The perils of socialized medicine. Governmental nannyism.

look to Norway
 

We introduced this ban in Norway 4 years ago. In the beginning they were a lot of sceptics and many of the same arguments that you see here where beeing used. But now 4 years after everyone is enjoing the ban,the smokers have no problems with going out to smoke, and then come in again. Like everyone else they don't pay twice. I study in Germany(Aachen) and will look forward to not having my clothes smell like smoke the morning thereafter.

As a sidenote, after the ban was introduced in Norway alot of people switched to chewing tobacco or completely stopped, going out in -20 C every time you needed a smoke was a good motivation ;) .

The benefit of justice. Implementation of originator principle.

-----

New today:
http://www.heise.de/bin/tp/issue/r4/...923&mode=print

Translating only the highlights of that professor's statements:

The damage for the German economy caused by smoke-related disease and BCc (broncial carcinom) is calculated to be around 20 billion euros per year (2002). the costs for a typical therapy is over 75.000 euros for medication alone (add surgery, hospital time, doctor's fees etc). In the US, BC is on first place on the list of lethal carcinom types. In Germany, 40.000 die of smoke-caused BC every year (other s moke-related diseases not counted). Passive smoking in jobs with smoke-poisened working rooms increases the passive-smoker's health risks significantls. Smokers bear an 20-30 times increases risk to develope BC. Even if you stop regular smoking, you decrease the risk, but you never bring the risk down to that of a non-smoker again. The link between BC and smoking cannot be denied and is proven for example by a meta-study of 59 related studies. Nobody would try to remove safety-belts in cars with an argument of belts redcucing the individual rights and liberties - it is too clear how much thy have helped to reduce the number of killed people in traffic accidents. Many smokers react with ignrorance when it comes to smo0king prohibition, but where the individual is not suffienctly aware of the damage he is doing and even more does most substantila damage to others, there must be a reaction from the state to protect the latter. Addcits tend to talk down their problem, but as Jenny Holzer once said: "Protect me from what I want".


I would say that it is time that finally not only the freedoms of smokers get payed attention to, but - without wantin t to demonise anyone - that they are being hold responsible for what they are causing, and that the rights of non-smokers, including their right to be protected from smokers without needing to reduce their behavioral patterns and habits, must be ranked higher. Originator principle: smokers cause massive financial damage, and they do harm to others, damage their health and life expectancy, people who at work cannot avoid it and in their free time can avoid it only at the price of not going into this restaurant or that bar. Why must they reduce their living ways so that others can claim additonal rights and freedoms, wehre as the originator of a problem should be the one correcting it and redcuing his behavior accordingly? Since the smoker is causing the problemn, it is up to him to face the negative consequences by having to avoid a bar or restaurant, and not living the way he wants at work. Smoker's rights do not weigh heavier than that of non-smokers. And regarding smoking: they even do not weigh as heavy as that of non-smokers: originator principle.

Well I've quit smoking now so don't give a double feck about the ban anymore....

Hmm. The usual idea behind smoking bans is smokers don't have the right to impose their choice on others who don't have a choice (bar staff, waiters etc).

Good acchievement! :up: As i promised some months back, I hereby declare in public that I am impressed! :yep: :D

Well I've have the odd wobble once or twice... but I've cracked it I reckon.

Cheers!

There ya go.... well said Duc. :up:

Don't infringe on my right to smoke in the Great Outdoors. If you do then stop cars and trucks from smoking too....which ain't gonna happen as they all give off smoke. And stop the power generating stations using coal, and factories from smoking too. That ain't gonna happen either. You can cut it down but it won't stop it.

I was actually referring to FAboBs comment...