Article: New smoking rules not well received

[icyrus]

do it as much as possible in private, we need fewer drains on society in private

Are you desperate for my approval of smoking?

yes, because people are going to magically stop smoking around people now that they're banned from doing it in public places.

I don't know what you are trying to say here?

for the people who did smoke in private this is just an insult in any case.

How is it an insult? If they don't smoke in public places then this change is meaningless to them.

again, so are many other things, like alcohol, gambling, cars, parenting. all these things affect individuals other than themselves too and they can have negative effects.

Again with the false equivalencies and stupid analogies.

i find it ridicuolous that you find the smell of smoke hazardous to your health. you make it sound like 90% of a shopping center lights up at the same time. you can get more dangerous fumes from a petrol station, walking next to the highway or from painting. life is all about smells and tastes and things you don't want to listen to and look at. showing me any case where sitting in a restraunt far away from the smoking area has given anyone lung cancer?

The research on second-hand smoke is widely published.

 

[icyrus]

Secondly the establishment is privately owned but that does not seem to matter to the anti-smoking nazis.

Privately owned but publicly licensed and zoned I'm sure.

 

[Heisenborg]

Heck yeah!

 

[iAmThePope]

You are missing the point. Where on earth would a non smoker walk into a smokers area and moan about it to them. Your logic is completely illogical.

Smokers in general give a flying f@#k where they smoke as long as it is outside. And thats the problem, you think standing by a door is outside, you think people arent affected when they are. Your posts, and general tone speaks volumes as to how a typical smoker acts every day. These laws will be very welcome, I wish they banned it all together.

I completely agree that there are smokers who entirely disregard the non-smokers and would happily smoke in their faces, but if it's outside why care? Don't stand next to a smoker outside while he is smoking. I don't care if people hate smoking, every single smoker knows the risks and most, not all, but most of smokers do not mind smoking away from non-smokers. This argument, however, is veered towards people who go on about smokers and smoke, but willingly, even with perfectly good alternatives, place themselves in the middle of smoke. And who do not want to give smokers a small place to just slowly commit suicide.

 

[WilD_CaT]

There is clearly a difference between private / residential and business property. Hence why we have different zones and different rules.

The difference is purely arbitrary. There is no fundamental difference.

Every case involves private people, with their private property, inviting people (given them a choice), to enter at their risk and in each case the property owners require from those invited in to play by the rules as determined by the property owners.

Every relationship (friendship or business) between people involves some form of exchange, give and take, whether it be ideas, things or money. Again the distinction is purely arbitrary.

Rather I should put it another way, you don't have ANY rights to other peoples private property. Thus, the property owners by allowing smokers on their property, are not infringing on any rights you have.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Um, ok. Perhaps Somalia is more to your liking then?

ROFL! Strawman. I guess I should argue if you want government to solve all your problems you should move to North Korea! Or Cuba!

Ironically the violence in Somalia comes from Warlords trying to form/run a government...

EDIT: I see Mike beat me to the anti-strawman - strawman argument.. +1 for him!

 

[WilD_CaT]

Civilization needs rules to work. If you don't like rules move to Somalia. Simple enough?

Since when does "government" = civilisation and rules? Besides, I am not aware of any anarchist, particularly the free market ones EVER advocating a society without rules, just advocating against a society with unjustified arbitrarily determined by some central power.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Feel free to lobby government for that legislation.

Like it or not, one of government's mandates is the control of public safety and property.

Icyrus, the point is SHOULD that be one of governments mandates? (Which is an assumption you have yet to demonstrate or argue)

Another point I would like to point out, is that in attempting to defend private property, the state has to infringe on it. Logically, your answer to the problem of how do we defend private property cannot be that we need to infringe on it.

In case you don't understand this, the government has to tax/print money[with legal tender laws] which infringes on property rights. Theoretically introducing a logical contradiction invalidates your argument.

Secondly when the rights of people are infringed on by the state instead of other individuals, who does the individual turn to to protect himself from the state? This is perhaps the best practical refutation of the idea that the state is needed since no individual throughout history using only his or her power has ever killed/raped/murdered as much any entity that has centralised power.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Bush, Obama, whoever etc. acquired power through the idea of a centralised pillar of control... the idea is to always move away from centralising power and control...

 

[w1z4rd]

Ironically the violence in Somalia comes from Warlords trying to form/run a government...

Actually that's privatised security

No government = Unaccountable kings and their armies + Wild wild west.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Or people realise that reality is based on community. Your right to "liberty" doesn't override someone else right to be healthy. Life is about compromise and the compromise most modern societies take on smoking is that the people daft enough to do it can do it in their homes but not public places.

Bemoaning smoking regulations as an intolerable infringement on your rights is about as convincing argument as a CEO bemoaning environmental controls from preventing him from dumping toxic waste in a river on his land.

I am all for normal social behaviour/norms or perceptions which can modify behaviour. I.E. Ignoring the person who acts like a loon, hoping he will realise his folly and act normal.

This is different. Secondly you still have not addressed the issue of the fact it is private property.

Thirdly, if a CEO dumps waste on his land and it doesn't affect anyone else (Please note the bold underlined phrase which is very important). Whats the problem? If the CEO is doing it and you go up to him and say, Mr CEO I really like your land can I go and live there, and he responds, "Sure but I dump toxic waste there as long as you are okay with that." You response cannot be to ask the law to prevent him dumping there because you don't like it. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

 

[WilD_CaT]

Actually that's privatised security

No government = Unaccountable kings and their armies + Wild wild west.

"Private" security requires private people voluntarily exchanging goods in return for protection of their private property.

Redefining the english language to suit your argument makes you look foolish.

PS: Wouldn't a society with a king be a monarchy? (1 Ruler) like Singapore?

PPS: See the ADT sign? Please note when the state wants protection it turns to private security...

PPPS: I believe the Cape Town police HQ also has such a sign on the building.

Off-topic rant:

Somalia: Statist Straw Man? http://refugeofscoundrels.blogspot.com/2011/08/somalia-statist-straw-man.html

The pro-government crowd loves Somalia. It is the go-to argument for why we must have an authoritarian government. I mean, who wants to end up like Somalia? It is a truly terrible place to live. Everyone knows this.

As a syllogism, the argument goes like this:

Somalia is stateless. Somalia is a hellhole. Therefore, statelessness creates hellholes.

But there are two crippling problems with this argument. First, the facts simply don’t support the premise. They question we ought to ask is what are conditions in Somalia before and after the collapse of their government. If, under the Socialist Barre regime, Somalia was a nice place to live, and was plunged into chaos when Barre was ousted, then the argument would be a valid one. But Somalia was a hellhole before and after. What matters is the relative conditions before and after the Somali state.

Relative to Somalia under Barre, conditions have improved in virtually every measurable way, save literacy rates. (Under Barre, all of Somalia’s schools were run by the UN-this is no longer the case, which explains this anomaly).
Here is an essay that contains the relevant data.


Stateless Somalia has seen economic growth that outstripped neighboring Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Eritrea. The average Somali has greater living conditions than they did “pre-statelessness.” The recent drought and famine, as truly horrible as it is, would likely have been just as great a humanitarian disaster with a state as without. Further adding to the problem has been the insistence of foreign nations to re-establish a government, propping up “provisional governments,” supporting one warlord versus the others, and generally undermining the Somali clan system that could perhaps bring stability to the region, if left alone.

Second, the argument that stateless Somalia is an indictment of statelessness is not more valid than the argument that Haiti or Zimbabwe prove that states lead to poverty and ruin. (although, I would argue, relatively speaking, they do.)

Again, no one is ignorant enough to argue that Somalia is a wonderful example of an anarcho-capitalist wonderland; but it is intellectually and factually dishonest to contend that conditions in Somalia were not significantly improved since the state fell.

 

[ponder]

Once again, whoosh!

 

[Rudimental]

http://www.theonion.com/audio/libertarian-reluctantly-calls-fire-department,26710/

 

[OzzieCapie]

That goes for your breath and screaming kid too. Don't talk to me if your breath stinks or if you can't shut your spawn up.

Yeah passive bad breath has been found to cause cancer

I am not sure why this is 'doomsday' and why the govt cannot implement laws like this because "they haven't solved crime', or "education is not up to scratch"....why not be part of the solution and make it easy for them.

Smoking rates in Australia have dropped and laws like this are part of the reason...is that a bad thing? It still costs the govt more in healthcare for these people than their tax contribution despite the prices being amongst highest in world, but it is moving in right direction.
Restaurants and bars are not sufferring, it cannot be better patronised than over here. It is literally 'refreshing' to walk into a clean air bar and even smokers realise that. Cynical attempts by owners to make the best part of bar 'smoking' is of course going to create friction.
Even the couple across road who both smoke with no one else in their house , do so outside because they know how much it makes the house stink.

I am not even sure why this is an issue in 2012- wow 20 pages- smoking is a filthy habit, with no good effects.

 

[rwenzori]

smoking is a filthy habit, with no good effects.

Not really. After a few smokes I normally calm down enough to prevent my going on another axe-wielding rampage.

 

[iAmThePope]

**Lols and once again lights up a smoke**
**Thinks about a snide and humorous comment to write but knows the anti-smokers will bring in politics and attack my personality**
**Settles for smoking and lol-ing**

 

[STS]

/thread

we'll all have to agree to disagree. anything that involves choice is always going to involve an uncrossable fence

 

[noxibox]

I am not sure why this is 'doomsday' and why the govt cannot implement laws like this because "they haven't solved crime', or "education is not up to scratch"....why not be part of the solution and make it easy for them.

No they simply shouldn't implement these laws at all.

Smoking rates in Australia have dropped and laws like this are part of the reason

That would be very hard to prove. And Australia's government is hardly one to be trusted on matters like this.

It still costs the govt more in healthcare for these people than their tax contribution despite the prices being amongst highest in world

Doubt that.

smoking is a filthy habit, with no good effects.

The smoke contains nicotine, so it clearly does have good effects.

Like it or not, one of government's mandates is the control of public safety and property.

This went well beyond any claim to promoting public safety long ago. Trying to stop people smoking outside, that should be obviously silly.

 

[Chevron]

**Lols and once again lights up a smoke**
**Thinks about a snide and humorous comment to write but knows the anti-smokers will bring in politics and attack my personality**
**Settles for smoking and lol-ing**

Do you like being addict?

Do you like how your personality changes when you go with a smoke for a few hours?

Do you like being a slave to a chemical?

I don't.

 

[iAmThePope]

Do you like being addict?

Yes I do enjoy smoking. If I am addicted, so be it.

Do you like how your personality changes when you go with a smoke for a few hours?

That I do not like. So I try to smoke before I get grumpy.

Do you like being a slave to a chemical?

I am not a slave, its a mutual agreement. It burns, I drag then I kill it. So no slave-master thing going on there.

I don't.

Then you don't. And I don't mind if you don't. Its your choice to not smoke just as it is mine to do.