried when lead-based paint and widespread DDT use were banned for the greater good? Mostly just the people making money off their production, sales, and use. I know I didn't.

Yes, we've been here before, and Nazis weren't always involved. It has actually worked out pretty well on occasion.

Umm, actually I didn't say anything about Nazis. I was thinking more about the recent Labour government/nanny state in New Zealand.

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:

Winky, i think you are missing my point, perhaps deliberately. But if you insist take out the word 'suddenly' from my sentence. It doesn't change what i'm getting at.

I don't think I am missing your point but I'll try to clarify. My counter was not really about the speed of coming to the conclusion, but rather that the conclusion (smoking kills people and is addictive) was based on evidence, not on beliefs. The analogy to banning types of music doesn't really count unless there was well documented evidence that those types of music were harmful. If there was a significant body of scientific evidence that, say, listening to Lady Ga Ga was not only addictive, but killed a significant proportion of those who listened to her, then I would think we should discuss banning her. She's bad, but not THAT bad.

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:
Who got very worried when lead-based paint and widespread DDT use were banned for the greater good? Mostly just the people making money off their production, sales, and use. I know I didn't.

Someone needs to come up with a health-risk free cigarette to replace the dangerous one first.

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:
I get very worried when phrases like 'for the greater good'. Like Svetty says we've been here before.

I understand this. It is an overused expression. What I mean here is that banning smoking could increase the overall wellbeing (financial wellbeing, longevity and general health as parameters in this case), albeit at the expense of those who just really, really like to smoke.

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:
Who got very worried when lead-based paint and widespread DDT use were banned for the greater good? Mostly just the people making money off their production, sales, and use. I know I didn't.

Someone needs to come up with a health-risk free cigarette to replace the dangerous one first.

Healthy cigarettes have proven a little elusive to date. But anyway, smoking doesn't have general utility like paint or pesticides. It does nothing anywhere near as useful.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I understand this. It is an overused expression. What I mean here is that banning smoking could increase the overall wellbeing (financial wellbeing, longevity and general health as parameters in this case), albeit at the expense of those who just really, really like to smoke.

Agreed, but so would forcing people to exercise more, eat healthier foods, eat less, stay out of the sun...

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:
Umm, actually I didn't say anything about Nazis. I was thinking more about the recent Labour government/nanny state in New Zealand.

You said "Like Svetty says...", and Svetty mentioned rounding up homosexuals and Jews. Is that what your NZ nanny state is up to?

Nannies or Nazis, the point remains.

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I understand this. It is an overused expression. What I mean here is that banning smoking could increase the overall wellbeing (financial wellbeing, longevity and general health as parameters in this case), albeit at the expense of those who just really, really like to smoke.

Agreed, but so would forcing people to exercise more, eat healthier foods, eat less, stay out of the sun...

Well there is legislation requiring labelling of foods and controlling the additives. There are rules that are applied to children regarding sun exposure (in Australia, at least). There is much education around these issues. But you're right, it stops short of forcing behaviour.

There are limits to what is appropriate government intervention. Zero intervention is not the answer. Banning smoking may or may not cross the line. That is the debate here.

Forcing people to exercise more? Now we're talking.

There may be a small case for allowing people to buy cigarettes from a licensed drug dealer provided they have a prescription note from their doctor which says 'patient A is addicted to nicotine because he/she was stupid enough to start smoking and too weak to give up. Therefore I prescribe the following .....on the strict understanding that they be smoked in private and not used in public to pollute other people. Patient A has been informed of the harm smoking causes but is too stupid to understand the statistics and claims a right to self harm'.

The patient would have to observe the law regarding not smoking in public or forfeit further presecriptions. Patients would have to undergo regular 'quit smoking' clinics and the amount of cigarettes prescribed would have to be reduced over time. The prescription should not be available free on the NHS but would have to be paid for at an exhorbitant fee which would rise dramatically every year.

Other than this I'm all for a complete ban.

Sniper. I'm a little concerned that we seem to agree on much of this. What has gone wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:


Well there is legislation requiring labelling of foods and controlling the additives. There are rules that are applied to children regarding sun exposure (in Australia, at least). There is much education around these issues. But you're right, it stops short of forcing behaviour.

There are limits to what is appropriate government intervention. Zero intervention is not the answer. Banning smoking may or may not cross the line. That is the debate here.

You can ban what you like but you won't stop it, you just push it underground. There's still plenty of smoking in pubs in the UK usually consuming "duty free" too.

quote:

Forcing people to exercise more? Now we're talking.

NO. Now you're talking. As usual.
Anything else apart from smoking, driving, exercising that you like to have total control over?

Cheers
Steve

This "you just push it underground" argument is surely substantially overworked. It is an example of a true statement that does not make the case to which it is applied - condoning the given activity.

What matters is that 'pushing it underground' reduces the volume of the harmful activity and thus the effects of it. I propose that it is thus a beneficial approach, taken overall.

Fraser

But if it is considered reasonable to legislate activities that pose a degree of risk to the indulging individual where do you stop?

There are enough criminalised people already, and creating a whole new class of smoking criminals will have a significant cost for society as a whole. It is not quite a one way street to benefit [for the general good of society] in the utilitarian sense, and I think that loss of freedom to indulge in this or that currently legal activity is something that will cost society far more than what money might pay for!

I think that it was reasonable and a good thing to ban smoking from public places because of the compelling evidence about secondary smoking and this being involuntary, but once this [in my view] correct enhancement to the law had taken place, I would say there is more for legislators to worry about. Say salt and fat in fast and convenience foods, if we want to avoid the truly global perspective.

And in terms of harm caused involuntarily to others, how about banning any car journey of less than say 4 miles? I am not proposing this, but the impacts on third parties are manifold indeed, on so many levels, and the result of people excercising [by walking or cycling] would have all round benefits. People have that choice today, but in no way would I want legislation put in pace to remove that choice ...

ATB from George

For once I agree with George. If people want to smoke it's their life let them get on with it. I don't smoke and I enjoy a drink in the pub now that it is smoke free. My brother in law smokes, he knows its harmful and he sees the effects every day (He is a crematorium technician). He likes a smoke it's his choice. He wants a smoke he stands in the rain out side the pub.

If we let the government nanny do gooders tell us what to do then one day they will ban the sales of say the NAP500 because it uses up a lot of power (Global warming excuse). We are supposed to live in a free country where if an individual wishes to be stupid with their health then that is their right. A short happy life is better than a long miserable one.

(sorry about the poor speeling never masterd that skill)

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by King Size:
Umm, actually I didn't say anything about Nazis. I was thinking more about the recent Labour government/nanny state in New Zealand.

You said "Like Svetty says...", and Svetty mentioned rounding up homosexuals and Jews. Is that what your NZ nanny state is up to?

Nannies or Nazis, the point remains.

The "like Svetty says" phrase refers to "haven't we been here before". I never mentioned Nazis, homesexuals or Jews. So please do not read something into what was not said.

The previous labour government did many things that annoyed the population but in general just treated us like kids who didn't know better.

Nannies or Nazis, the point remains - I agree completely, but I still wasn't referring to the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Guinnless:
NO. Now you're talking. As usual.
Anything else apart from smoking, driving, exercising that you like to have total control over?

Cheers
Steve

I agree with Steve here. He touches on the primary reason I felt compelled to participate in this thread as well as the ones' you started about the AFL and traffic in Australia.

However I think my participation on this thread is now at an end. It's been fun though.