I remember how I was once asked how old I am when I tried to buy a pack of cigs. That day I just turned 18, and had no ID on me to prove my age, so they told me to fuck off. That was funny. By that time I smoked for four years already and that one absolutely had to be that day when they refused to sell me cigarettes :v:
When you're 18, you're an adults, and adults have the right to consume whatever the fuck they want. Stop trying to complicate things.
You can't even rent a car until you're 25. :v:
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42708678]Sure - you could look at it that way, but unlike things which are also known carcinogens, such as car pollution, there is no advantage in smoking cigarettes.
There is obviously a limit to what should be regulated - but all this is doing is raising the age limit on purchasing cigarettes. It's not as if it is outlawing it for all, nor anything else.
It's not limiting what a person can do with their bodies - it is limiting the capacity for businesses to sell something to certain groups.[/QUOTE]
There's no advantage in eating doritos. There's no advantage in playing several thousands of hours of Team Fortress 2. There's no advantage in browsing the internet too much. There's no advantage in going to a baseball game.
A great deal of the things that people do have no inherent value or payoff.
You can split hairs about whether or not this specific example of legislation goes too far or is within acceptable bounds or whatever, but what's important is the principle. You shouldn't have to worry about the law going too far in a direction it shouldn't go in to begin with.
and if that were true then there would be no penalty for people below 21 smoking there would only be a penalty for selling it to people below 21 FYI
The people of this forum are extremely prudish when it comes to issues regarding drugs. I am a smoker and I am perfectly aware that it's bad, but I don't care.
And, the same people will argue in favor of euthanasia and the right to suicide, but not the right to smoke? How can you not see the hypocrisy there?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42708731]There's no advantage in eating doritos. There's no advantage in playing several thousands of hours of Team Fortress 2. There's no advantage in browsing the internet too much. There's no advantage in going to a baseball game.
A great deal of the things that people do have no inherent value or payoff. [/quote]
And yet none of those you listed are known carcinogens. I specifically mentioned it is to reduce the future social, health and economic burden on a society for doing something which is known to be damaging.
You can keep going on and on about whether or not it is acceptable, but I don't understand how you could then want universal healthcare. Along with universal healthcare comes risk mitigation.
Obviously these two things together just won't gel in America.
[QUOTE=qwerty000;42708486]Freedoms? Addiction is freedom now?[/QUOTE]
Ban alcohol?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42708764]And yet none of those you listed are known carcinogens. I specifically mentioned it is to reduce the future social, health and economic burden on a society for doing something which is known to be damaging.
You can keep going on and on about whether or not it is acceptable, but I don't understand how you could then want universal healthcare. Along with universal healthcare comes risk mitigation.
Obviously these two things together just won't gel in America.[/QUOTE]
well of course if you artificially shrink the discussion down to something arbitrarily specific i can't argue with you
and we don't HAVE universal health care, most smokers are forced out of our health care system due to inflated premiums
[editline]31st October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=pdp;42708758]The people of this forum are extremely prudish when it comes to issues regarding drugs. I am a smoker and I am perfectly aware that it's bad, but I don't care.
And, the same people will argue in favor of euthanasia and the right to suicide, but not the right to smoke? How can you not see the hypocrisy there?[/QUOTE]
because anything that's unhealthy [B]that I don't do[/B] is stupid and people who do it are stupid
[QUOTE=Midas22;42706527]You say it like New York is actually able to control the age of enlistment. New York is state, enlistment is federal.[/QUOTE]
You say that like New York politicians are incapable of seeing the big picture...oh wait...
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42708831]well of course if you artificially shrink the discussion down to something arbitrarily specific i can't argue with you[/quote]
Perhaps you should read what you replied to then, since that is what I specifically mentioned.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42708831]and we don't HAVE universal health care, most smokers are forced out of our health care system due to inflated premiums[/quote]
I know - that is the point. If a universal health care system was introduced in America, people would cry out in pain because certain things that come along with it would be "impinging" on their freedoms.
Now they can fine those under 21 who smoke, more money for the state
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42708863]Perhaps you should read what you replied to then, since that is what I specifically mentioned.
I know - that is the point. If a universal health care system was introduced in America, people would cry out in pain because certain things that come along with it would be "impinging" on their freedoms.[/QUOTE]
I say the discussion is now only about the legislation of tube shaped flammable narcotics. This discussion cannot talk about anything except tube shaped flammable narcotics because they and legislation about them exists in a vacuum separate from all other topics.
hey, you want to know what [I]is[/I] unrelated to the topic of discussion
the universal health care that we don't have
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42708887]hey, you want to know what [I]is[/I] unrelated to the topic of discussion
the universal health care that we don't have[/QUOTE]
Again, perhaps you should read what I wrote my reply to...
Just for the sake of brevity, here is my reply:
"This to me is such a strange sentiment. It is about risk mitigation. In many countries it is done to reduce the potential health, social and economic burden that cancers bring in the future."
I insinuated that universal healthcare is a reason why Governments would do as they've done, and specifically mentioned that it is used as one outside of the US.
I didn't say that you're wrong, nor did I limit the discussion to anything about US healthcare. But please, carry on. It is your right to reply as they would say in America.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;42708877]Now they can fine those under 21 who smoke, more money for the state[/QUOTE]
21 to buy, not to smoke. You can smoke legally under 21/18 You just can't buy; my young padawan.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42708932]Again, perhaps you should read what I wrote my reply to...
Just for the sake of brevity, here is my reply:
"This to me is such a strange sentiment. It is about risk mitigation. In many countries it is done to reduce the potential health, social and economic burden that cancers bring in the future."
I insinuated that universal healthcare is a reason why Governments would do as they've done, and specifically mentioned that it is used as one outside of the US.
I didn't say that you're wrong, nor did I limit the discussion to anything about US healthcare. But please, carry on. It is your right to reply as they would say in America.[/QUOTE]
And I said that if you actually see that train of thought through to it's logical conclusion you end up legislating over quite a lot of common pass times. The only reason, ironically enough, that you can get away with legislating against smokers to begin with is because they're a minority to begin with. You're the one who said that I could only talk about carcinogens, as if they're some special black magic that can't be compared with any other substance or activity.
and no in america we say god bless the GOP and may rick perry's turgid loins bring forth more jesus warriors for the future, urah semper fi we the people etc. . .
[QUOTE=qwerty000;42708563]You know, everyone here smokes (except for one nerdy guy I know and my parents, who quit 8 or so years ago) And everyone started smoking not because it's good for them or they enjoyed it, but because it was and is "hip and cool". I talk to smokers every day, they want to quit but hardly anyone actually does. They complain about how much money they waste on cigs, how much it probably hurts them, and yet they can't quit. So don't tell me they were free to choose.
[editline]31st October 2013[/editline]
Too bad no one can do anything to stop it, involving laws would just create illegal market of badly made cigarettes, just like with drugs[/QUOTE]
You are free to choose.
Just like someone who takes something like oxycodone, you can make the choice to say fuck it, and deal with the massive headaches and shitness that comes from quitting it.
You are free to choose when you start, and end it. It's willpower, and how much you can stomach in terms of pain.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42708973]And I said that if you actually see that train of thought through to it's logical conclusion you end up legislating over quite a lot of common pass times.[/quote]
I could see that being an issue in a society which has no trust in their elected officials. Clearly that is the case in the US. Especially when you read reports when even those elected officials cannot even trust their own departments.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42708973]The only reason, ironically enough, that you can get away with legislating against smokers to begin with is because they're a minority to begin with. You're the one who said that I could only talk about carcinogens, as if they're some special black magic that can't be compared with any other substance or activity.[/quote]
Yet how do the states in the US pass laws relating to enforcing drivers to wear seatbelts? Drivers are not a minority, yet they still pass laws restricting the actions or freedom of drivers. No doubt that when such laws were passed, people were up in arms due to the legislature overstepping their mark and reducing peoples freedoms.
Something feels wrong to me when being able to buy cigarettes at a store equates to freedom.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42708973]and no in america we say god bless the GOP and may rick perry's turgid loins bring forth more jesus warriors for the future, urah semper fi we the people etc. . .[/QUOTE]
haha
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42709020]I could see that being an issue in a society which has no trust in their elected officials. Clearly that is the case in the US. Especially when you read reports when even those elected officials cannot even trust their own departments.
Yet how do the states in the US pass laws relating to enforcing drivers to wear seatbelts? Drivers are not a minority, yet they still pass laws restricting the actions or freedom of drivers. No doubt that when such laws were passed, people were up in arms due to the legislature overstepping their mark and reducing peoples freedoms.
Something feels wrong to me when being able to buy cigarettes at a store equates to freedom.[/QUOTE]
suffice it to say that you cannot trust the average politician in the US any more than you can trust tony abbott
That would be because most drivers don't wish to go flying through their windshields due to an unexpected head on collision, and would prefer having sturdy up-to-code anti windshield flight devices installed in their vehicles. Because unlike cigarettes, car crashes are not convenient and portable consumable items which can be enjoyed in the privacy of one's home at one's discretion.
Good.
Smoking is bad, too bad that it won't be banned at all due to the tobacco industry but at least this is a start.
[QUOTE=Valiantttt;42709075]Good.
Smoking is bad, too bad that it won't be banned at all due to the tobacco industry but at least this is a start.[/QUOTE]
you know what else isn't good for you
over 1,000 hours of Dota 2
too bad it won't be banned at all due to valiantttt
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709068]suffice it to say that you cannot trust the average politician in the US any more than you can trust tony abbott[/QUOTE]
From what I've read, I disagree. We don't have a Constitution or any other framework that limits what laws Parliament can pass. Their power over the people is virtually limitless - yet Australia seems to keep trusting Parliament.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709068]That would be because most drivers don't wish to go flying through their windshields due to an unexpected head on collision, and would prefer having sturdy up-to-code anti windshield flight devices installed in their vehicles. Because unlike cigarettes, car crashes are not convenient and portable consumable items which can be enjoyed in the privacy of one's home at one's discretion.[/QUOTE]
Do you think most people want small-cell lung carcinoma then? Like not wearing a seatbelt, smoking ciggies comes with a known risk. Neither comes with a guarantee that you'll be injured, but with both, there is a chance.
As for the privacy of your own home - that is not being restricted. Like alcohol (in most states), it is not restricted in that a minor, if given, can drink it. The only thing that is being restricted is the sale of the item - and the same goes with alcohol.
[editline]31st October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709083]you know what else isn't good for you
over 1,000 hours of Dota 2
too bad it won't be banned at all due to valiantttt[/QUOTE]
Interesting how you make it personal. This topic must be deep to the core with you.
It would be banned or at least affected if it proves to be too much of a problem in a society.
China previously attempted to ban MMOs due to the amount of time its citizens were putting into it.
South Korea passed a law to limit the amount of time a person under the age of 15 can play spending games.
etc
Unlike video games, cigarettes have known severe disadvantages to a person.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42709088]From what I've read, I disagree. We don't have a Constitution or any other framework that limits what laws Parliament can pass. Their power over the people is virtually limitless - yet Australia seems to keep trusting Parliament.
Do you think most people want small-cell lung carcinoma then? Like not wearing a seatbelt, smoking ciggies comes with a known risk. Neither comes with a guarantee that you'll be injured, but with both, there is a chance.
As for the privacy of your own home - that is not being restricted. Like alcohol (in most states), it is not restricted in that a minor, if given, can drink it. The only thing that is being restricted is the sale of the item - and the same goes with alcohol.[/QUOTE]
Cigarettes have very well documented and predictable health effects which are easily accessible to consumers. When you buy them, you accept these effects.
Car crashes are sudden and involuntary accidents that cannot be predicted. Not to mention they often involve multiple people, in which case having everyone remain safe is important for all parties involved. It would be a real mess if someone died crashing into because they weren't wearing a seat belt, no?
That's why seat belts are mandatory for things like cars and not say, lawn mowers or horse drawn carriages.
[editline]31st October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42709088]Interesting how you make it personal. This topic must be deep to the core with you.
It would be banned or at least affected if it proves to be too much of a problem in a society.
China previously attempted to ban MMOs due to the amount of time its citizens were putting into it.
South Korea passed a law to limit the amount of time a person under the age of 15 can play spending games.
etc
Unlike video games, cigarettes have known severe disadvantages to a person.[/QUOTE]
I make it personal because it's a really common hypocrisy. You can't say that someone elses unhealthy obsession should be banned but yours is okay.
china has banned depictions of both skeletons and time travel so 'scuse me if i don't put much stock in their opinions
When you drive a car you accept that you might have a road accident, and will do your best to avoid one. The only way you can fully mitigate that risk is to not drive or be driven.
You can claim it relates to predictability, but it doesn't.
Both actions and restrictions are to reduce the burden in some manner on society in different ways. One is to reduce the chance that someone takes up smoking or continues the habit - the other is to reduce the risk of dying in a car accident.
People can go on living without wearing a seatbelt while driving, and living while smoking packs a day - but why is it that countries around the world are constantly restricting both those things? Obviously is because they like power... and that is it. Screw the people and their freedoms they say, it's not like they needed them anyway.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42709152]When you drive a car you accept that you might have a road accident, and will do your best to avoid one. The only way you can fully mitigate that risk is to not drive or be driven.
You can claim it relates to predictability, but it doesn't.
Both actions and restrictions are to reduce the burden in some manner on society in different ways. One is to reduce the chance that someone takes up smoking or continues the habit - the other is to reduce the risk of dying in a car accident.
People can go on living without wearing a seatbelt while driving, and living while smoking packs a day - but why is it that countries around the world are constantly restricting both those things? Obviously is because they like power... and that is it. Screw the people and their freedoms they say, it's not like they needed them anyway.[/QUOTE]
uh, but it does relate to predictability
entirely
If you were to provide a situation in which drivers could voluntarily just, avoid all possible collisions between themselves and other vehicles, 100%, then seat belts wouldn't be mandatory in that situation.
and what in the hell does it matter what the majority of countries restrict? fuckin' tons of countries restrict women's rights, you don't see anybody saying "HMM well now why's that?"
they don't say that because that's stupid and because what the majority of countries think doesn't matter unless substantiated by solid reasoning
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709167]uh, but it does relate to predictability
entirely
If you were to provide a situation in which drivers could voluntarily just, avoid all possible collisions between themselves and other vehicles, 100%, then seat belts wouldn't be mandatory in that situation.[/QUOTE]
wtf?
If cancer could be stopped, removed or cured before it formed, then smoking wouldn't be a problem either. What a stupid statement to make.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42709173]wtf?
If cancer could be stopped before it formed, then smoking wouldn't be a problem either. What a stupid statement to make.[/QUOTE]
And [I]again[/I] as I said, the difference is that car crashes are events involving multiple involuntary agents. Smoking is a personal and voluntary act.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709167]and what in the hell does it matter what the majority of countries restrict? fuckin' tons of countries restrict women's rights, you don't see anybody saying "HMM well now why's that?"
they don't say that because that's stupid and because what the majority of countries think doesn't matter unless substantiated by solid reasoning[/QUOTE]
Actually, that is the exact reasoning used on those countries that do restrict women's rights. Other countries don't do it, so they shouldn't either. Why? Because Human Rights is globally accepted thing.
And action to restrict smoking or uptake of smoking is substantiated by solid reasoning.
[editline]31st October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709176]And [I]again[/I] as I said, the difference is that car crashes are events involving multiple involuntary agents. Smoking is a personal and voluntary act.[/QUOTE]
Driving is a personal and voluntary act. Crashing isn't. Smoking is a personal and voluntary act. Getting small-cell lung carcinoma isn't.
:siren: Extreme view alert - Raise the age limit to 100 :siren:
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42709181]Actually, that is the exact reasoning used on those countries that do restrict women's rights. Other countries don't do it, so they shouldn't either. Why? Because Human Rights is globally accepted thing.
And action to restrict smoking or uptake of smoking is substantiated by solid reasoning.
[editline]31st October 2013[/editline]
Driving is a personal and voluntary act. Crashing isn't. Smoking is a personal and voluntary act. Getting small-cell lung carcinoma isn't.[/QUOTE]
other countries don't do it, so they don't do it, because human rights is globally accepted
that sentence doesn't make sense
It is an involuntary act that involves [B][U]multiple people.[/U][/B]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709194]other countries don't do it, so they don't do it, because human rights is globally accepted
that sentence doesn't make sense[/quote]
haha, it doesn't in retrospect. I am tired.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42709194]It is an involuntary act that involves [B][U]multiple people.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
lel, so is breathing someone elses cigarette smoke.
Whatever though. It's clear that removing some 20 year old's capacity to buy, not smoke, cigarettes is a terrible terrible extension of the guberment's power. Poor New Yorkers. :<
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
