My brother-in-law died from lung cancer. He was 44 when he kicked the bucket. His wife died just eight years later from a smoking-related heart defect. She was a passive smoker. In effect, my BiL killed both himself and his wife.
If you need a vice, do rather LSD or other hallucinogenes. It is far safer that way. And if you really need that daily dosage of that alkaloid which is only slightly intoxicating but highly addictive, do snuff instead. It doesn't stink nor contaminate the air nor cause lung cancer.
Ironmistress, I am sorry about your losses. I've had my own and I know that it is never easy. Nor am I for a moment claiming that smoking is a safe activity. Quite the contrary. The point of the post is not to say that smoking is healthy. It's to say that smoking is illegal, but so are a great many other things. Why must we have the unique case of smoking to require notices plastered all over the country declaring it's illegality?
That's the point when it passes from law enforcement to thought enforcement.
Fox hunting was also banned. Do we demand that every tree and hedgerow be posted? There are foxes in our cities as well. Why aren't the streets of London and Manchester papered with ant-fox hunting proclamations? I might run across a fox in my back garden, so why don't I have a notice up on my house to remind me not to hunt the creature?
Perhaps I shouldn't give the busybodies any ideas.
As I said before, this isn't about public health. It isn't even about controlling what people do. It's about controlling what they think.
Well, the ban on fox hunting was a countrywide blanket ban, right? And the group that engaged in said hunting wasn't a very large group to begin with. So just notify the heads of any clubs or organizations that hunt foxes of the changes, and they'll tell the relevant people. Maybe get an item on the broadcast news or in the newspapers.
Now compare to the smoking ban which effected a large number of people, but only applied to certain places. And which places are changing as well. Now how are we supposed to go about letting everyone know where the ban applies? Mail a letter to every person every time the list is changed? Print it in all the newspapers and show it on the news? Really, posting signs where the ban is in effect seems the most sensible. Once the ban covers everywhere but private residences and outdoors, then the signs can come down.
What and risk someone accidently hunting a fox out of ignorance? How heartless! Think of the children. Seriously, I have already made my point and I see no need to restate it.
As to my solution? Either declare tobacco a dangerous substance and make the growth, processing, import, sale, possession or use of it a criminal offence punishable by a term in prison; or stop this obscene trampling of basic liberties, recognise that adults are responsible for their own actions even if they are stupid ones, and go back to a reasonable combination of smoking and no smoking areas that accommodate the needs of both parties–preferably with as little government interference as is humanly possible.
In summary: Don't like smoking? Then stay out of the smoking car.
6 comments:
The warning sign may be a joke.
Lung cancer isn't.
My brother-in-law died from lung cancer. He was 44 when he kicked the bucket. His wife died just eight years later from a smoking-related heart defect. She was a passive smoker. In effect, my BiL killed both himself and his wife.
If you need a vice, do rather LSD or other hallucinogenes. It is far safer that way. And if you really need that daily dosage of that alkaloid which is only slightly intoxicating but highly addictive, do snuff instead. It doesn't stink nor contaminate the air nor cause lung cancer.
Ironmistress, I am sorry about your losses. I've had my own and I know that it is never easy. Nor am I for a moment claiming that smoking is a safe activity. Quite the contrary. The point of the post is not to say that smoking is healthy. It's to say that smoking is illegal, but so are a great many other things. Why must we have the unique case of smoking to require notices plastered all over the country declaring it's illegality?
That's the point when it passes from law enforcement to thought enforcement.
With the inclusion of more areas into non-smoking zones in the past couple of decades, I think the ample sign coverage is and was justified.
Fox hunting was also banned. Do we demand that every tree and hedgerow be posted? There are foxes in our cities as well. Why aren't the streets of London and Manchester papered with ant-fox hunting proclamations? I might run across a fox in my back garden, so why don't I have a notice up on my house to remind me not to hunt the creature?
Perhaps I shouldn't give the busybodies any ideas.
As I said before, this isn't about public health. It isn't even about controlling what people do. It's about controlling what they think.
Well, the ban on fox hunting was a countrywide blanket ban, right? And the group that engaged in said hunting wasn't a very large group to begin with. So just notify the heads of any clubs or organizations that hunt foxes of the changes, and they'll tell the relevant people. Maybe get an item on the broadcast news or in the newspapers.
Now compare to the smoking ban which effected a large number of people, but only applied to certain places. And which places are changing as well. Now how are we supposed to go about letting everyone know where the ban applies? Mail a letter to every person every time the list is changed? Print it in all the newspapers and show it on the news? Really, posting signs where the ban is in effect seems the most sensible. Once the ban covers everywhere but private residences and outdoors, then the signs can come down.
What and risk someone accidently hunting a fox out of ignorance? How heartless! Think of the children. Seriously, I have already made my point and I see no need to restate it.
As to my solution? Either declare tobacco a dangerous substance and make the growth, processing, import, sale, possession or use of it a criminal offence punishable by a term in prison; or stop this obscene trampling of basic liberties, recognise that adults are responsible for their own actions even if they are stupid ones, and go back to a reasonable combination of smoking and no smoking areas that accommodate the needs of both parties–preferably with as little government interference as is humanly possible.
In summary: Don't like smoking? Then stay out of the smoking car.
Post a Comment