Coffeehouse Thread

48 posts

Tobacco companies ordered print confession on packages

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    , ScanIAm wrote

    @Blue Ink:I know you were trying to play the game where you take things to illogical extremes and we see the error of our ideals, but I'm not finding the downside to anything you describe.

    I would hope that the only thing we can all agree on about taxes is that they discourage the taxed behaviour.  If we could tax bad behaviour, why wouldn't we?

    That was obviously an hyperbole, but the issue is quite serious.

    If you accept the concept that it's right to sanction people not just for the consequences of their risky behaviors (as some of my preposterous examples suggested), but for engaging in a risky behavior in the first place, you would set a dangerous precedent, not to mention a basic social inequality. If you don't see what's wrong with that, we can stop our discussion right here.

    Taxation is a milder version of the same; milder, but still equally wrong. So no, I don't agree with that at all.

    Aside from my moral objections, there are a few more practical problems, among which the fact that it's not always easy to distinguish between use and abuse (alcohol and other dietary products can be used safely in moderation, for instance), then the notion that price can be a cure or a deterrent for addictions and compulsions is just weird. Finally there's the fact that substance abuse and unhealthy lifestyles are frequent (if not more frequent) among the least affluent population groups, so a flat tax would not be appropriate at all.

    If you really want to tax, use progressive taxation, and use the extra revenue to finance better education (the more educated population groups are those with the lowest levels of tobacco consumption, and it's also the one that's declining the fastest), promote awareness of the risks and consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, provide accessible counsel for the early treatment of addictions, subsidize healthier food. Your pick.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Blue Ink: Totally agree.

    People should be free to make up their own mind, as long as it doesnt hurt others.

    So, no smoking indoors, totally agree. Putting a ban on it? No, the owner of the establishment can make up his own mind what he does with his property.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Blue Ink: Totally agree.

    People should be free to make up their own mind, as long as it doesnt hurt others.

    Well, that's the problem: it does hurt others. When I see a car with two people in the front smoking   with their children in the back, I think, "Why did you bother having kids if you don't even like them enough to quit smoking."

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Ray7:

    I agree with you, that type of behavior is irresponsible and despicable.

    But I don't think it's up to us to put a ban on smoking near your own children. We can better help them become aware of their behavior and help them quit, then putting a ban or tax on smoking.

     

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    But I don't think it's up to us to put a ban on smoking near your own children. We can better help them become aware of their behavior and help them quit, then putting a ban or tax on smoking.

    I'm not sure there is any adult in America who smokes who isn't aware that it's bad for them and the people around them.

    The problem is that people do it anyway - and some of the people around them (e.g. their children) have to live with the consequences of someone else's selfish and reckless behaviour.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: That's their decision,.. Not yours,.. 

    However bad it is,.. You have to respect their wishes,..

    You can try to talk sense to them, give them dirty looks, but you cannot force them.

    Otherwise, you end up in a system with no freedom to raise your own children as you see fit.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor: That's their decision,.. Not yours,.. 

    However bad it is,.. You have to respect their wishes,..

    You can try to talk sense to them, give them dirty looks, but you cannot force them.

    Otherwise, you end up in a system with no freedom to raise your own children as you see fit.

    There are lots of parents who are not fit to raise their own children.

    That's why there are so many cases of child abuse of other forms (e.g. forcing drugs, as well as physical, mental and sexual assault), and one of the reasons why the state can take your children away to adoptive or foster care.

    State care isn't great. But for some children it's better than living with their parents.

    There's a debate as to whether smoking is serious enough to warrant such action. But there is no debate that parents should be able to do what they want to their children - or that we can never do anything more than raise an eyebrow and whisper as they go past.

    And any adult in America who smokes whilst their children are in their car are wilfully and negligently committing abuse on that child, because no adult in America is under any illusions that smoking is not bad for them or their children.

    Killing yourself for a nicotine fix is stupid, but ultimately your right to choose. But killing your children for a nicotine fix is selfish and cruel, and you are taking away your children's right to choose to live a healthy life by doing it.

    Surely as someone who believes that laws should be there to protect your rights against those who would take them away can see that?

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , evildictait​or wrote

    There are lots of parents who are not fit to raise their own children.

    No argument from me there. We should help them become better parents, not limit their freedom of choice.

    That's why there are so many cases of child abuse of other forms (e.g. forcing drugs, as well as physical, mental and sexual assault), and one of the reasons why the state can take your children away to adoptive or foster care.

    State care isn't great. But for some children it's better than living with their parents.

    So don't say "we have to respect the wishes of the parents". Because we don't.

    That some children are abused is not a valid reason to treat all parents as bad parents.

    Think about it. You will subject every parent to the same scruteny as the few bad ones.

    You should never make rules based on excemptions.

    And what makes you think state care is free of abuse? It's made up of the same people!

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    No argument from me there. We should help them become better parents, not limit their freedom of choice.

    Some parents have no intention of changing. A father who is on meth and who sells his daughter to his drugs supplier should not be "helped to become a better parent". He should be punished and his daughter taken away from him to somewhere where her rights will be better protected.

    No amount of liberal "but she'll regret not having her father around", or "but he should be given the chance to redeem himself", or "but her foster parents might abuse her too" is fair to her. People who do bad things to other people should suffer the consequences, and their victims should be given the opportunity to have their rights respected elsewhere.

    And people who smoke in the car with their children are abusing them, because they are selling their children's future health for a nicotine fix.

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    That some children are abused is not a valid reason to treat all parents as bad parents.

    Think about it. You will subject every parent to the same scruteny as the few bad ones.

    You should never make rules based on excemptions.

    That's a very strange view of the law you've got going on there.

    Very few people murder other people. But that doesn't mean we don't have laws to prevent it. And it doesn't mean that we're treating everyone as a murder suspect.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , evildictait​or wrote

    Some parents have no intention of changing. A father who is on meth and who sells his daughter to his drugs supplier should not be "helped to become a better parent". He should be punished and his daughter taken away from him to somewhere where her rights will be better protected.

    No amount of liberal "but she'll regret not having her father around", or "but he should be given the chance to redeem himself", or "but her foster parents might abuse her too" is fair to her. People who do bad things to other people should suffer the consequences, and their victims should be given the opportunity to have their rights respected elsewhere.

    Again, don't create laws for all parents because there are excemptions. For the law we are all the same, so if you create laws to monitor parental decisions everyone is subject to them. Her individual rights should be protected, but the parent has rights also. It's a thin line you are walking on here.

    As for the second paragraph, I totally agree with you. I hate that bullcrap also.

    I dont agree that the sate should take care of them, their community (family, friends) should first. State should come stone dead last.

    And people who smoke in the car with their children are abusing them, because they are selling their children's future health for a nicotine fix.

    If you want to talk about risks, consider this; more people die on the road then from smoking. So by that notion, anyone driving their kids anywhere is abusing their children. Should we lock them up in their room? How about when I take my kids skeeing? Ice skating? To the MacDonalds?

    Where do you draw the line? And what makes you think that line is just?

    That's a very strange view of the law you've got going on there.

    Very few people murder other people. But that doesn't mean we don't have laws to prevent it. And it doesn't mean that we're treating everyone as a murder suspect.

    You can have laws making it illegal to inflict physical harm upon other persons, you can't have laws forcing people to become better parents. You will end up in a system of total control and zero freedoms.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    , Blue Ink wrote

    *snip*

    One of the mandated messages states that "Here's the truth: smoking kills 1200 Americans. Everyday".

    Maybe the Greeks just hate Americans.

    LOL. Spit my coffeee

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    There is no way in Hades I would support micro-management of parenthood to the extent that smoking is regulated within homes.

     

    What makes me sick is that this huge industry and all the corporations in it lied for profit for decades, poisoning me and my parents with disinformation. They're still at it, only now they include a warning on the label, and soon, a confession.

    Why can't these companies figure out which of their additives are killing everyone? Nicotine is not the worst of what's in a cigarette.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Again, don't create laws for all parents because there are excemptions. For the law we are all the same, so if you create laws to monitor parental decisions everyone is subject to them. Her individual rights should be protected, but the parent has rights also. It's a thin line you are walking on here.

    I'm not saying parents should be monitored to ensure that they aren't smoking in front of their children, any more than the state currently monitors its citizens to make sure that their citizens aren't currently murdering someone.

    I'm simply stating that the state could make it illegal to smoke in the car with your children also in the car. If you drove past a police officer who saw you doing it, he could pull them over. He can already pull you over if he sees you smoking a joint. Why not a cigarette?

    I dont agree that the sate should take care of them, their community (family, friends) should first. State should come stone dead last.

    That already happens in cases of child abuse.

    If you want to talk about risks, consider this; more people die on the road then from smoking.

     

    That's because there are vastly more drivers than smokers. Smokers are more likely to die from lung cancer than from car accidents. Smokers on average die 10 years younger.

    Where do you draw the line? And what makes you think that line is just?

    That is for society to decide through reasoned debate. Clearly both extremes are unacceptable. We cannot have it legal for you to do whatever you like to your children (e.g. child slavery, child abuse, throwing your child down a well etc) and we cannot have it illegal for you to expose your children to risk - particularly since many risks that children are exposed to expand their life view and are actively good for them. Thats why we allow school trips.

    But smoking massively harms children and provides no benefit to them. So I propose that we make it illegal to smoke in cars when your children are in the car. What you do in your house is up to you (because the intrusiveness of monitoring it outweighs the benefit) and what you do in your car when your children aren't in it is up to you.

    You can have laws making it illegal to inflict physical harm upon other persons, you can't have laws forcing people to become better parents.

    I'm not suggesting a law to make you a good parent. I'm suggesting one to stop you maliciously or negligently filling your children's lungs with smoke and reducing their life expectancy by 10 years when they are in your car in public.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    Now some other parent smoking in the car when my teenaged daughter is on vacation with them, 8 hours of driving per day, that makes me angry.

    So how to deal with this? I could have asked if the driver was a smoker and smoked in the car before they left but that's not in my short list of things to remember to do...

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @JohnAskew: Tar is also very bad,.

    , evildictait​or wrote

    I'm not saying parents should be monitored to ensure that they aren't smoking in front of their children, any more than the state currently monitors its citizens to make sure that their citizens aren't currently murdering someone.

    I'm simply stating that the state could make it illegal to smoke in the car with your children also in the car. If you drove past a police officer who saw you doing it, he could pull them over. He can already pull you over if he sees you smoking a joint. Why not a cigarette?

    State does not monitor you, they act reactively when you murder someone. This is not minority report.

    Because drugs impair your ability to drive, smoking does not.

    That's because there are vastly more drivers than smokers. Smokers are more likely to die from lung cancer than from car accidents. Smokers on average die 10 years younger.

    That's not the point. The point is that the risk of dieing from the effects of second hand smoking in the car, in the years that you are a child, is substantial less then the risk of being hit by another car and dieing 80 years to early. You note it yourself, far more people drive then smoke in the car. So why prohibit smoking in the car and not driving children somewhere? If you really care about children that is.

    That is for society to decide through reasoned debate. Clearly both extremes are unacceptable. We cannot have it legal for you to do whatever you like to your children (e.g. child slavery, child abuse, throwing your child down a well etc) and we cannot have it illegal for you to expose your children to risk - particularly since many risks that children are exposed to expand their life view and are actively good for them. Thats why we allow school trips.

    Children have the same rights as parents, those allready adiquately cover the abuses you mention. No need for additional laws.

    I do agree that you need to run calculated risks, but to avoid them at all costs,.. no,.. I dont agree.

    But smoking massively harms children and provides no benefit to them. So I propose that we make it illegal to smoke in cars when your children are in the car. What you do in your house is up to you (because the intrusiveness of monitoring it outweighs the benefit) and what you do in your car when your children aren't in it is up to you.

    What is the difference between a house and a car? Why not have the police regularly visit, to check wether you have a child proof home? Friction pads in the bathtub, because most accidents happen at home,..?

    I'm not suggesting a law to make you a good parent. I'm suggesting one to stop you maliciously or negligently filling your children's lungs with smoke and reducing their life expectancy by 10 years when they are in your car in public.

    Only very heavy smokers get their life expectancy reduced by 10 years. The few cigarettes you consume while you are a child hardly justify the surrendering of personal liberties you advocate.

    If your parents do crystal meth and smoke in the car, the smoking is the least of your worries.

    The whole point is, at what cost are you willing to minimize such a very small risk?

    Let's just state for the record; that I despise smoking in the car with children in the back. But what I despise even more is the state telling me what I can and can't do.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Now some other parent smoking in the car when my teenaged daughter is on vacation with them, 8 hours of driving per day, that makes me angry.

    So how to deal with this? I could have asked if the driver was a smoker and smoked in the car before they left but that's not in my short list of things to remember to do...

    You could sue, or learn from the experience.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    You could sue, or learn from the experience.

    How can he sue? Smoking in a car with a teenager isn't illegal.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: But inflicting physical damage onto your teenager is.

    You can argue before the courts that she full well knew that is was harmfull to all occupants.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.