How is it a "massive invasion on basic human rights"?
It's using the police and state to use force to deal with people who are doing no harm to anyone but at best themselves.
I think this breaks basic human rights.
Secondhand smoke is disgusting, and so dangerous that it has been proven to kill thousands of non-smokers [1]. I'd call causing death, "harm".
Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately.
Hardly a "human right".
[1] "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." - https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... - Stats from the US, from the first google result I came across.
some people want to control what they do with their own bodies and not be slaves to the state. gtfo
This gives other people complete control over their body too – in terms of not having to breathe in your smoke.
And this is why people vote Trump.
I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance.
You just picked something that conforms to your world view which you later admit since you say its not even relevant to you, you still want to control other human beings.
"Also smoking in private is still legal, unfortunately."
Irrelevant and nonsensical comment is irrelevant and nonsensical.
> I never mentioned second hand smoke, it's irrelevant to the conversation, if the science is there then ban it where it harms others. Australia does this for instance.
GP said that smokers are "doing no harm to anyone but themselves". Since secondhand smoke is known to kill and otherwise harm non-smokers I would very much argue that smokers are doing harm to others. Hence why parent brought up secondhand smoking.
And that's why Australia has laws against smoking indoors (outside your home) and near public places where people have no choice where to stand (such as near bus stops, on some promenades and other similar places). Unfortunately, there are no laws against smoking on busy sidewalks (in NSW) and the pitiful "3m from the entrance" laws don't actually mean you can enter or leave some cinemas without running into a wall of carcinogenic and toxic smoke. Not to mention that people routinely break the law and smoke near bus stops (which as someone who catches public transport, this pisses me off no end and I enjoy telling smokers to fuck off when they decide to increase the cancer risk of the people around them).
I have no issue with people that smoke in their own homes. But people who decide to smoke on public walkways where other people are walking past are simply disgusting for harming others because of their habit.
From an SMH article...
"Tenants who create too much smoke when barbecuing their lamb chops or sausages on unit balconies could soon face fines of up to $2200 under proposed changes to strata laws. The same goes for smokers if the smoke from their cigarettes or cigars drifts into neighbouring units."
I'm living in the same situation in NSW. There is no recourse that I know of, unless your strata has a non-smoking by-law, which almost none do. The proposed changes to strata laws will AFAIK only apply to new developments.
We are currently looking to move since some addicts moved in next door, but there is no guarantee the next place we move to won't have the same problem. Asthma attacks caused by a selfish person's addiction are no fun.
The government is ignoring the suffering of non-smokers forced to live near these disgusting addicts.
No I find this totally on topic.
We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia.
Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument.
A classic method of the Left, diffuse and confuse.
We also know smokers cost the tax payers less. This has been shown in numerous studies, yet once again people pull out it cost tax payers money argument. Basically a lie, but they will not accept the facts. It's impossible to bring in logic.
For any non-Australians, Australian basically stopped anything related to passive smoking many years ago, legislation now is all about smoking that causes noone else harm. (The article even mentions talk of banning people born after a certain date!)
Australians care little about fundamental rights, it part of their culture of being apathetic.
But they hate to know this, hence the kick back, plus they get to bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
Smoking in a private residence is not banned in Australia.
> Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument.
Most of Australia's bans are to make secondhand smoking something that can be entirely avoided by non-smokers. Taxation is a separate issue, and there are valid arguments against taxation of products like tobacco and alcohol.
The only thing mentioned in the article which is not related to this goal is discussions about age discrimination for tobacco sales. Personally I think such a law would not be a good idea, simply because it would increase the demand for black market tobacco.
The right way of combating the public health epidemic of smoking is through social stigmatisation. And luckily it's worked (I'm in the younger generation, and smoking carries far more of a stigma than it did in previous generations).
And believe it or not, but plain packaging does actually work. At least, it did for me (the images on packets scared the crap out of me as a child).
> bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
As someone who came from a country where non-smokers are the minority, I definitely prefer living in a country where you can actually go to the CBD and also being able to breathe. Maybe the "bullying" is earned, when a person is negatively affecting public spaces.
Not to mention that you keep talking about fundamental human rights but you've yet to explain what right is being infringed. The right to consume any substance is actually not a human right -- though maybe you would like it to be? In which case, lets fix all of the human rights violations in impoverished nations where starvation is common before we start discussing tobacco.
The fact that I'm directly harmed by cigarette smoke is a minor nuisance compared to the enormous costs to society.
Also: which human right is it you are referring to here?
Same can be said for any dangerous activity. Like bicycling? As long as I pay for health care, I'm not going to allow you to do it. Driving? Hell no! You need to walk, and you can't use roads or sidewalks near roads. Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
Exactly like bicycling. However, bicycling has positive benefits - it gets people places (as does driving), it provides excercise etc. So a reasonable compromise might be requiring a helmet while cycling, which lots of countries does. That reduces the costs of injuries to a point where it's likely to be outweighed by the positives.
> Only the rich can use roads, we're putting on a driving tax.
Cars do have very expensive side effects (injuries in car accidents, pollution, lack of excercise, ...). I pay a 25% VAT on a car. Then I pay a yearly car tax of $100 year and around $2/mile in fuel taxes. That still is probably not enough for cars to "pay for themselves".
It's starts to sound much more unreasonable when you compare the taxes.
Ok, so you still haven't solved the problem, you aren't collecting any revenue, and now you have a pretty serious black market and all the crime, policing costs, jail costs and bribes that go with it. At what point do you realize it's bad policy to tax sin and really only succeeds in getting revenue from predominantly poor people?
1. You will never get all people to stop smoking. 2. Any effort to squeeze down the last 15% or so is the same folly that got us into the drug war. 3. The only thing you can reasonably do as a nation is to keep pushing out the commercials and hope for the best.
Quit taxing the crap out of poor people. Quit acting like smoke is mustard gas.
I already pay more in taxes than the average person earns in gross income, I don't owe you or society jack shit.
Too few people die from skydiving for it to be an economic problem to society. For motorcycling the law is usually to require a helmet (it's still an activity that's expensive as hell to society so perhaps motorcycle taxes should be higher as to not have other people subsidize the activity).
Edit: I realize I was being deliberately harsh in the previous comment. By "I'm not going to allow them to", I mean "I'm going to support taxes on activity or product X that are so high they fully pay for the damages of product or activity X to society".
In many countries with VAT there is a reduced VAT for "food" (typically ~half the general VAT) and it wouldn't be unreasonable to categorize candy and soda as "not food", effectively doubling the tax.
This. Once you socialise the costs of something it becomes increasing easy to justify laws banning it. Welcome to creeping authoritarianism.
The solution: stop socialism. Or if you must, tax at a level sufficient to cover the costs, but no more.
I agree: socializing healthcare means your health is my concern. That's what socialism is: your well being is my problem. That is both positive (If you are in need I'll provide) but as you point out also in the negative sense.
But the same can be said without socialized healthcare; as long as you pay any taxes or receive any benefits, your life expectancy is the concern of others. Smokers living N years shorter than non-smokers is a problem to the next person in the US just as it is in Australia, but the difference is that without socialized healthcare, the tax needed for a pack of cigarettes in the US might be $2 to offset the cost, but in Australia it might be $50.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-...
I'm not sure where "right to smoke cigarettes" appears in the list.