Is it taking away our civil liberty or not????

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 

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.

  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. 

Here's a thought... If you ride in the same car with Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, can you get "secondhand stupidity"? 

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.