|
Think the banning of smoking is over? Think again! (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| samhouse |
| i could care less...i dont smoke and it doesnt bother me one bit. I personally don't see the club scene dying cuz of a lack of smoking...maybe if they banned alcohol...but not cigs. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by samhouse
i could care less...i dont smoke and it doesnt bother me one bit. I personally don't see the club scene dying cuz of a lack of smoking...maybe if they banned alcohol...but not cigs. |
Ive noticed a few changes just based on the current laws. And once they are done with cigs dont worry, fast food and booze will be next. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
fiscal responsiblity (fiscal conservatism) and a free and liberal thinking society (social liberalism). |
Perfection. |
|
|
| 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 :p ...think about it
p.s. im sure im missed some point above and made some mistakes...feel free to point them out...cheers |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sly_Guy
That's a good point Jay, but I have to say the science of your arguement is not at all true. Cigarettes smoke is FAR more dangerous to humans than car fumes. If you watched the national tonight you would be able to draw that exact same conclusion, as there was a story on smog causing deaths, and after interviewing a doctor, claimed that cigarettes are far more dangerous to the public than smog. It went as far as to say smog had virtually no effect of the respiratory system of moderately physically fit people. |
um...are you sure that wasn't a corporate auto industry advert telling you that?
the smoking bans have gone as far as they can go without infringing on people's rights. We've been pushed outside, which I understand. But the minute anyone starts telling me I can't smoke outside is when the line has to be drawn. You have the whole bar to yourself...if you don't want a hint of smoke, don't come outside to a bar patio. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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 :p ...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. |
|
|
| Aitizaz |
lol..dude....u seem hellbent on not agreeing to the points that have been in made in support of the argument...and no offense but u seem also to be somehwat of a conspiracy theorist...with all those 'what if' scenarios....but you really are making a mountain of a molehill...if you're really against the govt. telling you what to do...why is that you mention only the explicit choices?
with what you are saying...heres a thought...we live in a society where stealing,killing,beating your wife and kids etc etc is against the law...and u get punished if u get caught doing it....thr was a time when beating your wife wasnt against the law...frowned upon but not illegal; smoking is pretty much the same thing...its been frowned upon for many yrs...and now they r taking steps to banish it...were you against the law protecting a womens rights too? or that made sense to you because we all agree that its not right to beat them etc...but u dont like the fact that smokers should no longer smoke...personal preference?
all this really has nothing to do with the real argument going on...its pretty simple...look at it for it just is...they are trying to eliminate " the biggest preventable cause of death"...and why not?
P.S. i used to be a smoker but i quit and for the right reasons too...and i support this new campign for it really is...:) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
beating your wife is a little different than having a smoke or drinking. The government is not trying to protect others anymore. The activists are using it as a guise to promote their own zealous agenda. They are hellbent on telling YOU how to live even if it doesnt affect them. Its the same mentality as people who spread the word of religion. Their way is right and yours isnt just because they said so.
And you may not realize it but this will have an impact on you in the future. Especially with the types of arguements being used here. I often find it interesting that those left leaning people who often resent religious organizations for trying to inflict their beliefs on others actually do the exact same thing in different ways. "our way is right and yours is wrong" is the wrong approach.
Let people live their lives. If they want to smoke in certain places that you dont have to be in then let them. If they want to have a happy meal let them. If they want to ride a bike without a helmet, thats their business. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | | P.S. i used to be a smoker but i quit and for the right reasons too...and i support this new campign for it really is... |
aaah so you are one of them
| quote: | | 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. |
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
yeah but it has moved on to even more bans so the topic is not going away anytime soon. |
"More bans"?? :conf:
Is this not that same ban voted on YEARS ago that's just finally coming to fruition?
This isn't news at all...:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
