Update from the War on Drugs

[Orogun01]

The problem with that position is, when does the impact stop at affecting your body and when does it affect other people. Not talking second hand smoke here, but less obvious things like put a strain on the healthcare system, lack of productivity, social isolation, insert a few more. How much should other people suffer for your indulgence and you would consider them "fascists" (waiting for Godwyns law to be invoked) for telling you to knock it off? After all, you only notice the immediate short term effect on your own body, not giving a damn about other people having to support you when it blows up in your face.

Yes, I agree but smoking hardly turns you into a vegetable and before we get off hand here we should probably check the actual percentage of smokers that develop cancer. Not saying that lung cancer its not mostly caused by smoking but there's probably a certain amount you have to smoke before it happens.

Nonetheless all your points are easily applicable to obesity, I would even dare say that's a greater danger than smoking but since majority rules...

 

@Hurlshot: Aside from your right to your personal opinions(which I respect), I'd just like to say that its sad that smokers have hide and sneak just do something that's still legal.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Orogun01

[Walsingham]

*chuckles*

 

Well, I figured someone would reject the mathematical basis, and all I can say is that poetry may be written by those who reject maths, but history is not.

 

 

 

I actually wrote out a reply to your post. But then I took a sip of coffee and thought "**** it. If he deliberately writes in a style which is unreadable then I'm damned if I'll bother digesting it and reposting it so people can follow." Let one of the members who thinks you're cute do the translating.

 

So far as the rejoinder goes, one key point. We can organise public policy on lines which are

 

1. Doomed to fail - interdicting packets of illicit material in such a large follow of licit material

2. Doomed to create unintended and disastrous consequences - corruption and growth in transporter countries

3. Doomed to have long term effects on our public policy - corruption in our own civil structures is growing, most starkly evident in the Southern US

 

But if we do that, we had better do so clear in our public faith that the cause is worth the price. And that isn't happening, because the general pulic don't see it as a debate between maths and faith.

[Volourn]

"obvious things like put a strain on the healthcare system, lack of productivity, social isolation, insert a few more."

 

None of their business.

 

As fop 'second hand smoke'; it is largely exaggerated. It's got so out of control there's nonsense about '3rd hand smoke' and even '4th hand smoke'. Shutup silly gooses. 2nd hand smoke does exist I've heard morans talking about how how it's evenw orst than actual smoking, care exhums or other silly stuff.

 

My believe, that smoking should be allowed anywhere the owner wants to allow it. This means most public/gov't owned places like scholls/hospitals (well.. in Kanada) and the like can ban it while privately owned business like restaurants and bars it is 100% up to them. If you don't like it don't go to said place. period.

 

This is coming from a 100% non smoker (1 puff of a cigeratte when I merely 13 was all i've ever had); but this arrogant busybodiness of people trying to control others' lives is riiculous.

 

We allow the murder of unborn babies for various reasons (some arguably legit ala rape or potential death for the mother) but not allowing people to put something in their body? GET THE HECK OUT OF HERE. Nanny states are for the weak, pathetic, and unworthy.

 

If I want to stick a stick of dynamite down my throat and ther eis no dnager to others when i do it - get out of my face. Thank you very much.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

I have to agree with Volo on ths one. The public impact component only seems to come out when it's "sins of the flesh" like some neo-puritan jamboree.

 

Mountain climbers, athletes of all kinds, sexually active single people. They all have an impact on others, and impact healthcare. You want to stick your nose in there too? I'm perfectly serious. You go into an A&E on a Saturday and tell me there wouldn't be a saving by forcing people to stop playing field sports.

[Gorth]

I have to agree with Volo on ths one. The public impact component only seems to come out when it's "sins of the flesh" like some neo-puritan jamboree.

That was a reaction to the myth that it only affects yourself. Very few people live in such complete isolation from the rest of their world, that their actions doesn't impact it.

 

As for the sports injury strawman, I looked at a few numbers. In New Zealand the annual cost was $70 million in 2007 (Rugby being unsurprisingly the biggest culprit) and an example for Australia (2003) numbers lists $1.5 billion which is the gross figure, not adjusted for the cost to the tax payer and how much is covered by private health insurance for the specific purpose. Nor does it balance it against any cost saving by reduced expenses on cardiovascular conditions. In summary, "insignificant" in the big picture. How do you put a dollar value on the human cost?

 

The "I am entitled to fun, the consequences and bill paying be damned" mentality smacks of lack of responsibility and accountability. C.f. Greece for the mentality applied on a nationwide scale.

[Nepenthe]

I have to agree with Volo on ths one. The public impact component only seems to come out when it's "sins of the flesh" like some neo-puritan jamboree.

That was a reaction to the myth that it only affects yourself. Very few people live in such complete isolation from the rest of their world, that their actions doesn't impact it.

 

As for the sports injury strawman, I looked at a few numbers. In New Zealand the annual cost was $70 million in 2007 (Rugby being unsurprisingly the biggest culprit) and an example for Australia (2003) numbers lists $1.5 billion which is the gross figure, not adjusted for the cost to the tax payer and how much is covered by private health insurance for the specific purpose. Nor does it balance it against any cost saving by reduced expenses on cardiovascular conditions. In summary, "insignificant" in the big picture. How do you put a dollar value on the human cost?

 

The "I am entitled to fun, the consequences and bill paying be damned" mentality smacks of lack of responsibility and accountability. C.f. Greece for the mentality applied on a nationwide scale.

[Walsingham]

I don't normally associate Greeks with extreme sporting! Plus not sold at all on the notion that wanting an extra pint or three is the same as statist client buying and corruption. If we're getting that tenuous I might just as well accuse you healthists of being facists

 

EDIT: I charged off in completely the wrong direction there. Thought I'd leave it in so you can point and mock me.

 

The problem with taking the 'it affects others' line is chiefly in where you draw the line and the inherent complexity of modern life. We're currently BOTH arguing we need to fix drug policy for the sake of others. You're saying it affects those near the consumer. I'm saying it affects those near the producer.

 

I'm actually pretty happy to include external effects, hence my OP. I'm simply saying that we're wrecking whole nations and killing hundreds of thousands of people through prohibition.

 

On the other hand there must be some point where we say 'actually chaps that's your problem not ours'.

 

It woudl be awesome if we coudl generate some sort of metric for where the line should be.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Walsingham

[Gorth]

It woudl be awesome if we coudl generate some sort of metric for where the line should be.

Easy enough

 

*Draws line in sand and points at it*

 

Edit to add:

I don't normally associate Greeks with extreme sporting!

Hey, where did you think Olympic Games and Marathon came from? Does the word Gymnast ring a bell?

[Hurlshort]

@Hurlshot: Aside from your right to your personal opinions(which I respect), I'd just like to say that its sad that smokers have hide and sneak just do something that's still legal.

 

While I totally admit my stance is heavily influenced by my personal opinion, I would like to point out that there are a lot of activities that are legal but you can't do in public. I could list some examples, but I think most of you know what you close the blinds for in your home.

[Gorgon]

I dunno, demanding that people can't smoke outside. That seems a bit much. The argument of the strain on public health care (for those countries that have such a thing) is legitimate enough. Ultimately people should be allowed to poison themselves however they see fit and help pay the cost through heavy taxation.

[Malcador]

Well here smokers do pay hefty sales taxes for the privelege. Is weird though, the anti-smoking people here seem to want everything BUT to make them flat out illegal.

[Walsingham]

If the argument were purely financial, surely the cost could be borne on a rational basis? My undersatdning - correct me if I'm wrong - was that smokers get charged far far more than what they cost.

[Gfted1]

I dont know if they get charged more then they ultimately consume but they certainly have far higher insurance premiums. High risk = pay more, just like high risk drivers pay higher premiums for their car insurance.

[Hurlshort]

Well, there are quite a few issues with smoking in public. Number one is that it may be harmful to others. This can be limited by not allowing smoking indoors, which is a quickly growing trend. Where it isn't law, many businesses are still making the choice to go smoke-free. It is in the best interest of their employees and the majority of their customers.

 

But the other issue is that it is a public nuisance, and that is why you see a lot more restrictions on smoking outside coming down the pipeline. I went to an ATM yesterday and it stank like an ashtray. You see cigarette butts all over the place. It wafts through doors and permeates the air of street festivals.

 

I can have some sympathy that it is an addiction and legislation is driving smokers further and further away. But there are alternatives to smoking when you go out in public, and they seem to be getting better to deal with this changing atmosphere. Nicotine patches and gum, vapor cigs, etc. all fill that need.

 

I have a co-worker who smokes. Most of you know I work at a school. On her break, she gets in her car and drives around the neighborhood in order to have her cigarette. I'm sure it is inconvenient to do that, but what would you prefer?

[Walsingham]

That all sounds fine, Hurlshot. But what about other activities which smell? Barbecues? What if I cook a strong curry? We live in cities, we tread on one another's toes. We breath each other's armpits.

 

I say this as a pretty reserved and private person. But I'm also a townbug. I can't cope out of the city. I actually MISS all the intrusions. The companionable annoyance of it all.

 

I'm drifting off my point.

 

I believe this debate - not so much here but in general - is being driven entirely by inconsistent emotional tides, and simplistic moral codes about evil and good. That doesn't strike me as a healthy way of creating policy!

[Hurlshort]

Public policy is often driven by the emotions of the public. Smoking has become extremely unpopular. Heck, nudity affects me a lot less (well, in a negative way) and yet that is cracked down on fairly harshly in public. I guess if BBQing becomes unpopular, you will see more restrictions on where you can grill a patty. We do have spare the air days in my community where you are fined for using your fireplace.

 

Disclaimer: I am incredibly biased about smoking. My quality of life has improved because of all these restrictions.

[Gorgon]

I'd worry about exhaust gasses before the odd plume of cigarette smoke. You might not like the smell, but you are asking too much.

[Malcador]

Kind of silly to have a few days when you must 'spare' the air. Feels good, I guess.

[Gorgon]

I'd make you a deal. Cigarettes banned in public if you weren't allowed to drive anywhere unless you absolutely needed to. 5 kids to drop off, or part of your job ok. Everything else, get on your bike and stop stinking up the place for the rest of us. Or would that be encroaching on personal freedom.

 

 

hmm..

Edited September 30, 2011 by Gorgon

[Hurlshort]

They really should do something about car exhaust! Maybe they can force people to make sure their emissions don't exceed a certain level, and then keep cars off the road that don't meet those requirements.

 

I would actually love to drive less. If I had some decent public transportation alternatives I'd be all over it. I'm pretty sure I haven't gone out driving for the fun of it since I was in High School.

 

But as Wals mentioned, this is a matter of popularity. Smoking is losing the battle of popularity, and so it isn't going to get the same slack as automobiles. It would probably be great if people started to crack down on gas vehicles, you'd see auto and oil companies make stronger moves towards alternative energy vehicles.

 

Continued Disclaimer: I am biased. Breathing in smoke clogs my sinuses and hurts my lungs.

[Walsingham]

Interesting point about vehicles. I've lived in several major cities where I'd wake up with a nose full of black gunk from the pollution. Leaving aside other factors from more complex chemicals.

 

I guess what I'm now arguing for is consistency. Democracy is free to chose any deicison framework it likes, but inconsistency within that framework is probably a bad idea.

 

In this context my original objection was that we argue that prohibition is intended to save lives. I am suggesting that there is evidence that not only does it fail to save lives at our end, but it actually costs more lives at the source end.

 

Am I getting any clearer or am I simply chasing my own tail like a happy puppy?

[Volourn]

"Smoking has become extremely unpopular."

 

Brainwashing does that.

[Hurlshort]

"Smoking has become extremely unpopular."

 

Brainwashing does that.

 

I'd say it took a solid amount of brainwashing to make it popular in the first place. Even before all this cancer stuff, it wasn't exactly a great habit. It turns things yellow, makes everything smell like tobacco, and wreaks havok on your lungs. The benefits seem to be relaxation? Aren't there better alternatives for that?

 

Tobacco companies give away cigarettes for free in Hollywood, and it isn't because they are trying to help these poor celebrities deal with stress. They want to make their product popular and glamorous.

[Orogun01]

I'd say it took a solid amount of brainwashing to make it popular in the first place. Even before all this cancer stuff, it wasn't exactly a great habit. It turns things yellow, makes everything smell like tobacco, and wreaks havok on your lungs. The benefits seem to be relaxation? Aren't there better alternatives for that?

 

Tobacco companies give away cigarettes for free in Hollywood, and it isn't because they are trying to help these poor celebrities deal with stress. They want to make their product popular and glamorous.

Yet these poor celebrities aren't forced to smoke, many of them lead forcefully healthy lifestyles as an clear reaction to their ambient. You hit the nail on the head when you said that its due to popularity; as with most drugs legislation is related to popular opinion. At this time drugs have become a cop-out to avoid personal responsibility and serves that they are viewed as a negative illness. Putting emphasis on the fact that the user is a victim and not at fault since is beyond their control.

 

Smoking on the other hand began to hit low when public's interest in cancer was renewed, and as it was a cause it was deemed evil. Yet despite the fact that I rarely see smokers anymore there still seems to be biased people who believe that it's a disgusting habit and should be banned. Worst is that they convince themselves that they are right because smoking poses real dangers.

[Hurlshort]

there still seems to be biased people who believe that it's a disgusting habit and should be banned. Worst is that they convince themselves that they are right because smoking poses real dangers.

 

Disgusting habit - check

 

Isn't it though? Don't get me wrong, I have my own disgusting habits, but I do tend to keep them within the privacy of my own home.

 

Should be banned - (In public) check.

 

I mean I've made my bias pretty clear. My life is better without smokers around. If they want to smoke in cars, or go hide in an alley, or go home, that is their business.

 

Smoking poses real dangers - Check.

 

I'm pretty sure they aren't making this health stuff up. It's bad for you and anyone you smoke near. I was watching a sitcom, and a son was asking his mom to stop smoking around his newborn child. She said smoke rises, it's going to be years before she will be tall enough to breath it. It was funny. I'm sure we are all smart enough to know that it isn't true.

 

So I'm not sure where you are gong with your statements Orogun. Yes, smoking is unpopular now (or at least getting there.) Is that a bad thing?