Anti-Smoking lobby and political correctness etc

[Dis]

that's not the same thing.

one activity only affects one person's health. While smoking affects the health of everyone around them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obesity affects people's pocketbooks (it costs money to stop heart attacks). Wouldn't having less money affect your health?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian
Gepap,

Does the state also have a right to put you on a diet if you decide to eat outrageously, to the point of turning yourself into a whale with a 300 cholesterol? That's pretty harmful to the health too, isn't it?

Where do you stop?

-Arrian

The flip side of people commplaining about the gov. regulating things like tabacco smoking is that they never acknowledge society as a whole does end up paying for peoples choices in the form of medical care and so forth. I have no problem with the satte regulaitng certain behavior since the government will end up paying for your actions. Ditto for not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet on a motorcycle. You fly off, or get into a crash and get badly messed up, and someone other than you ends up shelling out tens of thousands of dollars. That is a direct consequence of your action on another human being. Either accept that you ractions do have consequences for others, or seek to minimize those consequences on others. Don't want to wear a seatbelt? Then accept that the paramedics won;t treat you the same as someone who did, cause you chose to endanger your life, so why should the state seek to safeguard what you don't? Ditto for smoking.

Overeating is similar, but not the same. The gov. could always refuse to fund choleserol drugs, or make you paty very high premiums for your choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then I also hope that you will support that those that mess up their livers with alcohol should pay for it themselves.

I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem, like Sava does, with telling private businesses that none of them can allow a legal activity within their walls.

[GePap]

The state choses what is legal behavior in a private office or not. Sex between two consenting adults (of different sexes and not married, just to be sure) is legal: but if you start having sex with your coworker at your public desk, that may not only be breaking the rules of the private company, but the crime of indecent exposure.

The state already regulates all sorts of actions within the public sphere (a business is privately owned, but public in nature). This is nothing new or different, and the state has plenty of justification for it.

So boo hoo hoo for the smokers: go outside.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is nothing new or different, and the state has plenty of justification for it.

Still doesn't mean it is RIGHT! Having the ability to do something and actually doing it is subject to different questions.

[Arrian]

Overeating is similar, but not the same.

I don't really see much of a distinction.

Having said that, I do understand what you're saying. And I'm sympathetic to the argument that others shouldn't have to pay to treat my cancer if I get it. Here's the problems:

1) I pay for others when they get sick, often from lifestyle choices (overeating, overdrinking, doing drugs, failure to exercise, driving like a maniac, and a bunch of other things I can't think of right now)

2) If I get cancer, I may or may not get it because of smoking (more accurately, it is probable that smoking played a role, but so did genetics and chance).

And the fact is that I'd rather shell out some money for the stupidity of others than allow the government to attempt to regulate stupidity. Because we all know just how brilliant the U.S. government is!

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Still doesn't mean it is RIGHT! Having the ability to do something and actually doing it is subject to different questions.

The state is right in trying to protect the health of it citizens, as poor health leads to greater costs of healthcare and lost productivity. The state has a far better claim to regulate smoking than it does consenting sex between individuals of age.

The "market solution" would be to demand licenses to allow smoking in a bar (like with alcohol), and to make such business have contratcs in which they will contribute towards health funds (NOT out of the pockets of workers) to pay for smoking related health issues (though since smoking has been found to increase the risk factor of basically every cancer and heart disease, it makes finding what constitutes smoking related issues difficult, due to the second hand smoke issue)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian
1) I pay for others when they get sick, often from lifestyle choices (overeating, overdrinking, doing drugs, failure to exercise, driving like a maniac, and a bunch of other things I can't think of right now)

Yes, you do now. Which is why the state gets to regulate all of those, in different forms.

2) If I get cancer, I may or may not get it because of smoking (more accurately, it is probable that smoking played a role, but so did genetics and chance).

BUt smoking has been shown statistically to greatly increase the chance. As it were, if you don;t smoke and don;t spend large amounts of time around smokers, then if you got cancer, smoking is surely not the issue (there is a very small chance that one of the few times you were with a smoker, that was the reason, but it is statistically insignificant): if you did smoke, there is nor eason tot hink it was NOT the reason. It might very well not be, but it might just as well be.

And the fact is that I'd rather shell out some money for the stupidity of others than allow the government to attempt to regulate stupidity. Because we all know just how brilliant the U.S. government is!

-Arrian

The government is as brilliant as any large organization.

[Arrian]

Which is why the state gets to regulate all of those, in different forms

Excuse me?

How does the government get to regulate how much I eat and what I eat? How does it get to regulate whether or not I exercise?

Or do you mean it should?

If so, your point of view on this matter worries me.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

What does anti-smoking lobbying have to do with political correctness?

It's a health conscious issue.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by MrFun
What does anti-smoking lobbying have to do with political correctness?

It's a health conscious issue.

well the thread was supposed to be about this sort of movement.

I mean, does forcing people to say chalk board and not black board also constitute supression of freedom?

I meant broadly speaking, do these sorts of movements and groups limit our freedom, and could they take us somewhere dangerous?

[Japher]

I don't like being called a smoker it is so belittling... what would be a good PC term for a smoker?

If they ban cigs there are a lot of other things they will have to ban... caffine comes to mind.

[St Leo]

Smoking kills others. Ban it. Alcohol kills. Ban it. Chocolate doesn't kill. Keep it legal. Pot doesn't kill anyone. Legalize it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian


Excuse me?

How does the government get to regulate how much I eat and what I eat? How does it get to regulate whether or not I exercise?

It certainly regulates what you eat. Plenty of things are banned. It aso forces corporations to tell you what you are eating. And your point goes to the heart of why I said smoking and overeating are not the same. Eating is a fundamental human urge and necessity, like Drinking water and breathing. Smoking is not. Man has reasons to overeat , reasons which are now less valid due to technology. Man has never had a reason to smoke other than cultural fashion. Thus comparing overeating and smoking is inaccurate. NOthing in food is inhreantly dangeorus to your health (thanks to government regulations, that is). Plenty of things in cigarettes are.