How long until people stop hating smokers and drinkers?

[Bucket]

hardcore_gamer said:

This is nothing more than a bullshit strawman. Libertarians/conservatives don't want to literally abolish the state, with the exception of a tiny fringe that is no more representative of most right-wingers than the American Communist party is representative of the Democratic party. We just don't want it to be too big. Asking right-wingers why they don't move to Somalia is no different from asking lefties why they don't just move to North-Korea. These are childish arguments made mostly by childish people.

Correction: it's an argument ad absurdum, which is a perfectly sensible argument given an open-ended statement to refute (e.g. "That government is best which governs least"). You'll be hard-pressed to find a Libertarian who is able or willing to argue FOR the existence of taxes or regulations from a purely philosophical standpoint. (Incidentally, you'd have just as much trouble finding a progressive arguing the opposite: that any problem can be solved by more government.) The majority you advocate are simply conceding the libertarian ideal to what is feasible.

Once we've established that a compromise needs to be made, then a law/regulation can be evaluated on its own merits. At that point the purist "personal liberty" stance becomes unnecessary at best, and at worst lowers the collective IQ.

[RightField]

hardcore_gamer said:

These are childish arguments made mostly by childish people.

Reducing politics to either being leftist or conservative, and being dead stubborn in your opinion isn't very telling of an adult mind. You´re 24. Do not think for one second that you'll have the same opinion come 10 years. Hell, even 2 years. Most people do a massive turnaround in their personality in the years 24-30. You should realize that you're never ever really qualified to decide anything on the behalf of others simply because you are not them. What you can do is give it a gentle push in what you believe is the right direction for your fellow human which should always be a team effort because the goal is not to do the right by your standards but to have a government where people are able to live in peace with each other. The laws are in place not because the government wants it this way but because the public opinion one way or another still wants it this way. This may change, but not while it is a minority opinion.

[kb1]

Maes said:

Again, everything changes if riding without a helmet couldn't bring harm to anyone else but yourself, not even to the state or your family, in financial terms. Your family should be given the option for humane euthanasia, in those cases.

That assumes facts not in evidence:

1. That I will be injured.
2. That I will seek financial aid for said injuries.

And, those assume that I am guilty before being proven innocent, which is what rubs me the wrong way.

[Bucket]

Sure, let's instead assume you'll be the ONLY motorcyclist in history who won't bail at least once in his life. Let's also assume that you'll die instantly and that your family will volunteer to clean up the big red skidmark on the highway. Or failing all that - let's assume that your family will have the money to support your brain-dead ass for the next 40 years. This is all statistically improbable, but that doesn't stop you from thinking your actions only affect you, now does it?

You don't get to feign skepticism in order to ascribe to an EVEN MORE outlandish scenario. That's called confirmation bias.

[Fonze]

Maes said:

Anti-smoking is pretty much universal now, but anti-alcohol campaigning has remained a typically Scandinavian thing. Even the USA, with its dumb 21-yo legal drinking limit, is far ahead from that.

Then again, in Scandinavian (and English/Anglo-Saxon countries, with the USA being a special case) they also have a very, very bad drinking culture that favors binge drinking and (especially in Scandinavia) drinking yourself to death to "cure" your depression, so perhaps you guys really need your alcohol prohibition.

Russia is another special case in that they drink as much as Scandinavians would like to, and yet somehow survive *grin*

Just heard on the news the other day, Russians drink an average of 1/2 a bottle of vodka per person, per day. However much "1 bottle" is... heh.

Oh, and to answer the OP's question. As long as there is freedom there will be the freedom for people to get offended for others, which typically leads to a "I know better than you so I should be everybody's nanny" mentality. Until the day that people take not only the perks of freedom, but also the responsibilities and risks of it, the governmental Nanny States will continue to exist and tell us what's good for us... oh and also not to touch the hot stove. Tax hikes are always reasoned out as it's for the smokers' own good, yet the taxes go towards building roads and paying state and federal employees. Shouldn't the taxes go towards paying for the uninsured smokers who screw hospitals over and raise prices and therefor insurance rates? Wait. Stop me now, I'm starting to make sense.

Point is, freedom isn't free and you can't have things both ways. Either you are completely free/enslaved or stuck in a power struggle with those often times more ambitious than you. Until we stop separating ourselves as races and unite as countrymen here in America (and I'd presume other places as well) we shall continue to lose the battle. United we stand, divided we fall. And what has social media's impact been on everything? Well, now everybody has their own (s)cause to "fight" for with words typed and tears shed on a computer screen to the point where there isn't time for other problems. Sure, something may piss someone off, but that thing isn't their main focus, it's this other thing. We're all caught up worrying about too many different things. Even Leonardo DeVinci couldn't finish his creations when he worked on so many. We have no goals and no leaders.

Also, few people study history, so we'll never learn as a species ;p

[kb1]

Bucket said:

Sure, let's instead assume you'll be the ONLY motorcyclist in history who won't bail at least once in his life. Let's also assume that you'll die instantly and that your family will volunteer to clean up the big red skidmark on the highway. Or failing all that - let's assume that your family will have the money to support your brain-dead ass for the next 40 years. This is all statistically improbable, but that doesn't stop you from thinking your actions only affect you, now does it?

You don't get to feign skepticism in order to ascribe to an EVEN MORE outlandish scenario. That's called confirmation bias.

This is what I assume. I don't want to be kept alive brain-dead. And, yes, if I were injured, I would accept responsibility for my actions. If I am no longer able to do that, yep, pull the plug. Don't care much about the skidmark.

Does wearing a helmet eliminate any of those scenarios? It could be said that the helmet may reduce the risks. In that case, yeah I'd probably be inclined to wear it. I can come to that conclusion without having some unknown group of people dictate that I must wear the thing.

Maybe some people are too dumb to realize that a helmet reduces risk. Unfortunately, those are the same people that would believe that a helmet makes them safe - safe enough to, say, text while riding. To weave inbetween lanes. To go 140 mph down the interstate. The law solves nothing, and takes away choice at the same time, as do most laws that dictate what people must do within their own space.

[Kontra Kommando]

10 years ago, I used to work in CVS; certainly a lot has changed since then. The other day, I went shopping for some rolling papers, and I was reminded of the fact that they don't sell cigarettes anymore. As a matter of fact, they never sold rolling papers either, so either way I was shit out of luck.

I was browsing through the isles and I noticed in the section where they sell condoms, and other stuff of that nature; that they now sell vibrators and butt-plugs. WTF?

[Fonze]

Apparently a butt-plug is less harmful to your sphincter than cigarrettes to someone who doesn't smoke's lungs.

It's about as brilliant as McDonald's changing their menu to have more healthy food and whatnot to appeal to people who will never eat there anyway.

[Bucket]

kb1 said:

This is what I assume. I don't want to be kept alive brain-dead. And, yes, if I were injured, I would accept responsibility for my actions. If I am no longer able to do that, yep, pull the plug. Don't care much about the skidmark.

You assume that there isn't a whole spectrum of effective disability that can't just be solved by pulling the plug. You might be merely retarded for the rest of your life, or prone to seizures. You might end up under a truck and have your legs torn off. You might lose half your face and have to eat through a straw. Can we depend on you to remove yourself from the human race? How about we have a mercy killing law instead of helmet laws? It might solve a myriad of other problems. Voluntaryists do tend to subscribe to that perverse theory called "Social Darwinism"... though it might be more accurately called "passive eugenics".

Does wearing a helmet eliminate any of those scenarios? It could be said that the helmet may reduce the risks. In that case, yeah I'd probably be inclined to wear it. I can come to that conclusion without having some unknown group of people dictate that I must wear the thing.

"We don't need the state because people are smart."

Maybe some people are too dumb to realize that a helmet reduces risk. Unfortunately, those are the same people that would believe that a helmet makes them safe - safe enough to, say, text while riding. To weave inbetween lanes. To go 140 mph down the interstate.

"The state ultimately solves nothing because people are stupid."

[Technician]

Kontra Kommando said:

I was browsing through the isles and I noticed in the section where they sell condoms, and other stuff of that nature; that they now sell vibrators and butt-plugs. WTF?

Simple. Smoking was once used as a progressive movement. Now this open sexual liberation stuff is the new one.

[Enjay]

kb1 said:

This is what I assume. I don't want to be kept alive brain-dead. And, yes, if I were injured, I would accept responsibility for my actions. If I am no longer able to do that, yep, pull the plug. Don't care much about the skidmark.

What about the EMT who arrive on the scene and fight for your life?
What about the other emergency services who arrive and risk their lives trying to save you?
What about the cost and risk to others of making the scene safe?
What about the delay and inconvenience caused because you can't be moved?
What about the emotional trauma caused to, perhaps, another driver who will always feel guilty about your injuries even if you chose not to wear a helmet and thereby made the injuries far worse?
What about the court case?
What about the time and cost of the investigation?
What about your parents?
Your siblings?
Your kids?
Your friends?
Your colleagues?

All of the above (where appropriate) and more are likely to be more affected if you don't wear your helmet, you have an accident and the injuries are worse because of your reduced protection.

Going out and driving isn't something that you do in isolation. It is something that has an effect on others. You don't have an inalienable right to drive. There are laws in place to make sure you do it safely. Wearing a helmet on a bike is one of them and it doesn't just protect you.

Frankly, your comment reads like that of an "I don't care whether I live or die" knee-jerk, crappy, self-centred, selfish, immature, school-kid kind of PoV. Whether that is you or not, I don't know. However, it's certainly that kind of comment.

[Graf Zahl]

Ouch, there's surely a bootload of shit in here, most prominently from hardcore_gamer.
Dude, if you want to act like an irresponsible moron, do it in your own home but stop bothering others with your attitide.

That said, I'm a non-smoker and non-drinker.
Concerning laws about these issues there's always the issue of how much does an activity affect others. And here's where the problems with smoking come in. If you constantly live in poisoned air you'll probably never realize what kind of impact that dirt you produce has on others. As for diminishing your rights, how about the rights of the non-smokers not to be subjected to that poison?

15 years ago when there were no laws about smoking at the workplace we had two heavy chain smokers in the company I worked for. The offices of these two guys were virtually unenterable without getting a poison shock, their computers were so incredibly dirty that it was no fun working with them, which sometimes was necessary. And worst, the entire office floor was stinking.
It was an umbearable working environment. Thank God that today this is illegal. The last office I worked in also had a heavy chain smoker, but he was forced to reduce his tobacco consumption and do it outside. Better outcome for everybody.

And fortunately the public opinion these days has completely shifted to the other side. No more smoking in planes, trains and buses is a big plus, as is a smoke free workplace. I do not expect this to revert, it will probably only get stricter because even most smokers realize that it's better this way.
It's probably only the hardcore_gamers of this world, who are incapable of acting responsibly, who cry foul.


As for drinking, matters are a bit different. Alcohol, as long as it is consumed in reasonable amounts, does not create a hazard for others just by the act of consuming it, so obviously there is no need for such strict laws here.
The big problem is that alcohol is such a large part of social life that its dangers often get downplayed. But what's needed here is not stricter laws but proper education about the problem and stopping the glorification of alcoholic beverages, it's far more a social than a legal issue.

[Fonze]

Graf Zahl said:

Ouch, there's surely a bootload of shit in here, most prominently from hardcore_gamer.
Dude, if you want to act like an irresponsible moron, do it in your own home but stop bothering others with your attitide.

That said, I'm a non-smoker and non-drinker.
Concerning laws about these issues there's always the issue of how much does an activity affect others. And here's where the problems with smoking come in. If you constantly live in poisoned air you'll probably never realize what kind of impact that dirt you produce has on others. As for diminishing your rights, how about the rights of the non-smokers not to be subjected to that poison?

15 years ago when there were no laws about smoking at the workplace we had two heavy chain smokers in the company I worked for. The offices of these two guys were virtually unenterable without getting a poison shock, their computers were so incredibly dirty that it was no fun working with them, which sometimes was necessary. And worst, the entire office floor was stinking.
It was an umbearable working environment. Thank God that today this is illegal. The last office I worked in also had a heavy chain smoker, but he was forced to reduce his tobacco consumption and do it outside. Better outcome for everybody.

And fortunately the public opinion these days has completely shifted to the other side. No more smoking in planes, trains and buses is a big plus, as is a smoke free workplace. I do not expect this to revert, it will probably only get stricter because even most smokers realize that it's better this way.
It's probably only the hardcore_gamers of this world, who are incapable of acting responsibly, who cry foul.


As for drinking, matters are a bit different. Alcohol, as long as it is consumed in reasonable amounts, does not create a hazard for others just by the act of consuming it, so obviously there is no need for such strict laws here.
The big problem is that alcohol is such a large part of social life that its dangers often get downplayed. But what's needed here is not stricter laws but proper education about the problem and stopping the glorification of alcoholic beverages, it's far more a social than a legal issue.

First off, I'm a smoker. Having said that, I agree with you that non-smokers should not be subjugated to breathing in smoke for long periods of time. If a building does not have proper ventilation for smoking, then people should not smoke in there. However, on private property it should solely be up to the owner as to whether-or-not to allow smoking in his/her building. If you do not want to be around it, then don't go there. Once laws are passed my understanding for others goes out the window. We are all captains of our own helm and can work someplace else.

Fact is, allowing people to smoke inside a building that you own will cost you more money than it will make you. Unless you pander specifically to smokers. You will need better ventilation systems than normal and risk losing business and employees. Let the free market decide it, do your part in making it happen, and the end result will be the same, just with less government overreach and more freedom for we the people. Every time a law is passed it sets the precedent for what will follow. If they can ban smoking somewhere due to health risks to others, what else can be banned for the same reasons? Could someone make the case that all power plants, save wind, solar, and nuclear should be banned because the others dirty up the air and blah blah global warming we're all gonna die. Or maybe they'd make the case that the sexual revolution will cause diseases to run rampant and then God will destroy us like Sodom and Gomorrah and we're all gonna die. Point is, who's to say what the next person in office will decide to do. The more chances we give them to take our freedoms, the more often our freedoms will disappear.

When it comes to "doing your part," most Americans fail miserably. We're too caught up in our daily struggle to think of how our small actions affect the world. Like wearing a helmet, heh. When a company increases their prices, what justifies it? People continuing to shop there. When a company abuses its workers, what justifies it? The workers not acting collectively and striking when necessary. When you elect a public official and find out not only did they lie to you, but they also are actively trying to screw you over, what justifies that? You not voting them out of office. Same with the "united we stand, divided we fall" slogan. It hurts everyone to go on strike, or stop using a product or service, but it is necessary to flex every once in a while (when it's important and usually triggered by an offensive action) to let those who are big know where the power really lies. It's with us, the small folk. Our complacency and adherence to society is what keeps the system going. A bunch of apes (meaning us acting in anarchy) would quickly deteriorate us back to the stone age; those who are big would inevitably go with us.

I realize that last paragraph went out there a bit, but we cannot allow ourselves to go through life with a "I cannot control it anyway" mentality. There's a lot we cannot control, but there's even more we can. Maybe the biblical line that we were made in God's image refers more to that than a physical image.

[Graf Zahl]

Fonze said:

However, on private property it should solely be up to the owner as to whether-or-not to allow smoking in his/her building. If you do not want to be around it, then don't go there. Once laws are passed my understanding for others goes out the window. We are all captains of our own helm and can work someplace else.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. No, we can not *just* work someplace else. Protection of workplaces should not be left to free market rules because there's always those who cannot choose and are forced to live with the decisions from higher-up.

As I (and most other people) see it, I consider it my RIGHT not to be subjugated to unhealthy substances at all - especially at work where I have to be 5 days a week, up to 8 hours each day. Tobacco smoke is unhealthy and if the decision makers are ignorant - which they often are - nothing would have changed, we'd still be in the same situation as 15 years ago with stinking filthy offices - screw ventilation.

[CorSair]

Smoking in workplaces depends on context. In office buildings, it is more than recommended to smoke outside the building or in designated areas, whereas in a metal industrial complex, it's your preference to smoke or not, especially if there's welding to be done. (It's like air doesn't contain any hazardous gases already.)

[Fonze]

Graf Zahl said:

Sorry, but that's bullshit. No, we can not *just* work someplace else. Protection of workplaces should not be left to free market rules because there's always those who cannot choose and are forced to live with the decisions from higher-up.

As I (and most other people) see it, I consider it my RIGHT not to be subjugated to unhealthy substances at all - especially at work where I have to be 5 days a week, up to 8 hours each day. Tobacco smoke is unhealthy and if the decision makers are ignorant - which they often are - nothing would have changed, we'd still be in the same situation as 15 years ago with stinking filthy offices - screw ventilation.

Yes you can, stop being weak.

That's why I mentioned workers going on strike and people going without a particular good or service. Reality check, it hurts. If you worked for a union what would you do when it's time to go on strike? Would you screw over your fellow workers by continuing to work or do what you're supposed to do in order for everyone to succeed: SAVE MONEY UP! That way, when you go on strike, or have to find a new job for that matter, you HAVE TIME. That's just basic money management right there. What's your retirement portfolio looking like?

Also, how come your rights take precedence over an owners rights to his own property?

Why don't you get out of America since you can't handle the risks of freedom?

I believe China is still mostly communist and of course Brazil is always a communists paradise.

[Linguica]

Fonze said:

Also, how come your rights take precedence over an owners rights to his own property?

Because personal rights are more important than property rights

[Fonze]

So if I own a welding company, to what degree am I allowed to weld in my own shop?

Welding gives off harmful gases that contain carcinogens that are much worse than smoking

[Enjay]

Fonze said:

So if I own a welding company, to what degree am I allowed to weld in my own shop?

Welding gives off harmful gases that contain carcinogens that are much worse than smoking

You'd almost think there would be legislation governing safety and substances in the workplace wouldn't you?

UK
http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/welding/
http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/

Also relevant
http://www.hse.gov.uk/welding/illness.htm
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2289.aspx?categoryid=53&
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2344.aspx?CategoryID=53

TLDR: You can't just start up a welding shop and expose your employees to whatever the hell substances you want because the substances happen to be a bi-product of the welding process. That kind of mentality (should have) disappeared with the mills and mines of the industrial revolution.

[Phobus]

Fonze said:

Why don't you get out of America since you can't handle the risks of freedom?

He's German. Living in Germany.

[Fonze]

Oh I know there are, I'm just making the point that similar situations should be handled similarly.

Another thing, what about stuff like maintenance guys drilling and sanding stuff. There's more carcinogens in the air. Or the guys that go around buffing the floors of local grocery stores? Anyone think breathing in propane is ok?

*Edit*
Was at work, had to stop mid thought, so when I submitted I didn't see that last post. I'm American. That's why I referred before to Americans falling short on doing their part to let the big corporations and public officials know where the power really lies. I cannot speak for other countries, but I can say that a person is still a person no matter where you put him.

[hardcore_gamer]

Linguica said:

Because personal rights are more important than property rights

If I took away all of your property rights, then what rights would you have left?

[Fonze]

hardcore_gamer said:

If I took away all of your property rights, then what rights would you have left?

Well, at least in America, life for starters ;p

*Edit*
Sorry, I'm a smartass at heart, heh.

One thing I simply must reiterate is the importance of setting a precedent. Almost nothing is more important than the precedent you set for later. Look at any business. Look what happens when some standards are allowed to slip. It is always an uphill battle at least 3 times as hard to rebuild standards than to never let them go in the first place.

There are tons of problems with anti-smoking laws, including rights mentioned in the US's own declaration for independence, which is a doctrine listing the reasons the US seceded from Britain. The biggest problem, however, is the precedent you set. Like I said earlier: if they can justify taking x, then who's to say that someone in the future won't try to take y based on the same reasoning.

Every parent gets brutal lessons in setting a precedent because kids constantly try to push the envelope. Maybe that is something more easily relatable.

[kristus]

Fonze said:

Oh I know there are, I'm just making the point that similar situations should be handled similarly.

But those situations aren't similar.

[geekmarine]

So what's the deal with the hate against vapers? It's like, people love to gripe about smokers, how horrible they are, how bad they smell, how they affect everyone around them, etc., so now you have vaping which eliminates all that, and people bitch about vaping, too, almost as if they're just pissed off now that they have nothing else to bitch about.

[Fonze]

kristus said:

But those situations aren't similar.

The funny thing about precedents; it's easier in the future to draw similarities to laws already made and court decisions already known than to make a new law. They don't both need to be exactly the same in order for the decision of one to impact the other. That's how humans are. Yes, smoking is recreational and therefore fundamentally different than something like welding or metal-cutting/sanding.

But if it is a right to not have to breathe in smoke ever, then it could be later interpreted as a right to clean air, which while that sounds good, could lead to consequences in other areas. It's like pandora's box, or a can of worms, when you give away rights for any reason. What would happen if the government forces you to buy a new electrical car tomorrow or even in the next year? All because a group of people believe that the pollution from cars will kill us all, for whatever reason.

You never know what the people you know will do today, so why gamble on what the people you don't know of tomorrow will do?

[Quast]

Fonze said:

What would happen if the government forces you to buy a new electrical car tomorrow or even in the next year? All because a group of people believe that the pollution from cars will kill us all, for whatever reason.

Do you drive a vehicle with a catalytic converter? That uses unleaded gasoline? Does it have seatbelts and airbags in it?

[Bucket]

hardcore_gamer said:

If I took away all of your property rights, then what rights would you have left?

Lots... Unless you're one of those loony LibertAryan "property is everything and everything is property" shitlords.

Rights do not exist. They are an imaginary construct dictated by the needs of society.

[Fonze]

Quast said:

Do you drive a vehicle with a catalytic converter? That uses unleaded gasoline? Does it have seatbelts and airbags in it?

Hey don't tell that to me, tell that to the environmental groups that flood the courts with lawsuits. Who's to say that what we consider "clean and safe enough" will be considered the same in the future, even 10 years from now. How many years did it take them to add all of those features? The seatbelts came first, we know that, but when cars first came into production how do you think they were marketed? Then when the first efforts to clean it's exhaust came into play, do you think they said "it's a start," or "this is the solution?" Starts don't sell, solutions do. Point is, who's to say what people who grow up with this stuff will consider clean, or lawful for that matter.

Note, also, that I never said I was against property owners banning smoking or anything else on their property. The next freedom to go could even be the right to smoke anywhere. Boy, I be thatd just bring a smile to many people's faces, til they are surprised that the precedent has been set for the government to take more and there's nothing they can do aside from a lengthy and expensive court battle to take back their rights.

Bucket said:

Lots... Unless you're one of those loony LibertAryan "property is everything and everything is property" shitlords.

Rights do not exist. They are an imaginary construct dictated by the needs of society.

In America, rights do exist and are "endowed by our Creator." Yeah, society is what ultimately puts them into place, but without them civilized society could never exist.

The key is that the law recognizes them as inalienable; not able to be taken away. The point of that quote in the Constituition is to show that no human should have the right to deny another their rights. You know, like England was doing. You know, like all governments throughout history have done when they got too big, overreacted themselves, and later crumbled.

Also, where do you get off name calling? Go back to third grade with the other 8-year-olds and let the adults talk before you get this sent to Post Hell for too much stupid posts, like this last sentence ;p

[Technician]

Bucket said:

Lots... Unless you're one of those loony LibertAryan "property is everything and everything is property" shitlords.

Actually uses the word shitlord unironically....

Fonze said:

Also, where do you get off name calling?

Remember the mantra: There are no bad methods, just bad targets. The ends always justify the means to the progressive.