Ban on alcohol and cigarettes in South Africa remains

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
836
You Perfectly hit the nail on the head. It sums it up.

Governments govern, they do not "RULE", they have as much power as given to them, to be public servants, not overlords, by the people.
Anything else is overreaching. I do not get why ANTIsmokers do not get this, but I am grateful for nonsmokers, who understand the principal and come here to have a conversation, not a stuck up snarky reply.
Thanks. I'm for purely voluntary interaction, but I wasn't always. Took me a while to see how it's a peaceful, adequate answer to the problem.

p.s. I'm secretly hoping some holes in my world view will come to light. I'd rather get rid of any lingering bad ideas I have. So far it - the notion of a legal system set up in defense of purely voluntary interaction - seems to be holding up but I welcome any critique. Vigorous debate, it should be remembered, is in itself a peaceful act.
 
Last edited:

IceyPieQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
183
@lexity I hear ya. Coming in hot and full of moral authority is a sure-fire way to kick off a baseless argument. You put it well and really got to the core. It's down to the principle of the situation.

The longer this senseless ban continues, the more people will start discussing things, we have never spoken on. Ie our basic rights. I have said this prev, but this thread has kept me sane and given me comfort, even though not much has changed. The government gave us no support in our addiction, no way out, but brute force. This would have equated to therapy for me. Even though I support my local shop owner, who has had to take to the underworld market to stay afloat.

For one, I can caution everyone I can, against Champix, if you have underling MH things. I have GAD, Champix pushed me over the edge. I quit smoking for 3 weeks in this locked down, and it reached a boiling point. I had to stop the Champix and yes, I picked up a smoke. And I felt better. My MH is not something that should be in the hands of the state. Me wanting to KMS over something has "silly" as anxiety is not fun, not ideal, but it was my reality for almost a month. I haven't had self-harm thoughts in years, I manage my MH. I smoke because it calms me down. I spoke to my doctor, the one that put me on the Champix, she has known me for years and cautioned me about the effects. Ideally, she would like me to quit, but in reality, she chooses my mental health above, l else and said that if I want to quit, she will help me, but she feels, in this is the storm, it's not the right time. My doctor supports me and my choices.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
836
@lexity I hear ya. Coming in hot and full of moral authority is a sure-fire way to kick off a baseless argument. You put it well and really got to the core. It's down to the principle of the situation.

The longer this senseless ban continues, the more people will start discussing things, we have never spoken on. Ie our basic rights. I have said this prev, but this thread has kept me sane and given me comfort, even though not much has changed. The government gave us no support in our addiction, no way out, but brute force. This would have equated to therapy for me. Even though I support my local shop owner, who has had to take to the underworld market to stay afloat.
Poor buggers. I feel for you. I was a smoker, once. I would be abso-fsking-lutely fuming if I was still a smoker and was deprived of the right to buy cigarettes. As it is, the law still affects me. If I choose to start again, it's my body, my choice. But you see, the gotcha-reply is that others(tax-payers) should not have to pay for your ill-health due to smoking.

My response would be: fine, don't force other people to pay for my health care. Stop taxing them. To which the typical reply is: Okay but then health prices are going to skyrocket. Cos evil private healthcare industry. To which my response would be: Nonsense. Only if shortages in supply persist i.e. through state intervention(including state-licensing of corporates), could the price go and stay up, from where it is now. Without the uninvited 3rd party, imposing artificial barriers to Medical education & practice, prices would fall. You don't need a degree in economics to see this. One only needs to think through one's assumptions carefully, to debunk those statist assertions. (Maybe a high-school qualification and some disobedient defiance to dare question their authority in economic wisdom)

But you see the state is terrified of this nightmare dialog playing out. Because it would mean people understood how they are not better off abdicating their consumer-role to the state. This would cut into the state's alleged mandate to make decisions on behalf of consumers as to what is best for them. Without this power over others, they would have to go and find something productive to do with their time.... something which required the consent of all parties involved... like the rest of us are expected to do, by law. The other part is that state-appointed experts would have to do the same. They'd be subject to competition which would force quality up and prices down.

That's the chink in their armor. Their survival in a free market depends on people willingly engaging in exchange. No force would be acceptable. This is no problem to most people who know that they are able to learn from their mistakes and adjust to what people value in terms of goods and services. But there are those among us who don't have the same confidence in themselves. They have this sense of inferiority, whereby if they were stripped of the power to dictate terms, they wouldn't be able to adapt.

It's how we, in the West, came to categorize some behavior as 'criminal' i.e. violently forcing our will onto others.

It's like the mafia but far, far worse, because of the scale of state intervention, when compared to the mafia.
 

fussydassie

Active Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
97
But you see, the gotcha-reply is that others(tax-payers) should not have to pay for your ill-health due to smoking.
There we step on a slippery slope... why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for someone's ill health due to being overweight? why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for someone's ill health due to anything that I disagree with as a lifestyle choice?
 

Flanders

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
11,677
@lexity I hear ya. Coming in hot and full of moral authority is a sure-fire way to kick off a baseless argument. You put it well and really got to the core. It's down to the principle of the situation.

The longer this senseless ban continues, the more people will start discussing things, we have never spoken on. Ie our basic rights. I have said this prev, but this thread has kept me sane and given me comfort, even though not much has changed. The government gave us no support in our addiction, no way out, but brute force. This would have equated to therapy for me. Even though I support my local shop owner, who has had to take to the underworld market to stay afloat.

For one, I can caution everyone I can, against Champix, if you have underling MH things. I have GAD, Champix pushed me over the edge. I quit smoking for 3 weeks in this locked down, and it reached a boiling point. I had to stop the Champix and yes, I picked up a smoke. And I felt better. My MH is not something that should be in the hands of the state. Me wanting to KMS over something has "silly" as anxiety is not fun, not ideal, but it was my reality for almost a month. I haven't had self-harm thoughts in years, I manage my MH. I smoke because it calms me down. I spoke to my doctor, the one that put me on the Champix, she has known me for years and cautioned me about the effects. Ideally, she would like me to quit, but in reality, she chooses my mental health above, l else and said that if I want to quit, she will help me, but she feels, in this is the storm, it's not the right time. My doctor supports me and my choices.
GAD?

My boet used Champix successfully. He's been off for about 5 years. I was thinking of going that route but I will never do it under these circumstances. There is no way in hell this fscking witch will take credit for my quitting.

The only time I have quit in the past was when I did it cold turkey. Lasted for a year and then I got clever one night out drinking with mates. I thought what harm could come from one smoke? What was all the fuss about? That was when I learned the truth about 'you're one away from twenty a day'.
 

diapason

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
2,386

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
836
There we step on a slippery slope... why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for someone's ill health due to being overweight? why should I, as a tax-payer, pay for someone's ill health due to anything that I disagree with as a lifestyle choice?
Imo, you shouldn't be required to by law, unless you opted-in to contract law i.e. you chose to limit yourself under a contract that said under condition X, Y or Z, I will pay A amount of money to person B.

You are 100% correct about the slippery-slope argument. That is precisely what it is. If you can justify spending other people's tax-money to subsidize this group or that (typically on the back of a guilt-trip), know that the reverse will likely happen to you, somewhere down the line.

The only party who really benefits from this is the middleman who is there through threats and intimidation. For other parties, it is swings and roundabouts but with the uninvited middleman commanding an ever-increasing slice and the other two parties demanding the equivalent value of what they put in, or more.... and not receiving it until they insist the state step in and do(tax) more to protect them.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
836
Why do we taxpayers have to pay R100 billion in medico-legal claims against state hospitals.
Well, spotted ... when you sue the state, you are suing innocent people, who misguidedly put their trust in the state.

It's nice when you have the power of the state on your side... the cost of all your negligence, or criminal acts, can be socialized/externalized i.e. put onto the bill of others.
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
7,533
Sorry for the confusion, I could have worded that better, I see now I wrote that like a pumpkin.

They (shop manager) haven't heard the news about the ban lifting, hence they aren't stocking up for anything right now.
Question: Can you smoke pumpkin?

/runs ... wheeze, wheeze ... fsck me, these RGs are badddd ...
 

IceyPieQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
183
GAD?

My boet used Champix successfully. He's been off for about 5 years. I was thinking of going that route but I will never do it under these circumstances. There is no way in hell this fscking witch will take credit for my quitting.

The only time I have quit in the past was when I did it cold turkey. Lasted for a year and then I got clever one night out drinking with mates. I thought what harm could come from one smoke? What was all the fuss about? That was when I learned the truth about 'you're one away from twenty a day'.
General anxiety disorder.

I started smoking again because I wanted to smoke. My guilty pleasure XD Do not know what will happen tomorrow, right now, I enjoy a smoke, but I support anyone's decision to stop, or start. I am in no position to give anyone **** haha

Eleborating my view on Champix further:
Champix is brilliant, and it worked, on day 2 I stopped smoking, but I started getting panic attacks, depression set in, paranoia, my mind waged a war on my reality. I would never say Champix is bs, I am just giving a warning about the negative effect it could have on your state of mind If you are predisposed to mental health problems. I used to be ashamed of it, but I manage myself successfully normally, and I wouldn't want anyone to go through what I just came out of, so it's just a cautious warning to someone looking into it. My doc said she has seen 90% success with Champix, but I am not the only one of her patients that had my mind warped.
 

johnjm

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,549
General anxiety disorder.

I started smoking again because I wanted to smoke. My guilty pleasure XD Do not know what will happen tomorrow, right now, I enjoy a smoke, but I support anyone's decision to stop, or start. I am in no position to give anyone **** haha

Eleborating my view on Champix further:
Champix is brilliant, and it worked, on day 2 I stopped smoking, but I started getting panic attacks, depression set in, paranoia, my mind waged a war on my reality. I would never say Champix is bs, I am just giving a warning about the negative effect it could have on your state of mind If you are predisposed to mental health problems. I used to be ashamed of it, but I manage myself successfully normally, and I wouldn't want anyone to go through what I just came out of, so it's just a cautious warning to someone looking into it. My doc said she has seen 90% success with Champix, but I am not the only one of her patients that had my mind warped.
I quit for a year due to champix, but when I look back it was tough as it did give me depression in hindsight and I won’t forget the constipation...

Tempted to try it again but hell it was rough, a friend of mine went crazy when he tried.

It’s worth a shot though as it does work.
 

wingnut771

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
8,952
I quit for a year due to champix, but when I look back it was tough as it did give me depression in hindsight and I won’t forget the constipation...

Tempted to try it again but hell it was rough, a friend of mine went crazy when he tried.

It’s worth a shot though as it does work.
first round of champix worked fine for me, but started smoking again a few years later. tried it a second time and made me go off my rocker. champix = ymmv.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
836
I would think it a crime against humanity to withhold aid based on race. People have ended up at Hague tribunals for less...
In free societies there is strong legal protection of freedom of association.

Meaning the individual has the responsibility to choose his associates. Meaning if he chooses well, he decides how to control the proceeds of that success. And if he chooses badly, he has to suffer the consequences.

Of course, the idea was always to permit private contracts where terms and conditions are stated upfront in verbal or written form. And it was a crime to otherwise deprive a person of his property rights.

Further more there was no limit on what someone could do to protect an unwanted outcome. Insurance is - in a free society - perfectly legal and regulated by consumers. Adult individuals are not in the habit of running to the state to report on their fellow citizens who chose a better trading prospect i.e. someone else.

Aid is help. It's kinda implicit that help is voluntary, or should be. Otherwise it's not help but coercion. If you contracted to provide help, under certain conditions, and subsequently failed to honor that legal commitment, then you would/could be charged in a private court.

p.s. maybe I've misunderstood what you're referring to, tho'.Have you got a link to one or more of those Hague tribunals?
 
Last edited:

tetrasect

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
714
@IceyPieQ @Flanders @johnjm @wingnut771

Vaping is the way to go.

There are many other chemicals in cigarettes that are responsible for their addictive nature (they have actually been shown to make changes in your brain to make you addicted). By switching to vaping you are reducing those chemicals to nicotine only.

Because you are not forced to finish a whole cigarette (or waste the rest) you can have a few drags whenever you please which results it a reduction of nicotine intake. After a while you buy liquids with lower nicotine content which further reduces the amount of nicotine you need to feel satisfied.
You start vaping juices that taste like mango or blueberry sherbet milkshake or whatever, which makes you disassociate the pleasurable feeling of nicotine with the taste of tobacco.

If after that you want to quit vaping, it is a million times easier than quitting smoking (I sometimes get busy working on something and then later realize that I forgot to vape all day). You can just lower your nicotine level to an eventual 0mg and then put it away completely when you feel it seems pointless to inhale sweet air.

The most important part is that if you ever do relapse, you relapse to vaping because you would never choose a (now disgusting) cigarette over a delicious vape.
 

Tun@

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
3,045
Vaping is the way to go.
It's actually surprised me, I'm a smoker of 40 years & lately grabbed 2 different ones. After grabbing the 2nd one that is adjustable i haven't even picked up my tobacco. Rollie smoker so maybe less chemicals to be fighting but hanging out on free base versus having to be on salt & I'm surprised the 12mg/1.2% is suppressing the demons.
 
Top