The Imperialism of Alcoholism!

noachian · 19-12-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian pearson

Agreed, but it is also a LEGAL thing. And I think you'll find the tax take from tobacco far exceeds the cost of treatment for smoke related illness.

What are you suggeting then? We ban smoking imports?

Kevin Adamson · 19-12-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

Yep....thats true

Well we got there in the end (agreeing on something)

noachian · 19-12-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian pearson

And you are free to choose whether to enter a smoking establishment or not.

But the smoking establishment is also a public establishment and in this country something that is public must have rules applied by the State, because if a public house or some other establishment which was owned were to control its ownself, we could have all sorts of sick peverse establishments. I see all of your libertarian points, that if a non-smoker does not want to be around smoke then they go to a non-smoking establishment, yes well I am talking about people with smoke irritable diseases, they can't go to many places, not just alcohol or social related environemts but other public areas. They can't make the choice "Should I be around people with smoke and not bother about all the health concerns or should I go somewhere else" they cant say that, they only have one choice and that FIND A NON-SMOKING ESTEBLISHMENT. I think and will not move my position with your repeated arguements, although I have become more Libertarian over the past few weeks, I still think that in this real world where State cencorship is present, I must base my opinions on what is realistic not what is necisserily Libertarian.

allanon · 19-12-2007, 10:50 PM

If the Government had any serious evidence of a link between passive smoking and ill health they would be obliged to ban smoking outright; not to protect the smoker but to protect those that have absolutely no choice in breathing in other peoples smoke - the children of parents who smoke.

The ban on smoking in "public" places is simply gesture politics; a sop to those who like the idea of telling other people how to live.

Even if the Government had sufficient evidence to ban smoking outright they would be loathed to do so considering the amount of tax revenue it generates.

The "public places" smoking ban is propoganda politics at its worst.

It is also totally representative of todays political climate.

allanon · 19-12-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

But the smoking establishment is also a public establishment and in this country something that is public must have rules applied by the State, because if a public house or some other establishment which was owned were to control its ownself, we could have all sorts of sick peverse establishments. I see all of your libertarian points, that if a non-smoker does not want to be around smoke then they go to a non-smoking establishment, yes well I am talking about people with smoke irritable diseases, they can't go to many places, not just alcohol or social related environemts but other public areas. They can't make the choice "Should I be around people with smoke and not bother about all the health concerns or should I go somewhere else" they cant say that, they only have one choice and that FIND A NON-SMOKING ESTEBLISHMENT. I think and will not move my position with your repeated arguements, although I have become more Libertarian over the past few weeks, I still think that in this real world where State cencorship is present, I must base my opinions on what is realistic not what is necisserily Libertarian.

A public house is no more a public establishment than is your home. The more the Government chips away at the principle of private property the closer they get to removing that principle.

You support such policies at your own risk.

Smidgey · 19-12-2007, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

Thats a differnet point, I am talking about the chooser in smoking, not in general.

It is not a different point at all. It shows exactly why we the chooser wins, especially in the smoking case.

Quote:

Of course, but we live in a largely Government contolled society, so therefore if the Government says no smoking within the public sector for reasons of health then after all they are elected to do what is best for us.

What is best for me is to make my own decisions of what is best for me. Not some bureaucrat who is sponging off of society.

I see you changed your tune a little from support of the smoking ban to smoking in government buildings.

noachian · 19-12-2007, 11:40 PM

Ok I am going to end this smoking debate once and for all!

Baning smoking from the public sector (pub, resteraunt, hotel, bus stop, nursey school....whatever) is restricting rights of a human being to choose to smoke. We all know that. BUT taking a terrorist into detainment is also restricting a human being, but because he is a threat. The Government (I dont necisserily agree with this) sees smokers as a threat, a threat to the NHS and a threat to people with smoke irritable diseases! Like Allanon said alot of this might be something to do with properganda, but I think largely (like most Government function) is to do with money and the benefit of the citizen, with the cost of supressing the rights of a partucular group of society which have unhealthy habits. AS I HAVE SAID when it comes to taking rights away; the Government will choose those who willingly harm themselves. THEREFORE the smoker looses some of his smoking rights for the asthmatic to move around in society more comfortably. This might be wrong or immoral but its the way it goes! End of story.

brian pearson · 19-12-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allanon

The ban on smoking in "public" places is simply gesture politics; a sop to those who like the idea of telling other people how to live.

The "public places" smoking ban is propoganda politics at its worst.

It is also totally representative of todays political climate.

Can't better that. So thats me done. Outa here

noachian · 19-12-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian pearson

Can't better that. So thats me done. Outa here

Ok
Any other Libertarians might as well leave with him

Smidgey · 20-12-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

Ok I am going to end this smoking debate once and for all!

Baning smoking from the public sector (pub, resteraunt, hotel, bus stop, nursey school....whatever) is restricting rights of a human being to choose to smoke. We all know that.

Pubs, hotels, etc are not public sector.

Quote:

BUT taking a terrorist into detainment is also restricting a human being, but because he is a threat.

No, this is because he has violated or attempted to violate the lives of others. This is where the analogy fails - the two things are completely different. A smoker has not violated the rights of others unless he does so on private property where it is forbidden or he is a smoker and a murderer (you get my point...).

Quote:

The Government (I dont necisserily agree with this) sees smokers as a threat, a threat to the NHS and a threat to people with smoke irritable diseases!

The NHS is a threat to liberty, not the other way around. They may be a threat to people with smoke irritable diseases, but so are cars that might knock them down in the street. The fact is, such a person chooses to take that risk.

Quote:

Like Allanon said alot of this might be something to do with properganda, but I think largely (like most Government function) is to do with money and the benefit of the citizen, with the cost of supressing the rights of a partucular group of society which have unhealthy habits.

They obviously need money to prop up their welfare-warfare state.

Quote:

AS I HAVE SAID when it comes to taking rights away; the Government will choose those who willingly harm themselves.

I didn't realise that you believe government can defy the laws of logic. Well, you think they can do everything else, so why not this as well? Government cannot take rights away. Rights are innate, by virtue of being a human being. Government can suppress rights - then they are acting in an immoral fashion - but they cannot take rights away.

Quote:

THEREFORE the smoker looses some of his smoking rights for the asthmatic to move around in society more comfortably. This might be wrong or immoral but its the way it goes! End of story.

Nobody is disagreeing that this is what has happened. Because something has happened does not make it right. Never has, never will. I'm sure you must have heard that famous axiom: The law concerns what one does, morality concerns what one thinks.

19-12-2007, 11:40 PM	#97 (permalink)
noachian Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: The County of Cumbria, The Kingdom of England, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland Posts: 162 Party: UKIP	Ok I am going to end this smoking debate once and for all! Baning smoking from the public sector (pub, resteraunt, hotel, bus stop, nursey school....whatever) is restricting rights of a human being to choose to smoke. We all know that. BUT taking a terrorist into detainment is also restricting a human being, but because he is a threat. The Government (I dont necisserily agree with this) sees smokers as a threat, a threat to the NHS and a threat to people with smoke irritable diseases! Like Allanon said alot of this might be something to do with properganda, but I think largely (like most Government function) is to do with money and the benefit of the citizen, with the cost of supressing the rights of a partucular group of society which have unhealthy habits. AS I HAVE SAID when it comes to taking rights away; the Government will choose those who willingly harm themselves. THEREFORE the smoker looses some of his smoking rights for the asthmatic to move around in society more comfortably. This might be wrong or immoral but its the way it goes! End of story. __________________ "A Monarchy which above all, values the Liberty of the subject." Marcus Aurelius on perfect society. "Control thy passions, lest they take vengeance on thee." - Epictetus.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-12-2007, 10:50 PM	#94 (permalink)
allanon Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 665	If the Government had any serious evidence of a link between passive smoking and ill health they would be obliged to ban smoking outright; not to protect the smoker but to protect those that have absolutely no choice in breathing in other peoples smoke - the children of parents who smoke. The ban on smoking in "public" places is simply gesture politics; a sop to those who like the idea of telling other people how to live. Even if the Government had sufficient evidence to ban smoking outright they would be loathed to do so considering the amount of tax revenue it generates. The "public places" smoking ban is propoganda politics at its worst. It is also totally representative of todays political climate.