This blog is not about the fact that I smoke and so there’ll be no self-flagellation. I’ve done enough of that over the years but recent events have made me sick of being apologetic. I’m killing me, I do my best not to kill anyone else and I don’t talk to you if
- You’re overweight because of your over-eating and likely to suffer a heart attack
- You don’t take any exercise because you’re busy at work even though you know you need regular exercise to stay healthy
- You drive a car for completely unnecessary trips without regard to the possible consequences for the environment
- You bring up your kids in such a way that they end up in psychiatric treatment to get over it.
- You look to pay the lowest possible price on everything you buy, encouraging corporations to exploit the most vulnerable.
- You smell. Either through too much cologne or too little – anything that I find personally offensive
- You’re boring
In other words, none of us is perfect and if you are, good luck to you, but I’ll skip that fun night out with you if you don’t mind.
No, this blog is about some of the minor insanities contained in the recently-introduced anti-smoking legislation in Scotland. Before I point one out, I should also point out that I don’t typically rage against bureaucracy or so-called political correctness. As for fuel price protests – I just find it sad that the British can mobilise themselves in such a self-interested way when all of that pent-up protest power could be directed towards people with real problems.
In other words, I’m not usually Mr. Personal-liberty-at-all-costs. I happen to think ‘Society’ is a wonderful thing.
Okay, enough ranting – down to the fun.
Whilst standing in a designated glass smoking shelter (that’s nice – don’t have to get too wet) outside my work-place last week, two of our maintenance men turned up. The shelter has three fully-enclosed sides and the other side is about 50% full of glass. That lets people enter and exit the shelter, but keeps some of the Scottish wind outside. Unfortunately, the maintenance men had been instructed to knock out the 50% panel because it has become illegal to smoke in any enclosed public space. So, let’s make sure I’ve got this right. Not content with making us smoke outside (entirely reasonable), we have to have a more open smoking shelter in case a non-smoking member of the public wants to stand in it.
I was all for the ban. Smoking must be horrible if you don’t and you shouldn’t have to breathe other people’s smoke. However, when the rule starts to be punitive rather than protective, I’m afraid that I start to believe that anti-smokers should extract the rod that’s been carefully inserted up their back and get over themselves. I’m interested in why there should be *no* smoking pubs. Even specially-licensed ones with big – ‘Warning – there are bad people in here’ signs on the outside?
Maybe I want to see a ban on alcohol introduced. Some weekends I have to listen to drunken idiots walk down my city centre street shouting at the top of their voices. I find them terribly annoying and they occasionally disturb my sleep, which I need to stay healthy. I’m sure some of them also go fighting with bottles and fists, injuring others in the process. People who wouldn’t do that if they didn’t drink. Any chance of limiting the sale of alcohol or even banning it completely? Thought not.
I’ll start. 6 out of 7. Not bad, eh ?
I had a funny feeling you hadn’t passed your driving test
Back in my own smoking days I worked at a company with a designated smoking area that was next to a pathway along one side of a building on the way to another. The pathway was covered by a sloping roof attached at one side to the bulding, and therefore came under the definition of “inside” apparantly.
Translation: smokers had to stand away from the sloping roof. Fortunately this worked fine because the weather was great all year round.
Ha hah hah *wipes eyes* I kid of course. In fact because it rains so often the ashtrays had to be under the roof so that they didn’t fill up with water.
Ah, the genius of the bureauocracy.
Anyhoo, what I did miss when I gave up was the ability to get outside, away from the chatter of the office, and get ten minutes to actually think. It’s a real knock to your productivity when you can’t.
I recently worked at a major tobacco company. The only offices I have ever visited where people were allowed to smoke.
Inevitably, there was a group of healthy looking people congregated outside in the cold chatting and not smoking.
I think the logic (dare I use such a word) is that breathing in the smoke is bad for the bar staff.
Personally I’m in favour of the bans, to use David’s point if a smoker has 3 cigarette breaks (at 10 minutes each) during the working day then the smoker has done half an hour less work than their non smoking co-workers. Which I’m sure any reasonable person would agree is not all that fair.
The same can be argued for those coffee addicts that do a Starbucks run several times a day.
I think in these days of living life in fear of legal liability it is only a matter of time before alchol experiences similar stigma, and ultimate banning. Junk food, caffeinated beverages, and so on will eventually follow.
But if people are keen to do themselves an injury, be it smoking, or having a Big Mac for lunch every day, or taking up DIY microsurgery then they should be allowed to as long as their actions don’t impact the health and wellbeing of others. And as long as my tax contributions don’t have to pay for their health care!
Anonymous said…
I think the logic (dare I use such a word) is that breathing in the smoke is bad for the bar staff.
>> Erm, I think I understood that and I don’t recall saying anything that would disagree with that. How does that relate to making a smoking shelter three sided? Do you mean my comment about having smoking pubs? Wouldn’t staff have the free will to choose which establishment they work in?
Personally I’m in favour of the bans, to use David’s point if a smoker has 3 cigarette breaks (at 10 minutes each) during the working day then the smoker has done half an hour less work than their non smoking co-workers. Which I’m sure any reasonable person would agree is not all that fair.
>> Oh, classic! (and for your info – I probably have *loads* of fag breaks – maybe 8 at 6 minutes a time!) I was wondering when someone would come up with that. There’s a guy at my work that comes up with that argument on a regular basis. Guess what? He is the laziest individual I’ve met in my life and produces a fraction of the work I do. I’m sure any reasonable person would agree that his lack of effort is not all that fair. Could we please introduce a law against such laziness?
The same can be argued for those coffee addicts that do a Starbucks run several times a day.
>> Oh, please? Are you serious? I’m afraid that this type of attitude epitomises my remark about rods up people’s backs. I’ve seen people glued to their desks for 10 hours every day, producing rubbish or surfing the net ….
I think in these days of living life in fear of legal liability it is only a matter of time before alchol experiences similar stigma, and ultimate banning. Junk food, caffeinated beverages, and so on will eventually follow.
>> Oh, let’s hope so! I look forward to that.
But if people are keen to do themselves an injury, be it smoking, or having a Big Mac for lunch every day, or taking up DIY microsurgery then they should be allowed to as long as their actions don’t impact the health and wellbeing of others. And as long as my tax contributions don’t have to pay for their health care!
>> I’ve tried to be calm, but really, you should take your tax contributions and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine. a) What about the tax I pay on cigarettes? b) I think I’ll cherry-pick what I want my taxes spent on in future. I’ll request that my taxes aren’t spent on any benefits at all for single mothers – they chose to get pregnant so why should I subsidise them? Heroin addicts? Nah – they should get a grip of themselves. Diabetics who could control it by improving their diet – a complete loss, man, and a drain on my income!
Frankly, you and I will always differ. But, hey, I’m sure you’re so perfect that you don’t use a penny of my taxes. Send me your address and I’ll make out a cheque for your losses. Thanks for your compassion.
Them’s fightin’ words!
> Do you mean my comment about having smoking pubs? Wouldn’t staff have the free will to choose which establishment they work in?
I did. Their personal choice is irrelevant, it is a health and safety issue. The employer has an obligation to provide a safe working environment… no different to them supplier ear protection and hard hats on a building site.
> He is the laziest individual I’ve met in my life and produces a fraction of the work I do.
I’m sure there are loads of lazy smokers too. My point was that two people earning equal pay and putting in equal effort should share equal work loads and make equal contributions. Smoking or not smoking doesn’t make anybody put in more effort or be more productive, it is just the non smokers have half an hour extra in which to perform each day using your interval examples.
>> Oh, please? Are you serious?
I grant you I’m taking the example to the extreme, but the point is a valid one. If you are paid by your employer to do an 8 hour work day then you should be doing 8 hours worth of work, not 7.5 hours with 30 minutes spent smoking while on the clock. You wouldn’t like it much if somebody on your team downed tools to go see a movie in the middle of the day, or went shopping for an hour in addition to taking a lunch break. The smoking/coffee breaks are no different.
Of course you’re probably like the rest of us who get paid to do the 8 hour day, but end up doing more like 10 (without paid overtime) in order to meet the deadlines that our bosses impose. In that case then you’re doing what you are paid to do, and taking advantage of “flexible” working conditions so I don’t have a problem with the smoking breaks.
> I’ve seen people glued to their desks for 10 hours every day, producing rubbish or surfing the net ….
Then they should get fired or be given more to do.
> a) What about the tax I pay on cigarettes?
Not my problem, smoking is a life style choice you make knowing that the tax is built in to the prices. The potential injuries that the cigarette packaging warn you about are being self inflicted.
> I’ll request that my taxes aren’t spent on any benefits at all for single mothers – they chose to get pregnant so why should I subsidise them?
People shouldn’t have kids if they can’t afford to raise them. Doesn’t matter if they are single mothers or otherwise. It is a common sense thing.
> Heroin addicts? Nah – they should get a grip of themselves.
Like smoking, it is a life style choice. The damage done is self inflicted.
> Diabetics who could control it by improving their diet – a complete loss, man, and a drain on my income!
Depends on what has caused the diabeties. If it is a life time of eating bad food, not exercising, and generally running themselves in to the ground then again it is a life style choice, with the results being self inflicted.
If on the other hand it is the result of medical condition they couldn’t have helped having (such as child diabetics) then they should be entitled to all the medical care they need.
To sum up, my arguement is that people should be responsible for themselves and accountable for their own actions.
I don’t think it is right that they dismantle your smoking shed. But I don’t think the employer should have had to provide a smoking shed at all, because the staff making use of it should have been inside working rather than outside smoking in the first place!
I did. Their personal choice is irrelevant, it is a health and safety issue. The employer has an obligation to provide a safe working environment… no different to them supplier ear protection and hard hats on a building site.
>> Fair enough. Agreed.
I’m sure there are loads of lazy smokers too. My point was that two people earning equal pay and putting in equal effort should share equal work loads and make equal contributions.
>> And you don’t think that even with a smoke break I can make an equal contribution and handle a greater workload than others who don’t smoke? Sorry, but if that’s the case then you’re wrong and I’ve seen it just about every day of my working life.
Smoking or not smoking doesn’t make anybody put in more effort or be more productive, it is just the non smokers have half an hour extra in which to perform each day using your interval examples.
>> So let’s say I can do all of my work in half an hour’s less time than my non-smoking colleague? What’s your point then? If our productivity is equal, what difference does it make? Yes, I could produce even more work but as long as I keep to my workload (and more as it happens), what’s your argument then?
I grant you I’m taking the example to the extreme, but the point is a valid one. If you are paid by your employer to do an 8 hour work day then you should be doing 8 hours worth of work, not 7.5 hours with 30 minutes spent smoking while on the clock. You wouldn’t like it much if somebody on your team downed tools to go see a movie in the middle of the day, or went shopping for an hour in addition to taking a lunch break. The smoking/coffee breaks are no different.
>> So no smoking, coffee, lunch breaks? No walking along the corridoor to talk to a friend? Perhaps you could share with me what is an acceptable break? Actually, maybe you sit and produce from the moment you step into the office until you leave. I doubt it, but maybe you do. What’s more likely is that you see *your* breaks as acceptable and *other people’s* as unacceptable. I may have the opposite view.
Of course you’re probably like the rest of us who get paid to do the 8 hour day, but end up doing more like 10 (without paid overtime) in order to meet the deadlines that our bosses impose.
>> Not really, I just work faster and more efficiently in my experience. The truth is I find plenty of time to do what I’m asked, plus some extra, plus smoke and eat lunch. Maybe my bosses are very generous (although I’ve worked at a lot of sites so there’s definitely a pattern there) or maybe I’m just good at my job and can produce the goods without petty sniping about my colleagues personal habits.
In that case then you’re doing what you are paid to do, and taking advantage of “flexible” working conditions so I don’t have a problem with the smoking breaks.
>> I always do what I’m paid to do. If I have too much work to have time for a cigarette break then I won’t take one. If I have spare time, I might sit about being up tight about the breaks my colleagues are taking. Maybe not.
> a) What about the tax I pay on cigarettes?
Not my problem, smoking is a life style choice you make knowing that the tax is built in to the prices.
>> But the fact is, I pay more tax than a non-smoker as a result (through choice, I agree). You were the one who brought up taxes and the burden on the health service. I was pointing out that I contribute more to the government pot than a smoker. That’s an indisputable fact. I suspect it doesn’t entirely cover the additional health service spend from smoking-related health problems, but you can’t simply pretend that the extra contribution isn’t there.
People shouldn’t have kids if they can’t afford to raise them. Doesn’t matter if they are single mothers or otherwise. It is a common sense thing.
>> And that’s why we’ll always differ. Do you think I don’t have the same common sense? What I think you’re missing is a wider appreciation of the complexities of human emotions and personality. But that’s just my opinion.
Like smoking, it is a life style choice. The damage done is self inflicted.
>> Really? Thank you for educating me – I’d missed that one.
Depends on what has caused the diabeties. If it is a life time of eating bad food, not exercising, and generally running themselves in to the ground then again it is a life style choice, with the results being self inflicted.
>> Again, this is where I disagree. I could agree with you that their illness is entirely self-inflicted but if you’re suggesting for even a moment that they shouldn’t be treated as a result, then that offends me and I think it’s incredibly shallow.
To sum up, my arguement is that people should be responsible for themselves and accountable for their own actions.
>> In general, I’m tempted to agree with you. The natural extension of that concept however is that you really shouldn’t admit someone to hospital with chronic liver disease because they caused it through alcohol consumption. You should let them die. It’s justifiable on an intellectual basis but completely lacking in compassion.
I don’t think it is right that they dismantle your smoking shed. But I don’t think the employer should have had to provide a smoking shed at all, because the staff making use of it should have been inside working rather than outside smoking in the first place!
>> Do you know what? Think what you like. We’re so far apart that we’ll never agree and you’re precisely the kind of person with a rod up their back that I was referring to in the original blog.
>> Personally I’m in favour of the bans, to use David’s point if a smoker has 3 cigarette breaks (at 10 minutes each) during the working day then the smoker has done half an hour less work than their non smoking co-workers. Which I’m sure any reasonable person would agree is not all that fair.
That’s the exact opposite of the point I made, which is that as a knowledge worker a lot of my time is spent thinking, planning, weighing options, and such like. Modern office management theory dictates that the best place for me to do this is in a cube surrounded by everyone else’s ringing phones, conversations, sports analyses, plans for the weekend, email-arrival chimes, and vulnerable at any time to an unannounced drop-in by a co-worker.
I’m sure that there are a lot of other office jobs where this kind of crap doesn’t matter but mine surely isn’t one of them, and a ten minute break out in the open air, apparantly gazing off into space with a glazed look is worth two hours in a noisy office.
What of those who smoke and chat? Non-smokers will easily manage to waste as much time as smokers, but they’re chatting in the office at the expense of others who are trying to concentrate.
To wrap it all up, very few people can concentrate for the whole day without a break, and a ten minuter now and then is an essential part of work. I just wish that everyone would take it somewhere else.
> And you don’t think that even with a smoke break I can make an equal contribution and handle a greater workload than others who don’t smoke?
I’m not questioning whether you’re a star at what you do or not. Just that without the smoke breaks you would be even more productive for your employer.
> So no smoking, coffee, lunch breaks?
Lunch breaks are usually mandated by employment contract or by law. The actual ability to take them on a day to day basis however seems to depend on the demands of the job.
Lunch breaks however are accessible to all staff. Smoke breaks are limited to those workers who smoke. Coffee breaks are limited to those workers who drink Starbucks or whatever. My arguement was that whatever breaks are taken should be equally accessible by all… but that shouldn’t mean that all workers need to smoke in order to get several breaks during the working day.
> No walking along the corridoor to talk to a friend? Perhaps you could share with me what is an acceptable break?
From a productivity point of view time spent not work is time spent not earning wages. It doesn’t matter whether the ten minute breaks are spent smoking or spent talking to friends about the football results on the weekend. The point is your employer is paying you to work not to have breaks.
> Not really, I just work faster and more efficiently in my experience. The truth is I find plenty of time to do what I’m asked, plus some extra, plus smoke and eat lunch.
Then you are doing all that is asked of you, earning your wages, and not distracting your co-workers. I have no problem with that. Your employer therefore either doesn’t need someone with your skills and abilities to perform your job (as you are able to do it in less time than they have alloted) or they should be giving you more to do in order to keep you occupied for the remainder of the day.
> That’s an indisputable fact. I suspect it doesn’t entirely cover the additional health service spend from smoking-related health problems, but you can’t simply pretend that the extra contribution isn’t there.
Point well made, but it actually supports my arguement. You should be paying more for your health care than a non smoker because you are most likely going to have greater need for the health services provided due to the side effects of what you are doing to yourself. Ditto for the heroin user and the self inflicted diabetic in the other examples you cited.
I think there should be a standard provision of health care to the general public, but that those who choose to do harm to themselves and therefore use more than their share of that general pot through self inflicted injuries or ailments should have to pay for their additional treatment.
> And that’s why we’ll always differ. Do you think I don’t have the same common sense?
I didn’t know you were a single mother 😉. Seriously though I think people who can’t afford to have kids shouldn’t have them. Our job as parents is to provide the best for our kids, and if we are unable to feed, clothe, and educate them adequitely then we shouldn’t have had them in the first place.
That said of course those kids that are born in to the care of irresponsible parents should receive some kind of assistance… it isn’t the fault of the kid that their parent(s) are irresponsible after all. The tricky part is to ensure that the assistance is actually accessible by the kid and not just given to the irresponsible parent who may choose to smoke it or shoot it up or bet it the ponies instead of using it to meet the basic needs of the child.
> I could agree with you that their illness is entirely self-inflicted but if you’re suggesting for even a moment that they shouldn’t be treated as a result, then that offends me and I think it’s incredibly shallow.
Again I’m not saying they shouldn’t receive treatment, just that if their illness is a result of their own actions… knowingly doing something to themselves that they know will harm them… then they should have to pay more for the treatment than somebody who is requiring treatment through no fault of their own.
> Modern office management theory dictates that the best place for me to do this is in a cube surrounded by everyone else’s ringing phones, conversations, sports analyses, plans for the weekend, email-arrival chimes, and vulnerable at any time to an unannounced drop-in by a co-worker.
I agree, cubicle farms and Dilbert like working environments are counter productive. It is like working in a train station a lot of the time. The employer however is choosing to pack their workers in like cattle, and to wear the reduced productivity as a result. Given that they pay the wages this is their choice to make. A worker can only be as productive as their abilities (something they can control individually to some extent), environment (something outside their control), and work ethic (this time fully in the worker’s control) allow.
> To wrap it all up, very few people can concentrate for the whole day without a break, and a ten minuter now and then is an essential part of work.
Agreed. The ten minute breaks should just be accessible to everyone, not just the smokers. They should be written in to employment contracts as something the worker is entitled to, just like lunch breaks.
Jeez – a bit of a hornets’ nest here then..
One point on the topic of breaks that surprisingly hasn’t been mentioned yet (although it’s probably just a UK thang, there may be a US equiv)
The HSE (Health and Safety Executive) provides a series of workplace guidelines. One of these is on the use of VDUs (now there’s an archaic term not heard around these parts very often).
I quote from their documentation:
“Most jobs provide opportunities to take a break from the screen, eg to do filing or photocopying. Make use of them.
If there are no such natural breaks in your job, your employer should plan for you to have rest breaks. Frequent short breaks are better than fewer long ones.”
Now let’s face it.. there’s not much about our job that’s not done by computer.. so Doug – there is absolutely nothing unfair about taking regular breaks (out in the smoking shelter, down in the canteen, in the break-out area or anywhere else on-site for that matter).
Granted, that’s a very specialist view (i.e for those of us that use computers all day, every day), and doesn’t address the more general situation.
All that said, I’ve just remembered I’m (a couple of years) overdue for an eye test. I’ll call up and book an appointment during one of my short, but frequent breaks on Monday.
>> Agreed. The ten minute breaks should just be accessible to everyone, not just the smokers. They should be written in to employment contracts as something the worker is entitled to, just like lunch breaks.
I don’t think it makes the slightest difference — as Mike says if there are no natural breaks then the employer is generally required to supply them (and if they don’t then smokers are going to go without anyway), and in all other cases people will find the time to chat and socialise anyway. The notion that people will work like robots and won’t take significant pauses in their work to talk about other stuff, or just do some internet thing, is completely wrong.
Wow! I couldn’t read through all the posts here for the smoke! 😄
As a former smoker, I’d just like to add that those “frequent” smoke breaks I took were *not* non-productive nor did they result in less productivity time than my non-smoking co-workers. In the US many companies have a break policy as follows:
A) One 15-minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon.
B) A minimum of a 30 minute lunch break which is *supposed* to be taken away from your desk.
SO, my choice was to take my 15 minute breaks and break them up into 2-5 minute smoke breaks outside. *MY* choice – I was entitled to the time so I was taking it. It gave me the opportunity to get away from the computer for short periods of time every hour, which was actually *HEALTHY* for my wrists and eyes.
Currently there is legislation in a US city in California (forget which one) which will actually BAN any form of public smoking (PUBLIC being anyplace outside of your home or car). Being a parent, I have never smoked in a vehicle with kids in it. In fact, I never used to smoke around my kids at all (filthy habit I didn’t want THEM starting as it is so hard to break it). Now going on 4+ years without smoking, I can say I am certainly better off financially (cigarettes here in the states are now $4+ per pack or better) and health-wise (can actually RUN a block if I have to, and can walk without getting winded; can even go back to ice skating again, which means maybe even ICE HOCKEY!). I have no problem with folks who want to smoke – have at it, I say, it’s your body. I have the ability to choose where to stand and what pubs to frequent, and where I live there is no smoking whatsoever in public places so restaraunts are now safe for my kids. Touchy subject, to be sure, but it ain’t cut and dried either way. There are points to be had on both sides, and non-smokers really need to understand that quitting smoking is like quitting heroin or crack – easier said than done.
Virtually anything can be rationalized as being good for the collective. Some of the earliest proponents of governments acting in ways designed to be beneficial to society as a whole were absolutely cruel to individuals. If the health of the whole is paramount, then killing retarded children is easy to justify. A government inclined to be adverse of the ‘cost to the collective’ of my personal choice may feel free to legislate those choices away. Why couldn’t parliament pass forced national aerobics or ban sugar completely? Internment camps for the slightly overweight. What is there to stop them?
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, these were meant to codify the limits of the power of the governors have over the governed. They were meant to say, “Stop! You have the right to govern but that right is not unlimited.”
I know, a priori, that my strict constructionist, constitutionalist views are bizarre to likes of modern Europeans. But just tell me where the line is. Tell me what the government is not allowed to control, what are they not allowed to regulate, where does the ability for the state to tell me what I have to do end and my rights to do as I please begin? Don’t say sex. That is highly regulated.
I’m a non-smoker but worked with a programmer for 10 years who had all of his best ideas, cig’ in hand, in the bike shed.
If ever we were stuck on a tricky problem for any length of time we’d send him for a nicotine break and invariably he’d return with some answers.
You may stop typing but don’t necessarily stop thinking.
There’s a lesson for me here. If I shut up for long enough then others will make comments far more articulate than mine.
Cheers – particularly as some people agree with some of what I’m saying 😉
I suppose the consistent point across a few of the comments is that I never stop thinking about my work even when I’m outside and it’s very true that I often come up with solutions in that blasted shelter. That’s why I prefer it when there’s no-one there – it’s a break, not a social event!
Cheers
Congratulations, Bill S, now that you “can even go back to ice skating again, which means maybe even ICE HOCKEY!”. As a keen hockey player, I can’t think of a more compelling reason to quit smoking. Not sure that will be sufficient to keep Doug out of his smoking shelter though, 3-sided or otherwise.
Scotland must be an absolute paradise if parliament has no more urgent issue to consider than saving the pub-smoker from his own depravity. The very thought that someone, somewhere derives satisfaction from an impure act drives the new puritans into a drooling frenzy. Idiots.
Congratulations, Bill S, now that you “can even go back to ice skating again, which means maybe even ICE HOCKEY!”. As a keen hockey player, I can’t think of a more compelling reason to quit smoking. Not sure that will be sufficient to keep Doug out of his smoking shelter though, 3-sided or otherwise.
Scotland must be an absolute paradise if parliament has no more urgent issue to consider than saving the pub-smoker from his own depravity. The very thought that someone, somewhere derives satisfaction from an impure act drives the new puritans into a drooling frenzy. Idiots.
Ah, politics and hockey – like a flame to the Spence moth 😉
Ah, politics and hockey – like a flame to the Spence moth 😉
Get a Google Group, you lot.
Where are your scores ?
Get a Google Group, you lot.
Where are your scores ?
-brady- said….
If the health of the whole is paramount, then killing retarded children is easy to justify.
Not for nothing, but where the hell did that come from? How could you possibly justify the euthanizing of anyone who may not be mentally (or for that matter physically) capable of understanding anything? How does that affect the health of the “community” as a whole?
You’re way off base dude.
There are certain “inalienable” rights my friend, which happen to include “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. You are not guaranteed the right to smoke wherever you like, or the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the right to consume alcohol wherever or whenever you choose.
The needs of the one can sometimes outweigh the needs of the many – but it isn’t always a guarantee (nor is it the other way around either).
Sorry Doug, but I couldn’t let that one go by without comment.
-brady- said….
If the health of the whole is paramount, then killing retarded children is easy to justify.
Not for nothing, but where the hell did that come from? How could you possibly justify the euthanizing of anyone who may not be mentally (or for that matter physically) capable of understanding anything? How does that affect the health of the “community” as a whole?
You’re way off base dude.
There are certain “inalienable” rights my friend, which happen to include “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. You are not guaranteed the right to smoke wherever you like, or the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the right to consume alcohol wherever or whenever you choose.
The needs of the one can sometimes outweigh the needs of the many – but it isn’t always a guarantee (nor is it the other way around either).
Sorry Doug, but I couldn’t let that one go by without comment.
“And as long as my tax contributions don’t have to pay for their health care!”
Why exactly the health care costs of a smoker likely to live until, say 67, are higher than the ones of a non-smoker likely to live until, say 80? Whoâs to say the smoker is not the one paying for the non-smoker?
“And as long as my tax contributions don’t have to pay for their health care!”
Why exactly the health care costs of a smoker likely to live until, say 67, are higher than the ones of a non-smoker likely to live until, say 80? Whoâs to say the smoker is not the one paying for the non-smoker?
Gabe said…
“And as long as my tax contributions don’t have to pay for their health care!”
Why exactly the health care costs of a smoker likely to live until, say 67, are higher than the ones of a non-smoker likely to live until, say 80? Whoâs to say the smoker is not the one paying for the non-smoker?
Easy – smokers STATISTICALLY wind up using more of the health care resources as they tend to have more incidents of significantly worse diseases (many different types of cancer, amongst others). So they statistically have a higher incidence of accessing more expensive health care options. At least that’s what we’re TOLD anyway.
I’m sure there are obvious exceptions. ;-D
Gabe said…
“And as long as my tax contributions don’t have to pay for their health care!”
Why exactly the health care costs of a smoker likely to live until, say 67, are higher than the ones of a non-smoker likely to live until, say 80? Whoâs to say the smoker is not the one paying for the non-smoker?
Easy – smokers STATISTICALLY wind up using more of the health care resources as they tend to have more incidents of significantly worse diseases (many different types of cancer, amongst others). So they statistically have a higher incidence of accessing more expensive health care options. At least that’s what we’re TOLD anyway.
I’m sure there are obvious exceptions. ;-D
First, I didn’t say that I could justify Euthanasia, I said that those who are collectivist can, and have. If this concept is bizarre to you, maybe a refresher Western Civ class is in order. The Romans, Spartans, and other ancient Greeks would leave babies with defects to die. Look here for more information on how some perceive this can “affect the health of the “community” as a whole”.
The rights we have “include” Life, Liberty, etc. They are not limited to those.
When the American Constitutional Convention was meeting there were those who objected to the Bill of Rights, not because they thought they were a bad idea, but they foretold of a day when some idiot would believe that these 10 amendments were an exhaustive list of the rights we find to be inalienable.
We agree, I do not have the right to smoke or drink alcohol anywhere I want. Your private property is, well, yours. You can invite me into your home and you can kick me out if I smoke. I never claimed to have an unrestrained right, the question is does the government have the right to regulate where I smoke. If you believe that all power flows from the people, if you believe that the people have codified the power it gives to the government in the (a) constitution, if you believe that all laws from that government are derived from the powers enumerated in the (a) constitution, then we can continue. On the other hand, if you believe that merely the suggestion that a law is beneficial is in and of itself justification for the laws passage, then we have to start at somewhere much earlier than the minutiae of smoking bans.
As far as the assertion that there is a net transfer from non-smokers to smokers, you’ve bought the hype liberal governments are selling.
First, I didn’t say that I could justify Euthanasia, I said that those who are collectivist can, and have. If this concept is bizarre to you, maybe a refresher Western Civ class is in order. The Romans, Spartans, and other ancient Greeks would leave babies with defects to die. Look here for more information on how some perceive this can “affect the health of the “community” as a whole”.
The rights we have “include” Life, Liberty, etc. They are not limited to those.
When the American Constitutional Convention was meeting there were those who objected to the Bill of Rights, not because they thought they were a bad idea, but they foretold of a day when some idiot would believe that these 10 amendments were an exhaustive list of the rights we find to be inalienable.
We agree, I do not have the right to smoke or drink alcohol anywhere I want. Your private property is, well, yours. You can invite me into your home and you can kick me out if I smoke. I never claimed to have an unrestrained right, the question is does the government have the right to regulate where I smoke. If you believe that all power flows from the people, if you believe that the people have codified the power it gives to the government in the (a) constitution, if you believe that all laws from that government are derived from the powers enumerated in the (a) constitution, then we can continue. On the other hand, if you believe that merely the suggestion that a law is beneficial is in and of itself justification for the laws passage, then we have to start at somewhere much earlier than the minutiae of smoking bans.
As far as the assertion that there is a net transfer from non-smokers to smokers, you’ve bought the hype liberal governments are selling.
BTW, I wasn’t name calling. Just reporting what the newly formed state of Georgia said.
— A reference to an early West Wing episode.
SAM
In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the
Bill of Rights. One member of the Georgia delegation had to stay by way of opposition:
âIf we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people
are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer. The framers knew…â
HARRISON
Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn?
SAM
I wasnât calling you a fool, sir, the brand new state of Georgia was.
BTW, I wasn’t name calling. Just reporting what the newly formed state of Georgia said.
— A reference to an early West Wing episode.
SAM
In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the
Bill of Rights. One member of the Georgia delegation had to stay by way of opposition:
âIf we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people
are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no longer. The framers knew…â
HARRISON
Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn?
SAM
I wasnât calling you a fool, sir, the brand new state of Georgia was.
-brady- said…
First, I didn’t say that I could justify Euthanasia, I said that those who are collectivist can, and have. If this concept is bizarre to you, maybe a refresher Western Civ class is in order. The Romans, Spartans, and other ancient Greeks would leave babies with defects to die. Look here for more information on how some perceive this can “affect the health of the “community” as a whole”.
Point being, what has that got to do with the discussion at hand? You arbitrarily selected the mentally handicapped as an example – I am asking why. It has nothing to do with smoking and/or the right to take a cigarette break, which seems to be what this discussion was about.
The rights we have “include” Life, Liberty, etc. They are not limited to those.
And I didn’t say otherwise – go back and read my post again, please (maybe for the first time?).
On the other hand, if you believe that merely the suggestion that a law is beneficial is in and of itself justification for the laws passage, then we have to start at somewhere much earlier than the minutiae of smoking bans.
It is unfortunate that our elected legislators have pushed through numerous laws that not only are not beneficial but border on the absurd. Yet they are our elected representatives, so we have de facto given them the power. This is why we as a nation need to be more connected with each other, and more selective in our representatives.
We also need to remember that we have the right to stand up as a whole and scream foul when the morons do something like that. To sit idly by and whine, yet do nothing, accomplishes nothing.
As far as the assertion that there is a net transfer from non-smokers to smokers, you’ve bought the hype liberal governments are selling.
Sorry, I must have missed that – where did I indicate that there was a net transfer from non-smokers to smokers?
Again, please remember that I am a former smoker who has no interest in converting others – it is a personal choice each person makes.
You may want to get down off your horse for a moment and walk with the commoners. It’s a whole different perspective down here.
-brady- said…
First, I didn’t say that I could justify Euthanasia, I said that those who are collectivist can, and have. If this concept is bizarre to you, maybe a refresher Western Civ class is in order. The Romans, Spartans, and other ancient Greeks would leave babies with defects to die. Look here for more information on how some perceive this can “affect the health of the “community” as a whole”.
Point being, what has that got to do with the discussion at hand? You arbitrarily selected the mentally handicapped as an example – I am asking why. It has nothing to do with smoking and/or the right to take a cigarette break, which seems to be what this discussion was about.
The rights we have “include” Life, Liberty, etc. They are not limited to those.
And I didn’t say otherwise – go back and read my post again, please (maybe for the first time?).
On the other hand, if you believe that merely the suggestion that a law is beneficial is in and of itself justification for the laws passage, then we have to start at somewhere much earlier than the minutiae of smoking bans.
It is unfortunate that our elected legislators have pushed through numerous laws that not only are not beneficial but border on the absurd. Yet they are our elected representatives, so we have de facto given them the power. This is why we as a nation need to be more connected with each other, and more selective in our representatives.
We also need to remember that we have the right to stand up as a whole and scream foul when the morons do something like that. To sit idly by and whine, yet do nothing, accomplishes nothing.
As far as the assertion that there is a net transfer from non-smokers to smokers, you’ve bought the hype liberal governments are selling.
Sorry, I must have missed that – where did I indicate that there was a net transfer from non-smokers to smokers?
Again, please remember that I am a former smoker who has no interest in converting others – it is a personal choice each person makes.
You may want to get down off your horse for a moment and walk with the commoners. It’s a whole different perspective down here.
I am smoker not by chioce but it is an addiction. I do not mind the smoking ban at all.I am happy to go out and smoke outside> However When we are told from hollyrood that we are ban from smoking in public places then they should practise what they preach> do u know the only legal place to smoke in scotland is in the scottish parliment>they have a smoking room still to this day inside the walls of hollyrood> I think it is not right if we cant do it and they say it is illegal to do so then they should be held accountable for having a smoke room within the walls of the parliment that preached to us they are doing it for our own welfare> i think it should be ban there too
I am smoker not by chioce but it is an addiction. I do not mind the smoking ban at all.I am happy to go out and smoke outside> However When we are told from hollyrood that we are ban from smoking in public places then they should practise what they preach> do u know the only legal place to smoke in scotland is in the scottish parliment>they have a smoking room still to this day inside the walls of hollyrood> I think it is not right if we cant do it and they say it is illegal to do so then they should be held accountable for having a smoke room within the walls of the parliment that preached to us they are doing it for our own welfare> i think it should be ban there too