Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(HPR)   Should the government be able to regulate our unhealthy lifestyle choices? Harvard University looks at the impact of smoking bans   (hprsite.squarespace.com) divider line 663
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

12728 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2007 at 9:59 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



663 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-17 08:28:25 AM  
Cigarette and alcohol taxes that cover related expenses (like medical costs and drunk driving) are certainly reasonable, but as long as the societal costs are covered I don't think the state should prohibit activities that are not necessarily harmful to others.
 
2007-03-17 08:31:52 AM  
Generally, I'm kind of mixed on this. While I prefer non-smoking environments, and, before NJ enacted a smoking ban, avoided restaurants or diners that had smoking sections (many had already become no-smoking), part of me thinks it should be up to an individual business to make the no-smoking call. If I was a business owner I'd ban smoking due to wanting to avoid cleaning up the smells and other residue of smoking.

The key factor revolves around "where one's decision to smoke inhibits another's freedom to eschew second hand smoke." If someone wants to slowly kill themselves with cigarettes they shouldn't be able to infringe on the rights of others who choose not to follow them down their path of doom. What a lot of smoking ban foes forget is that non-smokers have rights too, and that includes the right not to be subjected to someone else's posion.

If a fat person sitting next to me eats too much, my health is not affected. If a person next to me lights up, my health is immediately affected (not to mention my ability to enjoy whatever I'm doing), especially if I'm in a restaurant or baseball park where I can't get away from the smoke (or the smoke is blowing in my face).
 
2007-03-17 08:43:00 AM  
FTFA: Americans typically view smoking as an individual choice that needs to be respected just like the myriad of other harmful behaviors society tolerates.

Lost all credibility by the third sentence.
 
2007-03-17 08:43:00 AM  
Should the government be able to regulate our unhealthy lifestyle choices?

No.

People should be free to engage in whatever stupidity they choose to.

However, nobody should have to pay for anybody else's stupidity.

Anything less than that is not a free society.

/libertarian
 
2007-03-17 08:47:46 AM  
submitter: Should the government be able to regulate our unhealthy lifestyle choices?

Who else is there to take care of us? To watch out for us?
 
2007-03-17 09:18:01 AM  
Well I'd like to say that I'm a smoker, and I agree with everyone else here in saying that a non-smoker should not be affected by second hand smoke... I don't smoke around other people, I don't smoke in restarants, even if they allow it, I realize smoking is a bad decision, and affects my health... but i try to minimize it's effect on others. If the gubment deems it necessary to ban smoking in a public place then i won't disagree...

I think it is a little asinine to ban smoking in bars though
/what's next? no drinking no talking!
//george carlin
 
2007-03-17 09:42:37 AM  
Finnley Wren: Lost all credibility by the third sentence.

by stating a fact?
 
2007-03-17 09:47:17 AM  
turns out the pubs in england have started to made more money because they sell food instead of people smoking.

Louisiana's ban started this year, and i like it, however, i wish we could ban it from campus, or at least have smoking zones, away from eveything.
 
2007-03-17 10:00:48 AM  
cmunic8r99: by stating a fact?

Not a smoker, are you.
 
2007-03-17 10:04:09 AM  
I have no problem with smoking bans in hospitals, clinics, government buildings, etc...

However, in restaurants, bars, stores, etc... let the business decide the policy and the consumer determine the choice. The free market will take care of the rest.
 
2007-03-17 10:06:16 AM  
Dont forget a fat tax for fat farks..
 
2007-03-17 10:06:44 AM  
But, as for the people putting their families into debt buying products from retail giants that keep them sedimentary at home is looked upon as the American way of life...

Wise up people, interest groups don't have your well-being in focus.
 
2007-03-17 10:08:14 AM  
Big Government is not something to Fear
www.prisonplanet.com
 
2007-03-17 10:11:59 AM  
Americans typically view smoking as an individual choice that needs to be respected just like the myriad of other harmful behaviors society tolerates.

Liberty. Individual responsibility. Yeah, we're funny that way.
 
2007-03-17 10:16:48 AM  
Wow just wow. 3 smoker bashing threads in one week. Was there a fire sale on those this week?
 
2007-03-17 10:18:15 AM  
No, they shouldn't, but they should protect the lifestyle choices of those who choose not to engage in said activities. They shouldn't stop people from smoking in general but those of us who choose not to smoke shouldn't be subject to the dangerous second hand smoke of others. Go fire up in your house or your car or your backyard, I don't care, but in a public, indoor place I shouldn't have to put up w people smoking.
 
2007-03-17 10:19:08 AM  
Well, before somebody gets around to saying that they'll assault somebody who's assaulting them with second hand smoke, I'll let you know to feel free. I will then continue to use a smoking equivalent to your face until it caves in.
 
2007-03-17 10:19:49 AM  
I don't understand it. The government is allowed to restrict other toxins and poisons seeping into the air, so why shouldn't they be allowed to nix your silly habit which has been proven time and time again that it kills others?
 
2007-03-17 10:20:25 AM  
The Feds won't ban smoking there is to much money involved.
 
2007-03-17 10:22:40 AM  
damageddude If a fat person sitting next to me eats too much, my health is not affected. If a person next to me lights up, my health is immediately affected (not to mention my ability to enjoy whatever I'm doing), especially if I'm in a restaurant or baseball park where I can't get away from the smoke (or the smoke is blowing in my face).

That's absurd. You have 100% control over which restaurants you patronize. Go to one that doesn't allow it. In the end, this--like most left-wing pet projects--is all about telling people what to do, since smoking in restaurants doesn't affect anyone who doesn't have a choice. And ultimately, second-hand smoke in a restaurant just smells bad. It isn't a health concern to customers. (Maybe to employees over a very long period of time, but that's a different matter, and they have a choice as well).

There is a restaurant/bar near my house called "The Smokey Tavern", which just went out of business (after the Florida smoking ban a couple of years ago). How were you being affected by smoking in "The Smokey Tavern"? Or, perhaps, were you NOT affected by it because you never went into "The Smokey Tavern"?
 
2007-03-17 10:24:33 AM  
damageddude: especially if I'm in a restaurant or baseball park where I can't get away from the smoke (or the smoke is blowing in my face).

Those farking armed guards at Chili's are tough hombres.
 
2007-03-17 10:26:45 AM  
ince smoking in restaurants doesn't affect anyone who doesn't have a choice

That's nonsensical. When worker's rights regulations were first established it became clear that "person x is free to just work somewhere safer" was a crappy argument. Workplaces need to be places where an employees health is not severely compromised, even if he or she CAN possibly find work elsewhere. And second hand smoke doesn't just smell bad. It's demonstrably unhealthy.
 
2007-03-17 10:27:38 AM  
See, I don't care if you smoke yourself to death. As long as you're not blowing said smoke in my face as you do it. Much like I don't care if you drink yourself under the table, as long as you don't wrap your SUV around a Miata and kill other people after you do it.

But if you're gonna be a prick bastard about it, I'm gonna call you on it. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face, and your right to smoke up the air ends where people who don't want smoky air have to breathe it. I don't care if cigarette smoke has medicinal properties, you don't get to choose whether or not I breathe it.
 
2007-03-17 10:27:46 AM  
"The world wants to ban smoking"
Yeah, right, every morning the first thing I do is ask myself how I might change myself to make "the world" happier because it really matters to me what "the world" wants.
 
2007-03-17 10:28:10 AM  
Libtard college in favor of oppressing the people? How farking surprising!

FTFA:

Dr. Healton replied, "obesity does not harm the health of others."

Remember that quote, liberal oppressing douchebags, when they slap the Big Mac out of your mouth because your fat ass is costing someone else proper health care. The day is coming.

Libtards! Tolerance for everybody except people they don't like! Biatching about loss of "liberties" while they press to take away yours! Is there anything a libtard can't do?!!

Farking America these days. We used to be a society of self-made people. Now we're a society of whiny farking douchebags.
 
2007-03-17 10:29:13 AM  
If I never had to breathe the smoke from smokers, then I'd say it's a personal choice and I don't care.

However, my lungs are unable to function around that crap so yes, it should be regulated to your own home where it doesn't affect others.
 
2007-03-17 10:29:34 AM  
"Any government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."
.Thomas Jefferson

Government-regulated health? Be careful what you wish for.
 
2007-03-17 10:29:35 AM  
Can you take illicit drugs? Does it harm anyone else but yourself?

This argument is moot until they legalize drugs that aren't a hazard to people around you. Smoking can suck it.

This is purely a logical argument, I don't support people killing themselves.
 
2007-03-17 10:29:49 AM  
mutilato: When worker's rights regulations were first established it became clear that "person x is free to just work somewhere safer" was a crappy argument.

That'd be because there was nowhere safer.
 
2007-03-17 10:33:01 AM  
Yes the government must pass laws to control our behavior
we can not be trusted to do what is best.They should
force companies to do things they do not normally do
so the people are protected from the evil profit machines
that they are.I think they should just take all our money
and issue credits based on good behavior.

As you allow govt. to take away any liberties based on
your personal likes and dislikes it will not be long
before all liberties are gone.

Happy thoughts citizen
 
2007-03-17 10:33:22 AM  
The topic may generate a lengthy thread here, but TFA read like a Bart Simpson oral report.
 
2007-03-17 10:34:54 AM  
No, and we should cut their argument off at the source by eliminating taxpayer funded health care. Telling someone they can't eat what they want is just as bad as telling them that they must pay for someone else's health care.
 
bse
2007-03-17 10:35:01 AM  
The problem I see here is that almost every anti-smoking bigot that raves about how we are destroying there health, drives a car.

So biatch and moan all you want about having to walk by me smoking, outside, on a windy day, 30 ft from the building entrance. Especially after you just spent an hour in gridlock stuck behind some fat assed housewife in her h2 sucking her exhaust fumes.

Suck on my long hard carbon imprint biatches.
 
2007-03-17 10:35:06 AM  
I'm going to lobby the government to make Porsche dealerships lower the price on a 911T to $5K. It is my right as an American to own a 911T, but the Porsche dealership won't let me have one on my terms. Those farkers.
 
2007-03-17 10:37:08 AM  
damageddude: If a fat person sitting next to me eats too much, my healthcare costs/system is not are affected

Link
see more at thread
img65.imageshack.us
 
2007-03-17 10:37:21 AM  
PoopStain: Remember that quote, liberal oppressing douchebags, when they slap the Big Mac out of your mouth because your fat ass is costing someone else proper health care. The day is coming.

Libtards! Tolerance for everybody except people they don't like! Biatching about loss of "liberties" while they press to take away yours! Is there anything a libtard can't do?!!

Farking America these days. We used to be a society of self-made people. Now we're a society of whiny farking douchebags.


This isn't about right vs. left. It's about US versus the POLITICIANS who want to control us.
 
2007-03-17 10:40:01 AM  
Dear smokers:

If you're blowing smoke in my general vicinity and I have to breathe it, in a place where I have a right to be, you're being a dick, pure and simple. Since you clearly are unwilling or unable to choose not being a dick, then apparently a law is necessary to keep you from being a dick.

Do I buy second hand smoke as harmful? Out in the open, it's probably not. That doesn't mean, as an otherwise healthy individual, that I need to have my sinuses itch, my clothes smell like I've been in a shiat fire, and be generally miserable because you are an ill-mannered asshole.

Go kill yourself in private, but don't annoy me while you're on your slow suicide.

/libertarian on most things, utter fascist on this one.
 
2007-03-17 10:43:21 AM  
Oh_Enough_Already: Christians did/do hate Jews

Thats genius. My troll is inferior.

9/10
 
2007-03-17 10:43:45 AM  
ctobio: I have a right to be

You have no right to be in Ruby Tuesdays.
 
2007-03-17 10:44:04 AM  
ctobio: in a place where I have a right to be

That's the kicker. Assuming you're talking about restaurants, you don't have a right to be on someone else's private property.
 
2007-03-17 10:44:05 AM  
My campus has gotten into the habit of trying to regulate its student's lifestyles. Just this year they passed a law (and I sure as hell don't remember being consulted beforehand about it) banning smoking from within 20 feet of any building. That law by itself wasn't a problem because everyone was prepared to ignore it completely. So the school decided to "enforce" said law.

...by removing all of the ashtrays that were within 20 feet of a building. As you would expect, now the entire farking campus looks like an ashtray. Brilliant job, really.
 
2007-03-17 10:44:53 AM  
Rather than bans (for private property only) I would like to see all-or-nothing laws. You are either 100% smoking or 100% smoke free. This would allows smokers somewhere to go, but not allow a few of them to ruin everyone's time at a wider range of places.
 
2007-03-17 10:45:04 AM  
Hail to Oh Enough Already he gets it.

Ding Ding Ding we have a winnah

Kind of like the Church of Global Warming.
 
2007-03-17 10:46:22 AM  
oh_enough_already

How's the view from that cross you're hanging on?

All this anti-smoking hysteria and hubbub are little more than Jim Crow laws updated for the 21st century.


I think right now we can power a small city if we harness a generator to Martin Luther King's corpse, as he is undoubtedly spinning in his grave from that statement. Are you seriously making the oppression of an entire people because of of their skin the moral equivalent of your right to smoke wherever you want. What's next, saying that if you're not allowed to smoke, you might as well be gassed and put in an oven? That anti-smoking laws are the new Nuremberg laws? That smoking bans are worse than the Holocaust? I'm just riding your slippery slope is all.

DIAF, preferably from when you set your mattress on fire.
 
2007-03-17 10:47:05 AM  
Our Government should offer Us more Unhealthy Lifestyle Choices to choose from. Compete!
 
2007-03-17 10:47:17 AM  
Why is smoking any different? When asked this question, Dr. Healton replied, "obesity does not harm the health of others."

Dr. Healton has obviously never been sat on. Not harmful, my eye...
 
2007-03-17 10:48:07 AM  
BMFPitt: Rather than bans (for private property only) I would like to see all-or-nothing laws. You are either 100% smoking or 100% smoke free. This would allows smokers somewhere to go, but not allow a few of them to ruin everyone's time at a wider range of places.

Here's an ever better idea:

Some places allow smoking either in part or in whole, some don't at all, and then you make the choice as to which one you want to go.
 
2007-03-17 10:51:02 AM  
The law this side of the pond is to protect employees. People don't have the right to patronise an establishment of their choice in the manner they choose, but people do have a right to work in a safe environment. Breathing other people's smoke for your entire shift violates that.
 
2007-03-17 10:51:41 AM  
That was a pretty good article, IMHO.
 
2007-03-17 10:53:06 AM  
I think you should be able to smoke, snort or inject whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own home. And if you step outside while still under the influence, an ed-209 unit will paint your front door with your blood and any remaining organs will be taken to the tissue bank.
 
Displayed 50 of 663 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report