|
| quote: | Originally posted by Aitizaz
ok...so this is how it pans out if you look it from a neutral point of view...and this is based on a complete ban on smoking...yup...no more smoking which is what the gov. is trying to achieve..
the money lost from revenues,taxes,unemployed ppl from the tobacco industry etc etc will be more than compensated
by the following:
1. money not lost on health care for tobacco related issues
2. the lives not lost to the same issues, now imagine if these ppl can work and earn and add to the nations GDP etc etc...not to mention the taxes they generate from their incomes..and the money they will spend on food,rent etc
3. overall improvement in the enviroment...leading to everyone being more healthier..living longer lives...earning more money...and generating more taxes...increase in GDP (you get the drift..its a snowball effect)
4. there r so many more reasons and arguments to support it but the above are sufficient...this is rough and pretty watered down idea of how a cost-benefit analysis is done
again...this argument can only really come into effect if there is a total ban on smoking..which i gather is what the gov. is trying to achieve...
the point about fast food and heart related deaths was brought up and though it is true...the ban on smoking is only to eliminate " the biggest preventable cause of death"..they are starting at the top and working their down i would imagine..
as for the matter of choice..well heres a thought...why is it that when it comes to criminals and crime, that defense is not used and we all agree that if one steals,kills etc etc he should be punished...well its because theres a law against it and we all abide by it...now there will be a law against amoking and we should comply by it too...for reasons shown above.
the one real concern should be about encouraging ppl to run our lives...its all good when its for the overall good of everyone..repeat..over all good (there r losses but as long as the benefits outweigh them..its all good) but wht if it eventually leads to ppl in higher places running our entire lives...but who is to say that doent happen already  ...think about it
p.s. im sure im missed some point above and made some mistakes...feel free to point them out...cheers |
So you are willing to have the government tell you what is right and wrong in order to improve overall efficiency of society and productivity? You should go rent the movie "1984".
So what about when the government deems clubbing to be anti-productive? What if we are only allowed to eat government issued food rations since anything with too much salt or cholestorol is deemed harmful to society? Seriously, what you are presenting here is a scary scenario. I know some people dont like smoking but the way they are thinking when it comes to this topic has very scary precident setting implications for a whole host other things that will come back to affect their lives.
this is why as a non smoker i cannot support the discrimination against and trampling of smoker's rights. I know that if they get away with this, one day they will use the same model to control the things i enjoy. It's one thing to try and protect non smokers (to a reasonable point that is), its another thing to try and save people from themselves. Adults should be given the facts and allowed to decide for themselves. If people decide to smoke, thats their business. If i decide to have a big mac, thats my business. And neither of us need some 2-bit ex smoker who suddenly saw the light to try and tell us differently.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by jester
Everything in this country is illegal. |
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill
|
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) 
