Ministry Of Propaganda News

[Lonan3]

I normally enjoy your posts, Chinahand but, on this occasion I'm afraid you come across as smug, self-satisfied and with little or no appreciation of the problems surrounding addiction to tobacco.

Speaking as someone who is still struggling to beat the accursed weed after the best part of half a century of 'enjoying' it, I'm afraid that the post above is exactly the kind that makes smokers believe that their lives are being ordered and confined by those who claim to 'know better.'

I have far more respect for the view expressed by Slim (and, believe me, I never expected to say that! ) that "I'm against people smoking in the same premises, not because I'm telling them how to live their lives, but because I don't want to inhale smoke."

That is perfectly fair - and it applies every bit as much to the home as it does to public premises.

If you want to campaign for the complete ban of tobacco products - fair enough. That would be honest. If you want to campaign for more (and, for the first time, effective) education about tobacco addiction - also fair enough.

But simply saying 'I don't do it. I don't understand why anyone else does. They must be stupid.' Isn't exactly going to appeal either to those who began when it was considered to be a social accomplishment, or to those kids who think it's a 'cool' thing because authority figures condemn it.

[P.K.]

Gosh, you're right. I just printed off your post, set fire to it and tried smoking it - it's shit.

Panama Red? Morrocan? How high did you get?

[Chinahand]

I don't do it - I want to understand why anyone else does. That is subtlely, and I think importantly, different from what you are accusing me of Lonan3.

 

I haven't called anyone stupid, but I do want to understand the motivations people have in life.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert simple deflects rather than answers the question.

Not at all - my favourite colour is blue, and I don't have to justify that to anyone either.

 

It's my choice, I'm not interested whether you approve of it or not. Of course I don't want kids to start smoking, but after they have been educated as to the risks, and become adults, free to make an adult choice about a perfectly legal adult product, do I have the right in a liberal democracy to stop them? - No.

 

If I die earlier then so be it. But to be honest I'd have been just as willing to accept dying aged 19 fighting fascists.

[Slim]

Slim, I've done my research and presented it in many other threads with links too. I'm not doing your research for you - either look it up for yourself or do a search on MF.

 

So it's fair to say that you see trends that support your argument as linked and trends that support mine as crap science and cherry picking?

 

 

I believe in education and then freedom of adult choice with regard smoking (and drinking).

 

Even ignoring the severe negative health issues to the innocents, as you have; several people in this thread have said they'd like to stop smoking, but can't, they're addicted. If a child inhales enough second hand smoke, they will become addicted. How does education help?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In response to LDV: I don't think a future ban will be specific to 'in homes' as such. It'll either be an outright ban on the sale of fags, or a ban on knowingly smoking where others can inhale. I wonder if you could charge someone for assualt if they blew smoke at you?

 

Though of course, as I have said before this is where we differ because I do not believe that a ban is justified, bans on drugs are not justified. If people want to smoke then that is up to them. The authority of the state to dictate what one can to one's own body is wrong.

 

Even ignoring the severe negative health issues to the innocents, as you have; several people in this thread have said they'd like to stop smoking, but can't, they're addicted. If a child inhales enough second hand smoke, they will become addicted. How does education help?

 

It can help those who haven't began to smoke or take drugs. It can also help to raise awareness of the dangers and give people the freedom and control to make choices and informed decisions as whether they should smoke or not.

[ans]

Can't you see the very simple fact that testing the level of cotinine (that has a half life of 20 hours) in kids salivia in the week is meaningless related to their time of exposure???

 

Why is any level of cotine acceptable to you?

 

Smoking ban or not, people shouldn't smoke around children. That they do simply demonstrates the complete lack of regard for someone else. What chance does anyone else have when people wilfully smoke around their own offspring?

[Slim]

Though of course, as I have said before this is where we differ because I do not believe that a ban is justified, bans on drugs are not justified. If people want to smoke then that is up to them. The authority of the state to dictate what one can to one's own body is wrong.

 

Nothing I've said has any relevance on what you do to yourself. What I'm talking about is what you can do to others with your smoke.

 

 

It can help those who haven't began to smoke or take drugs. It can also help to raise awareness of the dangers and give people the freedom and control to make choices and informed decisions as whether they should smoke or not.

 

Yep it can help, no argument. It's effectiveness is diminished if kids have a physical addiction through passive smoking or a psychological acceptance of smoking by mimicking their parents. Like Ans, I've no clue why any smoker would do so near their kids.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Nothing I've said has any relevance on what you do to yourself. What I'm talking about is what you can do to others with your smoke.

 

But you mentioned a ban on the sale of cigarettes.

 

 

Yep it can help, no argument. It's effectiveness is diminished if kids have a physical addiction through passive smoking or a psychological acceptance of smoking by mimicking their parents. Like Ans, I've no clue why any smoker would do so near their kids.

 

Physical addiction from passive smoking? Wasn't aware there was one. How much nicotine is in smoke? But yes, there is the mimicking.

 

I don't know why people would smoke near their kids. It is selfishness, but nothing exceptional about it. How many parents feed their kids shit food and think it is a proper meal? How many parents selfishly respond to their own needs and not their childs. Same thing. All wrong.

 

But the alternative to education that you propose is to ask the state to use its authority to control others and I cannot condone that.

[Slim]

But you mentioned a ban on the sale of cigarettes.

 

Yeah, but not because I particularly support one. It's more because of the difficulty in legislating. The current ban sort of snuck in with employees rights because it's easier. I'm not sure how else you could protect kids in the home. You can't ban smoking in the home, so you either ban smoking altogether, or you come up with something else.

 

Physical addiction from passive smoking? Wasn't aware there was one. How much nicotine is in smoke? But yes, there is the mimicking.

 

Quite a lot of research supports addiction through passive smoking, there's quite a lot of studies on bar staff and whatnot. It's all probably bollocks unless it's supporting alberts article though

 

I don't know why people would smoke near their kids. It is selfishness, but nothing exceptional about it. How many parents feed their kids shit food and think it is a proper meal? How many parents selfishly respond to their own needs and not their childs. Same thing. All wrong.

 

But the alternative to education that you propose is to ask the state to use its authority to control others and I cannot condone that.

 

The state does that already by telling me I can't stab people. Hows this different?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The state does that already by telling me I can't stab people. Hows this different?

 

It does, but it doesn't mean it is justified or right in doing so. The state isn't justified in telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

[Slim]

It does, but it doesn't mean it is justified or right in doing so. The state isn't justified in telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

 

 

You've gone mental on me. You think people should be allowed to stab you?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It does, but it doesn't mean it is justified or right in doing so. The state isn't justified in telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

 

 

You've gone mental on me. You think people should be allowed to stab you?

 

No, I never said that. Why do you think laws are keeping the public back from stabbing you?

[Chinahand]

China...you could say the same about anything involving risk be it: driving, drinking, parachuting, climbing, and eating bacon butty's, even running the extra risk of slipping on the soap taking that extra shower in the week. Give up any risk in your life and you'll live longer.

 

Albert you are now taking this thread far off topic, and maybe it would be better if I waited until the next TT Thread inevitably raises all these similar issues ... but what the heck!

 

I'm a hiker and moutaineer, I've jumped off the bridge at Victoria Falls with a bungy tied around my legs and white water rafted down the Zambezi, I ski and have lived and travelled around countries which experience high levels of violence and have absolutely attrocious road safety.

 

I would highly recommend people read Joe Simpson's Touching the Void to understand the mindset of people who do go deliberately out to get as close to the void as humanly possible.

 

I don't believe in the nanny state and see health and safety as being at risk of crippling enterprise etc.

 

For me the question has to be are the people involved aware how close to the void they are taking themselves. Anyone can randomly be taken there by the fluke events that litter life. People do die crossing the street, on the commute, do get hit by buses or slip on the soap, but all those activities are so far away from the void that it isn't reasonable to see them as being a risk.

 

Ski-ing, Day Hiking etc get you closer, but I'd guess as many hikers die either getting to or from the mountains or on the weekly commute as die in them - living in South Africa in the mid 1990s the same, and China now. But climbing K2 - definitely about as close to the void as you can get - as is competing in the TT year for a fifth season. The only people who should do such things are those most skilled in their professions - people who have the ability to use their skills to know precisely how close they are to the void and whether their next move will take them closer or further away from it.

 

I don't want to ban the TT - but I do feel that too many spectators and followers-on simply do not have the skills to judge the risks they are facing. They do not have the skills to know where the void is and the bikes they can buy and the road conditions they can ride on mean they can get to the void so suddenly it is well beyond their skill to control.

 

These deaths are the pointless ones - they didn't know what they were doing, didn't know their limits and died by being allowed to over extend themselves.

 

Our roads aren't a race track and I for one am fed up with niave riders being able to put themselves and far more importantly other road users at risk. There is nothing to admire or hold up as an example in their behaviour - which there is in people like Joe Simpson or Joe Dunlop. It is these "enthusiast" deaths that I totally approve of the state taking action to reduce.

 

Dragging all of this sort of back to the thread, smoking is to me also a behaviour which is insidious in the risk it creates - you can smoke for 20 years and not feel any adverse symptons and then die in 6 months of throat cancer.

 

You feel that you are miles away from the void and have nothing to worry about, but infact you are slowly priming a runaway process which will take you from a smokers rude good health to the borders of death or worse rapidly as the cancer is let loose.

 

Worse the pleasure you gain from the behaviour is totally swamped by the addiction it causes and worse still not only does your behaviour affect yourself it affects others by them breathing in your smoke.

 

All those things makes me think of smoking bans as being similar to mandatory speed limits - they restrict people's freedom, but protect life from those unaware of where the limit lies.

 

Albert, I agree with you - a smoking club where the employees sign a waver removing their rights to state protection from environmental poisons MIGHT have been a fairer alternative to an outright ban - but the smokers failed to make their case - and I'm not that surprised such a waver would be totally unprecedented.

 

We live in a democracy for all your claims about a fascist state - smokers weren't able to come up with proposals better than an outright ban and didn't have the support of the electorate to stop politicians choosing this option.

 

I do feel the world would be a better place if smoking was consigned to history - do you really disagree with that - you may like your habit, but do you think children should inherit it?

 

I find all your ranting about fascists and nannie very unconvincing - one of the studies I posted from New Zealand estimated passive smoking kills about as many people there as cars. The state rightly takes action to stop road deaths restricting people's right to drive as fast as they want, I see smoking as no different - it kills as many innocent third parties each year.

[Chinahand]

It does, but it doesn't mean it is justified or right in doing so. The state isn't justified in telling anyone what they can or cannot do.

 

 

You've gone mental on me. You think people should be allowed to stab you?

 

No, I never said that. Why do you think laws are keeping the public back from stabbing you?

Have you heard of Somalia or the dark ages? In anarchy the powerful kill, rape and steal from the weak. A community enforcing modes of behaviour, and creating a monopoly on violence if you insist on going all sociological on me, is what stops that happening - such a community is commonly called a state.