But there is evidence that second-hand smoking hurts others. When they ban it inside bars and restaurants in a county, the number of service industry workers who show up at the hospital with smoking-related noticeably decreases in county hospitals. There are numerous other pieces of evidence as well. I can dig up the data if you like.
There's plenty of evidence that says you hurt yourself with it, and circumstantial evidence you harm others. Well, except for unborn children but that's also a self
issue and comes more into when it's the rights of the infant over/under that of the mother.
As far as the cigarette tax thing... we already tax them. Are you saying we should increase the taxes?If
people want the product hindered more (which is the only reason for waring labels
) yes.. otherwise, no. IN FACT that original tax was to discourage people as much as possible and many people do not smoke because they can not afford to (that or they make concessions).
I'm saying if people REALLY want to keep the non-smokers rights
in mind, then what they need do is use their environment to their advantage and cause a tweak in already existing mechanics rather than create new ones. Or they should shut up as they have already been given more than they deserve. It's a basic, and problematic, human-entitlement issue. One half believes it deserves
certain things, and so does the other half... answering one leaves the other out in the cold. Easy solution? Give neither anything or chop the proverbial baby in half and see who bows out.
Okay, so let's totally disregard our democracy. This seems like a great idea -- now how can a person force their agenda for what's fast and easy...
Hmm, alright. So let's say 'fuck gays' and ban gay marriage all across the board. In fact, let's push some legislation through that makes it illegal to engage in homosexual acts and charge fines on those accused and found to be guilty, because that generates revenue! Who cares that it's narrow-minded, it's fast and easy and much more convenient than having to argue in court, make insurance companies cover gay couples, and extend tax breaks to even more married couples!
Let's let women and minorities earn less than white, middle-aged men for the rest of forever because it would be a pain in the ass and more expensive to compensate them fairly. It's too hard to give up social inequalities because they take too long to settle into popularity. While we're at it, let's just toss out compromise and decide that nobody has to pay taxes ever because we can't decide who gets taxed what. Or maybe everyone has to surrender all of their paycheck because they can't be trusted to spend it on things that are good for them; how can we know they're not going to use that dollar to buy a Hershey bar? Exactly.
You know what's easier than surrendering your white privilege and treating others like equal human beings? Slavery. And it's more profitable, which as you know, is the bottom line here in America. Let's return to that, Affirmative Action is just a giant waste of our time and resources and it is a lot harder to judge if someone brings up a case against a company than if we just returned to everyone but white people being made to work for little to nothing. It's too hard for me to give up my special treatment, so now I don't have to. BOOM, solved.
Why do we need to compromise and say you have to pay into Social Security to get it back later? Why do we need to compromise and legislate certain laws that protect the poorest? Why do we compromise and give up some of our own privilege so those who are systematically oppressed have a fair crack? Why do we compromise and decide that profit isn't quite as important as basic human rights and establish work safety conditions?
Oh, that's right. Because we live in a democracy and having one authoritarian party shove things down your throat without your say is...authoritarianism. Because it's not freedom. Maybe being perpetually oppressed and nannied and told what to do whether or not you like it is your idea of a great country, but it certainly doesn't seem to pan out well historically. China's attempts at policing their citizens -- how's that going for them?
Your examples are all religiously or ethically motivated, smoking is neither a religious or ethical matter. The right to smoke
arguably is, but such things are actually privilege
, not right. You do not have a right to inject heroin
I mean, prohibition was only revoked due to the crime... it had nothing to do with anyone's rights
. And there are countless drugs already bluntly illegal or regulated EXACTLY as per my example. Marijuana is strictly government controlled or it's possession and an arrestable offense. Ever heard of such a thing as a dry county
Now if we are talking non-smokers rights
and if there really is harm to come from those who do smoke (which is an Ethical issue) then don't argue the problem, just remove smoking from the equation and make it another punishable offense. If you can't
as it'll dump the economy in the toilet, you tax... hmm.. suppose that's another economy dumping issue, guess we'll just make arbitrary rules about smoking locations until it's not allowed in public at all.
Just cut the line rather than play the tug of war.
Where it not for the fact that tobacco was one of the largest
grown crops in the US, and the crime that would come with the sudden ban this wouldn't even an issue. They'd just slap the crap as illegal and move on.
There wouldn't even be a debate.
If corn suddenly had health risks, you think they'd do anything about it? There is a lot of circumstantial evidence about it, as well.
Except it does.
Risks upon yourself and unborn children, yes, but second hand smoke claims
are still not founded.
We already tax smokers. Smoking areas have already been shown over and over to be ineffective -- there is no such thing as a smoking area, seeing as smoke doesn't follow imaginary barriers and permeates everything. Also an issue: it's probably not good business. A business that charges more for clean air is not likely to stay in business for long, and you set up the model that only those who can afford it deserve a clean, healthy environment. What happened to you being about nannying to death for "what's best"?
Your theory is wildly inconsistent with itself and deeply hypocritical. You've even made a compromise with yourself -- You hate smoking, you hate the people that come with it, and yet if we must have smoking, let's tax them and give them their own special sections.
Sounds quite a bit like a mutual concession to me.
It's actually not a mutual concession, at all. It's privilege marking and making it so that only people who can afford the things can have them. Putting non-smokers drastically in the lead and removing the entire "health issue market" that is the middle class
Most people who smoke are not made of money, they are lower on the economical chain (and much greater in number). The problem with that is the smoking companies will not like this as it hurts their bottom line by targeting their two primary demographics, middle-class citizens and teens.
That, or making clean air cost more
dumps the non-smoker in the opposite category and leaves Smoking Companies' bottom dollar alone.
It's hardly a compromise when you realize who's being affected. Besides, what's best isn't to regulate with signs people wont see, it's to affect their life as drastically as possible so they take notice of the change and actually do something about it (like buy less smokes). A raise in taxes on any product non-needed to live is also good business, especially if it's something that can (or does) cause harm to the specific individual or otherwise. (I noticed you ignored my example of food. Fresh food costs more, takes more time/energy and, as a result, is consumed less.)