7 ms·

How is it a "massive invasion on basic human rights"?

aaron695 10y ago
It's basically applying the drug war to cigarette smokers. It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves. I think this breaks basic human rights.
- sanswork 10y ago
  They are doing harm to others. Second hand smoke is a serious concern that has lead to many deaths of non-smokers.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  > doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers [1]. I'd call causing death, "harm". Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately. Hardly a "human right". [1] "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." - https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/ https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... - Stats from the US, from the first google result I came across.
  - thomasthomas 10y ago
    > unfortunately !? some people want to control what they do with their own bodies and not be slaves to the state. gtfo
    - SyneRyder 10y ago
      This comment would have been better without the last 'gtfo' appended.
    - davidlumley 10y ago
      You still have complete control over what you do to your own body in your own privacy. This gives other people complete control over their body too – in terms of not having to breathe in your smoke.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    > Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers And this is why people vote Trump. I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance. You just picked something that conforms to your world view which you later admit since you say its not even relevant to you, you still want to control other human beings. "Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately."
    - cyphar 10y ago
      > And this is why people vote Trump. Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical. > I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance. GP said that smokers are "doing no harm to anyone but themselves". Since secondhand smoke is known to kill and otherwise harm non-smokers I would very much argue that smokers are doing harm to others. Hence why parent brought up secondhand smoking. And that's why Australia has laws against smoking indoors (outside your home) and near public places where people have no choice where to stand (such as near bus stops, on some promenades and other similar places). Unfortunately, there are no laws against smoking on busy sidewalks (in NSW) and the pitiful "3m from the entrance" laws don't actually mean you can enter or leave some cinemas without running into a wall of carcinogenic and toxic smoke. Not to mention that people routinely break the law and smoke near bus stops (which as someone who catches public transport, this pisses me off no end and I enjoy telling smokers to fuck off when they decide to increase the cancer risk of the people around them). I have no issue with people that smoke in their own homes. But people who decide to smoke on public walkways where other people are walking past are simply disgusting for harming others because of their habit.
      - exodust 10y ago
        Actually there are some laws here which protect residents in apartment blocks from suffering the second-hand smoke of neighbours smoking on their balconies. I'm currently putting up with my neighbor's smoke which enters my apartment on a daily basis. He smokes many cigarettes in a day and it wafts from his balcony to mine and comes inside. I haven't taken action yet, mainly because I'm not looking forward to taking action.
- jay_kyburz 10y ago
  Every taxpayer dollar spent pulling cancerous lungs out of smokers is damage done to our society.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  As long as I'm paying someones healthcare, I'm not going to allow them to smoke. If they are going to smoke, then the cost of their cigarettes should cover their increased medical costs and other costs to society (such as work years lost, increased sick days). The fact that I'm directly harmed by cigarette smoke is a minor nuisance compared to the enormous costs to society. Also: which human right is it you are referring to here?
  - Clubber 10y ago
    >I'm not going to allow them to smoke. Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Driving? Hell no! You need to walk, and you can't use roads or sidewalks near roads. Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      > Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Exactly like bicycling. However, bicycling has positive benefits - it gets people places (as does driving), it provides excercise etc. So a reasonable compromise might be requiring a helmet while cycling, which lots of countries does. That reduces the costs of injuries to a point where it's likely to be outweighed by the positives. > Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax. Cars do have very expensive side effects (injuries in car accidents, pollution, lack of excercise, ...). I pay a 25% VAT on a car. Then I pay a yearly car tax of $100 year and around $2/mile in fuel taxes. That still is probably not enough for cars to "pay for themselves".
      - Clubber 10y ago
        No comparison to the cost of a bicycle helmet and the taxes levied on cigarettes. Depending on where you live, how about $50 a week to rent a government approved bicycle helmet? It's starts to sound much more unreasonable when you compare the taxes.
- foxrob92 10y ago
  The UN list of human rights: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-5/7_udhr-full.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-... I'm not sure where "right to smoke cigarettes" appears in the list.

It's basically applying the drug war to cigarette smokers. It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves. I think this breaks basic human rights.

sanswork 10y ago
They are doing harm to others. Second hand smoke is a serious concern that has lead to many deaths of non-smokers.
brokenmachine 10y ago
> doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers [1]. I'd call causing death, "harm". Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately. Hardly a "human right". [1] "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." - https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/ https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... - Stats from the US, from the first google result I came across.
- thomasthomas 10y ago
  > unfortunately !? some people want to control what they do with their own bodies and not be slaves to the state. gtfo
  - SyneRyder 10y ago
    This comment would have been better without the last 'gtfo' appended.
  - davidlumley 10y ago
    You still have complete control over what you do to your own body in your own privacy. This gives other people complete control over their body too – in terms of not having to breathe in your smoke.
- aaron695 10y ago
  > Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers And this is why people vote Trump. I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance. You just picked something that conforms to your world view which you later admit since you say its not even relevant to you, you still want to control other human beings. "Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately."
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > And this is why people vote Trump. Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical. > I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance. GP said that smokers are "doing no harm to anyone but themselves". Since secondhand smoke is known to kill and otherwise harm non-smokers I would very much argue that smokers are doing harm to others. Hence why parent brought up secondhand smoking. And that's why Australia has laws against smoking indoors (outside your home) and near public places where people have no choice where to stand (such as near bus stops, on some promenades and other similar places). Unfortunately, there are no laws against smoking on busy sidewalks (in NSW) and the pitiful "3m from the entrance" laws don't actually mean you can enter or leave some cinemas without running into a wall of carcinogenic and toxic smoke. Not to mention that people routinely break the law and smoke near bus stops (which as someone who catches public transport, this pisses me off no end and I enjoy telling smokers to fuck off when they decide to increase the cancer risk of the people around them). I have no issue with people that smoke in their own homes. But people who decide to smoke on public walkways where other people are walking past are simply disgusting for harming others because of their habit.
    - exodust 10y ago
      Actually there are some laws here which protect residents in apartment blocks from suffering the second-hand smoke of neighbours smoking on their balconies. I'm currently putting up with my neighbor's smoke which enters my apartment on a daily basis. He smokes many cigarettes in a day and it wafts from his balcony to mine and comes inside. I haven't taken action yet, mainly because I'm not looking forward to taking action.
jay_kyburz 10y ago
Every taxpayer dollar spent pulling cancerous lungs out of smokers is damage done to our society.
alkonaut 10y ago
As long as I'm paying someones healthcare, I'm not going to allow them to smoke. If they are going to smoke, then the cost of their cigarettes should cover their increased medical costs and other costs to society (such as work years lost, increased sick days). The fact that I'm directly harmed by cigarette smoke is a minor nuisance compared to the enormous costs to society. Also: which human right is it you are referring to here?
- Clubber 10y ago
  >I'm not going to allow them to smoke. Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Driving? Hell no! You need to walk, and you can't use roads or sidewalks near roads. Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Exactly like bicycling. However, bicycling has positive benefits - it gets people places (as does driving), it provides excercise etc. So a reasonable compromise might be requiring a helmet while cycling, which lots of countries does. That reduces the costs of injuries to a point where it's likely to be outweighed by the positives. > Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax. Cars do have very expensive side effects (injuries in car accidents, pollution, lack of excercise, ...). I pay a 25% VAT on a car. Then I pay a yearly car tax of $100 year and around $2/mile in fuel taxes. That still is probably not enough for cars to "pay for themselves".
    - Clubber 10y ago
      No comparison to the cost of a bicycle helmet and the taxes levied on cigarettes. Depending on where you live, how about $50 a week to rent a government approved bicycle helmet? It's starts to sound much more unreasonable when you compare the taxes.
foxrob92 10y ago
The UN list of human rights: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-5/7_udhr-full.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-... I'm not sure where "right to smoke cigarettes" appears in the list.