• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

How do you expect me to take you seriously when you call our government Soviet like?
I didn't. It is my gov't and EUSSR which is Soviet like, yours is a little way off.

How can I take you seriously when you would destroy private property? I'm no diehard Lockean, I even read and debate with some libertarian socialists and communists but when you embark on an action that could be used for as a jumping off point for just about any encroachment on property without even wishing to greatly reduce centralised, state power then I can not take you position very seriously for respectfully. The rights and independence of the small property owner are doubly important in our centralised, authoritarian world.
Second hand smoke kills and why should the rights of the people who are killing others be protected more than the rights of those who are the victims?
Because they voluntarily go onto the property of those who allow it. It is simply the rights of property owners. Your socialism will endanger all property, if this attack is allowed what other one can really be stopped?
Why not then allow drunken driving? Shouldn't people be allowed to do what they want and if people are stupid enough to drive knowing that a drunk driver might kill them that is their risk?
That is different, not only is that a matter of public roads but one cannot reasonably choose whether they want to be around drunk drivers.
There are many laws that protect the public from being harmed by other members of the public and banning smoking in public places is one of them and is one that I fully support. I also know that there's zero chance that these laws will ever be rescinded so I think it would be wise for people to put their energies somewhere more productive?
Public places is fine, private property is not. If you support these laws on private property you do not support private property. God willing they will be removed in Britain although we are already on the decline into authoritarianism.

I for one hope government continues to raise the cigarette taxes because it makes people stop smoking and that benefits society. Have you considered how much the cost of smoking affects all of our health care costs? It's enormous.
I hope you see the error of your authoritarian ways. They are much worse for society.
 
Last edited:
Smoking is addictive, but I believe the main reason people start smoking is for social reasons. For one, they see everyone else doing it, and it prompts them to think it's okay, or to override the education they've received.

I think the other reason is that it's very common to smoke just for something to do in a social setting. It has a similar function to alcohol... when you are standing around just chatting, smoking is one thing to fill the little voids in conversation.

The number one way that smoking will be eliminated is not through higher taxation, but through social change. As it becomes less and less acceptable to smoke in public spaces, smokers will begin to disappear. If you visit South Korea, you'll see just what people think of it there. If you light up in public, it's legal, but you'll get really dirty looks from everyone around you. They hate smoking and will let it show.

Alcohol could easily be attacked in this debate. It doesn't cause second hand toxicity, but the public resources put into dealing with drunk people every year along with their damage to property is probably enormous. Not to mention drunk driving, under age drinking, and the direct affects it has on the liver. It's another self-destructive (and addictive) substance that people tend to overlook.
 
Smoking is addictive, but I believe the main reason people start smoking is for social reasons. For one, they see everyone else doing it, and it prompts them to think it's okay, or to override the education they've received.

I think the other reason is that it's very common to smoke just for something to do in a social setting. It has a similar function to alcohol... when you are standing around just chatting, smoking is one thing to fill the little voids in conversation.

The number one way that smoking will be eliminated is not through higher taxation, but through social change. As it becomes less and less acceptable to smoke in public spaces, smokers will begin to disappear. If you visit South Korea, you'll see just what people think of it there. If you light up in public, it's legal, but you'll get really dirty looks from everyone around you. They hate smoking and will let it show.

The US government has been working to eliminate smoking since way back in the 60's. It's a slow process because of the addictiveness. I think most people who smoke want to quit, but it's just so hard to do. Yeah, there are a few diehards who say they don't want to quit, but I'd say it's gone through every current smoker's minds at least once.

Personally, and I quit 10 yrs ago, I found it to be getting too stressful to smoke. There is almost nowhere to go when you smoke. That and the cost of it. People who smoke are denying themselves other things, so they can have their fix. It's really sad. I curse the day I started. Since I quit my life is cleaner and calmer, and I have more money to spend elsewhere.

Alcohol could easily be attacked in this debate. It doesn't cause second hand toxicity, but the public resources put into dealing with drunk people every year along with their damage to property is probably enormous. Not to mention drunk driving, under age drinking, and the direct affects it has on the liver. It's another self-destructive (and addictive) substance that people tend to overlook.

Alcohol isn't a good substance, either, but I don't think it's quite as bad as cigs are. It's bad when it's abused, but I don't think for most people it's anywhere near as addictive as cigs are. That's another thing, since I quit smoking I don't drink. Those two substances go hand in hand. I had a drinking problem for many years, but after I quiut smoking I didn't really care for the alcohol, it wasn't important anymore. Really quite amazing.
 
Hi Friend's
If you are a smoker or addicted to liquor, you may spend a few moments in the chat room. Please help the society by eradicating addition. Join the chat room Login | Facebook and encourage addicted people to join the facebook chat room application. :2wave:
 
Just waiting for those who defend the forcing of poison on others to show up in this thread.

Key word is force. But the laws have gone far beyond "force".

A business should have the right to have a smoking environment or not. It's their business. People don't have to go to said locale. People don't have to work in said locale either.

I also agree that a business owner funding the medical care for his emplyees has the right to drug test them and fire them if they smoke, and he instutes a no-smoking policy 24-7-365.

I could care less if it reduced 90% of heart attacks. It's not government's job to play Mommy Dearest. If you cite a reduction in deaths due to smoking, you're opening a pretty big barrel. Where would you like the socialist to stop in their care for you?

As for public work places... OK. But if a section of the workers want to smoke, have private offices where they wnt to smoke, then they should be able to.

I suppose you believe in putting a limit to the speed cars can go too? So there are fewer mechanical deaths?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom