The Glade 4.0

Actually this is EXACTLY what is happening. Because these people have been unable to regulate themselves, and have annoyed, damaged, pissed off, etc. enough people, the consequences are falling. It just so happens that those consequences are legislation.

For something to be a consequence, it has to have a causal relationship.

Smoking in the home doesn't cause legislation.

Moral busybodies who stick their nose into other people's affairs causes legislation.


See the difference?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's just rule by mob. Your argument basically amounts to saying someone who is rude to you can be punched in the face as a result of cause and effect and that it is perfectly reasonable to do so. I.e., because you dislike smoking, you can rationalize any action against it, regardless of what it is and just label as "consequence".

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Aizle:

Your position in this thread is terrifying.

_________________

It's not necessarily my world view, but it is reality.

Aizle:

No, it's not reality. It's the delusional result of a bunch of people who feel entitled to dictate how they think things should be to other people. I guess, however, choice is passe.

_________________

LOL, whatever Khross.

Your grasp on society and how it works appears tentative at best. This habit of humanity is nothing new.

As long as their are idiots in charge that insist on making me responsible for the stupid decisions of others, I support removing their ability to continue to perform those stupid activities, or alternatively, support making more stupid activities lethal.

Aizle:

Tentative? Really? What gives you the right to legislate my behavior? From where do you derive that ability according to the Constitution of the United States? You seem to think that legislating individual behavior, that actually regulating personal choice, is a natural, expected, and by the language of your post, PROPER consequence. So where do you derive the ability to do so?

Or, to flip it around to one of your hot button issues ...

I guess regulating homosexuality out of legal protection is "proper" and "right".

_________________

Aizle, your statement is not correct. People have not had to face the consequences of their actions.

Smokers have not had to pay the direct cost of their medical care. The society at large has subsidized their habit. The taxes they pay on cigarettes, and the money they spend on health insurance does not cover their medical care costs, much less the costs of decreased productivity.

The United States is the only country I am aware of that will put any person with COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) on a ventilator any time they go into respiratory failure. All other countries will allow at most a single time on a vent, and when off and if clearly related to smoking, will never allow that treatment again.

So this is one of the consequences people have not faced.

Too many people are too free with OPM (other peoples money).

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

LadyKate,

By the way, I emotionally aggree with you, but legislating behavior will only imprison us all. I have lungs damaged by my parents 3 pack a day habit.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

So first, you're attributing things to my posts that aren't there. I haven't weighted in on if I think this kind of legislation is good or bad. Frankly I don't know enough about the particulars (nor do I care enough to find out) to have an opinion.

What I'm commenting about is the reality of how civilization works. The conventional wisdom of society if you will. Certainly there are times when I disagree with the current conventional wisdom, and I most certainly argue my points, with the hope of helping to change that wisdom. But to think that a society won't or shouldn't put pressure it's members is silly. It is the most basic cost of living in a society. Compromise.

Oh but it is correct. Just as your examples are correct as well. Both are potential consequences. You seem to think that there is only one set of possible consequences for an issue, which is not true.

And, SG, just because you don't feel that's an injustice doesn't mean it's not an injustice. What happened to your lungs was no less than a poisoning.

Aizle is very much correct. This is the democratic process at work. If people were capable of regulating themselves on this, they would. The ability to regulate others when a public need arises does not preculde, eliminate, or keep in check the ability to regulate ourselves.

We have laws against stealing. Those laws do not cause people to steal. Stealing happened, was seen by society to be a problem, so we came together and made it illegal. By the logic used from SG, Khross, and others in this thread, the very law against stealing makes stealing happen. That's silly.

Smoking, as a behaivor, goes beyond personal harm, and that's why the public has an interest in regulating it's use. When someone smokes, they hurt every single person near them. They are literally poisoning the people around them. You, as a doctor know that's true.

That's the key here, I think. With someone having a drink, they aren't harming anyone around them with the simple act of having a drink. If someone is having sex with a member of the same sex, they aren't harming anyone who's not consented to a willful act. But when someone smokes, they expose me to their toxins regardless of my consent.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Thanks. Yeah, I prefer emotionally-based arguments not logical ones, lol, so I am most of the time reduced to just listening when a topic gets to this point.
I'm sorry your lungs are damaged. So are mine, but its my own fault, and so will my son's be if they aren't already due to my smoking around him when he was little and his father continuing to do so.

Do other places in the world really not allow life-saving medical care for people who have damaged their bodies through means such as smoking?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

No one has said anything remotely close to this. Indeed, had you actually read the posts to which you are responding, you would note that ...

1. A lot more smokers would have died instead of received interventionist care in the United States.
2. That consequences of the smokers' behavior is born not by their own taxes, but fees and taxes placed on the rest of the nation.

Smoking has been mishandled by the government for quite some time. What you fail to realize in your haste to defend the "public ... interest in regulating it's use", is that you are hereby enabling and subsidizing the addiction. Instead of allowing the natural consequences of behavior to follow, you are legitimating a paradigm in which doctors must treat self-inflicted disease at the expense of other patients and other allocations of resources.The use is already regulated in most cases. In some states, such as California, it's regulated to the point that individuals cannot decided who can and cannot smoke on their own property. There is a point wherein regulation ceases to be reasonable and appropriate. Smoking has, in almost all cases, long since passed that point. And all current regulation has done, amazingly enough, is increase the burden to tax payers.You breathe don't you? I guess we need to regulate respiration in general. Afterall, the Obama Administration declared CO2 a poison. Stop breathing so you cease to expose me to your toxins regardless of my consent. We don't need the slippery slope anymore; your favored executive went base jumping over that cliff.

_________________

Most of the world does this LK. In Canada, for instance, there is the "one time on a vent' rule and also a rule about one time to correct esophageal bleeding from alcohol abuse. And yes these people die from their self-induced illness.

In this country, hospitals and doctors are forced to treat all emergencies that show up in the emergency room.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

Carbon Monoxide is a poison as well. Maybe everyone should have to give up their car so that you don't ahve to breathe any of it?


The bottom line, Monty, is that the mere fact that something affects you doesn't mean your consent is needed for it to happen.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wow, SG I didn't know that. I couldn't imagine trying to fly with that here in the US. It makes sense I suppose, in a general sort of way, but applied on a case by case basis might seem a little harsh. But then again, I'm a heart-on-your-sleeve kind of person. (and a I-have-no-self-discipline kind of person) so I'm not good with the whole "suffer your own consequences" thing.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Australia too, except if you need a transplant of any kind due to self inflicted injury you get put at the very bottom of the list.

Also a point of thought is that smoking is not purely one way death thing, lungs begin repair themselves when you stop smoking (to a degree, but once beyond certain point, damage can be irreparable). This is also why if you get a puff or two of secondary smoke on an occasion, it's not going to effect you much at all. The bad stuff happened when you're exposed to it constantly and in an enclosed environment.

Also, since Monty is still claiming it's a poison and hasn't demonstrated that: argumentum ad nauseum, bare assertion fallacy.... again.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Smoke from cigarette contains carcinogens and mutagens (around 19ish). Which I guess you could consider to be poison. Of course many drugs are poison if used in excess, e.g. acetaminophen

Also interesting to note are the recent studies done which shows that there could be a DNA link between smoking and addiction. I'm too lazy to find it now, but 1 of them should be on pubmed.

The problem with letting people figure it out the hard way is, it's too late to benefit from the lesson.

Yea, my Father quit smoking, but not until my Mother died from lung cancer.

Yes, I realize this is a different situation than kids being forced to breathe in carcinogens against their will. She was an adult with free will. I just use it as an example for what could have happened (or still could happen) to me being forced to inhale the stuff.

I'm definitely not in favor of making more laws. in fact maybe we should just repeal the law that makes it illegal to hit smokers who smoke around kids in the head with Kirra's shovel.

As I said earlier, I'm very much anti-smoking in general. I believe the government should reclassify tobacco as a Class I or II drug and criminalize it accordingly. They haven't and still subsidize the product being grown, while heavily taxing the sales. I'd like to see them stop the subsidies and increase the taxes tenfold as a stopgap until it gets reclassified as a dangerous drug with no true health related purpose.

However, as long as it is a legal substance, as much as I detest it and avoid those who use it, I cannot support the mostly unenforceable laws most of the people who are of like mind about this truly disgusting habit come up with. Designated public smoking areas away from people who enjoy breathing non-smoke infested air are reasonable. Telling an adult citizen he can't smoke in the privacy of his own home is insane.

Creating an information campaign about the dangers to children exposed to such smoke I can get behind. Educate people, over and over and over again. Some of them will get the message. Some children will get the message that mommy and/or daddy are sicko creeps trying to damage or kill them. I can live with that too.

Maybe someday those children will grow up and appropriately criminalize that product.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

What I’ve found, as a smoker, that you're actually more tolerant than me Michael. I personally will not smoke around kids or with other people in close vicinity. This is probably also why I do around 5 smokes most days.

While I respect the privacy and ownership of people, I am actually opposed to the subjection of children to this habit. Thus I actually supported the vote to ban smoking from within one’s house or within a car with young children present. Of course this doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop, as I firmly believe that’s my own personal freedom as well…

Maybe I’m just a confused smoker =P