http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8583551.stm There are/were very good reasons for supporting a ban on smoking in public places like offcies, restaurants, bars but CARS?!?! Are these people hell bent on proving all the slippery slope doommongers correct?
For once, you're following our lead on the nanny-statery. I remember driving up to New York to see my ex's family back in 2001 and there were billboards asking you to contact your state legislator and urge them to support some bill or another that would ban smoking in cars if you had children. Not just if children were in the car, but if you had children. Period. I just shook my head because that would be impossible to enforce. Edit: I...assume...it failed. I've never heard anything else about it.
As much as I disagree with this kind of law, isn't it ultimately consistent with the notion that society, through government and laws, has a responsibility to protect people's health, including from their own bad choices?
C'mon it's for the children and everything! I'd like to see a breakdown of all the potential harmful sources of air pollution. A comparison between say, vehicle exhaust and second hand smoke. That thick layer of smog over LA ain't because of too many people taking a smoke break. The tobacco industry offers a unique opportunity for legislators, first off the tobacco folks have become accepted societal villains, secondly they are rolling in dough, so it is quite profitable and socially acceptable to overtax and penalize those making cigars and cigarettes. That also means that tobacco will never be illegal, the tax revenue alone insures its survival. So all of this freedom snatching vs. children harming business is but the same ole sales pitch both sides have bought into for years.
Well if you believed that and wanted to take it to the nth degree then yes, I suppose. But the original smoking ban in the UK was designed to protect people from other people's bad choices. So no smoking at the office, in a restaurant etc. But no smoking in the car, on your own? you may as well just try to ban the whole thing entirely now and get it over with. Ridiculous.
No, it isn't. [EDIT] Well, it's consistent with the current philosophy of the Nanny State. I'd prefer that government leave us alone to make our own choices.
I thought the UK already banned it? Well anyway you UK people have no business complaining. This is the type of government you want so that's what you get.
Dan Leach disagrees: dick Fuck you. You all get what you want. You want nanny state government then you've no business complaining. You want universal health care then the government has the right to tell you to stop smoking.
I want a nanny state government? Are you a fucking lunatic? I support legalisation of porn and prostituation, removal of top speed limits, removal of any restriction on dangerous activity (BASE jumping, canyon jumping that kinda thing) Thats nanny state is it? The reason I support a national health service is not because I approve of the nanny state, but because I am a civilised westerner who lives in the 21st century.
In what way is it inconsistent? The whole "notion that society, through government and laws, has a responsibility to protect people's health, including from their own bad choices" is the Nanny State philosophy. It's the philosophical basis for universal, national health care. With people like Rick arguing that society owes it to everyone to prevent them from ever dying from anything treatable, no matter how they choose to live, how can they disagree with a law like this one? I would expect Rick or Dan Leach or someone to disagree with my assessment. But I find it quite surprising that you do. So please explain yourself.
No you're the fucking lunatic. Supporting a national health care system gives the government the right to dictate to you certain things. Like not smoking in cars and not doing other dangerous stuff that could result in hospital visits and taxpayer money being spent for your care. You can't be for both. You can't be for UHC and yet not letting the government tell you, "hold on here....you can't do this because it might result in medical costs" National Health Service automatically equals a nanny state government. So shut the fuck up and stop smoking in your car. YOUR GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR YOUR HEALTH.
No, you are making an assumption of what UHC entails based on your own prejudice that it is unworkable. Actually it is perfectly possible to decide that people can fuck themselves up if they like and the system will carry it.
Bullshit. It might try and do things like that, but that is not implied in the principle. You could say the same things of employers or insurance schemes anyway If what you said was true then smoking and drinking would never have been made legal, no-one would be allowed to do any dangerous activity like drive cars or visit london and the state would determine an exercise and diet regime. [action=Dan Leach]looks round.... hmm dont see it.[/action]
Tsk, tsk. I'd like to see where he's done that. As opposed to arguing that people to should equal access to standard treatment regardless of how they have lived.
Much as I despise smoking, and really hate being behind someone smoking on the road (yes, smokers, the folks in the car behind you can smell your stink) (especially cigars!), even I wouldn't deny smokers that last refuge of their own damn car.
Oh look folks.... Another retard who thinks that other taxpayers should pay for their fuck ups: "Actually it is perfectly possible to decide that people can fuck themselves up if they like and the system will carry it. " I say if you have universal health care and you do something dangerous like smoking or BASE jumping the government has the right to tell you that you can't do those things because it's a drain on taxpayer money and who wants to waste money on people who do things that hurt (or might hurt) themselves? You can't have it both ways. Unless of course you support the government telling you that it will not pay for your operation to fix your legs from BASE jumping (I don't think Dan is competent enough to do it right) or lungs from Dan smoking like crazy in his car and getting lung cancer. No one, including the government, wants to pick up the bill for stupid fucks who injure themselves so yes when you support nationalized care you're going to get a nanny government that tells you, "NO!".
Smoking and drinking were around long before UHC and now that you have UHC the government is slowly moving towards heavily regulating your right to use both. Or have you not just been complaining about the government banning smoking almost everywhere and now there is a possibility they are going after you smoking in your car? Driving cars is not as dangerous as you're trying to make them out to be. That's an idiot argument that only you would bring up. Idiot. And yes the diet and exercise stuff is right around the corner. The government in the UK (and in America) is moving in that direction.
Then why is that not the case, anywhere? The amount of activity thats illegal in America is about the same thats illegal in any other western country. If your idiotic paranoid view were true there would be evidence of it...
Oh and Zombie. Id just like to point out that this very issue is a perfect example of how wrong you are. It is not the government that is proposing banning smoking in cars, it is doctors. And this will almost certainly not become law (well not for a long time, I can see the day when smoking is illegal everywhere on earth eventualy... unfortunately) and you know how it is that will stop it becoming law? The government.
Idiot. It was doctors who said smoking in say restaurants should be stopped. Then government stepped in. It's the same here. An outside group is telling the government that something should be done because of the "health concerns" and eventually your government will do something. Why wouldn't they? They've already done it in regards to every thing else concerning smoking. This thread proves it because both you and PGT are complaining that smoking in your cars is one of the last refuges you have left. The government on the advice of doctors has gone after smoking pretty much everywhere else. Your cars are next.
Yes, but you presented it as some fairy land la-la affair when clearly he means that people should have access to treatment for treatable things - not an absolute guarantee of survival. One is nuts and one is, arguably reasonable.
