Finland aims to eliminate smoking

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Azure

No.

I think a better educated youth has led to the decrease in smokers.

Perhaps. But who's to say?

I was just suggesting that regulations may have played a role.

Originally Posted by Azure

If we ban smoking we ought to ban fast food too. Cause obesity is a more serious problem than smoking is.

Hell, lets just ban refined carbs in general. That will make everyone healthy. Ban beer too. It serves no healthy purpose and only gets innocent people killed.

Can we ban cars too? Lots of accidents everyday. Could save lots of lives there too. Maybe we can ban horses too. Dogs? I'm sure a dog has killed someone here and there. Motorbikes too. People die all the time from those things.

Anyone been killed playing hockey? I mean its a fast, dangerous and physical sport and people often get seriously injured from playing it. Maybe we should error on the safe side and ban it too. Pretty sure I read the other day about someone getting beaned in the head by a baseball and dying from a skull fracture. We ought to ban baseball too.

What else is there out there that kills people? Ban it too.

Lets just ban everything that can cause harm. That way we'll all live till we're 110 and we'll all be happy.

There's a large difference between those things and smoking and you know it.

As part of the health field anything that can be done to decrease obesity and injury in sport I'm all for. And obviously decreasing car collisions is a great thing as well. I'm sure you'd agree.

Different problems require different solutions.

Originally Posted by Azure

I can't actually people people are stupid enough to believe that banning or regulating ANYTHING will do a damn thing to stop people from doing it.

While I'm not suggesting smoking, among other things, be banned completely, don't you think it would reduce the incidence of smoking?

The average smoker would be forced to quit and wouldn't pursue the black market, thus cutting the number of smokers.

Obviously that introduces other problems, however.

Originally Posted by Azure

If it were that simple nobody would be using crystal meth. And yet the last time I checked, meth is a BIG problem in the province of Alberta.

But I do remember some very gory, very detailed and very sick crystal meth prevention ads being shown while I was in school. I think that did more to stop people from ever wanting to do the damn drug that frickin' banning it ever will.

Education solves problems not government regulation.

Again, who's to say that stopped people from using it and not something else?

I agree that education is part of the solution, but let's not eliminate our options.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

Education solves problems not government regulation.

Funny that, I'd say a big chunk of education has been government regulations: i.e. warning labels. Advertising bans have been key as well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

While I'm not suggesting smoking, among other things, be banned completely, don't you think it would reduce the incidence of smoking?

The average smoker would be forced to quit and wouldn't pursue the black market, thus cutting the number of smokers.

Obviously that introduces other problems, however.

I take it you've never smoked?

For the 'average' person its not as simple as just stopping. Some would be able too yes, but others would go to the black market to find something else to satisfy their craving.

I'm all for eliminating second hand smoke. It has been proven to be harmful to other people and as such smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke around the general public. But we live in a free country and if someone wants to kill themselves by smoking two packs per day, let them.

The governments place is not to decide what we can or cannot do. Given of course that we're talking about stuff that isn't harmful to other people. Once we go down the road of trying to decide what is healthy for me, for you and for fotze, well....where does it stop?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Funny that, I'd say a big chunk of education has been government regulations: i.e. warning labels. Advertising bans have been key as well.

I have no problem with showing the general public the dangers of smoking. In fact I'm all for increased awareness programs in schools or at work.

But there is a difference in forcing tobacco companies to put labels on their product and outright banning tobacco completely.

Not that I think the warning labels make any stitch of difference. If someone is stupid enough to not know that smoking can cause a LOT of health issues, well they might as well go jump in front of the C-train.

In the end, is is THEIR life though. And I'm not about to let the government play God and decide what people can or cannot do....provided it brings no harm to innocent people.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Azure

For the 'average' person its not as simple as just stopping. Some would be able too yes, but others would go to the black market to find something else to satisfy their craving.

That's the point.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Azure

The governments place is not to decide what we can or cannot do. Given of course that we're talking about stuff that isn't harmful to other people. Once we go down the road of trying to decide what is healthy for me, for you and for fotze, well....where does it stop?

That slippery slope argument is so preposterous to me. Where does it stop? It stops where it's deemed reasonable to stop again. You make it sound like banning smoking will lead to anarchy.

[Azure]

If your justification for banning smoking is that 'some' people will actually obey the ban then you're simply choosing to ignore the fact that there are others that will fall into the preys of the black market just to satisfy their cravings.

And last time I checked, smokers include all kinds of different classes of people. Rich, middle class, poor class. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, kids, wives, husbands, grandparents, etc, etc, etc. You're willing to sacrifice their livelihood because a certain number of smokers will just QUIT? And those that won't quit you don't care about even if they start doing harder drugs to substitute for the cigarette they can't get anymore.

Because that simply isn't good enough.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

That slippery slope argument is so preposterous to me. Where does it stop? It stops where it's deemed reasonable to stop again. You make it sound like banning smoking will lead to anarchy.

I would rather die in a country that allows their people to do whatever the hell they want provided it doesn't harm others than live in a 'democracy' that prides itself on regulating the health of its citizens.

Because if the past 100 years has taught us anything its that we shouldn't trust the government to do anything right.

Case in point the campaign to eliminate fats from our diet. US Government sanctioned. Result? A whole generation of obese people.

[Fire]

I'm not a smoker and I think banning smoking is ridiculous. All it will do is add to policing costs. What they should do is double the taxes on them so the smokers pay more of their fair share of medical bills. Also legalize marijuana and tax the crap out of that as well.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would rather die in a country that allows their people to do whatever the hell they want provided it doesn't harm others than live in a 'democracy' that prides itself on regulating the health of its citizens.

Because if the past 100 years has taught us anything its that we shouldn't trust the government to do anything right.

Case in point the campaign to eliminate fats from our diet. US Government sanctioned. Result? A whole generation of obese people.

Talk about melodrama. Perhaps I should frame my response to say you would prefer to die in a country that allows children, wives and parents see their loved ones die young at the hands of profit seeking corporations than live in a country where government acts to limit distribution of dangerous substances.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Azure

Can we ban cars too? Lots of accidents everyday. Could save lots of lives there too. Maybe we can ban horses too. Dogs? I'm sure a dog has killed someone here and there. Motorbikes too. People die all the time from those things.

Anyone been killed playing hockey? I mean its a fast, dangerous and physical sport and people often get seriously injured from playing it. Maybe we should error on the safe side and ban it too. Pretty sure I read the other day about someone getting beaned in the head by a baseball and dying from a skull fracture. We ought to ban baseball too.

What else is there out there that kills people? Ban it too.

These are stupid comparisons and you know it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Talk about melodrama. Perhaps I should frame my response to say you would prefer to die in a country that allows children, wives and parents see their loved ones die young at the hands of profit seeking corporations than live in a country where government acts to limit distribution of dangerous substances.

The bolded part is what concerns me.

I don't trust the government to even get the initial plan right.

[JohnnyB]

If you don't trust the government to get that right, then I suppose all kinds of prescription medications should be made freely available over the counter, and all other kinds of currently illegal drugs that don't harm anybody but the users when done in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed too.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

And you don't think more laws and regulations on smoking had anything to do with the decrease?

Does it matter why smoking is decreasing? Laws,education.. whatever. If you read my post again I simpley stated in 30 years smoking most likely will be rare.

[transplant99]

then I suppose all kinds of prescription medications should be made freely available over the counter

No...but those are already regulated much like tobacco is.

and all other kinds of currently illegal drugs that don't harm anybody but the users when done in the privacy of their own homes should be allowed

Not sure how many different things you are suggesting but yes, i think the government would be very wise to get into the cannabis business with regulations and taxes. Much like it is with both tobacco and alcohol.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Ha ha. What a list of clearly totally different things. Not analogous at all.

I'm diabetic and have cholesterol problems. Even though both are controlled by medications, diet and exercise, if I eat a Mars bar my blood sugars immediately jump to harmful levels. A big juicy steak boots my cholesterol up. Salt is bad for blood pressure. Office jobs are sedentary and create a life style that is counter-productive to controlling cholesterol and blood sugar levels. I've nearly been killed twice in automobile accidents.

All of these things are or can be more harmful for me than the two or three cigars I smoke in a week. I think it's analogous.

Edit: The cigars I smoke are enjoyed in my garage or back yard, so public exposure is not a factor. The linked article is vague, but it sounds to me like they plan to ban all smoking, not just in public places. I have no objection to banning it in public places, but any government that wants to ban me from having a couple cigars in my own garage can kindly butt out.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Azure

If your justification for banning smoking is that 'some' people will actually obey the ban then you're simply choosing to ignore the fact that there are others that will fall into the preys of the black market just to satisfy their cravings.

And last time I checked, smokers include all kinds of different classes of people. Rich, middle class, poor class. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, kids, wives, husbands, grandparents, etc, etc, etc. You're willing to sacrifice their livelihood because a certain number of smokers will just QUIT? And those that won't quit you don't care about even if they start doing harder drugs to substitute for the cigarette they can't get anymore.

Because that simply isn't good enough.

Good lord, for someone who wants people to have such freedoms you sure don't give people very much credit for being able to take care of themselves.

Do you honestly think the average smoker is doing it for some "high"? It's an addiction, and if it takes an outright ban to force them to stop, then I'm all for it. It's like you think every smoker is a person teetering on becoming a junkie.

The point is that most people want smoking eliminated, including many smokers, as seen in this thread. If banning smoking is the best solution, then so be it. If it's something else, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I'm diabetic and have cholesterol problems. Even though both are controlled by medications, diet and exercise, if I eat a Mars bar my blood sugars immediately jump to harmful levels. A big juicy steak boots my cholesterol up. Salt is bad for blood pressure. Office jobs are sedentary and create a life style that is counter-productive to controlling cholesterol and blood sugar levels. I've nearly been killed twice in automobile accidents.

All of these things are or can be more harmful for me than the two or three cigars I smoke in a week. I think it's analogous.

You leading a poor lifestyle doesn't justify your freedom to smoke.

Healthy people may enjoy bad food, or an office job and not risk any long term effects. Healthy people smoking a couple times per week greatly increases their risk for lung cancer, among other things (and, well, they likely wouldn't be deemed "healthy").

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Poison

Alright im sure im opening up a "healthy debate" but i really dont understand why the kudos when rights are being taken away.

Now to start i will note i am a smoker but what gives the government the right to ban smoking?
If they are anything like our government sure they say "stop smoking" in public, but do you honestly think they want the income they receive in taxes off cigerettes to stop?

Also im sure alot of you non-smokers will say it harms others, second hand smoke etc. but im sure these same people who dont smoke but drink would be mighty angry if they banned alcohol as i could make the same argument with drinking and driving killing innocent people.

Government has no right to take away these freedoms, now i read the article but did not notice anything to make smoking illegal, so what are they proposing to do, put up more signs???

I think the costs to healthcare far outweigh any income they receive.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think the costs to healthcare far outweigh any income they receive.

See, I don't know about that. If you look at it from a cost benefit analysis, I think it's the lost taxes that figure in more. It is ridiculously more expensive to care for elderly long term, than to care for a young person dying of cancer. The lost taxes/GDP contribution would be a much higher cost to the country than healthcare costs. Any government that works to legislate a decrease in smoking is not doing it to save healthcare costs despite that argument

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't trust the government to even get the initial plan right.

Funny. You don't trust the government to get things right, and I don't trust corporations to do the right thing....

I actually wish the governments would start taking a look at salt content in foods and put in some strong regulations. I have reduced how much soup I eat because I don't have time to make it myself and you can't buy soup that doesn't have over you full limit of salt for the day.

Same with carbs. There is too much sugar in EVERYTHING. Have to squeeze my own OJ because everything in the store has way too much sugar added.

Somehow, I'm guessing we can't count on the producers of these products to make them healthier.