1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back? (view source)
Revision as of 18:57, July 22, 2008
, 18:57, July 22, 2008→Comments
==Comments==
==Comments==
The current legal measures to curtail smokers from using their "drug of choice" in public settings stems from the "second-hand smoke" issue, (which is ''far'' from "[http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ settled science").] That smoking directly effects smokers is not disputed and there is good reason to restrict smoking ''based solely'' on such direct effects: the question then becomes, whether the power of the state should be brought to bear on people who, well aware of the dangers and effects of smoking, ''choose'' to smoke regardless.<br>If the science of second hand smoke is shaky then any laws passed upon such science is equally suspect as the government which passes such laws '''should''' only try to maintain the law(s) if the original intent was to save lives from the effects of second-hand smoke. Should the "science" dissipate like...smoke...then the laws "protect" no-one save the '''power of the state over the individual''', which is anathema to Conservatives. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:25, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
The current legal measures to curtail smokers from using their "drug of choice" in public settings stems from the "second-hand smoke" issue, (which is ''far'' from "[http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ settled science").] That smoking directly effects smokers is not disputed and there is good reason to restrict smoking ''based solely'' on such direct effects: the question then becomes, whether the power of the state should be brought to bear on people who, well aware of the dangers and effects of smoking, ''choose'' to smoke regardless.<br>If the science of second hand smoke is shaky then any laws passed upon such science is equally suspect as the government which passes such laws '''should''' only try to maintain the law(s) if the original intent was to save lives from the effects of second-hand smoke. Should the "science" dissipate like...smoke...then the laws "protect" no-one save the '''power of the state over the individual''', which is anathema to Conservatives. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:25, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
:That's a fair point, Margery, but I didn't want to restrict the debate to being only about second-hand smoke, but about any and all aspects of smoking. This offers the broadest range of input, your comments included.
:As for second-hand smoke, there seems to be some debate about the ''degree'' to which it's harmful, but I'm surprised that there's debate as to whether it ''is'' harmful. If I go to home with smokers, my clothes smell like an ashtray after a few hours, so there's no doubt that those particles are getting into my lungs as well. When someone smokes nearby, even outdoors at a cookout, my eyes water and it triggers a cough if the smoke blows my way. What smokers do privately is their business, but I shouldn't have to be impacted by it, and it's the very nature of smoke to travel and affect an area, not an individual.
:Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness works both ways, so just as we accept restrictions on playing music annoyingly loud in open, public spaces, there's nothing un-American about restrictions on a practice like smoking that can be equally annoying in open, public spaces. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:57, 22 July 2008 (EDT)