Smoking is bad for the people around the smoker. The smoker is doing both harm and something distasteful to many others. The harm merits self defense. That self defense comes in the forms of laws that prohibit smokers from fouling the air, leaving nicotine stains on objects like office furniture, office windows, clothing, books, computers, etc. that don't really belong to the smoker, or sickening others with second hand smoke.
The distasteful deserves disapprobation. Since that disapprobation is covered by free speech, there is no reason for the smoker to think that he can infringe on that right to vocally, or in writing disparage the practice of smoking, or speak disapprovingly of the smoker for continuing to engage in a practice we are now very sure is extremely unhealthy for people, and destructive to electronic equipment and other things too.
The smoker gets deathly ill if he doesn't quit, or quits too late. Chances are, the taxpayer is going to end up footing part, if not all of the bill. That means the taxpayer gets a say in this since it is the taxpayer's money, not the smokers (at least in part), so the taxpayer has a good reason to restrict, or regulate the practice to the extent that the financial impact to the taxpayer is greatly reduced.
Alcohol is legal too, that doesn't protect drunk driving, that doesn't mean as an employer I have to hire or retain drunks, particularly when I know that drunks will harm my business.
You are creating an either/or situation that is simply not appropriate. Why consider prohibition an option? That's a serious question, perhaps proscription is the right answer, but I doubt it.
Choo-choo trains can be dangerous, but we use them safely, we don't therefore outlaw them. In the case of smokes, we need to minimize their medical and financial damage to non-smokers, and make them an undesirable choice for smokers so that the smokers will quit rather than light up lawfully or otherwise.
Zeus, it's gone beyond that to the point of infringing on people's rights. I have no problem with what you say but it seems to me we've become over zealous. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to be in a restaurant where the person next to me isn't smoking, I just see hypocrisy all around me.
I was telling my buddy yesterday how my father used to take me and my brother to smoke-filled boxing and hockey arenas back in the day. The golden age of sports where people were allowed to act like hard core sports fans. Today, I kid you not, I was at a football game and a couple in front of us were passing around sushi.
Me and my buddy looked at one another and just felt something ain't right.
I digress.
I grew up in a smoker household.
About the financial aspect of it, I don't look at life that way since we lay in danger of looking at everything through cost-effective measures. It's how Canada has become and I don't like it. Everyone finds ways to declare a war on some disease based on cost. Smokes generally die 10 years earlier than most so right there, if we want to use a math angle, I'm sure they end up costing less than we think I reckon. Just guessing.
We can and should educate smokers but banning them even in their own apartments is not an answer. A vice is a vice and people will smoke, drink, gamble no matter what.
As for choo-choo trains, yeah we use them safely but the state isn't legistlating us in public about its usage.
It's not hard.
ReplyDeleteSmoking is bad for the people around the smoker. The smoker is doing both harm and something distasteful to many others. The harm merits self defense. That self defense comes in the forms of laws that prohibit smokers from fouling the air, leaving nicotine stains on objects like office furniture, office windows, clothing, books, computers, etc. that don't really belong to the smoker, or sickening others with second hand smoke.
The distasteful deserves disapprobation. Since that disapprobation is covered by free speech, there is no reason for the smoker to think that he can infringe on that right to vocally, or in writing disparage the practice of smoking, or speak disapprovingly of the smoker for continuing to engage in a practice we are now very sure is extremely unhealthy for people, and destructive to electronic equipment and other things too.
The smoker gets deathly ill if he doesn't quit, or quits too late. Chances are, the taxpayer is going to end up footing part, if not all of the bill. That means the taxpayer gets a say in this since it is the taxpayer's money, not the smokers (at least in part), so the taxpayer has a good reason to restrict, or regulate the practice to the extent that the financial impact to the taxpayer is greatly reduced.
Alcohol is legal too, that doesn't protect drunk driving, that doesn't mean as an employer I have to hire or retain drunks, particularly when I know that drunks will harm my business.
Fair enough. You may even be right.
ReplyDeleteSo ban it outright. Until then, it's discrimination. That's my personal point.
Ah. Wait. Can it be it's still legal because the state is addicted - don't excuse the pun - to the tax revenue they get from tobacky?
You are creating an either/or situation that is simply not appropriate. Why consider prohibition an option? That's a serious question, perhaps proscription is the right answer, but I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteChoo-choo trains can be dangerous, but we use them safely, we don't therefore outlaw them. In the case of smokes, we need to minimize their medical and financial damage to non-smokers, and make them an undesirable choice for smokers so that the smokers will quit rather than light up lawfully or otherwise.
Zeus, it's gone beyond that to the point of infringing on people's rights. I have no problem with what you say but it seems to me we've become over zealous. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to be in a restaurant where the person next to me isn't smoking, I just see hypocrisy all around me.
ReplyDeleteI was telling my buddy yesterday how my father used to take me and my brother to smoke-filled boxing and hockey arenas back in the day. The golden age of sports where people were allowed to act like hard core sports fans. Today, I kid you not, I was at a football game and a couple in front of us were passing around sushi.
Me and my buddy looked at one another and just felt something ain't right.
I digress.
I grew up in a smoker household.
About the financial aspect of it, I don't look at life that way since we lay in danger of looking at everything through cost-effective measures. It's how Canada has become and I don't like it. Everyone finds ways to declare a war on some disease based on cost. Smokes generally die 10 years earlier than most so right there, if we want to use a math angle, I'm sure they end up costing less than we think I reckon. Just guessing.
We can and should educate smokers but banning them even in their own apartments is not an answer. A vice is a vice and people will smoke, drink, gamble no matter what.
As for choo-choo trains, yeah we use them safely but the state isn't legistlating us in public about its usage.