Who said I would? I don't favor restrictions on individual freedoms. That seems to be your position, or at least on smoking, if nothing else.
Oh, well there you go. I think public health policy is a net positive for the society we live in. Which is important, because while we are individuals, we are also a group, in many ways, we live with each other whether we like it or not. So, when society is faced with a set of businesses who have made a product they know will addict and kill millions, I think we should step in, because as people, we can do better.
Take for example, Oxycontin. A drug promised to be non-addictive, basically risk free for the management of all kinds of pain. I guess in your scenario they should have been allowed to flood society with this drug, to prescribe it to all and sundry. That is, despite an estimated half million deaths related to it. Should people simply be expected to make the choice for themselves? Should we be selling it over the counter next to cigarettes, I mean, it's up to the person right?
Not for me. None of us have complete freedom, we all live by the rules of society (laws, etc.) When it comes to something marketed as being cool, despite the side effects, I think it's time for government to legislate.
Threads seldom stay rigidly on course when other factors impact them, such as the bigger issue of laws restricting personal choices.
True. But when I mentioned I wasn't going to bother with that aspect, you were sarcastic and said it was "convenient". You are free to take the thread anywhere you want it to go, but others are free to want to stick to the specific theme, and not muddy the waters.
I'm not a smoker but where does it say in law that a person is entitled in an open space to have clean air ?
Erm, there are many. Start with
Clean Air Act 1993.
what if the complainent is 50 yards away from the smoker.. is their air still being compromised ...has the smoker no rights.. after all they're enjoying a legal practice, smoking cigarettes is not illegal ....unlike people shoting up in full view of everyone including children
That's why they will end up banning smoking entirely, rather than worrying about 50 yards, 20 yards, or whatever. As I said earlier, this new law isn't coming out of the blue. It is a all part of a plan to entirely ban smoking. Rather than have an outright ban, they have gradually strangled things over time. Does it really matter if a child grows up to die on emphysema, or a heroin overdose? Having seen the former in action, I'd prefer the latter as an experience.
However- what irks the * * out of me is individuals who act like tobacco use is some kind of 'moral failing' that they 'don't approve' of- because in every instance in which I've known the facts, the individuals either drank excessively, used illegal drugs, and in most cases did both.
Or drove their cars too fast, indulged in dangerous sports, didn't maintain their aircraft, had dangerous pets, and so on. There are many ways to hasten your demise. But let's be honest, this is also about why people are able to smoke at all - corporate profits.
Everyone here grew up in a time when smoking was pretty much the done thing, and was glamorized. You could smoke everywhere: Cafes, pubs, long haul flights, and so on. It was marketed as the fun, hip, thing to do. Consequences were suppressed for as long as they could do it, and finally exposed. We now know better.
]
