Raoul's China Saloon (V5.0) Beta
The Bar Room => The BS-Wrestling Pit => Topic started by: Motzie on April 26, 2007, 01:39:32 PM
-
Recently there was a debate on the local radio here in Townsville 'discussing' the ban of smoking in cars with children. Apparenlty there is a move to make it illegal to smoke in a car with children. While I agree with the idea behind it, how far should laws invade our personal lives? I already have issues with the amount of legislation being passed taking the responsibility away from an individual and placing it in the hands of the law, scares me that people want our governement to govern every aspect of their lives. Gives way for a modern day dictatorship or worse.... Am I ranting the worng point here?? I get yelled down big time here whenever I speak my mind, any thoughts guys??
-
I'm generally against any kind of legislation - but strangely ok with this one. Kids can't protect themselves, especially if they have ignorant parents, so every little bit helps.
I'm with you on the rest of it.
Back in my policeman days I was constantly getting into trouble for never writing enough traffic tickets (when I was wearing the pretty uniform). We were told we should be writing 20-50 traffic tickets a week (the public was told there was no quota system in place). I wrote 6 tickets in my whole police career - and every one of them was for offences involving kids in cars - usually because the kids were prancing around without seatbelts, or stupid parent was driving dangerously with the kids in the car. I would have beaten them with my nightstick if I could have gotten away with it.
-
ah yes, the old "there are no quotas."
My brother smokes with his kids in the car and it pisses me off big time. I agree with the nice non ticket-issuing officer, kids can't protect themselves.
Back home they're discussing banning smoking in apartment buildings and condos because of the second hand smoke issue. I anticipate there will be a heated debate over that one.
-
I think the issue is rising more and more not because of the safety of children, but the costs of public health care. People are expecting, neigh, demanding the government shoulder more and more of its citizens' health care costs... so of course an interest will be taken in improving public health in a preventative way via legislation. The other solution is discriminatory pricing by health insurance companies, which exists already, and many people bitch about as being 'unfair'. Either expect less frills (or more expenses) from your health care system, or shut up and toss out that pack of smokes.
-
Icebear said it just right.
-
it's such a pandora's box to open... there is the issue of Children's health and the fact that they can't really fend for themselves. definitely!!! I'd be in favor of such a law.
Their reason for passing such a law is another story... I don't think they care about kids health as much as they do care about rising healthcare costs. The insurance companies are pressuring governments to even ban cigarettes
-
I'm both a father and a smoker.
I've always been very sensitive with regards to exposing my daughters to cigarette smoke.
When I was in the car with them, I always kept a window cracked open and held my cigarette outside, letting my exhaust vent out of the car. When the smoke couldn't be vented out for some reason (like cold out and the car not moving), I wouldn't smoke.
Should I be ticketed/arrested/pistol-whipped for this?
-
My hometown recently passed a law banning designated smoking rooms in all bars.THIS is a violation of civil liberties.I agree non-smokers have a right to a smoke-free enviornment.But there is no way anyone can convince me that this law is going to do anything to reduce health care costs.It is another eample of the goernent harassing the smokers instead of the real culprits...tobacco comapnies.
But the law about not smoking in a car with kids?Nothing wrong with that IMO.
-
I'm partial to the odd glass or two of red and champagne. jjjjjjjjjj agagagagag But when planning on getting pregnant, and during the whole pregnancy I didn't drink alcohol. My children's heath was way more important than my desire to imbibe. People coming to our house would smoke outside - including my parents. I didn't want my kids lungs to have to cope with any more toxins than they absolutely had to. I figured accumulation is a slow process and where I could, I tried to slow that accumulation down.
Mothers can be sued in the US for foetal alcohol syndrome - it will only be time before the first case is brought against parents for causing asthma or lung disease via 2nd hand smoking. And I can see why bar staff would say - don't want to work in the smoking room.
In Oz all Gov't buildings, cars, lifts etc have no smoking regs, and I think now all public buildings - including hotels, bars and discos have the same. Even to the extent of preventing Gov't workers who smoke from doing so within a certain distance of the entrances and exits.
Could take a while longer in China - although I have now been to a few restaurants where there are NO Smoking signs prominently psoted - and seeming obeyed!!
-
I have now been to a few restaurants where there are NO Smoking signs prominently psoted - and seeming obeyed!!
When pigs fly!
-
Well, Icebear, I know some Chinese geneticists working with porcine and vulture DNA and they have just created a.....
Did I hear someone say 'bullpoo'?
Fair call.
-
I guess what bugs me is the hypocritical way governments take money from big tobacco and then turn around and pass anti-smoking legislation.It sends kind of a mixed message doesn't it?
-
Gov't has two options about stuff - either legislate against it, or make the price so high that people don't want to pay. The latter is way better because they can collect the taxes from the price hikes. The former requires extra policing - costs money! Latter is sensible to me. In Oz even for private health care gov't is picking up a substantial amount of the cost, and for public health care - the whole lot. if you have to pay for thse costs - why shouldn't you charge as much as the market will bear and toss the funds into caring for the damage that is caused by the action??
-
I think that smoking should be banned totally. If tobacco was introduced today it would not pass the drug laws. Draconian yes. But instead have a better drug to replace it. Something less harmful. I think the goverments of the world should work on producing better drugs for the masses.
I would be up for that.
Chees Woza
-
I hear you, Woza, but you can't make stupid decisions illegal. Elseways, you'll have other people dixtating to you how to live your life. Everyone should have the right to be wrong. yyyyyyyyyy
Have you ever noticed that smokers and drinkers are the coolest people to talk to? I credit the social aspect to them.
I miss smoking for the comraderie of lighting up with others: even if we're strangers, even if seperated by language, we know the score.
I miss drinking even more.
EDIT: Sorry, Woza, should have read your post through. I'm all for cigarettes that don't kill you. I think we'd outlive non-smokers.
-
Hey Con you should hang out with snuff people now that is really cool.
Can be a bit wanky but in short spurts it is OK.
My point was, why not develop a drug that is less harmful than drink or smokes. A healthier alternative
But probably that would have to mean that we have to recognise that people need them.
"Everybody has the right to be wrong" WTF does that mean?
My favourite word in the English language is Empathy. The big E. No you have done something to me that you would find totally unacceptable if I did it to you.
A great bottom line. I think the Christians say do un to others blah blah blah.
Fairly basic really.
Cheers Carol
-
I detest smoking - ergo, I don't smoke! Yet, I have to agree with Con on the most important thing - we need to enshrine the right to be WRONG. Along with maintaining this most important of rights, we must of course personally accept the consequences of being wrong. Should there be laws? Yes. Laws to protect the innocent - no theft, no assault, no murder, no smoking where it will HARM others.
As for the character of those who are smokers - it's a mixed bag no different from non-smokers. It's about the person, not their quirks, their weaknesses, their habits, etc. Only when these get in the way, when they mask the real person are they factors. Somke if you want. Please don't blow it in my face. Why? I get stuffed up and will need to resort to medicating again. Thanks.
-
I detest smoking - ergo, I don't smoke! Yet, I have to agree with Con on the most important thing - we need to enshrine the right to be WRONG. Along with maintaining this most important of rights, we must of course personally accept the consequences of being wrong. Should there be laws? Yes. Laws to protect the innocent - no theft, no assault, no murder, no smoking where it will HARM others.
The right to be wrong is fine - unless you are a politician or someone with power over others. How many wars were fought because some leader had the wrong motives or ideas about other people?
The consequences of being wrong about smoking and many other things are NOT always faced by the person who does the action. Asthma in children is exacerbated by smoking, smokers in general have lighter weight babies, second hand smoke accumulates in others lungs, they pay the cost. The health system pays the cost - i.e. tax-payers - i.e. MY money!!
"Enormous toll of smoking on Australian health system
Monday 2 January 2006
Enormous toll of smoking on Australian health system
Smoking was responsible for almost *300 000 hospitalisations in Australia between 2001-2002, resulting in nearly 1.5 million hospital bed days and costing almost $700 million."
So no smoking where it will harm others comes down to no smoking!
-
What Lotus says is true. The impact of smoking is enormous, and many times that of all other drugs combined. (I think figures were 20 times all other drugs combined except alcohol, including crack and heroine etc, including all drug enforcement, rehab, etc etc. Total social debt. If you included alcohol as a drug, then it is a mere 5 times greater.)
Two significant examples:
Smokers are usually considered 20% less productive as employees, for example due to illnesses and the time they spend out of the room smoking each hour, plus the resources for supplying a smoking room and so on. That certainly means hiring them reduces profits. However, I think that if I said, no, I won't hire you because you are a smoker, I would get in the deep poo.
And at the end of the road, as the various diseases kick in after 20 years, smokers spend more time hospitalized, draining precious resources that could be used for those that did not self inflict their injury. And why should we - the non smokers - contribute to that? If it was insignificant, that would be cool, but it is right up there with the most expensive costs.
-
I don't know if I want to use economics as the deciding factor. Why? I am getting older and older people are the most expensive drain on the health system, the biggest cost. And as we live longer and longer, the economic burden will be even heavier for those who are paying the costs of the health system, the younger folk. Next thing they will make being aged illegal (it's been done before, so we will likely do it again some point in the near or distant future).
Smokers need the right to smoke - where? anywhere where it won't cause me harm or my children or my grandchildren harm. Respect for others is the key. The greatest problem is not the smokers, but the manufacturers who are hell bent on creating a product so powerfully addictive regardless of the health and wellness of the society that allows them to manufacture. These people? Execute them after parading them through too many cancer wards. Yes, people will still smoke, however they may have to resort to using natural tobacco. That would be a pity ....
-
Not a good analogy Eagle. Smokers are making an active choice, knowing the dangers to themselves and other people. Getting older is a natural process and the majority of older people have contributed pretty well economically to society. The societies that made old age illegal were those on the edge of survival or sociopathic ones. We are nowhere near the former and although there are signs that we could be the latter, I truly hope not.
If you read the following you'll see the smoking one is a no-brainer. For all our kids and others - it's a DON'T do it. Just say NO.
Maternal smoking during pregnancy and passive smoking affects weird things like on-set of puberty in girls and boys - earlier, and is associated with increased menstrual and fertility disorders, foetal and infant health, neurobehavioural problems, lower birth weights but a higher tendency to later obesity. Earlier maturation in girls may have adverse effects, including higher levels of psychological distress, experimentation with risky behaviors, and earlier age at first pregnancy. Girls with early onset may be at higher risk of infertility or adverse pregnancy outcome, as well as alterations in their adult hormone excretion patterns and menstrual cycles. Early age at menarche is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer.
Passive smoking effects: Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow.
Long term effects : Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. Passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children.
Domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry. This equates to about one-fifth of all deaths from secondhand smoke in the general population and up to half of such deaths among employees in the hospitality trades.
Children: Passive smoking increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis, pneumonia and bronchiolitis in children. One study found that in households where both parents smoke, young children have a 72 per cent increased risk of respiratory illnesses. Passive smoking causes a reduction in lung function and increased severity in the symptoms of asthma in children, and is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children. Passive smoking is also associated with middle ear infection in children as well as possible cardiovascular impairment and behavioural problems. A Canadian study found that passive smoking reduced children
-
The debate is great, reading your posts is a great way to remember that there is never just black and white on any subject..always many shades of grey.......one of the reasons I love this forum bfbfbfbfbf
-
Motzie
I thought it was a black and white discussion. Smoking is bad for your health and especially if it affects others.
Today I was thinking about the most amazing reality TV show. OK take some small country that is going under, global warming and such like. Get 10 great Americans out there and they have to prove that they will be the best leaders of that country. it is a cross between The apprentice and Big Brother . The winner takes over the country.
The finance for the country comes from hits, phone calls from the people that want to join.
Brilliant, I don't know why no one has thought about this before.
Imagine creating your own society, that has got to be for the ultimate rich.
I would watch that show. Did I tell you I have satellite.
-
Today I was thinking about the most amazing reality TV show. OK take some small country that is going under, global warming and such like. Get 10 great Americans out there and they have to prove that they will be the best leaders of that country. it is a cross between The apprentice and Big Brother . The winner takes over the country.
The finance for the country comes from hits, phone calls from the people that want to join.
aqaqaqaqaq Don't say this too loudly, I could see some countries giving it a go...Tonga might end up with another American court jester again.
-
woza, that was great.
I would also pay to see that show.
-
Interestengly enough, it has been argued (not by me) by some economists that smokers actually sav the government money by dying younger so the gov does not have to pay out the retirement benifits thus keeping the countries old age security viable longer. So the increased expenditures in Health are offset by the savings in pensions. I wish I could remember who it was that wrote those papers. I could use that argument myself whenever someone digs at me when I light up.
-
To speak to the point... WHAT civil liberties? We live in the era of the "nanny state". We no longer have the right to make choices, because we are too stupid to know the difference betweengood choices and bad choices. We can only bow down in front of the great and the good -- read "liberals" -- and trust our leaders, because they know what's best for us. bibibibibi
Here's a thought... If you ride in the same car with Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, can you get "secondhand stupidity"? ahahahahah
-
Skank fumes? Contact decrepitude?
Libertarian still has a slight stigma to it.
-
It seems to me that government's intervention into its' citizens' lives grows with each passing day. Anti-smoking legislation is just another example. Sure, the lofty ideal of protecting the defenseless is a good one, but where does this justification end? Here are a few perfectly legal acts...
1) A 22 year old unemployed (unemployable?) single welfare mother of 4 becomes pregnant, again.
2)A morbidly obese man purchases a super-sized bacon double cheeseburger & fries meal.
3)A lottery winner blows mega-millions on frivolous purchases & files for bankruptcy.
4)An individual chooses to have indiscriminate, unprotected sex with multiple partners.
5)An illiterate high school star athlete foregoes a free college education to sign a 1 year professional sports contract.
Most people (I hope)would agree that these are probably not wise decisions. In some cases there are direct negative effects on the defenseless (children & family of the individual.) In other cases there are direct financial costs imposed on society. Yet society has deemed that these "poor" decisions are a necessary price to be paid if we are to live in a free society. In addition, past legislation against poor decision making has proven ineffective (i.e. "War on Drugs".)
Now back to the smoking issue... I think that subjecting a child to second-hand smoke is likely detrimental to the child. But government legislation is not the answer. You simply cannot legislate common sense. A government that attempts this (through control of its' citizens' reproductive organs, diets, financial purchases, choice in sex partners, educational levels, or smoking habits) would certainly be a "cure worse than the disease."
There will always be those among us who make what we personally deem to be poor decisions. Civil liberty should not be defined as the liberty to make only those decisions with which society agrees. Otherwise, democracy degrades into tyranny by the majority.
Each of us is(and should be held)responsible for our own actions & decisions. I personally fear the government's intrusion into my life more than I fear the consequences of my fellow citizens' "poor" decisions.
The lofty ideal of "protecting the defenseless" needs to be carefully parsed... Who defines "protecting?" Who defines "defenseless?" Does the child raised in a loving 2 parent home who is subjected to occaisional second-hand smoke need more protection than a welfare baby brought into the miserable environment of public housing? Is the illiterate high school athlete defenseless against the lure of immediate gratification?
Good intentions are not sufficient basis for government intrusion into its' citizens' lives. Now "light 'em if you got 'em", but please crack the car window.
-
I think that people should be allowed to make their own stupid decisions (as long as other's aren't thereby endangered, but then I am of the Church of Darwin.
Darwin be praised! All praise to Darwin!
Now all rise and sing the hymn of the selfish gene.
-
I was just re-reading this thread. Some great thoughts from people succint arguments.
Early this week on BBC news TV they reported a story in Australia about this 10 year old native girl who had been gang raped by ten native men. These guys got off scott free.
The same girl was gang raped by native men at the age of seven and taken out of the native community and put into foster care with a white family. She was taken out of the foster care and put back into the native comunity because it seemed too much like the paternal white thing. How fucked is that ?
Native women leaders thought so too and protested against the decision made by the white female judge.
PC bullshit
-
Interestengly enough, it has been argued (not by me) by some economists that smokers actually sav the government money by dying younger so the gov does not have to pay out the retirement benifits thus keeping the countries old age security viable longer. So the increased expenditures in Health are offset by the savings in pensions. I wish I could remember who it was that wrote those papers. I could use that argument myself whenever someone digs at me when I light up.
Saw a complete refutation of this. It's a straw man. It's on a skeptic website, but have to be a member.
I can't recall the whole thing, but something like that they use up the extra saved off aged pensions by extra medical and hospital care on medical pensions. They retire earlier from ill health, and thus, contribute less, leaving more widows and kids on social security. Something like that. Anyway, it's spurious.
-
My ex- husband would quote stats at me, he actually made them up. In those days I thought you can't argue with stats. I have started doing that myself make up bullshit stats for something really silly, a party thing
I am still hoping that science will allow me to grow another set of lungs. Just not the smoking thing, but the polluted atmosphere. A bit like having a breast implant or putting a ship in a bottle type of thing. Tubes to be attached mainsails to be hoisted.
-
On the topic of DisHonesty.......There are Lies. bbbbbbbbbb There are Damned Lies qqqqqqqqqq....and there are Statistics!!!! asasasasas asasasasas llllllllll llllllllll
-
Wonder why the Tobacco lawyers didn't go after the ones who really profited from nicitine addiction, disease and death - the tax collecting government.
Between tobacco and alcohol, the govt. is the biggest death merchant of all time.
They profit every which way but loose, on production, on sale and on enforcement. Sweet deal.
-
Wonder why the Tobacco lawyers didn't go after ........ the tax collecting government.
Because there is some strange, legal protection involved. You may NOT sue "the Govmint" for damages. llllllllll Big Business, Yes. bfbfbfbfbf Your neighbour, Yes. bfbfbfbfbf But your Government, No. asasasasas
p.s. Nice first Posting, Authur!! agagagagag
-
Nicotine will always be with us, until they invent something that does the same thing without harm. Ditto for alcohol and most drugs. Why? We like doing them. They temporarily change us into slightly different versions of ourselves. We drink to be rowdy and silly; we light a smoke to relax; we smoke a jay to get mellow and contemplative; we take E to get loving and happy.
These things make our lives better, and for all the health problems and bad behaviour they inspire, our collective acts demonstrate that's it's worth it.
Death merchants? One could extend that logic to condemn Cadbury and Hershey. Life merchants, I say.
-
..... We drink to be rowdy and silly; we light a smoke to relax; we smoke a jay to get mellow and contemplative; we take E to get loving and happy.
These things make our lives better, and for all the health problems and bad behaviour they inspire, our collective acts demonstrate that's it's worth it.
....
"Better living through chemistry," eh?
The phrase "Better Living Through Chemistry" is a variant of a DuPont advertising slogan, "Better Things for Better Living...Through Chemistry." DuPont adopted it in 1935 and was their slogan until 1982 when the "Through Chemistry" bit was dropped; in 1999 it was replaced by "The miracles of science".
-
"Better living through chemistry," eh?
agagagagag
Man, size 6 font is hard to read!
-
I can read it perfectly fine :P