3 ms·
And they should be able to do so. We are free people (I hope). If one decide to buy tobacco, it's his own responsibility, and he should have the freedom to do
by snird 11y ago
And they should be able to do so.
We are free people (I hope). If one decide to buy tobacco, it's his own responsibility, and he should have the freedom to do so.
- latch 11y agoI don't have a strong opinion on this, but if you really believe that as an absolute, how do you balance the harm to society? For tobacco, harm being costs for increased health care, health impacts on non-smokers, and frankly the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom.
- mistermann 11y ago> costs for increased health care Smokers are net over-contributors in most countries, cigarette taxes vastly exceed health care costs, in no small part to shorter lifespans of smokers and often quick deaths. > health impacts on non-smokers Maybe if you work in a smoking bar/restaurant (which is your choice) or live with someone who smokes inside. > the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom I'll worry about that when society starts extending the same courtesy.
- latch 11y agoI don't think that's unreasonable. Honestly, there's nothing you can say to bring me 100% on-board. I'll never believe that someone's right to smoke is greater than my right not to be subject to smoke and that the burden should be on the one who acts/smokes. I can agree that someone should be free to smoke in their house, provided they have no dependents. Again, I don't have a strong opinion, probably because [in parts of the world anyways] I feel things are decently balanced (maybe you disagree). I was just curious.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mistermann 10y ago> someone's right to smoke is greater than my right not to be subject to smoke From where do you derive that "right"?
- facepalm 11y agoSo let's get rid of cars and make risky sports illegal.
- neotek 11y agoWhere does that argument end, though? Can we ban motorcycles because they regularly disturb my otherwise quiet street and frequently kill their riders, many of whom ride their bikes at irresponsible speeds that put other road users in danger? Or how about alcohol, which kills many more people each year than all illegal drugs combined, which causes many people to drive drunk which puts innocent people in danger, or which causes some people to get violent and start fights in the street? I doubt there's a single pub in Australia that doesn't host at least one drunk fight a week, and dozens of young people have been killed in punch-ups with other young people who had one too many and think they're invincible.
- sago 11y agoImage what the 'war on drugs' would look like as a 'war on tobacco' - drug prohibition causes very high levels of social problems, and doesn't eliminate consumption (or even dramatically decrease it, possibly, though the evidence is highly tendentious either way). It also isn't clear that tobacco smoked in small amounts (enjoy a cigar or two at the weekend) is a major health hazard. I don't and never have smoked, but I think the freedom argument is pretty strong. Not allowing tobacco companies to lie about their product, is a good move. Banning them, not so much.
- chinathrow 11y agoIt is - in a perfect world where everyone is capable of looking after himself. Why do you think we have regulations in healthcare etc? Because lots of folks can't decide if something is healthy or not.
- niccaluim 11y agoThere's absolutely nothing "free" about active addiction.