Article: New smoking rules not well received

[iAmThePope]

Um. But so what? Marijuana smokers don't have designated areas to smoke. What makes you so special?

Now maybe you'll see the issue. You're a substance abuser that wants to be treated differently from other substance abusers.

Abusing marijuana is illegal. Smoking is not. So yes, I wish to be treated differently for staying within the places that the law allows me to smoke.

 

[Ho3n3r]

You miss the point, since when is a pub/resturant a designated smoking area?

I think the problem here is the assumption that all restaurants have smoking areas, which is incorrect. A few places I go to do not have that.

EDIT: A few places I went to once and never again

 

[Ho3n3r]

I would have went to the department of labour. They don't fsck around when it comes to employee rights. And I'm a smoker.

I was in the process of doing it, but got retrenched. Saw the company got liquidated a short while later(June 2011 I think). Karma I suppose The one director - who was the main office smoking culprit - had the attitude of 'I left school at grade 8 because I knew everything I needed to' :erm:

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

You miss the point, since when is a pub/resturant a designated smoking area?

Wtf, who said that it was? Try reading slower next time bud.

Well if that means no-one will be able to have designated smoking areas, that's a bad move in my opinion. However, I think they are trying to prohibit smoking in all public places - including the many restaurants - that do not have a smoking area.

That's already the case - smoking is prohibited from restaurants that do not have a smoking area. He's trying to ban it outright.

 

[Chevron]

Abusing marijuana is illegal. Smoking is not. So yes, I wish to be treated differently for staying within the law.

But I thought you said just because it's law doesn't make it right? So essentially smoking cigarettes should be illegal as well.

 

[iAmThePope]

But I thought you said just because it's law doesn't make it right? So essentially smoking cigarettes should be illegal as well.

Fair point. Then drinking alcohol should be illegal also. Because I believe alcohol abuse is wrong. Just as you believe smoking is wrong and I don't.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Wtf, who said that it was? Try reading slower next time bud.

That's already the case - smoking is prohibited from restaurants that do not have a smoking area. He's trying to ban it outright.

So we interpreted it differently, there's our problem I do not have any issues with guys like you who abide by the regulations as they are.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Fair point. Then drinking alcohol should be illegal also. Because I believe alcohol abuse is wrong. Just as you believe smoking is wrong and I don't.

The law isn't as black and white as we hope it to be.

 

[iAmThePope]

The law isn't as black and white as we hope it to be.

I think thats the only reply on this thread that is 100% true

 

[Chevron]

Fair point. Then drinking alcohol should be illegal also. Because I believe alcohol abuse is wrong. Just as you believe smoking is wrong and I don't.

The thing is, law makers can't always just do what's best for it's citizens due to backlash from those that don't see the benefit. So they go for the easy targets first. Smoking is a much easier target than alcohol.

 

[WilD_CaT]

You're forgetting that government is this country provides a public health care system. Allowing it's citizens to knowingly poison themselves just puts undue pressure on this system.

Smokers are selfish. That's the problem.

The government itself introduced a state funded healthcare system. Thus the problem you allude to was introduced by the state not the smokers. If there was no public healthcare you wouldn't have a case. This is a perfect illustration of why libertarians hate government intervention as it inevitable necessitates MORE intervention to solve problems caused by intervention in the first place.

Secondly smokers pay incredibly high taxes on their cigarettes and tabacco and many pay VAT and normal tax. So they are entitled to benefit from the healthcare system.

Thirdly, if I use your rational and apply it consistently, this would open the door for more intervention in our behaviour that also results in increased burdens on the state.

How about the state forcing everyone to eat a paleo diet for one thing? This is incredibly expensive and will make all grain derived foods, which are cheap and a staple of most people's diet, illegal to consume. More and more studies and evidence have shown that grains are not healthy for humans in general.

The state could also limit alcohol and coffee intake (A little bit of both is more beneficial than not consuming any) but it could also force people to consume a little. Studies have shown that people who consume small/moderate amounts of alcohol generally, statistically live longer than people who don't. What does this mean for muslims? Are they entitled to use their religion as an excuse to put extra burden on public healthcare?

The state could in theory enforce certain exercise regimes, in fact they already do this in public schools in "Life Orientation". I know in my old high school, when my younger brother was still there, they had to run around the field and were awarded marks based on their time taken to complete a lap. Of course unfit people didn't do to well.

In fact people with bad genes are also predisposed to place massive strain on the public health system, relative to people who are "average". Why should the average joe pay for someone else's misfortune? Is that right?

But economically I want to leave you with this lesson when understanding the MASSIVE difference between provisioning of public/private services. If you kept going back to a private service provider for more, they normally are able to provide discounts and charge less (for being a good customer). When it comes to public services, the more you use, the more the state needs to charge you because the "subsidised" service leads to overuse, eventually to caps and eventually to shortages.

In short, you cannot use public healthcare as an excuse.

Again, it comes down to private property and voluntary association.

If you really want to stand by your opinion on the public healthcare costs issue, you should argue for people to opt out in paying a certain % of taxes (based on healthcare of total state budget) and ask for no taxes on cigarettes, also requiring that if someone opts out they may not make use of public healthcare. That way they don't fund your lifestyle choices, and you don't fund theirs.

But that isn't your argument and it certainly isn't the states argument. They want all the taxes from smokers they can get their greedy little paws on.

 

[2026]

Wtf, who said that it was? Try reading slower next time bud.

You should go back and re-read yourself.

Statement 1: Remove right to smoke in DESIGNATED areas
My response: Where does that statement come from, smokers can smoke in DESIGNATED areas
Your reply : "The minister wants smoking banned in private property such as restaurants and pubs."
My response: "Since when has restaurants and pubs been designated smoking areas?"

Unless you're just derailing the topic on purpose.

Recap (because you struggle to follow converstations): Minster isnt taking away the right to smoke in DESIGNATED areas, it's a case of moving those DESIGNATED areas.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

The other thing people here seem to ignore is that this law came from the executive (minister). It's not the executives place to create laws in the first place, it's the function of the legislative (parliament). There is a separation of powers between the executive, legislative & judicial to protect the people from an abuse of power. This is enshrined in the constitution, highest law of the land. What happened here is one section of government overstepping it's mandate/bounds and it's illegal to start off with. Should this new law be brought before the constitutional court it will most likely be declared null & void.

But yeah, we should probably ignore this as well.

That's the scary part - people are willing to overlook procedural discrepancies when it suits them, but the same people will be the first to moan about corruption when it doesn't.

 

[iAmThePope]

The thing is, law makers can't always just do what's best for it's citizens due to backlash from those that don't see the benefit. So they go for the easy targets first. Smoking is a much easier target than alcohol.

Very true yes. And then it goes into freedom of choice etc etc etc. In the end the argument between smokers and non-smokers will never end unless all smokers could be considerate or no-one ever smoked again.

 

[WilD_CaT]

You miss the point, since when is a pub/resturant a designated smoking area?

Surely when the owner decides it is...and not you. (Unless you are the owner of course...)

 

[Ho3n3r]

You should go back and re-read yourself.

Statement 1: Remove right to smoke in DESIGNATED areas
My response: Where does that statement come from, smokers can smoke in DESIGNATED areas
Your reply : "The minister wants smoking banned in private property such as restaurants and pubs."
My response: "Since when has restaurants and pubs been designated smoking areas?"

Unless you're just derailing the topic on purpose.

Recap (because you struggle to follow converstations): Minster isnt taking away the right to smoke in DESIGNATED areas, it's a case of moving those DESIGNATED areas.

I think for clarity's sake - as there has been some cross-interpretation here - some of us(like me) believe that this means banning smoking from all public places that do not have designated smoking areas, and others see it as banning it even at places with actual smoking areas.

We must make sure we're on the same page before cracking our whips

 

[Ho3n3r]

Very true yes. And then it goes into freedom of choice etc etc etc. In the end the argument between smokers and non-smokers will never end unless all smokers could be considerate or no-one ever smoked again.

You are forgetting the different and more direct effects to innocent people of smoking as opposed to alcohol.

 

[2026]

Secondly smokers pay incredibly high taxes on their cigarettes and tabacco and many pay VAT and normal tax. So they are entitled to benefit from the healthcare system.

Unfortunally, the cost of smokers to the healthcare system isn't balanced by the smokers tax/costs. It's a cost the non-smokers must contribute to. Beyond the hard cash lost, there is also the doctors attentions that could be used elsewhere, or money spent on other equipment etc etc. The overall cost is very real.

Having said that, I agree that smokers are entitled to benefit from the healthcare system as much as anyone else - thats what it's there for.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

You should go back and re-read yourself.

Statement 1: Remove right to smoke in DESIGNATED areas
My response: Where does that statement come from, smokers can smoke in DESIGNATED areas
Your reply : "The minister wants smoking banned in private property such as restaurants and pubs."
My response: "Since when has restaurants and pubs been designated smoking areas?"

You conveniently left out this bit:

There will therefore be no designated smoking area if he gets his way.

Anyway I'm not going to play these childish "I said, you said" games. The law currently prohibits smoking in establishments that do not have a designated smoking area. He wants an outright ban on smoking in these establishments, irrespective of whether they have designated smoking areas or not. Clearer now?

 

[Ho3n3r]

That's the scary part - people are willing to overlook procedural discrepancies when it suits them, but the same people will be the first to moan about corruption when it doesn't.

I believe it's wrong to do it that way.