Welcome to the Nanny State 2008

[metoo4]

Rules are created by abuse. Simple as that! Why I'm not worried about the rules in place at this time? Simple: I agree with them!

Not long ago, both Québec and Ontario gov. created a new offence to the "code de la route": excessive speeding or such. Why is it there? It's limiting my freedom! Why should somebody driving 100km/h in a 50 zone be penalized more than the guy driving 55? It's unfair! Why? Simple again: some "misinformed peoples" think it's normal to go 100 in a 50 zone and nothing else stopped them. Now maybe $1000+ with all the ticket, towing and insurance premiums will have them thinking? Yep! That's Nanny at work! Because some need Nanny! Personally I don't see a problem with this law!

I was driving my motorcycle lately and noticed an increase in the number of Harleys and look-alike recently, with all the "modified" 50-50 exaust before it even left the showroom. Now, what's coming probably and hopefully soon? Laws against this practice. It's opressing the right of these guys to enjoy the "music" created by their "powerful" (Haem...) engines! Guess what? Their rights stops where other's start and others have the right not to have "added music" if they want to relax. Nothing is gained by the noise. Already some parts of Montréal and Québec City, just to name a few, are prohibited to ANY motorcycles, including grand-pa with his stock 2008 GoldWings, all of this because of some individualist who only think "me...me...me..." who likes his "music". All I can do is applaud any future laws banning any modification to any exausts!

I can find subjects like this for a while! Before jumping up and down saying a rule opress anybody's rights, peoples should start thinking about what's around them: the peoples, the environment, and put themself in the other person's (society) shoes. This is a cause-effect thing. Thinking about "why?" instead of "why me?", with open eyes, without blinders, that sometimes help understand a lot.

 

[JH Fan]

My point is that indirectly and in many cases without meaning to, we all contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge be it with vices such as smoking, overeating, substance abuse, etc or with our virtues whatever they may be. The medical data that is generated with every trip to a medical professional or institution contributes to the knowledge which advances our life expectancy by contributing to medical science and helping medical technology grow.

Perhaps within the next 100 years we will advance average life expectancy beyond the age of 100 but such advances will come at a cost that presently is not foreseeable. Alzheimer's is a by product of the average age expectancy increasing - previously other factors would contribute to death before people reached this stage in their life.

Time will tell.

Here you go !

Although I disagree about smoking and mind you, because it has changed so much from the less potent stuff of the past...this is a good argument !

Just like the result of wars but still is... a good argument !
Isn't it also one way the immune system learn how to adapt ?

 

[eastender]

Balance

Just like the result of wars but still is... a good argument !
Isn't it also one way the immune system learn how to adapt ?

Quite correct about the immune system adapting but it is often advanced by the ability of medical technology to produce and deliver drugs in a timely fashion.

 

[metoo4]

BD, same old, same old...

AGAIN, smoking have no use in our society. NIL, NIET, NADA! And don't go ahead with farmers and all, it's irrelevent. Forget also saying it helps to relax, I demolished this before. Forget people's rights, been there also. Smoking is useless, and gives nothing good to the smoker that could not be replaced by something else who wouldn't bug others.

I'm not like some other non-smokers, if I don't know and don't care about the person who's smoking, and if this person isn't puffing in my face or complaining about their lung disease, that's fine with me. Smokers who want to kill themself without affecting me? Fine! As long as the smoker doesn't force other to share his poison, I could not care less.

But, it's getting old to ear about peoples who "fight for their right to smoke in public places"! What right? The one they are taking without asking? That's not very polite! It's the little "Me...Myself and I, fuck the others.." There's a difference between a right and a permission.

These same peoples vastly denies being slave to their habits, stating they love smoking. Somebody else on MERB was talking about girls, their pimps and their love affair? The love affair between a cigarette and a smoker is pretty close to the same thing! Both will possibly kill or hurt bad but, it's looovvveeee!!

 

[Ben Dover]

BD, same old, same old...

AGAIN, smoking have no use in our society. NIL, NIET, NADA! And don't go ahead with farmers and all, it's irrelevent. Forget also saying it helps to relax, I demolished this before... Smoking is useless, and gives nothing good to the smoker that could not be replaced by something else who wouldn't bug others.

Metoo -- IF and it's a big IF... but if you took the time to actually read into my point, you would see that I generally agree with what you say above. Of course, I did state elswhere that the "tobacco industry" has a point (money, to summarize it), I basically agree that smoking itself does not. I do think, and you seem to agree, that smokers have the right to smoke. So, you say that as long as it does not negatively affect you, you are fine with it.

MY POINT (or at least the part that you seem not to get) is that smoking is being focused on, while the ills caused by other things (which are monumentally greater) ie: CARS, are being treated with kid gloves.

In conclusion, a non-smoker dying from years of breathing second hand smoke, working in a bar, is in my mind less of a societal ill than a todler getting run over by a soccer mom in hummer.

capiche?

BD

 

[Mod 8]

Thread cleaned and re-opened.

Let's try to be a bit more civil to each other, please.

M8

 

[korbel]

BD, same old, same old...

AGAIN, smoking have no use in our society. NIL, NIET, NADA! And don't go ahead with farmers and all, it's irrelevent. Forget also saying it helps to relax, I demolished this before. Forget people's rights, been there also. Smoking is useless, and gives nothing good to the smoker that could not be replaced by something else who wouldn't bug others.

I'm not like some other non-smokers, if I don't know and don't care about the person who's smoking, and if this person isn't puffing in my face or complaining about their lung disease, that's fine with me. Smokers who want to kill themself without affecting me? Fine! As long as the smoker doesn't force other to share his poison, I could not care less.

But, it's getting old to ear about peoples who "fight for their right to smoke in public places"! What right? The one they are taking without asking? That's not very polite! It's the little "Me...Myself and I, fuck the others.." There's a difference between a right and a permission.

These same peoples vastly denies being slave to their habits, stating they love smoking. Somebody else on MERB was talking about girls, their pimps and their love affair? The love affair between a cigarette and a smoker is pretty close to the same thing! Both will possibly kill or hurt bad but, it's looovvveeee!!

Hello Metoo4,

WELL DONE! I do feel sympathy for those stuck in a habit and what will happen to them. But it was their choice. I totally agree about the uselessness of smoking and that smoking as a "right" is self-indulgent garbage. Unlike drinking in moderation, smoking is poisonous from the first puff. The whole thing is just 100% destructive and the industry is nothing less than a parasitic plague on all people. But what I object to most is that everyone pays for the choice the smokers make, whether it is their own health due to proximity or the cost of the damage which gets passed on to everyone.

Bravo!

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

I find most anti-smoking legislation to be idiotic and hypocritical. It's essentially feel good legislation that the masses swallow up beause it makes them believe that their government actually cares about the health of it's citizens. Bollocks. One, if the government cared and if smoking was so evil, then tobacco products would be banned. Of course that will never happen because said government profits immensely from the heavy taxes it imposes on said products. Two, the number of smokers in Canada has declined significantly in the past 20 years, while the number of cancers and other illnesses caused by chemical polution has increased dramatically. Of course it's much easier to impose feel good legislation like anti-smoking laws than addressing larger, more important issues.

 

[eastender]

Substance Abuse

While the merits of smoking are dubious at best the activity is still deemed legal.

Substance abuse - illegal drugs, sniffing toxins and other indulgences have the potency to kill you within a much shorter time period.

Likewise alcohol while legal and sold by the province in Quebec, contributes to many deaths directly and indirectly (innocents killed by drunk drivers).

Think about this while enjoying a glass of wine or a beer and put things in perspective.

 

[metoo4]

I find most anti-smoking legislation to be idiotic and hypocritical. It's essentially feel good legislation that the masses swallow up beause it makes them believe that their government actually cares about the health of it's citizens. Bollocks. One, if the government cared and if smoking was so evil, then tobacco products would be banned. Of course that will never happen because said government profits immensely from the heavy taxes it imposes on said products. Two, the number of smokers in Canada has declined significantly in the past 20 years, while the number of cancers and other illnesses caused by chemical polution has increased dramatically. Of course it's much easier to impose feel good legislation like anti-smoking laws than addressing larger, more important issues.

JB, how could governments ban smoking? Already there's a huge amount of "feathered cigarettes" around! Are they going to jail almost half of the population? Last I checked, cocaine was illegal but some peoples still do it! Point is, banning won't work! Prostitution is illegal in USA but there are plenty of Johns and girls around!

Instead of banning cigarettes, the plan is to show the damages it can do, make it harder for peoples to smoke and hope they'll either get tired of trying or get a grip and stop voluntarily. Why do you think smoking is less prevalent today than 20 years ago? Do you sincerely think it would be the same without the various laws against publicity and smoke bans at workplace and such? Campaigns against smoking have slowed-down in schools and we see a raise in the amount of kids who start smoking, is this a coincidence?

These "feegood" laws have a purpose that some might not see at first glance: make peoples aware of their smoking habits and giving them a drive to stop, a reason, a possibility to be away from temptation. The idea is the same with hiding the cigarettes in stores. It does work believe it or not! Knowingly or not, humans are influenced by what they see, even more if it's not seemingly addressed to them, like an innocent display full of cigarettes, even if conscientiously you barely see it, your brain see it very well and, if the product interest you to start with, chances are you'll buy it. Just think of all the cheap stuff at the cash register of most stores: you might buy just because it's conveniently there, right in your face! Tobacco companies fight so hard against any laws restraining the visibility of their products for a very good reason: if peoples don't see them, they won't buy! It have nothing to do with their rights being violated, it's all about money and peoples who won't start if they're not exposed to publicity. Hey! That's basically how I got to this hobby! Reading MERB, seeing the activity often to finally try it! Same with most peoples: you see something day-in, day-out and it becomes normal so, why not try it?

Come on, when you're in a restaurant with a bunch of friends and having fun, do you think it's normal to drop everything and go out for a smoke? What's abnormal isn't that you have to go out for a smoke, it's that you MUST go out for a smoke because YOU CAN'T DO WITHOUT! Now that's slavery!

 

[JustBob]

Note that I said MOST anti-smoking legislation. I have no problem with education, prevention or laws as they apply to minors. What I have a problem with is the government legislating adult's habits when it concerns a legal substance, especially when it comes to what private businesses can or cannot allow. That should be left to the owner of said business. Let prevention and education do the job. When a bar or restaurant owner realizes that he/she loses business because he/she allows smoking in his bar/restaurant, then he can choose to ban smoking in his establishment.


Plus, as I stated above, and as far as the government is concerned, it should be a matter of priorities. And they choose to prioritize the easy targets first, while the worst offenders keep polluting and killing people.

Come on, when you're in a restaurant with a bunch of friends and having fun, do you think it's normal to drop everything and go out for a smoke? What's abnormal isn't that you have to go out for a smoke, it's that you MUST go out for a smoke because YOU CAN'T DO WITHOUT! Now that's slavery!

How noble that you or the government want to deliver people from their "slavery". However, I don't see how this is relevant, in any way, shape, or form to this discussion.

 

[JH Fan]

Hello JH Fan,

Yes, the usurper Bush has managed to inflict an enormous share of the damage to freedom, all in the guise of "national security". Now that's insidious.

truly,

Korbel

Yep ! here is something to read about the topic which is more about a 'Nanny state' than all the issue of smoking or not.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

and... today

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080710/us/politics_usa_surveillance_dc

 

[korbel]

Note that I said MOST anti-smoking legislation. I have no problem with education, prevention or laws as they apply to minors. What I have a problem with is the government legislating adult's habits when it concerns a legal substance, especially when it comes to what private businesses can or cannot allow. That should be left to the owner of said business. Let prevention and education do the job. When a bar or restaurant owner realizes that he/she loses business because he/she allows smoking in his bar/restaurant, then he can choose to ban smoking in his establishment.


Plus, as I stated above, and as far as the government is concerned, it should be a matter of priorities. And they choose to prioritize the easy targets first, while the worst offenders keep polluting and killing people.



How noble that you or the government want to deliver people from their "slavery". However, I don't see how this is relevant, in any way, shape, or form to this discussion.

Hello all,

Where people have a choice whether to be there or not, then inhaling second hand smoke can be dealt with easily by leaving. In such a situation the equal rights of both parties are served...though not "evenly". In a situation where people are compelled to be there for their jobs or any other reason then the smoker is inflicting harm that cannot be avoided. Given each party has equal rights theoretically, where one side inflicts harm on another in any situation where the choice to avoid that harm is limited or ineffective, then the right of all to be free from harm supersedes individual rights to persue habits that inflict damage/harm on others in my view. In that case smokers must submit.

Fairly,

Korbel

 

[JH Fan]

But if we don't want to get to paranoid and be merry about it instead...

Look into this one
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f114f7427d

You'll see that whatever nanny state... we're still in good hands

 

[eastender]

Informed Choice

There exists a very simplistic view that the issue is "choice" or "freedom of choice". That a person has the ability to choose to participate in a situation or leave, indulge in a habit or not, tolerate a situation or not, etc. You get the picture.

This is a myth perpetrated mainly by proponents of self-interest or vested interest who do not have the best interests of the other party or society in mind when they spin their argument.

The real issue is "Informed Choice". Does everyone have enough knowledge,
foresight and maturity - in the case of children to foresee all the consequences of every action. In fact, is it reasonable that one individual faced with an imposing data bank of choices and consequences can be expected to make the best choice for themselves and others at every turn?

The answer is a resounding No!. Trivializing to illustrate the point. Can everyone detect if someone is smoking in a large enclosed area? No they cannot so the decision to stay or leave cannot be deemed to be informed.
So the state or society has the right and obligation to ban smoking in such circumstances.

 

[korbel]

Hello all,

The problem with an "Informed Choice" is it should reasonably be presumed that the details of the information should lead anyone to make the best choice for himself and others. In a perfect world no one would then smoke because smoking in entirely negative and harmful to all. Obviously the result of informed choice changes little, and usually for only a short time. Most human beings will eventually persist in their habits...drinking, sex, bad driving, drugs, eating to excess. Thus regulations and laws are necessary to possibly motivate abusers to moderate, but also to protect those who do what is good for all from the harm and cost inflicted on all society by abusers of all types. Therefor, smoking should be justifiably controlled and isolated with priority given to what is best for all of society. Even if many choose to abuse themselves freely, the cost is still passed to all. That infliction of cost on those not causing the problem is tyranny.

Truly,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Informed Choice - Part II

One of the key elements to "Informed Choice" is the ability to foresee, have the foresight to anticipate that a choice to participate in an activity has potential short term or long term harm to the individual or society.

The knowledge about the harmful effects of smoking - link to cancer, etc is fairly recent, post WWII. Likewise the harmful effects of "second hand smoke" is even more recent. So society or the state is faced with the problem of changing habits that were acceptable socially and economically for centuries. Rather hard to do overnight.

Likewise society is slowly learning about the health risks and costs linked to fast food consumption. When and how quickly can this habit be changed?

One of the problems with progress is that we do not know that today's solution will not be the future's problem. The proper informed choice today may prove to have been the inappropriate choice down road - a common risk that we all face.

 

[JustBob]

The problem is that it's impossible to regulate everybody's bad habits, and (generally) I'm opposed to having the government deciding what is a bad habit or not, and regulating said bad habits. I just don't want to get down that slippery slope. Unfortunately, it looks like we're already on it.

And these objections are still avoiding the point I've now made a couple of times, i.e. that the goverment should prioritize issues, and first tackle the most pressing ones. That's not occuring presently, they just choose the easiest targets.

Even if many choose to abuse themselves freely, the cost is still passed to all. That infliction of cost on those not causing the problem is tyranny.

See above. What's next? Let's also regulate fat people, those who don't eat right, those who don't exercise, those who engage in "extreme" sports", etc...

 

[korbel]

One of the key elements to "Informed Choice" is the ability to foresee, have the foresight to anticipate that a choice to participate in an activity has potential short term or long term harm to the individual or society.

The knowledge about the harmful effects of smoking - link to cancer, etc is fairly recent, post WWII. Likewise the harmful effects of "second hand smoke" is even more recent. So society or the state is faced with the problem of changing habits that were acceptable socially and economically for centuries. Rather hard to do overnight.

Likewise society is slowly learning about the health risks and costs linked to fast food consumption. When and how quickly can this habit be changed?

One of the problems with progress is that we do not know that today's solution will not be the future's problem. The proper informed choice today may prove to have been the inappropriate choice down road - a common risk that we all face.

Hello all,

This all makes perfect sense to me, from end to end. However, while scientific proof can give final confirmation of the cause of damage; the sensible, logical, reasonable conclusions anyone can make from circumstantial evidence and experience should be enough to inform us. Why must scientific proof be necessary to make an informed choice to convince us. Just because instinct does not offer the proof science does it has allowed the human race to survive well before the rise of science. Mankind was able to make informed choices based on good sense well before any established scientific method. The thing of it is...what is so difficult about understanding what is bad for you. Drinking...making a fool of yourself, ending up in bed with who knows, driving badly and having an accident...hmmm...excessive drinking...BAD! Over eating...getting out of breath easily, tiring easily, high blood pressure, etc...hmmm...over eating...BAD! Smoking...hacking cough, respiratory problems, damage to gums and teeth, cancer...hmmm...smoking...BAD!

While I am great believer in science and it's benefits, scientific proof of what is bad or damaging to the body isn't truly necessary to make an informed choice. Experience is enough without the scientific method to fall back on. People should not be excused for making bad decisions that simple instinct told them was the wrong choice. Science has been a great boon to humanity, but without it their was plenty in the human capacity to inform us when we were making bad decisions. If science had never shown us precisely what smoking did to us we could all be pretty sure inhaling smoke was a very bad idea without scientific proof of it. In the end people do damaging things to themselves because they fail to or don't want to control their bad indulgences.

Use sense,

Korbel

 

[korbel]

See above. What's next? Let's also regulate fat people, those who don't eat right, those who don't exercise, those who engage in "extreme" sports", etc...

Hello JB,

There is a difference between what people do to themselves without generally affecting others and poisoning the air with smoke where it cannot be avoided.

Cheers,

Korbel