Update from the War on Drugs

[Orogun01]

I have made it clear before that the crux of this matter is that some people take issue against smoking, if we were to pass legislation based on the disgust of the many I still contend that we get rid of the morbidly obese.

 

Disgusting habit-check

 

Should be banned in public because I find them offensive to my eyes-check

 

Obesity poses real danger-check

 

So do you really think that I should be able to get away with this just because my personal bias coincides with a sound argument. Despite the fact that an opposing view on the subject its equally valid.

 

At some point you need to remember that things in life aren't all pleasurable, you banning a prick who cut you in traffic from driving and denying a group of people their pleasure just because you find it offensive its equally irrational.

[Zoraptor]

Yes, and you could make similar arguments for a host of other things too.

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.

Depends on how you measure it as almost all studies are done by lobby groups one way or another. However, if wikipedia is to be believed smoking reduces life expectancy by ~14 years on average. Given the average life expectancy of, say, New Zealand (80.3 years) every single smoker smoker saves the tax payer around $140,000 in superannuation alone, which amounts to ~8 years tax for someone on the median wage, by my rough maths, and will have paid multiple 10ks in excise tax (it's now around $6.50 tax per pack, +17.5% GST on top, iirc).

 

That's taking financial rationalism to the "best if everyone dies the day after retirement" extreme level though.

[Gorth]

Nanny states are for the weak, pathetic, and unworthy.

Yeah, yeah. you are such a humanitarian. I'm surprised you haven't started arguing yet that we should lift the ban on drink driving. Such a nanny state principle. I've yet to hear a drink driver not assure the cops that he wasn't fully capable of judging whether or not he was able to drive, so why should the state take that decision away from him. What are a few deaths and destroyed families in the big picture when peoples freedoms are impaired?

[Humodour]

I dunno, demanding that people can't smoke outside. That seems a bit much.

 

Demanding that they don't smoke in public places (which they don't own) because their smoke harms others (is in conflict with the liberties of others) is completely legitimate. They have their private dwellings for that.

 

It's the law here (although I don't think it extends to the street).

 

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 don't know where America is up to with this, but this is already done in Europe and Australia has just signed it into law, too. Huge emissions cuts on all car emissions: particulates, hydrocarbons, NOx, and others.

 

Excellent article on vehicle emissions (relevant to anybody, with some specifics about what Australia is now doing locally to slash them): http://www.caradvice.com.au/122835/new-car...tralia-finally/

 

So yes, we definitely SHOULD be tackling vehicle and industrial pollution AS WELL AS passive smoking. But it's not an either/or scenario, guys. We can limit both.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Krezack

[Humodour]

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?

 

Well the thing is you're conflating restrictions on 2nd hand smoke with the war on drugs. We've really got two entirely different discussions going concurrently in this thread. Unfortunately (in the context of wanting a debate on the drug war), the passive smoking discussion is dominating.

 

I am generally extremely in favour of ending the drug war and legalising drugs (with my own ideas on the best way to achieve that, as detailed earlier).

 

But I am also extremely in favour of regulating all drug use: legalise drugs, tax them (not necessarily heavily), secure supply to licensed vendors such as pharmacies/pubs/marijuana coffee shops, limit sale to adults, spend revenue raised on educating populace on the pros and cons of the respective drugs, and provide incentives for chemists to produce safer analogues. And in the case of smoking, I personally favour banning it entirely in favour of consumption methods which are better for all involved (e.g. e-cigarettes and marijuana vapourisers).

 

I think you'll find that many people are pro-legalisation but also pro-regulation.

 

I have made it clear before that the crux of this matter is that some people take issue against smoking, if we were to pass legislation based on the disgust of the many I still contend that we get rid of the morbidly obese.

 

Disgusting habit-check

 

Should be banned in public because I find them offensive to my eyes-check

 

Obesity poses real danger-check

 

So do you really think that I should be able to get away with this just because my personal bias coincides with a sound argument. Despite the fact that an opposing view on the subject its equally valid.

 

At some point you need to remember that things in life aren't all pleasurable, you banning a prick who cut you in traffic from driving and denying a group of people their pleasure just because you find it offensive its equally irrational.

 

This is an intellectually very disingenuous post. Smoking HARMS others. Having to look at fat people all the time doesn't cause somebody physical harm, no matter how uneasy it might make them.

 

And cutting in front of somebody in traffic is illegal if I am understanding correctly what you mean. It's illegal because it causes crashes. Where people die. So yeah, it should be banned. **** that prick's right to 'pleasure' from driving recklessly.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Krezack

[Humodour]

An interesting study from John Hopkins university seems to indicate (larger sample size needed with a more diverse range of personalities) that a single high dose of magic mushrooms induces a permanent positive change in personality for the majority of people who take it (obviously a lot of variables were controlled in this study, but it does match anecdotal evidence). No negative side effects were recorded (aside from temporary anxiety in some people during the psychedelic trip).

 

Specifically, the only personality trait that changed (of the 'big five' personality traits tested) was 'openness', which covers things like empathy, tolerance, and open-mindedness.

 

The study: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-09-dose...ersonality.html

 

Big five personality traits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

A decent online big five personality quiz: http://test.personality-project.org/

[Orogun01]

This is an intellectually very disingenuous post. Smoking HARMS others. Having to look at fat people all the time doesn't cause somebody physical harm, no matter how uneasy it might make them.

 

And cutting in front of somebody in traffic is illegal if I am understanding correctly what you mean. It's illegal because it causes crashes. Where people die. So yeah, it should be banned. **** that prick's right to 'pleasure' from driving recklessly.

Don't really know if I should be mad or flattered; "disingenuous post" that really throws me off balance

 

I know from your previous post that you don't seem to believe in prohibition, and are in favor of legalization. Personally I don't believe that the majority of the public's has enough self control to even deal with the legal drugs we have today. So i'm not even that positive about even the least damaging drug being completely legalized.

 

On smoking, the amount of second hand smoke that you would have to inhale in order to actually be harmed by it can only be achieved by living with a chain smoker. You would had a stronger case if you put forth the right to privacy of the people subjected to secondhand smoke.

I can agree with banning smoking from private and government facilities, but public places are common ground and aren't really owned. Under private ownership people are subject to the preferences of the owner and whether or not he should allow smoking, It doesn't make sense to me that in a public avenue they should be subjects to the preferences of others.

[Nepenthe]

I have made it clear before that the crux of this matter is that some people take issue against smoking, if we were to pass legislation based on the disgust of the many I still contend that we get rid of the morbidly obese.

See, you're comparing causes and results here. You should ban either tobacco and transfats or lung cancer and obesity.

[Gorgon]

I seriously doubt second hand smok can do very much out in the open, dilluted. This is why I mentioned car exhaust, since the attentant micro particle pollution is so much worse. There is no escape from that, inside or out. Although you can limit your exposure by staying in on bad days.

 

A smoker produces how many cubic metres of cigarette smoke an hour - and compared to a car. The ratio must be higher than 1-1000, and car exhaust doesn't take decades to kill you, hence the popular suicide method.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Gorgon

[Hurlshort]

That still doesn't address the risk versus benefit factor here. We all benefit from the existence of automobiles. What does a non-smoker get out being around smokers?

 

the amount of second hand smoke that you would have to inhale in order to actually be harmed by it can only be achieved by living with a chain smoker.

 

This is incredibly wrong. You can read up on it here. That's from the American Cancers Society, but you can find a dozen other organizations saying the same thing.

[Malcador]

I'm not sure I benefit from walking past a street crammed with idling cars of varying efficiencies pumping out their exhaust.

[Hurlshort]

I'm not sure I benefit from walking past a street crammed with idling cars of varying efficiencies pumping out their exhaust.

 

Do you think the stuff on store shelves magically appears via teleporter?

 

I mean, that would be awesome if it happened that way, actually. Someone needs to put more work into that technology.

[Malcador]

Not sure about your city, but mostly it's sedans here and those don't do freight. Idling traffic is probably the worst for the air, I'd guess and from talking to bike couriers (wondered why they wear these filtering masks on their faces). Must be due to my mom smoking so I'm used to being around smokers, but largely don't get the disgust people have for them, heh.

 

Although, considering there's a large cigarette smuggling business here, I wonder how much the drug business would shrink if everything were to be legalized and taxed.

[Guard Dog]

Nanny states are for the weak, pathetic, and unworthy.

Yeah, yeah. you are such a humanitarian. I'm surprised you haven't started arguing yet that we should lift the ban on drink driving. Such a nanny state principle. I've yet to hear a drink driver not assure the cops that he wasn't fully capable of judging whether or not he was able to drive, so why should the state take that decision away from him. What are a few deaths and destroyed families in the big picture when peoples freedoms are impaired?

I'm sure you can see the fatal flaw in your logic!

Edited October 1, 2011 by Guard Dog

[Orogun01]

That still doesn't address the risk versus benefit factor here. We all benefit from the existence of automobiles. What does a non-smoker get out being around smokers?

We could say that it varies depending on who is the smoker is, I'm sure that some smokers are very decent, talented people. Despite what others may think

the amount of second hand smoke that you would have to inhale in order to actually be harmed by it can only be achieved by living with a chain smoker.

 

This is incredibly wrong. You can read up on it here. That's from the American Cancers Society, but you can find a dozen other organizations saying the same thing.

And nowhere in that article there was an answer to my question on the levels.

[213374U]

petty much all the solutions is absurd, which is why there ain't been a solution and we/society is still faced with the problem. duh.

Such an inspiring attitude. Not solved yet, therefore, unsolvable. You'd make a great Senator.

 

 

in any event, what is most absurd is for smokers, drug users, and alcoholics to bang the drum o' liberty as their collective stoopidity punishes the rest o' us. so fix-- come up with the miracle solution none of us has yet considered. that or quit your whining and deal with the absurd solutions governments invariably resort to. your liberty is admirable only so long as it don't adverse affect those around you.

Hilarious. Chances are I'm healthier than you. I don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs. Hit the gym 5x/week. I make sure to get at least eight hours of continuous sleep each day. I've calculated my daily calorie intake, etc. As you can see I'm kind of an Ayatollah of healthy living (cue for Wals' comment). I'm arguing out of principle here, so keep your assumptions to yourself.

 

As for the solution, it's really pretty simple - accountability in the form of increased taxing, be it a sort of VAT on the finished product, special taxes to apply as a result of tests, or whatever. I'm sure you could come up with more effective ways, if you weren't so busy producing fallacies to support your initial stance.

 

 

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. [...]

 

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.

Agreed. I don't like UHC much, either. Adults should be accountable, alright. Starting to see a pattern here? (;

 

This whole paternalist approach to some harmful things with a clear negative effect for the collective is both stupid and inconsistent. I extended the argument for regulation of personal conducts based on societal costs to its logical next step based on mathematical "evidence", in my last post. I noticed nobody except Krez wants to touch it with a ten foot pole, and even the best he could come up with was a rebuttal with 2nd-hand smoke - which is, by the way, a pretty poor job as it doesn't adress the societal costs of obesity. How come?

 

 

I am generally extremely in favour of ending the drug war and legalising drugs (with my own ideas on the best way to achieve that, as detailed earlier).

 

But I am also extremely in favour of regulating all drug use: legalise drugs, tax them (not necessarily heavily), secure supply to licensed vendors such as pharmacies/pubs/marijuana coffee shops, limit sale to adults, spend revenue raised on educating populace on the pros and cons of the respective drugs, and provide incentives for chemists to produce safer analogues. And in the case of smoking, I personally favour banning it entirely in favour of consumption methods which are better for all involved (e.g. e-cigarettes and marijuana vapourisers).

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

 

So, you are actually pro-legalization? As in, anti-prohibition? What, you got high before posting that or it's just a flip-flop?

 

Either you failed to make your stance clear, or I completely misunderstood your meaning. If the latter, I apologize. I still maintain what I said about your inclination for regulating people's lives, especially in light of your stance about a total ban on smoking. No hard feelings, huh?

[Walsingham]

Is it weird if I say I'm a non-smoker and I actually rather like the smell of good tobacco? Must be associative, I guess.

[Volourn]

"This is incredibly wrong. You can read up on it here. That's from the American Cancers Society, but you can find a dozen other organizations saying the same thing."

 

Thiose organizations love to exaagerate ie. lie to get theitr message across. It's called a tool of brainwashing.

[Walsingham]

Do try harder, Volo.

[Gorth]

I'm sure you can see the fatal flaw in your logic!

Logic? What logic?

[Volourn]

"Do try harder, Volo."

 

Here are some of the exaggerations and myths aka LIES spread by your precious ACS and fellow gob't agencies in Kanada (and US);

 

1. 2nd hand smoking is worse than 1st hand smoking

 

2. Smoking is a guaranteed death sentence.

 

3. 3rd and even 4th habnd smoke exist.

 

STFU, ACS, STFU!

[Walsingham]

 

It's like arguing with a cat in a sack!

 

I don't think I've said a single one of those things, but you're obviously enjoyng yourself. Crack on.

[Gfted1]

Denmark starts taxing fat to curb unhealthy habits

 

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Denmark has imposed a "fat tax" on foods such as butter and oil as a way to curb unhealthy eating habits.

 

The Nordic country introduced the tax Saturday, of 16 kroner ($2.90) per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of saturated fat in a product.

 

Ole Linnet Juul, food director at Denmark's Confederation of Industries, says the tax will increase the price of a burger by around $0.15 and raise the price of a small package of butter by around $0.40.

 

The tax was approved by large majority in a parliament in March as a move to help increase the average life expectancy of Danes.

 

Denmark, like some other European countries, already has higher fees on sugar, chocolates and soft drinks, but Linnet Juul says he believes the Nordic country is the first in the world to tax fatty foods.

 

In September, Hungary introduced a new tax popularly known as the "Hamburger Law," but that only involves higher taxes on soft drinks, pastries, salty snacks and food flavorings.

 

The outgoing conservative Danish government planned the fat tax as part of a goal to increase the average life expectancy of Danes, currently below the OECD average at 79 years, by three years over the next 10 years.

 

"Higher fees on sugar, fat and tobacco is an important step on the way toward a higher average life expectancy in Denmark," health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen said when he introduced the idea in 2009, because "saturated fats can cause cardiovascular disease and cancer."

 

Linnet Juul says the tax mechanism is very complex, involving tax rates on the percentage of fat used in making a product rather than the percentage that is in the end-product.

 

As such, only the arrangements of how companies should handle the tax payments could cost Danish businesses about $28 million in the first year, he said.

 

Linnet Juul's organization is pressuring lawmakers to simplify the tax, but said he is unsure what will happen when the new, center-right government takes office.

[Malcador]

Good way to sneak some revenue in.

[Gfted1]

Absolutely. Off the top of my head, I cant think of a single occasion when higer taxation curbed use.