Famine
Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?[/size]
Anyway... if the freedom to smoke your cigarettes is real, then your other examples fall under the same banner. The freedom to eat the food you've bought is real. The freedom to drive the car you've bought is real. Then also the freedom to breathe the clean air we've evolved to breathe is real...
I didn't read all the posts above me, or that matter even Famines original one, but all I got to say is that, Sure go ahead and ban smoking in public just because it wont affect me in antway other than that I wont have to smell it
All substances that can cause any harm to anyone should be illegal in public places
I'm sure drug laws primarily exist to prevent accidents caused by intoxicated drug users, the intoxicating effects of cigarettes are obviously far less than those of (other) drugs and comparable to the magnitude in effects caffeine has.
Well Madison just passed a lwa that banned smoking in restaurants, bars, and other places of food and/or spirits. I can see why people don't like it, but it certainly makes places more "family friendly".
I think at the very least public venues should have the option to ban it.
and because the Govt. could then regulate and tax the hell outta it!
^oh good lord man your about as close as you can get to being an Anarchist without actually being one.
FamineDo you think smoking should be banned in public places?
Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases?
Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?
Inside buildings or enclosed areas where the public gather, yes. Outdoors no, and any good citizen should have the common decency to refrain from smoking in cloud shot of a non-smoker.
danoffThe comparison was between the freedom to smoke your cigarettes and the freedom to breathe clean air (that must be provided for you).
Clean air must be provided for you? Say what? There's a little over 4 billion cubic miles of the stuff floating around...
danoffFirst of all, that's not that bad. Anarchy is, of course, a terrible model and won't last. But close to anarchy isn't bad (depending on the definition of close). Rights have to be protected.
Now that being said, if you think about it... placing an uneven tax on smokes is exactly what I was talking about. Government regulated lifestyle.
Is that good? Is that what we want our government doing?
Ah - I think we have crossed wires in that case.
The Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and a whole bunch of other stuff (generally accepted figures are <1% Argon, 0.03% Carbon Dioxide and "trace" amounts of six others).
In the vicinity of cigarette (or pipe, panatella, cigar or indeed weed - I'm not discriminating) smoke, the air is roughly 78% nitrogen, 14% oxygen, 4% carbon monoxide, 3% carbon dioxide and "other" - that is, you're breathing in 1/3 less oxygen and, as if that weren't bad enough, you're now breathing in carbon monoxide which actually sequesters haemoglobin and stops it transporting the 1/3 less oxygen you are breathing in.
By "clean", I meant "normal atmosphere", rather than "free of particulates". Sorry.
so what taxes do you agree with? By your argument, then, any tax is a "life style" resctiction. So how are we to pay for a Government? Or are you saying everything should be taxed equally? And i don't understand how that is "government regulated lifestlye"? What part of your life isn't regulated by the government?
danoffEven if we did cross wires it doesn't matter. Do we have a right to clean air? I guess that's the point of this thread. I would say no. Do we have a right to clean water? Nope.
Maybe because some products inderectly end up costing the government money.... Like alcohol leads to lots of stuff that ties up LawEnforcement, gas because it deals with Cars and auto manufacturing has to be heavily regulated by the Government to ensure safe vehicles are produced. I don't know for sure, but this seems to make sense to me. And i'm sure that in some way, Tobacco has also cost the government money. We know that State Governments suffered from Tobacco, thats how they won that huge lawsuit.
The local air has been made "unclean" by the behaviour of the smoker. Perhaps if we drew a parallel to "Should someone be allowed to piss in your drinking water", then the analogy would be more apt. The acts of one human being are impinging on the necessities - oxygen or water - of another. Does the second human have the right to oxygen? Does the first have the right to take that away?
danoffJust like with air pollution there is a balance that has to be struck. The balance between acceptible pollution and too much pollution.
And who draws the line? I believe in another thread you said only experts should be able to decide when enough is enough. But if it effects everyone, shouldn't everyone be able to have a say?
danoffIn one respect, that's not really for us to decide. It's up to the people who will solve the problem and make money doing it.
You made this statement in Global Suicide. Okay you didn't say experts, but you are saying that even though air quality effects all of us, only a few should have a say when it is or is not bad enough to do something about it. That makes sense
K_SpeedI wouldnt blame cigaretts for global warming and destroying the atmosphere etc, I mean come on. Thats the SUV's (mainly) and the other vehicles...
K_SpeedSmokings causes disease, birth failiures (damn, my english getting everyday) etc...
....