11 ms·

The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that mos

by Trundle 10y ago

The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get paternalistic with it.

dbaupp 10y ago
Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.
- flukus 10y ago
  Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
  - grzm 10y ago
    There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1] When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment. [0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guidelines-for-fragrance-sensitivity/ https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid... [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-tells-resident-to-keep-barbecue-smoke-in-his-own-yard.html http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
  - sanswork 10y ago
    If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Of course you still have to smell the person who just finished a smoke outside which is far worse than even the most liberal applier of perfume.
    - flukus 10y ago
      > If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's already banned here. > If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either. > A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Never heard of this.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        >This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either. This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it. Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes. Smokers are in general super inconsiderate about their additions effect on other people in public. >Never heard of this. Google scent free office or fragrancy free office it's not uncommon these days.
        flukus 10y ago
        > This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it. The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust doesn't mean it's not there. > Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes. Yes, because it's about the only area left to go for a smoke. It's an effect of banning it everywhere else, not smokers being inconsiderate. If there was a nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people would go there.
- Trundle 10y ago
  An easy problem solved by restricting use in public locations, which we already do to an extent. However a person quietly poisoning themselves in isolation within their own home is still unnecessarily and unfairly affected by tyrannical sin taxes.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    They also have higher health care costs due to smoking, which in Australia costs billions of dollars in increased health spending. I think it's not unfair to have them subsidise their cohort's inevitable health care costs. The argument runs both ways: given smoking is a lifestyle choice with absolutely no positive outcomes for anyone other than tobacco companies, and numerous and virtually guaranteed bad health outcomes for those who smoke and almost certainly for those frequently around the smoker, then I don't see why wider society should be "punished" for the avoidable actions of those who choose not to quit smoking. It's not like there are not extensive campaigns and programs subsidised by the Australian government for those willing to attempt quitting cigarettes.

by Trundle 10y ago

dbaupp 10y ago

Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.

flukus 10y ago
Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
- grzm 10y ago
  There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1] When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment. [0]: https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guidelines-for-fragrance-sensitivity/ https://www.laborlawcenter.com/education-center/new-ada-guid... [1]: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-tells-resident-to-keep-barbecue-smoke-in-his-own-yard.html http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2015/07/27/florida-county-... (includes autoplay video, sorry)
- sanswork 10y ago
  If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Of course you still have to smell the person who just finished a smoke outside which is far worse than even the most liberal applier of perfume.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that. That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's already banned here. > If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain. This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either. > A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people. Never heard of this.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      >This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either. This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it. Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes. Smokers are in general super inconsiderate about their additions effect on other people in public. >Never heard of this. Google scent free office or fragrancy free office it's not uncommon these days.
      - flukus 10y ago
        > This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it. The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust doesn't mean it's not there. > Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes. Yes, because it's about the only area left to go for a smoke. It's an effect of banning it everywhere else, not smokers being inconsiderate. If there was a nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people would go there.
Trundle 10y ago
An easy problem solved by restricting use in public locations, which we already do to an extent. However a person quietly poisoning themselves in isolation within their own home is still unnecessarily and unfairly affected by tyrannical sin taxes.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  They also have higher health care costs due to smoking, which in Australia costs billions of dollars in increased health spending. I think it's not unfair to have them subsidise their cohort's inevitable health care costs. The argument runs both ways: given smoking is a lifestyle choice with absolutely no positive outcomes for anyone other than tobacco companies, and numerous and virtually guaranteed bad health outcomes for those who smoke and almost certainly for those frequently around the smoker, then I don't see why wider society should be "punished" for the avoidable actions of those who choose not to quit smoking. It's not like there are not extensive campaigns and programs subsidised by the Australian government for those willing to attempt quitting cigarettes.